Posted on 04/21/2003 2:39:07 PM PDT by Jean S
WASHINGTON (AP) - Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, urged Republican leaders Monday to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership.
A coalition of groups in Washington and Pennsylvania compared Santorum's remarks to those by those last December by former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott about Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist campaign for the presidency. Shortly afterward, Lott was forced to resign as Republican Senate leader.
Santorum is chairman of the GOP conference in the Senate, third in his party's leadership, behind Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the remarks. They were stunning in their sensitivity, and they're the same types of remarks that sparked outrage toward Sen. Lott," said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy organization. "We would ask that the leadership reconsider his standing within the conference leadership."
In an interview with The Associated Press, Santorum criticized homosexuality while discussing a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law.
"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," Santorum, R-Pa., said in the interview, published Monday.
Santorum's spokeswoman did not have an immediate comment to the criticism from the gay rights groups. The White House did not immediately return a call seeking comment, and a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Frist declined comment.
Lott resigned his post in December after making remarks at a 100th birthday celebration for Thurmond that were widely considered racially insensitive and condemned by the White House. Lott later apologized.
Among the groups condemning Santorum's remarks were the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, the Pennsylvania Log Cabin Republicans, OutFront, and the Pennsylvania Gender Rights Coalition.
---
On the Net:
Sen. Rick Santorum: http://santorum.senate.gov/
Human Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/
AP-ES-04-21-03 1715EDT
Yes,everyone wanted Trent Lott out - so they allowed the President and his people to go along with and use racial politics to get what they wanted. They used racial politics to try to get Estrada approved.
That is playing with fire and it is really bad. You can't feed that monster and not expect it to grow and come back to get you. It is an evil that has a life of its own. The only way it can be contained is not feed it - and that means not using it for what you might deem a 'good cause'. There is no such thing. All Republicans that condoned the witch hunt that was the Trent Lott debacle should be really proud. Everytime it is used against anyone in this country, remember the Republican party helped to keep it alive,and make it stronger.
Wow, that's stone cold stupid, Sen. Santorum. I suggest an Intro to Logic class and a Constitutional Law course or two. The things in your list only have one thing in common-- they are sexual acts. There are dozens of differences, though.
This is what your argument is:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to consensual heterosexual sex in your home."
There is NOTHING to stop a state in your mind and Scalia's mind from doing just that. There is NOTHING to stop a state from saying that you can't tell your wife she was good in bed if she was actually an ice queen-- no fibbing in the bedroom. Nothing stopping the prohibition of the missionary position.
Jeez, I used to respect him, but I guess all those time Santorum came up near the bottom of the intelligence surveys from fellow senators that it was dead on.
Western civilization was, is and can only be best served by its continuation by what has brought it about. And that is the the realization of the sexual ideal - and hence, procreation in marriage, and our progeny's aclimatazation and acculturation chiefly through God, Country and the generational continuation of these themes.
The contrary is, well...just...decivilizational!
Quite.
Nanny-state 'it's fer the chilrun' isn't any better coming from the right.
OK, then in your view what role should the State play in regulating sex? Are licenses for weddings appropriate? If so, why NOT same-sex weddings? Why NOT multi-partner weddings?
What about pay-for-sex? Are business licenses appropriate? How about sex education? Is the government supposed to play a role there?
What age limits would you concede the law ought to place on "consenting adults"? 21? 18? 16? 14? 12? What rule do you endorse for choosing such an age restriction and who made you the arbiter?
They HATE this man because they hated Jesus first! Rick Santorum is the antithesis to these immoral reprobates; they know it and hate it. Besides, they want his Christianspeak out of the senate. The GOP does not need them. PERIOD!
On what legitimate moral basis can one prohibit polygamy among consenting adults, while allowing homosexual "marriage?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.