Here is an amazing exchange from yesterday's White House press briefing. Does anyone know who the reporter is that asked the question?

Q And if I can just shift gears very briefly, what's the President's beliefs about homosexuality?

MR. FLEISCHER: You know, that's a question that's been put to the President, and if you go back and you look at it, the President has said that, first of all, he doesn't ask that question about people. He judges people about who they are, their individual soul. That's not a matter the President concerns himself with. He judges people for how they act and how they relate, and that's his focus on that.

Q How they act sexually? Because I asked sexually --

MR. FLEISCHER: How they act as a person. The same way --

Q But the police in Texas asked how they act sexually.

MR. FLEISCHER: The same way you would say that about how anybody -- what's his reaction to this person or that person -- say, are they a nice person, what kind of person are they? It has nothing to do with their sexuality.

Q So does he believe that they ought to be free to be themselves, without interference from police?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always said that when it comes to legal matters, that it's a question of different groups, homosexual groups, gay groups should not have special rights or special privileges.

Q Is it a special privilege to be able to love the person you love the way you want to love them, without interference from the police?

MR. FLEISCHER: If you're asking about a matter that is a legal matter that is pending before the Supreme Court, that's a matter for the court to rule on, and we'll find out what the court says in the specific case in mind.

Q So he has no position on that?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's a matter that's pending before the court, in regard to your last question.

Gay Republicans are beneath contempt. They are the modern equivalent of pro-Nazi Jews.

Rick Santorum, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, and No. 3 in the GOP leadership:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution.

From the same article, Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Patrick Guerriero:

There is nothing conservative about allowing law enforcement officials to enter the home of any American and arrest them for simply being gay. I am deeply troubled that Sen. Santorum would divide America in a time of war. Mainstream America is embracing tolerance and inclusion. I am appalled that a member of the United States Senate leadership would advocate dividing Americans with ugly, hate-filled rhetoric.

... and John Partain, president of the Pennsylvania Log Cabin Republicans:

The discriminatory remarks made by Sen. Santorum clearly do not reflect the compassionate conservatism promised by our president.

"Compassionate conservative" George W. Bush supported the Texas sodomy law when it came under legal challenge, calling it a "symbol of traditional values".

Here is some more of that "compassionate conservatism", from the 2002 Republican Party of Texas Platform (see the PDF for the full version, or this from Google):

Homosexuality The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statues [sic]
The Party opposed the decriminalization of sodomy.

I'm amused by the "fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders" part. If anyone has information on what our Founding Fathers or Jesus had to say on the subject of homosexuality, please email me.

Here is the relevant section of the 2000 National Republican Party Platform:

We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.

"All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith," said U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige. "Where a child is taught that, there is a source of strength greater than themselves."

Things like this remind me why I'm studying German.

See Eschaton for more.

Check out today's Non Sequitur.