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.'

[lugsoul]

Libertarian excess? That the government can't tell SOME people which sex acts they can engage in is "libertarian excess?" Do I think the gov't should be in that business? No. But if the gov't gets in that business, they MUST treat everyone equally. That's not excess. That's the law.

[lugsoul]

The only thing I'm water-carrying for is freedom from government intrusion. Something you obviously don't believe in.

[JohnnyZ]

You're supporting the same judicial activism that gave us Roe v Wade. This privacy stuff ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! So how are these laws unconstitutional? One might argue whether or not they should be adopted, but that is up to legislators.

There is no constitutional right to gay sex, and your support for such a right is NOT conservative, it is against the constitution which puts you right there with Hillary and all the other commies.

[lugsoul]

We're clear now right? The government CAN outlaw masturbation, if they want? How about oral / breast contact? Can they outlaw that? What about toesucking? Can the government outlaw that?

Is there anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution that you believe the government can't prohibit?

You're calling me a commie? I've never heard any theory that turned the Constitution into a tool of oppression as much as the way you read it.

[lugsoul]

Striking down the Texas law doesn't require a thimble full of judicial activism. It is an EPC violation, plain and simple. Tell me how its not. Go ahead. Articulate a legal argument.

[saradippity]

I do think there is a connection between Lott and Santorum. I think the "lobby" lay in wait for Lott since 1998 when he made a pretty strong statement against homosexuality. They had much to lose and eveything to gain for not making it an issue before the 2000 presidential election.

Now the Republicans are in,the homosexuals have courted them and received many nice appointments and they got to Lott through the blacks,who didn't realize they were being used.Now they are ready to strike boldly at anyone who thwarts their drive for controlling society and forming it to conform to their agenda.

I didn't like Lott,I thought his support of GATT and NAFTA was contrary to what most conservative republlicans wanted but to watch you compassionate conservatives sniveling and joining in the feeding frenzy to get Lott with that fabricated,idiotic kaka was pretty enlightening. You gave them the chutzpah to attack Santorum frontally. And now,I see some of the same kind of "he shouldn't have said it" blah,blah. Yuk,how can you stand each other,so many of you stand for nothing except the sound of your voice,the look of your words in print. Wake up,it's getting late.

[fight_truth_decay]

never mentioned the word "gay" or "homosexual" during the quote

You got it right, trebb. Some just work the spin to their advantage. The reporter did some 'handiwork' on the article to 'tilt'?

After a while you get damn sick of the games they all play..we elect them to represent us and instead they are like little chidren fighting in the sandbox. I personally am sick of the whole lot of them.

The purpose of all this is to divide..and a nation divided cannot stand.

[fight_truth_decay]

then you want people to legislate your life so you can find ways to make it acceptable.

Laws were intended to protect; but now are made to elect.

Why does one needs a law to free a person's guilt of having committed a sin? If in fact it is a sin; and must be, if they feel the need to have the law justify to them..it's ok to feeeeeeeeel good. There are laws on the books against child molestation; but no law will stop a person who is not in control of his/her own actions.

respectfully

f_t_d

[Temple Owl]

Ve haf vays of makin you talk. But c'mon make my hair curl.

[leprechaun9]

Dean has obviously received his injections of the politics of FEAR, DIVISION, and HATRED, the very essence of the Democrap Party!

[dirtboy]

If you're going to argue law, learn a little about it.

I know a fair amount about it, but it seems your knowledge is limited.

First, your contention that the EPC does not apply because of Selective Service is just wrong.

I was simply providing an example of the government discriminating by gender. You had implied that the government could do no such discrimination under the EPT, which was incorrect.

There are a number of legal tests relating to application of the EPC - the fact that your example involves the military trumps almost all of those considerations. The Supreme Court has determined that Selective Service does not violate the EPC. It has not decided that private consensual sexual behavior is not subject to the EPC.

You are raising a gender issue here - that there is a separate standard between male sodomy and female sodomy. Gender issues before SCOTUS generally take the middle-tier - and here is a summary of the approach used at that tier:

2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):

So the question becomes, does the Texas sodomy law reach that level of serving an important state interest? I personally would disagree, but my opinion doesn't matter here, nor does yours - now only nine opinions matter. But the EPT is not the automatic disqualifier that you have made it out to be.

Texas can't say the law applies only to some people. Period. If they want to tell everyone they can't have oral or anal sex, that may be constitutional in Texas. But let them try to enforce that.

They did. That is why the case is before SCOTUS.

[lugsoul]

Fine. Argue that this distinction is okay under the EPC. Your argument is simply contrary to the weight of the law.

[dirtboy]

Fine. Argue that this distinction is okay under the EPC. Your argument is simply contrary to the weight of the law.

I am discussing the playing field, not the law itself. Like I said, I don't think the law rises to the middle-tier standard, but only nine opinions matter now since the matter is before SCOTUS. But you cannot argue that the EPC is an automatic nullifier of gender-based legal discriminations - that is a falsehood.

[lugsoul]

I didn't say it was automatic - Lord knows nothing is automatic with this schizophrenic Court. But in other cases of legal prohibition of sex-related matters - statutory rape, for example - equal protection arguments will usually carry the day. And unless you get into playing percentages, on AIDS for example, I don't think you're going to see a compelling argument justifying the distinction in this case. And the law is not based on percentages.

[dirtboy]

I didn't say it was automatic - Lord knows nothing is automatic with this schizophrenic Court.

Amen to that.

But in other cases of legal prohibition of sex-related matters - statutory rape, for example - equal protection arguments will usually carry the day. And unless you get into playing percentages, on AIDS for example, I don't think you're going to see a compelling argument justifying the distinction in this case. And the law is not based on percentages.

I think that with this court that the argument does not need to be particularly compelling, just sufficient to justify application of their personal views. And with the underlying health concerns of AIDS, it does give the state the ability to state an interest in the matter. Like I said, I would tend to disagree with the statute, but I've learned over the years that SCOTUS is actually the most political branch of the federal government, and they tend to make up their minds and then go fishing for a rationalization for that decision - a classic example being the recent upholding of notification of sex offenders, where someone convicted of the crime prior to the enactment of the law is still required to register, which IMO is a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws - which the court sidestepped by decreeing that the notification was not a punishment.