2004 Presidential Candidate Calls for Santorum to Resign Senate Post

Guardian Unlimited UK ^ | April 23, 2003 | wire report

[ewing]

Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean on Wednesday for Senator Rick Santorum to resign his leadership post after the lawmaker compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.

'Gay bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion, it is immoral.

Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate.'

[mabelkitty]

What are you talking about?

[chachacha]

You hit the nail on the head. Heterosexuals contribute to man kind your perverts do nothing but, defile it.

[lugsoul]

Okay - those who contribute aren't subject to selective laws, those who defile are. Who decides which people contribute and which defile?

[chachacha]

WoW!
Bye Bye

[m1911]

Wow, this thread has turned quite surreal. Does anyone know what anyone else is talking about?

[lugsoul]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you've never heard of it, it's called the Equal Protection Clause. It's in the 14th Amendment.

[chachacha]

Well, obviously those of us who are capable of reproducing. If you wouldn't have us around and left it all up to you you would exterminate yourselves.

Is this really that hard to understand?

[dirtboy]

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

OK, if your premise is correct, then how can the federal government require men to sign up for the Selective Service but not women? There is ample historical precedent for legal discriminatory treatment between men and women.

[lugsoul]

Does your state have the power to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults? Mine doesn't.

[JohnnyZ]

Um, yeah, NO ONE is allowed to do guy-guy packing.

The law doesn't prosecute gays. It prosecutes a gay activity, WHOEVER perpetrates it, whether they're gay or straight.

[dirtboy]

It has gotten rather strange. I don't think it ever recovered from eaglebeak's assertion that Howierd Dean was more conservative than most freepers. Rod Serling would have a hard time beating that one.

[JohnnyZ]

Does your state have the power to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults? Mine doesn't.

Since when?

Stop making stuff up. You have no leg to stand on!

[mabelkitty]

You aren't a Christian, so the metaphors don't work.

As am American (living in a country founded by Christians), I have the right to freedoms given to me by God. As such, I understand what is expected of me morally.

However, I cannot use God-given freedoms to do things that he forbids. I certainly wouldn't encourage the rest of the folks in this God-fearing country from doing the same.

As such, we are now creating laws and dancing on the Constitution to creat "rights" so other's can flaunt it in God's face.

Is that a good enough answer for you? If you don't believe in God, and you aren't a Christian, then you want people to legislate your life so you can find ways to make it acceptable.

[dirtboy]

Does your state have the power to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults? Mine doesn't.

The point is, that is left to the states. Your state has chosen not to. Texas has. For SCOTUS to overturn the Texas statute, it would have to create a right that is not existent in the Constitution, i.e. an activist reading. And the 9th Amendment seldom if ever comes into play in SCOTUS decisions, so that isn't a source of the right you are seeking at the federal level.

[Once-Ler]

Our "Oprah" educated society is finished beating their chest about wining over that little insignificant country called Iraq.

You are babbling. I don't know what this means. Are you implying that Dubya and Republicans watch Oprah, or that liberals are beating their chest over winning in Iraq?

Now they are out for more nightly ranting about a popular issue? The guy who killed his wife in California is going to be on the menu, and any other sexual topic would increase viewers. Fags are going to get all rallied up over this, and their buddies (the democrats & media) are going to make damn sure this story will have major staying power.

"fags" are 1% of the population. The 'rats can harp all they want about Santorum. The 'rats were not successful in removing Lott. Dubya and the right wing media removed Lott as Senate Majority Leader, and notice Lott is still in office, just not as SML. Santorum is not going to be hurt and this story has no legs.

[mabelkitty]

You are correct.

The rights come from God.

[m1911]

The twilight zone thread. It reminds me of the tower of babel, everyone talking but not much communication.

[mabelkitty]

I don't think so any more.

Too many people, too many subjects.

It's pandemonium.