First.. The Dems are just playin partisan politics...if it were a dem that said this, they would not have made a fuss about him and asked him to step down. that said... I think his argument is a bunch of bs as far as homosexuality is concerned.. there are still plenty of people that are making babies and starting families. The number isnt goin to go down just because we allow gays to have sex with each other. also, sodomy(as it is defined) is not the exclusive province of gays...as infatuated with butts as some of you are, you can't tell me some of yall dont like some back-door action...therefore, sodomy laws effect straights also...theoretically... re---privacy as long as the bedroom activities are between two(or more) consenting adults, the government has no business to be nosing around in my bedroom...unless I invite them, and that aint happening...
First, you're just wrong on this being a partisan issue. Democrats would absolutely condemn a fellow Democrat for these sorts of statements, almost as quickly as they'd criticize blatantly racist statements. These are the definition of hateful homophobic statements, the sort of which are no longer tolerated in this country in polite conversation among educated people. This WILL be exactly like Lott's thing. It may take longer but it will be. This is plain and simple bigotry. Santorum is a bigot. If a Dem said these things, he would get the same treatment. Bigots are sometimes quietly tolerated by the right wing, but never by the left. Second, it's not just butt sex that's at stake. In many states, sodomy laws include oral sex. Anybody want to go to jail for getting a blowjob? Think your girlfriend (or wife) should go to jail for giving you one? That is what's before the Supreme Court. And that is essentially what Santorum likens to bestiality. One more example of a GOP leader accidentally speaking his mind and embarassing the whole party. As for those who want to draw distinctions based on the fact that the White House hasn't spoken up, it took them weeks to do so on the Lott thing. Ultimately he will be recognized for the hateful bigot he is, and I can't wait until he gets his comeuppance.
I wish I shared your optimism that this will hurt his career but I really don't think mainstream America cares. I hope I am wrong. For those of you who don't know, Rick Santorum is the sole sponsor in the Senate for the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is what he wants to tack on to the US Constitution: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Are Utah polygamists are core constituency for the democratic party? They should really join forces!! Strength in numbers! Politics make strange bed-fellows....wait...forget it! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31353-2003Apr24.html Utah Sect Leader Criticizes Santorum The Associated Press Thursday, April 24, 2003; 8:19 AM SALT LAKE CITY - The leader of one of Utah's largest polygamist sects has objected to Sen. Rick Santorum's comment lumping plural marriage with other practices the Pennsylvania Republican considers to be antifamily. Santorum has been under fire for comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. Owen Allred, 89, head of the United Apostolic Brethen, based in the Salt Lake City suburb of Bluffdale, agreed with Santorum in part. "He is absolutely right. The people of the United States are doing whatever they can to do away with the sacred rights of marriage," Allred told The Salt Lake Tribune. But Allred said Santorum's inclusion of polygamy in his list tarnishes a religious tradition whose roots are traced to biblical figures such as Abraham, Jacob and Moses - defiling them as "immoral and dirty." In an interview with The Associated Press published over the weekend, 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. "Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," he said. Polygamy was abandoned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than a century ago and it excommunicates members who advocate it, but it is estimated that tens of thousands in Utah continue the practice. Membership estimates for Allred's church range from 4,000 to 6,000, and there also are a number of independent polygamists loosely affiliated with Allred's group. 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. Gay rights groups and some Democrats have suggested he be removed from the conference post. Speaking at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Santorum defended his comments and said they were similar to what Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 Supreme Court ruling that consenting adults have no constitutional right to private homosexual sex. "To suggest that my comments, which are the law of the land and were the reason the Supreme Court decided the case in 1986, are somehow intolerant, I would just argue that it is not," Santorum said.
Well, I'm laughing my ass off right now because it just occured to me that people like Santorum believe that homosexuality, polygamy, bigamy, incest and adultery were all invented sometime during the last 50 years. Ok, Santorum and others like you, keep on thinking that Leave it to Beaver is an accurate representation of 1950s America. You have the right to be delusional.
OK, I'm in favor of consensual homosexuality, bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery between adults. I believe that's the most conservative attitude possible, since the government should minimally interfere in the private lives of its citizens.
really??? that's not conservative...that's libertarian. incest should be legal, huh? even with what we know about the children born to incestuous relationships?? and polygamy??? you have to have a marriage license from the state to be married...or be ratified as a common-law marriage...but you can marry as many different people as you want??? i can't even imagine the buereacratic nightmare that would create in government entitlement offices and probate courts around the country!
MM...NOT to take a moral side here, just as an excercise in legal thinking... If the justification against incest isn't the Yeech Factor, or the remnants of Biblical teachings, but is, as you say, based on what we know about the children born of incestous marriages, where would you stand on the legal rights of, say, people with recessive handicaps having children? There are many hereditery conditions which are much more statistically probable in terms of next generation, but especially since the 3rd Reich's eugenics, we have steered clear of those kinds of rulings... So how, legally, can the case against incest be made on genetic grounds?
I remember reading about incest in family law, MacBeth. Here's the policy reason...you can't tell people they can't reproduce. If you tell a handicapped person they can't reproduce, you are completely cutting off that person's ability to have children. Here, our society has said, "look...we have some concerns here for a family...we're not real keen on brothers and sisters, living under the same roof with the same parents, getting it on. we think that (duh) might undermine the family structure. beyond that, we have real concerns for the children of these relationships because the rate of birth defects is absolutely off the charts. so we're gonna say, 'no..in our society we don't allow brothers and sisters to have sex.'" And we're certainly not the only country that's made that a law...I think that's just the product of human wisdom throughout the centuries.
first..maybe in the past they would have...but these days everything is so partisan, they wouldn't do it just because he's on their side and they wouldn't want the other side to get anything from them. maybe Im a little more cynical than you, but I don't think the 2 parties can do anything that is directly influenced by what is right, just what is right for their party. he is considered a bigot by those of us who aren't Repub...but when he speaks like that...I imagine that the other Religious Right influenced Repubs are secretly cheering that he had the brass to speak up for them. The only way he is forced to step down is if enough of their constituents speak up and demand it....and the gay groups dont have the political strength to force that. IMO.. in the end Batman...we actually are in agreement about Santorum beuing a idiot bigot that needs to go...but I am just cynical enough about politics to believe that he wont and that Dems would rally around one of theuir own if he were in this type of situation..
MM...You took my post, it seems, entirley the wrong way. This wasn't a challenge of the American judicial system; where in there did I even mention the US system. I was proposing what I felt to be an interesting legal conundrum; the fact that we only really have 3 options with which to outlaw sex between consenting adults if they happen to be family members. 1) The one you mentioned, genetics. But there we have a problem with precedent or related legal rulings; We do not ( as I said, and you, I guess misunderstanding me, felt the need to reiterate ) outlaw reproduction with regards to people with a statistically higher probablity of genetical abberation. Legally this presents a problem, as if it were challenged on this basis alone, we would either have to repeal the ruling, outlaw the reproduction of people with highly heredetary problems, or admit that it comes down to one of the other two factorsm those being 2) Biblical morality. We say we aren't influenced by the mores of ancient theological writings, but in this case we could be. I find this an unlikely legal refuge for the ruling, but it's possible it could be attempted on the grounds of what you called 'human wisdom throughout the centuries.' Of course extended human wisdom also lead to slavery, inequitable gender status, etc. so I don;t think it would sand a challenge on this alone. or 3) The Yikes Factor. I will admit that this is what does it for me...My rejection of the concept of incest is ingrained; whether socialized, or a reflection of an absolute truth, I am unsure...probably the former. Either way, it creeps me out. But should that be enough, legally? Isn't the law supposed to be disspassionate? Wouldn't people 100-500 years ago have been 'creeped out' with the thought of interraccial marriage? What i mean to say is, although it is largely endemic, the feeling that sex between family members being unacceptable should not be a legal basis; it would not be so in other areas. Sex seems to still be one of the few areas where we allow what we feel to be 'normal' to be confused with what we feel should be 'legal'...as, historically, was the case with regards to homosexuality. So, there is legal precedent for ruling that individual rights to procreation supercede genetic dangers, we disavow religious influence on our law, and we should not allow our personal misgivings to become law without some other validation, not when it involves consenting adults. This is the legal quandry I was talking about...you seemed to take it as some sort of challenge to the American legal system; That was not my point. My point was regarding the legal argument...I thought you would find it, as I have just done, an interesting point of law, and a puzzle to try and think through. I personally enjoy trying to work out these kind of problems, or at least, when all else fails, admit that my personal heebeegeebees are overruling what should be my intellectual approach to the law, and I thought you would find it an interesting discussion.Sorry if I was wrong...won't bother you with this kind of thing in the future. Or did I misread your response?
I have to hand it to all you guys who obviously enjoy gay sex. Somehow you have turned the perverted act of a man placing his penis into another mans anus into something that is considered acceptable by many people. This has to be one of the great achievements of our time. If we are going to allow gays to frolic freely in the bedroom, I don't see how we can put any limits on anything. There are organized groups out there who see nothing wrong with having sex with children or animals, and who are you to say that what you do is OK and what they do is wrong.
i knew you weren't criticizing the US system...i was simply saying that this has been standard operating procedure cross-culturally for some time now. second...i don't think that outlawing it based on the genetic concerns creates any problem of hypocrisy with handicapped individuals...because to outlaw reproduction, period, to handicapped people is an absolute. there is nothing telling a person who might consider incest he can't have children in a relationship with a woman who is not his family member. but with a handicapped person you're saying that person can never ever under any circumstances, reproduce. that's a huge distinction.
RipvR, the difference is in the phrase...."consenting adults" What 2 consenting adults do in the bedroom as far as sex goes is not for the state to legislate. Whether you find it repugnant or not(I do)...Gay sex is not for us to dictate wether or niot they can do it. Obviously, beastiality or child abuse does not qualify under that argument. You have a problem with gays, that is your perogative...but it is not something we should be legislating.
This is pretty stupid, considering how many bisexuals there are spreading diseases from the homosexual community to the hetero community and how many hetero needle users there are. Just an extension of Santorum's thinking throughout the Bushies. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/national/18GRAN.html?th Certain Words Can Trip Up AIDS Grants, Scientists Say By ERICA GOODE Scientists who study AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases say they have been warned by federal health officials that their research may come under unusual scrutiny by the Department of Health and Human Services or by members of Congress, because the topics are politically controversial . . .
