The contradictory position of the U.S. government on matters of “tolerance” and “equal rights” was made–yet again–abundantly clear when the U.S. Postal Service released a new stamp with the likeness of Harvey Milk in late May.
The description of Milk on the USPS web site says that he was “one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States.” It goes on to state that Milk was an effective and popular leader because he was committed to serving a broad constituency, built coalitions between various diverse groups and believed that government should represent all citizens.
That’s interesting, because the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee of the USPS is tasked with evaluating the many subjects suggested to appear on postage stamps each year. According to the USPS, the “primary goal [of the committee] is to select a good balance of subjects appealing to a broad audience for recommendation to the Postmaster General.” Furthermore, the site states, “Stamp selections are made with all postal customers in mind….” As part of the evaluation process, the CSAC considers eleven criteria. The tenth one on that list states, in part, “Stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs.”
I would imagine I am not the only one who sees a contradiction here. First, the CSAC has a stated desire of selecting subjects that will appeal to a broad audience. I doubt seriously that Harvey Milk will appeal to a broad audience. In fact, I suspect the audience to which he will appeal will be rather narrow. The American Family Association has gone so far as to encourage its supporters to not only refuse to purchase the stamps but to refuse to accept any mail bearing the stamp.
Second, the CSAC has an established policy that it will not honor individuals or institutions whose primary achievements are “religious.” Yet, it apparently has no issue honoring an individual whose primary accomplishments are promoting the homosexual agenda. That one is unacceptable and the other is apparently just fine is crystal clear evidence of the intolerance that the government and the political left so often espouse.
A third problem is the fact that, as the New York Daily News reported, Milk was selected for honor on a stamp because he was “a civil rights icon.” That is nothing short of ridiculous. As I have argued here repeatedly, homosexual “rights” are not civil rights.
Fourth, there seems to be ample evidence that Milk was an “ephebophile,” a word made up to distinguish between those sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children and those attracted to teenagers. Milk was apparently 33 years old when he began a relationship with a 16 year old run away named Jack McKinley.
There is plenty of information out there on Harvey Milk, so I will refrain from going into any further detail. The simple fact is, the United States government, in the form of the U.S. Postal Service, has chosen to honor a homosexual activist who carried on a sexual relationship with an underage male. I fail to see anything about that that is honorable.