doing exactly this; when asked whetherrnhe favored what is presumably thernreligious right position on creationism,rngetting the state to impose it on localrnschools, North responded that he believedrnlocal school boards should decidernphilosophical questions for themselves.rnNorth also distinguished himself fromrnthe religious right by what he didn’t do:rnnot compare Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott,rnnot sentimentalize Martin Luther Kingrnand Jack Kemp, and not recommendrnthat federal agencies deal with the nation’srnmoral agenda.rn—Paul GottfriedrnElizabethtown, PArnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnWELFARE BENEFITS for illegalrnaliens must be eliminated, said Californians,rnand with Proposition 187 they didrnjust this. Voters thus reaffirmed a basicrnprinciple of common-sense publicrnpolicy: foreign lawbreakers should notrnbe entitled to live off the earnings ofrnproductive citizens. Surely everyone canrnagree on this much.rnNot quite. Bill Bennett and JackrnKemp, pillars of D.C.’s Empower America,rnjetted out of the Beltway for a fewrndays in late October to plead with Californiansrnto vote no on Proposition 187.rnBill and Jack think it is just fine tornsquander $2.4 billion per year on welfarernfor illegals.rn”For some, immigrants have become arnpopular political and social scapegoat,”rnthe joint statement said, implying that itrnis wicked to want to keep what you earn.rn”The Republican Party helped to createrna Democratic base in many of America’srncities with its hostile stand toward thernlast generation of immigrants from Italy,rnIreland, and the nations of CentralrnEurope.”rn”It’s bad stuff. It is poison in a democracy,”rnadded Bennett. Proposition 187rn”corrodes the soul,” Kemp chimed in,rnadding this prediction: “If this passes inrnCalifornia, it will be introduced in otherrnstates and people will want to put it inrnthe 1996 platform.” Oh, scary. HaroldrnEzell, the coauthor of the measure, wasrnbewildered, but offered this theory tornexplain their behavior: “Clinton mustrnhave written their press release.”rnPeople wonder why Bennett andrnKemp are losing political influence inrnthe GOP to a new generation of activistsrnwith radically different views. Thisrnfiasco shows why.rn—Jeffrey TuckerrnB I L L B E N N E T T seems determinedrnto illustrate the old saw that generals arernalways fighting the last war. As the infantryrnstruggles to arrest the invasion ofrnspecial privileges for sodomites, nowrncomes the order from the rear to give uprnthe current battle and engage a “new”rnenemy; divorce. Speaking to the ChristianrnCoalition in October, Mr. Bennettrnadvised his audience to cease hectoringrnhomosexuals and offered this rationale:rn”If you look in terms of the damage donernto children in America you cannot comparernwhat the homosexual movement,rnthe gay rights movement, has done withrnwhat divorce has done to this society.”rnIgnore for a moment Mr. Bennett’srncurious reasoning. The truth is that thernvast majority of Americans have norninterest in corralling homosexuals andrnenforcing sodomy laws. What the prohomosexualrnlobby has dishonestlyrndubbed “homophobia” is, in fact, arnrejection of the homosexual aristocracyrndetermined to put Heather Has TwornMommies and Daddy’s Roommate in thernpublic schools, enforce hiring quotas forrnhomosexuals, and further garnish Americanrnwages in pursuit of a cure for a virusrnwhose petri dish is bad behavior. If arnreluctance to put a potential pedophilernin front of a pack of young Boy Scoutsrnconstitutes “homophobia,” what shallrnwe call a reluctance to put a blind manrnin the cockpit of a jumbo jet?rnAnd will quitting this fight reverse thernnational retreat from marriage? Well, asrnanother old saw goes: Mr. Bennett is arnday late and a dollar short. The divorcernwar is over, and America lost. Almostrnhalf of new marriages end in divorce; 20rnpercent of divorces involve marriages ofrnover 15 years; 60 percent of marriagesrnmade today are likely to end in divorce.rnYet the real proof that the war endedrnlong ago is the terms on which Mr. Bennettrnwishes today to join the fight. Forrnthose of us who consider divorce a metaphysicalrnimpossibility, discussing thernharmful effects of divorce on children isrnalmost irrelevant, and even dangerous.rnIndeed, piling statistical data, even onrnthe side of truth, implies that the issuernmerits debate. Imagine an argumentrnagainst driving a hunting knife throughrnone’s heart because a Center for DiseasernControl study found a “statisticallyrnsignificant link between the insertion ofrna large knife through the human heartrnand a variety of adverse bodily reactions.”rnIt is difficult to swallow Mr. Bennett’srnimplication that we can handle only onernevil at a time: quit fighting homosexualsrnbecause now we have to fight divorce.rnMany Americans, I suspect, can thinkrnabout more than one thing at once, and,rnfor a man who pushes his classical educationrnbefore him in a wheelbarrow, hernshould be able to handle two concepts atrnthe same time. Actually, sodomy and divorcernare really one concept: hatred ofrnChristian marriage.rnAccepting, however, “Bennett’s rulernof political and cultural discourse” (onerntopic per person per day), he may havernmade the comment to the wrong crowd.rnThe Christian Coalition embraces thisrnnotion of indissoluble marriage, so evenrnif the rest of us need to devote our full attentionrnto keeping our marriages together,rnthey, at least, are free to keeprnfighting homosexual activists.rnSodomy, it seems, is only part of arngrowing list of vices Mr. Bennett recommendsrnwe ignore. His advice to Republicansrnconcerning abortion? “The legalrnissues are settled for now. This is a longtermrncultural struggle. So talk aboutrnother things.” While it sounds as if Mr.rnBennett ought to reread (read?) hisrnchapter on perseverance (“Stick to yourrntask, though the pace seems slow / Yournmay succeed with one more blow”), wernmight assume that his comment onrnabortion was intended to court—or atrnleast not alienate—the pro-choice vote.rnBut whose vote is he trying to court withrnhis promotion of homosexual rights?rnTen percent of America? Perhaps in allrnhis research on divorce, Mr. Bennettrnmissed the study from the University ofrnChicago that puts the figure substantiallyrnlower. (And why is abortion a lostrncause but not divorce?)rnJANUARY 1995/5rnrnrn