Don't frighten the horses: What Larry Craig tells conservatives about ourselves.

vanity | September 1, 2007 | Nathanbedford

[nathanbedford]

I don't disagree with anything you said there nor does anything you said there disagree with anything I wrote. Certainly the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of morality that is a question between us and our God. But the Supreme Court is surely the final arbiter of law and to maintain otherwise is simply ludicrous.

My argument is not that homosexuality is moral or immoral but there are now limits to the ability of conservatives to impose their morality through the law-and that is not entirely a bad thing when you see how these bathroom prosecutions undermine our rule of law.

You will also note that I'm very firm that we conservatives should expect the law to oppose homosexuality in support of higher values.

[RC2]

“So we conservatives have a problem”? I don’t have a problem..........the liberal judges have the problem. Show me where, in our Constitution it talks about gays having any rights that contradict the Judeo/Christian values that this country was founded on.

[shield]

Great points...

[Jeff Head]

Well, I would argue that a President or a Congress with gumption, is the equal to the Surpeme Court on matters of law, or ought to be. Although the Court interprets law, they do not make it or enforce it.

They are all three coequal and all charged and oathed to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

As Andrew Jackson said when speaking of the then Supreme Court Justice's opinion..."let him enforce it."

As to the other, we are in agreement.

[kinoxi]

See post #7 and check you’re facts.

[nathanbedford]

I think you understand that I am driving at the fatal inconsistency of the law which makes a distinction between solicitation for homosexual sex and heterosexual sex.

Your questions about the inchoate nature of the sting reveals just how fundamentally unconservative these bathrooms sting operations are and how dangerous they can be.

Craig pled to disorderly conduct because they had him by the balls even though I see nothing in his conduct which constitutes lewdness, solicitation, or disorderly conduct. They had him because he was exposed as a bathroom pervert. But that is not a crime unless you act lewdly, solicit, or act disorderly.

[ImpBill]

Best analysis of the "situation" I have read to date.

Well said!

[goldstategop]

I believe in virtue. Its the value that pays tribute to the vice called hypocrisy. Hypocrisy should be properly understood as the absence of standards rather than the failure to live up to standards.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nathanbedford]

I am aware that there is a factual question about how long Craig actually stared into the stall. But the bottom line is that no charge was brought.

I have already assumed Craig to be "guilty" in that I believe he was seeking a homosexual encounter but I am not willing to conclude his guilt of a crime that even the policeman who stung him was not willing to charge.

[goldstategop]

The law does not prohibit sexual behavior but rather indecent or grossly offensive behavior in a public setting. But you're right, our attitudes are conflicted. We don't want to persecute homosexuals and at the same time we are repelled by their cruising public places for sex and making out in them.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nathanbedford]

“So we conservatives have a problem”? I don’t have a problem

As a conservative you had a problem last November and you are very likely to have an even bigger problem November 2008.

[Mamzelle]

re: I’m a prosecutor and I don’t know the answer, if we’re getting the whole story.)))

I'm not one, and I hope that there's more to the story...because if this is the story, we've been played once again for idiots. The spectacle of GOP Senators denouncing and demanding resignation from one of their own for some very confusing and ambiguous charge of playing footsie--that there were no words exchanged between the undercover toilet cop and the perp, much less physical contact---if this is all there is, we've just weakened our position in the Senate for practically nothing.

Supposedly we tolerate homosexuality in the GOP, even in the most conservative state of South Carolina. "Minding one's own business" etc. South Carolinians who voted for Lindsey Graham had a strong suspicion that he's probably not straight. As long as he did not choose to make his alleged preferences a problem for his constituents, even this southern buckle on the Bible belt was willing to mind it's own business. He's proven only to represent one constituent--John McCain.

But I digress. Is Craig a lawyer? His huge error was in not calling a lawyer after his arrest. He looks to be in heavy denial in what trouble one can get into when accused of some absurd crime. Plead to a lesser charge and expect it to go away? A stupid moment and he'll pay dearly.

But I'd like to know--if we are in the business of tolerating homosexuality, won't we come out losers in the long run for throwing Craig under the bus for a suspicion of homosexuality, when no words were exchanged and no physical contact involved?

I guess Lindsey Graham will call us bigots again. LOL. Where is Little Lord Lindsey on the Craig debacle, anyway?

[Mamzelle]

Ping #32

[kinoxi]

I am aware that there is a factual question about how long Craig actually stared into the stall. But the bottom line is that no charge was brought. I have already assumed Craig to be "guilty" in that I believe he was seeking a homosexual encounter but I am not willing to conclude his guilt of a crime that even the policeman who stung him was not willing to charge.

He already admitted guilt.

[nathanbedford]

I believe in virtue. Its the value that pays tribute to the vice called hypocrisy. Hypocrisy should be properly understood as the absence of standards rather than the failure to live up to standards.

I believe the absence of standards is debauchery. Hypocrisy is the failure to live up to standards which one proclaims and usually demands of others. That is why Craig is a hypocrite.

[Old_Mil]

The only “problem” we have is that our constitution was written in a more civilized time, by more civilized men who didn’t dream that someday their degenerate descendants would walk the land they were taming proclaiming special rights for those who practice sodomy.

As for me, I make no secret of the fact that homosexuality is a vile practice and utterly incompatible both with conservatism and with a party that proclaims it.

If the Republicans wish to become libertarians, they can do so without my vote.

[IronJack]

The Supreme Court ruled on a matter of law, not a matter of morality. Within America's legal framework, the Court found that the state's right to interfere in private sexual matters is greatly outweighed by the individual's right to privacy. If, as Russell Kirk said, conservatives prize liberty over equality, then the liberty to indulge personal vices in private should trump the state's questionable concern over private behavior. The Court's decision was the right one.

It is highly debatable whether it was the MORAL one.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks

[kinghorse]

“My argument is not that homosexuality is moral or immoral”
Thats where you lost me.