'Gays' attack senator for 'mainstream' view

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, April 23, 2003 | By Art Moore

[JohnHuang2]

Homosexual activists and Democrats are urging Republicans to remove Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., from his leadership position for remarks about a Supreme Court case, but a transcript of questions asked during oral arguments indicate justices share his constitutional concerns.

The rights groups contend Santorum's comments in an Associated Press interview about a case challenging the constitutionality of a Texas sodomy law, Lawrence v. Texas, were "disparaging an entire group of Americans."

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

However, an attorney who was present during the March 26 oral arguments said Santorum merely echoed the argument of the state of Texas, which is defending its law.

Santorum told the AP: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [homosexual] 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 assertion was a major part of the debate, attorney Jordan Lorence told WorldNetDaily. Legal counsel from both sides essentially were asked by justices: If we find a right to engage in private, consensual sodomy, are we also creating a right to bigamy?

"This is mainstream stuff," said Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund in Scottsdale, Ariz. "This is part of the debate on this case."

In fact, the lead attorney for Lawrence, Paul M. Smith, admitted to the court that "by recognizing the right of all adult couples to make choices" about sexual behavior in their own homes, the court "is going to open up a whole can of worms … ."

Nevertheless, the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based homosexual rights organization, joined several Pennsylvania groups in calling for Republicans to remove Santorum from his position as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the party's number three post.

"These remarks certainly do not reflect the tone of compassionate conservatism espoused by President Bush," said John Partain, president of the Philadelphia chapter of Log Cabin Republicans. "He's out of step with mainstream Republicans. He's aligning himself with the fringe right-wing extremists of the party."

Yesterday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also called for Santorum to step down from his leadership position.

"They are trying to demonize one side of a major court decision," Lorence said of the opposition.

"I can't think of a time that that's ever happened before," he said. "It's one thing to be critical, to say I disagree, I think the law should be upheld. But they are saying it is morally wrong to make the argument that Texas made or to ask the questions the justices did. That, to me, is very chilling."

Santorum spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright said the quote was accurate "only in the context related specifically to the right to privacy in the Supreme Court case," the Washington Post reported. The senator, she said, "has no problem with gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals."

But the activist groups insisted Santorum's remarks are comparable to comments by Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., that forced him to resign as majority leader in December.

"For the second time in a matter of months, we see a senior Republican leader in the Senate disparaging an entire group of Americans," said Human Rights Campaign spokesman David Smith. "While we welcome his spokeswoman's clarification that he has no problem with gay people, it's analogous to saying, 'I have no problem with Jewish people or black people, I just don't think they should be equal under the law.'"

When Smith spoke with WorldNetDaily, however, he was unaware the state of Texas is making the same argument Santorum made in his remarks to the AP.

Lorence asked: "If the Supreme Court agrees with the state of Texas in Lawrence v. Texas, does that mean the majority of Supreme Court justices should step down? If they go the other way, are people not allowed to criticize the Supreme Court?"

'Right to privacy'

Defenders of the Texas sodomy law have insisted attorneys for Lawrence want the high court to expand the "right of privacy" used as the foundation of the controversial 1973 abortion decision, establishing a constitutional right to practice homosexual sex.

Texas attorney Kelly Shackleford, who wrote a brief on behalf of 70 Texas lawmakers, contends a high court establishment of such a right would have "massive implications," jeopardizing, if not overturning, thousands of laws that have a definition of marriage embedded in them, from tax laws to custody laws.

Ultimately, this case is about establishing same-sex marriage, he asserts.

"If you don't have a law that says a man and woman can do something and a man and man can't, then every marriage law is unconstitutional," Shackleford told WND earlier this year.

During the March 26 session for Lawrence v. Texas, attorney Smith of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund argued for the sodomy law to be struck down on the basis of a "right to privacy" and equal protection under the law.

Smith told the justices: "There's no legitimate and rational justification under the Equal Protection Clause for a law that regulates forms of sexual intimacy that are permitted in the State only for same-sex couples, thereby creating a kind of a second class citizenship to that group of people."

The transcript shows Supreme Court justices took seriously the argument that overturning the sodomy law could threaten the constitutionality of other laws that govern behavior.

One justice, noting that society always has made moral judgments in its laws, asked Smith, "Why is this different from bigamy?"

Later, Smith was asked whether he thought adultery laws were unconstitutional.

His answer indicated a willingness to concede that recognizing a constitutional right for same-sex couples to engage in sodomy will "open up a can of worms."

Smith said, " … as for adultery and all of the other parade of horribles which people have raised in their briefs, it seems to me you've got to look at the individual interests and the State interests, and their dramatically different in all of those cases, incest, prostitution, all of these -- bestiality, all of these things, either there's very little individual interests or there's very heightened State interest or both, in all of those cases, so the idea that by recognizing the right of all adult couples to make choices like this in their own home, the Court is going to open up a whole can of worms, I submit, is correct."

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

Quote of the Day by aristeides

[Russell Scott]

The radical homosexual groups should team up with the radical Muslim groups. Both share a strong bond, they love to embrace lies and reject the truth.

[Ronin]

The senator is right. I don't see how anyone can draw any other conclusion. If homosexaulity is simply a lifestyle choice -- and all lifestyle choices are equally valid -- then polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc., etc., etc. are equally valid lifestyle choices.

After all, polygamy is practiced widely and historically. It has more justification bibically and otherwise than any other alternatative lifestyle.

We need to stand by this senator. Someone please post me an email and a telephone number. I need to make my voice heard on this one.

[thegreatbeast]

"These remarks certainly do not reflect the tone of compassionate conservatism espoused by President Bush," said John Partain, president of the Philadelphia chapter of Log Cabin Republicans. "He's out of step with mainstream Republicans. He's aligning himself with the fringe right-wing extremists of the party."
There is no compomise with these people. Watch the turn of debate in the press and here at FR. You'll see some clever and torturous moral reasoning.

[ThirstyMan]

"I can't think of a time that that's ever happened before," he said. "It's one thing to be critical, to say I disagree, I think the law should be upheld. But they are saying it is morally wrong to make the argument that Texas made or to ask the questions the justices did. That, to me, is very chilling."

Chilling? yes Uncommon? no
This self-righteous attitude has been used by liberals and homosexuals to induce false shame all who dare oppose them. It has been a very effective tool against because we cooperate.

But when Bill Clinton was rightly accused he accepted no shame. Bill Clinton showed us all the antidote and Senator Santorum, who is morally right, should stand his ground right now.

This too will pass, this media storm of self-righteous, morally bankrupt critics seeking to censor his opinion. We must not weakly surrender the morally high ground each time a self-righteous accuser comes our way.

[visualops]

From coverage at CNSNews.com:
Remarks about Supreme Court Case Mirrored Justices' Questions

Jordan Lorence - an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed a friend of the court brief supporting the Texas law - agreed that Santorum's comments mirrored a "major topic of discussion" by justices who heard the case March 26.

"This is definitely something that was being discussed in oral arguments, and Senator Santorum adopted a different position on what he thought was the logical implication of the constitutional arguments raised by Lambda," Lorence explained.

Lambda refers to the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a pro-homosexuality group that funded the attack on the Texas law. Paul Smith argued the case before the Supreme Court, though he is identified only as a "cooperating attorney assisting on the case" on the organization's website.

Justices questioned Smith about some of the same implications Santorum discussed in his interview.

"Aren't there statutes in many States about adultery that don't cover sexual relations of one of the married couple with someone else of the same sex?" one justice asked Smith. "Are they unconstitutional because of denial of equal protection?"

(Justices are not identified by name in Supreme Court transcripts.)

"You think adultery laws are unconstitutional?" another justice asked.

One of the justices asked District Attorney Charles Rosenthal of Harris County, Texas, similar questions.

"Don't you think that what laws a State may constitutionally pass has a lot to do with what laws it has always been thought that a State can constitutionally pass [such as laws against] bigamy, adultery, all sorts of things like that?" the justice inquired. "And isn't that determined pretty much on the basis of what kind of laws the State has traditionally been allowed to pass?"

Homosexual Groups' Lawyer Conceded Points Santorum Made

Lorence noted that, in response to the justices' questions, Smith finally conceded the very argument for which Santorum has been criticized.

"As for adultery and all of the other parade of horribles [sic] which people have raised in their briefs," Smith acknowledged, "the idea that by recognizing the right of all adult couples to make choices like this in their own home the court is going to open up a whole can of worms, I submit, is correct."

That admission, Lorence argued, makes the topics broached by Santorum "fair game."


The problem here is the gay activists are continually given press coverage and validity for their false reasoning.

'The Fallacy...What You Do Sexually Is Who You Are'

Steve Black, political director of the Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance, was also quoted in the HRC press release. He continued the theme that Santorum was attacking a group of people rather than criticizing types of behavior.

[goldstategop]

My feeling is consenting adults should have privacy in their home. By the same measure, it doesn't mean every act adults do behind doors ought to be legal. There's a difference between a general expectation of privacy and acknowledging that every act carried out of the public view ought to be regarded as legal.

[ThirstyMan]

There's a difference between a general expectation of privacy and acknowledging that every act carried out of the public view ought to be regarded as legal.

The difference is in allowing people to behave in a certain way in a consenting fashion and requiring the general public to condone that behavior, to endorse it as equal, to raise it as approved and to protect it by law and then to criminalize all who don't agree.

That's quite a journey from allowing it, to promoting it as normative, to punishing any with criminal charges for disagreeing.

Behold a truly genius political movement in our midst! We must withstand the indignant condemning onslaught.

[goldstategop]

Yes, since we Americans want to leave gays alone but at the same time we don't want to give legal sanction to their choice of lifestyle.

[Under the Radar]

ping

[Qwerty]

Thanks for the ping.

This should be interesting..

[txzman]

The Gays can do what they do best - stick it where the sun don't shine.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the post, and the very appopriate quote. Bump for the continuation of life and the men and women that come together and perpetuate its greatness.

[PGalt]

appropriate

[Hacksaw]

Fox News reported that the AP reporter who started the controversy is the wife of John Kerry's campaign manager.

[ThirstyMan]

yep, pretty simple isn't it?
Do what you want. We aren't going to bother you.
But don't tell us we must then give you our approval!
Don't tell us we must say your chosen lifestyle is good and equal...especially when we think it's not and is very bad.
And clearly your chosen behavior is very unhealthy, it spreads a terrible disease and then we don't want to forget to mention a key problem, it's called immoral in the Bible.

And then you want our approval? Take a hike!

[LadyDoc]

here is a satire from scapple face on the item:

April 22, 2003
Incest Rights Groups Call for Santorum's Ouster
(2003-04-22) -- Incest rights groups across the nation called on the Senate to oust Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, from his leadership positions for comparing incest to homosexuality.

"Santorum's remarks were stunning in their insensitivity," said an unnamed spokesman for the Family Rights Empowerment And Knowledge Society, the nation's largest incest advocacy organization. "We think homosexuality is immoral and we don't want to be lumped in the same group with those sickos."

In an interview with The Associated Press, Santorum answered a question about a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law by allegedly saying, "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."

The director of the American Polygamy Enthusiasts Society did not return this reporter's messages which were left with his 14 wives. Several adulterers asked to comment on Santorum's remarks, said they hadn't heard about the controversy because they were out fishing.

Posted by Scott Ott

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/000844.html#000844

[Under the Radar]

While I have problems with the idea of homosexual activity being a crime (does the state really have the right to lock someone up for consensual sex between two adults?), I do hope that they do not extend the inane "right to privacy" concept, which the USSC made up out of whole cloth in Roe.