Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Divided over gay marriage
LA Times ^ | March 12, 04 | Roy Rivenburg

Posted on 03/13/2004 7:08:21 PM PST by churchillbuff

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: zeugma
Darn it. I know how to spell his name. "Heinlein". I even previewed it!
41 posted on 03/13/2004 9:04:28 PM PST by zeugma (The Great Experiment is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Santorum: No apology

Wednesday, April 23, 2003
By James O'Toole, Post-Gazette Politics Editor

Dismissing calls for him to relinquish his leadership post, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum yesterday defended his published remarks on the legal status of homosexual acts, calling it "a legitimate public policy discussion."

In an interview with Fox News last night, and in an earlier statement released by his office, the Pennsylvania Republican insisted, in the face of sharp criticism from leading Democrats and gay and lesbian groups, that his comments in an Associated Press interview had been misconstrued.

"I do not need to give an apology based on what I said or what I'm saying now," he said.

He said his remarks were a criticism of the reasoning behind a legal challenge to a Texas anti-sodomy law rather than an effort to equate homosexuality with acts such as incest and adultery.

Santorum, who holds the number three position in the Senate Republican caucus, sought to allay a controversy that began with an Associated Press story that included the quote:

"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."

In his statement, Santorum said, "My discussion with the Associated Press was about the Supreme Court privacy case [Texas vs. Lawrence], 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 construed in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles."

Many critics construed it just that way.

"Sen. Santorum's comments were unfortunate, and I disagree with him wholeheartedly," said Sen. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, in a statement released by his office.

The Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian activist group, called the statement "deeply hurtful," and, invoking the ousting of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott over remarks deemed racially insensitive, demanded similar GOP action on Santorum.

A spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the political arm of the Democratic caucus, echoed the calls for Santorum's removal from leadership.

Sen. Bill Frist, the Tennessee Republican who succeeded Lott as GOP leader, rejected that criticism.

"Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate, and to suggest otherwise is just politics," Frist said in a statement issued last night.

In response to a question in an appearance in Pittsburgh yesterday, Santorum's colleague, Sen. Arlen Specter, said, "I want to talk to Sen. Santorum about it. I know Sen. Santorum is not a bigot."

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay, said he had no doubt that Santorum's remarks were a reflection of outright bigotry.

"The surprise is that he's being honest about it, not that he believes this," said Frank. "This kind of gay-bashing is perfectly acceptable in the Republican Party."

Paul Weyrich, chairman of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, denounced the attacks.

"The senator is defending the sanctity of marriage. He is defending family values as defined by the Bible in which the most intimate relationships are to be between men and women and only after they have entered into the contract of marriage. There was no hate or call to violence against homosexuals expressed by Sen. Santorum," Weyrich said.

Ken O'Connor, president of the Family Research Council, called the criticism of Santorum an attempt "to intimidate defenders of marriage and silence critics of the homosexual political agenda."

At the regular White House briefing yesterday, Ari Fleischer, President Bush's press secretary, refused to be drawn into a conversation on the subject.

Sen. John Kerry, a Democratic presidential candidate from Massachusetts, criticized Santorum's remarks and the White House reticence on them.

John Brabender, the media strategist who helped soften Santorum's image with innovative commercials during his 2000 re-election victory, dismissed both the substance and the likely effect of such remarks.

"Clearly you have some Democrats piling on here and trying to make it something that it is not," he said.

Brabender rejected the Trent Lott analogy to Santorum's situation, maintaining that the controversy would be short-lived.

"What we have found is that, when properly explained, this makes sense to people," he said. "I don't see anything here."

A Democratic consultant, Neil Oxman of The Campaign Group, the Philadelphia firm that handled Gov. Ed Rendell's advertising last year, said it was too early to tell if the controversy would linger.

"How big it will be depends on how loud people shout," said Oxman. "If mainstream Democrats start shouting, it could take on a life of its own."

Oxman said the eventual political volume is likely to be a product of some mixture of genuine grass-roots concern and partisan orchestration.

As Santorum and his allies began to question the fairness and interpretation of the original Associated Press story, the news agency released fuller excerpts from the interview, which was taped on April 7.

In it, Santorum, who is a lawyer, questioned the line of legal reasoning first enunciated in a Supreme Court opinion that struck down state laws regulating contraception.

Santorum also suggested that the tendency to accept homosexual acts, or other sexuality outside of marriage, posed a threat to the institution of the family, and, by extension, to society in general.

The court's opinion in the contraception case, Griswold vs. Connecticut, found a right to privacy unstated but implicit in the Constitution.

"It all comes from, I would argue, the right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution," Santorum said.

At another point in the interview, Santorum observed, "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 might be."

Echoing a variety of conservative thinkers and legal scholars, Santorum said that the Supreme Court should not interfere with state regulation of such behavior, the issue in the Texas sodomy law case that prompted his initial remarks.

"If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. ... I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."

Santorum, a Roman Catholic, made a distinction between homosexual people and homosexual acts.

"I have nothing, absolutely nothing, against anyone who's homosexual," he said. "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."



42 posted on 03/13/2004 9:08:09 PM PST by TheDon (John Kerry, self proclaimed war criminal, Democratic Presidential nominee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Who is Monty Python?
43 posted on 03/13/2004 9:08:46 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Ping list, please email me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
How bout I Marry my car and use my health benifits to pay for an engine overhaul! of maybee a custom paint job she needs a face lift!!!!
44 posted on 03/13/2004 9:09:38 PM PST by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights."

Discrimination against single heterosexuals!
45 posted on 03/13/2004 9:14:32 PM PST by adam_az (Call your state Republican party office and VOLUNTEER FOR A CAMPAIGN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
If this comes to pass, the IRS will need a warehouse to store the tax code.
46 posted on 03/13/2004 9:40:45 PM PST by 3catsanadog (When anything goes, everything does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Proposed Marriage Initiative Biblical values included:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut25:5-10)--

47 posted on 03/13/2004 9:45:39 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
bump
48 posted on 03/13/2004 10:33:21 PM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 3catsanadog
bump
49 posted on 03/13/2004 10:34:03 PM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
If you married more than one parrot, would that be polypollyamory?
50 posted on 03/13/2004 10:34:29 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping - More droplets from the Tsunami of Sewage(tm).

Finally - honesty!

Goes along with what these spokespersons for the "gay" agenda have to say about same sex marriage:

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine: (Dec/Jan 1994):


"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."


Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

NOTE THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR:

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Another in the list of demands was the elimination of all age-of-consent laws.]

51 posted on 03/13/2004 10:37:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Woe to them that call good evil, and evil good.
We are sinking deeper and deeper into the mire in this country.
I just returned from a business trip to San Francisco, the site of all of the gay marriage flap recently. The media up there are going almost 24/7 on this. Foxnews was staying in the hotel we were at. It is a media frenzy up there, all negative against the Supreme court for stopping the so called weddings. I feel as though I need to spend days in the shower after being in the middle of this.
52 posted on 03/13/2004 10:48:41 PM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: momfirst
Muslim terrorist do not need to attack here again American society is destroying itself.
53 posted on 03/14/2004 1:35:23 AM PST by oceanperch (`It's A Boy Address:http://community-2.webtv.net/YaquinaBay/LangleyPortar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
LOL Mine would shoot me if they had to live under the same roof.
54 posted on 03/14/2004 1:37:17 AM PST by oceanperch (`It's A Boy Address:http://community-2.webtv.net/YaquinaBay/LangleyPortar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
The end is near.
55 posted on 03/14/2004 2:24:15 AM PST by expatguy (Subliminal Advertising Executive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
They are trying to legalize sex with children.
56 posted on 03/14/2004 5:25:36 AM PST by tkathy (Our economy, our investments, and our jobs DEPEND on powerful national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
God save us from this horror.

If this great evil actually comes to pass, the final death of the United States of America will not be far behind, and a great split of the regions will occur soon thereafter. Sections of the nation that reject this will possibly remain free, but those that accept it will decay rapidly until they are invaded and taken over by outside forces.

Historically speaking, God has never allowed great empires that have become evil to remain standing. If drastic change does not come soon the same will happen here.

57 posted on 03/14/2004 5:50:56 AM PST by MarcoPolo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
BTTT
58 posted on 03/14/2004 6:06:06 AM PST by GrandMoM (how could I not have hope in JESUS....MY WOUNDS WERE HEALED BY HIS WOUNDS-Mel Gibson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society."

Yup, playing with fire. Make no doubt, the goal is to transform the very fabric of society. It's good to have that goal out in the open, perhaps it will encourage those who want to preserve the fabric of society.

59 posted on 03/14/2004 6:09:23 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Is there a picture of the decadent?
60 posted on 03/14/2004 6:12:00 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson