Right-wing newspapers and talk show hosts insist on using the word “homosexual” rather than “gay”—and with good reason, if their goal is to subtly denigrate GLBT people. A new survey showed that the “homo” word carries a much more negative connotation than does the word “gay,” particularly with Democrats. The New York Times/CBS News poll found that support for allowing gays to serve openly in the military dropped from sixty to 44 percent when the word was switched from “gay” to “homosexual.” Like the word “Negro” in the 1960’s and 70’s, the word “homosexual” may be technically acceptable, but it still packs the wallop of the bad old days.  (May/June 2010, BTW)

“And Here’s To You…” Meet Iris Robinson, a Member of Parliament in Northern Ireland who’s involved in a nasty financial scandal. But first, to appreciate the relevance of this faraway kickback case, consider the following brief exchange between Robinson and a radio interviewer:

“Stephen Nolan: Do you think that homosexuality is something that is shamefully wicked and vile?”

“Iris Robinson: Yes, of course it is, it’s an abomination.”

This came after she’d agreed that homosexuality makes her nauseous and should be loathed. These and other recent statements were seen as so incendiary—perhaps a hate crime under
British law—that the Police Service of Northern Ireland opened an investigation into Ms. Robinson’s affairs, which is when they came upon the financial impropriety. Oh, the case involves a real estate deal and the solicitation of £50,000 from developers and failure to report this business interest as an MP. But the fun part is that the funds were being solicited on behalf of a
nineteen-year-old Irishman named Kirk McCambley with whom Ms. Robinson was
having an affair! As luck would have it, the devoutly Christian, gay-baiting Mrs.
Robinson (as she’s now universally called) is a married woman whose husband is
the recently installed first minister of Northern Ireland. (He could be in
trouble for not reporting what he knew about the financial affair.) The
sordidness of the sexual fling can be gauged by a few facts: Mrs. Robinson has
known Mr. McCambley since the latter was nine, a neighborhood kid whose mother
had died: “I worked at the butcher’s. … She looked out for me and made sure I
was OK.” When Peter Robinson found out about the affair, his wife tried to
commit suicide. And when it was over, Mrs. R. demanded a £5,000 kickback from
Kirk McCambley for helping to arrange the transaction (he’s now the proud owner
of the Lock Keepers Inn). People have been clamoring for Mrs. Robinson to
resign, and so she will, according to a statement: “due to mental ill health.”

Okay, famous people shouldn’t be held responsible for the misdeeds of their adult progeny. But what if the parent in question has built his entire career out of thumping this connection between fathers and sons, promoting an agenda of prudery and homophobia—calling it “family values”—on the theory that “the children” must be protected by an intact family unit from exposure to sexual items? Thus do we cite the case of pastor T. D. Jakes and his son Jermaine, who was recently arrested for, well, exposure of a sexual item. The police report described the circumstances of the arrest with Henry Miller precision (as reported by CBS11tv.com): “Detective X and Detective X entered the wooded area. Suspect Jakes walked directly over to where Detective X was, and stood next to Detective X with his penis exposed through his unzipped pants. Suspect Jakes then began to masturbate his erect penis with his left hand for several seconds while making eye contact with Detective X. … Suspect Jakes masturbated his erect penis in order to gratify himself and Detective X. Suspect Jakes made no attempt to conceal his erect penis from Detective X, or any other person who might be offended by his actions,” whereupon the two detectives identified themselves and made the arrest. Given the one-to-one correspondence, in Rev. Jakes’ world, between early socialization in the home and the development of homosexuality or other perversions, we are forced to wonder what specific events or family dynamics led to such a shocking display on the part of the son.