Posted on 04/26/2003 6:24:52 AM PDT by 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
"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 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
"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.
I don't know what sort of nonsense you have immersed yourself into...maybe the links in post#32 will help.
Uh . . . They do not. According to this 1997 Slate article most states have criminal adultery laws.
Why would you think the Constituion would give you the right to adultery? One more illustration about the destruction of young minds by public schools.
But it is not enforced. But Santorum's comments leave the listener asking if adulterers will be arrested next according to the existing unenforced laws on the books.
And do you believe that retaining old, unenforced laws on adultery make America in a state of less moral decay?
I think we need to stop kidding ourselves.
Unenforced? NC has civil and criminal laws on the subject. And while the civil side is more easily enforced, the criminal side has been as well
"Fairly high-dollar awards in such cases have existed here for a number of years, a fact not generally known. As long ago as 1926, for instance, a jury in Macon County rendered a verdict in the amount of $12,000 against the lover of plaintiff’s wife. A 1931 jury in Forsyth County held against plaintiff wife’s father-in-law for $38,000. A Rowan County jury awarded $30,000 against a husband’s girlfriend in 1969. In 1982, our Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in the amount of $25,000 in compensatory damages and another $25,000 in punitive damages. A 1990 Forsyth County jury award of $300,000 in punitive damages for alienation was sustained on appeal, even though the court struck the compensatory award for $200,000.
In the past several years, however, North Carolina juries have become even more generous, in 1997 alone handing down $1.2 million against a female paramour in Forsyth County and awarding another jilted wife $1 million in Alamance County and a deceived husband $243,000 in Wake County. In late 1999, a judge in Durham County valued compensatory damages in a case brought by a husband against his wife’s lover at less than $3,000 in compensatory damages but the judge still awarded $40,000 in punitive damages on the criminal conversation claim. Since our Supreme Court refused to abolish these causes of action in 1984 and since our legislature has also shown no strong interest in doing so since that time, sizeable damage awards remain a real possibility in North Carolina. At the present time, more than 200 alienation actions are filed in an average year"
Actually, it was the cops who arrested them and the DA who prosecuted them who, ultimately, are to blame for taking huge chunks out of the sanctity of home and marriage.
I keep reading on here that these laws are passed with a wink and a nod, that they are not really meant to be enforced. And, in reality, they seldom are.
So prosecutorial discretion, had it been exercised, would have resulted in the case never reaching the Supreme Court, Santorum wouldn't have opened his mouth about it, and we would all be talking about something else.
Neither Santorum nor his aides have ever denied that Santorum meant to leave the impression that he was, in fact, talking about gay consensual sex.
In a Divorce Court, it is a matter of the legally binding contract in marriage...
While you probably won't face crimminal penalties, civil penalties such as award judgements for alimony, spousal support, child custody, etc., are all punishments that can be imposed by the courts for breech of contract.
I would like to see how many criminal penalties have been handed down in North Carolina for adultery before I consider that law "enforced."
When was the last time the STATE prosecuted someone for adultery in CRIMINAL court?
Why not? Both are not consistent practices within HUMAN anatomical function or reproductive biology.
Let's throw the "moral" argument out and focus on the real issue - - the FACTS of human biology and public health...
Which is why Santorum's remarks were off target.
The Texas case DOES involve CRIMINAL penalties.
Since you're throwing out the moral considerations, heterosexual sodomy is also antithetical to anatomical function and reproduction. Should that be equated with "man-on-dog" as well?
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.