Skip to comments.White House backs Santorum; he's 'inclusive'
Posted on 04/26/2003 10:33:36 AM PDT by Remedy
The White House finally threw Sen. Rick Santorum a life raft.
After dodging questions for two days about Santorum's controversial remarks on homosexuality, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters Friday that ''the president has confidence in Sen. Santorum, both as a senator and as a member of the Senate leadership.''
Santorum is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the No. 3 GOP post in the Senate.
President Bush's support for Santorum contrasted sharply with his response to the firestorm that erupted after Republican Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign.
Fleischer said Bush ''believes the senator is an inclusive man.''
Santorum was unavailable for comment Friday. Earlier in the week he stood by his statements but complained they had been ''misconstrued.''
He also said he has no plans to apologize or quit as conference chairman.
Many political observers had already concluded that Santorum, in his second term and considered a rising star in the party, would hang on to his leadership position.
Meanwhile, religious conservatives are among the most active part of the party's base and largely agree with Santorum's position. The only thing that upset them was the delay in the White House's defense of Santorum.
''This should not be a tough call for the GOP,'' Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, said Thursday in an e-mail. ''The overwhelming majority of Americans and Republican voters support marriage and family and reject the political agenda of the homosexual lobby.''
According to its Web site, Connor's organization considers homosexuality to be ''unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families and society.''
But other Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, have affirmed their support for Santorum.
More will be heard from next week after the Senate returns to work on Monday after a two-week recess.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
The Defense of Marriage Act says otherwise. Regulation of the institution of marriage and regulating what unmarried adults do in their bedrooms are two entirely different things.
...will be ruled unconstitutional, discriminatory against the new protected class of homosexuals under the 14th amendment. You're handing America over to the deviants.
Whether you like sodomy laws or not, you cannot support this kind of judicial activism.
Well, I'm no constitutional authority, so I'll leave this to those that are. I don't see, however, where the leap can be made from not criminalizing to sodomy to a right to marry.
Maybe it can; I'd need to be persuaded though.
It doesn't matter which one you call it, because neither one really exists. Beginning with FDR, the judicial branch has already given itself the right to bugger us all.
The truth is likely that Bush wishes Santorum had kept his mouth shut.
For Bush to have to remind everyone that Santorum was "inclusive" indicates that there may have been some doubt.
1) Is there a constitutional right for adults to engage in private consensual sex?
2) Does it violate the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection to outlaw homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual--in other words, are homosexuals a specially protected group under the 14th amdt.
The most likely outcome in this case, IMHO, is that the court will decide NO on 1, YES on 2.
If that happens, then immediately suits will pop up demanding marriage for gays, because hetero-only marriage laws discriminate against homosexuals, thus violating the 14th amendment. It's only a matter of time before we have a court that will impose homo marriage on all 50 states.
If the court also says yes on #1, then there will be no basis for state laws against consensual incest, polygamy, prostitution. The logical conclusion will also be to legalize drug use and other "private" activities as well that take place within the home. The court might come up with some bogus justification for not striking down all of these laws as well, but it won't last long. Sooner or later, a future court will use this case to strike down all state laws against anything whatsoever that is done in private.
That is the doomsday scenario, and it should be rather frightening for anyone who believes in the constitution and the rule of law.
It's also hysterical. You're assuming that voters and legislatures will have nothing to say about any of this.
demand the resignations of people like Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, et al, for things they haven't said and done?
Like an explanation for violating their oath of office and the Constitution on judicial confirmations.
The Defense of Marriage Act says otherwise...
The Defense of Marriage Act hasn't been constitutionally challenged yet. I don't say it will lose, but it will be challenged.
HAHAHAHA!!!!! I don't mean to be smug, but where have you been for the last 30 years, man!
Judges are very insulated from voters and legislatures. Just look at Roe v. Wade from 1973--several states had laws against abortion at the time of the decision. Hardly a peep since. We could be trying to reverse Lawrence v. Texas for the next 50 years if it's decided wrong.
How many people out there are still going to have the courage to stand up against organized gaydom? Even good FReepers like yourself are shouting down Santorum, arent you?
How many people out there are still going to have the courage to stand up against organized gaydom?
The limp-wristed homos nearly always prevail over weak-backed Republicans.
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.