Homosexuality in Britain – A Conservative Perspective was published by the Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality (CGHE). CGHE describes its purpose as seeking to:

“…encourage support within the Conservative Party for ending laws and practices which discriminate against homosexuals and to ensure support for Conservative philosophy and a free society within the homosexual community.”

The 14-page pamphlet sets out the group’s suggested policies in a number of areas including the age of consent, the Criminal Law, the Armed Forces, the Merchant Navy, Discrimination (in Employment and the Use of Public and Commercial Services), the Police and the Courts.

On the age of consent, for example, the pamphlet has this to say:

“CGHE…seeks a reduction in the age of consent for homosexual relationships between males from 21 to 16. However, as history has so often shown, British legislators have tended to adopt a gradualist approach to reform and CGHE recognises that the next feasible step may be the reduction of the age of consent to 18 as envisaged by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the majority of members of the Policy Advisory Committee (of whose members a minority considered the age should be 16).”

This ‘stepped’ approach is not one that would have been supported by groups such as the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE). However, the majority of the other policies outlined in the pamphlet are generally in line with CHE’s policies, and consequently are broadly similar to some of those of other political parties LGBT sections .

Reading this with the benefit of hindsight, of course, means that it’s very easy to question Tory commitment to LGBT rights. CGHE acknowledge this themselves (in part) when they state:

“The Conservative Party is perceived by many homosexuals as being unsympathetic to the cause of homosexual equality. This is partly the result of hostile statements on “gay rights” by a minority of Conservative public representatives, partly in the way the Left exploit the homosexual community.”

Subsequent events would make the suggestion that homosexuals didn’t support the Tories because of ‘exploitation’ by the Left rather churlish. Less than a year after this pamphlet’s publication, for example, Tory councillors in Rugby were refusing to put sexual orientation in their equal opportunities policies on the grounds that:

“By including these words [sexual orientation] we shall give the people of Rugby the idea that this welcomes queers and perverts.”

In 1987, Conservative election billboards featured young men wearing gay badges and asked, “This is Labour’s camp: do you want to live in it?”

The same year, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher denounced local authorities for teaching children that, “they had an inalienable right to be gay.”

And then, of course, along came Clause 28.

It is, indeed, an under-statement when the pamphlet acknowledges:

“Nonetheless, it cannot be said that our Party has acted with vigour in these matters. Most of the opponents of the bills which ultimately resulted in the 1967 Act were Conservatives; in 1980 the Conservative Government, in debate, and a majority of those Conservative MPs who voted in the crucial divisions, opposed the amendment to the Scottish [Sexual Offences amendment] Bill…”

Nonetheless, CGHE remained optimistic, arguing:

“CGHE has long put forward the view that most homosexuals are naturally Conservative and vote accordingly. Many are making successful careers, many are self-employed, many are home owners; all have a vested interest in the prosperity of the country.”

The leaflet then refers to a 1981 poll conducted by Gay News on the voting intentions of its readers. Just over 2,000 readers replied, with 25% favouring Labour and 23% favouring the Conservatives. Thus, argued CGHE:

“The Conservative Party simply cannot afford to turn its back on such an element of support. By applying to the problems of this sector of society its own principles of freedom for the individual and equality under the law the party could indeed rally many of these potential supporters. Moreover, it could do so without risk of alienating its other supporters, who would be unlikely to regard policies favourable to homosexuals as a reason for voting for anti-Conservative parties. Boldness by our Party would be to its advantage, not to its detriment.”