Santorum rips gay sex ruling

The Tribune-Democrat ^ | 6/28/03 | Kirk Swauger

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Santorum rips gay sex ruling

By KIRK SWAUGER, THE TRIBUNE-DEMOCRAT

June 28, 2003

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is sharply criticizing a Supreme Court decision outlawing a Texas anti-sodomy law, saying in a local visit it will open the door to same-sex marriages. Measuring his words carefully after coming under fire for attacking homosexuals two months ago, Santorum, R-Pittsburgh, said the court redefined sexual mores. “We have now laid the framework for rewriting marriage statutes across the country,” Santorum said during a stop in Westmont for the 10th anniversary of a job training and placement program for veterans. He called the ruling unfortunate.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that gays and lesbians have a right to privacy and dignity in their personal lives, striking down laws that declare sex between gay adults criminal. In concluding that the Constitution prohibits singling out gays on moral grounds, the court voided laws in Texas and 12 other states.

The majority of the court determined the issue was not whether states could ban particular sex acts, but whether laws may treat gays with contempt. The laws “demean the lives of homosexual persons” and are a form of “state-sponsored condemnation,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said. But, Santorum said, instead of basing its decision solely on constitutional grounds, the court went a step further by overturning the Texas statute.

“The right to privacy, up until yesterday, was within marriage,” said Santorum, sporting a blue tie with yellow elephants. “They have now changed it to consenting adults. “I think most Americans would find that to be a very broad reading of the Constitution.” Now, Santorum said, “nobody can regulate anything” when it comes to consensual sex. In April, Santorum was lambasted for equating gay relationships with bestiality and with priests molesting teenagers.

In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month, Santorum said he feared moral repercussions if the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law. Making homosexual sex legal, Santorum said, would mean “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. You have the right to do anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

“Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, whether it’s sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family,” he added. Santorum said the sexual abuse scandal rocking the Roman Catholic Church was spurred by tolerance of homosexuality among adults. “In areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don’t be surprised that you get more of it.”

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision. In a news release on the alliance’s Web site, Executive Director Joan M. Garry said the Supreme Court’s decision marks a turning point in its civil rights movement and a victory for all Americans. “In stating that gay and lesbian people ‘are entitled to respect for their private lives,’ Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion today affirms our dignity and humanity in a way we hope others will follow,” Garry said. “Make no mistake, there is much work ahead of us. And our community must continue to change hearts, minds, and laws as we continue down the road to equality.” The alliance does not have a representative in the Johnstown region.

In April, some Democrats and advocacy groups for gays and lesbians demanded Santorum’s resignation or ouster from his third-ranking post among GOP leadership in the Senate. Santorum was honored yesterday in Westmont for his efforts on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Leadership Program/Veteran Community Initiatives.

n the decade since he sponsored the program, $3.4 million in federal subsidies have helped 2,500 veterans and their families in the Southern Alleghenies region. “They have a population that has some unique needs,” said Santorum, whose parents both worked for more than 40 years for the Veterans Administration. “These are veterans working with veterans.”

[mdmathis6]

Now why do I think you two know each other in some way?

[gcruse]

I am tempted to say, "Plunk your magic twanger, froggie," but not too many people would know what I was talking about. ;)

[slasher82]

We are believers also; furthurmore, we have given up watching "TV" and listening to radio(except Christian) to minimize satanic influences that seem to be running rampant in our society and distributed via media daily. We have moved to "the country" to pursue a more peaceful and pure life for Christ and will home-school our children to avoid having possible "non-believers" in the public school system project values and priciples inconsistent with our own. (I thank God for believing teachers; they have incredible tasks ahead.) God bless you lemondropkid56 and all you other fellow believers.

[RJCogburn]

"Plunk your magic twanger, froggie," but not too many people would know what I was talking about. ;)

I do. I do.

Does that mean I'm old?

[bluebunny]

Thank you for the kind words. We need to encourage each other, because it is truly some disturbing times. Such sadness in my heart right now.

[gcruse]

I'm afraid so. While some know what McCartney did before Wings, we know what Andy Devine did before Guy Madison's Wild Bill Hickock. He did, he did.

[gcruse]

He did, he did = We do, we do.

Gotta get it right.

[hoosier_scientist]

>>So why is government involved in sanctioning marriage, straight, gay, polymorphic, or whatever, in the first place? Marriage, I'm sure most here will agree, is a religious institution. Why is the State involved in what is, at heart, a religious matter? <<

This is exactly the question that we will soon have a national discussion over -- the value and reason for marriage. I strongly disagree that marriage is only a religious matter. The marriage and family are the very cornerstones of our society and society has a very large stake in supporting marriages. Husband - wife two parent families have been consistently shown to have the best results in raising children including the amount of crime, education, values, etc. that a civilized society is based on.

This is what the gay marriage debate boils down to: why do we have marriage in the first place? Then, in that context, why or why not should gays be allowed, then, to marry?

[gcruse]

What France has done is to create a sort of civil registry that takes on many of the responsibilities and legal bindings of marriage without involving the church. It allows marriage to remain defined as it had been in the past, while providing state sanction for other arrangements, even, apparently, for just friends.

[God defeats Darwin]

Does it ever seem to anyone else that perhaps the bounds of healthy Christian principals are being pushed for the sole purpose of seeing how far they CAN be pushed? Like some sort of sick game for the Libs? I'm saddened by this decision, but almost want to recluse into a corner and ignore the world when I see where this is leading us. I would also like to point out that in the Good Book, incest, bestiality, sacraficing your children, and HOMOSEXUALITY are all listed together as "Wickedness" and "Detestable" (Leviticus ch. 18). Those are followed immediately in ch. 19 by "Do not lie" and "Do not steal". Hmmm, sound like a familiar argument many of us have used?
-Nate

[gcruse]

"And Georgia struck down the very same law that the United States Supreme Court upheld in Bowers.." The Georgia Supreme Court noted:

The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection. To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.

[God defeats Darwin]

I think we can all conjur up a mental image of Thomas Jefferson bent over and taking it up the wrong end while writing our grand constitution, can't we? I'm disgusted that anyone can think that's what "our forefathers fought for". Explain to me why up until the '60's there were laws on the books in all states.

[nightdriver]

"....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sure. Everyone is equal before the law, not that the law accomodates everyone's version of right and wrong equally.

Just because someone's religion says that they sacrifice a virgin or have multiple wives does not mean that they are given equal treatment as those who follow the Christian ethic.

[oceanperch]

I remember the day in 1977 when the it became legal in California or was it the US that Oral Sex was no longer against the law.

I was being a stupid teen ditching my afternoon classes and listening to the radio with a friend who's dream it was to become the first black Speaker of the House.

A lot has changed in my life since that day and he never went into politics left law school for some unknown reason.

I wonder now if overturning that law back then was a due to sexual practices of the homosexuals?

I remember it because I didn't know it was against the law to perform oral sex. I was shocked there was a law against it but I was 17 and read Cosmopolitan in those days. Young and stupid.

[gcruse]

Explain to me why up until the '60's there were laws on the books in all states.

      Inertia?
         
White said that Georgia was justified in outlawing private, consensual sodomy because of the "presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable."⁵ Thus, merely because the state long had interfered with sexual activity between consenting adults, that was sufficient constitutional justification for permitting them to continue doing so.

[gcruse]

Just because someone's religion says that they sacrifice a virgin or have multiple wives does not mean that they are given equal treatment as those who follow the Christian ethic.

Actually, they are given equal treatment.  By making it illegal for everyone, Christians
included, to have multiple wives or to sacrifice virgins, the virgin-sacrificing polygamists
are being treated equally with everyone else.

[longtermmemmory]

Rick Santorum was absolutly correct. While the homosexuals may have been publicly saying same sex marriage was not about the texas case, AFTER the rulling the homosexuals were saying THIS sets up for homosexual marriage. The media outlets were all showing homosexual "marriage" ceremonies while reading copy of the ruling.

Is there a senator or representative who has put forth a constitutional DOMA to protect the INSTITUTION of marriage?

[longtermmemmory]

what about homosexual polygamists? Will an empolyer have to give domestic benifits to an infinite number of "spouses"?

[gcruse]

Polygamy is polygamy whether hetero or homo. Both are illegal.