Republican Group Headed by Pres. Gerald Ford and VP Daughter Mary Cheney asks Santorum to Apologize

National Journal's Early Bird and NY Times ^ | April 24, 2003 | Mark Rodeffer

[Diddle E. Squat]

Santorum's intolerant & devisive remarks cannot be tolerated, because diversity is our strength.

[pgyanke]

Along this same discussion line, check out post #153 by yours truly... I'd link if I knew how...

[Antoninus]

If Santorum wants to be a preacher, let him take off his Senate hat and become one.

Heaven forbid that one's religious beliefs should inform their political beliefs. Hypocrite.

[pgyanke]

...because diversity is our strength.

Must be a public school education. Ever heard of "E Pluribus Unum"? It means, "Out of Many, One". In short, it means that our strength doesn't come from our differences but from our unity.

Oh, what the PC crowd has done to us...

[Puddleglum]

Given the huge number of posts, it would appear that this is exactly what people want to "yarp" about. You seem to be in the minority glum.

BTW, "yarp"? Is that a word?

I just think it's counterproductive for Ford to ask Santorum to apologize. He can criticize Santorum's reasoning, or his timing or his world view, but I don't think Santorum has commited any transgression that merits an apology.

Last time I checked one didn't have to conjure up penumbras of penumbras to find the freedom of speech in the Constitution, which is an argument in Santorum's favor. Healthy debate, even on touchy subjects like this, needs to be conducted out in the open and lifted beyond a rhetoric of hurt feelings, IMHO.

And "yarp" might be a combination of "yammer" and "carp", but I meant "yawp" as in "I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world."

[The Wizard]

maybe they should first find out what he really siad, which was about laws not gays

[Antoninus]

So basically the attitude I'm seeing here is that the government needs to be smaller, except for the parts that regulate sex, right? Those laws don't enforce themselves. Maybe we need some new agency, and a police special team to take down homos.

You're full of the typical libertine red herrings. We've had anti-sodomy laws on the books since the inception of this nation and haven't once needed a secret police to monitor anyone's sexual behavior. The notion that we can't have state laws defining what constitutes deviant behavior (sexual or otherwise) turns the entire legal history of this nation on its head. Indeed, it turns the entire legal history of the Western world on its head.

What you anarcho-libertines are proposing is something new, novel, and ultimately calamitous. Just look at the damage done to the American culture over the past 40 years since the Supreme Court suddenly decided it didn't know how to define "obscenity" anymore. The amount of in-your-face porn that saturates our society would have been unimagineable in 1960. Don't tell me we won't have pedophiles clamoring for their "Constitutional Rights" ten years from now.

[RAT Patrol]

Excellent post, pg. Thanks for the link. You are exactly right. Our founders valued the morals religion brought to the table. They didn't think we could survive without them. That's why religion was so protected -- which was the purpose of the First Amendment. Not to ban it, but to protect it. They specifically wanted the morals of religion without the religion itself.

[RAT Patrol]

The thread you linked to was pulled.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Read it again, you totally missed the irony of my satire.

[bluecollarman]

So unmarried heterosexuals can't consent to sexual acts? Are you really saying that?

No, just that the right to consent carries more weight in marriage.

However..there used to be, and still may be state laws against fornication outside of marriage.

Polygamy is not legal in any state. In addition, polygamy involves third, and fourth and fifth parties who are harmed in other ways besides sexually.

That doesn't address the constitutional question. The opinion that others are harmed is only your opinion. If these are consenting adults that would be up to them to decide.

Are you saying all orgies are against the law? What about 4 or 5 people who just live together?

Besides, polygamy is just an excuse for some fat 50 year old guy to invoke a weird religious pretext to have a harem.

And homosexual rights is just an excuse for boys to do sick things to other boys. What is the difference?

I say let the States decide. If you want to be gay then move to Ca. If not, move to Texas.

[eleni121]

If you don't like the IRS, a bureaucracy established by Congress (our elected representatives), then do away with it or reform it (most approve of this idea). Until then, those who are suspected of breaking laws have to abide by the consequences. Or do what millions of Americans are doing and just break the law and hope to get away with it. Disgusting? Yes. Avoidable? Yes.

[bluecollarman]

Marriage as an institution changes and expands your rights. Whether you like that or not, it is true. Why do you think Gays want the right to marry?

[eleni121]

The equal protection clause was never meant to be applied to homosexuals.

[pgyanke]

Oops... my bad.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Alright, we'll see how that one holds up in court.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Oh, I'm sorry, we were having a debate. As much as we value your insults, how about you go elsewhere with this crap. When did I ever say butt sex was part of a life lived morally. I was basically saying that rather than the government telling us what is bad, people figure it out by themselves.

[Buckeye Bomber]

If you're going to ban anal sex, you have to do it for homosexuals and heterosexuals. A law can not apply just to some of the population.

[monday]

"Marriage as an institution changes and expands your rights. Whether you like that or not, it is true. Why do you think Gays want the right to marry?"

So they can engage in sodomy?...lol...you are a funny guy.

I am not aware of any expanded rights that married adults enjoy over single adults. If it is true then we need to get rid of them immediately as they are patently unconstitutional.

All men are created equal right? Being a patrotic American I am sure you would agree with that.

[pgyanke]

There is precedent. Government can regulate action... just not physical condition. Someone may be homosexual but sodomy may not be allowed.

I think it is entirely possible this will be left to the states to decide since it deals with action... TX doesn't want men to sleep with men and women to sleep with women. Given the proven links to the diseases alone, they would seem to have a public health reason to be supported.