Increasing voter support for homosexual rights can be traced to the absence of harm to a direct victim. Social conservatives, of whom I count myself one, will be well served to resist the temptation to legislate their version of morality which is indirectly good for society but for which immediate, direct an identifiable harm is so difficult to prove.
For one thing, this tendency is in philosophical opposition to the essential conservative laissez-faire attitude toward individual choices in business dealings, familial responsibilities, free speech and choices in religion, disposition over property, and, generally, matters of personal liberty. It leaves an increasing demographic block of secularized voters feeling they could be the next victim to someone else's version of immorality. Indeed, there is a whole body of voters who believe it is tolerant and even desirable to condone deviancy. They think, with some justice, that the proper venues to decide these matters are found in churches and the public square but not in legislative chambers or courtrooms.
The party of liberty is seen as the party of oppression.
Where such harm plainly exists, as in abortion, conservatives are on safe ground and are well served to vigorously advocate on behalf of of innocent victims.
