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.”

[yankeedog]

Santorum: You have the right to do anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

You do have the right to do anything. It's called FREEDOM. The only limits to a free people are: The Law-you do not have the right to act illegally; and personal virtue. (Or conscience.) I believe it was John Adams who may have said that the Constitution is worthless if the citizens are without virtue. (Conscience.)

[proud American in Canada]

please add me to your ping list on this issue.

Now that Canada will be flooded with gay Americans wanting to get married up here and then sue in the U.S. for their rights...

Sadly, I dont' know if traditional values can survive.

[proud American in Canada]

"Maybe O'Connor will step down and Bush could put in someone much more conservative?"

I hope so...

This is too much.

[inquest]

But that is distinctly different from a privacy ruling.

That's a decent point. Perhaps I should choose a more appropriate analogy, like Roe vs. Wade. You mentioned elsewhere on the thread that abortion isn't considered "commerce" because it's medical. That's an arbitrary distinction. It charges customers for its services, and it's a booming industry. One might as well call prostitution a "psychiatric" service.

Does freedom of expression necessarily mean "a cultural agenda to push?"

When "freedom of expression" is defined the way the courts have defined it, it most certainly does. What's your opinion of laws against public S&M? That's expression, right?

[inquest]

Prostitution is not a medical process... nor is it "therapy."

These are purely arbitrary distinctions. There is such a thing today that goes by the name of "sex therapy" that in some cases is little more than prostitution. There's no rhyme or reason, beyond purely legalistic classifications subject to manipulation by lawyers, why one thing should be in one category and another thing in another. Abortion may be "medical" (assuming, of course, that the oath of Hippocrates is irrelevant), but it's also commercial in that it charges for its services. How do you think the federal government justifies its regulation of the medical industry, if not through the commerce clause?

In any case, states have just as much power to regulate the practice of medicine as they do commerce.

Are there "laws against public S&M?" I vaguely remember somebody being busted somewhere for walking another person on a leash... it was something like "kidnapping," even though the other person agreed to it. I've been to dance clubs that had ladies dancing in cages... I've also seen people smacking their lover in public... (that wasn't consensual)...

I'm talking about public sex. I referred to an extreme form for the purpose of highlighting, but any public sex at all is illegal in most states, despite the fact that it's apparently curtailing people's "free expression".

But you seemed to be saying that the COURT had a "social agenda to push" in Lawrence. What has that got to do with "laws against public S&M?"

The conversation had moved to nude dancing. You said that court rulings protecting it were merely protecting "freedom of expression". I was simply trying to see exactly what you understood that phrase to mean, so that's why I brought up that example.