Gay Groups Ask Senate GOP to Reconsider Santorum Post After 'insensitive' Remarks

AP ^ | 4/21/03 | Lara Jakes Jordan

[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

[TLBSHOW]

Pennsylvania Log Cabin Republicans

what is that group? LOL You get in bed with evil evil comes knocking at your door.

[Rytwyng]

I don't think there's a case in the whole Bible where polygamous marriages didn't cause awful problems...

Typically they did. However, God also blessed David by giving him the defeated Saul's harem- "'It was I who annointed you king over Israel and it was I who rescued you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master's house and possession of your master's wives; and I gave you the House of Israel and Judah; and if that were not enough, I would give you twice as much more"

Slavery was also not prohibited in the Bible. Though likewise, the Bible never calls slavery good.

Agreed. The biblical regulations on slavery, polygamy, revenge, etc, appear to have been intended humanizing limitations on earlier, more barbaric practices -- NOT endorsements. However, as Jesus said of divorce, so it can also be safely said of polygamy, slavery, etc: "From the beginning it was not so" -- these things were never part of God's original plan.

However... regarding homosexuality vs polygamy: Homosexuals are very offended at this comparision, and YET - polygamy was, for a time, permitted under the Mosaic Law. By contrast, homosexuality has never, never, never been tolerated by the people of God, under any convenant or circumstance, throughout all history. So when homosexuals get upset about the comparison with polygamy, it's well to observe that the polygamists actually have a better case.

(FYI, I endorse neither.)

[TLBSHOW]

and here comes the rats to attack....

Santorum Shows the Face of Republicans on Gay Issues

http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=905

[longtermmemmory]

Legally speaking, his statement is very accurate AND precise. He could have enven thrown in pedophilia for added measure of prohibited sex practices.

This is a matter of homosexual groups trying to silence opposition. This is a feeeeelings issue. They are not arguing that bigamy, or beastiality are different from homosexual behavior, only their sensitivities were "hurt." The homosexuals do not want the public to know how homosexual rights is about act of homosexual sex. There is no homosexuals for celibacy movement.


They should not just keep the senator, they should elevate his post!

[longtermmemmory]

It comes STRAIGHT from questions asked during the supreme court arguments. These are valid legal points. How is homosexual conduct different from legalizing polygamy. hypothetically, If I am legally allowed to have three or four wives it would satisfy my "orientation" to have multiple women. If these women consent in the privacy of our bedroom, who is being hurt? There is NOTHING to appologize, this is honest and open thoughtful discussion. Anything else is just censorship and thought crime evil.

[longtermmemmory]

the homosexual groups problably gigle every time someone says "log" cabin. Probably chose the name specifically for the sexual inuendo.

[TLBSHOW]

gross

[biblewonk]

Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery,

They should be mad, he left out beastiality.

[familyofman]

"Why the Pennsylvania groups?"
That's the state that elected him & where he will need to run for re-election. They have more of an interest than groups/people from N. Dakota.

[familyofman]

I-75 is not in Pennsylvania.

[RAT Patrol]

I am encouraged by Santorum's remarks. The GOP had better make themselves clear on this issue. We are talking about our children here. I will not sell them out just to save chicken politicians from a little conflict. This is serious business.

[RAT Patrol]

Forcing me (and worse, my kid) to approve of immorality is the worst kind of "nanny state." They never acknowledge the violation that is on MY freedom. No one is obligated to approve of what they do, not even the government.

[pittsburgh gop guy]

Rick is da'MAN! He is the real deal. We need more like him in D.C.

[SunStar]

[fooman]

Homos are much more likely to be into beastiality, pedophilia and other forms of sexual orientation.

[SwinneySwitch]

Name goes back to Abraham Lincoln the first Republican President being born in a log cabin.

But what every shall Republicans do without all the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual... Oh! I think they all vote demonrat!! Who gives a RATS A$$!!

[ellery]

What is conservative about the government regulating what two people do in their own home? Nanny-state 'it's fer the chilrun' isn't any better coming from the right.

Well said - bump.

[Dimensio]

On what legitimate moral basis can one prohibit polygamy among consenting adults, while allowing homosexual "marriage?"

On what legitimate moral basis are polygamy and homosexual marriage disallowed?

[B Knotts]

Well, like it or not, the proscription of such practices are part of the legal and moral heritage known as Judeo-Christianity.

Now, you might not like that, but it is inarguable that our system of morals and ethics derives thusly.

My point is that it is not possible to say one is acceptable, without the other being acceptable. To do so demonstrates hypocrisy on the part of the gay advocates. After all, who are they to say that adulterers or polygamists are doing wrong? Isn't that just an artificial construct (by their reasoning)?

[ellery]

Gays favor partial-birth abortion, gun control, increased funding for government schools, and limitations on homeschooling.

Probably true for the most part of activists, outside a few groups. But there are plenty of studies that show gay couples tend to be affluent, so they'rer anti-tax, most don't have kids, so aren't enamored of the public school racket, and feel the need for personal protection, hence the "pink pistol" groups we've all read about right here on FR. And, IIRC, there were stories about 25% of the gay vote going for W in the nightmare 2000 election -- so those votes matter.