The Homosexual Fifth Column  --  Ideology, Not Science

By Allan Dobras

September 13, 2004

 As four of Emilio Mola Vidal’s army columns moved on Madrid, the Spanish Civil War general referred to his militant supporters within the capital as his “fifth column,” intent on undermining the loyalist government from within. ~ Encyclopedia Britannica, 2004

The homosexual rights movement is not a cause based on science, social justice, or fairness toward a “persecuted minority.”  Rather, it is the work of a devious and clandestine fifth column that seeks to undermine the moral values in place in America since the founding of the Republic.  Its beginnings can be traced to the infamous 1973 decision made by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to strike homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses.             

From Illness to Interest Group

Prior to the APA decision, homosexual persons were considered to be emotionally disturbed and lacking in capacity to develop normal heterosexual relations. In his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover discusses how this change came about:

How did this occur?  Normally a scientific consensus is reached over the course of many years, resulting from the accumulated weight of many properly designed studies.  But in the case of homosexuality, scientific research has only now just begun (c.1996), years after the question was decided…The APA vote to normalize homosexuality was driven by politics, not science.  Even sympathizers acknowledged this…the leadership of a homosexual faction within the APA planned [in 1970] a “systematic effort to disrupt the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association”.

The APA decision, therefore, was not based on rigorous scientific discovery, but on hardball backroom politics engineered by a cabal of homosexual activists who pushed their agenda through intimidation and deception.  Other medical professional organizations meekly fell in line and sodomy suddenly became an officially acknowledged alternative lifestyle whose practitioners were considered to be born with unalterable homosexual attractions.  Thus, any therapy employed by a psychiatrist or psychologist intended to change a person’s sexual orientation was declared to be unethical.

Armed with this newly gained acceptability, homosexual activists were able to infiltrate the media, academia, industry, government, and even the church with a message geared toward “tolerance.” They framed the debate over this issue in the context of a scientifically identified, oppressed minority, victimized by the prejudice of a society dominated by irrational religious values.  

This strategy has proved so successful that homosexuality—i.e. sodomy and all its variations—must not only be tolerated, but accepted; not only accepted, but affirmed; not only affirmed, but promoted; and finally, not only promoted, but codified into law with appropriate penalties for exhibiting “intolerance” or “hate” toward the practice or its practitioners.

The astonishing success of the homosexual rights movement has, in large part, come about because the debate has been controlled by well-placed homosexual activists whose shameless work of propaganda has flown under the radar of the typical American citizen.

The Print Media

Literally three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page [of the New York Times] are not-so-closeted homosexuals. ~ Richard Berke, journalist

The above statement was made by New York Times national political correspondent, Richard Berke.  He made the remarks in an April 12, 2000 National Press Club reception reveling about how much things have changed at the Times since he started 15 years ago.  “[It is] a real far cry from what it was like not so long ago,” he exulted. 

The Times is the nation’s most influential newspaper and what it places on its front page sets the agenda for other newspapers all over the country and in many parts of the world.  It follows then, that not-so-closeted homosexuals determine what much of the country reads in its newspapers.

Richard Berke is an open homosexual and longtime member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA)—a 1,200-member organization dedicated to providing “responsible gay coverage [for the] issues of same-sex marriage, gay families, parenting and adoption, gays in the military, sex education in the schools, civil liberties, gay-related ballot initiatives, gay bashing and anti-gay violence.” 

The reach of the NLGJA goes far beyond the pages of the New York Times. Speakers, honored guests, or workshop presenters at NLGJA functions read like the who’s who” of media: Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Harry Smith, Katie Couric, Lesley Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Barbara Walters, Stone Phillips, Linda Ellerbee Armstrong Williams, and Linda Vester.  Other participants have included New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Mark Rosenthal, president and chief operating officer of MTV Networks; Jim Kelly, managing editor of Time magazine; Walter Isaacson, chief executive officer of CNN; Anthony Marro, editor of Newsday; Caroline Miller, editor-in-chief of New York magazine; Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News, and John Huey, managing editor of Fortune.

The wide support for the NLGJA shown by the active participation by these media executives and personalities is a clear indication of the depth of homosexual influence in the popular media, and certainly arouses justifiable suspicion that an imbalance of reporting exists concerning issues of gay rights.

The Film and Television Industry

Without homosexuals there would be no Hollywood, no theater, no arts. ~ Elizabeth Taylor, film actress

The comment by Ms. Taylor is not an exaggeration and extends beyond actors to all levels of the industry.  It should be no surprise that Hollywood has been turning out more and more movies with a positive and affirmative portrayal of the homosexual lifestyle.

Television currently includes a number of leading lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters in original primetime broadcast, and cable programming for 2003-2004, including: Coupling (NBC), Degrassi: The Next Generation (NTV), ER (NBC), It’s All Relative (ABC), The L Word (Showtime), Queer as Folk (Showtime), RENO 911! (Comedy Central), Six Feet Under (HBO), Will & Grace (NBC), The Wire (HBO), and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (Bravo).

In addition, television sitcoms and dramas often feature positive homosexual themes and homosexual characters.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting features a regular broadcast of In The Life, described as “a national television series in a newsmagazine format that reports on gay and lesbian issues and culture.”  It is carried by over 130 public television stations nationwide, including all of the top 20 viewer markets.  The program reaches more than one million viewers per episode with a positive message about the gay lifestyle.  There is no counterbalance to this program on public television.

The Public Schools

Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s public schools.  A line has been drawn. There is no “other side” when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students. ~ Kevin Jennings, Executive Director of the Gay Lesbian Straight  Education Network (GLSEN).

Mr. Jennings made the above statement upon the release of a 1999 GLSEN publication, Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth, which was mailed to almost 15,000 school district superintendents across the country. GLSEN said the publication was “prompted by concerns that school personnel were receiving inaccurate information on the issue of sexual orientation and how to address it best with students.”  The statement strongly urges educators and school administrators to reject efforts to bring ex-gay messages into the nation’s schools.

GLSEN is certainly aware that homosexual attraction is neither innate nor immutable; the fact that homosexuality can be overcome is well documented by the personal experiences of thousands of individuals who have successfully left the lifestyle.  Nevertheless, it is GLSEN’s intended purpose to show children from K-12 that same sex attraction is normal. Any suggestion that one can change his/her sexual orientation, GLSEN claims, is fruitless and unethical and has no place in the public schools.

Mr. Jennings efforts were recently rewarded by the National Education Association—the powerhouse 2.7 million-member union that represents most U.S. teachers—when the organization presented him with the 2004 Virginia Uribe Award for Creative Leadership in Human Rights.

Critics of his selection pointed out that Mr. Jennings was the keynote speaker at a GLSEN conference in 2000 at Tufts University where Massachusetts Department of Education HIV/AIDS coordinators discussed with teenage students ways to perform various homosexual acts.  This event became known as the notorious “fistgate scandal,” and the controversy it raised over the exposure to children of vulgar and disturbingly graphic descriptions of homosexual acts is still reverberating in Massachusetts.

The National Education Association has been promoting gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender affirmation in the public schools for many years, through such initiatives as recognizing sexual orientation as a protected “civil right” for both students and staff; developing sex education classes to include information on the “diversity of sexual orientations,” and teaming with homosexual rights groups to promote gay-oriented “Back to School” programs. 

With the help of the NEA, the 1999 gay-friendly video, It’s Elementary, was shown in classrooms throughout the nation.  In discussing the video, then president of the NEA, Bob Chase, said

Schools cannot be neutral when we’re dealing with issues of human dignity and human rights.  I’m not talking about tolerance.  I’m talking about acceptance.  It’s Elementary is a great resource for parents, teachers, and community leaders working to teach respect and responsibility to America’s children.

Regrettably, while parents continue to entrust the education and social development of their children to the public school system, the educators are surreptitiously encouraging the children to explore a lifestyle that most parents find repulsive and unnatural, a lifestyle whose promotion is totally inappropriate in primary and secondary schools. At the same time, messages about persons who have overcome the homosexual lifestyle are not tolerated in NEA-dominated public schools.

The Gate Keepers

As the homosexual fifth column works its way through academia, the media, the church, government, and industry, opponents of gay affirmation often find themselves outflanked by embedded homosexual gate keepers who control the flow of information in and out of their spheres of influence.  The recent debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a case in point.  The proposed amendment is fiercely opposed by homosexual advocacy groups who are making extraordinary efforts to assure its defeat. 

The homosexual weekly, Washington Blade, reported July 2 that gay activists Michael Rogers and John Aravosis have threatened to “out” highly-placed closeted staffers who work for members of Congress that support the amendment as a means to “expose the hypocrisy” of conservative lawmakers.  According to the Blade, this high-pressure tactic has “evoked panic and precaution behind the Capitol’s closed doors.”  

In other words, the number of influential, closeted homosexuals working behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is so pervasive that the mere threat of exposure may be enough to pressure some members of congress to change their position on the proposed amendment.  In a July 15 article in the Washington Post, Rogers explained his concern over the FMA

Gays and lesbians are under attack!  It’s amazing to me that people don’t get that!  So what are we going to do?  Protect these gay staffers who have influence on policy matters while their bosses spew hate and bigotry?

After the Ball

[T]he public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question. ~ Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s

In Kirk and Madsen’s prophetic handbook, the authors laid out a comprehensive plan for legitimizing homosexuality, one that called for homosexuals to hide the details of the unseemly side of their lifestyle and portray themselves “conventional young people, middle-age women, and older folks of all races…victims of circumstance and depression.” They write

To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled “moral choices and sin” and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual…wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.

Kirk and Madsen insisted that the dark underworld of homosexual behavior—the movement’s Achille’s Heel—must be avoided at all costs.  The homosexual fifth column has followed the plan to perfection.


Al Dobras is a freelance writer on religious and cultural issues and an electronics engineer. He lives in Springfield, Virginia.

Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chuck Colson or Prison Fellowship Ministries. Links to outside articles do not necessarily imply endorsement of their content.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page; => Family Library; => Homosexuality Library; => Spiritual Warfare Library;
=> Education Library;   => ROAD MAP