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
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.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