[AndyTheBear]

" . . . If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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," he told the Associated Press. "You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the original misquote that set off this whole thing, this quote has him comparing consensual sex (not neccesarily gay) with bigomy ect. So if we are to extrapolate that this constitutes a display of bigotry against gays in paticular, then how is it that it is not just as much a display of bigotry against anyone else who engages in consenual sex?

Perhaps the display of bigotry is by the author.

[b-cubed]

To me Rick Santorum makes all the sense in the world.

1. There’s a case in Texas involving the act of “gitchygoo” in the privacy of somebody’s bedroom.

2. Gitchygoo is illegal in Texas.

3. The people that did the Texas gitchygoo want the Supreme Court Of The United States to tell all the states that they can’t make laws that take away the right to do gitchygoo or anything else because it’s private. (nothing in the Constitution says anything about “all private things are legal”).

4. Rick Santotum’s statement was meant to ask the Supreme Court to leave states rights alone and to stick to the constitution. Otherwise we’re going to start down a slippery road towards who knows what.

[gitmo]

Sen. Rick Santorum's statement had nothing to do with bigotry. It was an observation about the impact such a ruling would have on other laws.