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

Skip to comments.

Sen Santorum's [unedited] comments on homosexuality in AP interview [sodomy, priest scandal]
AP ^ | 4-22-2003 | AP Staff

Posted on 04/23/2003 7:21:37 AM PDT by Notwithstanding

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bigamy; ccrm; deviants; family; homosexuality; marriage; presstitutes; santorum; sodomy
* * * *

Santorum is a godly man. Amen.

* * * *

1 posted on 04/23/2003 7:21:37 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AKA Elena; american colleen; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Aristophanes; ArrogantBustard; Askel5; ...
Wow - this guy is great - ping!
2 posted on 04/23/2003 7:22:42 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I have been so very impressed with his passionate arguments against PBA. He has earned my deep respect.
3 posted on 04/23/2003 7:26:28 AM PDT by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).


AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?

SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.

The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.

AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _

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 _

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

4 posted on 04/23/2003 7:26:59 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse
And this "media firestorm" is Hillary Clinton's payback for being publicly humiliated by him.

It's no accident the wife of John Kerry's campaign manager snagged him.
5 posted on 04/23/2003 7:27:49 AM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
SANTORUM: . . . 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 _


AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

6 posted on 04/23/2003 7:27:59 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I e-mailed him to show my support and encouragement. Please do the same to let him know he has many supporters out here.
7 posted on 04/23/2003 7:28:09 AM PDT by rj45mis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I understand his position, statement, and intent perfectly and agree with it. For all you fudge packers who want to make a big deal about it go back to bed.
8 posted on 04/23/2003 7:29:09 AM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Is he your senator?

9 posted on 04/23/2003 7:29:24 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
"The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."

A not-so-popular (but correct) position in today's "rights of the individual" attitude. And the problem is compounded with the lack of personal responsibility for these "individual" actions.

10 posted on 04/23/2003 7:39:44 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Notwithstanding
Will this calendar be a big seller in frisco


Hot dates with pin-up priests
April 23, 2003

TWELVE young priests in Rome, have raised eyebrows by joining the ranks of housewives and porn stars in posing for a glossy calendar - albeit sombrely dressed in long, dark robes and traditional hats.

"I usually photograph gondoliers for Venetian calendars, but this time I wanted to do something Roman, and what better than priests?" the photographer Piero Pazzi said of his tourism calendar, which is not an official Vatican publication.

Critics say that people will compare the priests to the naked pin-ups commonly associated with Italian calendars. They also complain profits are not going to charity.

December's picture is of a swarthy priest with a goatee beard and curly hair in Piazza Venezia while March depicts an angelic-looking seminarian in a procession.

"The priests are young and good looking, but that doesn't make them sex symbols. That depends on the imagination of the viewer," Pazzi said.
12 posted on 04/23/2003 8:12:11 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ( Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
After 2 billion years of sexual evolution, there are still some people that can't figure it out, amazing.

I personally don't care that adult males what to spend the night playing with each other's hairy asses, after all that gives me three women to talk to at the bar.

These hairy ass lovers should work in each state to have sodimy laws repealed where they exist. The current Federal case is actually an assult on the Constitution, like abortion, personal rights are States Rights.
13 posted on 04/23/2003 8:57:50 AM PDT by kenzie (Is SARS China's Chernobyl?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Laughable. The truth sends the rats scurring.

14 posted on 04/23/2003 9:21:00 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

"That's Awesome!"

His bishop should hold him up as a shining example of a politician applying his faith. We need more Santorums.

15 posted on 04/23/2003 11:01:56 AM PDT by NYer (Easter Blessings to all! Christe Eleison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
BTTT for later...
16 posted on 04/23/2003 11:27:55 AM PDT by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rj45mis
I e-mailed him to show my support and encouragement. Please do the same to let him know he has many supporters out here.

so did I.

17 posted on 04/23/2003 11:33:18 AM PDT by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gophack
btt
18 posted on 04/23/2003 11:57:07 AM PDT by GailA (Millington Rally for America after action http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/872519/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
BTTT
19 posted on 04/23/2003 12:06:54 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

Well there you have it--the Culture of Death in a sentence. It's gotten to the point where sodomy is indistinguishable from intercourse under the catch-all phrase "sex".
20 posted on 04/23/2003 8:12:24 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
And this "media firestorm" is Hillary Clinton's payback for being publicly humiliated by him. It's no accident the wife of John Kerry's campaign manager snagged him.

He hasn't been snagged. The snaggers have been snagged. They just don't realize it yet. Any time the gay issues are brought to a vote, the gays lose.
21 posted on 04/23/2003 8:14:37 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Amen! More Santorums, less Daschles!
22 posted on 04/23/2003 8:16:35 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Sign this petition to support Rick Santorum!

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), an innocent victim of a deceitful ambush,
finds himself amid a concocted firestorm just for speaking the truth
about the ramifications of an upcoming Supreme Court case. Please go to
ConservativePetitions.com and read what is at stake. Here's the address:
http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions/php?id=187

Homosexual and Democrat Party groups are seeking to use Senate
Republican Conference chairman's remarks to force his resignation like
with former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. And the Democrat-
dominated media is fueling what it hopes will be a feeding frenzy.

Sen. Santorum's comments were made during an April 7 interview with
Associate Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan, wife of Jim Jordan, a former
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee official who now manages Sen.
John Kerry's presidential campaign. The DSCC, naturally, called for Sen.
Santorum to resign his leadership position after the Human Rights
Campaign and the Pennsylvania chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans
squealed in alleged outrage.

Fearless on matters of morality, Sen. Santorum said what the Bible
teaches is correct to believe, and he did so in the context of
discussing the implications of a Supreme Court case. He has done nothing
wrong. In fact, he has done something right by inadvertently bringing a
crucial issue to light.

Sen. Santorum needs to hear from the American public in impressive
numbers. Here's your chance stand up for this courageous leader who has
been standing up for the sanctity of marriage and traditional family
values. Go to ConservativePetitions.com and sign the petition in support
of him and the truth he speaks. Then email everyone you know to help
generate additional support. Here again is where to act:
http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions/php?id=187

23 posted on 04/24/2003 5:05:28 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Catholic Church asks Tom Daschle to stop calling himself a Catholic

On Catholic Politicians and Faith

Vatican Urges Catholic Politicians to Vote Along Church Lines

Senator Santorum on Being Catholic and a Politician

William E. Simon, Sr. and Jr. Devout Catholics, Philanthropists and Politicians

Deadly Dozen senator taken to task over claims of Catholicism

24 posted on 04/24/2003 5:06:12 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Because you have stood with us to protect families from the
radical homosexual agenda, we want to ALERT you to a situation
involving Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum that is growing
more critical with each passing hour.

Homosexual activists are calling on Sen. Santorum to be removed
from his leadership post as Republican Conference Committee
Chair (3rd ranking Republican post) because of comments the
senator made regarding a Supreme Court Case.

Now the Democratic Senatorial Committee has joined in.

* * * * * HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED...

This firestorm erupted in response to Sen. Santorum's comments
on a case involving a Texas law that bans acts of sodomy.
Sen. Santorum said that if the Court overturns that law,
it could open the door to a "right" to sodomy, bigamy,
and polygamy.

Like many Americans, Sen. Santorum does not want the courts
to create a constitutional right to homosexual sex. If this
happens, our families and our children will be in permanent
jeopardy, especially in the courts.

Now, homosexual activists are calling for Sen. Santorum
to be removed from his leadership post!

* * * * * IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED

We are encouraging our Center Alert friends to contact
Sen. Santorum's office right now and encourage him to
"stay at his post".

Sen. Santorum's phone number: 202-224-6324

Also, call Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and let him
know that you believe Sen. Santorum should not be removed
from his position as Conference Committee Chair:

Majority Leader Frist's number: 202-224-3344

Finally, let the Ethics Committee Chair, Sen. Voinovich,
know that you support Sen. Santorum:

Sen. Voinovich's number: 202-224-3353
Senate Ethics Committee: 202-224-2981

* * * * * ALERT YOUR FRIENDS

25 posted on 04/24/2003 5:09:34 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
And this "media firestorm" is Hillary Clinton's payback for being publicly humiliated by him.

In a nutshell what did this excellent man do to humiliate Bubba's woman?

26 posted on 04/24/2003 5:11:57 PM PDT by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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