Posted on 04/25/2003 5:36:40 PM PDT by Dubya
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Sen. Rick Santorum was correct in his recent comments and must be defended if future pro-family politicians are to have the courage to speak up, James Dobson and Ken Connor said on Focus on the Family's radio program April 25.
Their comments came the same day the White House defended Santorum, the Republican from Pennsylvania who is No. 3 in the GOP's senatorial leadership chain.
"The president has confidence in the senator and believes he's doing a good job as senator," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "The president believes the senator is an inclusive man."
Santorum, a Catholic who is one of Washington's most staunch pro-lifers, gave an interview to the Associated Press in early April that has resulted in much criticism. The AP did not release the story until April 21.
In the interview, Santorum gave his views on a Supreme Court case in which several homosexuals are attempting to overturn the state of Texas' sodomy laws. The case was heard in March; a decision is expected before the court adjourns this summer.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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," he said. "You have the right to anything."
Santorum added that such behavior "destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. ... Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman." He said he has "no problem with homosexuality" but does "have a problem with homosexual acts."
Most media reports have said that Santorum was comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy and incest.
Connor, president of the Family Research Council, said that Santorum's logic was correct and that it's the same argument legal scholars have made.
"All Sen. Santorum was doing was extending the logic of the argument that the claimants in the [Supreme Court case] have made," Connor said. "... They say the state doesn't have a rational basis for making homosexual behavior illegal as a means of helping to protect the institution of marriage.
"All the senator did was show that ideas have consequences. He said, 'Here's where the logic takes us.' The reality of it is that these people don't want folks to understand where the logic takes us. They want to proceed in a stealth and incremental manner in order to wind up ultimately radically redefining marriage."
If the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot write laws prohibiting certain acts between consenting adults in private, "then the effect of that will be to legitimize such conduct as bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery, you name it," Connor added.
Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, noted Santorum's strong stance against abortion, and as an example replayed a 1999 Senate floor debate on partial-birth abortion between Santorum and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D.-Calif.
"He is perhaps the most articulate critic of cloning and partial-birth abortion.... [He] has a big target on him," Dobson said. "They would love to bring him down."
Connor added that Santorum has "been a champion of the family -- not just in the area of preserving marriage and promoting healthy families ... . He has been a defender of life from the very beginning."
If conservatives don't stand up for Santorum, Connor said, the results could be devastating for the pro-family cause.
"We in the pro-family movement absolutely must stand with those who stand for our views and our values," Connor said. "If we don't, we're going to find that there won't be anybody willing to take that stand."
Dobson added, "We need to let him know that we are standing with him and praying for him."
The Associated Press story also noted Santorum's pro-life stance, saying that Santorum tells people he has seven children, including "the one in heaven." Their fourth child, Gabriel, died hours after delivery. Santorum and his wife took Gabriel's body home to let their other children see and hold him before he was buried, Santorum's wife wrote in the book "Letters to Gabriel," according to the AP.
Among Santorum's colleagues, the reaction has been mixed.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee defended Santorum. "Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate, and to suggest otherwise is just politics," Frist said in a statement, according to The Washington Post.
Santorum's Pennsylvania colleague, Sen. Arlen Specter, also came to Santorum's defense.
"I have known Rick Santorum for the better part of two decades, and I can say with certainty he is not a bigot," Specter said, according to The Post.
But two Republican senators on the liberal wing of the party -- Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- chided Santorum.
"Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Sen. Santorum's unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity," Snowe said in a release, according to CNN.com.
Chafee agreed. "I thought his choice of comparisons was unfortunate and the premise that the right of privacy does not exist -- just plain wrong," Chafee said in a statement on CNN.com. "Sen. Santorum's views are not held by this Republican and many others in our party."
A third Republican senator, Gordon Smith of Oregon, said Santorum's comments were "hurtful" to homosexuals, The Oregonian reported.
Several Democrats have also been openly critical. Democratic presidential contender and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean issued a statement April 23 calling on Santorum to step down from his leadership post. As governor of Vermont, Dean signed a bill allowing state-recognized homosexual same-sex unions, making Vermont the first and only state to do so.
"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral. Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong [and] makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate," he said.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chaired by New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine, also called for Santorum to step down from his post. The DSCC called the remarks "divisive, hurtful and reckless."
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said he hopes Santorum "clarifies that he was not equating homosexuality with bigamy or incest. Those sentiments are out of step with our country's respect for tolerance, and I hope Sen. Santorum would repudiate them," according to the Orange County Register.
But Catholic theologian Chester Gillis of Georgetown University told The Washington Post that Santorum's comments reflected Catholic belief.
"Catholic theology does not condone homosexual activity. However, it does not condemn homosexual persons," Gillis told The Post, adding that the Catholic church teaches that homosexuals should live in chastity.
"Santorum added that such behavior "destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. ... Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman." He said he has "no problem with homosexuality" but does "have a problem with homosexual acts." There, was that so bad, now?
Some gays thought the new line of demarcation and the disease it created — homophobia — was wonderful. It was touted by some as a major victory for gay liberation. The National Gay Rights Task Force, in the US, called homophobia “a flawed personality trait” which “mental health professionals have identified.” At a conference sponsored by gay groups, one speaker announced: “Homophobia is the problem, not homosexuality. Homophobia is the pathology, not homosexuality.”
Now, by making bigotry a "mental illness," one thereby removes the bigot from the realm of morality and places him in the medical realm instead. This reclassification of bigotry establishes a foundation for the exoneration of the bigot. Such a theory of bigotry would, for example, serve well the interests of past perpetrators of apartheid. They could defend their crimes by claiming “diminished mental capacity” due to “the disease of negrophobia.” Instead of a Truth Commission we could create a commission of psychiatrists to treat the poor victims of this new disease.
This is virtually what happened in the case of Dan White, the assassin of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and gay city Supervisor Harvey Milk. White couldn’t be inflicted with the disease of homophobia and be responsible for his crime at the same time. By medicalizing White’s actions the court was saying that the assassinations were actually a symptom of his disease. The trial of White ended with him being found to suffer from “diminished capacity” and he received a slap-on-the-wrist sentence. The city’s gay population was shocked; but large segments of their own leadership had established the foundation on which this exoneration was based by accepting the existence of a phony disease called “homophobia”.
The Board recognized that a significant portion of gay and lesbian people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology. It was also found that homosexuals were able to function effectively in society, and those who sought treatment most often did so for reasons other than their homosexuality.
When the DSMIII was published in 1980 homosexuality was not included although "ego dystonic homosexuality" was recognized as a category for people "whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation."
When the DSMIII was revised in 1987, "ego dystonic homosexuality" was deleted as a separate diagnostic entity because "In the United States, almost all people who are homosexual first go through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego dystonic." (DSMIIIR)"
So the shrinks were politically forced to remove homosexuality from the list of "mental disorders" that had been in place for a hundred years. This was the first step towards "normalizing" aberrant behavior and obssesive compulsions; we now find ourselves on the brink of the destruction of the institution of marriage. Aberrant behavior now becomes a "civil right". Its a case of the inmates running the asylum.
In practical terms this staement supports regulating people's behavior in private and behind closed doors. What does he propose doing to those that perform homosexual acts?
Sorry - I forgot to address this point. Public sodomy is protected in many ways - for instance, at Stanford University there was a big ruckus about the "glory holes" in mens' bathrooms that faggots - even non-students - would use to sodomize each other, and some "homophobes" were uncofortable with the practice. The "gay activists" said that public, anonymous buggery is their culture and people should get used to it. Many other instances. When I used to live in Eugene (OR) - another pro-homo capital - there were parks that one couldn't go to - or let one's young kids go to - unless you wanted to witness sodomy in action. "Gay acitivists" have repeatedly said that public anonymous sex is their right and their culture. It may be against the law on the books here and there but in a lot of places cops are afraid to bust them for fear of discrimination lawsuits and such. Basically, faggots are ruining a lot of public places. There is a nice family beach I used to go to in Hilo, HI that is now a faggot (in other words public sodomy) hangout so no my friends can't bring their kids there any more.
According to you people can become "faggots" because of what they're exposed to. This means that you could have been one also if exposed.
I have seen them my whole life here in NY yet never considered becoming one. Maybe you and I are wired differently.
Because one fool says something does not make it so. Should I believe that all Republicans are racist because David Duke is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.