[AveMaria]

Rick Santorum cannot be allowed suffer what Trent Lott (deservedly) faced. Rick Santorum was merely stating what the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in, including a majority of blacks, hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans.

[RAT Patrol]

Nicely done, AveMaria. We'll work on your fiscal beliefs another day. ;)

[Tijeras_Slim]

Nice job, and welcome to the non-lurking world.

[MEG33]

He was commenting on the law...this is just the latest piling on ploy.It won't stay an issue except for the desperate libs.

[aruanan]

You may have missed the news that it was the news service that inserted "gay" into Santorum's remarks, changing considerably their context and meaning.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Your "fiscal beliefs" are in series danger if you hang out here long enough. If you have come here a confused Republician, you will find yourself to be an informed Republician pretty soon. Don't be afraid to admit you have made mistakes in the past. To err is human....Welcome to the other side.

[Senator_Blutarski]

Most of the recorded history of mankind has chronicled our attempts to rise above the other animal species and above our animal instincts. Now the homosexual community wants to drag us back down there by defining their existence in terms of abnormal sexual acts.

What does it say about homosexuals when they define their entire existence in terms of their bedroom behavior?

[Remedy]

BUMP!

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

is fiscally liberal ...(I admire... LBJ).

Why would anyone do that to themselves? Just teasin' As a fellow Catholic, welcome to FR AveMaria.

Interesting points. Particuarly the Right to Privacy Judicial Activist myth. I wasn't particuarly interested in this issue until Santorum said it so well. It really is a slippery slope.

Despite paranoia to the contrary, I think this principled stand brings more people to the GOP than it repels.

[Kuksool]

Great thread. Santorum ought to tell John "Ketchup" Kerry, Howard Dean and other liberals to pound sand.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Ahh, my political foil the populist. Greetings. Here are my questions:

1) Just because a majority of people believe something to be bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. And whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, the right to privacy has been established as part of the United States Constitution. We have precedent. That whole unreasonable search and seizures thing is pretty clear though. Do we really want our government to get bigger and bigger to the point it is knocking on people's bedroom doors to find out what they are doing?

2) Since when has this government, or any other government, been successful in regulating morality onto people's hearts? Homosexual intercourse is definitely a sin. So is sex between unmarried men and women, and so is sex where birth control is used, and so is sex where the partners do not love each other. This is Catholic doctrine on sex. Eating pork is a sin to many groups, but should it be illegal? What if those people who believed it was a sin were a majority?

3) Since when does Conservative mean giving the government more powers?

4) Polygamy and bigamy aren't just illegal because they're immoral. They are illegal because it (unfairly, in my opinion) allows 30, 40, or 50 year old men to enslave 13 year old girls as one of their "wives".

5) Incest is bad because it creates the possibility of horribly mutated children.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Glad you brought up Myth #3. Comparing what a person does with their orifices (like you said, an act) to a person's ethnic identity is ridiculous.

I'm waiting to see how long it will take for another group who uses some different apparatus (or species) for gratification to claim special status.

[Torie]

Santorum is basically against all sex acts outside of marriage, and wants to make them all illegal, because they "undermine the family." The man is an extremist. Few agree with that point of view.

Regarding the right of privacy, polygamy and bigamy are legal states, not sex acts, and inapposite. One could reasonably argue there is a compelling state interest ban incest that trumps the privacy right, that does not obtain to banning sodomy.

I think Santorum's career may well end with his current term. It certainly should. JMO.

[JimVT]

I agree with much of your statement but some of your comments puzzle me.

"Rick Santorum cannot be allowed suffer what Trent Lott (deservedly) faced."

Lott apologized profusely and to every known species of humanity for his offhand remark, got hammered incessantly and lost his leadership role.

Trent Lott said:"You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today," Lott was quoted as saying of Thurmond in a November 3, 1980, article in The Clarion-Ledger, a Jackson newspaper.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, Friday called the Lott comments "a salute to bigotry."

I need not comment on Kennedy who represents "a salute to manslaughter."

[Joe Boucher]

A great line by none other then Paul Newman in the Movie Slap Shot," what are you gonna do when you come home and find some fag (paraprase)with his member in your sons mouth?
It's just not right.

[Tacis]

I don't dispute that individual fairies may be fine folks. But, I am offended by any effort that attempts to equate faggitude with normalcy or to attack anyone who is unwilling to make such a comparison. Fairies are deviant perverts, always eager to spread their sexual preferences to clean, fresh meat.

Fairy practices are not normal, fairies are not normal. No level of protest, mincing, or bitching will change that. Politicians who are fairies or are afraid of fairies and, therefore, try to argue that faggitude is equal to normalcy are just flat out wrong.

And, for fairies and their political "friends" to argue that I don't have the righht to express such an opinion is also wrong.

[Brilliant]

Sodomy laws are not unconstitutional. We've had them for more than 200 years and there is nothing in the Constitution that discusses them. We don't need another Roe v. Wade.

[mustapha mond]

SANTORUM for President 2008!!!

[2nd Amendment]

The only criticism I have of Sen. Santorum is that he is too milktoast on this issue. We've lost the battle for morals if we can't stand up and call sodomy a disgusting abominable sin. To accept and embrace it is to call for God's wrath upon our nation. It's Adam and Eve, Buckaroo, not Adam and Steve!

[nmh]

If our founders thought highly of homosexuality, then we would NEVER have had SODOMY LAWS. The Constitution does NOT guarantee perversion privacy. If the perversion is known then there is a consequence.

BTW, being a homosexual is NOT genetic. People turn to homosexuality because of sexual abuse or sexual idenity problems. As for the rest of your post, you are VERY confused. I don'thave the time or interest in straighteneing you out. Maybe someone else likes to try their hand at irrational people.

[trustandobey]

Thank God for men like Senator Santorum! I just wish there was a way to thank him enough for fighting for what he believes.He has my undying love for putting Hillary in her place. If only there were more like him.