tv Book Discussion on The Gay Revolution CSPAN November 1, 2015 10:00am-11:01am EST
>> conservative and libertarians in agreement when it comes to the use of the police, the use of terror watch, et cetera speak was no. i think that's another flashpoint. domestically there i am more with the libertarians. some conservatives, not all, many conservatives have embraced this right on crime wave. but some conservatives are suspicious of the government until their agents are involved. ..
to defend them and endorse a way of proceeding with the criminal justice they would not in any other circumstance. fortunately i think that is changing so there is disagreement but libertarians are awaiting that argument. >> host: what do the colleagues that "national review" think of your writing? >> guest: "national review" is a very intellectually diverse place. kevin williamson and myself are more libertarian, rich is more conservative, in this book i hope to present both argument. is not a political book. i am not rude to anyone, is respectful of all views. it is a "national review" idea. there should be something in it for everyone. >> host: c w cook is the author, here is the book. conservatarian manifesto.
this is booktv on c-span2. >> next on booktv lillian faderman talks about a courtesan personal stories behind the gay-rights movement. >> my new book is about how all lesbians and gay men and transgendered people got to where we are today. it is a remarkable story. we have gone from the 1916s when we reconsidered criminals and crazies and subversives because the government fought homosexuality was so terrible, homosexuals were easily blackmailed to become comrades
with the communists, for fear that we would somehow be expos to. from all of that in the 1950s and 60s to a long and often bitter struggle to become almost first-class american citizens today. the story of this change in the hearts and minds of america made itself out over about 65 years. i interviewed 160 people. i went to archives all over the country, about 20 archives. what i wanted to do here was certainly the historical facts, present figures, but even more than that i wanted to look at
the individuals who created those facts, the individuals behind the figures. to give you an example of the kind of thing i'd do, i discuss how we 1950s homosexuals, all of us were called homosexuals whether we were gay, lesbian, transgendered people who call themselves queer today, how we were all considered mentally ill. i zoom in on a story of a woman that i interview, she was kicked out of college because she had a relationship with another woman, her roommate found out, told the dean of students that she is having a lesbian affair. sally's expulsion made her parents forced her to go to a psychotherapist and a psychotherapist said she was not
cooperating. she needed to be put into a residential facility where she would get psychotherapy seven days a week. they had to put a second mortgage on their home for residential facility, a rehab facility it was called. there she still refused to promise he would stop being a lesbian and so they sent her to a private mental hospital. at the private mental hospital she was given electrical shock treatments. she, even with the electroshock treatments refused to say she was no longer a lesbian. with a friend to be sent to the state mental hospital and she heard that in the state mental hospital homosexuals were treated by lobotomies. that scared the hell out of her said she said yes, i have
changed. i am heterosexual. and finally she was released. her parents said she could live at home with the proviso she go to a psychoanalyst for a number of years. i interviewed her about four months before her death in 2012. she died at the age of 76, still a lesbian. [applause] >> that is the kind of story telling a tried to do throughout the book, whether i talked-about movement leaders for or homophobia on everyday people. i really wanted to get behind the facts, give personal glimpses into people's lives. i am going to read from two sections and the sections that i chose have to do with subjects that have been very much in the
news recently. and the first is the service of gays and lesbians in the military. the military has on paper long been unwelcoming to gays and lesbians except when there's a war going on. during world war ii, although homosexuals were not supposed to serve they generally weren't questioned. when people were questioned, there were those who said they were homosexual and the suspicion was they wanted to get out of military service so they were really scrutinize. for the most part gay men and lesbians were not scrutinized. as soon as the war was over there was accused witch hunt to kick homosexuals out of the military. same thing happened during the vietnam war. as and lesbians serve quite openly, people i interviewed, during the vietnam war. as soon as the vietnam war was
over again there was a witch hunt to get gays and lesbians out of the military. i am going to read one section in which i talked-about the first out gay person who was in the military and said yes, i am a homosexual and i want to remain in the military and i think my record warrants my remaining in the military. i call this section the good soldier. as a boy growing up in the 1950s on charleston air force base, south carolina, read headed, beanpole skinny, leonard had a recurring reverie. he was a civil war soldier in the battle of gettysburg on the side of the confederacy. he didn't question the racism around him. not even during the years when blacks began fighting for their civil rights.
if black people showed up in the white house in area where he lived with his sergeant father and the rest of his family the teenage matlovich matt chased the intruders out. on saturday nights he and other white teens from charleston air force base would ride a bus through the negro parts of town shouting out the windows 2468 ♪ we don't want to integrate. at 19 leonard matlovich followed in his father's footsteps and enlisted in the air force. 12 years later in 1975, now a sergeant himself he appeared on the cover of time magazine. he was wearing a blue air force hat and a crisp white shirt on which was pinned his many military decorations. superimposed on a picture was the declaration i am a homosexual.
he was the first openly gay person to be on the cover of time. huddy got there had to do first of all with his transformation from stone-throwing young bigot to supporter of black civil rights as he came to no black people in the air force. after three tours of duty in vietnam, matlovich volunteered to teach courses in the air force race relations program. it had been created in 1971 after a three day race riot at travis air force base, instigated by people who were -- for four years matlovich talked about equality and justice and it began to dawn on him that theys need to fight for rights just as other minorities were doing. one day he asked his class which the thing is the most oppressed minority group in america? is students against blacks,
hispanics, native americans. matlovich road on the board homosexuals. it had taken leonard matlovich along time to arrive at that point. a few years earlier he joined the church of latter-day saints hoping mormonism would somehow help him exercise the homosexual feelings which had troubled him since he was 12 years old. those fears about those feelings had been reinforced by political sentiments which had continued to tilt right. so conservative he makes genghis khan look like jesse jackson. the apple didn't fall far from the tree. leonard matlovich floyd with joining the far right john birch society, registering as a republican and voting from 1964
for barry goldwater. and soviet union and labor unions. matlovich's patriotism assumed disdain for what he called the loony left and its criticisms of the united states. he liked to say of america we are to be better than the average bear, because he grew up as a military brat, and he knew well the military's attitudes toward clears, he had never even heard or put his arms around anyone other written family until he was 30. but in 1973, he chance to hear about a pensacola, florida nightclub from one of his students in his race relations class. a straight captain who said he had wandered in not knowing it was a homosexual hang out. matlovich, sweating and shaking dared go look. once inside he acknowledged himself what he had long suppressed. familiar and pound left my
shoulders, he thought. his first homosexual experience. the next year he read an article in the march 27th issue of air force times that startled and thrilled him. homosexuals in uniform. and dr. frank, the founder 1961, the organization fighting for gay-rights in washington d.c.. matlovich had never heard of such an organization. he had never heard of the stonewall riots. he called the long distance operator asking for a number of -- expecting her to say there was no listing. but there was. dr. franklin cany. matlovich was not sure what to say. he would say he was chasing a race relations class and asked if he knew of materials he might use in his classes to show homosexuals too suffered
prejudice. it took two weeks to muster the courage to make a call. they talked for an hour. cajmo cajmonymentions he had a working with a clinton and lesbians who had been thrown out of the military get their dishonorable discharges upgraded to hon.. heat and the aclu would like to do more. they were looking for an ideal case, someone who had a perfect military record, wanted to stay in the service, was willing to publicly declare i am a homosexual, and fight in court when the military discharged him. matlovich didn't exactly tell cammony he was gay during the phone conversation but before they hung up he did nervously say i know in individual who might fit the bill but he had been a lifer in the air force and he really believed his service to his country, what
would he do with himself if he were kicked out? he had been teaching about justice and equality so long that he believes in that too and believed in heroic gestures. it took four months of waiting for matlovich called frank cammony to say i am the guy i am talking about, i am ready. frank cammony, by now male old hand at fighting the military on behalf of gays and lesbians poured over leonard matlovich's record. to avoid getting drafted and sent to vietnam, matlovich asked to the sender three times, that is where my nation needs me. he hoped to play a modest role in spreading democracy. matlovich was wounded by a landmine as he was preparing to assemble a front line radar system. after he recovered he asked to be sent to the front again.
he got a purple heart for his wounds, bronze star for vietnam's sniper fire, in order to fix crucial air force equipment and a slew of other decorations. he had been in the service for 12 years and there had been not one complaint of any kind against him. frank cammony invited him to his home in d.c.. he was on assignment at the time at langley air force base. it was a 6 hour drive round trip but matlovich said he would be there. the person cammony wanted him to meet was unmarried heterosexual, an aclu attorney. he had been a judge advocate in the air force, defending people who were being kicked out of the military. he was devoting himself to
helping vietnam vets get upgrades on less than honorable discharges which not only robbed them from veterans' benefits but also saddled them with lifetime stigma. it is high time to tackle the homosexual issue. as soon as he needs matlovich he understands this is the ideal case, he instructs matlovich to write a letter to his superiors it is easier to stay in the service, followed immediately by a move to discharge him, get kicked out of the military, the aclu, took it first to military court, the military court upheld a decision to dismiss him from the military. it was 1978 and he won in
federal court. and the military decided they would offer a huge sum of money. matlovich decided, given another excuse to kick him out. the case remained on record, and number of subsequent cases followed, federal courts in those cases too said there was no nexus, no connection between the person's homosexuality and his or her ability to serve in the military and the military must accept those people.
the military resisted. you all know the story of don't ask don't tell as a compromise. it was the miserable compromise. the witch hunts did not stop, don't ask don't tell and finally don't ask don't tell was repealed after a very long struggle, 40 years after matlovich's struggle with the military, don't ask don't tell was repealed and gays and lesbians can now serve openly in the military. the other section i am going to read from his about a really remarkable woman by name of windsor, she was a plaintiff in the supreme court case in 2014 to we peel part of the defense of marriage act. that was the act that was passed
in 1996 that said even if a state should recognize the same-sex marriage, federal government has no obligation to recognize that marriage. the defense of marriage act also said that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution would not have to be honored in this case. the couple married in one state went to another state that didn't recognize same-sex marriages the other state would not be obliged to recognize the marriage. there have been attempts for years of -- beginning in 1970s to challenge the prohibition upon same-sex marriage. it was in the 1990s it looked as though hawaii would actually permit same-sex marriage and that is when states began passing the defense of marriage acts and finally the federal
government. the section i want to read from, and i call scotus, the supreme court of the united states, here's a love story and gets it. in the early 1960s, port of the note, a smoky italian restaurant near bleecker street in greenwich village, was where upscale lesbians went out for dinner friday nights. win the at speyer came to say hello to a friend at the table where edie went there said they were introduced, they had a lot in common. silver screen glamorous, spier like the queen christina,
windsor liz scott platinum blonde, both were jewish, quick witted, ambitions. windsor had been married to a man for less than a year before she realized she preferred women and parted with her husband on friendly terms. in 1955 she went back to school at nyu where she got an m a in applied mathematics. she became a pioneer in the new computer industry working for ibm as one of its rare women programmers. thea spy who escaped amsterdam with her affluent family when hitler's invasion of the netherlands was imminent had been kicked out of sarah lawrence's undergraduate, kissing a woman but now she was getting a ph.d. in psychology from delphi university. speyer and windsor loved to dance. we immediately just fit. or bodies fit, speyer liked to say when she remembered their
first meeting and had a dance so long and hard at first night that edie wins their war all hole in her stocking. they were each involved with someone else at the time so after that meeting, for a couple years they saw each other at occasional parties, their partners would be buttoning coats ready to go home but speyer and wind it would seek each other out for one last irresistible dance. in 1965 both happened to be single again. when windsor heard that speyer never quite left windsor would be spending the weekend at the hamptons she got herself invited to the home of a friend who she knew speyer would visit. speyer came by when the friends were out. is your dance card full, wins equipped. it is now, speyer and did. all that afternoon they made love. treaty years later, speyer call
always romantic got on her knees and proposed. windsor said years before speyer could finish the public speech she proposed. same-sex couples couldn't get married anywhere in 1967, but at the statistics wanted to buy windsor a diamond the engagement ring. how can i wear it at ibm? she got along fine with her co-workers but always turned down their invitations such as going to weekend wine tastings because she didn't dare bring speyer. engagement ring would have prompted questions she knew she couldn't honestly answer in an era when people lost jobs if they were found to be gay or lesbian. instead of a ring speyer gave it a diamond brooch which windsor wore on her lapel. even 45 years later, when her picture was appearing in newspapers and magazines all over the globe, thea speyer was
diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1977. she was 45 years old. the disease was progressing. forseen needed a came to what, then two canes, and she was confined to a wheelchair. finally she became quadriplegic. she worked as a psychotherapist, seeing clients on the eighth floor apartment on lower fifth avenue where she and windsor lived. and swims to get out of bed. she and windsor couldn't make the in sickness and in hell bound legally, they needed any way to each other when it became mostly in sickness, windsor took early retirement at ibm to be able to minister full time. even in sickness they didn't stop dancing. windsor and speyer's , twirling and a motorized
wheelchair, windsor like to remember is they were never on the dance floor when they didn't scream out to each other above the music i love you and! speyer's multiple sclerosis was complicated by heart disease. in 2007 she was told by her doctor she probably had less than a year to live. she was 75 years old. what she wanted in 1967 she still wanted when the doctor left the examination room after breaking the news, margaret sangor and consists -- speyer turned to windsor and to do you want to get married? windsor did very much. had attended a meeting of the human rights campaign in new york's lgbt center and during a vacuum and they asked if the organization would seriously start pushing for marriage, the speaker told her it was on the agenda for the future. i am 77 years old, i can't wait.
same-sex marriage was legal in massachusetts but that didn't do speyer windsor much good because massachusetts had a residency requirement. to move their household and all but equipment, that speyer needed to stay alive, to another state when she was facing imminent death, it would have been impossible. but marriage was also end in canada. before a license, was a one davies of. speyer and windsor knew what they must do. six friends, we did this men and four best women agreed to do it with them. on may 22nd, 2007, they flew to door until lugging dufflebag with tools to dismantle and put together again speyer's motorized wheelchair which could not be driven on to the small plane. the two men carried her to her seat on the plane and one slanted carried her off the
plane to her reassembled wheelchair. speyer still handsome woman kidding tall in her wheelchair and windsor perch on the bottom of the chair decked out in pearls still plodding platinum blonde thanks to clair all now were married by canada's first openly gay judge, are the groundstone. speyer and windsor wanted to make the ceremony as traditional as possible. they wanted to say with this wind thee i would. for arm had to be lifted by two of the best women so she could hold up the ring. windsor slipped her finger it to it. when they got back to new york speyer at i condign now because it is completed. she died in their home on february 5th, 2009. we later, windsor had a heart
attack. stress cardiomyopathy. windsor called it a broken heart. she recovered, her problems were far from over. new york still didn't allow same-sex marriages so in 2008 the state started recognizing those performed elsewhere. but the federal government did not. long after speyer's-windsor received an estate tax bill from the irs. as far as federal law was concerned she had inherited from speyer half the value of the apartment and a little cottage the two women had bought in the hamptons. to the federal government she and thea speyer despite their 40 plus year history, despite their the legal marriage, were no more than strangers to each other. the estate tax bill was for $363,053.
windsor had no choice but to pay it. to do that she had to sell investment bonds she counted on to see her through for the rest of her life. after paying she figured she had enough left to live on for no more than four years. if she had been married to feel in stan thea, she knew, she would have had to pay no state taxes whatsoever, not even if she had met and married ceo of the month before he died. windsor called a legal defense fund. sorry, it is the wrong time in the movement to bring up a case like this a lawyer told her. none of the rights groups was interested in her case. her pioneering same-sex marriage successes in massachusetts and dubbed the thurgood marshall of the same sex marriage movement
had warned lgbt lawyers in 2004 that they mustn't rushing to federal court to challenge domagk with a case about wealthy individual who had to pay a tax bill because the federal government wouldn't recognize his or her same-sex marriage. i can't think about less sympathetic prospect. as it turned out, scotus understood what this case really meant. i want to read a little bit. on june 26, 2013, justice anthony kennedy delivered the majority opinion, quote, doma writes in the quality into the entire u.s. code, singles out a subset of people and makes them an equal. it disparages and injures those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in
personhood and dignity. what the decision meant was not that not only would same-sex married couples be treated by the irs as their heterosexual counterparts were treated but also that they could get social security and veterans' survivor benefits, they could hold onto their homes when widowed, get green cards for their alien spouse. they were eligible for over 1,000 other benefits that only straight couples had enjoyed before. that wasn't the end of it because there was still the provision in doma that said if the state didn't want to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state, that state did not have to. but that was finally lifted this past june and now same-sex couples have a right to mary
equally with heterosexual couples, of course you are in some place like rogan county, ky. the yn you still have problems. >> who finally took their case? >> roberta kaplan took their case and she now has a book out about the winter case. it is not quite out yet. it is coming out, the publication date is october 5th. [inaudible question]
>> it actually began about 1950 with the federal government where there was no witchhunt in d.c.. anyone who was suspected of homosexuality was fired from government positions, but it quickly moved beyond the federal government. it took hold in state governments. anyone suspected of homosexuality, worked in any capacity for the state government was in danger of being fired but it moved beyond that as well. it moved to private employment and the there were really at that time, companies started to prop up such as one called fi l fidelofacts which would
advertise to private employers with cards that said do you know who you are hiring? then offered to look into the background of prospective employees, particularly to find out whether that particular employee was a homosexual and if he or she was, that was the end of their job. at one point there was a magazine called one, about 1954, very upsetting article about the fact that all of the ryder's friends came in, homosexual men, were now unemployed because every one of them had been fired from their jobs, not just government jobs but private employees.
it certainly applied to academia in a huge way. i right about that a good deal in the book. there were which hunts at many universities including the university where i was first a freshman and returned to do my work for miley ph the. when i started ucla in 1958, all of us freshman had to take a battery of tests, psychological tests. there was all manner of questions on those tests, but one kind of question kept cropping up over and over again, something like have you ever kissed someone of the same sex or do you have fantasies about people of the same sex, sexual fantasies. all sorts of questions trying to find out if the freshmen was a homosexual. all of us who work, new to
answer no to every one of those questions. i found out when i was doing research for another book, odd girls and twilight lovers what that was all about. it was about as i discovered was students at ucla and the associate dean of students had written an article that was published in a magazine called school and society in 1954, and what he said, what they said was it was the job of deans of students to ferret out the homosexuals in the student body and either make him go to a psychiatrist to change or if they refuse to do that to expel them from colleges and universities. the worst place to be an academic in the 1950s and 60s was florida because the florida
legislature had actually funded an investigative committee the end ed up doing nothing but that, ferreting out the homosexuals among the faculty and the student body and this went on for something like eight years in the late 50s and through the 60s. it was very dangerous to be gay or lesbian in the mid 20th century if you were a student or professor. >> in your studies did you spend much time or did you come across the work of burger who was so condemnatory? do you know why he took upon himself? >> he wasn't alone. there was that huge business among psychotherapists in, quote, during homosexuality in the 1950s and 1960s, that
despite the fact that in 1953 dr. evelyn hooker began a study that was really quite remarkable. there was a huge in-depth study of 30really quite remarkable. there was a huge in-depth study of 30 homosexual men and 30 heterosexual men, she gave them the most important psychological projective tests. they did the worst act --rorcs h --rorcschach and tell a story tests where you were supposed to take cutout figures and put them together and tell a story, those were considered the most important psychological projective tests of the period. she administered those tests to the 60 men and she pared them
according to iq and other factors, financial background and things of that nature. with one heterosexual test so the taker, the results of their tests and asked the three leading experts in america to look at those pairs of tests and say which one was the homosexual and which one was the heterosexual. those three leading experts got it right no more than what the statistics of chance would indicate. the point is this, said to wow the was clearly not a diagnostic category. she published her worked in the mid and late 50s, it made a dent with some people but not many. it was finally because of the agitation of gay rights leaders,
the gay-rights movement in the >> host: 70s, the american psychiatric association's realized they had to look at what was going on here, if homosexuality was not a diagnostic category, what were they treated after all. in 1973 they concluded homosexuality did not belong in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders and so by a stroke of the pen, overnight we were all cured. [laughter] you can imagine this did not sit well with psychiatrists and psychoanalysts like edmund burglar. he wasn't alone. there were many, irving bieber. it was a huge industry in the
1950s. >> talked a little bit about the sexual revolution that happened in the 80s. those pursuing monogamous relationships -- >> the sexual revolution really impacted lesbian feminists particularly. i think the usual pattern before lesbians could choose somebody and get married and live happily ever after was called serial monogamy. the saying used to be you met someone and on the first date you kissed and on the second date you pull the you halt up to her apartment and that was it and of course there wasn't much
couple. i think just as all of america was experimenting with a quality in the 80s, lesbians were too. now they are experimenting, i hope it is more than an experiment, with monogamy in terms of marriage. it was certainly a very huge and important topic in the 1980s. it was also said in the 80s that any sort of monogamous relationship was too much like a patriarchy where one person bones another and lesbian feminists wanted to escape from that. >> two questions, one is the book is called robust and
comprehensive but you had to pull things out, you had to make choices. how did you make those choices about which drugs to follow and my second question comes kind of what you said before, declassified as being a psychiatric disorder but it seemed to shift that people were born that way but as if it were something unfortunate that happened to people, that you were born gay, lesbian, bisexual, do you know what i am trying to say? there is a prejudicial level, a parent would hope for something more normalized. could you speak to is that? >> let me answer your first question. there were so many faces on the cutting room floor that i felt so bad about. the manuscript was approaching that thousand page limit and i realized i had to make some huge
cuts and so for example i have a whole chapter on gays and lesbians in sports and i had to cut that. i wrote it just about the time michael sim got into the nfl if he remembers that. i went all the way back and talked about a transsexual who played tennis. talked about billy jean king, i realized that wasn't following the line about how we got from there, that is the years when lgbt people were perahia plays in every way but the success we have enjoyed in terms of civil rights, becoming first-class american citizens. so i cut that. i had a huge chapter on religion and i felt that wasn't sticking
closely enough to the subject. there is a lot on religion, particularly the religious right in the book, how we had to fight the religious right. there is also a lot on attempts to found our own churches, synagogues, i cut many pages. i have a lot on the me the at and there is still material on the media. i traced the development of the treatment of gays and lesbians in the media over many years, a lot of detail. all of that stuff end ed up on the cutting room floor. aaron is a my porch child was born that way. and by entering your question
right? >> it is harder to -- >> i would never never questioned anyone's view of his or her own life and how they got to where they are today. i know that many people say i was born that way. other people say this was a choice that i made freely and i made it because it was best for me and i am happy in that choice. other people really think that it was a necessary political stance to take. there was even the term that developed around it in the 1990s. that was strategic essentialism. i discovered how necessary it might have been when i interviewed the judge when i was in seattle, washington doing
interviews. i was told this was really a wonderful guy who had made a great decision that he got a lot of flak for. he had ruled that a woman could adopt the child that her partner had born, so the child had two mothers at a time when judges were not doing that kind of thing so i interviewed him and i said what made you make a decision like that so early when it was so unpopular? he said people can't help who they are. they are born the way they are, so they should not suffer discrimination because of it. and so i said you mean if you knew that people weren't born homosexual, you wouldn't have made that very progressive decision? and he said yes. the next day i got an e-mail
from him which was really quite wonderful. he said he really thought about our conversation and he realized he was wrong in his answer. just as people choose a religion and shouldn't be discriminated against because they have chosen that religion, they shouldn't be discriminated against because they have chosen the form of sexual expression. i liked his answer a lot. but i think for many people, many lgbt people, it is felt that they were born that way. others really believe it is the choice they made that is the best choice for them. >> interviewed over 70 years. you had this book in mind or was this just your way of going
about your interests? >> i have been interviewing for all of my other books as well. i think this is the eleventh book that focuses on lgbt subject. many of my books focus on lesbian subjects. i started interviewing odd girls and twilight lovers and kept the tapes. when i was writing this book it was certain that the tapes would no longer be good and to my great relief they were fine. so i used some of those early interviews. del martin from san francisco who started with her partner phyllis lion. i did an interview with both of the 1987. i interviewed barbara meetings in 1987, she is no longer -- art is able to use that.
for this book in addition to using some of those older interviews that i still had, i interviewed more than 150 new people just for this book. >> just been exploding. before that? is there a particular issue or person? >> probably a woman, someone who had been born a man and became a woman in the 1950s, the first relief famous case of a transsexual person but that term wasn't used then. i came out in 1956 and i knew
many men who were very effeminate and women who were very masculine and we all call ourselves day. transgendered was simply not a term. the men who were a feminist work queens and call themselves queens. the women who were really masculine called themselves. we're find these concepts more and more as the use of gone by. the term transgendered was not actually going until the 1990s. certainly people felt that way longcoined until the 1990s. certainly people felt that way long before the term was coined.
they always felt they were trapped in men's bodies, now we are more sophisticated and understand they are not simply one form of being homosexual. is very different people. >> did you find, i know in the bible it says men should not lie with another man or woman, i don't know of other sections but there must be quite a few. what did you find in jewish literature? >> i didn't look at the bible very much. i am familiar with leviticus, things in the new testament as well that prohibit homosexuality. my concern was of course how we got from being par vias to being
accepted in many churches. in 1964 wonderful organization started in this area in the bay area, the council on religion and the homosexual, made up liberal protestant ministers from that time on there has been a burgeoning in liberal churches of lgbt people. has also been true imam jews. one of the first gay churches, troy perry, the church that burgeoned all over the country. just about that time the group of jewish a people. it was the only house of worship
they felt comfortable, and why don't you start a gay temple, and they did, the first gate temple started in los angeles and now there are many in big cities all over the country. more and more, many churches reform synagogues, reconstructive synagogues, all of the progressive synagogue's welcomed lgbt people and their congregations. miraculously there has been progress even in churches and synagogues. obviously not in all of them. the right wing still hates us. the progress has really been something. [inaudible question]
>> legislative power then voted against gay-rights. what did you think? did you cover in the books the threat of people who are gay that are out in the process of outing people who have power that work against the rights of -- >> i am opposed to outing most of the time but when people work against the rights of gay people and are themselves gay that nurtured from some people in the gay community, i am not opposed to outing them. that sort of hypocrisy is inexcusable. thank you so much for coming. [applause]
>> is there at nonfiction author or book you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail, firstname.lastname@example.org. tweet us at booktv or post a comment on our wall, facebook.com/booktv. >> now on booktv's afterwards program, john danforth talks about the relevance of religion. >> so good to see. i want to congratulate you and your new book the relevance of religion, how faithful people can change politics. >> thank you, good to be with you. i have to say i enjoyed working on this book and i hope people enjoy reading it. >> i look forward to visiting with you a little bit about it and hopefully creating a little interest because i think it certainly is not worthy read.
you write in the prologue when politics is broken, we should fix it. and you described religion and religious people as -- religion puts politics in its proper place. as someone who has lived all little bit of politics myself i know it can become all consuming. it can become an idle. it can become god. you tell a story in your 1982 reelection when you were running against harry it would. tough race. >> guest: tough race almost lost it. >> host: your family in efforts to encourage you, it'll despondency about the closeness of the race. can you recall the story or daughter, she was 15. >> guest: my third daughter, d didi i never thought i had a chance to lose that election. i thought it was going to be fair be easy and maybe three
weeks or so before election day a poll came out the show and is that even with my opponent and i thought i am going to lose. everything is going to go through the floor here. >> host: her numbers were rising. >> guest: her numbers were rising, my numbers were plummeting. she had all the momentum on her side and when you think i spent my life in politics and i am going to get the boot, my 15-year-old daughter was trying to comfort me. ..