White House & RNC Issue Gag Order on Santorum Issue

Harrisburg News and the Hotline ^ | April 24, 2003 | Chuck Todd and Vaughn Ververs

[Cedric]

You seem really mixed-up about the undelying issues in the Augusta National and Santourm matters, as well as how they do and do not relate to each other.

[sinkspur]

If privacy is to be protected, according to you, those immoral acts ought not be subject to subpeoena in any case.

Not government subpoena, but to church subpoena, yes.

[VRWC_minion]

No one cares about his religious beliefs until he tries to get them enacted into law.

You do realize that the laws are already on the books don't you ?

[Cedric]

Santorum got heard. His message wasn't liked.

By whom?

[sinkspur]

... if the states are prevented from proscribing objectionable and dangerous behaviors such as sodomy (without a need for bedroom cops ... you apparently didn't like that reality being stated), a whole host of other proscribed behaviors that endanger society and members in the society will be protected.

I don't agree with that, but, since you've resorted to insults, I'll leave you with your argument.

[k2blader]

Americans in general believe in a right to privacy. Santorum does not.

What exactly is the "right to privacy"?

And where exactly did Santorum say he does not believe in it?

Amendment IV of the Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Have there ever been specific cases in which the Fourth Amendment has been violated with regard to anti-sodomy laws or other sex-crime laws?

[Cedric]

You're getting a little frantic.

[CyberAnt]

Excuse me ... how can you be digging your own hole when it was the reporter from AP who put the word (Gay) in the report - a word which Santorum NEVER said.

And ... the fact that the reporter is the wife of John Kerry's campaign manager ... I see a LITTLE "hold digging" from the other side.

[VRWC_minion]

The middle of America doesn't want these laws on the books.

Then you should have no objection to what Santorum said. Its not up to the federal supreme court to make some right up its up to the individual state to withdraw the law legislatively.

If middle America doesn't want these laws bring them to vote at your local state house.

What are you afraid of ?

[Dolphy]

I don't feel mixed up but feel free to explain to me how you see that I am?

[VRWC_minion]

I'll leave you with your argument.

Which is a SC justice's argument, as well as Texas's argument.

[mabelkitty]

Wrong again.

They spoke out about his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. They attacked him on his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Call me any name you want.

Fact remains. His First Amendment (Religious) freedoms were violated, and they were calling for him to step down for his beliefs.

This story ain't stickin' so now you are trying to tie this whole case on him like a necklace.

Ain't gonna work, babe.

[Cedric]

Bravo!

[sinkspur]

Excuse me ... how can you be digging your own hole when it was the reporter from AP who put the word (Gay) in the report - a word which Santorum NEVER said.

You guys are focusing on that one word, which the reporter clearly inserted, when Santorum took the argument against the Texas statute and carried it out five decimal places.

Is "gay" a worse word than the terms "man-on-dog" or "child-on-dog" which Santorum clearly used?

[MHGinTN]

It doesn't matter if bedroom cops are needed or not. If the law is on the books nothing can stop enforcement. I don't suppose it has occurred to you that you just contradicted your earlier assertions regarding 'bedroom cops', and your desire for SCOTUS to overturn the conviction. You're downright comical!

[mabelkitty]

And to you, my friend.

[mabelkitty]

Psst! It's about Santorum's religion.

President commented yesterday.

Or didn't you hear.