Alan Keyes did not call Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist." Here is what he actually said, "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

Asked whether that meant the vice president's gay daughter "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is." This was taken as Keyes maligning the vice president's daughter, at the Republican National Convention no less. Leading Illinois Republicans such as Judy Baar Topinka and Jim Thompson were quick to distance themselves from their party's candidate for U.S. Senate.

Virtually all commentators have simplified Keyes' statement into a personal condemnation of Mary Cheney's homosexuality instead of analyzing what he actually said. This is the same as what happened last year when Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum compared the decriminalization of gay sex to legalizing bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. Instead of penetrating the illogic of Santorum's actual statement, it simply became "Santorum hates gays." While both Keyes and Santorum probably are anti-homosexual, an analysis of their actual statements is much more interesting than that simplistic and generalized conclusion. (I analyzed the Santorum statement in an earlier essay.)

Keyes defines homosexuals as "selfish hedonists" because they have sex absent the possibility of having children*, but if having sex absent the possibility of having children is "selfish hedonism," and therefore wrong, then what about the millions of heterosexuals who do the same thing, myself among them? Are we all damned as well?

If having sex without the possibility of having children is "selfish hedonism," then married couples who use any kind of birth control are "selfish hedonists." Every married post-menopausal woman, every married man who has had a vasectomy, and every married woman who has had a tubal ligation, is a "selfish hedonist" too. Likewise any married person who is naturally impaired fertility-wise. That being the case, today in America there are millions of people already in fully sanctioned marriages whose marriage state "in principle excludes procreation."* If discouraging "selfish hedonism" is the best argument for forbidding same-sex marriage, that horse has already left the barn. Society has been letting "selfish hedonists" marry for years, without objection from Keyes or any other conservative.

There is a further problem, this one with the term "selfish hedonist" itself. Isn't it redundant? "Hedonist" means "pleasure seeker," and by definition that pleasure is sought for oneself. Is it possible to be a selfless hedonist? I don't see how. Hedonism is by its nature "selfish." Does the pursuit of sexual pleasure in the process of making babies render it "unselfish"? So "unselfish hedonism" is good but "selfish hedonism" is bad? We need some clarification here.

The book on Keyes has always been that, in spite of his failings, he is exceedingly intelligent and articulate. He has been described as, "always the smartest guy in the room." Yet his use of the clearly redundant term "selfish hedonist" sheds some doubt on that conclusion. Maybe he is just glib, able to rattle off sentences that sound smart to people (i.e., journalists) who are barely listening and really don't care about the content.

Alan Keyes did not coin the term "selfish hedonist." It shows up in the writings and statements of other conservatives. Despite the redundancy, the intent seems to be to use two words that both have negative connotations, as a way of amplifying their negativity. "Hedonist" is like the less commonly used "libertine." It suggests a flouting of mainstream society's notions of decency and basic morality. It is an especially good brush for tarring "Hollywood types." By redundantly adding that such people are "selfish," conservatives paint themselves as the opposite, selfless, even self-sacrificing.

This raises another question. Do you accept the conclusion that people who consciously avoid procreation are inherently selfish? While I, a non-breeder, don't condemn people for having children, neither do I consider them particularly noble, heroic or unselfish for making that choice. One could argue that putting further strain on the world's finite resources merely for the ego gratification of leaving behind a bearer of your DNA is an exceptionally selfish act, perhaps even a definitively selfish act. The world does not need more people, so how can baby-making be seen as anything but selfish? The fact that raising children is difficult does not make it heroic, nor does the fact that it often requires sacrifices make it unselfish. Go ahead and have children--it's a free country--but don't expect a pat on the back from me.

And please keep your giant strollers out of my way at the airport.

Perhaps people weren't paying close attention when Alan Keyes ran for president in 2000, but Illinois voters are getting a picture of the carpetbagger from Maryland as a nasty, egotistical extremist. His predecessor as Republican candidate for U. S. Senate, Jack Ryan, had to quit when he was exposed as a cynical liar. (That was the reason, not his sexual kinks, entertaining as they may have been.) Before that, Illinois Republicans pushed their own sitting Senator, Peter Fitzgerald, into early retirement for being too independent. The Illinois Republican Party gave the nation Charles Percy, Everett Dirksen and Abraham Lincoln. Considering recent history, one shudders to imagine what they will give us next.

* Because he is a notorious quibbler, Keyes might quibble about my paraphrase of his definition of "selfish hedonism" as it applies to gay marriage. I say, "absent the possibility of having children," while he says, "in principle excludes procreation." One could, and he undoubtedly would, argue that a heterosexual union, even absolutely absent the possibility of having children (due to the sterility of one of the parties, for example) still includes procreation "in principle." I will leave it up to you, dear reader, to decide if that is a meaningful distinction.

© 2004, Charles Kendrick Cowdery, All Rights Reserved.