In Defence of Sen. Rick Santorum - Criticism of Gay Sex Acts is Not Equal to Racism

myself

[AveMaria]

If the Moderator will permit me, I want to post this message to express my concerns over the hysterical attacks on Sen. Rick Santorum, by the organized gay lobby.

I am new here, and I just registered, after having been a lurker for 3 weeks. I am from Philadelphia, and my representatives in the Senate are Arlen Spector and Rick Santorum. I am a political independent, who is fiscally liberal but conservative on social issues (I admire FDR, Truman, and LBJ). I have strong disagreements with Sen. Santorum's political philosophy mostly over issues concerning the poor and underprivileged in Philadelphia, and because I am from the Social Justice tradition of the Catholic Church, while he is more of a Calvinized Catholic on economic and social justice issues. But I take the teachings of the Church on traditional morality and family, very seriously. And part of those teachings obligate me to defend Santorum, a man I disagree with vigorously on economic issues, if I feel that he is being attacked unfairly. Here are some of the myths I want to challenge, as a way to help those who want to defend Santorum among progressive circles:

MYTH #1: The Constitution guarantees a right to Privacy.

The reality is that there is no right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution. There are many things you could do within the privacy of your own home that are illegal. It is illegal to use drugs in your own home, even if you may be using marijuana you cultivated as a potted plant at home, and did not buy from a dealer. And as Sen. Santorum pointed out so eloquently, polygamy, bigamy and Incest are illegal, even when practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own home. What Sen. Santorum was trying to say is that - if a state has absolutely no right to regulate homosexual sodomy on privacy grounds, then on what legal basis would the state challenge a man living with three women, or a father having an affair with his 21 year old daughter?

MYTH #2: Sen. Santorum's statement challenged those strongly committed to diversity and multi-culturalism.

On the contrary. Most of the world's cultures and major religions do not agree on much. But one thing they all agree on, is that homosexual acts (not people) are sinful, repugnant, disgusting, sick, nauseating, and perverse. That is true if you are a traditionalist Catholic, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a conservative Protestant, an Orthodox Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a traditionalist Buddhist, a Sikh, etc. Even the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan Muslims, who has ties to Hollywood elites, is on record as having described homosexuality as a sin. I was amazed to discover that even the peace-loving and Pacifist Bahais, oppose gay sex acts. What more multi-culturalism can you ask for?

MYTH #3: Criticism of homosexual Acts is the same as racism.

So many people have suffered from the pain of racism in the past, and there are many racial minorities who suffer today in terms of housing discrimination, discrimination in department stores, restaurant tables, and other humiliations. Too often in the past, the Christian Church failed to forcefully condemn racial bigotry as a sin. As a way to compensate for such glaring injustice, many well meaning white liberal Christians who care about social justice issues as much as I do, are too willing to endorse deviant acts as "okay", as a way to prove to themselves that they are not bigots.

But they fail to realize the fact that sodomy is BEHAVIORAL ACT, and not an unchangeable physiological feature like skin color. The pain of racism is very real, because people cannot change their skin color. But men can will themselves not to commit acts of sodomy, by keeping their pants zipped up. Racial minorities understand this very clearly, and that is why a majority of blacks and hispanics in California supported the recent ballot proposition defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

MYTH #4: Texas sodomy laws punish people for who they are, not what they do, because gays are born that way.

Let us assume that homosexuality is partly genetic. If you go to any state with sodomy laws, and declare publicly that your orientation is homosexual, you will not be arrested. But if the state learns that you dropped your pants and "did it" with someone of the same gender, that constitutes a sex act in violation of the sodomy laws. You are not being punished for your self-declared orientation. You are being punished for specific sex acts. Get it?

Another example. My family has a long history of alcoholism, and I believe that alcoholism is genetic and runs in families. But, although I am genetically inclined toward alcoholism, I do not fear being arrested on a DUI, simply because of my Irish alcoholic genes. In order to be arrested, I actually have to go to a pub, fill my gut with alcohol, and then drive recklessly on the freeway. But if I can keep my "alcohol genes" under control, then so can a person with a "gay" orientation.

[Joe Boucher]

A great line by none other then Paul Newman in the Movie Slap Shot," what are you gonna do when you come home and find some fag (paraprase)with his member in your sons mouth?
It's just not right.

[RAT Patrol]

I am not falling for that line.

[maica]

Santorum is warning against having the Supreme Court create a new 'right.' We look at a proposed law or regulation or ruling with an attitude of 'commom sense.'

Persons or groups with agendas take a 'common sense' ruling and stretch it to absurdity.

That is what Senator Santorum was commenting on. He was not asking for a ruling based on his religious outlook. He was asking that the Supreme Court NOT rule on the issue before it.

[Auntie Dem]

4) Polygamy and bigamy aren't just illegal because they're immoral. They are illegal because it (unfairly, in my opinion) allows 30, 40, or 50 year old men to enslave 13 year old girls as one of their "wives".

Well, are you going to break this news to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the other patriarchs who practiced polygamy with God's approval? If you can cite any scripture where homosexual acts were practiced with God's approval, I might be willing to reconsider your moral equivalence, but until then...

The horse is already out of the barn on this issue. The Supreme Court decided circa 1890 the federal government had the right to regulate marriage when they ruled the Mormon's practice of plural marriage as a religious belief was not protected under the First Amendment.

If a Biblically approved practice of religious belief can be banned, where do the gays get the idea their behavior gives them a greater "right"?

[AveMaria]

[.....Regarding the right of privacy, polygamy and bigamy are legal states, not sex acts, and inapposite....]

In some parts of Utah (especially near the border with Arizona), there are many men who live polygamous lives, although their "marriages" are not formally recognized by the state of Utah or the federal government. The state of Utah has anti-polygamy laws on the books, although they are rarely enforced.

But in the other 49 states of the country, anti-polygamy laws are strictly and rigorously enforced, and in spite of the fact that such "marriages" are not officially recognized, polygamists go to jail, anyway.

When a state enforces laws against polygamy (despite the fact that American polygamists only recognize their unions within their religious traditions), the state is undertaking an action similar to enforcement of sodomy laws.

The overturning of such laws should be left to the legislative process.

[Buckeye Bomber]

1) Polygamy never applies to men and women, only to men. Equal protection under the law pretty much knocks that one down.

2) Society has a vested interest in preventing deformed or genetically weak children as much as possible. Incestual intercourse and marriage must then be stopped.

There is no societal interest in regulating the private bedroom behavior of homosexuals. I once again ask, why is non-procreative sex between heterosexuals less immoral than that between homosexuals? Honestly, if marriage is so fragile that a few gay people shacking up will destroy it, what good is it anyway? Marriage, as a contract, needs to be self-enforcing to survive. I believe that the marriages that survive are the ones that are self-enforcing.

[grania]

It won't stay an issue except for the desperate libs.

I wish that were the case. The libs defend their own. There was no defense for Senator Lott when he was unfairly hammered for some hyperbole at a 100th birthday party. Where's the defense from the White House?

This was one of the issues discussed on Buchanan/Press (MSNBC...it's an excellent show; both hosts are very good at getting discussions going). There is nothing wrong with the Santorum statement. The head of the Log Cabin Republicans was on the show, explaining the view of his group that Santorum has to go from leadership; it's all about an agenda, folks.

This madness has got to end. I was a Trent Lott supporter...one reason being that it wouldn't end there.

[Tacis]

I don't dispute that individual fairies may be fine folks. But, I am offended by any effort that attempts to equate faggitude with normalcy or to attack anyone who is unwilling to make such a comparison. Fairies are deviant perverts, always eager to spread their sexual preferences to clean, fresh meat.

Fairy practices are not normal, fairies are not normal. No level of protest, mincing, or bitching will change that. Politicians who are fairies or are afraid of fairies and, therefore, try to argue that faggitude is equal to normalcy are just flat out wrong.

And, for fairies and their political "friends" to argue that I don't have the righht to express such an opinion is also wrong.

[Buckeye Bomber]

The country has every right to regulate whether marriages can be granted. I am not debating so-called "defense of marriage" laws. Marriage is a public contract, and is therefore subject to legislative regulation.

Sexual intercourse is an altogether different matter. If a man wants to have 20 women living in his house, and they all agree, and he's having sex with all of them, that's his right. If a man and woman who happen to be adults from the same genetic line choose to have sex, that is their right.

[MEG33]

I am sometimes mistaken..we shall see.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

discussed on Buchanan/Press (MSNBC...it's an excellent show Well that's your problem right there! No wonder you don't think this issue is going to go away. Just kidding. Technically I'm not... I find them both repugnanent sophits. Anyhoo, let not your heart be troubled. This is going away.

I hope it doesn't though. I hope they keep calling for him to step down every day and he tells them to go pound some sand every day. They'll give up when they see it doesn't get the traction they hope for except from the extreme Right and extreme Left, both of which opposed the War and weren't voting GOP anyhow.

This will make the GOP stronger if we don't wet our pants.

[PALACE ATHENA]

I sense lot of hatred by your remarks.You are entitle to your opinion but if one night I am in bed with my partner and the goverment breaks in, my "Smith and Wesson" might mistake them for an intruder.I don't care when politicians start getting on the bandwagon about "family values". I would like to look in their closets first and then we can talk about values.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I thought I was the only Conservative with this attitude.

Conservative = less government

How will we pay for these programs of rounding up homosexual offenders? Take cops away from finding murderers and rapists? Or raise taxes? Where will these states find all this money?

And that's even if you think these laws are a good idea, which I obviously don't.

[Torie]

anti-polygamy laws are strictly and rigorously enforced

Just how are they enforced? A guy is arrested for living with several women of whom he refers as his wives? I suspect the laws are enforced by not allowing someone to legally marry while married to someone else. That is it. This whole "debate" just gets curiouser and curiouser. It must be something in the water, because what Santorum said was mad, and now he seems to be a pied piper leading others down the same path as those sheep ran down when herding by the dogs in the opening scene of "Far From the Madding Crowd."

[Gee Wally]

And whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, the right to privacy has been established as part of the United States Constitution. We have precedent.

The Supreme Court once ruled that blacks could never be citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court also ruled at one time that the 14th Amendment permitted "separate but equal" facilities for people of different races. So much for precedent. Contrary to your assertion, the fact that the Supreme Court has said there is a "right-to-privacy" in the Constitution does not make it so. The simple fact is there is no such right in the text of the Constitution. It was found by "learned", unelected, life-time tenured judges looking at penumbras, shadows and emanations. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states and the people those powers not prohibited to them by the Constitution. These laws were on the books when the Tenth Amendment was adopted. They fall within the powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.

The Constitution begins, "WE THE PEOPLE". We the people get to influence the kind of society we want to live in via the legislative process at the state level. The kind of argument being made on these Santorum threads, whether such laws are foolish, wise, necessary, or unnecessary is precisely the kind of debate that should take place in the legislative process. And certainly different states would have different outcomes on which laws they choose to enact, as Santorum noted. That is the beauty of our Federal system of government. Don't like Texas' strict sodomy laws? Move to New York or California where the law is more to your liking. Or get enough votes in your state's legislature to change the law.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has gutted the Federal system of government. They are engaged in their "enlightened" social engineering to force their version of (im)morality on the rest of the country as a national standard. In that process they have short-circuited our system of government, installing themselves as a super-legislature that serves for life, never stands for election, and is accountable to no one. That is not what the United States Constitution stands for. I applaud Senator Santorum for addressing the issue.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Well I used to be a liberal social worker until I laid one eye on Bill Clinton. I had been starting to see that my liberal professors were liars through the whole Anita Hill debacle. But Hill and Bill put me over the edge and I said enough is enough.

I fianlly started to open my eyes and use my brain. I worked with JTPA and Welfare for years i know that system and those who benefit from it. I started to read and learn. If you believe the liberals are standing up for the little guy, you have been fooled. As far as I am concerened ther is not one good healthy reason to be a Democrat any longer. This is not your father's Democratic party. It is however a dysfunctional cess pool of power hungry, self loathing cry babies.

[AveMaria]

[.....Lott apologized profusely and to every known species of humanity for his offhand remark, got hammered incessantly and lost his leadership role......]

[.....Trent Lott said:"You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today," Lott was quoted as saying of Thurmond in a November 3, 1980, article in The Clarion-Ledger, a Jackson newspaper.....]

Thanks for your comment, because I feel that this is one nagging issue that must be addressed, once and for all.

Trent Lott was being held accountable for what many people regarded as sympathy for segregationist positions over his entire career in Congress. He has in the past addressed meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that supports racial segregation. He declared in 1984 that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform".

If you believe in traditional family values, then you should ask yourself one question. Why do so many hispanics, blacks, Asians, and other minorities who share the same traditional values as most Republicans, avoid voting for the GOP? It is because, in some quarters, the Republicans are seen as "racist".

I will openly admit that, if Lott had been a Democrat, he would not have been forced to resign. That is because the Democrats are not burdened with the "racist" tag often used in the mainstream media. George Bush is working very hard to change the image of the GOP among minorities, and it seems he is making great progress.

But more important than partisan politics, is the fact that our society is getting to a point where people are afraid to clearly state that some things are right, while other things are wrong. That is why Sen. Santorum's comments are such a breath of fresh air.

I believe that the greatest weapon in the asernal of the organized white gay lobby, is the common perception that white social conservatives harbor racist views against racial minorities, a perception that has robbed social conservatives of their moral authority to fight against the gay lobby. It is that perception that caused the Family Research Council to be one of the first organizations to condemn Trent Lott's remarks.

Many whites in the Social Justice movement, are so eager to show how compassionate and free of bigotry they are, that they "refuse to judge" people who engage in perverse sex acts. However, they refuse to make a clear distinction between unjust prejudice based on what one cannot control (skin color), and moral judgements made against specific behavior (sodomy). But the majority of blacks, hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, deplore gay sex, as they proved in a recent ballot proposition in California that ruled out gay unions.

I believe that the only way to stop the awesome power of the gay lobby, which uses the legacy of the Civil Rights movement to justify itself, is if believers in traditional family values from all races were to march, hand-in-hand, in opposition to the gay agenda which is threatening the moral foundation of this country. If that happens, then the gay lobby will lose the ability to use the legacy of the minority Civil Rights movement, to justify its agenda.

[Zebra]

Despite paranoia to the contrary, I think this principled stand brings more people to the GOP than it repels.

It had better, or we are in big trouble in this country.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Wouldn't it be better to side with people choosing what they can do unless the government can cite clear reasons for regulating their behavior? Since when do people talk about the rights of the government to regulate us?

I'm not a Constitutional scholar (yet). I'll look into this privacy debate, and get back to you. Until then, I believe the burden of proof should be on the government to prove why it needs to regulate our lives, rather than us proving why they shouldn't.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Do you have any logical beliefs behind this? Any facts? Or is it all just emotional responses and deeply held religious beliefs about what constitutes a sin (which I probably agree with you about, it seems)?

Why is eating shellfish not illegal then? That is condemned in the Bible also.