Contents:
BUCKLEY AND THE GAYS
He published Marv Liebman and David Bdnoy - and his day, Natnal Review was not as uniformly homophobic - or virtually Homore - as now is. But Buckley never challenged what he believed was a necsary moral and social junctn agast gay love, marriage and sex.
) Gay men were allowed sex, as a functn of a civilized society's benevolence, but only allowed. Homosexual sodomy was always subjected to more scty and disparagement than heterosexual sodomy, even when sodomy beme - as did the 1960s wh the advent of the pill - the overwhelmg sexual practice of the straight. And so gay sex liv were subject to the kd of thought experiment - tattoog our buttocks the HIV epimic - that simply would never have been applied to heterosexuals.
He echoed Charl Kaiser's belief that gay sexual eedom and privacy uld not apply to the HIV-posive, who were to be regard as threats and enemi. Natnal Review will not be srred by thoughtls gay bashg, let alone be animated by such practic... You are absolutely rrect sayg that gays should be wele as partners efforts to mt sound public polici; not rrect, my judgement, ncludg that such a partnership pruppos the repeal of nvictns that are more, much more, than mere accretns of bigotry.