Sen. Rick Santorum

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

He believes it's not something that's right for the family, which is what a lot of Christians believe. I actually know a few who believe the same thing, but they aren't all up for lynching 'faggots', either. They just don't think it's the right thing for a good family. It may not be totally right, but it doesn't mean that they are actively hating homosexuals.

I fail to see how two gay guys getting it on out of sight damages anyone's "American family." No one has ever been able to explain it to me, either. I certainly think it does no more damage than Married By America.[/b]

 

Even then, how is it the government's role to look out for that kind of stuff? If that's his beliefs, fine. But he wants to turn his beliefs into law.

 

He cited the examples because then people would start bringing those to the courts arguing under the same precedent. Why not bestiality? It's in the privacy of your own home. Same with incestous sex. It's in the privacy of your own home.

 

he lumped incest (by inference paedophilia) in with sodomy and adultery. Paedophilia is hardly consensual sex. Bigamy and adultery are not big issues, they happen all the time, and cannot be legislated away. Who the hell is Rick Santorum to recommend legislating what is & isn't deviant?

 

I find it offensive that he thinks it's OK to legislate what I do in the privacy of my home with another (or several) consenting adult(s).

 

I find the public's response no overreaction, especially as these are the opinons held by the #3 man in the Senate, not some low-level moron. He is speaking for his party.

 

What is so funny about all this is that bestiality is not illegal in Texas. Even bestiality with an animal of the same sex! You have to be human. Unbelievable.

 

Santorum is the latest mouthpiece for the religious zealots that are trying to take over the country.

 

But to have the court take an offical stance on sex is just as bad on abortion.

 

I fail to understand that. Abortion is an action that you choose to have done. The court to take an official stance on gays is akin to the court taking an official stance on blacks. I don't remember that being so bad, despite so many claims to the contrary by those who were around at that time.

 

You are trying to accuse him of something that he denied in the interview twice.

 

What he said originally isn't nearly as bad or comdemning as what he said in later interviews.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

burp.

Edited April 25, 2003 by Jobber of the Week

[Guest Cancer Marney]

...

 

This entire thread is a waste of bandwidth, just as the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" line is a waste of air. It's obvious that Santorum simply hates gays. No, that's not unconstitutional, but enacting laws to codify his hatred would be.

 

Christ, I can't believe anyone's bothering to defend this idiot. All the conservative columnists are blathering about Santorum's sacrosanct right to an opinion, but like Tyler said, it isn't the liberals who're blind this time.

[Guest Powerplay]

Aie.

 

I think I turned this argument more into a "Defend my Christian friends who share a similar belief but I don't consider bigots" rather than the actual person involved for me. I'm gonna ban my self from the CE folder for a while. Buh-bye.

[Guest The next Poster is ghey]

Wow.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Man, and here I never thought I'd ever have Marney in my corner for any debate, ever.

 

This is like when Catwoman saves Batman from the Penguin so that she can fight him in a future issue or something. =b

[Guest Ace309]

A little late on joining this one, but...

 

The assumption seems to be, "Police power [state and local governments' right and duty to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morals of the people] implies a duty to encourage marriages and children. If we outlaw gay sex, there will be more straight marriages and therefore more children."

 

The problem, of course, is that "I am not having gay sex" doesn't mean the same thing as "I am having children," so imho the police power argument - as used by Texas in defense of their anti-gay sodomy law in the Supreme Court - falls flat on its face.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

The White House came out today in support of him, which I find absolutely hilarious given the way they hung Trent Lott out to dry. I think it's obvious that the Bush administration picks and chooses who it defends and who it comdemns based on what kind of conservative they are, rather than what they say. An old-fashioned, southern, elderly conservative doesn't jive with what the Bush administration is looking for, whereas Santorum could be one of the poster-boys for Bush's style of Republican.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Apr25.html

 

WASHINGTON - The White House said GOP Sen. Rick Santorum is doing a good job as party leader and is "an inclusive man," despite his controversial remarks on homosexuality.

 

"The president has confidence in the senator and believes he's doing a good job as senator" and in his No. 3 Senate GOP leadership post, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday.

 

In an interview with The Associated Press, Santorum compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. He also said the right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution.

 

"The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes," Fleischer said.

 

Nobody more inclusive than Ricky "Gays are like guys who fuck dogs" Santorium.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

...wowee.

 

I suppose you have to blast Trent Lott since black people are an accepted minority in America, while you can let Santorum slide because homosexuals haven't had their own civil rights movement. Ri-fucking-diculous.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Going to support someone you don't agree with going back in power?

 

Man, and to think some people scratch their heads when I say this board can be really black & white on the party lines sometimes."

 

Ummm, if I didn't vote for someone that I didn't agree with on an issue, I wouldn't be able to vote for anyone...

[Guest Ace309]

I suppose you have to blast Trent Lott since black people are an accepted minority in America, while you can let Santorum slide because homosexuals haven't had their own civil rights movement.

 

Well, you're obviously forgetting that you can't help being black, but gays choose to be gay because they like that lifestyle. So obviously we should convince them otherwise.

 

[Guest The Hollywood Fashion Plate]

^----------------------------------------------------------------------------^

I think it's a bit of an arguable point that all gays 'choose to be gay because they like that lifestyle'. As many gays would probably tell you, they exhibited homosexual feelings and/or behaviors starting at a young age in much the same way heterosexual people do. However, since heterosexuality is the default sexual preference in our culture (boys are expected and encouraged to try and date the cheerleader, not the quarterback), homosexuals who 'come out' (and express how they've felt for all their lives) are seen as going against the grain and 'choosing' another lifestyle.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well, you're obviously forgetting that you can't help being black, but gays choose to be gay because they like that lifestyle.

Yes, there are some people who think being gay is a determined choice.

 

 

There are also people who believe UFOs abduct farmers and that Elvis works at a gas station.

Edited April 27, 2003 by Jobber of the Week

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Slickster, the rolling-eyes smiley is generally meant to imply sarcasm. A good defense, but I'm certain you're preaching to the choir there.

[Guest Ace309]

Um. What Edwin said.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed in the GOP on the Santorum front, and with conservatives in general. Dan Savage was absolutely right when he said that

Gay groups are trying to turn Senator Rick Santorum into the next Trent Lott. It's not going to work. Mr. Lott lost his post as Senate majority leader because he said something he wasn't supposed to. Mr. Santorum, who holds the No. 3 position in the Senate leadership, was only repeating what many Republicans have already said.

Prejudice against blacks is bad, it seems, but prejudice against gays is perfectly acceptable. Santorum's comments were hate-filled bullshit from beginning to end: gay sex is not even remotely comparable to "bigamy... polygamy... incest... [or] adultery." The first two and the fourth are specifically excluded from the argument by the fact that marriage falls under contract law, and all three crimes Santorum mentioned explicitly violate the contract recognised by the state. The third can be excluded for reasons of public health. Consensual gay sex harms no one, and no group in the United States should have the ability to inflict its morals on another. Some things are not up for a vote.

 

But how many conservatives have come out and said anything like this? Not ONE. No columnist I read has done anything but defend Santorum with the age-old garbage about loving the sinner and hating the sin because they're commanded to do so as Christians. Spare me the fucking bullshit, all right? I thought we got over this crap after burning hundreds of women alive during the Middle Ages, all for the good of their souls. Jesus Christ. The liberals are absolutely and unequivocally RIGHT for once. I'd like every conservative on the planet to shut up right now. Stop trying to defend the goddamn team, objectively assess the boneheaded play Santorum just made, apologise for his idiocy and kick him OFF the team.

 

Sheesh.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

One, Marney, but you could have expected it. Andrew Sullivan.

 

SANTORUM AND THE CONSTITUTION: There are a couple of points about the Santorum controversy that are worth re-examining. The first is his problem with the Constitutional right to privacy. As I said yesterday, this is a perfectly respectable position, and one with which I have some sympathy. My preference would be for Texas voters to throw out this invasive and discriminatory law. My second choice would be for the Court to strike down the law on the grounds of equal protection, in as much as it criminalizes the same "offense" for one group of people (gays) but not for another (straights). But as a simple matter of constitutional fact, the right to privacy is very well entrenched. More to the point, one critical precedent for it, as Santorum concedes, is the Griswold ruling, protecting couples from state interference in their use of contraception. Now what is the real difference - in Santorum's moral universe - between contraception and non-procreative sex, i.e. sodomy? I don't see any myself. From a Catholic viewpoint, they are morally indistinguishable. So the question emerges: if Santorum believes, for religious reasons, that people should be jailed for private gay sex, why does he not think people should be jailed for the use of contraception? If his goal, for civil reasons, is "strong, healthy families," then contraception might even be more problematic than gay sex. It actually prevents heterosexuals from forming families at all. Does Santorum therefore endorse making contraception illegal? Would he allow the cops to police this in people's bedrooms? Will anyone ask him these obvious questions? Of course not.

 

SLIPPERY, SLIPPERY: The second issue is whether his point about a "slippery slope" from non-procreative sex to incest to polygamy, and so on, is valid. Where do we draw the line in policing private sexual behavior? My golden rule in matters of limited government is an old and simple one. It is that people should be free to do within their own homes anything they want to, as long as it is consensual, adult and doesn't harm anyone else. Bigamy and polygamy are therefore irrelevant here. Bigamy means being married to more than one woman; polygamy, likewise, means being married to more than two women. There's nothing inconsistent between saying you don't want such marriages to be legal (I don't) and also saying that what people do sexually in their own homes should be their own business, and not the government's. Do I think it should be a crime for a man to have sex with two women at once? Or an orgy? Nope. It's none of mine or the state's business. And that applies to having live-in long-term girlfriends, or any other type of consenting private relationship people might want. The only relevant issue is if a child - an involuntary participant in this private set-up - is the result of such relationships, in which case, we have another party involved, who might be harmed in some way. (This is also, for many, the issue with abortion and privacy.) That changes the equation, and makes some state interference defensible. Incest is more complicated, but it also fails the test because it involves the possibility of a child, in this case subject to physical problems as well as severe emotional ones. What these cases show is that the state's interest in policing private sex should only be related, and then only at some considerable distance, to the protection of children. But all this shows is that the case of private gay sex is perhaps the relationship that the government should be least concerned about. Why? Because it's the one least likely to involve children. In fact, as a sexual act, it's the only one that will never lead to children. So why, one wonders, is it the relationship that Santorum most wants to police? Hmmm.

 

CRIMINALIZING ADULTERY? Now let me turn the slippery slope argument around. Santorum argues that I should be jailed for having private consensual sex with my boyfriend in my own home. (He lets it slip at the end of the interview when he says: " If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right..." [My italics.]) Why does he believe this? Because, somehow, my relationship prevents others from forming "strong, healthy families." I have no idea how my relationship has such a bad effect on others - but leave that for a moment. If that is the criterion for the government to police our bedrooms, then why should not adultery be criminal? It has a far, far more direct effect on "strong, healthy families". It's far, far more common than gay sex - hurts children, destroys families, wounds women, and on and on. To argue that gay sex should be illegal but adultery shouldn't be, makes no sense at all. Again, Santorum must be asked if he believes adultery should be criminalized. Will anyone ask that? Not on Fox News.

- 1:04:56 AM

 

IS HE A BIGOT? Which gets us to the question of bigotry. I hate this term; and very rarely use it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you care to, read Santorum's full remarks again. When you do, you begin to understand why he was the protege of Trent Lott. His first comments about homosexuals relate to the recent crisis in the Catholic Church:

In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people.

"Post-pubescent men." What a bizarre term. They were minors! Doesn't that make a difference? In fact, isn't their being under-age the entire criminal issue here? Not to Santorum. In his view, the abuse of minors is a "basic homosexual relationship." In this quote, Santorum conflates the abuse of minors with adult homosexual relationships. He calls every homosexual in a relationship the equivalent of a child-molester. That is a despicable charge and Santorum must withdraw it. For good measure, Santorum then equates any same-sex relationships - faithful or unfaithful - with adultery. Subsequently, his attention wanders onto marriage where he opines:

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

Here, homosexual relationships are associated with bestiality and - again - child abuse. (In the sentence beginning, "It's not, you know, man on child, ..." the "It's" clearly refers to marriage, not homosexuality. The referent is picked up again with: "It [i.e. marriage] is one thing.")

 

YOU DECIDE: Santorum, of course, doesn't believe he's prejudiced against gay people. I wonder if he knows any, or any work for him, or have ever worked for him. He claims his remarks are only pertinent to the Texas case before the Supreme Court. That's a lie, as anyone reading the transcript can attest. He further says he has nothing against homosexuals, except that if they ever want to express their homosexuality in an actual intimate and physical love, it's the equivalent of molesting a child or having sex with a dog, and they should be put in jail for it. That's what the Christian far-right means by "compassion." In the abstract, I suppose you could argue that if you have no problems with celibate homosexuals, then you're not a homophobe. Some saintly people might fall into that category, and I wouldn't like to say it isn't possible. But in practice, I'm really not so sure. It's hard to find the right analogy, but it's not that far from saying that you have nothing against Jews, as long as they go to Church each Sunday. (Which was, of course, the Catholic position for a very long time.) Worse actually. It's like saying that, even if Jews practised their religion at home, in private, they could still be arrested for undermining the social order. Their very persistence in their identity - which harms and could harm no-one else - is a threat. Do you think someone who said that would remain a leading pillar of the Republican Party?

- 1:01:10 AM

 

Those were his comments from his blog.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Wow, that was a breakdown.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

There was more, I'd link him but he's still conservative at the moment

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I think this is another Republican who has contracted the dreaded "Foot-in-Mouth" disease. This Santorum guy has just proven that he is a homophobe who really needs to realize that this is 21st Century and not the 18th. Now I don't think he should step down from any position he might have, but he really should keep his mouth shut on issues he obviously has no clue about. It's obvious he is incorportating his religious beliefs into what he says. And for me, religion and public policy have no business mixing. And this fear tactic of saying that if homosexual sex, between to consenting adults being made legal, will lead to other illlegal acts such as incests and the other reprehensible acts being protected is such dumb comment. But if this guy's mentor is Trent Lott, then it kinda makes sense after all (my uncle lives in Mississippi, and from his experience of Tren Lott was that he came off as being not the brightest bulb in the batch).

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

*BUMP*

 

Driving home from work today, I saw a bumper sticker on a car in front of me:

 

"Protect Freedom, Elect Santorum"

 

That got a chuckle out of me.

[Guest JMA]

...

 

This entire thread is a waste of bandwidth, just as the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" line is a waste of air. It's obvious that Santorum simply hates gays. No, that's not unconstitutional, but enacting laws to codify his hatred would be.

 

Christ, I can't believe anyone's bothering to defend this idiot. All the conservative columnists are blathering about Santorum's sacrosanct right to an opinion, but like Tyler said, it isn't the liberals who're blind this time.

Well put. I think one of the biggest reasons for Bush not denouncing Santorum is about money and party support. Think about it, if Bush denounced him he would lose all of that "generously" donated campaign money from the Religious Right (IE Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk). Of course, Bush is also missing out on the oppurtunity to get the gay community on his side (especially gay Republicans).

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The christian right is a much larger group than the gay republicans. Whether you disagree, the Republican party isn't going to risk losing a key part of the party.

[Guest JMA]

The christian right is a much larger group than the gay republicans. Whether you disagree, the Republican party isn't going to risk losing a key part of the party.

Sad, but true. I just wish that the GOP would return to what it used to be. I'm not a Republican (or a Democrat) but my favorite President was one. That would be Abe Lincoln. If you recall back then, the GOP supported freeing slaves while the Dems didn't. Now, ever since the rise of Southern Republicans the GOP has degenerated. I miss the old GOP. I respected the old GOP. But I can't respect the current one.

 

This is one of the main reasons I support the Democrats more (that and they tend to lean more left).