Sexual exceptionalism.

In this issue, we publish an exchange between Richard Neuhaus and Bruce Bawer on conservatives and homosexuality. There are, of course, several possible conservative attitudes on this subject. But most conservatives will favor tolerance toward individual homosexuals combined with a general social preference for heterosexuality (particularly in matters affecting children), whether rooted in religious belief or in social tradition.

Mr. Bawer dislikes this accommodation because it does not grant the moral approval he seeks. Until recently, he has enjoyed the full support of America's dominant liberal culture in this. But the twists and turns of sexual politics continue to baffle. Just when it seemed that any lack of enthusiasm for homosexuality was a disease called "homophobia," along comes Frank Rich of the New York Times to invent a new category--the politically incorrect homosexual. And what makes his invention especially radical is that the politically incorrect homosexual's incorrectness stems in part from his homosexuality.

Mr. Rich, the Times theater critic until his rebirth as an op-ed columnist, makes an unlikely skinhead. But some things are more important than combatting homophobia: in Mr. Rich's case, protecting feminist icons such as Hillary Clinton and Anita Hill from the iconoclasm of David Brock in The American Spectator.

Mr. Rich does not directly state that David Brock feels a revulsion toward women because he is gay. But his insinuations come very close to that. For instance, "The slightest sighting of female sexuality whips him into a frenzy of misogynist zeal."

It is when Mr. Rich deals with Mr. Brock's view of men, however, that he really smacks his lips. Mr. Brock apparently called President Clinton "a bizarre guy," when, says Mr. Rich, the charges of womanizing would make the President seem "all too pathetically ordinary." He goes on: "Mr. Brock's idea of a non-bizarre man is one of the troopers, Larry Patterson, whom he idolizes as a macho image of abstinence." I have no idea what a macho image of abstinence would look like, but it certainly sounds impressive. So what did Mr. Brock write? Larry Patterson is "tall and trim, with the upright demeanor and closely cropped hair of a military officer." Wow. I apologize to any of our gay readers who have been inconveniently disturbed in a public place. Mr. Rich may disbelieve the hearsay evidence on which the Brock article sometimes relies; he may very reasonably find the whole topic distasteful; but he is not entitled on those grounds to distort Mr. Brock's essay in order to accuse Mr. Brock of distortion, still less distortion rooted in his sexuality.

Indeed, Mr. Rich's criticism reminds me of a reply by Ferenc Molnar to critics of his collected plays: "Apparently Hungarians who can write outnumber those who can read."

Mr. Brock has never discussed his private life in his writings. As a result of the Times column, however, he was asked about his sexuality, and replied that he was indeed gay. Having written about other people's private lives, Mr. Brock is perhaps ill-placed to complain about this intrusion. Still, it is a matter of record that he was "outed" by the New York Times.

This landmark in liberal journalism establishes three new rules. 1) Rampant heterosexuality is usually a bad thing-except when it might damage liberals, when it becomes "ordinary." 2) Homosexuality is usually a good thing--except when it might damage a conservative, when it becomes "misogynist zeal." 3) "Macho abstinence" is good under rule one, and bad under rule two, except when the exceptions apply.

Meanwhile, the episode has given us a new collective noun for columnists on the New York Times--an embarrassment of Riches.