Posted on 04/28/2003 2:25:50 PM PDT by Remedy
The Rick Santorum controversy has illuminated a serious problem in the Republican Party: its leaders seem woefully ill-prepared to defend the pro-family position on homosexuality. As an attorney who trains pro-family activists how to debate this issue, I would like to offer my fellow Republicans the following advice.
First, don't dodge the issue in fear of political correctness or pro-"gay" media bias. Stand confidently upon the essential pro-family presuppositions that resonate with people of common sense: 1) normality is that which functions according to its design, 2) the heterosexual design of the human body and the natural family is self-evident, 3) respecting the design of life produces good results (conversely, rejecting that design produces bad results) and 4) simple observation validates these assumptions. No special education or "scientific" study is required.
Failure to articulate the logic of our position cedes the moral and intellectual battleground to the militant "gays," and leaves the impression (even among our own supporters) that we have no reasonable response, other than religious belief, to their attack on family values.
Second, contest the hidden false assumption underlying most pro-"gay" arguments that homosexuality is immutable. We have a strong case on this point since 1) proponents of the "gays are born that way" justification for normalizing homosexuality bear the burden of proof, 2) proof is absolutely necessary due to the severity of social change which is contemplated by their demands, 3) proponents cannot prove that homosexuality is immutable (Indeed, ex-homosexuals can prove that it is not.), 3) if homosexuality is not immutable, then logically it must be acquired (children being the most likely to acquire the condition because of their vulnerability to social conditioning), and 4) society must err on the side of caution, actively discouraging the normalization of homosexuality in order to protect children and others from the possibility of acquiring a homosexual condition with its attendant health risks.
Third, expose the deceptive terms, such as sexual orientation, diversity and homophobia, which are used by pro-"gay" proponents to confuse the issue and control the debate. This requires nothing but making them define their terms at the start of argument, then focusing the debate on clarifying the definitions and exposing their illogic and hypocrisy.
Consider sexual orientation, for example. Does orientation mean "state of mind" or conduct? If it includes conduct, which conduct? Does it include sodomy? Fisting? Rimming? Sadism? If not, why not? Regarding diversity, what is the standard used to decide who gets to be in the circle of inclusion? They don't have one, but you'll have fun with this -- especially if they attempt to draw the line at "hate" groups. What is their definition of hate? (and by that definition, do they "hate" us and thereby invalidate their own membership in the community of diversity?) Speaking of hate, remember that they have defined homophobia as "hate and fear of homosexuals." Ask them to identify some examples of non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They can't do it because they define all opposition as "homophobic." Do they really believe that disapproval of sodomy/rimming/fisting/sadism is irrational bigotry? You get the idea. You'll find that this technique derails virtually every pro-"gay" argument because each one relies on deceptive rhetoric.
Fourth and finally, get off the defensive and take the offensive on the homosexual issue by purging "gay" activism from the Republican Party. The implicit goal of the "gay" movement is the normalization of an anything-goes sexual morality -- the antithesis of the family values so dear to our Republican base. Instead of inviting into our tent the very constituency that many Republicans have spent years and fortunes opposing, why not conduct a meaningful family-values outreach to ethnic minorities? Let the Democrats continue to be the party of sexual deviance and let us exploit that identification to woo away their healthy families to the higher Republican standard.
What is needed from Republican leaders is articulate, confident and continual advocacy of the pro-family world view. Without it, we might as well say farewell to Rick Santorum and other defenders of family values, because if things continue as they are, these courageous people will have no place in the future GOP, the Gays' Other Party.
I think it might be a little naive to assume that "gay Republicans" ever actually vote for Republican candidates or ever have.
I see the Log Cabin group as much more of propaganda device than any legitimate conservative group. They are not organized to nor do they work to move fellow-sodomites to the Republican position. Their entire concern is about their sexuality and their special rights.
If someone is trying to use a "Republican" group as a propaganda ploy and all they ever talk about is sodomy rights, then I suspect they vote Democrat in a ballot box.
I think the case should be compared to black Republicans. Among black Republicans, they actually work hard to swap people toward conservativism. And they have made some real inroads. So, even if 91% of the black vote went to Gore, it would have been more without black Republicans and their efforts. And I think they will continue to make more inroads. But it's still a tough fight ahead for years to come.
So black Republicans are definitely serious conservatives. I don't think you can say the same for homosexual advocacy groups who label themselves as Republicans so they can play Trojan Horse.
Or is Trojan Horse perhaps offensive to the anti-condom crowd like Sullivan?
53 posted on 01/23/2003 8:57 PM EST by George W. Bush
For those who are interested, Sullivan's web sites were cached and placed on display before he could get them shut down. This a link to the front page of those cached copies of his sites at AOL and BarebackCity:
Andrew Sullivan's barebacking sites Warning: very explicit photos of Sullivan on subsequent pages (not on first page). But this should tell you more about what gay rights mean to Andrew Sullivan and what he does with his freedom.
Sullivan is HIV-positive and advertises for sex without condoms with others. There's nothing remotely conservative about him.
54 posted on 01/23/2003 9:08 PM EST by George W. Bush
With it out of my wallet, my school, and my face, I'll be happy to live and let live.On this point we are in complete agreement.
I suppose you could monitor people for what they do that adds to the price of your insurance, as long as they can monitor you for how fast you drive, what foods you eat, what your sleeping habits are, and anything else you might do that would affect how much they pay for insurance.
You just advocated rape and murder.Explain how.
this law would require each person's household to be monitored in a way that would violate the rights with regard to legal searches.
No more than other illegal activites (murder, rape…).
You need due process for those crimes -- crimes which are non-consensual acts, BTW.
If that's your lifestyle!Well, no. The court manufactured "privacy doctrine" implies consent: rape and murder, by definition, involve non-consenting parties.
Quit proudly proclaiming that for which you should be ashamed.
Are you saying that we should simply be discreet, but otherwise we should be free to pursue happiness as we choose to define it?
That would save you and the rest of society alot of grief and trouble.
Or is this like some sort of national, "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
You all insist on telling when nobody wants to hear it, whether we like it or not.
OR does this mean that you get to pass laws against the sorts of sexual behaviors that you don't like? Or what?
It means we get to pass laws, as we have always done in America, against that which is destructive of our civilization and our society.
I mean, why should your "version" of the world be privileged over anyone else's? Please advise.
Why? You are too blind to see anyhow.
I don't understand your point. There are laws against driving too fast, and when you get nailed, your insurance goes up (believe me on this one). You may not get charged more for eating particular foods, but you most certainly do for smoking and for certain recreational activities.
If insurance companies were allowed to do a real actuarial analysis and charge more for high-risk behavior; or simply to exclude AIDS from coverage, I'd have no problem.
As it is, as long as the taxpayer or the insurance companies pay to treat brain injuries, I support helmet laws. And as long as we pay to treat diseases caused by massive promiscuity, we have a right to pass laws regulating sexual behavior.
But society always . . . makes these moral judgments," said Scalia. "Why is this different from bigamy?"
Indeed, if people have a "fundamental right" to "consensual sexual conduct in the home," why can't a man take two wives? Why not three? Why can't everybody pick the conglomeration of consensual partners that suits their peculiar appetite? As long as it's done "in the home," not in the street, it's a fundamental right. Right?
Where does it end? Who can tell -- given that a ruling for the petitioners could cause catastrophic collateral damage to the foundation of law itself? All men, said the Founders, "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." If all consensual adult sex is one of those rights, either God gave it to us or some force other than God is author of our liberty.
Seventeen years ago, in Bowers v. Hardwick, when Laurence Tribe first argued for this right, Justice Byron White, writing for the Court, said "it would be difficult, except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are committed in the home. We are unwilling to start down that road."
Chief Justice Warren Burger scoffed at Tribe's claim. "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right," he said, "would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."
the
FOUNDING FATHERS UNLEASHED Our Constitution provides the legitimate foundations of this country as a free nation that is of the people and by the people but, we must read beyond it words and read it's authors words and thoughts in order to understand the warnings they have sent through generations to it's application in todays world.
warning...
"
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"
warning...
- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
T
he entire argument about sexual behavior is so simple it can be reduced to the following: Should there be any social rules about what sexual activity a human being engages in?If the answer is no then everyone should just shut up...hetero is okay, cousins are okay, polygamy is okay, bi is okay; gay is okay, 13-year olds are okay, and one or one-hundred-at-a-time are okay, et. al.
However, if a society decides that certain rules about who does whom when and where is functional and perhaps even necessary, all that is left is to decide is
WHAT are the rules of sexual behavior and WHO shall make them...simple. Those who follow the 'rules' are then NORMAL and all the rest are PERVERTS... so very, very simple...you decide.Van & Katherine Jenerette
www.jenerette.com �
242 posted on 04/26/2003 9:22 PM EDT by Van Jenerette (Our Republic...If We Can Keep It!)
You need due process for those crimes -- crimes which are non-consensual acts, BTW.
American Center for Law and Justice This Court should affirm the judgment rejecting petitioners' equal protection claim. This case has been litigated under the rational basis standard; hence, as this Court explained in Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319 (1993), it would be wholly improper and unfair to inject a new standard here. Moreover, because there is no fundamental right at issue and because the record does not even identify what supposed suspect or quasi-suspect class petitioners belong to, heightened scrutiny is in any event unjustified. Under rational scrutiny, the ban on same-sex sodomy clearly passes constitutional muster. There are at least three, independently adequate, rational bases for the statute. First, a ban on same-sex sodomy permissibly furthers public morality. Second, the extensively documented health risks of same-sex sodomy supply a strong public health rationale for the statute. Third, based upon the view of all nine Justices in Bowers, as well as this Court's other "privacy" decisions, a state could reasonably conclude that, to minimize the likelihood of constitutional attack and invalidity, a ban on sodomy needed to exclude heterosexual acts. Importantly, the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual unions is the hallmark of marriage law. To invalidate that distinction here would be tantamount to holding marriage unconstitutional.
II. PETITIONERS' SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CHALLENGE FAILS.
As Justice Stevens wrote for a unanimous Court, As a general matter, the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended. . . . The doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field. Collins, 503 U. S. at 125 (citation omitted).
Actually, there's a danger there. The Democrats are on the verge of a split between their far left-wing and more moderate members. They've started to feud on Iraq, but even before that you saw the feud in the defeat of Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic Primary.
If there is a split, after 2004 -- and I'd say that's slightly better than a 50-50 proposition right now -- that would most likely result in a significant number of Dems joining the Greens. The Dems then would no longer have to kowtow to the left and could embrace a vigorous defense policy and a somewhat less radically left economic policy.
If this were to happen and the Republican Right managed a purge along social lines, the socially libertarian Republicans, like myself, might well find the Dems a more palatable party to belong to and vote for.
If this happens, I'd figure the Greens would have about a sixth of the voters, the GOP would hold about a third, and the Democrats would hold a plurality, if not an absolute majority, with about half the votes.
I'd say this scenario is unlikely, but I'd say it has a one-in-five chance of happening. More likely -- and better, in my opinion -- the GOP will find a way to hold all us bickerers and be a 55-60% party for the foreseeable future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.