Santorum is Right

AgapePress ^ | April 25, 2003 | R. Cort Kirkwood

[Remedy]

Sen. Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania, is now likened to Sen. Trent Lott.

Santorum has upset the homosexuals, and they expect the GOP to dump their No. 3 senator. What happens remains to be seen, but the one thing Santorum must not do is apologize.

Several reasons come to mind, not least of which is that he's right.

What He Said
Referring to a U.S. Supreme Court case that will decide the "constitutionality" of Texas' sodomy law, Santorum, an orthodox Catholic, remarked thusly:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] 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. You have the right to anything."

Within minutes, a mouthpiece from the disingenuously named Human Rights Campaign, a lobby group for sodomy, was on the blower with the newspapers: "It is stunning, stunning in its insensitivity," David Smith told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "Putting homosexuality on the same moral plane as incest is repulsive."

A Santorum spokeswoman rushed to answer: "[She] said yesterday that Santorum had no problem with gay relationships. 'Sen. Santorum was specifically speaking about the right to privacy within the context of the Supreme Court case,' she said, explaining that he did not want to elevate gay sex to the level of a constitutional right."

Commented Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post, "At least Trent Lott had the good sense to apologize."

The Real Problems
If you want to know what's wrong here, look beyond Santorum. First look to the Supreme Court, which has no role here. The Texas law is "constitutional" because it's none of the federal government's business, regardless of what high court "precedent" says.

If Santorum were smart, he'd be working to undo the 75 years of unconstitutional "civil rights" jurisprudence and legislation that permits the Supreme Court to decide these things.

Second, of course Santorum has "a problem with gay relationships." If one form of extra-marital sex is permissible, Santorum essentially said, all of it is. This is what faithful Catholics like Santorum believe. And that, not politically organized sodomites, Kurtz and others gallingly suggest, is what's wrong.

Citing the AP follow, Kurtz quotes Santorum, then adds a snippy, fallacious analogy: Santorum has "'no problem with homosexuality -- I have a problem with homosexual acts.' Boy, that oughta make everyone feel better. Kind of like saying you have no problem with disabled folks, it's just those blasted wheelchairs."

No, it's not like saying that, but regardless, Santorum is right again. Love the sinner; hate the sin. It's standard Christian teaching. And that, again, is the real evil in this topsy-turvy morality play.

Why He's Right
Now, let's grab the nettle:

"Putting homosexuality on the same moral plane as incest is repulsive," says the professional homosexual. Really?

I'd describe what homosexuals do in detail, but it's so repulsive I'll let readers look into it. They can decide whether anal intercourse is repulsive, or whether a three-man orgy in a bathhouse is morally equivalent to a married man and woman making new life.

Homosexual sodomy, an objectively disordered act, is on the same moral plane as incest. It is a mortal sin, all of which are repulsive to Christians and not only send the unrepentant to Hell but also poison society.

Explanations and apologies didn't help Lott. They won't help Santorum.

[11th Earl of Mar]

I have seen rare examples of CIVIL cases awarding monetary damages.

But let me ask again... Have you any examples of CRIMINAL prosecutions?

[Maelstrom]

Yours is a straw man, and as I said before, several people have referred to criminal charges brought against people for adultery.

Here are some more, or perhaps the specifics of those referred in already:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/25/navy.adultery.01/
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Jun1997/a19970625hearside.html

State v. Ronek, 176 N.W.2d 153, 157 (Iowa 1970); State v. Athey, 133 Iowa 382, 385, 108 N.W. 224, 225 (1906)

In October, 2001 a North Carolina man, Jerry Ward was prosecuted, convicted and fined under a little-used 1805 Adultery Law. He admitted co-habiting with his girlfriend and having sex.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/archive/news/99/990923news3.html

[Hacksaw]

Should it be criminalized, or can't you answer the question?

Sunday, 11:34 in Pittsburgh and still no Sinkspur-predicted Santorum apology.

[honeygrl]

"If we allow the government to ban 'gay' sex, what's down the road? I guess adultery will be next since he mentioned it."


And whats next? Banning certain positions or places in your home? No more sex in the kitchen! It's unsanitary. Although I've been told GA already has a law that bans any place outside your bed in your bedroom. Sorry but I'll do what I want in my living room as long as I'm not hurting anyone.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Your examples are really weak.

From your first article:
Scudi has been charged with two counts of adultery stemming from relationships with two women. The obstruction of justice and lying charges are the result of the Navy's investigation into the alleged adulterous affairs.

From your second article:
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Monday ordered the investigative hearing into charges against Sgt. Maj. of the Army Gene C. McKinney opened...under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

From your third article:
Col. James A. Sills...was charged Tuesday by the Office of Special Investigations. Charges stem from incidents dating from 1988 to 1999 and include allegations of a sexual nature against two girls under the age of 16...Sills was removed from his command after Air Force Special Operations Command officials lost confidence in his leadership abilities... [T]he charges against Sills are in the hands of Col. David Scott, 16th Special Operations Wing commander.

You provided three links to actual people prosecuted for adultery and ALL THREE WERE CHARGED UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. [And one involved sex with two minors].

I guess I should be more specific.

I want to see examples of people prosecuted for adultery in CIVILIAN CRIMINAL COURT- not CIVIL COURT... not a MILITARY COURT.

I think we can all agree that Santorum's comments and the case before the US Supreme Court have nothing to do with civil fines or the Uniform Code of Military Conduct.

[11th Earl of Mar]

No more sex in the kitchen! It's unsanitary

"Has anyone ever given you the Aunt Jemima treatment?" - Bill Murray in 'Stripes'

[Maelstrom]

and I gave four cites of citizens.

Sianara.

[BOOTSTICK]

In some states if a married woman has an adulterous affair, and becomes pregnant, her spouse must be financially responsable for the new addition to his family. So yes, adultury like sodomy should be illegal, as innocent people often must be responsable for others actions. The homosexual couple are much more likely to contract AIDS, and so most medicines taken by AIDS sufferers are subsidised by the taxpayer, the govt. surely has the right to regulate the bedroom.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Sianara

I take your response to mean that you agree that adultery is rarely, if ever, prosecuted as a crime in civilian criminal court.

[Maelstrom]

Nope.

You're obviously not going to be swayed by the available facts. The debate is over.

It is prosecuted when there are not some greater crimes to prosecute and one of the married couple insist in some states. Rarely? Yes, but it is prosecuted.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Rarely

Obviously, otherwise you could provide links to the stories.

I'm glad your rabbit trail has reached its end.

[B Knotts]

Seems like a good time to bump this thread.

In light of this, that is:

Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex