What should be the proper conservative perspective on laws concerning homosexuality?

First, we must acknowledge that the Supreme Court decision in the Texas case [Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexuality] exists. Second, we deplore the decision because it is a departure from states' rights-but I think it would be a very serious blunder to deplore the decision because we find homosexuality icky. The world has moved beyond the point where our society arrogates the right to criminalize unseemliness in private, consensual, adult sex. We like to think of ourselves as far more enlightened than the Victorians and we regard them as being a culture locked in irrational sexual taboos. But it was Lady Astor, very much a Victorian, who said, "you can do anything you like in public providing you don't frighten the horses."

Second, we must recognize the tides of jurisprudence, culture, and public consensus are flowing against us. The Supreme Court opinion is very unlikely to be reversed, so the law has already moved substantially against the traditional "conservative" position. Concurrently, the legal and social advances of homosexuals in our society are unlikely to be reversed. The homosexual community is an exceedingly active and effective lobby who can only be expected to campaign vigilantly for their own perceived rights. They are winning the battle. Conservatives who stand against them are impotently standing athwart history and must expect an unrelenting series of Larry Craig type incidents which increasingly alienate us from the general public. I think a truly conservative approach to the issue of homosexuality is to distinguish between that which is tolerable and that which is not because it conflicts with a competing higher value. For example, private homosexual sex between consenting adults is something that a true conservative who respects individual liberty should have little trouble concluding that is an area not for the Lawgiver but for the Redeemer. The flagrant, obnoxious, in your face primping and even soliciting, should be outlawed because it is repugnant to a higher value, which is the welfare of our children. Likewise proselytizing of our children in the school system. Homosexual marriage can be opposed because it degrades a higher institution, heterosexual marriage. Civil unions, on the other hand, should be easy for a conservative to tolerate because he believes in the freedom of contract.

Third, as conservatives we fear, above all things, intrusive government. We should be wary lest we tolerate government peccadilloes against homosexuals because we are disgusted by them. As conservatives we are rightly or reluctant to turn to the government for solutions to social problems. To the degree that we regard homosexuality as a "problem" we should be very reluctant to look to the criminal law system as the solution. That means that we must be careful not to criminalize or even stigmatize homosexuality because we find it repugnant. Conversely, we must not be intimidated by political correctness from insisting that the law protect our children from physical, psychological and educational abuse. We must be careful to punish acts where appropriate, but not the status. Neither should we tolerate that the status be exalted. We should act only when the horses are frightened.

So all of this brings us to the political implications of the Craig scandal. I have posted in another context as recently as a few days ago my concern about Republicans who throw their fellows to the enemy as soon as storm clouds gather. In fact, I make reference to this deplorable tendency in my about page. I do not think it is necessary to consider what to do about Senator Larry Craig, he is a problem in the process of resolving itself and I have no doubt that he will not be the Senator from Idaho on January 2, 2008. His senatorial career is virtually over. But I dodge the issue, what should be done about Senator Larry Craig if he does not go voluntarily? He should be shunned by the party and all support for him should be withdrawn not because he is a homosexual but because he is a damn hypocrite. Craig did not do much of anything legally wrong-he did not frighten the horses-if but he brings disgrace to the party by his flagrant hypocrisy. And the party must rid itself of him because failure to do so would lay it open to the charge of hypocrisy. He represented the party in the United States Senate for the state of Idaho and he lied to us about matters of morality and "family values." It is one thing to have a rot in the body of the party and to remove that rotten apple from the barrel and quite another thing to regularize perversity as the Democrats have done in similar circumstances.

What to do about other homosexuals? Do we welcome them into the party? I should think so, so long as they are open and otherwise comport themselves in sync with conservative values. That is, when they are not hypocrites.

Ironically, the remarks of Barney Frank seemed to me to be the best placed of this controversy. Of course he did not object to Craig's homosexuality and thought he should remain in the Senate. But he did criticize the man's hypocrisy. In this Barney Frank struck home. So long as we as conservatives attack homosexuals for their status as homosexuals rather than for their overt acts which are repugnant to a higher value, we are open to the hypocrisy charge. And every time a Republican homosexual is outed, we will become a laughingstock. We are open to the charge that we are hypocrites when we invoke the criminal law to enforce our predilections about sex because we are the party which says it stands for individual liberty and limited government. The Democrats say we intrude government into the bedroom and in this case they are right. So, when they say the same thing about abortion, we cannot effectively deny the charge even though a much higher value-a baby's life-is at stake.

We fall into this hypocrisy trap when we make the fundamental mistake respecting the nature of homosexuality vis-à-vis society. Democrats accuse us of hypocrisy because closet homosexuals within our ranks preach "family values." Why do we let the Democrats conflate these two issues? Because we have done so ourselves. Homosexual activity in private between consenting adults who are not married constitute no threat to my marriage. Nor do they constitute a threat to the institution of marriage. Adultery poses a threat to the adulterer's marriage whether the adultery is homosexual or heterosexual. The adulterer is not a greater hypocrite because his adultery is homosexual. I submit that no-fault divorce is a far graver threat to the institution of marriage than is the fact of homosexuality in our society.

Labels: Freepers, gay, Larry Craig, Republican sexual hypocrites

Actual Freeper Quotes

Part of the perversion that is homosexuality; sex in public places.

I'm getting to the point where I just don't care about that—my rage at the betrayals overshadows all. Haggard, Foley, this kook. It seems that NO one speaks for us and acts for us.

It will be interesting being that he is a Repub if he will get millions for a book deal, a one hour show on Oprah, and multiple favorable reviews in the New York Times like Gov. Jim McSleezy who put the security of the entire state of New Jersey at risk.

OK, here is my latest conspiracy theory... enjoy! Homosexuals are deliberately infiltrating the GOP so they can say either (1) See, we're gay and we're Republicans, too! or (2) They can claim to be anti-homosexual agenda politicians, and then when they are caught, it makes the GOP look like the party of hypocrites. Either way it advances the homosexual agenda.

Scumbags like this absolutely disgust me. I have no particular problem with him being a degenerate (as long as he does so on his own time) but he has no business serving in a public office, and especially not as a Republican. Thanks for the 'gift that keeps on giving' Larry!

Yes, another case of Conservative Hypocrisy for the lefties to crow about. What's the equivalent on their side? Al Gore wanting to force everybody else to ride a bike while he flies private jets, etc. John Edwards bemoaning poverty while padding his expense accounts. The difference is that Craig is finished in public life, and Gore will continue to get Oscars and big speaking fees and Edwards will continue to run for President and rate respectful ass-kissing from the MSM. It's the double standard.

Foley left congress and Craig won't be far behind. His support for amnesty was enough for me to want him gone. This gay bathroom crap will end his career. Good riddance to an amnesty supporter

Larry Craig is toast. I certainly would not want to represented by a Senator who drops his pants in public. There is something seriously wrong with him - he needs help. But not on the taxpayer's dime.

I thought Republicans were Anti-Gay? Am I missing something here? The GOP apparently has Gays in High Places. And the Main Stream media rather than saying, The Republicans are not the narrow minded Cretins we make them out to be. Instead say another "Fag Republican" was caught. What gives? The Demorats love Gays until they are members of the GOP. Then they are dirty scoundrels? Two faced liars and hypocrits. That's what the Demorats are today. They hurl the Gay Insult when a GOP member is outed. If they out themselves as Demorats they are courageous. Otherwise they are Sexual Deviants.

The GOP needs to clean it's house of perverts and sodomites.

I agree. This looks very bad, indeed. He can use all the excuses that he wants, but I doubt that he will convince many that he was "innocent." I hope that he does the right thing for the GOP and decides not to run again for the senate. He is political toast. Unlike the Dems, Republicans care about sexual ethics.

Craig is not stupid. Expeditious? Expeditious?? The only thing he expedited was his eminent exit from the senate. And the self destruction of the republican reelection effort. These are the long knives. The Republicans need to pull out the long knives and do some exposes' on some of the democrats' sordid misbehavior.

[And my personal favorite --]

I think this is another Democrat setup. Anyone who says anything against gays nowadays is persecuted.

Nah, I think more likely the GOP bigwigs eventually knew about it and figured it will come out any way, dump it today under the flash of the Gonzales stories.

Labels: Freepers, gay, homophobes, john edwards, Larry Craig, Republican sexual hypocrites

I'm not going to call Bill O'Reilly a liar... yet, but... on his TV show today, he read off a laundry list of ridiculous "hate" statements like "I hate blacks," "Hillary should be assassinated" and "homosexuals are dogs" that he said he personally found on Free Republic and claims that they were posted here today. I do not believe that. I doubt that he personally logged on to FR and I doubt he found any such thing posted here today.

Who knows what we may have missed and is buried deep in our archives of millions of posts, but our readers do a pretty good job of alerting us to anything out of bounds that is posted and we pull it.

Extreme hatred of gay people:
Homosexuals have a behivior which is based on a sexual fetish. ANYTHING done via civil/marriage unions is just a manipulation to sanction the sexual behavior of a man playing with another mans genitials (and vice versa for two females).

Society has absolutly no reason whatsoever to sanction such sexual recreation. Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to society. ZERO. Society rewards the institution not the individual. Homosexual are only concerned with individual orgasm recreation, not the benefit of society.

A deviant engaging in such behavior is not an ethnic minority, but a deviant, sodomite, queer, fecal-obsessionist, faggot, etc, but certainly not an ethnic minority.

On Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress:
Ellison is little more than a pimple on Mohammed’s faggy butt, waiting to be popped by the devil Allah. He is a fine representative of the Democratic Party.

GOP frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani is hated officially:
Are you still here defending that damned liberal RINO scumbag Rudy Giuliani!?! I thought we flushed all the turds that were stinking up this site with their pro-liberal, pro-abortionist, pro-radical gay agenda, pro-gun control, pro-illegal alien stench. If you support Giuliani, then you support all of the above. Don’t like the labels or being associated with them? Then stop supporting a liberal, pro-abortionist, pro-radical gay agenda, pro-gun control, pro-illegal alien, serial adulterer POS for President.

Also, one of our readers found a couple of the quotes he alleges, and if they are the ones O'Reilly is complaining about, he took them way out of context. They were simply quotes in the articles posted not statements posted by FReepers.

As soon as he provides me a list of the alleged posts and their URLs, I'll believe him. If he doesn't... then... well, guess he'll deserve to be known as what he is.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Freepers, hillary clinton