SANTORUM UNDER FIRE----MUST HELP HIM

Chris Tremoglie

[U.S.Zorro]

“We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident” By: Chris Tremoglie

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the First Amendment of the Constitution. As we all know it entitles us Americans to certain liberties and freedoms that are not granted to other people around the world. This is an Amendment for ALL Americans - even government and legislative officials. So when Rick Santorum makes a comment about homosexuals and he gets asked to resign because of them, I ask you, where is the Freedom of Speech? Similar to the attacks on Reggie White several years ago for comments depicting homosexuality as a sin in certain religions, the same unwarranted attacks have befallen on Mr. Santorum. Again, I reiterate, don't all Americans have Freedom of Speech? Unless “words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create clear and present danger” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled in (Schenk v. United States) 1919, all Americans are entitled to freedom of speech. That is unless the topic or speech of homosexuality. It seems people are allowed to be pro-homosexual but if someone raises thought or feelings against homosexuality, or dare I say anti-homosexuality, one is castrated and targeted as an enemy and thus apparently loses all their constitutional freedoms. It will make the most non-violent peacenik turn downright ugly. Pardon me a second while I put on my Eminem CD. “May I have your attention please: will the real homosexuals please stand up?” Contrary to what people over at GLAAD may believe, people are entitled to be anti-homosexual. As I recall, homosexuality is a sin in the bible and therefore by expressing sentiment AGAINST homosexuality, one is doing nothing wrong. It seems as if just being accepted is not enough. The homosexual population now wants special consideration to wipe out freedom of speech and religion if it is against them. The people at GLAAD want it to be okay to stand and shout, “Hey, I am a homosexual” but want to hush those who say “Hey, I am a heterosexual and proud of it.” With all of the current events recently, I did not know our First Amendment privileges had been altered to say only positive things about everything. I didn’t realize that a Marxist utopia overtook our capitalist Republic. Our country has not changed and our principles have stood. Our country was founded as a Judeo-Christian country and since its inception, has expanded to include many different religions. In one religion, adultery is a sin. In another religion, not facing Mecca to pray daily is a sin. In another religion, eating pork is a sin. And in another religion, homosexuality IS a sin. As it says on their web page, “The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.” This is all well and good no matter how many people disagree or agree with homosexuality. When a United States Senator is asked to resign because he is adhering to his religion that is wrong. When a Pro-Football Hall of Famer is criticized for doing nothing more then speaking his mind, giving his constitutionally protected opinions, and abiding by his religion, it is reverse discrimination in its NASTIEST form. A homosexual is a human just like everyone else and is entitled to the same unalienable rights as everyone else. However, to expect everyone to like and promote homosexuality even when it goes against religious principles, that is where the line MUST be drawn. Promoting equality yes; promoting homosexual ADVANCEMENT – no!

[U.S.Zorro]

Zorro will act again. ALL AMERICANS OUT THERE!!! PLEASE STAND BY OUR U.S. SENATOR AS THE LEFTISTS TRY TO START ANOTHER CONTROVERSY TO LAW-ABIDING LEGISLATORS. GIVE AS MUCH SUPPORT POSSIBLE. CALL MR. SANTORUM. HAVE RALLIES. WRITE EDITORIALS TO PAPERS. CALL NEWS SHOWS. DO EVERYTHING YOU MUST.

[Russell Scott]

Maybe if the gutless Republican Senators take a stand like President Bush did, they can turn the tide. The Senator doesn't need our support, you have God's support when you stand for the truth. We blame too much on liberals when it’s the gutless conservatives who are as much to blame for the cultural meltdown in caving in to a bunch of screaming psychopaths. Why do so many people take the opinion of crazy people seriously. Anybody who thinks homosexuality is normal is ignorant or crazy. Since when did Senators have to take the opinions of crazy and/or ignorant people seriously. If you stand for what is right, God will give you the victory. God and you are a majority. Read how many times God overthrew evil with just a handful of people. Quite often.

[Badray]

What did Santorum say?

[LloydofDSS]

He said:

"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,"

"All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," Santorum continued. "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

I agree with him. But I would not make it illegal for adults to engage in consensual acts in private. Such laws are impossible to enforce in a free country.

[kms61]

How is Santorum's freedom of speech being abridged? He can say whatever he wants, and people have every right to act accordingly. Some people didn't like it and apparently want him to resign. So what?

The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak. It doesn't guarantee that everyone's going to agree with it. I don't see an issue here.

[Big Bad Bob]

"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,"

That sentence is common sense. You just cannot legislate on one issue which is private if you are not going to legislate other things. It's asking for a police state where people snoop on their neighbours, one which worked to good effect with Saddam. Now we know where the Left get their ideas from.

[risk]

Why defend Santorum for what he said? His comments were over the top. He infers that adultry should be illegal. I respect his opinions here, but they're not defensible in anything but religious, absolutist terms.

I'm tolerant of people choosing to take those beliefs to heart within their own familes and in their own life choices, but it's unamerican to force them on private couples.

There's a lot at stake here, and we should think about what ought to be done to help families succeed.

Why don't religious conservatives focus on the more concrete threats to our social structure, such as gay marriage and adoption? I may be unpopular with my gay friends for suggesting this, but it's in their interest.

The government should stay out of the business of moderating people's consensual sex lives. But since "same sex" marriages and gay adoptions can lead to immigration and government benefits oddities, they should be out of the question. There should be no government recognition of any relationship except for the traditional male/female one, regardless of fertility. Many slippery slopes would be avoided, and with careful logic, all but the most radical of gays and lesbians wouldn't be offended. Free enterprise could do whatever it wanted, for example.

Santorum would do well to support people's freedom to choose their own lifestyle, while standing strong against the things really threatening our national interest in supporting traditional families and fair immigration limits. You don't have to look far to find gay couples complaining that they can't stay together because one of the pair is from a foreign country! And while I have no objection to letting a single parent adopt children, it's not in the state's interest to allow gay couples to do so. They should approach their adoption boards as individuals, and then be measured against happily married traditional couples for their potential as adoptive parents.

Santorum left the planet with his comments. But when he comes back to earth, there will be things he can do that would help this country while recognizing that a segment of the population isn't "traditional."

I'm sure Santorum is a good senator (I used to live in Pennsylvania) and he continues to deserve his constituent's support. On the other hand, I think he should keep his mind out of the gutter and focus on building a solid basis for healthy, traditional families instead.

[Badray]

Thanks, I missed that. This is what I have a problem with:

"It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

Just where else does he want to look inside my house beside the bedroom? Has he forgotten the 9th Amendment? I have a right to privacy and a right to be left alone, free of government interference in my life as long as I do not violate the rights of others.

Don't get me wrong. I do think that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eye. I just don't like the measures that the government would have to take to enforce laws against it.

The biggest problems that we have in society are not with homosexuality itself, but with the socialistic mess that we have that surrounds so many aspects of our life.

[American in Israel]

You have the right to say it, but the ones who do not like what you say do not have the right to persicute you. That is freedom of speach. Now we have the freedom of offense trying to overrule the freedom of speech. A recipe for a totaliarian disaster in the making.

[kms61]

Who is persecuting him? Do you consider it persecution that some people apparently said Santorum should resign? They were simply speaking their minds. They don't have the authority to remove him from office, except via the ballot box. When conservatives boycott some actor for something he said is that also persecution?

Sorry, what Santorum said was political speech. As are the words of his opponents. Both protected by the First Amendment. There's no issue here.

[American in Israel]

Time will tell who and how he will be persicuted. Voting is not persicution, I agree with you. But the tactics of the left, to ruin and destroy those who say what you do not want to hear, vs the Conservatives boycott may look similar and indeed are, but differ in only one way, the depth of the attack.

Like the organised Homosexual attack to ruin the Boyscouts by lawsuits and directly attacking the charitys that help support the Boyscouts.

It is one thing to stop buying boy scout cookies, it is another to pretend to choke on one and sue.

[Wilhelm Tell]

I don't know which is worse, "liberals" who cash in on the decaying morals of society, or "conservatives" who declare that big government is perfectly qualified to regulate the most private details of everyone's lives.

[Jorge]

I agree with him. But I would not make it illegal for adults to engage in consensual acts in private. Such laws are impossible to enforce in a free country.

I agree...I think it was a politically stupid thing to say, and believe he will apologize.

[11th Earl of Mar]

"BREAKING NEWS"?

[gulfcoast6]

AMEN!

[Physicist]

"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 isn't too clear on the concept of rights. Bigamy, adultery and most cases of incest violate the rights of others, through the violation of contracts or through the impossibility of consent in the case of minors. "A couple of butt pirates going at it," to use ABC's term, is strictly a consensual act that violates nobody else's rights. As such, you have a moral right to do it, whether or not you have a legal right to do it.

[DCPatriot]

Agree totally!

[AAABEST]

Zorro will act again.

Hopefully he'll format articles better when he does!

[P.O.E.]

Funny how the government and the courts have a say in so many aspects of our lives. But the "making a mountain out of a molehill gang" comes out in full force every time you set a pinky toe on their holy shibboleths - abortion and gay rights being the two now prominent.

Since when is the government not interested in the common welfare? If you think rampant homosexuality and adultery are good things, you're entitled to your opinion. I just happen to notice that I get asked to foot the bill for the social costs.

What's really funny is that people actually fall for it - it seems the news and conversation are constantly full of the next wild-eyed accusator of the traditional American way of life. This happens so often that nobody even notices that it's "rather odd, don't you think," that these are the topics that get a lot of press over and over again.

The envelope has been pushed so far to the left on social issues, and deviancy so pushed in our faces, that we have a hard time NOT seeing such slights everywhere we look.

[alwaysconservative]

Why defend Santorum for what he said? His comments were over the top. He infers that adultry should be illegal. I respect his opinions here, but they're not defensible in anything but religious, absolutist terms.

Um, in case you hadn't noticed, adultery IS illegal in many states. Santorum's points were that you have to treat all "private" sexual matters the same. What's wrong with that?