In the context of conflicts over Islam and multiculturalism, the acceptance and equal treatment of homosexuality have come to have an unprecedented centrality to Dutch politics. This article explains homosexuality's prominence in these debates as the effect of its ability to serve as a centrepiece of a critique of Dutch ‘consociational democracy’. It demonstrates how in the course of the 1990s a Dutch political culture of consensus, compromise and mutual accommodation became a frame for conflicts over multicultural society. Critics of multiculturalism blamed consociational democracy for both hampering the integration of immigrants into Dutch society and for preventing a debate about this putative failure to integrate. They argued for the introduction into a political culture, presumed to revolve around accommodation, of non-negotiable moral principles that were to unite the nation in its confrontation with cultures thought to be hostile to it. Secondly, the article examines how homosexuality increasingly became pivotal to such arguments through an analysis of a series of episodes in a continuous, similarly structured media narrative on homosexuality, Islam and consociational democracy. The article argues that homosexuality's central place in these narratives needs to be understood as resulting from its ability to represent the non-negotiable moral principles consociational democracy was thought to lack. Conceptualized as a given, unchanging truth about identity that open homosexuals unflinchingly presented to the world, homosexuality functioned as a metonym for the moral steadfastness and transparency that, in the eyes of its critics, a consociational political culture failed to produce.