What Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper giveth in one release on Thursday, with his strong statement on Obama’s fundraising pitch to the gay community, he taketh (partially) away in another that very day with a threatening language  directed against his own party’s presidential nominee:

Marriage equality has captured the nation’s attention, and the response to President Obama’s announcement is evidence of the tide turning in favor of equality for all. . . .

Governor Mitt Romney’s statement in opposition to not just marriage but civil unions jeopardizes his ability to win moderates, women and younger voters, especially as a large majority of Americans favor some form of relationship recognition for their LGBT friends and neighbors.

Equality for all?  What’s that mean?  It’s certainly not a conservative slogan, but one more familiar to a Mr. W. Smith.

Clarke is right to criticize Romney for his “opposition to not just marriage but civil unions”, but his tone is counterproductive.  Moderates, women and younger voters won’t vote against him because of his stand on gay marriage.  They will, however, vote against him if he makes that stand central to his campaign.  They’re not going to decide their vote exclusively on gay marriage.  He would have served himself (and the cause of his organization) better had he merely expressed disappointment with Romney’s position.

Clarke is not the only non-left gay leader to offer intemperate remarks about Romney this week.  Our pal JimmyLaSalvia, Executive Director and Co-Founder of GOProud, “With his speech at Falwell’s Liberty University, it is clear that Governor Romney’s message to Goldwater conservatives is: drop dead.”  Earlier today, Governor Romney delivered the commencement address there.

While we would rather the Republican nominee not have to make a courtesy call at Jerry Falwell U (as have all Republican candidates “in recent years“), Romney’s speech hardly amounted to a repudiation of Goldwater’s small government ideals.  Indeed, his talk barely touched upon government’s role in society, save to remind the graduating students that “Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution“. He focused instead on the importance of family and faith.

And he did say, what we already know him to believe, “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.” He offered nothing new on social issues — and didn’t attack gay people or advocate policies anathema to libertarians. (more…)

Well, I’m back from my deployment and wouldn’t you know the first post I make is as earth-shattering and gob-smacking as this:

I agree with what Bill Maher and Andrew Sullivan have to say here:

“If we are to retain equal citizenship, everybody should be responsible for their actions, not their thoughts.” – Sullivan

Some other good lines:

“I think the law should send the message, ‘You know what? Even if you’re emotional, you can’t commit a crime.’” – Maher

“No one is defending hate here, okay? We’re defending liberty.” – Sullivan

“The right of a bigot to walk down the street is the same as the right of a drag queen to walk down the street.” – Sullivan

“If pranking people on the basis of what every prank is–often involved, which can often be bigotry…if that is now 10 years in prison, then half the country is going to have to be locked up” – Sullivan

“I just think this is what gives Liberals a bad name.” – Maher

(on Ravi): “He insists that he did not do this out of homophobia. Some court decided what was inside his mind–for him. And he risked a lot to insist that he wasn’t a bigot.” – Sullivan

“I believe that a free country is freedom for bigotry. I really do. I think it’s freedom that they should be able to say whatever they want. But shutting people down–Criminalizing them–is not a free country.” – Sullivan

(and please forgive me, my blogging skills–as they ever were–are rusty and so I don’t known how to imbed this video from RCP…perhaps Dan or Bruce can help me out?)

I used to read (and agree with) Andrew Sullivan a LOT. I read him back in the BoiFromTroy days that got me involved with this blog in the first place. (Those were some haydays, no?) When he abandoned much of what he had pre-FMA supported, I was pretty disappointed to say the least. Here it’s good to see he hasn’t completely lost all his bearings, and perhaps I should take a look again?

- Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

In his thoughtful commentary on the president’s speech in Osawatomie, law professor and Theodore Roosevelt biographer Joshua D. Hawley offers this observation about the liberal notion of equality:

Following Roosevelt’s lead, liberals have advocated government as the guarantor of equality, as the principal agent of national improvement, and indeed, as the source of shared national identity.

Emphasis added.

And this is why we need be wary of those who promote “equality” through legislation.  For someone must adjudicate equality.  It seems those on the left are comfortable with having the state serve as adjudicator.  But, those of who us value our freedom should always be wary of granting more power to the state.

In a review of David Mamet’s The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, Gerard Reed reminds us of the tension that exists between the conservative/libertarian ideal of liberty and the leftish abstraction of equality:

The path the leftist boomers (such as Mamet in his youth) follow was identified by Hayek as “The Road to Serfdom. And we see it in operation here, as we are in the process of choosing, as a society, between Liberty—the freedom from the State to pursue happiness, and a supposed but impossible Equality, which, as it could only be brought about by a State capable and empowered to function in all facets of life, means totalitarianism and eventual dictatorship” (p. 61). Egalitarian Liberals constantly stress the importance of sympathy and compassion, of caring for others. Translated into political action, however, these feelings frequently prove destructive, fully evident when Big Government imposes its agenda.

Emphasis added.  (H/t Westside Republicans e-newsletter)  In the book Mamet noted how politicians (and their activist) allies tout the abstraction of “Equality” as an excuse to increase the power of the state: “the prime purpose of Government is to expand Equality, which may also be stated thus: to expand its own powers”.

While we should strive to be compassionate in our personal lives, to look out for those around us, Reed’s commentary reminds us of the dangers of state compassion.  Since governments don’t generate income, save by what it expropriates from citizens, when a state strives to be compassionate, it often sets its people on a road to serfdom.

There is much the adjective that Mamet uses to modify “Equality,” “impossible.”  The ideal of liberty is much easier to define, but equality is much more abstract notion.  How does one achieve “equality” in a nation of diverse individuals, each of whom places different values on different aspect of our lives?  Should we compensate a man more who chooses to work fewer hours so he has more time to devote to his family than we compensate a woman who chooses not to have a family and work long hours so she can be a successful (and powerful) attorney? (more…)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Today, I inaugurate a new category, “Equality,” deliberately putting the word defining said category in quotation marks.  Not only do we have a gay movement focused on attaining this elusive and ambiguous abstaction, but with the rise of the #Occupy Wall Street movement, “income inequality” has also come to the fore, as Jazz Shaw reports, one “of the hot terms occupying the center ring of the political circus these days“.

It seems that in both cases, the various political movements are demanding increased government regulation of and control over private enterprise in order to achieve their desired equal result.

Recently, I listened to a representative of “Equality California” detailing all the legislation his outfit advocated, asking his interlocutor to eheck the web-site to see the full list of laws they wanted to see enacted.  Driving away, I recalled the first five words of the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law . . .”  (Emphasis added.)

This important addition to our nation’s charter reinforced its initial provisions limiting the things the federal government can do.*  Later, the Fourteenth Amendment applied these limitations to the states.

The Founder and the Framers wanted to limit government’s power in order to protect individual freedom.  And now, equality activists want to expand federal — and state — power to achieve “equality.”  This should help elucidate why conservatives should not rush to embrace this ambiguous abstraction.  And should call into question the motives of those who bury their commitment to an ever larger state under a noble-sounding ideal.

RELATED:  Over at Powerline quoting Steven den Beste, Scott Johnson offers a unified theory of left-wing causes:

Isn’t it interesting that no matter what the current global crisis is, according to leftists, the solution is always the same: a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite, and mass transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations.

*ADDENDUM: Nine of the ten amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights use the words “no”, “nor”, and/or “not”, all preventing the government from depriving individuals of their life, liberty and property.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Lori Heine nails it:

There is only one way that a powerful, external force can make everybody equal — and that is by making them slaves. (more…)