Posted on 04/23/2003 11:42:58 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Last week's Washington tempest blew in when Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said that if the Supreme Court in a pending case rules that homosexual practice is constitutionally protected, "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 anything."
Gay advocacy groups quickly made political hay. The Human Rights Campaign expressed outrage that Santorum "compared homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery" in his "deeply hurtful" remarks. The Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights similarly complained that "his remarks show nothing but contempt for lesbian and gay people."
Whoa! Who's showing contempt here? Logical gay groups should applaud Santorum's recognition that a Supreme Court gay breakthrough will also bring liberation for others with non-monogamous sexual interests. Since when do homosexuals look down on others who follow their own bliss? But maybe this is good news: Our headline could read, "Gays join conservative Christians in criticizing bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery."
The Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance unctuously proclaimed, "Discrimination against any group of citizens based on who they are is simply wrong" -- yet the gay lobbies were implicitly discriminating against those involved in consensual incest. "Extremism in the defense of vice is no vice," they should say, and then proceed to the postmodern claim that it's all a matter of opinion whether a particular act is vicious or virtuous.
But let's move to the politics, since this is all about trying to drive a wedge within the GOP. "We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the remarks," said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. "They're the same types of remarks that sparked outrage toward Sen. Lott."
No, they're not. Trent Lott resigned his Senate leadership post in December after making remarks widely seen as supporting racial discrimination. Lott's words ran counter to the Bible, which is color-blind. Santorum's words reflect the Bible, which says that homosexual practice, like adultery or incest, is wrong. President Bush, who looks to biblical teaching for guidance on important issues, rightly criticized Lott, but he should support Santorum continuing as conference chairman, the third-highest seat in the GOP Senate leadership.
Good politics, good theology, and good constitutional law go together here. The Republican Party should be open to Bible believers, people of other religions and atheists, but if it wants to retain the support of Christians and Orthodox Jews, it should not chastise those who defend biblical truth. Besides, even though the state of Texas may have been unwise under current social conditions to prosecute a case concerning homosexuality, the Supreme Court should not establish a new, loose constructionist constitutional right.
Some Republicans who covet gay lobby campaign contributions will pressure the president to signal a Santorum sack. Because he spoke out in the Trent Lott controversy, he should not sit this one out; Santorum foes will see silence as consent. This is a crucial political fork in the road, and the George W. Bush -- who was tough enough to stand up to supporters of Saddam -- should refuse to be pushed around by supporters of sodomy.
Instead of being defensive, Republicans who are both wise and shrewd will go on offense. They should ask gay interest groups and Democrats to respond to Santorum's challenge: Make a constitutional argument that will differentiate the right to consensual gay sex from a right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery. Legislatures, of course, have long differentiated among certain acts, but what happens if the Supreme Court tells them to cease and desist?
Republicans (and others) who want to become wiser on such issues should read "What We Can't Not Know," a new book by my University of Texas colleague J. Budziszewski. The book is not a Bud Light, but non-professors can readily follow its discussion of "natural law," the "developmental spec sheet" that God has given us. As Santorum knows, once we move off that spec sheet, anarchy reigns.
It most certainly was. The felony sodomy charge was dropped after Albert agreed to cop a plea to assault and battery to avoid jail time.
Nah, blindness and hairy palms is punishment enough.
Both. Men can not perform fellatio (women can), women can not perform cunnilingus (men can).
How do you know?
"While I don't think that the government should be making laws involving the actions of consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, I DO believe that society has the right to condemn people's behavior and that the government should not prevent that social condemnation."
Well then we agree. Whatever your personal opinions are about homosexuality, heterosexual sodomy, masturbation, etc., I don't care. When you try to enlist the government to enforce your opinion of consensual adult sex, I draw the line.
"Homos use the old "I was born that way" excuse to tag onto civil rights claims but they have no data to support them."
Nothing is conclusive, but there have been indications that there is some genetic factor.
That's how I like it. Niiiiiice and patronizing...
"You are confused!"
Thanks for your uninformed opinion.
"What you are experiencing is a loss of paternal identification at a very early age. Sometime when you were very small, you were unable to look up to a father figure with a sense of adoration and desire for his attention."
Are you seriously trying to psychoanalyze a complete stranger?
"Either he wasn't there, he didn't care, or your mother stepped between you."
Don't let me get in the way of your fantasies.
"You were NOT born that way"
You don't know that.
"Now, you can choose to remain where you are, or you can take the steps that are necessary to realize a fulfilling life."
I'm sure you think you're helpful, but you aren't.
"Sure! you say... fulfilling!! "As if my life isn't fulfilling as a lesbian!..heh heh..er..umm..."
Well.. I guess I don't even need to respond since you're happy to carry on an imaginary conversation with an imaginary me.. one complete with an imaginary distant or absent father.
"Sorry girl. I know a number of lesbians and NONE of them know fulfillment."
They must never have tried a fulfilling, patronizing relationship with you.
"They try to convince themselves, but they are missing something. No.. not a man. A fulfilling relationship with a man."
Maybe you're missing out on a fulfilling relationship with a man.
"The APA did you a big disservice when they let your predecessors take homosexuality off the list."
This has been discussed ad nauseum by me on other threads. Suffice it to say, your side lost, is continuing to lose, and will fall further and further behind.
"I hope that some day you open your eyes and step out of that cage."
Yeah, I've been thinking that I'm tired of this apartment too... the management here is awful.
The fact is that as a precept in the Declaration of Independance, Jefferson was making clear that Government should be something that is beholden to the constituency and not the other way around. He was saying that Government should support a people and provide them freedom rather than a people provide Government with largesse. He did not mean, and neither did Locke or Paine, that Government's only function was to directly support individual rights. It is a function of Government, but as you point out providing for common defense, organizing itself to be effective, and supporting the advancement of it's people as a whole are also functions of a Government.
We may, to some extent be arguing semantics at this point, but I'm not sure of that. I agree that Jefferson was making the point that government existed for the individual citizens and not the other way around which is how "subjects" were more or less treated in monarchial structures.
On the other hand, and without the exact wording of the Declaration in front of me, my recollection is Jefferson's were pretty much 1) individuals have rights, 2) governments are instituted to secure those rights, and 3) government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Governments are instituted to secure rights. Jefferson spoke of no other purpose for government. None. That he purchases Lousiana requires, in my mind anyway, that he link that purchase somehow to the securing of one or more rights. Perhaps he linked it to the protection of the nation, surely an action designed to secure rights of life, liberty, and property.
One point I want to make is that government is not all powerful and I got the impression from one of your earlier posts that you pretty much thought local government had most any power not prohibited it by the Constitution. Thus my disagreement. Government power must both be given it by consent of the governed and used solely to secure rights. You or I may not agree with the rationale government uses to link a law to a right but that's a different matter.
I need a little more time to read the rest of you post, so hope to comment more later.
I think I'd read something like that somewhere, yes. But I don't know much about it.
"I'm taking Human Sexuality in college now for elective credits. I'm in engineering, go figure."
Ha.. be careful or you'll attract the "Courses in college?? They're just a way for the Liberal Elite to brainwash young impressionable minds!!" types.
Delusions.
"Its not that difficult to do. I have known quite a few lesbians and homosexuals in my life."
How many is quite a few? You think that qualifies you to know about me, my relationships, my childhood, AND my father? Like I said... you're delusional.
"I grew up in the 60s and watched the whole "sexual revolution" take place right in front of my eyes. I had friends "come out" and I have relatives that have switched hitting."
Which means nothing...
"I have seen quite a few ducks now. I know a few lesbians today that are living in relationships with women and are just as miserable as they were when they were with men."
So maybe they suffer from depression. How am I supposed to know why the lesbians around you are miserable? I have a guess, though...
"When they first switched, they somehow thought it was "men" that was the problem. Turns out, it was their ability to get close to men."
Women who try relationships with women just because they don't like the men they've been with are NOT lesbians.
"As for the "they are getting closer to finding a gay gene", are they are getting closer to finding the "wife beating" gene too? How about the "child abuse" gene?"
What is funny about that question is that yes they have... sort of. Some people have mental conditions that make them much more aggressive. Some people are violent because it's all they've ever known, but some people are violent because they have a condition. So yes, there are biological issues.
Haven't you ever heard the saying "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to"?
(snipping a bunch of speculation about my childhood)
"There have been studies on this and they are much closer to proving homosexuality stems from early childhood mis-identification than they are a "gay gene"."
LMAO... ok. When it is proven that there is a "nurture" component to homosexuality, be prepared to point out in the study where the results rule out any genetic factors.
"There is always a chance to pull out. Some day perhaps."
Don't hold your breath.
"JOKE.. Get it?!??"
Ok.. I get it now. It's hard to tell when everything you say is funny. ;-)
"It turned out that his accuser, a mother of two teenagers, faced charges of her own for threatening to kill a former boyfriend, "his dog and any girl he may be with." She allegedly made threats in phone calls on March 13, a month after the incident she claims took place with Albert".
Interesting. I'd forgotten that.
While that's repulsive, I don't think it makes sense to lock them up.
You're going to need a big garage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.