Correction on David Horowitz and same-sex “marriage”

I said the other day that David Horowitz supports same-sex “marriage.” It was my impression that this was his position, and the Wikipedia article on him says that it is his position. But Wikipedia supplies no quotes or citations, and using Google I haven’t found any quote by Horowitz saying that he supports homosexual marriage. So, as far as I can tell, my memory was wrong and I regret the mistake.

UPDATE: I retract my correction. It turns out I was right after all. Reader Timothy A. has found an article by David Horowitz entitled “Personal Statement on Gay Marriage,” which was posted at FrontPage Magazine on February 25, 2004. The beginning of it reads:

I am a believer that the gay Americans should have the rights of all Americans, including the right to have legally recognized unions. I am personally not opposed to calling these unions “marriage.”

Horowitz then goes on to say that he abandons his previous opposition to the federal marriage amendment and now supports it, because the amendment is the only way to stop liberal judges from forcing homosexual marriage on the states. At the same time, if states properly pass homosexual union/marriage through their legislatures, Horowitz is for that.

I’ve copied the article below. I’ve also saved its webpage, which is not the original webpage but a Google cache. The cached page is here. Though the “Personal Statement on Gay Marriage” is listed (not linked) at FrontPage in David Horowitz’s bibliography, a search for the document, whether through Google or FP’s own Google search engine, only turns up the cached version. It’s something of a mystery why this article is so obscure and difficult to find.

Personal Statement On Gay Marriage By: David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, February 25, 2004

I am a believer that the gay Americans should have the rights of all Americans, including the right to have legally recognized unions. [LA notes: the phrase “the gay Americans” should be simply “gay Americans,” without the article. It’s out of character for Horowitz to make such a clunky error of usage.] I am personally not opposed to calling these unions “marriage.” I have publicly opposed the federal marriage amendment to the Constitution. But I am appalled by the assault on the American legal and political system by the left, the attempt to change a 5,000 year old social institution through a one-appointed-judge majority, the defiance of law and of majority opinion by one elected official in the city of San Francisco, and the anarchy to which this will lead.

To stop this destructive juggernaut, I will now support the Federal Marriage Amendment. I applaud the stands taken by President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger against these destructive developments and in defense of the American political system, which allows deeply divided communities to live side by side in peace.

I am certainly not alone in these views. The gay rights movement has shot itself in the foot with its arrogant political tactics and contempt for those who disagree. This arrogance which pervades the liberal side of the political spectrum these days with a manic intensity may even cost the Democrats the upcoming elections. Sixty percent of California voters supported the law that one Democratic mayor in San Francisco has sought to overturn. A recent Zogby poll shows majorities not only in the red states but also in the blue states against gay marriage. By choosing to throw down this particular gauntlet at this particular time, gay leaders will produce a backlash that may swamp Democratic electoral hopes.

If the gay political leadership had supported civil unions, which would confer the missing legal rights on gay couples, and if they had pursued this through the legislatures (as in Vermont) they would have undoubtedly persuaded majorities in many states to support their admirable quest for equal protection under the law. But by displaying their arrogant contempt for the deeply held beliefs of the American majority, and for the political and legal system that holds our disparate communities together, they have provoked the majority into defending itself in ways that will defeat their own agenda and set back their cause for years to come.

David Horowitz is the founder of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of the new book, One Party Classroom.

- end of initial entry -

Kilroy M. writes:

There is something to be said about the existence of Wikipedia as a symptom of the liberal conception that we are all our own authorities, our own gods; all equally the chroniclers of history and the events/trends that define its path. It’s the ultimate “revolution” in the intellectual field. It amazes me that people rely on it to the extent they do. Moreover, it’s well known that “information” about conservative icons is not “edited” in the same manner of generosity as that of their liberal counterparts. I cringe when Wikipedia is cited anywhere, especially in legal judgments (something gaining in frequency here in Australia, unfortunately), and especially on websites like this one. Wikipedia may be useful, but in its usefulness lies its greatest danger to misinform the otherwise uninformed.

LA replies:

But I wasn’t citing it. I said, correctly, that Wikipedia said X, and that Wikipedia supplied no citation for X, and therefore that Wikipedia’s statement could not be relied on.

However, as shown in this entry, Wikipedia’s statement about Horowitz was correct after all.

I entirely agree with you that one should not rely on Wikipedia alone when it comes information on contemporary events and controversies. At the same time, I find it invaluable as a source of basic, non-controversial information on various topics.

Kilroy replies:

Yes, I understand what you mean. I use Wiki as a way to get “leads” as well, but even then I treat the leads themselves with suspicion. Any pimply sixteen your old girl with too much time on her hands, an overactive imagination and an agenda can just waltz in and “contribute” to a Wiki.I avoid even mentioning that Wiki has even been in the sequence of my research (even if it is limited to its preliminary stages). It’s always the primary source that gets my acknowledgment.

LA replies:

That’s a reasonable approach. I agree that for any published article or book, and certainly for any scholarly writing, one should not use Wikipedia as one’s source. At the same time, I could not adopt this approach in the writing of this blog. For example, if I need to find out something quickly about the battle of Tours, or the defeat of Constantinople by the Turks, or the ethnic composition of Chicago, or the defining characteristics of primates, Wikipedia has the information I need and makes it more readily accessible than any encyclopedia I’ve ever seen. It’s simply invaluable.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 20, 2009 06:52 PM | Send