POLITICS
|
Dr.
Alan Keyes, Massachusetts State House
'Anguish Over Fistgate' July 25, 2000 I would be tempted, given the wonderful enthusiasm and great spirit that you all are showing, to profess great happiness to be here and to see all of you here. But I have to be honest with you. I'd be lying if I said that.
I must start out, really, on account of the predilections of our media. They love to lie and distort things - have you noticed that? I am not a big friend of these folks because they do it so often. And so, in an effort, however unproductive it may prove, to anticipate the lies that they will surely try to tell, I want to make one thing, from the outset, very clear. I am not standing in this place today because I hate anyone or anything. Hatred has nothing to do with it. I am standing here today because of what may be, in many respects, the most fundamental kind of love that a society depends upon, and that is the love of parents for their children. That love is what brings me to this place. A love informed and motivated, yes, by the very real and very deep faith that is a fundament of my life as an individual. My faith has its outward expressions and its prayers and its rituals, but most importantly of all, demands that we walk the walk, not just talk the talk, that is required by that faith. And I would point out that I am - and I'm not pointing this out for any particular reason except its relevance to what I'm about to say - I'm a Roman Catholic. As part of the baptism of each of my children, I stood in the presence of my parish and congregation and in the presence of God Almighty, and I vowed to God that I would raise my children according to the precepts of Jesus Christ and the faith that I have in Him. There may be some parents in this state and around the country, who will facilely take such a vow, because it's part of some ritual or other, and mean nothing by it. But I think that it actually represents a truth that is absolutely relevant to what brings us here today. It is the true meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution which enjoins the state from interfering with the free exercise of religion. I want to emphasize that. I want to emphasize it particularly for the benefit of folks who may be here from the media, because when you write your stories, you ought to focus on it. You guys often get it wrong. First Amendment Is Freedom of 'Action'
The First Amendment has to do not with what we believe, but with our right to translate that belief into action in the way that we live. Now I have to tell you, that's not an accident in a country where, when the First Amendment was written, many, many people were active and professing Christian folks, just as they are today. And why do I point that out? I point it out because, like some other religions, different from some, Christianity is not a religion of ritual, it is not a religion of rote, it is an ethical religion that requires that that faith abundant in the heart be expressed in the overflowing of our actions in the world. It is true, in fact, that we cannot be Christians if we do not act according to our faith. And so, all that being the case, it is especially important that we focus on the true meaning of that First Amendment, which gives us a guarantee that the state will not interfere with our ability to translate the deep precepts of our religious faith into those actions that correspond to our duty, understood by that faith, before God Almighty. And the vow that I took with respect to my children's upbringing, that is one of the clearest and most explicit elements of our obligation as parents, according to our faith. And I think it's also one of the clearest expressions of love. That's a word that's thrown around a lot in our society. Some people believe that the best thing you can do for people is to act in such a way that you 'love them to death.' You love them to death by turning your back as they walk down roads that will lead to their destruction. You love them to death by pretending that every choice is equal to every other, no matter how bad, no matter how mean-spirited, no matter how evil it may be. You love them to death by trying to be the friend, not of their virtues, but of their vices; not of their nobler aspirations, but of their self-degradation. That has been especially on my mind in recent weeks and months and some
of you may or may not see the relevance of this, but I think it's pretty
clear. I have had on my mind, the situation of the great mass of people
on the continent of Africa - a people today who are faced with the untold
ravages of a plague more insidious, perhaps, than any that has ravaged
a human population in the history of the world. A people that, because
of the ravages of that plague, are now faced with the possibility that
whole groups and whole nations will find themselves effectively extinguished
in generations to come, because of its horrible effects. I speak, of course,
of the ravages of
And I know it's popular in some quarters to pretend that that has something to do with the fact that money is not being spent, or this or that's not being done. This is a lie. It's another example of those lies people tell because they don't want to look at the facts. And the fact is that, underlying that awesome plague which threatens to affect the destiny of an entire element of the human race, there is this, and this alone: the failure to address the moral causes of the plague. I ask you, as you watch young children perish, as you watch more and more people infected with such a plague, is it love to turn your back on the moral truth? Is it compassion to act as if every form of behavior, no matter how much death it produces, is equal to every other? To say that this is "love," to say that this is "compassion," is an awesome, it is a wicked, it is an evil and life-destroying lie. How Much 'Love' Are We Showing?
Not only, though, are we faced with the danger that this lie and its seeds will be planted in the hearts and souls of our young. We also know the plague of death that may result when a society delivers itself wholesale to that lie. We are directly faced with the consequence of state sponsorship and government action that uses our own resources and those institutions supposed to represent our interests, to trample on our rights and destroy our most loving interest of all: the interest we have in the right moral education of our young. Now this is, of course, a point on which it is possible for some folks to pretend to dispute us, right? Because after all is said and done, how can my free exercise of religion allow me the right to discriminate against folks just because of their sexual inclinations and behavior? Well, let's look at the record. It is not only true of the Christian faith, it has been true, throughout the history of the world, of almost all religions that had any ethical basis whatsoever, that one of the primary concerns of religious, ethical morality, is what happens to our activities with respect to sexual relations. It's never been denied by anybody. It has never been denied that one of the areas of conscience which is legitimately guided by the precepts of religion and religious faith is that area of conscience which governs our obligations, mutually, to respect the sacred purposes of our sexual lives. So today they're coming forward and what they're basically arguing, my friends, is that under the rubric of civil rights we shall withdraw sexual activity from the purview of moral judgment. Or, we shall require, with the force of law and under the penalty of law, that all those who do not agree with the promiscuous philosophy that is espoused by some, shall be stigmatized as bigots, shall eventually fall under the weight of the law because of what their religious conscience requires. Now I would ask you, and I would ask everyone else who tries to make this argument. By what logic and reasoning is it suddenly the case that an area that throughout human history has been regarded as an essential element of moral and religious ethical life, shall be withdrawn now, because of the incompetent and corruptible fiat of judges and legislatures? I'll tell you quite honestly, we all know that differences of religious faith and belief are going to lead to different moral viewpoints and practices. I do not stand here now to advocate that anyone has the right, by public or private force or suasion or intimidation of any kind whatsoever, to impose their moral and religious views on someone else. But I'll tell you something else. I believe, and I state this with clarity and with forethought, as we must think it through and understand its implications, I believe that it is our solemn obligation, as people of faith, as decent human beings, as patriots and citizens of the United States, solemnly to pledge that we will risk our all, as our founders did, to defend ourselves against the effort to impose a morality on us through the use of force. And that's what's being done today. And they try to pretend, "Oh, these religious bigots are imposing their moral views." No! Actually, right now the bigotry is on the other end. Right now the courts abuse their power in order to destroy the First Amendment rights and freedoms of those who do nothing except to act according to that right that guarantees that we can carry our faith into action and raise our children according to our religious beliefs. I've also always been intrigued by the arguments that are made with respect to this exemption that folks wish to offer to people because of their homosexual inclinations, exemption from moral judgment. Part of me, and I have to confess... There's a gentleman standing here in the front row, and I'm tempted to... Can I see your sign? Would you mind? Bring up your sign. See, I'm not advertising this cause, but I want you to see a consequence. It says: "Cellucci is a hypocrite. Why does domestic partnership apply only to homosexuals and not extended families?" Now, why would I raise that question? I would raise that question and want you to focus on it because I think that, though I may not agree with this gentleman in terms of his concern in this particular point, I think that given the road we're going down, it's a legitimate question to ask. Why Not Protect Adulterers?
See, that's a fundamental issue of fairness isn't it? Because once you start to go down the road of wrong principle, the least you could do is apply that wrong principle consistently and with fairness to all. But they don't. The folks in the legislature, in the Governor's office, in the Congress and elsewhere who try to go down this road, don't want us to see the true implications of what they are doing. And the true implication of what they're doing is not simply to withdraw moral sanction and judgment from homosexual behavior, but from all sexual behavior, however it violates the precept of sexual responsibility and decency. I want to ask you something. Do you think that's an acceptable consequence? Because, let's think it through. If we're going to accept the notion, which some want us to accept, that homosexuality is like race - I've actually had people raise this with me very seriously. "How can you, a black person, not understand what we are saying here when your folks were discriminated against?".What is that based on? It's based in the idea that homosexuality is like race; that sexual behavior and inclination are like race. They're kind of an endemic sort of thing, beyond the control of the individual, right? No, wait, I'd like to be reasonable. I would like to think things through. I'm not one of these folks who believes you just dismiss things out of hand. Let's think about that. Homosexuality is like race and we've got to treat it like race for purposes of civil rights and, of course, I will acknowledge to you that I can think of nothing more morally absurd than to hold folks morally responsible for conditions over which they have no control. I'm going to pretend that it's some kind of moral fault in you because your hair is blonde or your eyes are blue or some other characteristic that's beyond your moral will and control? It has been a precept of all moral life, throughout rational human history, that you hold people morally responsible only for those things about which they could have some moral choice, and if they don't have a choice then they're not morally responsible. Okay. But what does it mean, then, to say that homosexuality is like race? Well, when I got up this morning, as all of you can see, I was a black guy. When I go to bed this evening, I will still be a black guy. And there might be some folks, I don't know what their motivation, misunderstanding I'm sure, who might be disposed to try to talk me out of it in the course of the day. But even though folks like myself were at one time in American history called "people of the colored persuasion," I've got to tell you that persuasion has nothing to do with it. And that being the case, it's absurd to suggest that I'm somehow responsible for the behavior of my skin cells. Therefore, if homosexuality is like race, then homosexuality - all sexuality - is beyond the control of the individual. And this leads me to wonder, to what extent is it beyond the control of the individual? Well, it's beyond the control of the individual because the general inclination is beyond the control of the individual. "People are going to be inclined to satisfy their sexual desires in a certain way and they can't help themselves." Well, can I accept this idea and still be a human being? I'm not sure. Why do I put it that way? Because you may have noticed that given the way we are constructed, as I think St. Paul put it, there is a "law" in our members. And that was a very interesting phrase in those days when he wrote, because law, to someone writing in St. Paul's time, actually meant a precept that was backed with irresistible force. Law had no meaning, as Aquinas and others point out, if it wasn't backed with sovereign power and force. So when you said something was a law you meant that you couldn't resist it, that it had the power to be enforced upon those who were subject to it. If no such power was behind it, then it wasn't a law at all, it was a suggestion, a guideline, a precept, a principle, it wasn't a law. But when Paul said there's a "law" in our members, what he meant is that there's an irresistible force at work in our nature. And in some ways, you and I know this is true don't we? There are certain kinds of human inclinations that just seem to come upon us. Fear is one of these. People act as if courage means to be fearless. In most of us it simply means to control that which is otherwise irresistible, to be afraid in certain situations. The same is true, quite often, of our sexual inclinations. We are subject to this as part of our nature, and not necessarily with a great deal of discrimination either. I can only speak for the male half of the species on this. But I do know that from early days, as these things start to come upon you, the sight of beautiful ladies can have an effect that's kind of irresistible on mind and thought and attention. Vive la difference, you know. But ordinarily, speaking as human beings, what do we say about that? Do we say, then, that in the face of that seemingly irresistible impulse, we've all just gotta do it? I mean I know the folks in Hollywood make movies like "She's Gotta Do It" and "She's Gotta Have It," and so forth and so on. But that's because folks in Hollywood long ago concluded that we are no longer human beings but animals, subject to instincts that we cannot control. I don't believe it, I'm sorry. I don't believe this. I believe that there is another element of our nature - an element that responds to moral truth, to rationality, to suasion, and that by the grace of God we have within us the ability to respond to the principles of that element of our nature in such a way as to guide and to structure what might otherwise be the irresistible impulses of bodily passion. Now you and I both know that what I just said is true. As a matter of fact, if it weren't true, most civilization would have been impossible. Nice buildings like this all neatly put together, business enterprises that run, even legislators that can argue over issues without tearing each other apart would not exist. Sex Is Not Only Passion
Have you ever noticed when you're dealing with your children how they can sometimes try to box you into a corner by getting you into a situation where they're basically arguing that they couldn't help themselves? Now I've got to tell you, quite often it may be true of children; that's part of being a child, that you have all these feelings and you can't help yourself. But do you think it's our job to treat them like they're little animals who will never outgrow this stage? Or is it our job to introduce them, by those means that we can, to that aspect of their character, personality, will and capacity which in the end will allow them to function as human beings who can, in the face of their passions, apply their reasonable virtues; who in the face of passion can instead respond with compassion; who in the face of greed can instead respond with justice, who in the face of anger can instead respond with humanity and decency and mercy? If this is, in fact, an essential aspect and element of moral education, what do you think is going to happen to the possibility of that education if, at a very early age, we introduce our children to the notion that one of the most common and ordinary passions of human life, one of those passions that in some ways is part of the warp and woof of the whole fabric of human social existence, is a passion beyond their control, for which they cannot and should not be held responsible? This is what I find so objectionable about what is being done in the name of education in this state. For in order to promote the effort by one group to destroy the religious freedom of every other group, the state is sanctioning an approach to education that not only undermines sexual responsibility, it undermines that assumption of human moral capacity that is necessary for any moral education at all. And I hope you realize, because some people accuse me of being a passionate speaker, and I guess that there are times when I don't mind that. But it always irks me a little bit when people act as if passion somehow carries what I say when it doesn't. I didn't just emote just now, I gave you an argument. That argument was based on experience, that argument was based on concepts of human nature essential and indispensable to moral education and a concept of moral responsibility. Question Faced by Governor
I don't know what conclusion others come to in this. But when folks approach me, as sometimes folks have, and they say, "Well, you're lacking in Christian compassion because you don't want to tolerate this kind of behavior," how compassionate is it to approach a society and say that for the sake of my indulgence in sexual passion, society must abandon the very foundations of moral life which separate that moral life from anarchy and self-destruction? I will say here what I have said throughout my career. I frankly don't think that I, or anybody else in this society, has the right or the prerogative to be meddling about in the personal affairs of human beings, of what they want to do with their private selves according to their precepts. But to pretend that that is the issue here is one of the most egregious, lying pieces of propaganda I've ever seen. We are not gathered here to claim the right to interfere in the private lives and affairs of anybody in this Commonwealth or this nation. We are gathered here to claim and defend the right, which comes to us from God, to live according to our religious faith, and to raise our children according to those religious beliefs. Let's think about something else because, you know, the other side of what you do is the consequences of not doing what you are supposed to do. I began with an allusion to the terrible plague that is ravaging the continent of Africa, because I think we ought to focus sometimes on a fact that the world has been facing for the longest time. I remember when I was Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations that I got a briefing - this was way back in the early 1980's - from the World Health Organization. They described the nature of AIDS and the virus and predicted the terrible things that would happen. At that time, this wasn't necessarily well known by everybody, but they knew what the problem would be and they also knew something else that was interesting. They knew that in certain parts of the world it would be contained, and in other parts of the world it had the potential to be so destructive that whole populations would be threatened. And you know what the difference was? It was a difference in sexual mores between one part of the world and another. In some parts of the world, rampant promiscuity was the philosophy and ideology confined to only certain kinds of sexual groups. But in places like Africa it was a philosophy spread throughout the entire population, heterosexual as well as homosexual, and they predicted then, that that difference of moral philosophy would, in fact, lead to an awesome difference in the death toll that would be faced because of this terrible scourge. When are we going to step back, my friends, and realize that they weren't just talking through their hats? They knew what they were talking about, and as they predicted, so it has occurred. We have before us the most clear example we can of what will happen if we allow the general breakdown of sexual morality and sexual responsibility that is encouraged by what this state is trying to do in its schools. And it will not be the birth of halcyon days of tolerance and naturalism in sexual activity. It appears that, instead, it will be the lengthening shadow of death for individuals to whom we owe not such a fate of death but our most compelling arguments of love. Are we willing to face that responsibility? Or instead, will we be complicit in allowing this society to become the stage and arena for just such an awesome scourge? See, there's a cost to doing what we have to do, especially if the courts are going to come against us and threaten to throw us in jail and slap us with this and that. But my friends, there is a cost to not doing what we are suppose to do. There is a cost, as well, if we do not have the fortitude, not only to be followers of what is right, but also to step forward as leaders who will speak for those rights. I've got to tell you, I know for a truth that there are hearts on both sides of the party line that can be touched by these moral concerns. I do have to point out, just as a matter of partisan pride though, that it does seem to be the case, by and large that it's mostly Republican hearts that are moved to take the risk to stand up and do something about it. But there can be no partisan barrier that divides the heart of parental love according to some party label. When it comes to what we owe our children, to what we owe their moral education, to what we owe this nation in order to preserve the heritage of moral discipline that is essential to our freedom, there can be no Democrats and no Republicans. There must only be Americans and human beings determined to do our duty! And I would appeal to all folks willing to stand on that common ground of our humanity. I would appeal to them to respond to the challenge of this time and of these issues. Some of us, as I have said in the beginning, stand before Almighty God, solemnly pledged in our words and in our faith as parents and as members of a community of faith, to respond to the call of our obligation to guide our children and to raise them up in the way that they should go. But whether that obligation is explicit as a matter of faith, or merely implicit as a matter of common human heart and decency, we can all stand together to oppose those who are trying, through a conspiracy of money and of lies, to keep this Commonwealth from reacting against the destruction of its moral future. For the sake of that future, then, I think that we must come together and stand firm, reaffirming that in our hearts there is no hatred, no resentment of any group or individual. I have to be honest with you, I always have found in my life that I have to move as far as I can away from folks who believe that there is any justification for degrading and demeaning other human beings, who think that, somehow or another, such assaults can be justified because of moral righteousness and indignation. But on the other hand, constrained as we are by the requirements of human mercy and compassion, so also we must be moved by the principles of right mercy and right compassion. And moving, in response to those principles, in response to that love which is in our hearts, which seeks not only our own good but the good of our whole community and of all humanity, I believe we are enjoined to come together as our forebears did and, even at the risk of life and fortune and honor in the eyes of the world, to stand firm so that that heritage of moral freedom may be passed from this generation to the next, intact and capable of bearing its legacy of freedom. If we do this, I can't tell you what response we're going to get from people today - well, I actually could tell you a little bit about that but I'm not sure it would be worthwhile. Many of us live, I think, according to a view that we cannot afford to guide our steps according to the opinions of the world or according to the opinions of those who are today the masters of the world's praise. We must look instead to do what we can so that our way corresponds to the way set out by the One who walked according to the will of that Master who is the Master of us all, and who is acknowledged by our common creed of citizenship to be the source of all our rights and all our entitlements to justice. For the sake of our conformity with His will and His heart and His way, I believe that we owe it to this country and its future, to step forward boldly and to proclaim the restoration of this nation's moral heart and our resistance to those who would work its moral destruction. We will not see our reward now, but I deeply believe that that reward will come, not only from the mouths of those in future generations who will want to recognize that our sacrifice made possible their life and freedom, but from the mouth of Him who is, according to our creed, the source of all our freedom and who will give us, I believe, a true "Well done," for what we have done for His sake and for our country's good. God bless you. |
That
I should have to stand in a State House that is one of the monuments
to the American Revolutionary spirit and to the great Declaration principles
that informed this nation's life throughout its history, that I should
have to stand here today in the context of a systematic government-sponsored
assault on what may be the most important fundamental right that individuals
have in a society, is not a cause of happiness, it is a cause for shame.
But before I talk about it in somewhat greater detail, I'm going to
have to do something unusual right now.