Although he appears regularly in the Washington Post, James Glassman is supposed to be a conservative. He’s offered some very tough critiques of the Clinton Administration on a wide variety of issues and he has an affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-oriented think tank. But there it was – on July 7th – a Glassman column in the Post defending Clinton’s nomination of a homosexual activist, James Hormel, to be Ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel is a prominent funder of programs which entice young people into the homosexual lifestyle – a fact that Glassman was careful not to mention. Glassman not only defended the nomination, he attacked conservative critics of homosexuality as bigots and said their opposition to Hormel was “ugly.” He compared them to southern racists attempting to maintain a system of white power.
What accounts for such a vicious display from a so-called conservative? Clearly, Glassman is a not a conservative in the sense it is normally understood. He may be conservative on economic matters but has obvious disdain for traditional or biblical values. Some even thought this column might be a tip-off that he was gay. Well, Glassman denied that he was gay in an interview with Peter LaBarbera of a group called Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. LaBarbera had called Glassman in shock over the content and tone of his column.
But what happened in the rest of the interview was also shocking. Glassman denied he was gay but suggested that it might be appropriate for the federal government to highlight the serious health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle in the same way it has campaigned against smoking.
Pardon us for being completely confused. And Pete LaBarbera seemed confused as well as he recounted his conversation with Glassman at a recent conference sponsored by Accuracy in Academia. If Glassman agreed that homosexuality was dangerous, why then was he bashing critics of the lifestyle and defending one of its leading practitioners? Glassman admitted that Hormel was a “vigorous proselytizer for gay causes” but stopped short in his column of acknowledging that the proselytizing involves funding efforts to recruit young people into this dangerous lifestyle.
If Hormel had been caught luring children into taking up smoking, he would never have been nominated for the post in the first place. But despite the fact that he promotes homosexuality among young people, he is supported by the Clinton Administration and now James Glassman, even though Glassman admits that the lifestyle carries many health risks. In fact, the evidence shows that it is more dangerous than smoking.
It is not our intention to beat up on James Glassman, whose contributions to the public debate far outweigh this incredible lapse in judgment on his part. But it is important for the public at large to understand that the “conservative” James Glassman is not conservative in the true sense of the word. He is also not a true journalist. In his zeal to defend Hormel, he failed to uncover and publicize the evidence that his crusade for gay rights involves targeting our children. That omission on Glassman’s part is indefensible.