1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Gay Groups Want Santorum Out

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Batman Jones, Apr 22, 2003.

  1. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,488
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13111-2003Apr22.html

    Gay Groups Want Santorum Out of Leadership

    By LARA JAKES JORDAN
    The Associated Press
    Tuesday, April 22, 2003; 10:45 AM

    WASHINGTON - Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, urged Republican leaders Monday to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership.

    A coalition of groups in Washington and Pennsylvania compared Santorum's remarks to those by those last December by former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott about Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist campaign for the presidency. Shortly afterward, Lott was forced to resign as Republican Senate leader.

    Santorum is chairman of the GOP conference in the Senate, third in his party's leadership, behind Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

    "We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the remarks. They were stunning in their insensitivity, and they're the same types of remarks that sparked outrage toward Sen. Lott," said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy organization. "We would ask that the leadership reconsider his standing within the conference leadership."

    In an interview with The Associated Press, Santorum criticized homosexuality while discussing a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law.

    "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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 anything," Santorum, R-Pa., said in the interview, published Monday.

    Santorum spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright said the lawmaker's comments were "were specific to the Supreme Court case."

    The White House did not immediately return a call seeking comment, and a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Frist declined comment.

    Lott resigned his post in December after making remarks at a 100th birthday celebration for Thurmond that were widely considered racially insensitive and condemned by the White House. Lott later apologized.

    Among the groups condemning Santorum's remarks were the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, the Pennsylvania Log Cabin Republicans, OutFront, and the Pennsylvania Gender Rights Coalition.
     
  2. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
     
  3. Bogey

    Bogey Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    88
    I rather like the comparison to adultery, althought not illegal(I think) it is immoral.
     
  4. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Are you certain that it's legal in all States?
     
  5. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,946
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    That's probably why he said "I think". :D
     
  6. Bogey

    Bogey Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    88
    Bingo!:D
     
  7. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    35,570
    Likes Received:
    7,457
    When will all these "advocate" groups (from both sides) stop worrying about what people SAY instead of what they DO? I guess free speech is great....unless it hurts someones feeeeelings.

    Butch up!!
     
  8. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    That can also be interpreted that Bogey 'thinks' adultry is immoral.

    :)
     
  9. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    We shouldn't worry about what these SENATORS say? Oh Christ.

    I enjoy it when we get to hear what some of these GOP leaders really believe. I wish more of them would talk.
     
  10. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,095
    Likes Received:
    18,941
    I may really be missing something here...but I don't think he's comparing homosexuality to incest or anything else. He's simply saying that we're setting up different standards to reach different results. He's saying the idea that government can't patrol what goes on in the bedroom means you can no longer make incest illegal...or polygamy...despite the fact society has some real interests in making sure these things don't go on. Honestly, I've come out here before and said that I think the Bowers case was wrong...I think these sodomy laws are crap...but this is a compelling angle I had not considered before.
     
  11. subtomic

    subtomic Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    2,369
    MadMax,

    Actually, the "allowing homosexuality will legitimize adultery, bigamy and incest" was exactly what Scalia implied during the arguments in the Lawrence v. Texas (see the 11th and 12th paragraphs here).

    However, what he (and Santorum) fail to see is that the right to privacy has never been absolute. Just like free speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, the right to privacy does not include activities that are justifiably considered harmful or dangerous (to individuals or societies). We frown on (again, I'm not sure if we do legally) adultery because it destabilizes families and can be a major instigator for crimes of passion. We prohibit incest because it's bad for the gene pool. And I would guess that we limit bigamy and polygamy because it is economically hazardous to maintaining strong families.

    I won't be so naive to think that the "ick" factor of adultery, polygamy, bigamy and incest wasn't the reason laws against them were considered in the first place. But these laws wouldn't stand unless there was also real "neutral" justification for prohibiting this behavior. I really can't think of any "neutral reason" for forbidding butt sex between two consenting adults. If the relations aren't consensual or if one participant is underage, then there are other laws in place that can punish the offending party.

    Addressing the specifc topic, Senator Santorum just sounds stupid, not homophobic. But stupidity is sometimes just as dangerous.
     
  12. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,095
    Likes Received:
    18,941
    excellent post...i agree entirely.
     
  13. Woofer

    Woofer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think with his beliefs and American homophobia, Santorum may have won just as many votes as he lost. The Bushies are noticeably mute on the matter, unlike on Moran and Lott.
     
  14. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,710
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Still, the point he makes is ridiculous Max. He could have easily have said hetersexual sex. Hell, he could have said sleeping. Its a ridiculous slippery slope arguement. There all allowed in the bedroom, its just a ridiculous argument. I understand your point that he was trying to take out the privacy part, but you know what, if the case is argued on privacy, then what isn't private in the bedroom?
     
  15. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,095
    Likes Received:
    18,941
    huh?? i'm not sure you understood my post, because i certainly don't understand yours! :)

    actually...those things are NOT allowed in the bedroom...you can't have polygamy in the bedroom or any other room for that matter anywhere in the Union...you can't have incest in the bedroom...so he's saying that if we say that this privacy trumps all of society's concerns, then we can't enforce laws against incest and polygamy. as subatomic points out, that argument is flawed because it assumes the law has to exist in absolutes...that it is absolutely impossible to call one thing a crime and another acceptable.

    but i don't think he was actually railing on homosexuality, itself. he may be for retaining sodomy laws..but i don't think this statement is all that offensive.
     
  16. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,095
    Likes Received:
    18,941
    He says it again right here what he meant....that's why I don't know why the gay-rights groups are freaking out on him, specifically. These are the same arguments made by counsel and the court rulings that have previously upheld these sorts of laws.

    http://santorum.senate.gov/pressreleases/record.cfm?id=203106

    Statement of Senator Santorum

    STATEMENT ISSUED BY U.S. SENATOR RICK SANTORUM REGARDING ASSOCIATED PRESS STORY

    Tuesday, April 22, 2003


    Washington DC -- Statement of U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) regarding misleading Associated Press story.

    Senator Santorum recently sat down for an interview with the Associated Press with an understanding that a profile piece would be published regarding his 8-year tenure in the Senate. As part of the interview, the Senator discussed a case that is currently being considered by the Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas.

    “When discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws.’

    “In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars, and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws.’


    “Again, my discussion with the Associated Press was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.”
     
  17. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,095
    Likes Received:
    18,941
    This is the silliest thing I've ever heard...are they even reading the same statement I am?? Where in the world are they getting this??? I'm hoping an intellectually honest democrat will see this...because this is just ridiculous.

    so much for my self-imposed ban on political threads, i guess...that lasted all of about 24 hours.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14532-2003Apr22.html
    Dems Call for Santorum to Quit Leadership

    The Associated Press
    Tuesday, April 22, 2003; 2:15 PM


    WASHINGTON - The Senate Democrats' political organization on Tuesday called for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum to resign his leadership position after the lawmaker compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.

    One day after gay-rights groups urged GOP senators to consider removing Santorum from his leadership post, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said the two-term Pennsylvania senator should step down as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the No. 3 job in the party leadership.

    The DSCC called Santorum's remarks "divisive, hurtful and reckless" and said they "are completely out of bounds for someone who is supposed to be a leader in the United States Senate."

    In an interview with The Associated Press, Santorum criticized homosexuality while discussing a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law.

    "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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 anything," Santorum said in the interview, published Monday.

    Santorum spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright said Monday that the lawmaker's comments were "were specific to the Supreme Court case." The senator's office had no immediate comment Tuesday to the DSCC's call for him to give up his leadership job.

    The DSCC also urged Santorum's fellow Republican senator, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, to repudiate the remarks. Specter, a moderate Republican, is up for re-election in 2004 and faces a primary challenge from conservative Republican Rep. Pat Toomey.

    Questioned at the White House news briefing, press secretary Ari Fleischer had no comment on Santorum's remarks, saying he had not seen the "the entire context of the interview. And ... I haven't talked to the president about it so I really don't have anything to offer."

    Separately, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry issued a statement criticizing Santorum's comments and assailing the White House for remaining silent "while their chief lieutenants make divisive and hurtful comments that have no place in our politics."

    "Every day in our country, gay and lesbian Americans get up, go to work, pay their taxes, support their families and contribute to the nation they love. These comments take us backwards in America," said the Masschusetts senator.
     
  18. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    35,570
    Likes Received:
    7,457
    Actually, that pretty much sums up this whole "issue".
     
  19. Woofer

    Woofer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here's a link to the full interview( he also mentions bestiality which I'm surprised everyone left out):

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL

    choice questions and answers


    AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

    SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

    AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

    SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that 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 anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

    Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _
     
  20. subtomic

    subtomic Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    2,369
    Again, I keep hearing that allowing gay sex undermines the stability of a family and I just don't see it. Is Santorum under the illusion that sodomy-deprived gays will instead choose to have heterosexual families and thus strengthen the family bonds of America? Or is he afraid that every man in America is secretly lusting to be sodomized and will divorce his wife as soon as butt sex is legal, thus dooming the human race to less reproduction (as if that would really be a bad thing - how bad is overpopulation?)?

    Furthermore, he seems to have confused the issue. Allowing sodomy is not the same as allowing gay marriage. It just means people can get it on without the cops interrupting things.

    As I said before, Santorum doesn't seem to understand that privacy can have limits as long as you give logical justfication for those limits. We can easly find logical (and non-religious) justifications for prohibiting incest, polygamy and adultery, but nobody has given any logical reason for why consensual sodomy is so anti-family.

    Seriously, can someone explain his thinking to me. I can't say if he's a homophobe but he's definitely a logicphobe. I think anyone this dense should definitely step down from the Senate (or the Supreme Court - are you listening Scalia).
     
    #20 subtomic, Apr 22, 2003
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2003

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now