Yet Another Bid For Intimidation

Given the state of current discourse, in which honest observations that conflict with the zeitgeist are zealously punished, I begin my column with this caveat: I harbor no hatred against homosexuals, am offended by anti-gay discrimination, in no way condone violence against them and really couldn’t care less what sexual behavior adults engage in.

I thought of this admittedly wimpy approach after following what Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had to go through last week for making some seemingly innocuous comments about homosexuality on a TV talk show.

Of course, my caveat probably won’t help me with the thought police because I subscribe to some unacceptable views: I believe homosexuality is wrong. I suspect that even if homosexual tendencies are biologically predetermined, choice is involved in “becoming” gay.

It used to be OK to say such things and to stand up for tolerance in its original sense: Putting up with - though not endorsing - behavior you find offensive or immoral.

But not anymore.

It’s not as if Lott made derogatory comments about gays or proposed laws that would relegate gays and lesbians to the margins of society. He said homosexuality is a sin - a theological position held by most religions and probably by most Americans.

Here’s what happened:

After TV host Armstrong Williams asked Lott whether he viewed homosexuality as a sin, Lott said it is, then remarked: “You should still love that person. You should not try to mistreat them or treat them as outcasts. You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol … or sex addiction … or kleptomaniacs. There are all kinds of problems, addictions, difficulties, experiences of things that are wrong, but you should try to work with that person to learn to control that problem.”

Is that so awful?

Yet these gentle words sparked a media frenzy, with the TV networks devoting far more air time to the controversy than to the president’s possible trading of advanced missile technology to China for campaign cash or to any other legitimate news story.

Most hilarious was this response from Mike McCurry, the White House flack whose shameless defense of his boss’ many misdeeds should preclude him from making unctuous pronouncements about any moral issue:

“For over 25 years, it’s been quite clear that sexual orientation is not an affliction, it is not a disease, it is something that is a part of defining one’s sexuality. And the fact that the majority leader has such views, apparently consistent with some who are fairly extreme in his party, is an indicator of how difficult it is to do rational work in Washington.”

What’s happening here is a no-holds-barred attempt at thought control. It apparently no longer is acceptable to hold differing views on the rightness of homosexuality, let alone express them even in the most obsequious and well-intentioned manner.

To the administration and other gay rights zealots, it simply is undemocratic to suggest that homosexuality is wrong, and the worst sort of extremism to oppose government attempts to mandate spousal benefits for gay partners.

The overheated media response was indicative of the totalitarian way liberal elites intimidate into silence those who disagree with them.

I’m sure most Americans got the message: Criticize homosexuality at your own peril. You may be turned into an outcast, called a religious fanatic or face a harassment lawsuit if you express your views to the wrong person.

A similar spectacle took place earlier this month when the Southern Baptists dared to suggest the family is sacrosanct. They also said wives should submit graciously to husbands. As all Baptists surely know, the submission part is followed in Scripture by Christ’s admonition for men to sacrifice themselves to their wives, as Christ sacrificed himself for the church - not nearly as unfair a situation as network news shows portrayed it to be.

What’s really intolerable, of course, is that a religious denomination actually believes in the tenets of its faith. It would be far more acceptable to modern liberals had the Baptists done what many mainline congregations and theologians do: abandon time-tested principles in favor of gay rights, feminism, abortion rights and other fixations of progressive minds.

People often ask, “How did America move so far away from its founding principles of liberty and from the values that have made that liberty possible?” The answer, in part, is through concerted intimidation campaigns against “incorrect” views by those on the liberal cutting edge.

Honest discussions of political and moral issues should not be confined to the limited parameters established by modern-day Torquemadas. Right or wrong, Lott’s words are hardly a hanging offense.