In Washington, criticism and vitriol against intra-gender sexual preference was often kept in the closet when it came to individuals in power, even as it was broadcast widely against the broader community. (Think J. Edgar Hoover.) The public campaign within government against the gay community was vocal and intense, aimed mainly at males; women had not begun to compete for power and top positions. Moderates like Sen, Everett Dirksen (IL) spoke of “cleaning” the government of “lavender lads,” the pejorative label used in the 1950s. The claim they were a security reason was a circular argument that reframed discrimination as a character flaw, while ignoring its own denial: the bias elected officials held against intra-gender sexual preference.
Note the objections to preference was/is generally framed as external threats; problems of readiness, security, morale; seldom to preference itself. Elected officials are not keen about openly confessing their biases in graphic or personal terms. They who demanded personal accountability about private sex from others failed in their personal responsibility to speak straight, without deflecting or inciting their opposition.
Dr. King remains us, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Justice also accelerates progress swiftly to break barriers of discrimination that put a limit on liberty and the recognition of merit. For Christians, fret not. Once again, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.”