Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered the removal of Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy replenishment ship, and the move stirred up the inevitable controversy.
It was intended to, just as the original naming of the ship was meant to be a poke in the eye of opponents of DEI. The choice to name the ship after Milk was meant to send a signal that the Navy was honoring Harvey Milk for being a gay rights icon, and the choice to remove it was meant to tell people that Trump’s Navy doesn’t honor people for how they deploy their genitals.
I have to admit that the first time I heard of the Navy honoring Harvey Milk, it was in the context of a joke somebody was telling, and there may have been a reference to a Village People song in there somewhere. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I have no idea whether any other Navy ships are named after people who happened to be gay (or to have strayed in that direction on those long, lonely nights out on the ocean under the romantic full moon), and I frankly don’t care. If a Navy ship is named after a sailor, it is because we are honoring them for special bravery, as when we named the coming Gerald R. Ford class carrier after Doris Miller, an extraordinary hero during the attack on Pearl Harbor. It will be the second ship named after him.
Sean, I honestly thought you were doing a bit until I went and looked.
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) June 5, 2025
Now Harvey Milk was a sailor, but by no accounts was his service extraordinary other than his being dismissed from service due to his homosexuality. He was neither the first nor the last to have been kicked out of the military for his sexual preferences, and I know nothing about whether the issue came up due to less-than-honorable behavior during his service. If you look at his biographies, the naval service barely merits mention, and it was irrelevant to his later life.
As a sailor. This is the right decision. You’re ignoring the fact that Harvey milk was a Ephebophile and courted a mentally unstable 17 kid when he himself was well into his 30s. pic.twitter.com/uxeTThclHZ
— Rocket Goblin (@rocket_goblin) June 3, 2025
What makes Milk notable is his becoming the first politician who ran for office and won as an openly gay candidate, at least that is what we are told, and I assume it might be so. He had been deeply involved in San Francisco politics as an activist, and after a change in how Supervisors were elected (from at large elections to district elections), he won a seat representing a heavily gay district in the city.
I suppose that was notable in a way, but hardly as much as you think given San Francisco politics, where the gay vote was already very prominent. Gays were about 25% of the population in San Francisco and a vital part of any Democrat’s coalition, and Milk had made his bones as a party organizer who mobilized them as a voting block. His election was as shocking as Willie Brown’s.
Maybe it’s me being a prude but I think a guy who was buddy buddy with Jim Jones like Harvey Milk was, going so far as to call Jones “A man of the highest character” in a letter to Jimmy Carter, doesn’t deserve to have his name anywhere near a U.S. Navy ship. Great move here https://t.co/vIWiLAqbcy pic.twitter.com/UXokmmcqXt
— Enguerrand VII de Coucy (@ingelramdecoucy) June 3, 2025
Milk is also known for having been assassinated, and most people assume that the motivation was hostility to his sexuality. It’s an easy assumption to make given his status as a prominent gay rights activist and elected official, but it actually was over a political dispute, which is why Mayor Moscone was shot at the same time. A supervisor who had resigned wanted his seat back, and Moscone denied the request partly because Milk opposed the move.
A lot of nasty accusations are being thrown around, with mud being slung at both Hegseth and Milk. Hegseth is being accused, naturally, of homophobia, and Milk is being accused of being a pedophile and morally unfit to have a ship bear his name.
Harvey Milk openly sexually abused this 16 year old boy who later took his own life. Anyone defending a Navy ship being named after him is a moron https://t.co/GEEFBByhVK pic.twitter.com/w8bWY1Kf4I
— Cabot Phillips (@cabot_phillips) June 4, 2025
I can’t speak to the first accusation, but I can to the second: Milk was not exactly a pedophile–which is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. He was, though, an ephebophile–attraction to underage post-pubescent youngsters. In addition to enjoying the bathhouse scene that created the AIDS crisis, Milk’s longer-term relationships were with very young men, most notably a 15-year-old boy. He was also known to be sexually aggressive with people he recruited during his political activities.
Milk was also a jerk. When one of his former lovers helped save President Ford’s life, Milk outed him for political reasons. He didn’t want his sex life paraded for the cameras, but Milk tried to turn him into a symbol for gay rights. Not nice.
So while not a pedophile, a lot of his identity was wrapped up in socially unacceptable behavior that would still be considered immoral today. The problem is not his private behavior, but his very public self-association with dangerous and immoral behavior. He’s not Jeffrey Epstein, but Scott Weiner.
Milk was a deviant in all respects. He was closely associated with Jim Jones, the religious fanatic who led a suicide cult. He ran political cover for Jones and even helped raise money for him. That’s not a legacy to be proud of.
The Biden administration chose to valorize Milk not because he was heroic, but because they wanted to normalize deviance in the same way that hosting a transgender pride event at the White House did, or having the president sit down with Dylan Mulvaney.
If Milk had been a “first” in the way that Doris Miller was–a black man who, despite facing discrimination, displayed great heroism–I would applaud along with all the rest. But Milk? He’s no hero with feet of clay. He was a sexual predator, a political grifter with a lust for power and young men. If he weren’t gay he would be obscure and unlamented.
Milk’s name was put on that ship for political reasons, and is being removed for political reasons. In both cases, his homosexuality played a role because the motivations were more about attitudes regarding DEI, and his place in the intersectional ladder is determined by what kind of sex he enjoyed. Milk would never have been considered for this honor except for his being gay, and the Trump administration is striking his name because that is not a good reason to honor a man.
In a sane world, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. If Biden had wanted to honor a gay man who served in the Navy, he could have found one without such a morally ambiguous, even scandalous background. He chose Milk because it would be symbolic, not because Milk deserved the honor. I am certain that many gay men have served with honor, and just as certain that they were not ostentatiously gay, so would not serve Biden’s purpose.
In short, I have no sympathy for all the whiners. If they can find a gay man whose heroism warrants his name being put on ship, then I wouldn’t object. Why should I? Honoring somebody for heroism is a social good, and if the heroism, not the sexuality, is the main point I am all for it.
But Milk was chosen not because he showed good character, good judgment, or admirable traits, but because the left feels the need to celebrate meaningly “firsts.” Choosing Harvey Milk as the face of homosexuals’ contribution to society is just as wise as elevating Karine Jean-Pierre to icon status. It is an insult to America, and to gays.
