"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.

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...

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/

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/

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.

“And, I might add, the idea that "we win, you lose" as a mantra is childish at best. So, I ask -- how is it that it continues to work?”

Because too many misunderstand the true value of competition (competing with yourself and testing your capabilities) and how to diffuse not inflame a conflict. You are aware that the optimum outcome in a conflict is when both sides win. Those who are victims of Repug manipulation think one side must lose for the other to win.

When you select a religion that says, in order to be saved, you have to believe as I do or participate in a sport or business where winning means deflating or dehumanizing the opposition, you are blind to hypocrisy. At the most basic level when you are insecure about yourself and to feel good about yourself, you have to put others down because at least that means I am better than them, you dismiss your inner feelings and the hurt you are causing to others.

It also comes down to individuals, religions and cultures that see the world in black and white terms. Since I am not gay, than no one else can be gay, so it has to be wrong, especially if the messengers of my beliefs tell me so. Black and white viewers don’t understand the concept that it is OK to disagree.

It might seem that a black and white world is a much less complex way to live and thus feels safer. Actually a gray world feels safer to people like you and me, because we are not trapped into one outcome and can adjust to any situation while still feeling good about ourselves. Imagine the conflict in someone like Craig who by nature is a homosexual and by socialization believes he has no right to trust his natural feelings and must reside in the closet when the multitude is gathered around the closet and he has to tell his wife and everyone that he is not in the closet. That is the kind of emotional turmoil that goes on in a black and white view of the world. Now compound that with a gender socialization that says a man can’t trust his true feelings and is only allowed to use one of his emotions, anger.

Unfortunately, throughout history this kind of thinking has created death and mayhem, especially when two black and white groups clash.

Glenn,

I am SURE that when Livingston got busted, adultery was a CRIME in Louisiana. I'm sure if that is still the case, but it was back then.

A couple of us commentators recently called attention to the fact that conservatives "reason" within comparmentalized spaces, dealing with larger issues or contradictions via ad hominem attacks and other forms of attack and/or fallacious reasoning.

Here Elephantman provides a textbook example, via the red herring fallacy:

I'll make you a deal, Glenn Greenwald!

We'll call for the swift resignation of the morally-disabled David Vitter, and set up the appointment of his replacement by a Democrat governor...

...if you will call for the resignation of the physically-disabled Tim Johnson, with the Republican Governor of South Dakota naming his replacement...

The issue with regard to Vitter, of course, is the double-barrelled hypocrisy in contrast with Craig. This hypocrisy is blatant, undeniable, and indicative of much, much broader patterns. Indeed, it's one of the core principles (yes, Virginia, hypocrisy is a principle with these people) of movement conservatism. So, for sure, it's not something that Elephantman wants to hear about. So, what to do? Present a distraction!

Hence, the red herring. Switch the subject to senators resigning. Never mind that Johnson doesn't appear ready to resign. Never mind that there's a long history of senators serving while incapacitated. Never mind, in short, that there's no there there. Anything at all will do to distract. The mere fact of raising the issue distracts attention from the original subject matter, which is the whole point of the distraction--to change the subject, so that conservatives have a chance to get back in charge of the narrative.

And, if folks are stupid enough not to realize how bogud the whole rhetoricl move is, then Elephantman can move onto stage two--and acccuse the Democrats of being hypocrites for wanting to treat Johnson and Vitters differently--merely because they are different!

This is how conservative discourse gets structured. It's all about using fallacies and personal attacks to avoid the contradictions inherent in their arbitrary, insufficient worldview, and advancing ill-founded suppositions in order to claim that it's the Democrats and/or the liberals who are the real hypocrites.