restrained and scholarly piece” in a collectionrnon teen suicide that “noted thernscholarly consensus that homosexualsrnwere two or three times more likely to killrnthemselves than heterosexuals, a wellsubstantiatedrnfinding.”rnNo doubt Mr. Jenkins’ two sentencesrncan be made vaguely concordant (or atrnleast not so obviously discordant) byrnsome fancy footwork. He could, for example,rnargue that his acknowledgmentrnthat homosexuals have a much higherrnsuicide rate does not justify the descriptionrn”epidemic” (because the absoluternnumbers or degree of contagiousness arerninsufficient to meet the definition). Butrnsuch arguments are not sufficient to precludernthe reader’s suspicion that thernmoral beliefs of Mr. Jenkins (which are,rnbeing moral beliefs, inherently tendentious)rnplay a hig role in determiningrnwhich statistics he will welcome andrnwhich he will reject as biased or mistaken.rnIndeed, they seem to me somewhatrnindefensibly unempathetic. You betterrnbelieve that, if Jews had a suicide raterntwo to three times higher than non-Jews,rnI’d call it an “epidemic” and not give arndamn that the term might be slightly hyperbolic.rnNone of this is to deny the correctnessrnof Mr. Jenkins’ argument that proponentsrnof “Gay Studies” have a purely ideologicalrnagenda, one that, as Mr. Jenkinsrndemonstrates, is seen clearly in the continuingrninvocation of the ten percentrnmyth. My point is merely that the onlyrnway to defeat the ideological emotionalismrnthat now invests so much “research”rnis to demonstrate in rigorous logical andrnempirical ways the incorrectness of thernarguments of the ideologues. The tendentiousnessrnof the argument must bernassessed on the basis of its logic and evidence,rnnot the appeal of its conclusion.rnAssessing the correctness of a conclusionrnon the basis of the appeal of that conclusionrnis preciseK’ the thing we are fightingrnagainst.rn—Steven GoldbergrnChairman, Department of SociologyrnCity CollegernNew York, NYrnOn Basque TerroristsrnRegarding Michael Washburn’s commentsrnabout Basque nationalism (CulturalrnRevolutions, November 1996), letrnme say that the “nationalism” espousedrnby the terrorist ETA organization (and itsrnpolitical counterpart, Herri Batsuna) hasrnlittle to do with the traditional movementrnby the Basques (or, for that matter,rnby the Catalans, Calicians, or otherrnSpanish “nationalities”) for autonomyrnand self-determination and much morernto do with Marxist “liberation.”rnI was resident in Pamplona during thernyears 1972-75 (at the Catholic Universityrnof Navarra), completing doctoral workrnon Spanish Carlism, in particular onrn”fueros” (what the late Frederick Wilhelmsenrncalled the “Spanish equivalentrnto Southern states’ rights”—the regionalrnrights, statutes, and privileges whichrnset the Basque provinces off from thernrest of Spain). Historically, the Basquernprovinces (Vizcaya, Guipuzcoa, and Alava)rnformed a part either of the Kingdomrnof Navarra or of Castille. They possessedrntheir own set of “fueros,” which Spanishrnsovereigns (or their representatives)rnswore to respect. In the 19th century,rnthe Carlist kings and succeeding legitimistrnclaimants made a point of swearingrnto uphold customary Basque states’rnrights, “las fueros,” and to reverse therncentralizing tendencies spawned by thernliberal state of Isabella II and AlfonsornXII. In turn, the Basques enthusiasticallyrnfought at the side of the Carlists inrnthree bloody civil wars.rnBy the I930’s some Basque politicalrnleaders, influenced by liberal politicalrntheor)’, began to move away from historicrnregionalism toward a more militantrn”nationalism.” The PNV, the BasquernNationalist Party, after some painful hesitation,rneven supported the Spanish Republicrnduring the “Cruzada” of 1936-39,rndespite the Republic’s open anticlericalismrnand their own avowed Catholicrnconfessionalism. Even so, sentiment inrnthe Basque provinces, from 1936-39, wasrnsplit down the middle in what my traditionalistrnfriends have called “the lastrnCadist War.” Support for a Cadist, regionalistrnsolution continued to be strongrnin Basque areas.rnThe ETA organization uses terror,rnbombings, and assassinations to achievernends which have little to do with the historicrnrights and traditions of the Basquernpeople. ETA, like GRAPO and other violentrngroups, is the logical result of 19thceirturyrnliberalism and its parent, thernFrench Revolution. By deifying the powerful,rncentralized, nationalist state—rnfreed from historic and traditionalrnrestraints, and above all, freed fromrnGod—liberal political theory made itrnpossible for “minorities” to assert thernsame principles to argue for their “liberation.”rnLatter-day Spanish traditionalist writers,rnin particular Francisco Elias dernTejada and Rafael Gambra Ciudad, havernargued convincingly that economic decentralizationrnand the rebirth of historicrnregionalism are the only means of sparingrnSpain (and Europe) from a deceptivernstatist nationalism. They have also highlightedrnthe crucial role the Church mustrnplay.rnI would hope to see more of this in thernpages of Chronicles, rather than accountsrnof assassins.rn—Dr. Boyd D. CatheyrnWendell, NCrnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnT H E “DEFENSE OF MARRIAGErnAct” was making its way throughrnCongress as these lines were being written.rnHaving passed the House, the debaternwas turned, by the “good” offices ofrnSenator Edward Kennedy, into a jointrndefense of marriage and homosexualrnrights bill. Gay actix’ists were exultantrnthat their concerns were getting a hearingrnin the august body known as thernSenate. The Defense of Marriage Actrnwas passed, 84 to 14; the proposal to creaternnew federal civil rights for homosexualsrnnarrowly failed, 50 to 49. The attemptrnto turn the “defense of marriage”rndebate into a vehicle for federalizing gayrnrights is a further example of the inabilityrnof the federal government to do evenrnjust one good thing without attaching atrnleast one bad or even worse thing to it.rnThe old Book of Common Prayerrn(Episcopal) and the Book of CommonrnWorship (Presbyterian) refer to marriagernas “an honorable Estate, establishedrnby God, regulated by His commandments.”rnThe Chicago Tribune, whichrnhas gradually degenerated from its selfstyledrnrole as “the world’s greatest newspaper”rnto serving as a public relations organrnfor cultural degeneration, headlinedrnJANUARY 1997/5rnrnrn