Falwell on Roberts

Here is the transcript of Jerry Falwell’s appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show where he unreservedly supported John Robert’s role in helping overturn the Colorado anti-homosexual rights referendum. Falwell, of course, has been a silly character for years, and now he seems to have gone beyond silly to senile. But maybe not. Maybe this is simply part of the general drift of the American “right” to the left. In the mid-’90s, I was shocked when Pat Robertson told a tv interviewer that he believed in a vision of America as a “level playing field.” In other words, he didn’t believe in America as a Christian country, but as a liberal society equally open to all values. I wrote to Robertson about this and told him I no longer supported his organization, the Christian Coalition. Is not Falwell’s embrace of a pure liberal-rights vision similar to Robertson’s?

It bears repeating: If a person in a liberal society does not have consciously non-liberal principles, he will inevitably end up moving in a liberal direction himself.

Here’s the Carlson transcript:

CARLSON:…Jerry Falwell, I notice you wrote a piece supporting Mr. Roberts. Are you rethinking that?

FALWELL: Oh, not at all.

You know, I—if I were an attorney, I’d certainly fight for the right of gays or anyone else to be employed or be housed wherever they wished to be housed. I may not agree with the lifestyle. And I don’t. But that has nothing do with the civil rights of that member of our—that part of our constituency.

John Roberts would probably have been not a very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans.

CARLSON: But wait a second. I thought conservatives are always arguing against special rights for gays. And the idea is that…

FALWELL: Well, housing and employment are not special rights. I think—I think the right to live somewhere and to live where you please or to work where you please, as long as you’re not bothering anybody else, is a basic right, not a—not a special right.

MADDOW: I think—I’m happy to agree with you on this.

I mean, I think that if you look at Romer v. Evans, it’s pretty hard to say that you’re against the decision in Romer v. Evans that was originally arrived at. I mean, Scalia and Thomas were definitely against it. But the fact is, this—this—this case was about…

CARLSON: And Rehnquist.

MADDOW: And Rehnquist. I think you’re right there—was—this case was about whether or not you can put an ad in the paper that says, I want to rent this apartment, but no gays need apply, or, I want to put up a for-hire sign that says, no lesbians will be hired for this job. If you think that’s an American value and that we ought to be supporting that, then you’re with the minority in Romer v. Evans. If you’re not, then you’re on the side of John Roberts.

CARLSON: I’m—of course, I’m not even arguing that.

MADDOW: Right.

CARLSON: I’m merely saying, this gives us a window into Judge Roberts’ thinking and it suggests that he’s not nearly as conservative as his critics and his supporters have suggested. And I think that, if he winds up being a Tony Kennedy clone on the Supreme Court, we shouldn’t be surprised. I won’t be.

FALWELL: Well, Tony—Tucker, I’m very conservative. I think I’m to the right of most people you know, but…

CARLSON: Not to the right of me, but yes.

FALWELL: But civil—civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or a conservative value. It’s an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 10, 2005 04:55 PM | Send