Kristen McQueary of the Southtown Star newspaper has the dubious honor of being the first journalist of whom I’m aware to mischaracterize a position of mine through rhetorical manipulation.

The offense occurs in this statement by McQueary: “[Higgins] went on to say that no human being is perfect and that an extramarital affair, for example, would be an OK offense for a schools [sic] CEO, as long as the person repented their wrongdoing — much as she believes Huberman should.”

What she neglected to say was that she asked me the question: “Well, what would you say if Mayor Daley appointed someone who had had an extra-marital affair?”

I responded that if this person came forward publicly and affirmed extramarital affairs as morally legitimate and shared with the public his intention to maintain an extramarital relationship, I would be equally concerned and find him equally unsuitable for the position.

If, however, he expressed his view that his conduct was immoral and repented of it, his failing should not disqualify him from the position. In other words, it is not personal failings but public affirmation of immorality as morality that renders Huberman unsuitable for the position of premier educational leader in Chicago.

I would never say or imply, nor do I believe, that extramarital affairs are “OK offenses” for anyone.

McQueary dismisses my comparison of homosexuality to polyamory with a wave of her patronizing pen: “Higgins compared homosexuality to the sexual trysts of polyamoury, the practice of having more than one intimate relationship, even though Huberman implied he is in a committed relationship.” In a follow up phone conversation with McQueary, I asked how polyamory was different from homosexuality. She told me that she would not answer the question.

McQueary might want to do a little more research. Many polyamorists believe that their emotional and sexual attraction to more than one person simultaneously is a sexual orientation — not merely a practice. And some, perhaps many, are in committed relationships. In fact, Mormons who have multiple wives would be more accurately described as polyamorists than polygamists in that they are not legally married.

McQueary implicitly expresses the tired, unproven, and profoundly destructive argument that of all the wide variety of sexual behaviors emerging from the fertile and dissolute minds of humans, from bestiality to “man-boy love” to consensual incest to polyamory to homosexuality, the only one that is not merely a practice, the only one that constitutes an immutable identity that all must approve, affirm, and celebrate is homosexuality. And these philosophical propositions about the nature and morality of homosexuality are foisted on all of society with no proof.

McQueary finds it “repugnant when social conservatives waste valuable time and resources fastened to the bedposts of others, all under the banner of ‘family values.'” She omitted another part of our discussion that would have been relevant here. She asked me why I spend so much time writing about this issue. I explained that I spend so much writing about this issue because public educators are spending so much public time and public money trying to transform the views of students on the nature and morality of homosexuality which is decidedly not the proper purview of public educators.

I explained that public schools engage in pervasive, near-absolute censorship of conservative scholarship and thinking on homosexuality which violates fundamental pedagogical principles. I offered her examples of ways in which unproven, controversial theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality are advanced in public schools. But I guess time and space constraints prevented her from including those quotes.

McQueary is “dumfounded by those who associate homosexuality with sexual deviance,” which is another way of saying that she believes homosexuality is not deviant. That, of course, is a moral claim for which she, and public educators who share that view and promote it with public money, never provide any evidence or justification. They simply declaim that homosexuality is not deviant and anyone who has arrived at a different moral conclusion is a “hater.” No discussion — just arrogant, dictatorial fiat.

When will conservatives demand that those who make this radical, subversive moral claim provide evidence for it? For example, on what basis do liberals determine what constitutes moral behavior? Are they devotees of John Stuart Mills’ utilitarianism? Are they members of the homosexuality-affirming Metropolitan Community Church? Do they believe in radical subjective relativism? Do they believe that homosexual conduct is biologically determined? If so, where’s their evidence? And how do they reconcile that unproven claim with “Queer Theory” that holds that sexual orientation is neither inherent nor immutable? Do they believe that any and all behavior that emerges from biologically influenced impulses is automatically moral? Are they willing to apply that principle consistently to all volitional behavior?

Ms. McQueary recommends that Illinois Family Institute: “should be sizing up Huberman over the measurements that really matter: his ability to improve one of the most troubled school systems in the nation.” The problem is that accepting the view that public affirmation of homosexuality doesn’t matter requires prior assent to the proposition that homosexual acts are moral acts.

I agree with the sentiment behind McQueary’s weary sigh over the “utter uselessness” of discussions with someone blind to reality and truth. I disagree with her, however, about which view of homosexuality embodies blindness.