Concerned Women for America - Knight to Horowitz: Throwing Away Moral Card Is Not Good Advice

Search for on

Friday, July 30, 2010

Home

Click here

Knight to Horowitz: Throwing Away Moral Card Is Not Good Advice 6/4/2003
By Robert Knight

Can’t muzzle ‘animating principle’: belief that homosexual behavior is wrong

Since David Horowitz appears to be wrapping up his three-column argument (see links below), which is that Christian conservatives should shed political moral arguments against homosexuality while still opposing homosexual activism, I’ll give this a final go, too.

In “If You Would Rather Be Right Than President … Find Something Else to Do” (FrontPageMagazine.com, June 3, 2003), Mr. Horowitz once again takes Christian conservatives to task for “not distinguishing the homosexual left from homosexuals as a group.”

But he began his original critique by sharply rapping Christian conservatives for objecting to Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot’s meeting with 300 “gay” activists with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the epitomy of the “homosexual left.” This is why we felt it was unwise for the GOP chairman to meet with them and talk about “inclusion.” As a smart political analyst, Mr. Horowitz surely understands the symbolism and how such meetings raise the stature of a group. During our own meeting with Mr. Racicot, which was about politics, not theology, I did think it would be interesting to see if he could bring himself to say anything was wrong with two men having sex. He agreed that it was “abnormal.” Given the GOP’s curious moral drift on this issue, I thought people might want to know.

Mr. Horowitz also contends that:

“The American public will reject any political party that attempts to legislate moral behavior that does not harm others. Homosexual relations between consenting adults harm no one. (On the other hand, promiscuous gay sex during an epidemic, opposition to testing, contact-tracing and other proven public health methods – all of which are part of the gay left’s agenda – do.) Consequently, the American voting public will reject any political effort that seeks to declare homosexuality, as such, immoral or illegal.”

Let’s examine these points.

First, in state after state, defense of marriage laws have passed overwhelmingly. And what is the federal Defense of Marriage Act if it is not an attempt to “legislate moral behavior"? There is no evidence that politicians, especially Republicans, do themselves any good by embracing or remaining indifferent to homosexual activism. If that were the case, we’ll be seeing Howard Dean (“America’s most pro-gay governor!”) being sworn in as president in January 2005. I don’t think that will happen.

Second, the United States is spending more than $10 billion annually on AIDS within our borders, most of it generated by homosexual acts. Taxpayers foot the bill. Even without a “gay left” political agenda, which Mr. Horowitz admirably decries, homosexual sex is dangerously unhealthy, and it affects people outside the bedroom in many ways. It undermines family life, generates disease, corrupts the young and spreads the deadly lie that there is no right and wrong regarding sexuality. James Q. Wilson’s “broken window” theory of crime is that when one window is broken in a building, all of them are soon shattered. People who flaunt immoral sexual behavior are a living broken window that invites others to break the glass, too. This goes, of course, for brazen adulterers and pornographers. Ever more radical sexual agendas are arriving almost daily.

All laws are based on morality. Government had better have a sound reason to threaten lawbreakers with jail if they do not comply. Public health and morals amply justify the sodomy laws, for example, as they do laws against prostitution, incest and bigamy. And 200 years of experience shows that sodomy laws are not enforced by “bedroom police,” which no one wants. At the very least, they help maintain at least an ounce of discretion. Or at least, they used to. We are now being treated to the spectacle of some homosexual activists demanding special rights for “public sex” (see Ogunquit, Maine).

Politicians of all stripes argue from a moral stance. The liberals who promote the “gay” agenda do so with the rhetoric of “equality,” “tolerance,” “fairness,” and so on. Mr. Horowitz makes moral arguments on behalf of his causes. But on the homosexual issue, he is arguing basically for unilateral disarmament – the Left gets to make heartfelt moral statements, while conservatives argue… what? That they oppose the Left? That their sole concern is with children, and personal and religious freedom as threatened by the Left? Ah, but they are not permitted to say anything is wrong with homosexuality per se.

Then why protect children from exposure to pro-“gay” programs in schools? Why insist that the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude homosexuals? Is it solely because of freedom of association? Or do the Scouts have good reasons for doing so beyond protecting their belief system from encroachment? And why not let two men claim that they are a married couple under the law if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality?

No political movement ever won by muzzling its animating principle. Opposition to homosexual activism stems from the moral belief that homosexual behavior is wrong. People who do not share this belief also oppose some aspects of “gay” activism on the grounds that “gay” activism threatens freedom. But no one who does not, in his gut, know that two men having sex is wrong has the stamina nor inclination to consistently oppose the homosexual movement in its many manifestations. Hence the GOP remained silent as Sen. Santorum was being savaged for defending current law and morality.

Mr. Horowitz seems to think that the culture can be segregated from the political world, as if politics evolves in a vacuum. He suggests that Christians may still call homosexuality wrong within their churches, but cannot say it is wrong in the political marketplace of ideas. That’s a mighty limited idea of freedom.

Finally, Mr. Horowitz finishes his piece by summarizing the errors he sees in two campaigns: the black “reparations” movement, and the effort to recall California Gov. Gray Davis. Tactically speaking, I agree with much of his analysis. But these situations are not analogous to Christian conservatives’ battle against homosexual activism. The homosexual issue is not a loser but a sleeping giant that the GOP could wield against an increasingly out-of-touch and bizarre Democratic Party.

Campaigns typically are won or lost on clear moral stands. The more that the GOP tries to fudge the homosexual issue, the less it will motivate its base or attract blue-collar Democrats to the GOP column. Most of those Democrats who are tempted sometimes to vote Republican are not keen on hair-splitting, libertarian distinctions regarding the homosexual assault on the Boy Scouts, for instance.

I appreciate Mr. Horowitz’s sincere, well-meant attempt to keep us from hurting ourselves and the GOP, but we’re not going to throw away the moral card and leave it to the Left to define right and wrong in the political realm.

Here are links to the other articles by David Horowitz, and my replies:

Horowitz: “Pride Before a Fall” (May 20)

Knight: ”Mr. Horowitz Owes Christians an Apology” (May 21)

Horowitz: “Render Unto Ceasar” (May 27)

Knight: ”Intolerance and Religion in the Public Square” (May 28)

Horowitz: ” If You Would Rather Be Right Than President . . . Find Something Else to Do” (June 3)

Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.