First there is the premise that we should not punish criminals or at least not punish them so severely. This can manifest itself in excusing crime because several things, including the criminals income or education level. As if the victim is somehow less robbed, raped or murdered. Some liberal judge can throw the book at them and give them a really long suspended sentence.

Then there is the liberal solution to illegal immigration. I will ignore the laws and bribe you with amnesty or citizenship and expect you to vote for liberal candidates.

Then there is the laundering of personal responsibility out of society. A systematic substitution of the father of the family with the federal government. Uncle Sam can bring home a paycheck, handle your medical needs, provide moral direction and tell you what is important about religion. (of course there is the bonus that we can blame this 'new family model' for any crimes committed, see first item)

Liberals form a circle and hand each other dishonest awards. Give the Dixie Chicks a Grammy for a rather unremarkable album because they embarrassed Bush. Give Al Gore and Michael Moore awards for slanted motion pictures because we like the politics. Give President Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for his actions in the first two weeks of his presidency, things must have gone exceptionally well at the inaugural balls.

What do the liberal dual standards tell us about morality? The misogyny nonsense is just the most recent example. What an outrage that Rush would say those things. But no one cared when comedians, talk show hosts and others said awful things about conservative women and the victims of Clinton's escapades.

What about all of those keeping racism alive and profiting from it? Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and others. I am not sure how this Trayvon Martin case will end up, but I do know how the Duke Lacrosse case ended up.

Moral people would have apologized after all of the unfounded allegations surrounding the shooting of Gabby Giffords.

I've seen this sort of slippage in every gay marriage study I've looked at. I suspect they are most often conducted by gay studies sociologists whose mission in life is to build bridges between gays and "mainstream" society. It's machine science.

In any case, I haven't seen many folks claim you're immoral or attacking traditional morality in regard to your posts on this blog. I've seen many claim you prefer building dishonest arguments, like the strawman you build here, and that you're a partisan hack. Others attempt to create serious legal arguments, which you consistently refuse to engage no doubt because you've been proven wrong so often.