So writes editor R.V. Young in the summer issue of Modern Age, the journal of which Russell Kirk was founding editor.
The magazine arrived with the latest post from our cultural capital, where the front-runner in the mayoral race, Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger, has been caught again "sexting" photos of his privates, this time to a 22-year-old woman.
That broke it for The New York Times:
"The serially evasive Mr. Weiner should take his marital troubles and personal compulsions out of the public eye, away from cameras, off the Web and out of the race for mayor of New York City."
And Weiner's conduct does seem weird, creepy, crazy.
But it was not illegal. And as it was between consenting adults, was it immoral -- by the standards of modern liberalism?
In 1973, the "Humanist Manifesto II," a moral foundation for much of American law, declared: "The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered 'evil.' ... Individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire."
Is this not what Anthony was up to? Why then the indignation?
Consider how far we are along the path that liberalism equates with social and moral progress. Ronald Reagan was the first and is the only divorced and remarried man elected president.
But the front-runner in the New York mayor's race today quit Congress as a serial texter of lewd photos to anonymous women. The front-runner in the city comptroller's race was "Client No. 9" in the prostitution ring of the convicted madam who is running against him.
Weiner's strongest challenger for mayor is a lesbian about to marry another lesbian. The sitting mayor and governor are divorced and living with women not their wives. The former mayor's second wife had to go to court to stop his girlfriend from showing up at Gracie Mansion.
Weiner looks like a mainstream liberal.
On cable channels we hear cries that Weiner is "mentally sick." Ex-colleague Rep. Jerrold Nadler says Weiner needs "psychiatric help."
Whoa, Jerry. Up to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association said homosexuality was a mental disorder. The APA now regrets that. And why is Weiner's private sexting a sign of mental illness, when kids all over America are engaged in the same thing every day?
Are we, possibly, a mentally and morally sick society?
Thirty year ago, homosexual acts were crimes. The Supreme Court has since discovered sodomy to be a constitutional right. State courts are discovering another new right -- of homosexuals to marry.
To call homosexuality unnatural, immoral or a mental disorder will soon constitute a hate crime in America.
Once we cast aside morality rooted in religion -- as the "Humanist Manifesto II" insists we do -- who draws the line on what is tolerable in the new dispensation?
Upon what moral ground do we stand to deny a man many wives, should he wish to leave behind many children, and the wives all consent to the arrangement? Biblically and historically, polygamy was more acceptable than homosexuality.
The second is now a constitutional right. Why not the first?
Are we not indeed headed "inevitably to utter irrationality and eventually political, as well as moral, chaos"?
Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Clinton marched in gay pride parades with the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Anyone doubt that NAMBLA will one day succeed in having the age of consent for sex between men and boys dropped into the middle or low teens?
The Federal Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of birth control pills to 11-year-old girls. High schools have been handing out condoms, pills and patches to students for years.
If sex among teenagers is natural and normal, and homosexual sex is natural and normal, upon what moral ground does liberalism stand to deny teens the right to consensual sex with the men and women they love?
Is denying this not age discrimination? What liberal can be for that?
Years ago, Dr. Judith Reisman exposed the fraud of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.
The only way Kinsey could have gathered the data for his "Sexual Behavior and the Human Male," on how children and even infants supposedly enjoy and benefit from sex, is by interviewing perverts and child abusers, or conducting the perversions themselves. Yet, sex with sub-teens is surely on some future progressive agenda.
One suspects the Times does not really have any moral objection to what Weiner is up to on his cellphone.
The Times just does not want the city it celebrates as America's citadel of progressivism to be made a staple of late night comedians -- and a running joke for the rest of us out here in Cracker Country.
However, as America needs to see where progressivism is leading what we used to call God's country, perhaps it might be well if New York came out of the closet by electing the ticket of Carlos Danger and Client No. 9.
To borrow a political slogan from '72 : "Weiner & Spitzer -- Now More Than Ever!"