Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Sean Thomas, a presumed heterosexual, was writing in the Times about the Corrie kiss. Being a good liberal it took brutal honesty to admit that the sight of two men kissing created in him “a brief flash of repugnance, a subconscious recoil”. Having come clean about this, he was anxious that we should not get the impression that he is some kind of crude homophobe.

Despite his involuntary shudder, he said, he was still able to dismiss these feelings, and continue standing shoulder to shoulder with his gay friends as they “fight for the right of all adult homosexuals to order their love lives as they see fit.”

All the same, Mr Thomas is confused by his reactions. Despite his gay friendliness, these feelings seem to come straight from the gut (and a straw poll among his straight buddies finds that they all have the same “discomfort” in the presence of homo affection). So, he wants to know, is “the shudder” part of the natural order for straight men, or is it conditioned into them? It’s a question that is becoming increasingly important as a wave of anti-gay agitation washes across the world.

“Homophobia has a long lineage,” Sean Thomas says. “Take a few famous examples. The Hebrews had virulently homophobic attitudes, symptomised by the destruction of Sodom in the Bible. The Roman Empire was homophobic: early laws prescribed deportation for gay officials, later Roman laws recommended burning at the stake for all homosexuals. Most world religions have been anti-gay: Islam has severe Koranic strictures against homosexuality and Buddhism in many forms reviles gay sex. Such historical intolerance seems to indicate that homophobia is deeply rooted, and is perhaps reflexive, even genetic.”

But is it? Mr Thomas consulted gay academic Ian Rivers to get his take on whether homo hatred is a natural state of being for straight men or whether they learned it from the society they live in.

“There are examples of ancient homophobic cultures,” says Mr Rivers, but they are homophobic usually because of their links to homophobic tradition in Judeo-Christian civilisation. Cultures that haven’t been touched or tainted by the Church’s intolerance have often been remarkably accepting of homosexuality. So we can say that homophobia is not the norm, it’s not genetic. Homophobia is socially conditioned without a doubt.”

The feelings of antipathy that straight men have to gay men seem to vary in intensity. We’ve all heard men on radio phone-in shows saying “just thinking about it gives me the creeps”, and others who’ll go so far as to say “it makes me feel physically sick – they should be lined up against a wall and shot.” The former are the Sean Thomas’s of this world, and from the latter are drawn the queer bashers who lurk in cruising spots and cottages, anxious to dole out punishment to those who cause such feelings of discomfort.

But we still need to know where these feelings originate, and why some people can cope with them and others can’t.

A lot of religious people obviously can’t. At the moment the Catholic Church is trying hard to refute the idea that their religion is the source of the homophobia that infests the churches and subsequently the whole of society. It argues that its hostility is based not only on the Bible, but on a concern for what is good for society.

The Zenit News Agency (a website that peddles Vatican propaganda) recently carried a long interview with a Dr Rick Fitzgibbons, a high-up in the “Catholic Medical Association”.

Dr Fitzgibbons tries at length to justify the reclassification of homosexuality as a pathological condition, a theory that has been so assiduously dismantled over the past few decades. He claims that we are disease-riddled, psychopathic and a danger to children. He says that society’s acceptance of the “homosexual agenda” is catastrophic. In his opinion: “Same-sex attraction is a manifestation of serious emotional conflicts that are preventable and treatable.”

Ah, yes, we can be cured. Now, that takes me back to the good old days of the fifties, when electric shock machines and emetics were used to “cure” gay people of their tragic affliction. The more it hurt, the better the homophobes liked it.

In reality it was doctor administered gay bashing.

And Dr Fitzgibbons is quite clear that homophobia is natural and good, while the acceptance of homosexuality is wrong and dangerous. “The homosexual agenda aims to desensitise people to homosexuality via the media and ‘diversity weeks’ held in many schools,” he says on Zenit. “It portrays those who oppose homosexual behaviour and unions as being troubled, in violation of the law and in need of help, similar to those who have racial prejudices… And, of course, the main goal is to convert people to the homosexual agenda.”

Indeed, Dr Fitzgibbons has got himself worked up into such a state of self-justification that he recommends an organisation called the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (www.narth.com). On the website, NARTH declares that its primary goal: “is to make effective psychological therapy available to all homosexual men and women who seek change. Furthermore, we wish to open for public discussion all issues relating to homosexuality. NARTH wants to build an atmosphere which allows an honest debate – balancing the one-sided distortion which has characterized the discussion.”

NARTH has religion painted right through it. Once more, instead of resisting or challenging their hatred of homosexuals, this crowd – prompted by their “faith” – has embraced homophobia and they revel in it.

People who want to devote their life to eradicating homosexuality must be at the very top of the “shudder index”. Their unpleasant “gut feelings” must be so intense that they won’t be satisfied until the perceived cause is obliterated. They will search assiduously to find ways of rationalising their obsession, and religion is one such route.

The Vatican’s renewed aggression towards homosexuality has opened a Pandora’s Box of hatred, and where it might lead is frightening to contemplate.

For instance, a poll by the Scottish paper The Sunday Post found that 60% of its respondents were “against” legalising gay marriage. One of the reasons for rejecting it included religious beliefs, with “many repeating the Vatican’s claim that homosexuality is against the ‘moral law’.”

The Associated Press reported that in the United States, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops gave “general support” to “amending the US constitution to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. They also condemned same-sex unions.”

In this country, the Catholic Bishops have replied to the Government’s consultation on the proposed partnership registration scheme. In a nasty document, riddled with homophobic double talk, the bishops say: “By publicly elevating same-sex relationships to a legal status virtually equivalent to marriage, the signal given to society would be that these two states of life are equally deserving of public protection and respect, when in fact they are not”.

Evangelicals in the Anglican Church, too, have suddenly begun to say that not only is it OK to have these feelings of disgust about gay people, it is desirable and holy. Homophobia is being embraced, exploited and institutionalised by Christian conservatives. As we went to press, Anglican bishops from around the world were gathering in London for yet another gay-bashing jamboree.

In Egypt, the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church has called for an “all-out assault” on homosexuality. He told the Middle East News Agency that he will launch a “global campaign to root out the ‘plague’ of homosexuality”.

And so now we see the violent words beginning to threaten violent action. If this religious hysteria about homosexuality continues to gather pace, gay people are going to be hurt.

And yet religious people could overcome their feelings of revulsion if they tried. Many of them have. There is a liberal wing of each religion whose members may feel the shudder, but who do not want to translate that disquiet into hatred.

Going back to The Times, and Sean Thomas, we can see that those on the lower end of the shudder index can easily overcome it. “Even if we accept that homophobia is partly genetic,” says Thomas, “it does not in any way excuse overt homophobia. As another friend put it: ‘Yes, I used to look at gays kissing and go “Ugh!”, but I’ve taught myself not to do that. Now I just shrug and think: who cares? I think it’s a lot healthier, don’t you?” And he didn’t have to use electric shocks to do it.

Why not give it a try, Dr Fitzgibbons?

Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

A report last month opened up once more the irritating question: is being gay a matter of biology or of learning and socialisation? Are we born with our sexual orientation or is it given to us?

The study by a British research team was published in the erudite journal Behavioural Neuroscience. Just in case you have mislaid your copy of the October edition, I’ll remind you that it posits a link between eye-blinking and sexual orientation.

Spokesman for the study, Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of East London, said that for decades there had been a suspicion, but no definitive proof, that homosexuality was biologically determined. “The problems with these previous studies is that we can’t disentangle the effects of learning,” said Dr Rahman.

So then the search was on to find something that could be measured which wasn’t influenced by learning or socialisation; a response that is involuntary and instinctual. The research team settled on pre-pulse inhibition (PPI).

When humans hear a sudden noise, they respond by blinking. If that loud noise is preceded by a quieter noise (the pre-pulse), the response to the second, louder noise, is weaker. In other words, it is inhibited.

The researchers tested 59 gay and straight men and women to see what the level of inhibition was. In heterosexual women, the PPI averaged 13 per cent and in heterosexual men 40 per cent. Lesbians, however, had a PPI of 33 per cent, closer to the straight male end of the spectrum, while gay men averaged 32 per cent, slightly lower than the straight men, but not enough to be significant.

These findings seem to suggest that some lesbians have “masculinised” traits, while gay men share almost exactly the same traits as straight men.

But, you might ask, what is the point of this research? Is it to confirm that homosexuals were born that way and so discrimination against them is illogical and wicked? (Are you listening Archbishop?) Or is it so that scientists might one day find a “cure” and wipe out the “gay problem” once and for all? (Why are you smiling, Archbishop?)

The research team say that it might help “illuminate sex differences in mental health issues” – although he hastens to add that homosexuality in itself is not a psychiatric problem. No, they claim that when gay men and lesbians present themselves with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that are typical of the opposite sex. Gay men, for instance, are more likely to show signs of depression, anxiety and eating disorders than their straight counterparts, while lesbians may be more vulnerable to substance abuse than heterosexual women.

Dr Rahman says it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that gay men have women’s brains or that lesbians have men’s. “It’s not that the gay brain is like the heterosexual brain of the opposite sex. It seems to be a mosaic of male and female typical traits. Because we’re looking at humans, things are always more complicated than you expect.”

But the complications of the biological research are as nothing compared with the motivations of those engaged in proving / disproving the gay gene theory. There always seems to be an agenda behind research in this area.

The Independent recalled the study by gay scientist Simon LeVay some years ago that appeared to reveal that a region of the brain called the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus “is on average two or three times bigger in heterosexual men than it is in women. In gay men, however, the above mentioned region is about the same as in women.”

Another gay man, Dean Hamer, then claimed that he had found the “gay gene” on the X-chromosome of men, which they always inherit from their mother. However, this research was much derided and the suspicion arose that it was overhyped and could not be replicated. To date no “gay gene” has, in fact, been identified.

There has been other research into twins, into the number of elder brothers you have (the more you have, apparently, the greater the chance of your being gay. I’ve got two) and the length of your fingers. All seemed to suggest that homosexuality is not a learned behaviour but something that is innate, and determined before birth.

But that is not accepted by everyone. According to a story in The Independent, another study showed “some homosexual men and women are able to become ‘predominantly’ heterosexual through psychotherapy.”

The study was based on 200 men and women who claimed that therapy had turned them straight. The research cannot be dismissed out of hand (tempting though it is) because it was published in the respected journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour and conducted by Robert Spitzer, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York. Spitzer was also pivotal in getting the American Psychiatric Association to make its ground-breaking decision in 1973 to have homosexuality removed from its list of mental illnesses.

The 143 men and 57 women who took part in the study all claimed that “therapy” had altered “to some extent” the way they saw the same sex.

The Sunday Telegraph tracked some of these people down to find out their stories. Jeff Johnson, an American, says that he was a typical sissy child, running with the girls “as a peer not as a suitor” and finding the men in pornographic pictures much more exciting than the women. He seemed to be destined for a life of homosexuality, but now, at the age of 40, he is married with three sons.

“Gay, I was ashamed and afraid,” he told the Sunday Telegraph. “There was a constant conflict between my Christian faith and my feelings. I always wanted a wife and children in the normal way and I was terrified of Aids. Now I have a wonderful marriage and my children, like those of every dad, are brilliant and beautiful.”

Oh yes, the Christian faith. What eventually emerges is that most of the people who took part in the study were allegedly “counselled” out of their homosexuality in Christian “reparative” groups that aren’t interested in making people happy but with making them conform to the biblical model of how men and women should live.

Dr Spitzer is convinced that these people have changed. “My conclusion is that the door is open. I came to this study as a sceptic – I believe that a homosexual, whether born or made, was a homosexual and that to consider their orientation a matter of choice was wrong. But the fact is that if I found even one person who could change, the door is open, and a change in sexual orientation is possible.”

But what are we talking about here? A change in sexual orientation or just a change in behaviour? According to the report, the “cured” homosexuals have to be constantly on guard against temptation. They have to avoid situations that might make them lapse. They are told only to mix with straight people, and to try not to fantasise about dick while eating pussy etc. The clear message is that they haven’t changed their sexual orientation at all, they have just forced themselves to have sex with the opposite sex. That’s no great achievement. How many gay men are already married with children, living an ostensibly straight life but with a head full of sexual fantasies involving their brother-in-law rather than their wife?

In The Daily Mail, a woman called Clare Campbell told the story of her own marriage to a gay man, Simon. Together they had produced a child and all seemed “normal” until the day Simon told her that he was gay and wanted to leave to live with another man. The story was terribly one-sided and critical of gay people (give us half a chance and we’re all dreadful marriage wreckers), but the upshot was that this man was living “straight” but was never anything but gay.

The gay-cure therapy is a sham. The people who claim to have changed sexual orientation have done nothing of the sort. The gullible Dr Spitzer who took all these people at their word – apparently disregarding the strong guilt feelings related to religion – made no effort to talk to people who had once claimed to have been cured by these charlatans and then found they couldn’t sustain the pretence and relapsed into their natural state.

Dr Spitzer is quoted in The Sunday Times as saying: “The whole issue of whether there is a biological underpinning to homosexuality does not necessarily answer the question of whether someone can change. The gay lib community likes the idea of a biological cause for homosexuality because it assists them in arguing that this is just the way they are. There are ll kinds of medical-biological conditions that can be changed through therapy.”

Equally, of course, the fundamentalist religionists like the idea that sexual orientation can be reversed because it assists them in spreading the fairy tales contained in their holy book.

So, The Sunday Times wants to know, what motivates the people who put themselves up for change? Dr Spitzer says: “From a gay lib perspective, what motivates them is social pressure and internalised homophobia – they hate the homosexual part of themselves on an irrational basis. But the people I spoke to say it’s not social pressure. They say, ‘Homosexuality is not what I want. I don’t like the lifestyle and this way I can save my marriage’.”

Am I missing something here? Don’t they feel that “the homosexual lifestyle” is bad because of social pressure to believe it is? Especially coming – as most of them do – from ghastly “faith communities”. Why don’t they live a homosexual lifestyle that suits them – nobody is going to force them to live in ways they don’t want to.

But even Dr Spitzer admits that “reports of complete change” were uncommon. This should tell him something about the fluidity of sexuality. He should perhaps speak to the gay porn director William Higgins who said in an interview recently that all the men who perform in his films are straight. They have sex with each other in front of the camera, take the money and then go home to their girlfriends and wives. Anyone can, theoretically, have sex with anyone else, but it’s not necessarily the sex that they want.

The gay cure “ministries” are a menace and a lie. They harm some of the most vulnerable and unhappy people in our community. Why don’t these organisations give themselves more appropriate names that would make it clearer who they are and where they’re coming from. How about: Eradicate a Fag for Jesus? No one would be confused about what’s going on then.

Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

“My government will maintain its commitment to increased equality and social justice by bringing forward legislation on the registration of civil partnerships between same-sex couples,” said the Queen, acknowledging, for the first time in her 51 years on the throne, that she has gay subjects.

Even more staggering, from an establishment point of view, was a leader in The Daily Telegraph carrying the headline: “Gay couples should be equal under the law” and making a passionate case for partnership registration. Is this the same Daily Telegraph that only a few short years ago wouldn’t use the world gay or would only do so if enclosed within dismissive quotation marks?

What further proof can one need that there has been a seismic shift in attitudes to gay rights in a very short time? Only three years ago, that editorial would have been utterly unthinkable. Now it has happened. Frame it, for it is almost as significant as the Bill itself.

Of course, in media terms there is still one final fortress to conquer, and that it is the intractable Daily Mail. Its reaction to the news about civil partnership registration was predictably apoplectic. (And this idiocy will not cease until the paper’s editor, Paul Dacre – whose knee jerks more often than a can-can dancer – steps down and takes his reactionary agenda with him.)

The Mail, as is its wont on these occasions, wheeled out the frothy-mouthed Melanie Phillips to predict Armageddon and the end of all life on earth, and possibly the universe, if this goes through. “How can any responsible government even contemplate such a nihilistic piece of social vandalism?” she hyperventilated. “The whole gay rights agenda is a direct attack on heterosexual monogamous marriage… one has to see the gay rights movement for what it really is: a highly-organised, pan-Western movement which uses victim culture to advance its interests, with the result that personal liberty and independence of thought and action are replaced by the tyranny of the most powerful interest groups over the weak.”

Sending a message from the real world to the planet Melanie, Jeanette Winterson in The Times, wrote: “There is no Pink Plot to undermine traditional family values. Bigots will warn us all about the disintegration of society and the collapse of marriage, but marriage is a robust institution that in itself is continually evolving. If marriages no longer last for ever, it is because we are all living longer, and because women in particular have different expectations of married life. Recognising gay relationships does not harm marriage – what it does is help us all be part of the same family.”

The Christian Science Monitor in the USA took a look at what impact “gay marriage” has had on countries where it has been legal for a while. What it found was (sorry to disappoint you Melanie) “the social impact of gay marriage has been less dramatic than some people had expected.” The paper quotes Kees Waaldijk of the University of Leiden as saying: “It’s difficult to notice a difference in general that has developed in the last two years.”

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems. Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Dutch constitution and under this umbrella some registrars have refused to register gay couples. “One town did not renew the contract of a registrar who said she would not be available for same-sex marriage,” reported The Christian Science Monitor. “The woman appealed. ‘We still don’t know if she has the right to invoke her conscience,’ Waaldijk said.”

In this country the Christian Institute is making precisely that point. Will there be opt-outs for registrars who don’t – because of their bigotry…er, I mean, religious conscience – want to register gay partnerships? You can be sure that when the legislation comes before parliament the CI will have its puppets in the House of Lords trying to secure these exemptions, and others – that’s if they can’t manage to scupper it altogether.

However, we can be optimistic that the proposals won’t have too rough a ride through parliament (although we must not be complacent at this stage). Michael Howard, the new leader of the Tories has indicated that he intends to give his troops a free vote on the issue. It seems this legislation has serendipitously arrived at the very moment that Howard is trying to demonstrate his party really is compassionate and inclusive.

He is even allowing the openly gay MP Alan Duncan to speak from the front bench for the party during the debate. The Guardian reported: “Insiders believe Mr Howard gave Mr Duncan the job of shadow secretary of state for constitutional affairs with this debate in mind.”

However, the Tories may complicate things by trying to introduce the concept of registered partnerships for a wider range of dependent relationships – like elderly siblings living together.

Other unexpected “supporters” have emerged from the woodwork. Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, said on the BBC1 “Breakfast with Frost” programme that: “In my book, as long as we don’t call it marriage… there may well be a case for looking at civil partnerships.” Well, that’s very magnanimous of him. Now why doesn’t he go away and shove his head in a bucket?

Then came Lady Hale, the first woman Law Lord (Law Lady?). She told The Independent: “My present view is that there is a strong case for introducing a legal commitment between people who are unable to marry, principally gay and lesbian partners.”

So, it seems everything’s coming up roses. This cannot be said in the USA, where the same issue is causing a stink of the first order.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay couples could not be denied the right to marry, it set off a reaction so filled with hate it made me feel rather sick. But once again, gay people are being used as a “wedge issue” by politicians and priests, anxious to exploit us for their own ends. Every raving reverend and opportunist politico – from tin pot local bigots right up to the President (is there a difference?) immediately jumped on the bandwagon and started with the anti-gay invective.

Republicans immediately began claiming that the decision was “judicial tyranny” and didn’t reflect what the people wanted. However, newspaper polls showed that more than 50 per cent of people in Massachusetts approved the court’s decision, with only 38 per cent opposing it.

Perhaps this issue above all others illustrates the difference between European and American culture; between our precious liberalism and their accursed fundamentalism.

As soon as the Massachusetts ruling was announced, Bush insisted that marriage was “a sacred institution between a man and a woman” and that the court had violated that principle. While he was in London, Bush said: “I will work with congressional leaders to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”

The Times reported that “hoping to short circuit further rulings more than 760,000 people have signed an on-line petition calling for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same sex marriage. Conservative activists are vowing to make this a litmus-test in the presidential campaign.”

An amendment to the US constitution is a major undertaking, however. It requires two-thirds majorities in both Houses and in the legislature of three quarters of all states. It could take about ten years to achieve. I think maybe President Bush will have come a cropper before then.

Marriage falls within the jurisdiction of individual states at present, and so different models are being created in different states. Just as they are in different countries of Europe.

Of all the countries here that have instituted some kind of gay partnership law, none is the same model and none will recognise the legality of any of the others at the moment. But now that we are part of the European Union, surely that could be put right?

Katherine Boele-Woelki, a professor of private international law at the University of Utrecht thinks that it will be “within two to three years”. She told the Christian Science Monitor of “two Dutch men living in Germany who came back to the Netherlands to be married. When they returned to Germany, authorities there regarded the men as cohabiting partners, with no rights as a married couple.”

Registered partnerships are now available in approximately 10 European countries, but cross-border non-recognition will increasingly create legal complications that will have to be addressed.

For the moment, though, we should take some time to savour our victory and gather our energy for this final push. This is a momentous time for gay people in Britain and – because we will still be here when Bush is long gone and forgotten – maybe for gay people all over the world.

Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

After centuries when the topic wasn’t even thinkable, the issue of gay marriage has suddenly swept around the world like a tornado. Countries in Europe – including Britain – are falling over themselves to give gay couples partnership rights, while in the United States the political and religious conservatives think they’ve found themselves a sure-fire vote winner by opposing such developments.

In Canada, the Supreme Court has told the government to introduce gay marriage by May – or else! – and in Spain, the conservatives and the Catholics have joined forces to make capital from bigotry. The Independent then tells us that even Tasmania – once regarded as the most homophobic place in Christendom – has introduced a Relationships Act which the paper says is “one of the world’s most enlightened pieces of legislation.”

Britain, then, is proceeding towards the legal gay partnership with comparative decorum. All is serene as we await publication of the parliamentary Bill that will represent the biggest advance in gay rights since… well, since ever!

I say that all is quiet, but that does not mean that the dead-head religious groups that have been fulminating from the sidelines might not be preparing a nasty surprise. Despite the fact that the Conservative party has decided to allow its MPs a free vote, we should not drop our guard until Her Majesty has autographed the statute.

But preparations are in progress. The Sunday Telegraph advised us that the National Trust has announced that it is making some of its properties available for the celebration of gay partnership ceremonies. Given the middle-England make-up of the National Trust’s membership, this news sparked only token resistance from some of the predictable fuddy-duddies – like right-wing “philosopher”, Roger Scruton. He told The Sunday Times: “The purpose of the National Trust is to maintain some kind of picture of what the English countryside and properties were like, and one thing they were not like is that.”

It’s a very different story in the USA, where hysteria informs the topic at every turn. Last November the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that prohibiting same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state’s Constitution. The court gave the State Legislature 180 days (which expire on 17 May) to rewrite the law in order to permit same-sex marriage. It now turns out that under Article IV of the US Constitution, same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts may have to be recognised in other states. (Coincidentally, New Jersey has just become the fifth US state to voluntarily recognise same-sex unions).

The right-wing is pushing for a Constitutional amendment that would reserve marriage for only one man and one woman. Bush says he’s sympathetic to such a move, but he hasn’t said he’ll support it yet.

Meanwhile – seeing the Democrats taking a lead in the polls – Republicans around the country are trying desperately to exploit the uncertainty and, in the process, garner more votes for November’s presidential election.

Much of their ire is directed at Democrat front-runner, Howard Dean. When he was governor of Vermont he committed the cardinal sin of signing a civil unions bill that granted gay couples the same rights as marriage.

The Christian soldiers who are presently running the United States demanded that he say where he currently stands on the issue. Mr Dean – recognising the need not to upset the powerful religious constituency in the US – equivocated. In an interview with the Washington Post he said that while he doesn’t support gay “marriage”, he could live with “civil unions” for gay and other unmarried partners.

“The overwhelming evidence is that there is a very significant, substantial genetic component to it”, Mr Dean told reporters: “From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people. My view of Christianity… is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind. So I think there is a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions.”

Last November, an opinion poll for The Boston Herald showed voters only narrowly supported “gay marriage”, but overwhelmingly supported the idea of equal rights for gay couples. In other words, call it something other than “marriage” and you’ll win.

But one person who doesn’t care for that particular compromise is Andrew Sullivan, a gay Englishman who made a career as a conservative pundit in the USA. In the column he writes for The Sunday Times, Mr Sullivan – a long-time advocate of gay marriage – praised Britain for its commonsense approach, but wanted to know why a proposal that was, to all intents and purposes, marriage, wasn’t being called marriage. “I have a feeling that many gay couples might even take such partnerships more seriously than some straight couples, because they have never taken them for granted,” he wrote. “These couples will have children; they will cohabitate; they will share finances; they will be everything that married couples are. So why call them something else?”

In Canada, the Government is under orders from the Courts to redefine marriage so as to include same-sex couples. There is much reactionary agitation aimed at blocking the change. Despite their best efforts, though, the conservatives and the Catholics have not yet been able to derail this decision, and if nothing dramatic happens, gay marriage should be legal in Canada within the year.

Meanwhile, in Rome, the quavering pope reinforced his opposition to gay unions over the holiday. The Vatican announced, through its Zenit News Service, that Pope John Paul II had once more “called for a greater defence of the institution of marriage between man and woman” and said that the push for gay marriage was the result of “misunderstood rights”.

The Vatican has ordered Catholic politicians to oppose gay rights whenever they have the opportunity. They should, the pope says, promote Catholic dogma even if it contradicts the clearly stated desires of constituents. Anti-democratic, or what?

In Spain, “domestic partnership rights” are being manipulated into a wedge issue for the forthcoming election. The opposition Socialist Party has put forward a package of reforms including the legal recognition of gay couples. This has given the ruling Popular Party the opportunity to moralise and drag in the powerful Spanish Catholic Church to support it.

The head of the Church in Spain, Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouci Varela, delivered what he hoped would be a knock-out blow. He claimed granting gay people partnership rights would result in the collapse of the social security system. Finance Minister Cristobal Montoro said that the proposals would “ruin economic growth and job creation”, leading to “a society of the unemployed.”

The Socialists responded by calling the Minister “imbecilic”. The Spanish Federation of Lesbians and Gays said that the government, in league with a bigoted Church, were trying to “promote an intolerant society”. A Christian gay group said the Cardinal had made a fool of himself by delivering a pack of lies under the guise of a sermon (but aren’t all sermons a pack of lies by their very nature?) Anyway, Spain seems to have an unpleasant battle on its hands.

Whereas, back in Britain, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland broke the religious mould by making plain his backing for the Government’s proposals for civil partnerships. Iain Torrance – for it is he – said it was “a matter of justice, not religion”. He told The Herald newspaper in Glasgow that he was sad that the various churches were being so “defensive”. Christianity, he said, “has a long tradition of defining itself by vilifying the other.”

Other priests have reached the same conclusion. According to the National Catholic Reporter, 23 priests in Chicago signed a round-robin letter addressed to “The Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church”, calling on it to stop using “violent and abusive language” in relation to gay people.

“Has any other group within the Body of Christ been so assaulted and violated by such mean-spirited language?” they asked. They point to a document released by the Vatican last summer that condemned gay unions and which, the letter writers assert, “demonised these children of God” by using such terms a “a serious depravity” and “a grave detriment to the common good” and “intrinsically disordered” about gay people. “Does anybody consider this vile and toxic language invitational?” they asked.

The originator of the letter, Fr. Richard Prenderghast, told The National Catholic Reporter: “The Vatican statement has caused Catholic homosexuals to finally ‘flip the switch’ and abandon Catholicism. They’re beyond anger. There’s just sadness that they can’t belong to such a church anymore.”

Oh well, the Vatican document did some good, then.

Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

The topic for discussion this month is a big one – free speech and its limits. Recent events have put a severe strain on what we’re allowed to say in public. The tabloids usually dismiss such restrictions as “political correctness gone mad”, but maybe this time they’ve got a point.

I’m beginning to get a little worried myself about the restrictions on opinions that are gradually creeping upon us. And worse still, I’m beginning to wonder whether the gay community is adding to the problem.

The issue flared up anew with the Robert Kilroy-Silk debacle. You will remember that Mr Kilroy-Silk made some comments about Arabs that were adjudged “racist” by some in the Muslim community (and the ever-ready-to-be-offended Trevor Phillips at the Commission for Racial Equality). There was much agitation for the veteran chat show host to be sacked. He apologised and said it had been a mistake. His comments, he claimed, had been directed at Arab states rather than just Arabs, but had somehow become mangled in the journey between his word processor and the pages of The Sunday Express.

As we know, after a nasty controversy, Mr Kilroy-Silk was suitably punished; not by being burned at the stake, as with heretics of old, but by being axed from his TV programme.

All of a sudden, it seems, if you say one word out of place, you risk at best getting your P45, and at worst a court appearance. But is the gay community any better? Are we in danger of falling into the nasty habit of demanding that our critics shut up or else? Have we lost the power to argue our case by rational means?

Now, let’s get the terms of this debate right, to start with. I’m not talking here about inciting violence against people. If a rap singer exhorts his fans to batter a batty boy or stab or shoot him, or an Islamic rabble-rouser encourages his followers to kill, harass or otherwise harm gay people, then that is illegal, and so it should be.

But what if, for instance, a Roman Catholic cardinal says that 90% of gay men are perverts? Should that be illegal? We know it’s stupid, ignorant – laughable even – but should it be against the law for him to say it?

I’m referring here to Cardinal Gustaaf Joos of Belgium, who told a soft-porn magazine: “I’m prepared to sign here in my blood that of all those who say they are lesbian or gay, at most five to 10 per cent are effectively lesbian or gay. All the rest are sexual perverts. I demand you write this down. If they come to protest on my doorstep, I don’t care. I’m just speaking out on what thousands of people are thinking, but never get the chance to say.”

As I say, bonkers and not worth even responding to. And yet instead of simply saying “The Cardinal needs treatment”, a Brussels civil rights group called the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Struggle Against Racism began proceedings against the Cardinal for violating Belgium’s anti-discrimination laws.

Remember the document released by the Pope last year, the one condemning gay marriage? It contained some of the most hateful, spiteful language I’ve ever seen in a Church document. But rather than trying to get the poisonous pontiff’s collar felt, I much prefer the approach of the brave Catholic priests around the US who signed a letter calling the Vatican to account. A group of them in Chicago, and now another lot in New York, sent round robins to Rome deploring the vindictiveness of the phraseology in the Vatican document. They made the case for restraint in compassionate terms that put the Vatican to shame.

Needless to say, the Holy See has ways of silencing these recalcitrant priests and its wrath will no doubt fall upon them in the near future.

There are grey areas, of course. One of these occurred in Canada when a court recently ruled that a teacher in a state-run school had no right to make public his abhorrence of homosexuality. The teacher, a frothy-mouthed Christian by all accounts, wrote condemnatory letters to the local paper saying things like “Homosexuality is not something to be applauded” and “I refuse to be a false teacher, saying that promiscuity is acceptable, perversion is normal, and immorality is simply ‘cultural diversity’ of which we should be proud.” In upholding his sacking, the court ruled he should not be in charge of vulnerable children while spouting such opinions in public. The judge said: “It is entirely appropriate that the teaching profession, like any profession, be held to uphold more stringent standards of conduct than the lay public.”

But I don’t think these caveats apply in the case of the Gay Police Association and Richard Littlejohn.

Mr Littlejohn is not my favourite journalist – or yours either, I would guess. In his aggravating column in The Sun he wrote about plans to introduce a quota system in the police force to ensure proper representation of gay men and lesbians. He doesn’t reckon much to the idea of quotas, whether they be on grounds of race, gender, sexuality or anything else, which is a legitimate line to take.

However, he expressed his opposition in rather immoderate terms, saying that “these days, cottaging is a career move” for gay police officers. He venomously attacked Inspector Paul Cahill, chairman of the Gay Police Association, who had been awarded an MBE. “Good luck to him,” wrote Mr Littlejohn sarcastically, “but what marks him out from hundreds of other inspectors other than his predilection for same-sex sex?”

He also took an unpleasant pop at Brian Paddick and compounded it all by saying that it had to be assumed that all women police officers were lesbians unless otherwise stated.

I can understand these policepersons being outraged by such comments and their anger was widely reported and commented upon. But not happy with simply making a reasoned riposte, they then made a formal complaint to Scotland Yard’s hate crimes unit and wondered whether Sky TV should reconsider Littlejohn’s nightly show.

That’s where I squirm with discomfort. If Mr Littlejohn has told a lie, deliberately brought a person’s reputation into disrepute or otherwise traduced their good name, then there is a libel law to fall back on. Brian Paddick used it successfully against The Daily Mail when it made allegations about him that were false and went far beyond the realms of fair comment, putting his reputation as a policeman on the line.

If any of Littlejohn’s comments fall into that category, the victims can sue. But if it’s just that they don’t like his opinion and feel he should be sacked because he hurt their feelings, then we’re into a whole different ball game. That would amount to a blasphemy law for gay people. It must not happen.

It is not so many decades ago that gay people were ruthlessly silenced (Radclyffe Hall found herself in the dock when she published the lesbian novel The Well of Loneliness in 1928.) We had to fight long and hard to break that silence. We have been extraordinarily successful but we mustn’t let our new freedom turn us into tyrants, gagging others as we were gagged. It mustn’t be a crime to criticise us – after all, sometimes we deserve it.

We have to accept that there are many people in this country who haven’t come to terms with our new-found visibility and don’t like us. We’re not going to change their mind by sending the Thought Police round every time they challenge us. We have to convince them, and if we can’t convince them, then we at least have to argue our case for the benefit of uncommitted onlookers.

In his classic defence of freedom, John Stuart Mill said there was a difference between offence and harm. We need to think about that and take it on board. We mustn’t stop people doing or saying things just because they offend us. Too many people are offended by too many different things – including homosexuality. We should curb the freedom of others only if what they say or do causes harm – and being insulted is not the same as being beaten up.

Instead of trying to muzzle our critics, we should be defending their right to make their views known, and we should defend our right to argue.

Remember, one day the pendulum may swing back and our turn to be silenced might come again. There are many people who would love that. Only last month the Pope said the media portrayed homosexuality with too much sympathy and such a thing was, in his opinion, “inimical to the common good of society”.

So watch out boys: if you censor others they might well come round one day with the gag for you.

Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

The Daily Telegraph carried an obituary last month of Ivor Stanbrook, one of the old-style Tory MPs who flaunted their bigotry in the House of Commons like a badge of honour. Such repulsive characters had their last hurrah during the Thatcher years, when it seemed that no prejudice was too foul to express from the Tory benches. Even his own colleagues called him Neanderthal.

Mr Stanbrook’s death seems somehow symbolic, for he passes into history just as the Tory Party tries to throw overboard everything that he stood for. Once more, the Tories are attempting to reposition themselves as the inclusive, friendly party that will no longer brook bigoted bombast from its MPs. After all, look what happened to Anne Winterton when she cracked her now infamous joke about the Chinese cockle-pickers.

At the same time, the Church of England seems to be trying to do a volte face over the issue of homosexuality.

As we reported last month, there were encouragingly friendly noises emanating from the General Synod, as the abusive anti-gay rhetoric of the past year was suddenly replaced by kindly understanding and a desire to be fair and – well, nice to gay Christians.

The Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer when the blue rinses and country squires ran the show. Taking tea with the vicar at that time meant you had to share your cucumber sandwiches with little old ladies who wanted hanging brought back for graffiti artists, imprisonment on Devil’s Island for shoplifting and saw no reason why the children of single mothers should not return up the chimney, as in the good old days.

It’s all changed now. As the old gels with the helmet-like hairstyles go the way of Ivor Stanbrook, and the country squires look to the BNP for succour, both the CofE and the Tories are trying to convince us that underneath it all, they really, really like us.

Homosexuality is the touchstone by which their progress is to be judged.

But can we trust them? Haven’t we been here before, with promises of a welcoming hand, swiftly followed by a stab in the back?

Mr Michael Howard – the recently installed leader of the Conservative Party – promises to be different from his predecessor, Ian Duncan Smith. He assures us that he has changed from his time as a reactionary bastard in the Thatcher Years. He makes friendly noises about being in favour of legalising gay partnerships and has given his imprimatur to a conference that will explore the effects of homophobia on young gay people. What a wonderful conversion – sing hallelujah and put the rainbow flags out.

But we can’t forget (and some of us can’t forgive) Mr Howard’s personal responsibility for the introduction of Section 28 when he was Home Secretary under Old Ma Thatcher. We can’t quite get out of our mind that he voted against s28’s abolition, and against the lowering of the age of consent. Mr Howard’s gay-friendliness is of very recent origin. And I’m not yet convinced he isn’t just a politician, like all the others, facing whichever way the wind blows.

However, on the plus side, Mr Howard – may we call you Michael? – did make clear that he supports the idea of partnership registration for gays, although he stopped short of endorsing gay marriage. “Civil partnership differs from marriage,” he told the Policy Exchange in a speech (as reported in The Guardian). “Marriage is a separate and special relationship which we should continue to celebrate and sustain. To recognise civil partnership is not, in any way, to denigrate or downgrade marriage.”

On the other hand, denying gay people full marriage, and offering as compensation a second-best alternative, denigrates and downgrades gay people, don’t you think, (can we call you) Mike?

And while the front end of the Tory Party is making reassuring noises, its arsehole end is just as smelly as it always was. In February the Tories decided to vote against a measure in the Housing Bill that would guarantee the right of tenure succession, so that same-sex partners could stay in tenanted accommodation after the death of a partner. It would particularly benefit gay and lesbian council tenants.

The Shadow Minister for Local Government, John Hayes, speaking for the Conservatives, said that he was calling for his fellow Tories to join him in voting against the measure. “Let me make it clear that I have not got a socially liberal bone in my body,” he bragged. Fortunately, his rallying cry was unsuccessful, and the measure was voted through with Labour support. But it does make you wonder how much of Mikey’s siren song is top-show.

The same applies to the Church of England, of course. We’ve already been bewildered by the contradictory remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who blows hot and cold on gay rights. His pronouncements are so convoluted that it’s difficult to know what the hell he thinks about the issue most of the time.

For instance, at the first meeting of the Eames Commission (which has been set up to try and make progress on the war over gays in the Church), Dr Williams said (according to The Times): “You will need to be aware of the danger of those doctrines of the Church which, by isolating one element of the Bible’s teaching, produce distortions – a Church of the perfect or the perfectly unanimous on one side, a Church of general human inspiration or liberation on the other.”

What does this mean – if it means anything? Where does the Archbishop stand? Is he with us or against us?

The Church Times tried to make sense of it when commenting on Dr Williams’ first year in office. It recognised his desire to be “friendly” to both combatants in this war, but it also saw the danger of such an approach. Whenever he made friendly noises to either side, the other immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was against them. The paper warned that the Archbishop “might need to use a firmer hand” if he is to avoid a full scale meltdown.

But despite the apparent rapprochement towards gays from Church House in London, there is another side to the Anglican Communion that is far from friendly. The Daily Telegraph showed us it when it carried a report from Adrian Blomfield in Kenya. He wrote: “Parishioners here are deeply conservative. Most think that homosexuality is abhorrent. ‘The church is very much against a person who has openly declared that he is homosexual being ordained,’ said the Rev Habil Omungu. ‘Such a person would introduce unacceptable and unbiblical teachings’.” Mary McNaughton, who goes to Rev Omungu’s church, says that she considers homosexuality “absolutely horrific”. “It’s totally un-Christian,” she shudders. “I think if it were to happen here I would probably leave the church. I wouldn’t go to a church where a homosexual was preaching and God would not want a homosexual to come between me and Him.”

Then The Daily Telegraph reported that the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, had deliberately slighted Rowan Williams by “refusing to attend a meeting of Church leaders, hosted by Dr Williams.” Akinola has described the installation of a gay bishop in the USA as “a Satanic attack on the Church”. Then the Primate of Central Africa launched his own attack on the Americans, saying they had inflicted “a desperately grave wound to the Church” and warned that they would split from the Communion “for the spiritual safety of our people.”

In the face of such opposition, there seems no leeway for negotiation. Either the gay bishop goes or the Africans do. And the Asians. And large parts of the United States, too.

Rowan Williams cannot unite these people with the likes of the liberal Bishop of Oxford, or South Africa’s Desmond Tutu, who have spoken out strongly in favour of including gays in the Church. Not even if he had the wisdom of Solomon and a thousand years to play with can Rowan Williams keep his Church in one piece.

So, eventually the Archbishop of Cant will have to stop obfuscating and take a stand – just like Michael Howard has. Both of them risk alienating their traditional wings. Michael Howard has put his money on the table.

Now it’s Rowan Williams’ turn.

The stakes are rather different, though. Michael Howard’s traditional wing is dying off, but for Rowan Williams, it’s the only part of his constituency that is growing.

Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Like most reality TV shows, Making Babies the Gay Way made gruesomely riveting viewing. The cameras followed four gay couples as they each tried for children, using a variety of non-traditional methods. And everywhere the participants went, so did the cameras – bedroom, lavatory, the lot.

Why do they do it, I thought. What motivates people to go on TV and spill their guts for the entertainment of the nation? The present mad obsession with reality TV give almost unlimited opportunity for “ordinary people” to get on the box and expose themselves to ridicule or judgment. But, I ask again, why do they do it?

Gay people, I suspect, do it for two reasons. The first is that they hope they will increase understanding of whatever aspect of gay life it is they’re trying to raise awareness of. The second is that they are incorrigible exhibitionists who’ll do anything to get their 15 minutes of fame.

It all started with Oprah Winfrey in the States. In the early days of her seminal chat show in the 80s and 90s, she’d regularly have gay people on, encouraging them to talk about their experience of coming out and trying to make their families understand the situation. Oprah was the doyenne of such programmes – liberal, compassionate and genuinely interested in the stories of the people she brought on to her show. There is little doubt that she played a part in promoting understanding.

But Oprah quickly spawned imitators, many of whom have been less benevolent. The Oprah style of sympathetic enquiry was rapidly replaced by the Jerry Springer freak-show approach.

Mr Springer – and lesser competitors – seemed to have no problem finding trailer-trash fodder for their confrontational family massacres. If a family was at war, or a relationship strained, no expense would be spared in making sure the wounds were reopened right there on set. Indeed, the show was adjudged a failure if someone didn’t end up sobbing or a chair hadn’t been flung.

Inevitably, it led to murder. In 1995, The Jenny Jones Show (described in court as “the ultimate in bad taste and sensationalism”) invited a gay man on to describe the secret sexual yearnings he had for a work colleague. The colleague, stunned and humiliated by the revelation, turned out to be lethally homophobic and later went to the young man’s house and killed him.

After the talk shows (Ricki Lake, Trisha and some even trashier) came the reality documentaries, where film crews would follow people in their jobs, to watch them doing some other interesting activity – such as abusing their customers at airports. All very fascinating for those of us safe in our armchairs, passing comment about people’s stupidity or their repulsive lifestyles. But what happens to those people when the camera crews have packed up and gone and the temporary TV stars have to face their neighbours or parents – who they just happen to have been slagging off on BBC2 the night before?

Television is monstrous in its appetite for new flesh. It chews people up and spit them out at an incredible rate, leaving them to clear up the shit that the programme has probably left them in. But, hey, these idiots did it of their own free will – and the TV company has the signed waivers to prove it.

Which brings us back to Making Babies the Gay Way. Gay parenthood is a hot topic, of course, and a legitimate subject for general debate. But this wasn’t general. It was very personal and intimate. I don’t know whether this was the effect the producers were aiming for, but I squirmed a I watched and blanched as men and women in the street were invited to make bigoted, ill-informed comments about how wrong it was for “poofs” to bring up kids.

Making Babies was no informed discussion. It was pure Roman arena-style entertainment, with the prospective parents put on display for the audience to cheer or boo as the mood took them. There was emotion, intrusion, tears and anxiety: all ingredients that were bound to cement the prejudices of those already unsympathetic and to undermine the confidence of those fighting our corner.

But why do the participants allow themselves to be used in this way? Had the producers persuaded them that they would be presented with dignity and as trailblazing heroes? If they did, it was a forlorn hope.

The lesson to be learned from this is that going on reality TV is a dangerous business. It can make you into a star (if you happen to be Will Young and win Pop Idol) or it can make you look like a berk (and if you already are one, you’ll look 20 times worse on TV).

When Quentin Crisp allowed a TV company to film his home life, he knew precisely what he was doing, his eccentricity, he realised, would play well with a TV audience and his story created sympathy. Mr Crisp was very much in charge of the way he was portrayed and the rest is history.

But for those of us who aren’t so wise, the risks are enormous. Not only will everyone – but everyone – come to know your intimate secrets but because you’ve put them in the public domain, they’ll assume you’ve given them carte blanche to be as insensitive as they like when telling you what they think.

Be aware that when a TV company invites you to participate, they’ll ask you to sign an agreement that lets them do what they like with what they’ve filmed. They can edit it in any way they want and however well you imagine you’ve performed, a skilled editor can still make you look idiotic. And you’ll have agreed to let them show it on cable and satellite stations ad infinitum. Just when you thought you’d got over the trauma, it’ll pop up again on UK Gold.

It’s flattering to be courted and cajoled by the researchers from the programme. They’ll make you feel like the most important person in the world as they persuade you into taking part. And you’ll be whisked about in a flashy car and maybe offered big fees for what seems like little effort. But as soon as filming’s over, you’ll be dispensed with. The researcher who seemed to friendly and thoughtful will now move on to the next project. You’re yesterday’s product. You may have arrived at the studio in a big, chauffeur-driven car but it’s likely you’ll be going home on the bus.

If you’re going to do one of these shows, the first thing to remember is that you are a commodity. No-one in TV cares about you, however charming they are at the start. You’re there to make them a living and, if they’re lucky, a reputation.

Not all producers are as exploitative as this, of course. Some are genuinely committed to exploring the topic they’ve taken on. But increasingly, it’s about hysteria, sensation and confrontation. You’ve seen Wife Swap, right? Well, stand by for the gay version.

Secondly, make sure you get paid. TV producers are aware that “ordinary people” (that is, anyone not sanctified by being a “broadcast professional”) don’t know the drill. You haven’t got an agent to advise you so unless you ask for money it probably won’t be offered. They’ll give the impression that you’re doing them a favour – or even that they’re doing you a favour – and money will never be mentioned. But, of course, they’ll be getting a fat pay cheque and the programme will be making a profit for the TV company. Given that all this cash will be generated at the expense of your dignity, at least get the most generous cut you can screw out of them. Don’t be shy – they aren’t.

If you’ve got showbiz ambitions, reality TV is not the route to fame. Talent will be spotted in the appropriate place if it’s there. Putting yourself through the reality TV mill will get you, at best, a few minutes of infamy that will be forgotten by the viewer almost as soon as they’ve hit the remote to change channels.

Meanwhile, your appearance might have long-term implications for your private life that aren’t worth any amount of attention.

Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Three cheers for Ross Kelly, the TV presenter, late of TVam, now of The Heaven and Earth Show, who came out in an interview with The Mail on Sunday. (Mind you, given he’s been on our screens for 20 years and has never said a word before, perhaps we ought to reduce that to two cheers). “It’s time to tell the viewers that I’m gay,” was the headline over his rather unexceptional revelations.

Mr Kelly says that this declaration of his sexuality is entirely voluntary but given that he’s fronting a religious programme these days, it will be interesting to know how the evangelical element of his audience will take the news that their favourite TV personality is a child of Sodom. Neither will they be reassured by his other confession – he’s also an atheist. No sooner have the Bible-thumpers picked themselves off the floor from one blow than he delivers another. “I don’t think you can take the Bible too seriously. As well as denouncing homosexuality, for example, the book of Leviticus says couples found in adultery should be taken to the market place and stoned,” he says.

Ross Kelly’s fulsome revelations stand in stark contrast to two other public figures who have decided to go down the “ambiguity” route – the keep-’em-guessing game that that Peter Mandelson so painfully discovered is like a red rag to the tabloids.

Robbie Williams’ former manager Kevin Kinsella started the ball rolling when he went on TV and said he could state categorically that Robbie is gay. “I don’t think he is bisexual, I think he is totally gay,” Mr Kinsella said on a Channel 4 documentary about Robbie’s days with Take That. “I think Robbie has the same problems as Michael Barrymore. They know that they are gay. They know what they want to do. But they are controlled by parameters that say you can’t come out and say you are gay because it will affect your career and sales, and people may not love you. So what happens is that these demons inside of them come out in drink and drugs.”

This little tirade cranked up once more the speculation that has accompanied Robbie throughout his career. Is he or isn’t he?

The Daily Mail presented all the known evidence – and a bit of new stuff – in a double-page spread by Robbie’s biographer, Paul Scott. Mr Scott says: “In the past, [Robbie] has announced variously that he is having an affair with his straight song-writing partner, Guy Chambers; declared that he was changing his name to Roberta Williams; and told a Top of the Pops audience: ‘Tomorrow I’ll be coming out as homosexual.’”

Mr Scott asks us to consider Robbie’s “camp performances” with his lifelong friend Jonathan Wilkes at the Royal Albert Hall concert in 2001. “Williams and Wilkes put on a performance shot through with homosexual innuendo. At one point, Wilkes threatens to tell the audience Williams’s ‘gay secret’, while Williams himself described his flat mate as his ‘rent-boy’.”

The ostentatious parading of a string of short-lived “girlfriends” is also suggested as a cover for the truth. This, along with many other instances, all add up to the inevitable conclusion, according to Mr Scott.

So why doesn’t Robbie just do a Ross Kelly? Well, it seems that senior executives at his record label, EMI, “wake up in cold sweat from nightmares that Robbie has again said something about being gay”. An unnamed “record company insider” says: “For some time there has been a plan in place for how to handle the fall-out. The truth is that nobody here knows what Robbie is going to do from one minute to the next, so it is best to be prepared.”

It seems that Mr Williams will be well-protected and well-advised should he ever feel the need to tell us something ‘important’.

This is more than can be said for Kevin Spacey, the Oscar-winning actor, who caused a tabloid sensation after it was revealed in The Daily Mirror that he had been “mugged” in a London Park while out walking his dog at 4.30am.

Now, before we go any further, the question that none of the papers have asked is: who revealed the details of Mr Spacey’s visit to the police?

Well, the only people who could possibly have known about it were the police themselves. Presumably someone in the cop-shop thought it their public duty to contact the press and let them know they’d had a VIP in. I’m sure no money would have changed hands, of course. And newspapers never reveal their sources, do they?

Anyway, Mr Spacey’s little adventure in the park – rapidly dubbed “a gay haunt” and a “cottagers paradise” – mushroomed into a humiliating barrage of innuendo.

Trying to stem the flow of speculation, Mr Spacey foolishly went on the Today programme to explain to an agog public that he was in the park at 4.30am because his doggy “needed to go”. He said that he had not been mugged, he had simply been conned out of his mobile phone by a youth spinning a cock and bull story (sorry, better make that a “likely story”) about needing to make an emergency call and then running off with the phone. In hot pursuit, Mr Spacey fell over the dog and cracked his head on the pavement. He went to the police station to encourage them to pursue the thieving youth by telling them he had been mugged. A few hours later, thinking better of it, he returned to the station and said he didn’t want to take the matter any further.

The reaction to this explanation was summed up in a headline next day in The Daily Mirror. “Yeah, right Kev…”

You would have thought that at this point, Mr Spacey’s close friend Peter Mandelson might have stepped in to warn Kevin about his own experiences of trying to run rings round the press on such matters.

He obviously did not do so, and there followed a few days of sneering scepticism from the papers, including the predictable cracks from Richard Littlejohn in The Sun: “It wasn’t Clapham Common by any chance, was it? Someone should tell Kev to be more careful. He could have bumped into Ron Davies looking for badgers.”

Once more it was The Daily Mail that took up the sword of truth for its readers, probing far back into Mr Spacey’s mysterious past for information that might shed light on the actor’s fiercely protected “private life” (i.e. sex life). It quoted from interviews he had given to various magazines. In Vanity Fair in 1996, the headline had been “Kevin Spacey has a Secret”. “The interviewer had asked him three questions about his sexuality, but Spacey refused to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. ‘I live in a world in which I work with many different people all day long. They are my friends and I love them. And many of these people are gay and homosexual. And I can’t imagine the need to jump up and say: ‘I’m not one of them’. If anyone wants to think that they are absolutely free to think that, I have no interest in confirming or denying that at all. It’s just of no interest to me. So what?’”

Another American magazine, however, published photos of Mr Spacey walking hand in hand with a young man in a park, where they later cuddled, massaged thighs and generally looked to be more than mere acquaintances.

Mr Spacey seems to want to keep the world guessing, but he is obviously unfamiliar with the tactics of the British tabloid press. Kevin is said to like dogs – I wonder whether he’s ever seen a terrier with a rat? It ain’t over yet, Kev.

But go back to the beginning of this article and consider Ross Kelly. He’s now in the driving seat. You could be, too, if you wanted to be.

Terry Sanderson’s new autobiography “The Reluctant Gay Activist” is now available on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reluctant-Gay-Activist-Terry-Sanderson/dp/B09BYN3DD9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Here’s a plea to TV companies everywhere. Can you send your make-over teams round to my gaffe, please?

I want first of all a visit from those two daft women – Aggie and Baggie – who arrive on the doorsteps of people who live in shit holes and, after a bit of ritual humiliation, clean them up for free. Then I want the makeover team that comes in and throws all your furniture, carpets and fittings in a skip, after which they force you to consign all your most precious and sentimentally valuable souvenirs – including pets – to a crusher, while at the same time training the camera on your face to record any escaping tears for the nation’s amusement.

After that, I want the team that paints the whole inside of the house white and throws out the few bits and bobs that you still have left to create a “minimalist” effect. You then end up with a house that is so bright it could blind you when you open the curtains in the morning, but at the same time doesn’t permit so much as a footstool lest it spoil the effect of endless space.

But this is all arse over elbow. According to the received wisdom, I shouldn’t need these people to sort out my life. Being a gay man, I should be sorting out theirs. Being gay, you see, I am genetically programmed to have good taste, and am instinctively stylish and beautifully groomed.

Just look at Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Fairy Godfathers (basically the same formula but on different channels). In these programmes, a bunch of gay men go round telling straight men how to behave, how to dress, how to wash their feet, how to stop belching so loudly at the dinner table and then trying to get them to control the release of noxious gases in bed. It is usually at the behest of their girlfriends who have grown weary of trying to effect any change in the Neanderthals to whom they have, for some reason, devoted their lives. (Here’s some free advice, girls, take up lesbianism, it’s more rewarding in the long run).

The stereotypical “gay men” who inhabit these shows reinforce the irritating idea that we are all screeching eccentrics who mince around in outrageous clothes, with little polka dot neckerchiefs and whatnot, aching to spend our lives amusing heterosexuals.

If this is really our purpose, then I have failed utterly and completely as a gay man. You see, I, too, need a visit from the Fairy Godfathers. I need titivating and smartening up. I need to spend several thousands of pounds on new designer clothes that will make me look as barking as the Fairy Godfathers do. And I definitely need surgery – or at least dreadfully painful injections – on the face and neck. My saggy tits need a gym all of their own. How did I let the side down so badly?

Oh bugger this. The Fairy Godfathers are not gay. They’re some TV production company’s idea of what is gay. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that they’re both raving heterosexuals who live in Guildford with their wives and four children.

I live in a pigsty and dress from Marks and Sparks, I don’t know anything about cosmetics and I don’t care for body shaving (or worse still, pulling off the chest rug with wax). But I’m still gay. The telly stereotypers are not going to take that away from me.

And I was pleased to read that someone else is getting sick of all the “amusing” gay make over programmes.

Fox television in the USA is thinking hard about whether it should broadcast its latest reality show, entitled Seriously Dude, I’m Gay, in which two straight men compete for $50,000 by trying to pass themselves off as homosexuals (which is to say, they force themselves to behave like pseudo women – drag queens without the drag).

The rethink follows complaints from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that the show was exploitative and stereotypical. They branded it “an exercise in systematic humiliation”. GLAAD’s executive director, Joan Garry, said: “They offered us an advance copy of the show and were incredibly responsive to our grave concerns.” Meanwhile, in The Independent, Johann Hari (himself a gay man) has grown equally weary of these gay make over shows. “It is all the more aggravating,” he wrote, “that producers no doubt consider themselves terribly radical and right-on, rather than manufacturers of a latter-day Black and White Minstrel Show.”

But the complaints don’t stop the “liberal” commentators accepting the myth of the gay style gene (they wouldn’t dare carry on about the “black rhythm” gene any more). In The Sunday Times, Michael Bywater was commenting on how marvellously civilised Soho has become since the gays moved in. “The atmosphere became congenial, civilized, cosmopolitan. The coffee improved beyond measure. And the Burger People moved away, like defeated oafs, to vomit elsewhere, and now even the straights dress nicely and look after themselves and are polite to each other and smile and actually seem to enjoy their night out. In other words, the Pink Pound is a civilizing influence.”

Also in The Sunday Times, Bryan Appleyard was commenting on Queer Eye, coming to the conclusion that the gay “experts” act as a kind of catalyst for straight men and women who just don’t seem to understand each other. “His [the gay man’s] evolutionary role is to enable the woman to civilize her heterosexual partner because the great lummox will take from a gay man what he won’t take from a straight woman. The gay gene persists because its stake in the future is the successful and civilized reproduction of others. Or not. The less ambitious insight into this show is that it marks a moment at which a certain idea of gayness has come of age socially.”

Mr Appleyard says that the Queer Eye lads are exactly the same as the Jules and Sandy characters of Round the Horne. But whereas Jules and Sandy were in the closet, the Queer Eye lads are as far out as it’s possible to get. Now that they are no longer outlawed, gays have turned out to be “salutary emblems of domesticity and civilization to the straight world.”

And so, another myth is born. Our purpose in life is to make straight men and women understand each other and to demonstrate to straight men how civilized human beings should behave.

What a burden to hang around our necks.

As Johann Hari says in his Independent piece: “At university I got to know a very butch, very male, very hairy rugby player. I’ll call him Mark. He was the least camp person I have ever known. He drank a pint of real ale over breakfast and burped, it seemed, at 15-minute intervals. The closest he got to elegance and style was when he vomited in the bin instead of on the carpet. Yet I discovered, gradually, that he was gay.”

Perhaps it’s time for some TV production company to make a few programmes about the Marks of this world. That would be truly innovative. I could point them in the direction of quite a few, not a thousand miles from my own doorstep.