Santorum: Confused, bigoted, disturbing [How did the Phila. area end up with so many lefty rags?]

Delaware County (PA) Daily Times ^ | 5/5/03 | Daily Times editorial board

[foreverfree]

Editorial: Santorum: Confused, bigoted, disturbing

May 05, 2003

Oh Santorum, you’ve done it again.

In his own myopic Mr. Magoo fashion, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has once again shown just how confused he is when it comes to navigating in the real world. But unlike the famous cartoon character, Santorum is neither charming nor funny.

In fact, downright disturbing is the best way to describe this federal legislator, considering his recent remarks regarding homosexual Americans.

Two weeks ago, in an interview with The Associated Press, he said he believed state lawmakers had the right to ban gay sex or other private behaviors that were "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

But he didn’t stop there.

"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," said Santorum.

This isn’t the first time the conservative Catholic senator has mixed church with state.

In his 2000 campaign for re-election, he told the Daily Times editorial board that he wanted to ban abortion because he knew for a fact that life begins at conception.

When asked for the empirical data supporting his assertion he said it was simply "common sense."

That has to be news to hundreds of thousands of scholars, scientists and theologians, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice," who have debated the question of when life begins, for centuries.

In truth, Santorum was presenting, as fact, an opinion most likely predicated on religious beliefs. Even more alarming, he believes it is the basis for federal law.

But, it’s not only on issues as emotional as reproductive rights and sexuality that Santorum has proven his confusion.

During his last campaign visit to the Daily Times, he also told the editorial board that the annual average cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens in Pennsylvania is $500. After just about every editorial board member fell on the floor, aghast at his proclamation, he quickly issued the disclaimer, "It’s not my data."

Again, a rather unsettling revelation considering this man is basing legislation proposals on that information.

So, we weren’t entirely surprised when Santorum managed to alienate at least 10 percent of the American population by equating their sexuality with criminal behavior.

We aren’t even convinced that he was being mean-spirited or bigoted. He probably was just, once again, uninformed and, definitely confused.

In any case, he managed to do enough political damage that, last Thursday, two of his fellow Republican senators - one of them Pennsylvania’s elder senator, Arlen Specter - joined Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in calling for expansion of federal penalties for acts of violence against homosexuals.

Specter denies that he is co-sponsoring the hate-crime legislation to make amends for Santorum’s horrendous gaffe, and that’s fine. Whatever his motivation, his aim is sound.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., was a little more pointed in commenting on the reason for co-sponsoring the bill that Kennedy says has the support of 175 law enforcement and religious groups.

"We want to say that there is no family value to be served in opposing hate-crime legislation," noted Smith.

We hope Rick Santorum gets the point and votes accordingly.

©The Daily Times 2003

[weegee]

Certainly the sometimes but not always reported detail that all 3 men knew each other, at least one of them had dated the caller, and that they were all homosexual blows such commentary as follows out of the water:

It comes from a weblog site and the posters there assumed it be a homophobic neighbor that placed the call.

This comes from last month (found in an online search along with the rest of the articles in my previous post). The conversation drops in and out of the Texas case and the comments made by the Senator.

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/25303

Boltman: actually, if you look at the facts of the case before SCOTUS, it was almost certainly staged by people that were looking to challenge the law in court.

Sources?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:00 PM PST on April 24


Strange as it may seem, it is a legal contract between two people; as long as they choose to "make it official" they need to follow the official rules. If they don't want it to be a legal contract, they shouldn't marry - in that case their cheating on one another can't be considered a legal issue.

I agree, in relation to a marriage adultery is a legal matter. But is it a criminal matter or simply a civil one? Presumably Santorum was talking about adultery as a criminal matter as that was the context for all the other mentioned categories (as it is the context of the SC case).

For example, in Florida, if a man cheats on his wife and those were the agreed upon rules of their marriage, then it is a definite issue for a civil (divorce) court. But is it an issue for a criminal court? Technically, yes. Section 798.01 of the Florida Criminal Code:

"Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section."

Of course, I doubt this is ever enforced. But then most sodomy laws are rarely enforced.
posted by obfusciatrist at 1:04 PM PST on April 24


Boltman: The call that led to the arrest of the two Houston gay men came from Roger David Nance. Harris County Sheriff's Department officers responded to his report of an armed man in an apartment complex, and he directed them to the apartment where Garner and Lawrence were found. Nance pleaded no contest and served 15 days in jail for filing a false police report. David Jones, an attorney for the two men, cited Nance's motive as a "personality conflict between the caller and the people in the apartment." [SOURCE]

So, not only did they not choose to be caught in flagrante, leading to fines, jail time and a lifetime sex offenders registration, but their homophobic (Ok, I'm guessing there...but it's an edumacated one) neighbour did jail time too.

What do you have?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:19 PM PST on April 24


dash slot -- I have nothing beyond your link, I just find the defendants' version of events to be implausible. The article itself notes that gay activists have been trying to get rid of this law for a long time but haven't been able to come up with a good test case. The DA admits that the only reason he is prosecuting is because he wants to see the law declared unconstitutional. The defendants themselves seem pretty enthusiastic about defending themselves in court--a huge cost in terms of time, if not money. And honestly, it's hard for me to believe that Nance was a homophobic neighbor. I mean, that's about the most bizzare (and idiotic) way to harrass your neighbor that I've ever heard of, and it makes no sense that he would choose to serve jail time just to spite his gay neighbors. On the other hand, if he were a co-conspiritor that really believed in the cause of getting the law overturned, 15 days in jail seems a small price to pay.

Obviously, they're going to deny that it was staged because it makes their case look much weaker. But it all just smells way too fishy to me. And if I'm right that the door to the apartment was open when the police showed up (I'm sure I read that somewhere but now can't find it), then I'd say that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if I'm wrong about the door, I still would bet money that it was staged in order to generate a good test case.

I still want them to win their case, of course, but that doesn't mean I have to accept their version of the facts uncritically.
posted by boltman at 2:40 PM PST on April 24


it makes no sense that he would choose to serve jail time just to spite his gay neighbors. On the other hand, if he were a co-conspiritor that really believed in the cause of getting the law overturned, 15 days in jail seems a small price to pay.

Wow. You must be out of breath after those leaps of logic, boltman. I'm breathless after just reading 'em.
posted by soyjoy at 2:47 PM PST on April 24


Principled people are usually willing to sacrifice for causes they believe in. Sometimes they even engage in civil disobedience and go to jail. People motivated by prejudice and contempt seldom are, because they're too busy looking out for number one. It's not really logic, just basic human nature.

Besides, there's (unfortunately) plenty of ways for homophobes to harrass gay people. Why choose a way that is almost certainly going to get you in trouble? On the other hand, if you're trying to manufacture some good facts for a test case, calling the police and telling them that someone's waiving a gun around in an apartment is about the only way your going to be able to do it.
posted by boltman at 3:16 PM PST on April 24


Update: Two republican senators criticize Santorum's remarks
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:21 PM PST on April 24


I'd also just point out that I don't think it matters at all, from a legal perspective, whether it was staged or not. My original point was simply that these laws are not enforced, so the arguments about whether to get rid of them should reflect that fact. (FWIW, I, personally, still think they should be struck down). Whether or not it was staged, the facts do suggest that these types of prosecutions are extremely rare, if they happen at all. Arguments about police breaking down the door, while rhetorically appealing, simply do not reflect what is really at stake in the debate and ultimately harm the credibility of those opposing the law.
posted by boltman at 4:27 PM PST on April 24


it's hard for me to believe that Nance was a homophobic neighbor. I mean, that's about the most bizzare (and idiotic) way to harrass your neighbor that I've ever heard of

Yes, and there are no bizarre idiots in Texas, or anywhere else. Especially those who have a psychologically disturbed obsession with harassing "different" people. *eyes*

[weegee]

Other reports have indicated that they formerly dated.

[weegee]

The dead man matches the age of the man who made the call. I'd say that they are the same man. I've never seen it reported that one of the three figures in this landmark case is dead of assault. I did not find a match showing that these 2 names are an alias. Some of the sites are reporting bad/biased information (the police did not bust the door down, it was unlocked and possible even ajar) so it may just be an error.

It is possible that the man was sentenced to 30 days for the phone call and served 15. He may have even worked picking up trash or doing prison laundry to work his time off quicker.

The exact nature of the act (anal sex) and the detail about them continuing has come from radio interviews with law enforcement involved. I've never seen them in print but others on FR have also heard these details.

There was a lengthy interview with the DA on Houston radio but I did not get to hear more than a few minutes of it. My dad is conservative too but we were in the car and he didn't want to hear a lengthy discussion of anal sodomy.

[weegee]

What I like about FR as a resource is that some details about news stories can be learned here that slip by most other accounts.

Google and some other search engines can be used to find some of these elements but they don't always form a complete picture.

I've never seen the arrest report on the 2 men (explaining why they were arrested for a charge that only carries a fine) or the arrest/court report for the man who made the false phone call. If the police say that there were a history of calls between the men, what was the nature of those reports? I've never seen a followup if there were any leads on the murder. Some of these documents would seem to be on the web but Google doesn't find them.

[weegee]

Trust me on this. The men were more than just roommates, and the dead caller was a homosexual, not a homophobe.

The articles show nothing to indicate that the men weren't charged in the past with making false phone calls. The 30 day sentence could have even been a result of the repeated behavior the man participated in.

[Jorge]

The 2 men continued having anal sex once the officers entered the apartment and they continued the act even once the officers entered the bedroom.

Oh please.....lol!

[Jorge]

And if the cops happen to barge into a room where a john is being entertained by a 12 years old prostitute? Oh, I know that that is "wrong," but please tell me why You think so?

Do I have to tell you? According to generally accepted social norms...sex with children even in the privacy of one's home is criminal and people who engage in such acts should be arrested and jailed.

Society in general does not feel the same way about private acts of homosexuality or adultery between consenting adults. They feel these things are none of anybody's business...accept perhaps for a spouse when it comes to a divorce case.

[RobbyS]

Do I have to tell you? According to generally accepted social norms...sex with children even in the privacy of one's home is criminal and people who engage in such acts should be arrested and jailed.

Society in general does not feel the same way about private acts of homosexuality or adultery between consenting adults. They feel these things are none of anybody's business...accept perhaps for a spouse when it comes to a divorce case.

Forty years ago, "society in general" did not "feel" the same way. Given enough funerals, then, is it not true that forty years from now, society may allow sex between men and boys? Or even the now wholly alien sexual society of the "doctor" on described in " Enterprise?" What governing principle, one common to homosexuals and persons with traditional sexual beliefs, will resist such outcomes? Ditto, bigamy?

[weegee]

Laugh if you want but the officers did observe the act (how else do you think that they charged the 2 men?).

[steve-b]

Actually, putting the "[gay]" into the statement was bending over backwards to spin things in Santorum's favor. Without providing that context, it is even more obvious that Santorum favors a regime under which the police may investigate anybody's bedroom.

[steve-b]

The legislators will fix Chester Pa. with a race track and slots.

In other news, Bill Bennett was seen at the offices of a Chester, PA realtor.

[F.J. Mitchell]

What real world views does this editoralist pretend to be representing? Certainly not the world we call Planet Earth.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Vice cops need to carry pry-bars.

[mabelkitty]

I HAVE A SUGGESTION!!

CALL THE DAMN NEWS OUTLETS AND ASK THEM WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO RAKE MICHAEL JORDAN OVER THE COALS FOR HIS ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL REMARKS AND MILLION DOLLARS GAMBLING SPREES!!

Jesse Jackson types running Philly. When do the schools get handed to the state for control?

[Jorge]

Actually, putting the "[gay]" into the statement was bending over backwards to spin things in Santorum's favor. Without providing that context, it is even more obvious that Santorum favors a regime under which the police may investigate anybody's bedroom.

Interesting point. The gay rights organizations could have brought a lot more people to their side of the debate if they highlighted the fact that Santorum included adultery along with homosexuality.

[Jorge]

Vice cops need to carry pry-bars.

ROFL!

[F.J. Mitchell]

Dang it Jorge, I was being serious.