[sinkspur]

I stand 110% behind Santorum's assertions and his perspective designed to defend the institutions of our society rather than carve out further corrosions of the society, for special interest groups.

States and state courts have been rolling back restrictions on sodomy for the last 20 years. Apparently the legislatures don't see the stricture or urgency that you do in having a law on the books that is not enforced.

If you're in favor of states retaining the right to proscribe sodomy, I suppose you're also in favor of the states simply ignoring the enforcement of the law.

I just don't see how a law that is not enforced is in anyway effective. If I know the local sheriff will let me go 20 miles over the speed limit, I will, more often than not, go 20 miles over the speed limit.

[mabelkitty]

Not the point.

His First Amendment rights are being attacked, and he is being harassed and discriminated for his religious beliefs.

[Renatus]

Hey Sinkspur. Not too long ago you were condemning in strongest terms homosexual priests. Looks like you changed your tune. Do you believe now that homosexual priests ought not be punished? You were demanding that the bishop open files regarding this behavior, were you not?

[MHGinTN]

Watch your matches, Sink, you're constructing strawmen. If you're in favor of states retaining the right to proscribe sodomy, I suppose you're also in favor of the states simply ignoring the enforcement of the law. Your vacuous assertion proves the utility of Senator Santorum's remarks ... 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. [You're lack of rational perspective is disappointing in this issue, Sinkspur.]