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.

[Sacajaweau]

Within that Constitution, there is the right to make laws. Reading just the Document labeled the Constitution is not sufficient when dealing with these matters. Further, the Federal Government AND the States have the right to make laws.

Why would you even think that "Adultery" would appear in the Constitution??

[11th Earl of Mar]

I need to know which post you are replying to...

Are you saying adultery is illegal in California?

Or are you saying Californians should be stoned to death to conform to Old Testament Law?

just kidding... Please tell me more about the State of California's law against adultery. Does Hollywood know about this law?

[11th Earl of Mar]

Why would you even think that "Adultery" would appear in the Constitution??

I didn't. I was replying to #11.

[Remedy]

Perhaps, it was implied that:

Ingestion of feces? Guess they wash it down with some man-milk. eeewww. posted on 01/10/2003 11:45 AM EST by 11B3

[LizardQueen]

Or, on the other hand, picture it this way, the way 2 dear friends of mine, who happen to be gay, live:

"You and your partner have been together for 15 years, longer than their straight friends have been married. You don't cheat on each other. You both go to work, mow the lawn, go grocery shopping, and generally live in the kind of American suburban normalcy that people around the world dream of. You have no kids, but are active in the community. You are horrified by the actions of the 'flaming fags' as they cause people to label all gays as behavior problems. "

And that is why Santorum's remarks give me the willies.

If this post makes me a heretic on this board, then so be it.

LQ

[SevenDaysInMay]

Beware "compelling State interest".

Santorem said ~'we have rights' = meaning government's rights: WRONG. Government has limited powers enumerated under our Constitutions, federal and the several states - We the People have rights, highlighted by our Bill of Rights, especially the ignored 9th and 10th Amendments which gave rise to Privacy. The rights reserved to the people and the several states must be beyond the governments' limited powers.

The Right to Privacy was not created as bad law, but another God-given right finally recognized by the SCOTUS while they made the grave mistake of granting gravid women the sole power to kill their unborn children.

Equal protection of the 14th Amendment is tested again. Oh bugger. Is what's good for the gander's goose to be good for two geese?

Setting the prostate pals's copulation desires aside for the moment, just when is the State, under penalty of law, allowed to investigate and prosecute consenting adults for actions affecting no one else while in the privacy of one's own home?

This is a fundamental issue to be debated. What ever happended to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That never made its way into our Constitution.

For the record, I personally believe that homosexuality is a combination of defective genes and chosen deviant behavior. The lonely often veer into dead ends.

[n1f2ns]

§ 18.2-365. Adultery defined; penalty.

Any person, being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any person not his or her spouse shall be guilty of adultery, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

In Virginia it's illegal, and i see no reason why it wouldn't be in anyother state.

[Remedy]

And that is why Santorum's remarks give me the willies.

Bug Chasers:The men who long to be HIV+

SODOMY : Sex Abuse And Homosexuals

SODOMY : Teaching Kindergarten Kids About 'Human Differences' and Homosexuality Isn't 'Easy'

SODOMY : World AIDS Day: Reflections on the Pandemic

SODOMY : Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children

[Sacajaweau]

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" was specifically mentioned by Santorum during the debates on Partial Birth Abortion.

Santorum is refreshing and he's right. He speaks for me.

[11th Earl of Mar]

If adultery is illegal? Are they prosecuting it?

Last I read, nearly one in four children born are born out of wedlock.

Any government big and powerful enough to prosecute the parents on such a large segment of the nation's children over the "crime of adultery" is big enough to jail me for homeschooling and owning owning three SUVs.

[Remedy]

These links will clear up your confusion.

 

More than a dozen briefs throw
support to Texas in sodomy lawsuit
United States marriage laws threatened by litigation at Supreme Court

Washington – More than a dozen briefs filed at the United States Supreme Court this week oppose the declaration of a new constitutional right in Lawrence v. Texas. The briefs support Texas’s sodomy law. Arguments are scheduled for March 26.

"These briefs were filed because we all support the unique stabilizing influence of marriage in our society," said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, who co-authored a brief with the Center for Original Intent of the Constitution. The Alliance Defense Fund is a national legal non-profit organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, serving people of faith. "Contrary to what’s been reported in the mainstream news media, there is a lot of opposition to the cultural drift toward condoning same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage," Lorence said.

Lawrence v. Texas is a direct challenge by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund to the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. Bowers said that individuals do not have a federal constitutional right to practice homosexual sex, known as sodomy. Seventeen years later, thirteen states, including Texas, still clearly proscribe sodomy. At one time, every state in the union proscribed sodomy.

Lambda basically uses two arguments for its case. It argues in favor of an expanded right to privacy, building upon the court’s controversial 1973 abortion decision, Roe v. Wade. It also argues that same-sex behavior is entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual behavior.

"Advocates of homosexual behavior would like to use this case to advance their agenda. They want to legalize same-sex ‘marriage,’ to lift restrictions on homosexual conduct in the military, to legalize adoption by same sex couples, and to restrict free speech rights of individuals who have faith-based objections to endorsing, funding, or supporting homosexual behavior," Lorence said.

Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (State Attorneys General)

American Center for Law and Justice
Jay Alan Sekulow, Counsel of Record

American Family Association
Stephen M. Crampton, Counsel of Record

Center for Arizona Policy
This brief refutes the errors expressed in the opposing amicus submitted by the American Psychology Association.
Len L. Munsil, Counsel of Record

Center for Law and Justice International
Pat Monaghan, Counsel of Record

Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution
Michael P. Farris, Counsel of Record

Concerned Women for America
Janet M. LaRue, Counsel of Record

Family Research Council & Focus on the Family
Robert P. George, Counsel of Record

Legislators, State of Texas
Kelly Shackelford, Counsel of Record

Liberty Counsel
Mathew D. Staver, Counsel of Record

Pro Family Law Center
Richard Ackerman, Counsel of Record

Texas Eagle Forum; Daughters of Liberty Republican Women of Houston, Texas;
Spirit of Freedom Republican Women's Club
Teresa Stanton Collett, Counsel for Amici Curiae

Texas Physicians Resource Council, Christian Medical and Dental Association, Catholic Medical Association
Glen Lavy, Counsel of Record

United Families International
Paul Benjamin Linton, Counsel for the Amicus


RESPONDENT’S BRIEF

Harris County, Texas

[Remedy]

And that is why Santorum's remarks give me the willies.

Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. ⁷ In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. ⁸ The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. ⁹ NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. ¹⁰ CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. ¹¹ GEORGIA

That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. ¹² MAINE

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. ¹³ [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. ¹⁴ PENNSYLVANIA

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. ¹⁵ SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. ¹⁶ VERMONT

8. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson M emorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."
9. Laws of the State of New-York . . . Since the Revolution (New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1798), Vol. I, p. 336.
10. The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.
11. A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia (Milledgeville: Grantland & Orme, 1822), p. 350.
12. Laws of the State of Maine (Hallowell: Goodale, Glazier & Co., 1822), p. 58.
13. Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: John Bioren, 1810), Vol. I, p. 113.
14. Collinson Read, An Abridgment of the Laws of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1801), p. 279.
15. Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.
16. Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.

[LizardQueen]

You're trying to change my mind by quoting passages that advocate putting my friends to death?

I don't think you get it.

LQ

[Maelstrom]

He didn't .

They are the natural results of some unintended consequences should the Supreme Court have ruled differently.

[gitmo]

It doesn't matter if Santtorum is right or not. Republicans surrender their own when the left lies about what they say.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Help me out. WHAT is the "natural result, relating to adultery, of some unintended consequences should the Supreme Court have ruled" one way or the other on homosexuality?

[Remedy]

You're trying to change my mind

Go get one and I'll try.

You friends need help. And so do you, if you refuse to help.

• "The Summer of Our Discontent: The Church Fights Back in the Culture War on Homosexuality."
• Transforming Congregations is a network of uniting ("mainline") churches in the USA and Australia whose mission is to "provide information, resources and training in understanding and involvement in transforming ministry toward homosexuals, and to encourage transforming ministry based on loving compassion, scripture, and The Discipline of the United Methodist Church."
• Courage is a network of Roman Catholics whose mission is to "provide spiritual support for men and women striving to live chaste lives in accordance with the Catholic Church's pastoral teaching on homosexuality." Write to Courage, c/oChurch of St John the Baptist, 210 W 31st Street, New York, NY 10001. The phone number is (212) 268-1010. There are chapters in many major cities, including New York, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Chicago.
• One By One is a fellowship of Presbyterian (USA) churches whose mission is to "educate and equip the Church to minister the transforming grace and power of the Lord Jesus Christ to those who are in conflict with their sexuality."
• Exodus International
• PFOX - welcome!

[11th Earl of Mar]

I think you are forgetting a Scripture- "It's His KINDNESS that leads to repentance."

[LizardQueen]

To him, kindness is apparently a four-letter word.

I'm done with this discussion.

LQ