The problem right now with the conservative “movement” and its declining traction among younger generations is that the smears of gay citizens increasingly fail to resonate, for as more and more feel confident enough to identify themselves rather than deny being gay, younger generations find gays to be among their friends, their siblings, their classmates, even their beloved parents. Their experience of gays therefore no longer is defined only by those who have been outed in scandal.

(The 2007 Fabrizio poll reveals that nearly 1 in 5 Republicans have gay family members that they know of, over 1 in 4 have gay friends, some 1 in 7 have coworkers they know to be gay. Note that this latter much lower figure reflects the the fact that so many are afraid to out themselves in work environments, where no protection from being fired for being gay exist. I think we will find that these figures are higher in the general population and probably much higher among Democrats, for many gays I am sure choose not to out themselves to friends and family who are conservative Republicans, and prefer not to be among those who torment them.)

So it isn’t just the ongoing and increasingly hollow smears such as that uttered above that discredit those otherwise attempting to build the conservative movement, it is silence in the face of them.

I remember when I first entered duty in the Air Force I addressed those few who reported to me as a young officer. The positive aspect of my message was that so long as they engaged in initiative, if they erred I would take the blame and if they succeeded I would ensure they received the credit. The negative aspect of my message was that if I ever heard them utter a religious, racial, or ethnic epithet or joke, I would come down upon them with a force they had never experienced. Perhaps not remarkable, we never heard such jokes or comments in my office, no matter how common they might have been elsewhere.

I am always sorry to hear of racism exposed, for I fear it conveys an impression to racial minorities that a racist attitude characterizes all of us. The reality is that I in our own home growing up and in the business and social circles of exceptional decency in which I circulate today never hear racist comments, because by refusing to utter them and refusing to countenance them, those circles have long since conveyed that such comments are unacceptable.

I am well aware, however, that racism exists, for I saw an appalling racist incident in the Air Force, and a friend of mine told me that but 15 years ago (1993!) relatives of his driving through Kokomo were run off the road by a carload of people who told them never to be in Kokomo after sundown. I know these horrible attitudes exist, but I can say confidently that they are not manifested in any circle of which I am a part, and that the attitudes that underlie such horrible actions also seem to absent.

In my opinion it is time, and it is appropriate, for young conservatives to begin publicly disassociating from those kinds of comments as uttered above, as surely, surely you would of racist comments, rather than leaving it gays to defend ourselves. While gays defend ourselves again and again and again, silence conveys the impression that all young conservatives, rather than a minority, consider gay friends and family to be no better than pedophiles, and to have and deserve no rights. The Fabrizio polling indicates that this is an injustice to young Republicans, who appear in overwhelming numbers nearly as much the rest of the population to believe, for instance, that employers should have no right to fire someone for being gay.

The damage done by these remarks is less and less to the gay community, though the damage to does remain severe and cutting, but more and more to the Republican Party and to the conservative movement which these kinds of remarks discredit. It is in the interests of both that a clear disassociation from these kinds of remarks take place, for otherwise the Republican Party and the conservative movement will repel, rather than attract, decent and intelligent people.

And the day after that it’ll be championing equal rights for NAMBLA.

It is one of the few questions that strips people down to the raw bone and reveals what kind of human being they are.. more so even then abortion… for the two sides of the abortion question (I believe) will never reconcile because of inherently consistent arguments on both sides… one on the side of a conception of life that is disputable but logically consistent.. and the other on the side of the autonomy of women, which is disputable but logically consistent.

With regard to the rights of gays, however, the arguments are not in the least consistent once divorced from narrow conservative religious thinking… the consistency breaks down completely, as I observe with Pence. If a person cannot find it within themselves to accord to gays our freedoms and equal protections as citizens, then their philosophical credibility zeros out. And unlike abortion, where I believe the dispute will be eternal, the belief systems of people today who refuse to accord to gays equality will gradually fade into a historical position of total discredit, and because of this discredit, all other aspects of their outlook will be stained as well. In contrast to those conservatives who before could be forgiven for being in step with the prejudices of their times, today we are beyond the tipping point.. and those who adhere to prejudice are now behind the times… They have been confronted with truth and have instead embraced their prejudices. In Indiana statewide and in national electoral politics, these kinds of people no longer have a future. Like segregationists of the 50’s and 60’s, their moment has past, and every aspect of their being discredited.

If a person doesn’t get it with regard to the equality of their fellow human beings who are gay, and shows such a dogmatic character as to demonstrate that they will never get it, then that person will be found to have all of the defects, prejudices, and logical inconsistencies in their civic philosophy common to not to the expansive conservative thought of Ronald Reagan, but to mere hidebound closed-mindedness.

History will show that reasonable people did not disagree about the civil rights for gay citizens… but that reasonable people embraced and encouraged those rights, unreasonable opposed them, and that progress ultimately prevailed over the unreasonable.

So if a politician is unreasonable with regard to encouraging and embracing the rights of gay citizens, then that politician will lack the facility to be truly credible on any topic requiring reason.

According to recent polls by Pew in 2007, 53% of those under the age of 30 believe gays should be able to marry legally, compared to 38% who oppose. Less than a majority of Republicans favor a marriage amendment. 75% of Americans (vs. 23%) under the age of 34 feel homosexuality should be be an accepted alternative. (There won’t be more gays.. just more acceptance of those who are.)

The rhetoric and record of people like Pence against gays, in contrast to our acceptance in that age group, why the percentage of those under the age of 34 in the Republican party has fallen from 25% to 17% in ten years.

Today, we have no respect for the racists of the 1960’s, whether politicians or ministers. Tomorrow no respect will be accorded those of this decade who have done so much to make life difficult for gay citizens and so little to make it better. Pence will fall in this category.

It seems to me that when you say, “If you can cite for me any statement of his, similar to the president’s or to the Governor’s, opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, you will have taught me something I didn’t know” that you don’t really mean it. You do not believe it even when it is provided.

You do not believe this, but this is a blind spot for you. It is why any time a discussion of a “movement conservative” or what I would say is a complete conservative comes up, you eventually end up arguing gay rights. You cannot construe a position of opposition to discrimination that does not include gay marriage, but there are other ideas in the world.

I would certainly not argue that Pence is a libertarian Republican. He is a conservative Republican, by his own admission.

Civil rights law became the law of the land in 1964 as a basic principle, prohibiting an employer from discriminating against you for being white, male, and protestant, for instance. Since then, outside of a religious environment, the religious “freedom to discriminate” holds no Constitutional water by any supreme court ruling I know of. To the contrary, you can’t on presumably religious grounds discriminate against anyone with whose religious views you disagree… Catholic… Jewish… Muslim….

According the poll by Republican Fabrizio in 2007, 77% of Republicans believe an employer should not have a right to fire someone based on their sexual orientation… a figure not too far from the 89% of the general population that the Gallop poll says believes that gays should have the same opportunities in the workplace.

Pence’s “I am opposed to discrimination” line is utterly hollow in this context… to the contrary… it is his explicitly his view that an employer should have a right to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation… If it related at all to freedom of religion and keeping government out of people’s lives, he would not have led the debates in favor of banning gays from marrying.

Pence is no libertarian Republican… and does not pretend to be. Instead, in my opinion he has adopted the role of a right wing religious conservative bent on constructing the law to ensure that the views of right wing religious conservatives prevail no matter their consistency from a Constitutional democratic perspective. In my opinion he is consistent only when understood in that context.

Among Hoosier reps over those three years: not surprisingly, Mike Pence dominates– with 99% and an average ranking of 3rd (out of 435).

Dan Burton is next with 78% and an average ranking of 67th. Steve Buyer is close behind with 74% and 79th. Mark Souder trails a bit with 60% and an average of 123rd place.

Of past reps, Chocola was impressive with 93%– good for 12th place. Hostettler had 76% and 58th place. Mike Sodrel had 60% and an average of 113rd place.

And then there’s the Democrats: blue dogs Ellsworth at 18% and 206th and Baron Hill at 15% and 216th– and the full-blown socialists: Julia Carson at 5% and 364th; Visclosky at 3% and 392nd; Donnelly at 1% and 394th.

“It means things that are consistent with God’s design for man. It’s consistent with human nature. It’s consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our Founding Fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to err and times do terrible things, that too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing.”

http://infredheads.blogspot.com/2007/12/charlie-rose-video.html

Regarding Pence on discrimination:

From http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/18157

“Let me be clear that I am not condoning discrimination against people for any reason whatsoever. I believe in civility and decency in society.”

Pence’s vote on job discrimination was based on its abridgment of the first amendment protection of religion. We have had extensive discussion on same sex marriages and I think we can at least agree that there are more than one position held by honest people on this topic. None of these examples that you give really show that Pence wants to ban gays from particular jobs or increased state control.

Actually voting against the job discrimination bill was a vote to keep the government out of the issue (i.e. more freedom). You mistake his votes for freedom of religion as votes for controlling your life.

Just remember that whenever government passes a law–even one to “protect” a group–it is exercising intervention or control.

“Qualification was the excuse in order to get a more reliable conservative in.” — can you establish your accusation? I was one sending emails, etc. when Myers was nominated and it was ALL about her lack of experience and lack of a track record to know what she thought of Constitutional law.