Originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal November 29, 1994.
IF YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY, you can hear the sound of a taboo cracking. In September, William Bennett told the Christian Coalition: "In terms of damage to the children of America, you cannot compare what the homosexual movement has done to what divorce has done. It is not even close." Last month, when Rep. Steve Gunderson (R., Wis.) publicly came out of the closet, Rep. Newt Gingrich pronounced the matter of no political importance. Then this month, The Washington Blade quoted Mr. Gingrich as saying that the GOP's stance on homosexuality "should be toleration."
Maybe Republicans are ready, at last, to decouple the debate about family from the obsession with homosexuality. They now have the chance to build pro-family policies that embrace all responsible Americans, homosexual and heterosexual alike. In pleading for those policies I address myself to Republicans not because I am one (I'm not) but because Republicans are uniquely positioned to build a stable, principled and humane position between the politics of intolerance and the politics of radicalism. And if they let the moment slip by, the cost to society may be steep - as we have seen once before.
During the debate on race in the 1960s, Republicans stood on the sidelines and on occasion pandered to racist whites. "We Republicans had a great history, and we turned it aside," Jack Kemp wrote in 1993.
Republicans could have constructed stable, principled ground between the politics of white backlash and of affirmative action. They could have severed the cause of color-blindness from the taint of white bigotry. Instead, racial policies tumbled into the morass of color tests, race-norming and ethnic entitlements - policies that exacerbate and institutionalize racial tensions. All Americans, black and white, suffer as a result.
Now another historic window opens. This time the issue is homosexuality and the family. At a stroke, the pro-family movement could enlarge its tent, disarm the charge that "family values" means intolerance and, most important, bolster the family itself.
To recognize this opportunity, pro-family advocates must first acknowledge reality. To wit: Homosexuals exist and are not going away. Any policy insisting that homosexuals lead lives of loveless celibacy or furtive secrecy is futile and inhumane, to say nothing of unrealistic. Because fewer and fewer homosexuals are willing to hide, the old deal - homosexuals pretending to be heterosexual and heterosexuals pretending to believe them - is off.
"That may be," say anti-gay activists, "but homosexuality is a threat to the family." But this is a canard. Divorce, illegitimacy and infidelity are the enemies of the family. Homosexuality is a peculiar and rare human trait that affects only a small percentage of the population and is of little inherent interest to the rest. To see it as a threat to the family, you need to believe that millions of heterosexual Americans will turn gay if not actively restrained - an absurd notion. And it is perfectly possible to venerate the traditional family without despising those who are, for whatever reason, unable to have one.
Yet two claims made by anti-gay activists are true. Many activists on the gay (and nongay) left are hostile to traditional institutions in general and the family in particular. And the American family is in trouble. Half of all new marriages end in divorce; 30% of children are born out of wedlock and a fourth live in fatherless homes. Sexual license has had dire consequences - illegitimacy, child abandonment, child poverty and more.
Those facts underpin all of the country's most serious problems. But they have nothing to do with homosexuality. Whatever one may think of gay people's sexual practices, they do not produce illegitimate children or account for more than a tiny fraction of divorces. Conversely, condemning homosexuality does no good for the beleaguered family. Indeed, anti-gay rhetoric is today an obstacle to dealing squarely with the crisis of the family, on both sides of the debate.
On the one side, blaming homosexuals for the decline of the family leads the family's friends to avoid the real issues. It fools them into believing they are talking about saving the family when in fact they are merely talking about hammering homosexuals. David Boaz of the Cato Institute recently counted reports and articles by "pro-family" groups and discovered that they devoted obsessive attention to homosexuality while virtually ignoring divorce. This is pro-family?
In the other side, blaming homosexuals for the decline of the family also allows the enemies of the family to avoid the real issues. Instead of confronting the real problems, they can point to the ugly rhetoric of anti-gay activists and say: "See what `family values' really means? It means beating up on people who are different and snooping in our bedrooms." (In just that same way, advocates of ethnic entitlements have been able to point to racists and say, "See what `colorblind' really means?")
In recent years an alternative has emerged, a principled, pro-family but not anti-gay position:
"No," family advocates might say, "we are not anti-gay. We are pro-responsibility. We welcome open homosexuals who play by the rules of monogamy, fidelity and responsibility. And we frown upon heterosexuals and homosexuals who do not play by those rules.
"We believe that marriage and fidelity are crucial social institutions that channel lust into love and caprice into commitment. We believe faithful relationships are not only good for children but help keep men settled and help keep the burdens of caring for one another off society's shoulders. And we support extending these norms to all Americans, gay and straight.
"We do not insist that homosexuals `change,' which is impossible, or that they live lives of lovelessness and despair; we do ask that they - and heterosexual Americans - settle down into patterns of responsibility. We believe in the genuine universality of family values. We embrace all who embrace those values, without regard to sexual orientation."
Here is a fully consistent and staunchly pro-family position, one whose benefits are manifold. It elevates family values to genuine universality. It separates the real issue (responsibility vs. license) from the phony one (straight vs. gay). It hurts radical activists by putting them in the position of arguing for license rather than for toleration of minorities.
This paradigm opposes partner benefits for unmarried heterosexuals, who should get married if they want the benefits of marriage. But it may accept partner benefits for homosexuals, who can't get married but should be encouraged to settle down. It holds that the two-parent family is special and should be favored by public policy - not at the expense of homosexuals per se, but at the expense of single people (including homosexuals) and childless couples (again including homosexuals).
This view doesn't require family advocates to like homosexuality, but it does require them to accept the importance of settled relationships for homosexuals. No easy sell, perhaps, but consider the alternative. More non-fringe, non-radical homosexuals emerge into public view every day. As the stereotype of the homosexual as antisocial deviant crumbles, a party or faction that tolerates gay-baiting rhetoric in the name of "family values" makes "family values" look more and more like common bigotry.
That would be tragic, since there is no problem more urgent than shoring up the family. But as long as family advocates imply that it is better to be an adulterous or licentious heterosexual than a faithful and monogamous homosexual, the chance to rescue the pro-family position from the taint of intolerance goes unclaimed.