Santorum Criticized for Talking like the Church

Seamax ^ | 4/23/2003 | Richard Manzo

[Hugenot]

Senator Rick Santorum, (R-PA) the third ranking Republican in the US Senate, is being criticized by gay groups for comments make during an AP interview.

The comments that have the radical guys in fervor are his comments on homosexuality. Santorum stated: “' I have no problem with homosexuality - I have a problem with homosexual acts.''”

The radical gays should be used to that comments. It has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for a very long time. Now all of a sudden when a Republican United States Senator utters the same remark there is a major problem with it.

Already people are realizing that the comment can make Santorum vulnerable in Pennsylvania, a state that recently elected a Democratic governor. Looking at the mainstream news, this reporter sees “Will he be the Next Trent Lott” right in his face.

The radical leftist groups realize that they were able to demonize one senator because of his beliefs, and not they feel that they will go after another, even if Santorum’s comments only echo those of the Holy Catholic Church.

This should go out as a warning to all Republican elected officials: Santorum must be supported and not dumped as Lott was. The dumping of Lott set a bad precedent, and Santorum being punished for making a mainstream conservative comment such as the one he uttered proves it.

[Torie]

Does the Holy Catholic Church want to make all sex outside of marriage a civil crime? In any event, the issue of Santorum continuing as leader depends on his ability to be effective. I suspect that he is sufficiently far down the food chain that he can weather this as far as holding his post. But whether he can weather a re-election bid is another matter entirely. I think he may be finished in that regard.

[noutopia]

Gays are very very Queer people,are they not?

[Russell Scott]

If he stands strong, doesn't make any apologizes for what he said, he will come out smelling like a rose, and the homsexuals will come out smelling nasty like many of them are.

[Ron H.]

Problem is that the current crop of Republican Party hierarchy is without any gonads these days. Now days the current crop of alleged Republican leadership and the term gonads are an oxymoron.

The siege on conservatism continues ever relentlessly by those who would subvert and destroy the traditional moral family core while our supposed leaders only stand on the side lines wringing their pitiful hands and bemoaning can't we all here just get along.

[backhoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899113/posts
Democratic Operative Wrote Santorum Piece?
The Washington Times / UPI ^


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899047/posts
(Misquote) By Reporter Married to Kerry Campaign Manager Burns Rick Santorum
EIB ^ | 4-23-03 | Rush Limbaugh

[No Dems 2004]

These 'gay' fools don't realise that, since the Bible is so unequivocally clear on its abhorrence of homosexuality, there will always be Americans who regard it as a great evil. I truly hope and pray the US Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the Texas law, but, even if they don't, I know that there will be those who continue to fight for morality.

By contrast, there's nowhere in the Bible that teaches us to hate people for the colour of their skin. The Bible doesn't teach racism. It teaches morality.

[honest injun]

Siege on conservatism? Santorum is suggesting states have the right to police private consenusal behavior.

The siege on conservatism is from Santorum. This is not about gays, although their stridency has brought this to national attention. The issue: do Republican Senate leaders believe government can pass laws that limit private consensual behavior? Is this a conservative position?

[narses]

The issue: do Republican Senate leaders believe government can pass laws that limit private consensual behavior?

Yes.

Is this a conservative position?

Yes. For example the consensual emasculation that resulted in a criminal sentence that was posted here the other day. It was "private consensual behavior" and it was criminal. For example the Commander in Chief commiting adultery and sodomy while on duty and in office was "private consensual behavior" and criminal.

[narses]

Does the Holy Catholic Church want to make all sex outside of marriage a civil crime?

It IS a crime in many states. It WAS a crime in just about EVERY state until the marxists got their hooks into the media and the education establishment. And it IS a civil "crime" under Canon Law. A MORTAL SIN in fact.

[Puddleglum]

I've read Santorum's entire statement and I think Santorum is asking where in the Constitution the ability to overturn the Texas law resides. States make laws to preserve what they believe are the organizational and ethical pillars of their society. Santorum is asking where the right to privacy resides that trumps the states' right to legislate in support of what it perceives are society's strengths.

If Texans dislike the law they should petition their legislature to overturn it, but they shouldn't use the courts as a trump card to do so.

[sinkspur]

The issue: do Republican Senate leaders believe government can pass laws that limit private consensual behavior?

Yes.

In your opinion, should masturbation be subject to criminal penalties? If private sexual morality can be outlawed, should a legislature outlaw the practice of juvenile masturbation?

For example the Commander in Chief commiting adultery and sodomy while on duty and in office was "private consensual behavior" and criminal.

How was it criminal? If you'll remember, Clinton was accused of lying to a federal and perjury, but I don't recall that his antics in the oval office were ever classified as criminal.

You need to think through the implications of the kind of power you want the government to have. I see the same people who complain about the "overreaching" of the Patriot Act jumping on the bandwagon of policing private sexual behavior.

Doesn't make sense to me.

[sinkspur]

Santorum is asking where the right to privacy resides that trumps the states' right to legislate in support of what it perceives are society's strengths.

The Texas law specifically leaves out heterosexual sodomy. It applies only to gays.

I think the court will overturn the Texas law on equal protection grounds, not privacy.

[mabelkitty]

Freedom of Religion.

He should file a lawsuit against the media for discrimination and violation of his First Amendment rights.

Enough is enough.

[mabelkitty]

You don't live in Pennsylvania, do you?

He's very safe.

[Puddleglum]

I think the court will overturn the Texas law on equal protection grounds, not privacy.

You're probably right regarding the equal protection approach. From Santorum's language my understanding was that he did not want the court to find more penumbras of privacy and take more power from the states to legislate.

[narses]

You need to think through the implications of the kind of power you want the government to have.

You need to understand that the government HAS that power and rethink what it means if it doesn't. You appear to be suggesting that PRIVACY eliminates laws. Drug sales between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes would be legal, prostitution ditto, unlicensed surgery ditto. Try using your head before you attack sinky. As for masturbation being made illegal, that is a red herring. As for Clinton's actions, adultery and sodomy are both crimes. That he wasn't charged makes him no less a criminal.

[nina0113]

The Texas law specifically leaves out heterosexual sodomy. It applies only to gays.

Are you sure about that? I remember Molly Ivins (used to read her) writing about the law in Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She? and I got the impression, from the legislators' comments she reported, that it applied to everyone.

The Virginia law, still on the books last time I checked (there was a story about it last fall), is all-inclusive. I remember a married couple, deliberately trying to get the law thrown out, going to JAIL for breaking it, back in the 70s. Now that I'm thinking about it, I remember somebody got charged with fornication in Norfolk just a few years ago. Something to do with a lawsuit over a broken lease, when it was technically illegal for them to be living together at all, IIRC.

[ninenot]

The Government should promote, protect, and defend right order. That's the conservative position. Illicit sex is NOT right order, properly understood.

The various States may choose not to make illicit sex (or narcotics, etc., etc.) illegal--but that does not change the reality.

CONSERVATIVES MUST PROMOTE THE MORAL CODE.

[sinkspur]

Are you sure about that

Yes. Texas and Missouri are the only two states that have sodomy laws that specifically apply to homosexuals only.