Much of the progressive left in America believes that the state should not legislate on sexuality.  Because we cannot all agree on what is moral, it is a private concern.  In this sense it is an anti-moral position.  Being pro-choice relies on a similar argument.  Because we do not all agree on when life begins, the state should back away and let individuals make up their own minds.  In the broadest sense, these are applications and extensions of the historic liberal argument for the separation of church and state.  Where there is disagreement on morals and no individual is being harmed by another, the state should not impose one view.  This logic is part of a grand tradition associated with John Locke.

Most of the left also believes that diversity in the population is broadly good.  This can be purely for aesthetic reasons.  New York City is simply more exciting than Topeka.  (I know this from personal experience.)  However, this argument can be taken further.  The claim can be made that diversity is necessary to a basic freedom to develop ourselves as individuals in the way that we desire.  For this freedom to be meaningful, there must be options.  Were everyone the same, there would no longer be any choice.  This is an elaboration on principles articulated most artfully by John Stuart Mill.

A principled libertarian would be unlikely to take issue with these ideas.  Progressives would also want to agree.  Unfortunately, they would be wrong.

True diversity implies disagreements on moral questions.  The liberal solution is to make these private rather than public.  As diversity increases, this necessarily means that the range of public morality decreases.  One can imagine the conclusion — it becomes impossible to impose any morality at all.  This seems fine for the left when the question is one of gay rights.  However, there is no reason to stop there.  Why should the broader society be responsible for helping the unfortunate?  This is a moral position as well.

The contemporary left approaches this in two ways.  The most common is to press for state support of their particular progressive beliefs.  This contradicts the first principle, as many individuals are forced to support with their taxes a morality they do not agree with.  The second is to reduce diversity.  In other words, make everybody a progressive.  Perhaps effective propaganda could make the entire country into Cambridge or the Upper West Side.  But what would happen to our freedom of choice then?

There is no obvious solution to this dilemma.  What appears to be happening in the United States is a slow but steady erosion of the possibility of public morality.  One might celebrate the decline of the repressive establishment.  But nothing has replaced it.  The right responds to the vacuum by trying to eliminate the church/state separation, reduce diversity, and prevent the ascension of the progressive ideal.  The basic contradictions in progressive politics makes this battle difficult to fight.  Without new ideas of politics and society, it seems unlikely that it can be won.

Pete DeWan