Gay rights or closet virtues?

AS MY DEBUT in these pages bore the title "Homophobiaphobia," it is not surprising that I read with particular interest Marvin Liebman's letter in the issue of July 9, and William Buckley's reply ["Notes & Asides"]. I was interested, too, because, like Mr. Liebman, I believe the conservative movement has been and continues to be limited by bigotry. However, the bigotry of which Mr. Liebman complains is that of some conservatives, whereas I hold that such bigotry is fading fast and has nothing to do with contemporary conservatism. The bigotry that bothers me is that of the Left. The Left tells black Americans that it isn't "black" to be conservative. It brings similar news to women. And it misdescribes conservative opposition to the "gay rights" movement as "gay-bashing." Conservatism, by contrast, represents no special interest. It stands, rather, for principles that apply to all and benefit all: an orderly society and limited government.

That said, it must nevertheless be admitted that conservatives have a special problem with homosexuality. As there is no conservative disapproval of dark skin, womanhood, old age, or Jewishness, there can be no problem welcoming people with those attributes to the conservative cause. But most conservatives (their libertarian allies not included) hold one or another of the following positions: that homosexual acts are contrary to God's will; that those acts are unnatural; or, at least, that unqualified and public approval of them threatens social stability. The frank interchange between Mr. Liebman and Mr. Buckley testifies to the capacity of homosexuals to adopt conservatism and of conservatives to respect homosexuals. However, that discussion did not answer these questions: If one disapproves of homosexual acts, on what basis can one respect and welcome homosexuals? Conversely, if one is homosexual, on what basis can one join forces with those who disapprove of homosexual acts?

Mr. Liebman goes so far as to argue that conservatism, "based as it is on the inherent rights of the individual over the state, is the logical political home of gay men and women." But that argument will convince none but libertarians. Others who oppose big government recognize that freedom also depends on moral character-on habits of self-control and customs of civility being diffused throughout the population. One conservative can disagree with another about which practices are immoral and which threaten social stability. In that sense there is room in the conservative movement for people with different views about homosexuality. But that is far from saying that conservatism is homosexuals' logical political home.

Why, however, should a homosexual choose his political home on the basis of that movement's attitude toward homosexuality? To suppose that he must is to slip into an error that is characteristic of the Left, a corollary of the Left's utopianism.

Utopianism rationalizes the Left's romance with power. Since man is perfectible, imperfection is intolerable. Therefore, the full power of the state should be used to root out each and every imperfection. A leftist must urge the "re-education of deviants" (as is done in Cuba), or else he must approve of homosexuality. The utopian must similarly regard his own flaws as remediable and therefore intolerable. Thus the utopian homosexual must either refrain from homosexual practices and expunge his urges or decide that homosexual activity is perfectly all right. There is no third alternative.

Conservatism, by contrast, is antiutopian. It is built on the premise of man's fallen nature, or at least on the assumption of his imperfectibility. Thus, we recognize the limits of power: use of the state to attempt to force perfection can only result in worse abuses, as well as in the loss of our freedom. Correction of some faults must be left to private appeal and individual effort, no matter that such measures fail more often than not. Consistently with this political principle, we admit that each of us is imperfect, especially in matters of sexual morality. For that is the most problematic corner of that most problematic thing, human life. And anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior must also disapprove, for the same reasons, of a wide range of heterosexual practices; certainly the Catholic Church does. Are practicing homosexuals worse than sinning heterosexuals? It varies by case: Casanova is not morally superior to Gertrude Stein. intolerance of anything of which they do not approve. But tolerance is an American principle. To retain it, the American Left has had to redefine tolerance as approval. Consequently, the principle of tolerance has been made to give bastard birth to the doctrine of moral relativism. Genuine tolerance, which is tolerance of those with whom one disagrees or of whose behavior one does not wholly approve, thus becomes uniquely a conservative virtue. A practicing homosexual can remain on the Left only as long as the Left decides that homosexuality is just as good as heterosexuality, but he can join the Right even if conservatism condemns homosexual acts; and those on the Right who hold that same view can accept him for what he is, even though they do not approve of all that he does. The Left's war on privacy, like its utopianism, skews homosexuals' choices. The Left seeks to politicize everything, including sex. It makes the private public, whereas the Right wants to preserve privacy. Private life is a place where faults which it is best to tolerate, but inimical to society to approve, may be abided. Radicals call that hypocrisy; conservatives call it discretion. Conservatives urge discretion in private life, and especially in all sexual relations, licit as well as illicit. We recognize that something important is thus preserved and something dangerous held at bay.

Now, the idea that one must be either in the closet or out of it is an invention of those who would politicize sex and abolish privacy. They wrongly make whatever is not publicly proclaimed seem secret, furtive. This dichotomy of being either in the closet or out of it should not exist. It does not exist for conservative homosexuals who understand what conservatism entails. They neither hide nor proclaim what they are. Their friends know, usually without having to be told; and others, who do not know, have no business knowing, any more than they have any business knowing about heterosexuals' private lives. We all have some secrets to keep.

I I conservatives, including homosexual conservatives, must be opposed to

"gay rights." Some demands made by "gay-rights" advocates deserve conservative support: the rights homosexuals share with everyone else should be protected. But in essence the "gay-rights" movement is an attack on privacy and on the very idea of sexual morality. It seeks public approval for every variant of sexual activity, at least among consenting adults, and it makes public display of one's sexuality the norm. It studiously avoids any thought that social cohesion and stability might be adversely affected by total sexual freedom; hence, it denies the virtue of discretion. This unsophisticated, not to say primitive and vulgar, attitude toward the most delicate and important of human relationships is utterly opposed to conservatism. n