There's an additional dimension to Glenn's analysis of cost-free moralism. Republican leaders love to condemn what they believe to be immoral behavior, but they rarely take definitive action to prohibit that behavior. Doing so would not only risk electoral backlash from those who have a more live and let live attitude, it would also make moot some of the Republicans' most potent get-out-the-vote issues (gay rights and abortion). They prefer leaving these issues unresolved in order to have something to righteously rail against come campaign time.

At an even deeper level than Glenn discusses, conservatives don't really believe their own claims. They long since gave up on Christianity, for instance, and in no way can be said to be carrying out the Bible's dictates.

Further, by positioning themselves against the reality of human desires, they're on the wrong side, yet again, of the movements of history, which are away from structures of oppression whose effort to contain those desires is futile.

Both these points are explored further in my article "Why Conservatives are Always Wrong," available here for anyone who's interested:

http://conservativesarealwayswrong.googlepages.com/

Another oft-ignored precept of Christianity is stewardship of the earth. As with true "family values" and other matters of principal mentioned in the comments, all Christian Republicans should be all for it, and would be all for it, except that it doesn't come free.

As always, the League of Conservation Voters highlights the stark difference that exists between Republicans and Dems with regard to environmental policy:

http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/

But I ain't gay.

I just really appreciate that you kept chewing this leg tenaciously...not letting go.

It always stuck me as completely un-American, radical and subversive to oppose gay marriage, after all, if marriage is a good thing (about the only "traditional" aspect left in out culture) then how can marriage between two homos be bad? That presumption, by the right, stikes me as patently absurd and illegal (violates equal protection).

That Democrats have been so mealy and wishy washy on this tells me how far they have fallen into the TV trap--trying to be popular vs. trying to make sense.

Really, being gay or not is so much less important than just about anything, yet the so-called "morals candidates" whine and strain themselves to the point of hysterics over it.

You are like the wolf crying in the night. The rest of the "media," like what is that? You rule dude. Thanks for pointing out the difference between gayness and morality--these two things have very little to do with each other. Also, in my not-too-narrow experience, people who talk about other people's morality are usually projecting--i.e. they don't have any of their own so they have to point out faults in others. Larry Craig is just the latest in a long-string of GOP poster bitches--get summa dat photoshop and put his wide-ass-stance in a grass skirt...

"I think that the gay lifestyle has, obviously, many features to it that may be unique to it" -Chris Matthews

(emphasis mine)

I recall a leading member of the old Compuserve Townhall Forum (before it was a hard core Heritage asset) asking people what was meant by the "gay lifestyle". I believe the words were, "Please define what is meant by the term "gay lifestyle)."

Do you recall if that guy ever got an answer to his perfectly legitimate question.

Glenn writes:

Here is the adulation heaped on Tony Perkins of the odious Family Research Council by Chris Matthews on Tuesday night:

Tony Perkins, you're a great man. We have had you on so many times. . . . . Tony Perkins, let me ask you to respond to that. Do you think that they're -- that the conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values, rather than election results, will break with the pols on this one?

Tony ("Psycho") Perkins has videotape of Tweety fucking a pumpkin, which is not only perverse but the height of narcissism.

But Tweety is right about one thing: Perkins doesn't care about election results -- not when the Almighty Supremes can overturn the inconvenient ones with impunity.

Does anyone know for sure that Rush's little "Sex Junkets" down to the Dominican Republic don't involve young boys? How about that?

Is that why there is such a tie between the AIPAC crowd and the fundies--because they both take their morality from the Old Testament instead of the New?

I've called out this book before, but Alan Dershowitz's "The Genesis of Justice" goes through the development of the concept of justice in the Old Testament from the vengeful, to retributive, to the proscriptive justice of the Ten Commandments. To me, this is then improved upon with the two commandments from Jesus, while the Paulician additions are a throwback to the more primitive ideas.

What this is also exposing if a profound (and weird) conflict the the "values" people. They are absolutely, positively completely against two people of the same sex who are in love, want to make a lifelong monogamous commitment, and raise a family. They have absolutely no problem with a man who has routinely violated his religious vow to maintain a lifelong, monogamous commitment, to the extent that he has apparently alienated his children.

They could fix this by condemning the closeted lifestyle (by the way, if you haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, you should. It's the most searing depiction of what the closet does to people that I've ever seen), and embracing same sex marriage, and condemning, as well, the licentiousness of powerful people.

This whole business reminds me of a remark by PJ O'Rourke. He said (paraphrasing):" People want to get married, have children and go to church? And conservatives are trying to stop them? Hell, if we let them do that, they'll be republicans in no time."

It just points out the irrationality that underlies the whole "values" enterprise. Of course, this leaves aside the hypocritical exploitation of their followers by the Perkins and the Dobsons of this world. It's impossible to believe that they were unaware of the sexual preferences and practices of leading Republicans, from the apparently brazen adultery of Newt Gingrich while leading the charge to impeach Clinton to the rumored sexual preferences of a couple of republican senators up for reelection this term.

They inculcate people with an irrational fear of homosexuality, exploit it for money and power and then pay no attention to it when it interferes with that exploitation.