"Somehow, I don't think people are just waiting for a cue from the SC to dump their spouses so they can sleep with their children."
(grin...)
Posted on 04/26/2003 12:28:27 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier
I would look at it the other way: it won't upset anyone who doesn't already hate Santorum. Another thing to note: Hispanics. If the GOP has the balls to make this an issue, the Democratic party of Texas could cease to exist, permanently. It could even make the GOP competitive in California.
Just as an aside, I wonder where PETA stands on this case?
I completely agree. That was my hope when I started the thread. I know there are a lot of FReepers out there who don't want to demonize homosexuals, and want to come off as reasonable people. But they don't understand just how UN-reasonble the other side of this case is.
But don't twist the 9th and 14th amendments into signifying something no-one imagined until they conjured up the penumbras they needed for Griswold.
F.R. needs to have a higher frequency of posts like yours.
F.R. should develop a 100 question bank (similar to Founders' Quiz, with substantive vs trivial questions) on the Declaration, Constitution, Fed and anti-Fed Papers, and Notes on the Convention and require answering one of those questions correctly prior to making a post.
After several hundred posts, even an illegal alien would know 100 of the most important concepts within those documents.
If he doesn't, then he needs to explain himself.
If he does, then he will suffer the political fallout and hurt the Republican party in general.
Not true.
I've always liked Santorum..have considered him a rising star in the Republican party.
I actually prefered Santorum over Frist for the post of Senate ML.
But this controversy has really made me wonder about his political judgement.
I don't begrudge him his personal religious beliefs when it comes to the issue of sexual morality, in fact I share them.
But he should know that the majority of Americans don't want a govt that attempts to regulate the private sexual behavior of consenting adults when it comes homosexuality and adultery.
As a result, I now think Santorum has made himself look stupid and intemperate and the fact that he hasn't been able to gracefully diffuse the controversy makes me serious question his leadership abilities.
The government isn't "peeping into bedroom windows" with such legalislation. Has the government peeped into your bedroom windows lately? Do you really fear that it will unless such legislation is struck down by a majority of SCOTUS justices acting as an unelected super-legislature?
There doesn't need to be a right to sodomy, and that's not what this case is about anyway, but I'll take your argument.
The Constitution isn't a document that details or lists our rights, the constitution is a document that places restrictions on the government where our rights are concerned. It also specifically details how the different branches work, interact, what the limitations of service are for elected officials, how they are elected, etc.
To think that the constitution details our rights is ridiculous.
Having said that, this case is about the right to privacy, and equal protection under the law as I see it.
The plaintiffs will win.
Fine. Then let them act like responsible citizens and elect legislatures that will repeal such laws. This isn't a question about the wisdom of such laws, but where the responsibility lies to pass or repeal them.
Then you approve of a panel of nine justices acting as a super-legislature.
"2) Does it violate the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection to outlaw homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy, as the Texas law does? In other words, should sexual orientation become a specially protected category under the 14th amendment--along with race? Again, the petitioners say yes."
You have this backwards. To say that homosexuals do not have the same right as heterosexuals in fact removes the right to equal protection under the law for a targeted category of citizens.
Santorum simply needs to tell us whether or not he believes police should be able to barge into the bedrooms of consenting adults and arrest them for homosexuality and adultery.
Why? The state can (and does) bust into your bedroom if your dealing crack cocaine there. An adverse ruling in this case will make that as illegal as the bust you posit. Further, very few of us live in fear of the "sex police" but wouldn't want sodomy, adultery, et al. sanctioned as legal activities. Why? Because we know (thanks to San Francisco) that once they are legal they will become "in your face" and then sanctioned as "protected" in some weird way so that cross dressing queers get a BETTER shot at a job than the rest of us.
"Somehow, I don't think people are just waiting for a cue from the SC to dump their spouses so they can sleep with their children."
(grin...)
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.