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.”

[Polycarp]

Yes, that's better. Let's not give undue credit where credit is not due.

[Non-Sequitur]

“Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, whether it’s sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family...”

I can't think of anything more antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family than divorce. When Senator Santorum comes out against divorce, or the government laws promoting divorce, then I'll believe that protecting the family is his primary purpose in all this.

[gcruse]

And yet, I'd bet that those to whom you were speaking would be among the first to claim they're agaist "big government", excessive regulation, and encroachments on individual liberty.

They claim it.  But nothing makes them happier than government in
the bedroom, the vegetable garden, and the womb.

[RJCogburn]

Excellent comments.

[TLBSHOW]

I'd like to see him hold a seminar for FREEPERS. They need to learn what conservatism is.


bttt

[BlueNgold]

The argument would follow that if I have absoolute right of choice over my body then I may use it as I see best fit when not coercing or harming another. Therefore, if I may use my hands, my head, my feet etc. to perform direct acts of commerce, the government may not refuse me the right to use other portions of my anatomy to perform direct acts of commerce simply because they find it distasteful.

[Jeff Chandler]

I am currently revisiting Dr.M.Scott Peck's book 'People of the Lie'. It is a study of evil. The hallmark of evil people is their propensity to lie. Not that everyone who lies is evil, mind you, but evil people do it naturally, often so naturally that they might even believe their own lies. I believe that most major media operations are evil.

[BlueNgold]

Apologies for the typos. Additionally, the government (federal) does not regulate commerce, but interstate commerce. Thus far the federal government has left prostitution within the realm of the 10th ammendment and further interpreted the regulation to fall within the power of the individual state. If Lawrence and Roe are interpreted to hold bodily rights above states rights then that power to regulate would be superseded by the application of the 9th Ammendment to name bodily choice and privacy as unnamed rights which the state, even under the 10th Ammendment, cannot usurp.

[Jeff Chandler]

Is the parade over already?

[Redcloak]

“We have now laid the framework for rewriting marriage statutes across the country,”

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?

The only interest the State should have in marriage is its relationship to simply contract law. When two people marry, they enter into a contract. The State should only be involved if one party violates the contract or if they're legally incompetent to enter into the contract. The gender, or number, of persons involved shouldn't be a State concern.

(Of course, the real reason the State wants to be involved in this particular religious institution is to license and tax it!)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"One of the inherent problems with this is that we fight tooth and nail to keep the government out of our religions, yet we all too often insist that the government answer to our religious ideals."

Excellent post.

There have been few men who have fully understood the principles which founded and sustain this Nation better than Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Jefferson was no lover of sodomites, fornicators, or adulterers, he expressed his opinion on how to treat them without qualm. However, he never tried to elevate his opinion into law. What he did try to enact into law, was the idea that no person should be judged inadequate to hold public office unless he embraced one religious idea or another, or even rejected a religious ideal, Jefferson saw the imminent problem which could arise if government and religion intertwined.

Great post, here's some Jeffersonian wisdom for our times:

"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." ---Thomas Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom In Virginia

[gulfcoast6]

With this I betcha the libs are going to yell for his head on a platter. There is no questions they are for everything that is wrong, they are sons of the devil.

[gcruse]

There's a gay, anti-WOD, pro-choice parade? Sounds
more like a march for individual liberty. That would be July 4th, I guess.

[annyokie]

You are sweet. Thanks for the post and happy anniversary in advance!

[BlueNgold]

I agree that the government may regulate commerce, however if their reasoning for regulations banning it altogether fall under the moral/social issues addressed in Lawrence I think we may see cases before the courts asking that Lawrence be applied to allow prostitution, and I think the court will have a hard time denying such a case given the verbage of the majority ruling. Just my opinion.

I find it somewhat hypocritical of the femenist left to insist that a woman may choose to do whatever she wants with her body, yet they don't seem to want to stand up on stage at porn and prostituion rallies insisting that these women be allowed similar 'choices'. I am waiting for the day Patricia Ireland stands up at the Democrat National Convention and exclaims - "A woman has the right to be a whore!" (Or a man for that matter, don't want to offend the PC Police).

[nightdriver]

"There will forver be times when the government, in it's obligation to serve ALL citizens equally, must hold the basic moral ethics of judeo-christian theology at arms length."

Your argument is the same old cliched liberal one that reads principles into the Constitution that aren't there. There's no obligation to accomodate all citizens equally. It there was, there would be chaos upon chaos.

It's really no use trying to argue with you. All I can say is "We'll see."

[Diddle E. Squat]

sporting a blue tie with yellow elephants

And why exactly was that included in the story?

Lincoln took a lot of criticism and ridicule before Gettysburg. Looks like the liberal gay groups are going to steamroll ahead and push the gay marriage issue ASAP. Strategically for them, that is probably the worst thing they could do. It one thing to end a law that will jail persons for consensual acts in the privacy of their home, quite another to redefine a cornerstone institution that will impact nearly every aspect of society. Like it or not, the majority of Americans were ready for and could live with the former. The same cannot be said about the latter. Civil unions, perhaps, but marriage/adoption/benefits/constant high visibility in every aspect/acceptance as a totally equal alternative lifestyle worthy of gov't encouragement, I doubt it.

The pundits are right, gay marriage is going to soon dominate the cultural/political debate. But these advocates are now jumping further ahead of the curve than they can influence it in their favor. Up to now the public has basically gone along and given in to demands, because it was viewed as not really impacting the average Joe, a sort of appeasement that was fair, a lessening of hardships. But gay marriage goes from relieving hardship to elevating and granting official approval. Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans are not ready for that. So the question becomes will it be forced on them, or will they that we have already reached an acceptable balance and going further is too far?

Nothing is certain, but my guess is this will be a turning point in the culture wars, precisely because to stop gay marriage will require significant action by the American people rather than passive acquiesence. It will be a deciding factor in the 2004 election, if not in the presidential race, than at the Congressional level. If social conservatives are smart, they will:

1) Completely drop all the harsh and counterproductive gay-bashing 'fags are taking our country straight to hell' vitriole. Do you want to influence those whose views are different than yours, or do you want to vent?

2) Focus instead on the specific impacts and ramifications of establishing gay marriage as a government and societally sanctioned and supported coequal option.

3) Note that this is no longer about denying individuals their choice of behavior(under threat of jail), but now liberals/gays trying to deny individuals/groups/society their choice of what they want to recognize and subsidize(under threat of jail via discrimination laws).

4) Explain that this country and a democratic republic is based on individuals and society making decisions on what to recognize and subsidize through the legislature and elections, not a handful of appointed for life scheming judges intent on imposing their will regardless of society's.

5) Highlight at every opportunity the use of the courts to bypass the will of the people, and on the issue of states rights.

6) Reintroduce the concept of local control and state's rights by asking,"Do we want Massachusetts defining how we live in Texas, do we want Mississippi defining how we live in California, by forcing something on us via a few judges, activist from either side who could be installed for life with almost no accountability from the public? they can't be voted out of office."

7) Emphasize how the Democrats are trying to block and change the process of judicial confirmations, so as to legislate through a few judges, who we cannot vote on. This may be the one issue that will simplify the dangers and effects of judicial activism in a way that the average Joe can finally recognize how it is taking place and what are its impacts. Regardless of my views on the particular issues of sodomy and gay marriage, I have a gut instinct that the fight over gay marriage will be the liberal's Gettysburg, with Santorum helping to lead a successful defense. A close, tough battle that may be hard to determine for awhile, but one that turns the tide. We'll see.