Santorum's Republicanism

AndrewSullivan.com ^ | 4/22/03 | Andrew Sullivan

[KantianBurke]

"that such a right to privacy is now settled constitutional doctrine"

We'll see about that bucko. Wonder what Sullivan will say when it becomes UNsettled?

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I don't see how this issue is simply about sex (of one kind or another). Isn't this potentially about consensual acts of any sort committed in the privacy of one's home? Would prostitution be covered? Gambling? Drugs? Unlicensed surgery? If privacy means all rules are invalid, then we really do descend into the depths.

[SauronOfMordor]

"When I came to be asked, later in life, how I could be gay and Catholic, I could answer only that I simply was. What to others appeared a simple contradiction was, in reality, the existence of ... two connected, yet sometimes parallel, experiences of the world."

--Andrew Sullivan

[chachacha]

"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.

If I understand this debate correctly the word(GAY) was added to the original text by a partisin left wing bottom feeder.

That said I agree with Rick's conclusions and I say to Rick.

Great job Rick! I think your doing a GOD job.

[sinkspur]

We'll see about that bucko. Wonder what Sullivan will say when it becomes UNsettled?

It's settled, and will be further settled when the Supreme Court overturns the Texas law on equal protection grounds.

Why would they have taken this case, when Bowers (which upheld the Texas law) was decided in 1986?

No, the Texas law is history.

And this brouhaha is getting worse, not better, for the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. Sullivan illustrates why.

Santorum will be groveling by the weekend.

[SauronOfMordor]

If privacy means all rules are invalid, then we really do descend into the depths.

This is what Santorum was really getting at. An absolute right to privacy would mean an absolute right to privacy, conditioned only by the presence of adult informed consent

[sinkspur]

An absolute right to privacy would mean an absolute right to privacy, conditioned only by the presence of adult informed consent

Santorum was defending a Texas law that would PERMIT bestiality (the Texas legislature had specifically REPEALED the bestiality law).

The young man stuck his foot in his mouth; he had no business bringing up something that he's clearly not thought through enough to discuss in public.

[CaptRon]

intimate sexual and reproductive matters

Remember when the two were always connected?

[babyface00]

An absolute right to privacy would mean an absolute right to privacy, conditioned only by the presence of adult informed consent

I don't know if Santorum means to spark this debate or not, (I certainly wouldn't leave it up to the press to be able to tell for certain) but its a good one to have. Maybe if we can get privacy established in the home, we can get some of it to private business too. More nails in the coffin of intrusive government...

On a slightly different tack, why is it that most people don't seem to be giving Santorum (and by extension, the Republican party) the benefit of the doubt on this little speech? A lot of people seem to be using it to push their own agendas.

[Kenton]

I'm sorry. I don't want the government sticking it's nose in my bedroom even though I don't do anything there but sleep. Having said that, Santorum's comments are perfectly consistent with those of most pro-family conservatives, and in that context, I don't object to what he said.

More than anything, this whole issue seems to smack of the left wing double standard that brought Trent Lott down. It seems the Democrats only want freedom of speech for Democrats and other Bush-haters.

[gtech]

Yep. That means for Santorum, the right to practice bestiality in the privacy of your own home isn't part of the slippery slope toward Gomorrah but a gay couple's private relationship is.

Nice jump, Mr. Sullivan, but you missed your target. Santrorum is stating that the state does have have the right to prohibit certain sexual conduct . That Texas didn't, or repealed restrictions on some such conduct is not his endorsement of that conduct. We can conclude nothing about his opinion on bestiality from this.

Nice try though.

[honest injun]

Totally agree. The inconsistency in Santorum's comments is breathtaking.

[Russ]

It seems as if an honest debate on an issue (whether it is war in Iraq or homosexuality) is impossible these days without the left demonizing the person who initiates the debate. It ends up that people will not want to debate an issue publically for fear of retribution or vilification. The left will win, not by virtue of having the best arguement or ideas, but by snuffing out the debate through personal attacks.

[sinkspur]

why is it that most people don't seem to be giving Santorum (and by extension, the Republican party) the benefit of the doubt on this little speech?

Why would the press give Santorum the benefit of the doubt? It never gives Repubicans the benefit of the doubt.

That said, it was Santorum who brought up stuff like "man-on-dog" and "man-on-child" and gave the press the opening it needed to link his discussion of homosexuality to bestiality.

He shoved his foot in his mouth and the press is trying to keep it there.

[TheConservator]

The relevant constitutional provision is the fourth amendment, which prohibits warrantless searches and seizures. Any prosecution in violation of the fourth amendment should be suppressed on this constitutional grounds. But any prosecution that is not, should not.

A second, relevant, allegedly "constitutional" provision is the so-called right to privacy. In fact, there is no legitimate constitutional provision protecting any "right" to privacy. The word "privacy" is simply not used in the Constitution. The constitutional "right" to privacy has to be "derived" from "penumbras" "emanating" from the actual language of the constitution.

If you believe in that constitutional law can legitimately "derive" from "penumbras," then you should also accept that there is a constiutional right to eat sugar jelly donuts on Tuesday while reciting Edgar Allen Poe. My "penumbra" is every bit as based in the language of the constitution as yours.

Putting aside the issue of whether there is a legitimate constituional right to privacy, this case presents a second, wholly separate question as to whether the state of Texas should have enacted or be enforcing this law. Different people will have different opinions. I personally would probably vote not to have such a law. But under our federal, republican form of government, that is for the Texas state legislature, not some unelected federal judge living thousands of miles away, to decide.

[j_williamsii]

The posts of most of you are scaring me. I don't want the government passing laws regarding what I can and can't do in my home. It seems to me that Santorum is saying that any sex that doesn't lead to procreation (or at least the potential for it) should be illegal. That would therefore include sex using contraception or oral sex. That's not the government's business. Do you think there would be such an uproar if the case involved two women instead of two men? What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is just that, private. You may not like homosexuality, and I certainly don't, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to privacy that has evolved in our society.

[mabelkitty]

Regardless of your interpretation of the law, Sen. Santorum's civil rights are being violated for his beliefs.

File a multi-million dollar lawsuit cited the discrimination of his religious beliefs and cite his First Amendment rights.

Then sue for harassment. Then sue for equal protection, as any Islamofacist is treated much different.

This would be the Media condoning/sponsoring only certain religions. Maybe that would be slander, as well.

[gtech]

I don't want the government passing laws regarding what I can and can't do in my home. It seems to me that Santorum is saying that any sex that doesn't lead to procreation (or at least the potential for it) should be illegal. That would therefore include sex using contraception or oral sex. That's not the government's business. Do you think there would be such an uproar if the case involved two women instead of two men? What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is just that, private. You may not like homosexuality, and I certainly don't, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to privacy that has evolved in our society

I, personally, am not arguing for or against the ideas expressed by Santorum. There can certainly disagreement with his position. But disagreement with his position is not the same as calling him names and trying to ruin his career. He feels the way he does as according to his moral beliefts. Kudos to him for saying so. You feel they way you do based on your beliefs, that's fine too. Kudos to you too for saying so. But I draw the line at trying to ruin the man for having beliefs, and trying to distort what he is saying about law to create an uprising against him.

[gtech]

I don't see the inconsistency. Am I missing something?