White House & RNC Issue Gag Order on Santorum Issue

Harrisburg News and the Hotline ^ | April 24, 2003 | Chuck Todd and Vaughn Ververs

[ewing]

The Harrisburg Patriot News Decoursey reports that Senator Rick Santorums (R-PA) defenders are now under gag order.

White House and Republican National Committee officials told GOP insiders yesterday by conference call, voice mail and e-mail not to comment about Santorum's comments letting them speak for himself.

[ewing]

I think we are getting better at the 'talking points' its just that we have to decide what ours are first..

[terilyn]

bump to find later

[The Old Hoosier]

To not speak the truth in an interview about threats to the family, just because you are intimidated by organized gaydom--that is pandering.

To apologize for speaking the truth is also pandering.

[teach1st]

Why do you think they force themselves into our schools to teach? Why do you think there are so many gay priests? Why do you think they want to force churches into allowing them to preach/teach Sunday School? It puts them in close contact, in positons of trust, with our CHILDREN, that's why. Their behavior is disgusting, their agenda more so.

I believe you're confusing homosexuality with pedophilia, but I don't think the two are necessarily related, except in the eyes of the Family Research Council. Are you also concerned about any correlation between a professed belief in God and pedophilia?

It seems to me that the issue at hand concerns behavior between consenting adults (not between an adult and a child, not between an adult and a non-human mammal) in the privacy of their home - at least I think that was the issue that prompted Santorum's remarks. Judging from the posts here, many people support such governmental intrusions into our private lives. Since heterosexuals are also known to engage in bigamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and other sexual behaviors, wouldn't it be prudent to regulate all sexual activity, since it might according to the reasoning in these forums lead to these perversions?

If your objections to homosexuality are based on Biblical teachings, that's fine. But encouraging legislation based on religious beliefs seems to me to go against our Constitution. We wouldn't want that, would we?

By the way, I'm a teacher. I haven't seen gays forcing themselves into the profession. In my area, there have been far more heterosexual than homosexual offenses involving teachers and students.

[WOSG]

You dont get the point of why the White House doesnt want to feed this leftist-inspired media brush fire: Third parties dont need to be re-interpreting what santorum said, this is a media circle jerk. There is *no* way for the Conservatives to win this media equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions.

"To apologize for speaking the truth is also pandering"

I havent seen that happen at all.Good.

[WOSG]

The analogy was correct, based on the logic of the advocates of 'right to privacy'.

[WOSG]

" A minor cannot, by definition, consent."

My 5 -year-old knows very strongly what he wants to eat, to wear, etc. He can make decisions requiring consent.

The evil of pedophilia is sexualizing those who should not be sexualized. These and other sexual deviancies are more related than you might want to admit.

[ellery]

Why regulate sodomy if you have no intention of enforcing laws against it?

Bears repeating.

[RAT Patrol]

This is good political wisdom. Shut up if it is not helping you. Yeah, but in this case I think it helps us. JMHO!

I wish all the "live and let live" people would chip in and help my sister pay for her daughter's funeral.

[RAT Patrol]

Ms. "significant other" was happy to demote herself when it came to paying for the funeral.

[longtermmemmory]

the sadomasocistic associaltion of hollywood wishes to announce their offiense at your use of the the word WHIP with homosexual.

sarcasm off.

[longtermmemmory]

actually, I know a two single mothers who a very pro-homosexual. Its a safe girlfriend male person. The have daughters.

[The Old Hoosier]

Someone has to ask Ari, "Does the president believe there is a constitutional right to engage in sodomy?" and then "is sexual orientation a protected categorization under the 14th amendment?" Let's see him weasel out of that. Those are the two key issues in Lawrence v. Texas, and if the president "has no opinion" on them then he's an idiot.

Once Ruth Bader Ginsburg is done pissing on the Constitution, and President Bush signs the renewal of the Brady Bill, we'll end up with a right to be screwed by them up the @ss, but no right to own a gun.

[VRWC_minion]

That's the crux of the whole matter.

No. You want the SC to force its morality on the state. Thats the crux of the matter. Let the legislative body of each state decide. Personally, I trust my state a hec of a lot better than some old SC justices.

[VRWC_minion]

Since heterosexuals are also known to engage in bigamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and other sexual behaviors, wouldn't it be prudent to regulate all sexual activity, since it might according to the reasoning in these forums lead to these perversions?

??If those activities are done in the privacy of ones home, how can the be regulated if you have the right to privacy that trumps the states right ?

[Eva]

My guess is that if this is true, it is meant to gag some of the Republicans who have come out in opposition to Santorum and not pull any others into the fray. This whole issue is meant to pull down the whole Republican party as intolerant of the gay lifestyle. Right now it would be best if Republicans just stay out of it and make no comment. That's the only way this will die down.

[teach1st]

??If those activities are done in the privacy of ones home, how can they be regulated if you have the right to privacy that trumps the states right ?

Well, that was kind of my point. They shouldn't be. Nor should most sexual behavior between consenting adults be regulated.

If both heterosexuals and homosexuals have engaged in sodomy, bestiality, child sex, etc., how is it right to single out homosexual activity as "anti-family" that might further leas to the right to bigamy, etc, and not also apply that to heterosexual acts? It seem to me that Santorum is saying that sodomy is anti-family, but he is applying it only to homosexuals:

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.

I believe that adultery, bigamy, and polygamy are fine between consenting adults, even though each would go against my personal values. (And, yes, I have broken that code of behavior by cheating on my wife when I was married. I'm not proud of it. Luckily, I wasn't arrested.) I'm not sure about incest, since it arguably directly affects others (any resulting children). I ma sure about this: Freedom is cool and should be protected, but I guess freedom can be unsettling to some. Freedom includes, in my opinion, the right to go against the mainstream's view of morality and the freedom to reject its religious views. The United States Constitution helps protect those with minority views against a tyranny of the majority. I believe we should strive to protect personal freedom as much as possible. A growing segment of the mainstream lately appears to be threatened by certain personal freedoms. I don't know why. If two men or two women want to go at it in private, it certainly doesn't threaten me or my values.

I wonder what "pro-family" sex would consist of. In some states I believe sodomy includes oral sex. Is oral sex pro or anti-family? Is oral sex only pro-family when performed by a legally married heterosexual couple or is it always anti-family (not leading directly to procreation)? Should the police arrest heterosexual couples observed engaging in this behavior in a state with laws against it, even if the police had entered the home for another reason? Or should they arrest only homosexual offenders?

Legislating against perceived "anti-family" sexual activity among consenting adults does limit personal freedom and it should be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Family values are best promoted by example.

[VRWC_minion]

,I>I believe that adultery, bigamy, and polygamy are fine between consenting adults

How do you know they ae consenting adults ? Shouldn't you just say between adults whether consenting or not ? The marriage contract acts as proof of consent.