of Michigan, openly praised the nomineernfor trampling down yet one morernvineyard where the grapes of publicrnmorals are stored. “In a sense,” he spouted,rn”you’re crossing one of those invisiblernlines that we have in our society in termsrnof this issue that is there, raised by somernwith respect to sexual orientation. Irnthink it has no part in the suitability ofrnyou to serve in this job.” Mr. Riegle’srnthoughts appeared to be at one withrnthose of his colleagues who also supportedrnher. One of the main purposes,rnand perhaps the whole purpose, of thernnomination was precisely to cross, if notrnto erase, the “line” of which Mr. Rieglernspoke—to discard once and for all thernnotion that the sexual life and sexualrnorientation of a nominee are relevant tornthe nominee’s capacity to serve in publicrnoffice.rnMoreover, liberal Democrats were notrnthe only ones to take this position. In therncourse of the confirmation hearings.rnMiss Achtenberg received some toughrnquestions from conservative RepublicanrnSenator Lauch Faircloth of North Carolinarnabout her blatant political bludgeoningrnof the Boy Scouts while she wasrna member of the San Francisco Board ofrnSupervisors. Miss Achtenberg repeatedlyrnused her position to stop the Scoutsrnfrom using public school buildings inrnSan Francisco because they refused tornhire homosexuals as Scoutmasters, andrnshe also pressured the United Way of thernBay area to withdraw its six-figure financialrndonations to the Scouts for the samernreason. In the course of wrestling withrnMr. Faircloth’s questions. Miss Achtenbergrnwas evasive if not actually perjurious,rnand similar themes were taken up byrnother Republican opponents during thernfloor debate.rnBut neither Mr. Faircloth nor conservativernMississippi Republican SenatorrnTrent Lott, the main critic of Miss Achtenbergrnduring debate on the Senaternfloor, ever challenged her “crossing ofrnthe line” or the propriety of her sexualrnhabits. Mr. Lott indeed went so far as torn”re-emphasize that the issue before usrntoday is not one of sexual preference orrnorientation. It is whether the nominee isrnqualified and temperamentally fit forrnthe position to which he or she may bernnominated.” During the whole debate,rnwhich ended with her overwhelmingrnconfirmation, only one senator—JessernHelms—ever questioned whether thernline should be crossed. “We are crossingrnthe threshold,” Mr. Helms declaredrnclearly, “into the first time in the historyrnof America that a homosexual, a lesbian,rnhas been nominated by a President ofrnthe United States for a top job in thernU.S. government. That is what the issuernis.”rnFor his pains, Mr. Helms was, ofrncourse, at once subjected to the vilificationrnof his colleagues—hardly a new experiencernfor him, since that is the treatmentrnregularly administered these daysrnto those who resist crossing cultural andrnmoral lines, and Mr. Helms has longrnmade a distinguished career of standingrnathwart lines that no one else dares defendrn—with Senator Carol Moseley-rnBraun of Illinois gurgling that “I amrnfrightened to hear the politics of fearrnand divisiveness and of hatred rear itsrnugly head on this floor” and SenatorrnRiegle himself proclaiming that Mr.rnHelms’ remarks “reflected poorly on thernUnited States Senate.”rnThis, then, is the position in which thernnation now stands: a senator who objectsrnto the nomination of an open homosexualrnto a high public office is condemnedrnby his colleagues as arnfearmonger, a bigot, and an exponentrnof hatred and is told he is a disgrace tornthe Senate, while the pervert herself isrnheld up as a moral paragon. That isrnwhat it means to cross the line of whichrnMr. Riegle and Mr. Helms spoke, sincernthe line marks not only what is consideredrnsuitable conduct for public officernbut also what a fortiori is suitable in privaternlife and personal judgments. Ifrnmoral impropriety does not bar a personrnfrom holding public office, why should itrncolor our private judgment about thernperson? The acceptance of Miss Achtenberg’srnnomination, then, crosses morernthan one line, and that too was a largernpart of its purpose. By nominating anrnopen homosexual for a sub-Cabinetlevelrnposition, Mr. Clinton took a giantrnstep—the biggest ever taken by any Presidentrn—to declare homosexuality a normalrnand legitimate form of sexual conductrnand to rescind the traditional moralrnand social sanctions against it.rnYet what emerges even more clearlyrnthan the sly normalization of perversionrnthat the liberal left has pulled off is therntotal unfitness of the Republican Party tornresist this moral and cultural revolution.rnIndeed, if one fact has become apparentrnabout the Republican Party this year, it isrnthat as a whole it not only does not wantrnto bear any banners in the nation’s continuingrncultural war but also does notrneven understand how to do so. Thernfighting of that war consists precisely inrnthe ability and the willingness to discernrnthe “lines” and “thresholds” across whichrnnew norms are smuggled and old onesrnabandoned, and the Republicans havernshown themselves to be chronically myopicrnwhen it comes to perceiving suchrnboundaries.rnIt was not, after all, the Republicanrnright that initially resisted Mr. Clinton’srnproposed lifting of the ban against homosexualsrnin the Armed Forces butrnDemocrat Sam Nunn with the supportrnof Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs ofrnStaff. It was not the Republicans on thernSenate Judiciary Committee who refusedrnto conhrm lawbreaker Zoe Baird asrnAttorney Ceneral but moderate Democratsrnlike Arizona’s Dennis DeConcini,rnbolstered by the spontaneous popularrnrevulsion registered against her by thousandsrnof phone calls to Senate offices.rnNor did most Republicans raise seriousrnobjections to any of the other bizarrerncharacters whom the new administrationrncalled to office: Donna Shalala atrnHealth and Human Services, Janet Renornat the Justice Department, Ron Brown atrnthe Commerce Department, etc.rnBut the Republican performance duringrnthe Achtenberg debate is the clearestrninstance so far of the party’s own unsuitabilityrnto serve as the representativernof Americans committed to the conservationrnof their moral and social norms inrntheir public manifestations. What seemsrnto drive the party, however, is not, asrnwith liberal Democrats, the open embracernof cultural revolution so much as itrnis a profound ignorance of culturalrnnorms themselves, how they might berndefended, and how they are being discardedrnby their professed enemies.rnWhat Republicans fear is being calledrnbigots, and they fear that label becausernmany of them really are bigots — that is,rnpersons who harbor prejudices againstrnthose who violate cultural norms but arernso ignorant of the valid reasons for theirrnprejudices that they are unable to defendrnthem and are ashamed to admit tornthem. The Republican opponents ofrnMiss Achtenberg instinctively knewrnsomething is wrong with her appointment,rnbut they were totally unable tornexpress, either to themselves or to the nation,rnwhat it was, with the result thatrnthey were unable to offer any compellingrnreasons for opposing her.rnIn the case of “sexual orientation,” asrnthe current cant for perversion is known,rnlO/CHRONICLESrnrnrn