When people discuss their moral values, they are usually talking about what other people are doing, and people obsessed with moral values are often obsessed with the actions of other people. Taking the moral high ground is the equivalent of saying "I'm better than those people, because they are wrong."

But then it becomes a matter of, what is wrong? Is a man consensually fucking another man up the ass wrong? Does the 2 men's actions in and of themselves have any bearing on anything?

Most intelligent people would answer "no" to both questions. But when you ask if it is wrong to divorce a spouse, who has a low level of education, only in order to become freed up to go to another person half the spouse's age, most people would say that is wrong, and that it could be very damaging to the spouse and any kids that were a product of the marriage that is about to be broken.

In truth moral values have nothing to do with being right, but rather are used as a means to be nosy and critical of that which you see in others that you don't like.

When you ask most people if divorce in and of itself is wrong, most people will say "no," because they want the option to be available to them, but when you ask for their opinion of male homosexuality, most people will express disgust, because it is something they have no intention of ever engaging in.

People who claim high moral values, are really just nosy people who can't help but be critical of others, only because those other people are different. Where as a person with a true conscience recognizes that people should be free to do what they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.

Now that the Republicans are all hot and bothered about this, I wonder whether their newfound revulsion at the homosexuality in their midst will extend to folks like the semi-closeted David Dreier and other rumored gay elected officials, and the many rumored gays who work for elected Republicans in Washington.

Like you, Glenn, I am offended by their hypocrisy. I know Michael Rodgers-style outing is a controversial remedy. But if the Republicans finally stop quietly embracing those who do not walk the homophobic walk so long as they help advance the Republican political cause, that is something else -- not better, just different.

I suspect that driving the Republicans into that corner will hurt them in the long run although (or perhaps because) it would make them less hypocritical.

"The police are targeting men who hook up for sex in public bathrooms, not "gays" in general."

They may or may not be targeted by Police, but it is hard to argue that bias doesn't flow along lines of sexual orientation, just as it does with race and gender.

No, I agree, but I wasn't arguing that the police are unbiased. What I meant was that in this case, the police claim that they were conducting the sting operation because they had received complaints about men having sex in the public restrooms.

Using public restrooms for sex is illegal. The police have every right -- actually, the responsibility -- to enforce the law. If they were busting the men for having sex where it is not illegal to do so -- a motel, for example -- that would not only show bias, but would be an abuse of power.

Put another way, if there were also complaints that some men were sneaking women into the public bathrooms and having sex with them, and the police were not arresting the heterosexual offenders as well, that would show bias.

I hope that is clearer than what I said before.

Glenn -

You're an attorney (and so am I). Have you ever represented anyone in criminal court? While Craig may be Gay, and the republicans are the epitome of hypocrisy, neither is the real issue.

Craig's version of the story rings true. Whether he deserves to exposed is another issue as is his lack of support from his own party.

This story should be told, but not the way the media is telling it. This is a story of entrapment and coerced guilty pleas.

From Glenn's article:

There has arisen a relatively recent orthodoxy among political journalists that, whether we agree or disagree with them, we're all supposed to show great respect to the "values voters" political faction, because it is grounded in deeply held moral convictions that merit real respect.

But the "peace voters" faction isn't?

And the "economic justice" faction isn't?

And the "racial equality" faction...

What is it about religious extremism? Why do the Christianists get all the respect?

You guys are cracking me up -- but now that the idea has been planted, I'm gonna have to conduct the same experiment. I have visions of Glenn's extraordinarily cerebral commentariat all sitting on the john with undies and pants around their ankles, bent over with a tape measure. Too funny.

Yep. U R.

I, too, did my own 'wide stance' test (hey, who hasn't?)and discovered just what you did: it was impossible to spread my feet apart far enough for one of them to move into the next stall unless I completely removed my pants, or didn't undo them at all. THAT is what American should be focusing on.

The Idaho Statesman that has the most comprehensive coverage had this story on gay activists views.

Gay activists scornful of senator's ‘I'm not gay' statement

http://www.idahostatesman.com/larrycraig/story/145526.html

Initial Aug 28 story:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/143801.html

All this other hand wringing about "cost-free moralism" is high school debate nonsense. Both parties and most human beings practice it.

Can we therefore take it as a given that your lot don't have any real morals?

It would simply acknowledging reality, granted. Something we all know you are loath to do.

and not confined to sex crimes or even the domestic legal realm.

An example: your troops "spill over" across the border and shoot up some site in a country you might otherwise have no right to be in.

Any international treaties broken?

No, because it was nothing but the "Wide Stance" you take while out on patrol.