A few weeks ago Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly expressed his opinion that homosexual conduct is immoral; and he added that the immorality of such conduct is the reason that out-of-the-closet gays should not be admitted to the military.
Immediately the general was hit with an immense barrage of indignant criticism from persons who felt it was simply outrageous that an important public figure like himself should condemn sexual acts between two men or two women as morally unacceptable. If he has such archaic and bigoted beliefs, they said, he should keep them to himself. Better still, a man with such homophobic attitudes should not be America's top military officer.
Pace's critics were not simply persons active in the gay movement. This movement, while in itself an important cultural and political force, is part of a much broader and more powerful movement moral liberalism, which supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and a generally permissive moral agenda having to do with drugs, suicide, and, above all, sex.
Moral liberalism is, and has been for a few decades now, a tremendous power in American cultural and political life. Its supporters tend to be well-educated, well-heeled, and well-situated in American society. They hold a dominating position in what may be called the three great "command posts" of the nation's cultural life: I refer to the national press, the entertainment industry, and our most high-prestige colleges and universities (including law schools).
What's more, moral liberals thanks to their money and political activism control the national Democratic Party, which explains why this party, once loved by blue-collar Catholic families, has become today the party of abortion and same-sex marriage.
It came as no surprise, then, that the moral liberalism movement immediately demanded that leading Democratic politicians denounce the "bigoted" and "homophobic" views of General Pace. And this is precisely what many of those politicians did. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for instance, said in so many words that they, in clear contrast to General Pace, do not consider homosexual conduct to be immoral.
In other words, Clinton and Obama (not to mention most other important Democrats) hold views on homosexuality that are in direct conflict with the age-old teachings of the Catholic Church. Their views on abortion, it may be added, are likewise in conflict with the ancient and traditional teachings of the Church.
This being a free country, of course, Clinton, Obama, and those legions of other morally liberal Democrats are under no obligation to agree with the Catholic Church. But Catholics vote, and it is increasingly the case that church-going Catholics (as opposed to those who are Catholics in name only) are refusing to vote for the Democratic Party, which was the party of their parents and grandparents.
For many years now I have been trying to remind my fellow-Democrats of three things: (1) that a pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality party line gives grave offense to orthodox Catholics and conservative Protestants; (2) that orthodox Catholics and conservative Protestants make up a very large segment of the American voting population; from which it follows (3) that a sure-fire formula for political suicide is to offend these two groups.
But most Democrats, alas, are not listening. They are in thrall to moral liberalism. In 2006, they may have won (just barely) control of Congress. But their future is anything but bright if they continue, as they seem determined to do, to spit in the eye of old-fashioned Christians.
(Carlin, a former Democratic majority leader of the Rhode Island Senate and a professor of sociology and philosophy at CCRI, is the author of the book "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?" He can be reached at drcarlin@hotmail.com.)
(This column originally appeared in The Providence Visitor)
