Disney lives off merchandising (Pretty much like a lot of rock bands). The only reason that they have done some of those movies was so that they can have more stuff to sell in the theme parks, the Disney Stores, and of course catalogs and the internet. They were movies that had toy marketing campaigns long before they had a plot. It's pretty obvious (and I'm just talking about the animated features) that they really quite trying in the 60's, Jungle Book in '67 is the last one with any real roll to it at all. And, at that, I'm being charitable - really Disney as Art ends in '59 with Sleeping Beauty. Before that is an awesome catalog including Fantasia, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan, Bambi, Dumbo, Pinoccio, and even Walt's extremely whitened up Alice in Wonderland. After that, not so much. Until Pixar reinvented and re-imagined animation for Disney.
Anyway I doubt they are making bank writing that stuff in hoping the the anti-gay people will support them because they are making jokes, or that gay people will get on board because they are being included or anything like that. I think it's there, like it's always been there in the Arts, on the margins, alluded to, hinted at because the Arts were one of the few places where its been more or less OK to be gay (and any number of other sexual deviations), and always has. One of problems that mainstream conservatives have with Art. It's how come Artists get lumped in with liberal bleeding hearts. So there have been lots of oblique references in Art over they years as a way of declaring to those that care, and as a way to reach out and acknowledge that the 'love that you can't name' was alive and doing well. We're recruiting you know. Everyone knew it. Art is for ->-bleeped-<-s - something I heard a lot growing up - has long been true.
I think it's just a lot more obvious in the more recent stuff because (choose as many as you want): a) they don't have writers and artists like they used to, and subtly is a high art form, so what you're left with is clumsy and obvious attempts b) audiences are not as smart, quick or understanding and things have to be put in very simple terms so you can't miss it c)The Gay Agenda at work (and doing lunch too) d) affirmative action.
And I think that Disneyland/World etc, went gay pride very early. Early for a huge major corporation - light years ahead of where you would have expected them too, what being a 'family' centered business and clientele. And, it's cost them. Maybe not much as they were able to deal with the Christian boycott by upping South America visitors (DisneyWorld is the number one destination for South American tourists), but they get a pretty steady hate rolling in from some quarters in the Christian right. And they knew that would happen, but they did it anyway. And they did it anyway because for the most part, Disney (like the rest of the industry) is pretty damn gay. No other industry has the number of out gay men in critical positions with huge money as does the star making machinery behind pop culture. And more than being a 'family' focused company, they were an international entertainment conglomerate and they followed that first. It's pretty easy to understand that Disneyland HAD to have an open, accepting and tolerant policy towards gay people because large number of the 'cast' members, artists, and - most of all - several top executives at Disney were/are gay. Whatever else you can say about the entertainment industry it's pretty obvious that they are all about themselves. It wouldn't do to have all those gay people who built the Disney empire (one frame at a time in the beginning) excluded from their own creation.
And jokes in general are pretty much part of human existence, and humor is particularly important in English speaking cultures for some reason. You know the old saw by Oscar Wilde (gay playwright), the only thing worse than having people talk about you is having people not talk about you. Unless you could demonstrate that there is some sort of out of wack obvious attack going on - like if every third joke was a gay joke - then it's just part of the general humor (and sexual humor, gay or otherwise, is a sure fire laugh getter). And it's not like there isn't a hella lot of stuff in the gay culture/lifestyle/history that isn't funny.
Oh yeah, Sleeping Beauty was the last one that had an evil villain that was crazy, sexy cool. Maleficent is almost a perfect personfication of pure evil as damn sexy. It was the last time Disney allowed evil looked positively delicious (because in real life it is, that's what makes it so hard to resist.) Queen Grimhilde was hot too, a bit on the white side, too much LA - but it was a good start. However, after the 1950s that the powers that be thought that evil would best be represented as comical, then ugly, then fat. Nothing comical about Maleficent or Grimhilde - you know that not only will they cut your heart out, they'll enjoy it. And thin? They are pretty much the original you can never be too rich to too thin girls. Cruella was thin, but she was a hag,and a clown, it began a downward spiral that led to things like Ursula. Shutter.
