Having a gay uncle as my godfather meant I accepted being gay as totally normal as I was growing up. Helped my younger brother too, since he realised he was gay when he was 10. We had holidays with our uncle and his partner, so having two uncles was completely straightforward. Legalising it didn't alter anything so far as we were concerned, since our parents accepted it too!
From what we have exchanged in the past, I gather you're even of a generation senior to mine, and I thank you for these insights into a sphere of normality that the then laws would tend to argue: that being gay is a threat to the very fabric and structure of society.
I had a great uncle (born 1909) who lived his adult life long with another gentleman, and they were simply known as Uncle David and Uncle Jim. Only when I was up at the varsity in Edinburgh where they lived, did our common inclinations come out in open conversation. David had refused service in the war, as a conscientious objector. He played violin and painted. He was the type the British army probably couldn't use anyway. I wrote about him in the piece "On conscientious objectors". That's the fabric that he threatened: the soft, feeling, compassionate, sensitive, non-violent element that might lose Britain the war.
The 1967 act did change one thing: you could say you were gay, without fear of prosecution. That was something Alan Turing had not been able to do. But, supposing I said to a policeman that I had robbed a bank. If I then told him I would not reveal which bank or when I did the robbery, what action would he take? "He confessed to robbing a bank" without further specification would hardly secure a conviction, unless someone came forward who had seen it. But Turing's "confession" led to his conviction. Regardless. And the Epstein Files? They won't even lead to charges.
But saying I'd robbed a bank will affect how people view me socially. Some will shun me. And some will seek to associate with me (I once knew a bank robber socially). Robbing banks is against the law, still. But that's what the 1967 act changed: the ability to attract people to you and repel them from you. But one thing I'm sure it didn't do: create anything like "gay rights".
Having a gay uncle as my godfather meant I accepted being gay as totally normal as I was growing up. Helped my younger brother too, since he realised he was gay when he was 10. We had holidays with our uncle and his partner, so having two uncles was completely straightforward. Legalising it didn't alter anything so far as we were concerned, since our parents accepted it too!
From what we have exchanged in the past, I gather you're even of a generation senior to mine, and I thank you for these insights into a sphere of normality that the then laws would tend to argue: that being gay is a threat to the very fabric and structure of society.
I had a great uncle (born 1909) who lived his adult life long with another gentleman, and they were simply known as Uncle David and Uncle Jim. Only when I was up at the varsity in Edinburgh where they lived, did our common inclinations come out in open conversation. David had refused service in the war, as a conscientious objector. He played violin and painted. He was the type the British army probably couldn't use anyway. I wrote about him in the piece "On conscientious objectors". That's the fabric that he threatened: the soft, feeling, compassionate, sensitive, non-violent element that might lose Britain the war.
The 1967 act did change one thing: you could say you were gay, without fear of prosecution. That was something Alan Turing had not been able to do. But, supposing I said to a policeman that I had robbed a bank. If I then told him I would not reveal which bank or when I did the robbery, what action would he take? "He confessed to robbing a bank" without further specification would hardly secure a conviction, unless someone came forward who had seen it. But Turing's "confession" led to his conviction. Regardless. And the Epstein Files? They won't even lead to charges.
But saying I'd robbed a bank will affect how people view me socially. Some will shun me. And some will seek to associate with me (I once knew a bank robber socially). Robbing banks is against the law, still. But that's what the 1967 act changed: the ability to attract people to you and repel them from you. But one thing I'm sure it didn't do: create anything like "gay rights".
Yes, it only touched the very edge of it all.