WHAT'S IN THIS ISSUE:

"We get the government we deserve."

Perhaps the gay scene -- and the government's near-blessing -- is what we deserve, too. It all started when we forgot the real issue here is CHASTITY.

Where were the chaste singles, the chaste couples, the chaste homosexuals when gays began organizing one of the best-funded, best-lawyered, most-feared lobbies in Washington? Where were we when the first assaults on morality started?

WE were in the closet.

People have never been perfect. Societies and religions have tried to make people better through shame, guilt, laws and mothers-in-law. But, basically, we all agreed the Ten Commandments were good rules to live by.

Then three things happened: Freud, the "Pill" and television.

Freud said that guilt was bad. He added that sin was basically guilt. So, hey, let it all hang out and free up your ego -- or id or whatever!

The birth-control pill allowed Freud to get away with his theory.

Finally, television was invented to whet our sexual appetites. TV started out OK. There were Buffalo Bob, Uncle Miltie and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, the three superstars of early-day programming. Even the talk shows were pretty good. Phil Donahue had senators and preachers and writers addressing stately issues. But sex is what really sells. So the issues and the shows got raunchier. Today, the whole scene is a sludge pot.

But WE are still watching.

People over 50 can remember the first skirmish in the coming morals wars. It was a movie called "The Moon is Blue" with David Niven. It was VERY risqué for 1953. It was about a young woman who flaunts her virginity; now there's an unlikely heroine! But the topic was a bombshell in the pristine '50s. People didn't talk about private parts in public. Period. Now what would have happened if we had stood our ground then? Government-funded art would not have included crosses dipped in urine; "normal" parents could have objected to sex education in the classroom; most of MTV would have been kept off the air; abortion would have caused a Supreme Court lynching; gay marriages would have been called science fiction.

But WE were in the closet: When divorce laws changed, allowing men and women to abandon their children. When women were encouraged to enter the work-force and leave their young children in day care.

When it became acceptable to live with someone not your marriage partner.

When it became trendy for single teen-agers to have babies.

When first the law and then casual behavior endorsed aborting babies.

When serial marriages and bed-swapping created "blended families."

When surrogate mothering, turkey-baster babies and petrie-dish conception were condoned.

When parents failed to revolt over condom education.

When consumers supported products that paid for porny soap operas, smutty music videos, raunchy rap songs and government-funded porno art.

Where were we? "We were right here thinking bad things about this stuff," you say, "but what could we do?"

Now that's an interesting question because people in the '40s and '50s knew what to do. Fathers and mothers of the "Leave It to Beaver" school believed that God Himself had entrusted them with the care of their children. They were not afraid to visit God's wrath upon them when the time was right, and the time was right when kids broke God's commandments.

In matters of chastity, girls were whisked off to their maiden aunts if they broke the Sixth. "Nice girls" didn't do it. "Nice boys" didn't press them to do it. Girls waited for their wedding nights, and boys wanted girls who waited. Young men and women got married to have families, not to pool their money for a better living-room set. When children came along, they became the No. 1 priority. Laws and business practices reflected this priority. The argument for gay-partner medical benefits, for example, would have been perceived as ridiculous, since gays don't have -- or shouldn't have -- children.

If this "Leave It to Beaver" world sounds uptight to you, then you are part of the problem. If there are no limits on "ordinary" heterosexual folks, there can be no limits on anybody, not in a democracy. If we don't expect chastity of ourselves, we can't expect chastity of homosexuals. If we do, it's unfair -- as gays so militantly point out. If we don't live according to the Ten Commandments, then no one will. And the sky's the limit for "alternate lifestyles" -- as we're only just beginning to find out.

The referendum to prevent Santa Clara County from recognizing gay marriage is another Waterloo. If we lose here, we step ever lower into the Slough of Despond. Maybe the war isn't winnable; people have gotten used to depravity. We're like the parents who are against abortion but don't want to see it outlawed -- just in case their daughter gets caught!

But we can't have it both ways. Either we get out of the closet and insist on a moral society for everyone -- or we stop wishing that gays alone comply. The buck -- and the gay scene -- stop here.

NAKED BABIES

The October 6, 10:15 Mass at Resurrection Church in Aptos celebrated by Fr. Kenneth J. Laverone, introduced a new rite of baptism.

The baptism of two infants took place, and Fr. Laverone held up one of the infants so all could see. The baby was naked! The child's parents had apparently removed his clothing as part of the baptismal ceremony.

The View correspondent bolted out of the church after this "presentation" and witnessed no more.

The white baptismal gown traditionally worn in infant baptism is a symbol of purity, as the child is born-again through the sacramental waters. Fr. Laverone's actions make us think instead of the presentation of Simba to the animals in "The Lion King."

Pray the Rosary for this parish.