Conservative spin, geek'o'dinner

"Why does the conservatives think that not discriminating against gays for what they do behind closed doors "weakens the traditional family? That's just insane. You know, the gays are probably not going to have a "traditional family" no matter what the law says or how much they are being harassed. And no matter what they do for themselves, it doesn't prevents anyone else from having whatever kind of family they please."

Hey, I'm fairly conservative and I happen to agree with the Supreme Court decision. Not on privacy grounds, however, but rather on the grounds that were cited by Sandra Day O'Connor:

'"A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class run contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause," she writes in her concurring opinion.'

But, I wonder if you even read the article. I think Scalia's opinion quite clearly explains how some conservatives view this as a threat to the Traditional Family, and it has nothing to do with what you've said above.

In the article, Scalia was quoted as stating:

'In his heated dissent, Justice Scalia predicted the majority opinion lays the foundation for future rulings mandating government recognition of same-sex marriages as well as judicial invalidation of laws banning bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," Scalia says.'

Even though I don't happen to agree with this reasoning, I can understand it. The reasoning goes that by saying that the Government has no means of legislating private behavior, we are attacking the foundationg of Traditional Marriage, opening the door for people to have their relationships similarly sanctioned by the Government.

I am concerned that privacy is becoming the chief value in our society. I can think of other values that I hold more dearly.
For example, in most states, there is no prohibition against sexual behavior between consenting minors of a certain age, usually around 15. I'm not opposed to this. This is a privacy thing between the minors and their families, with me.

However, now that privacy is guaranteed in "what you do behind closed doors", I would think that adults could claim that the Government has no right to interfere with their relationships with minors. I'm sorry, I still think 15 year olds need to be protected from predatory adults, but this ruling may open us up to a society where that's no longer possible.

As I said, I do think this ruling is a Good Thing, based on the fact that equal protection forbids us from prohibiting certain classes of people. I don't think that this extends to those who prey on the young, however.

'Why does conservative nuts get to use nice words like "freedom" and "traditional" for their spin?'

Oh, that's an easy question to answer. It's called The First Amendment. People "get to use" any words they want in American Society.

While Privacy may not be my highest value, Free Speech is right up near the top.

republican = nazi

Jordan, I think privacy has become an increasingly heated issue because the explosion of digital database/surveillance/network technology not only has greatly changed one's expectation (and actual!) privacy, but also that this change has been almost entirely assymetric. It's this shift in power that which is probably most dangerous to freedom, not so much the loss of privacy itself (if everyone lost it equally, we'd deal with it).

That being said, I think our founding fathers quite adequately defined the lines around freedom - you're free insofar that you aren't interfering with the freedoms of others. I think that minors are a different issue (the added complications of agency)...

I think I'm most saddened by 'conservatives' and 'traditionalists' because almost invariably, they push emotional buttons to further their agenda, which are usually completely at odds with the freedoms and values that our country was founded on. You wonder what these people have gotten out of reading the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or the various correspondences of Jefferson, Madison, etc. [Apparently that of course you're free to do whatever you want, as long as it promotes the "way of life" that I condone.]

Jordan: Yes, I did read the article.

"It's called The First Amendment. People "get to use" any words they want in American Society."

No, people don't. I don't get to use words like "freedom" in many contexts because it is so overloaded by people with different values than mine. I like families. And traditions. And values.

But "traditional family values" as defined by the outspoken republicans is just repulsive to me.

(yes, I realize that's just how rhetoric work)

- ask

Ask,

You "get" to use words in any context you want, for whatever reason you want. There would be no freedom at all if we did not have the freedom to be wrong.

Leonard,

"I think I'm most saddened by 'conservatives' and 'traditionalists' because almost invariably, they push emotional buttons to further their agenda..."

And 'progressives'/'liberals' don't? It seems to me that I hear nothing BUT emotional arguments coming from the left like "It's for the children" or "Starving the elderly" or "Bombing old men in Afghanistan is the wrong thing to do".

Some anonymous poster above posted "Republican = Nazi" makes my point very clearly, I think.

I guess some people are only able to find fault with conservatives...