Skip to comments.Santorum Crisis Exposes Republican Weakness
Posted on 04/28/2003 2:25:50 PM PDT by Remedy
The Rick Santorum controversy has illuminated a serious problem in the Republican Party: its leaders seem woefully ill-prepared to defend the pro-family position on homosexuality. As an attorney who trains pro-family activists how to debate this issue, I would like to offer my fellow Republicans the following advice.
First, don't dodge the issue in fear of political correctness or pro-"gay" media bias. Stand confidently upon the essential pro-family presuppositions that resonate with people of common sense: 1) normality is that which functions according to its design, 2) the heterosexual design of the human body and the natural family is self-evident, 3) respecting the design of life produces good results (conversely, rejecting that design produces bad results) and 4) simple observation validates these assumptions. No special education or "scientific" study is required.
Failure to articulate the logic of our position cedes the moral and intellectual battleground to the militant "gays," and leaves the impression (even among our own supporters) that we have no reasonable response, other than religious belief, to their attack on family values.
Second, contest the hidden false assumption underlying most pro-"gay" arguments that homosexuality is immutable. We have a strong case on this point since 1) proponents of the "gays are born that way" justification for normalizing homosexuality bear the burden of proof, 2) proof is absolutely necessary due to the severity of social change which is contemplated by their demands, 3) proponents cannot prove that homosexuality is immutable (Indeed, ex-homosexuals can prove that it is not.), 3) if homosexuality is not immutable, then logically it must be acquired (children being the most likely to acquire the condition because of their vulnerability to social conditioning), and 4) society must err on the side of caution, actively discouraging the normalization of homosexuality in order to protect children and others from the possibility of acquiring a homosexual condition with its attendant health risks.
Third, expose the deceptive terms, such as sexual orientation, diversity and homophobia, which are used by pro-"gay" proponents to confuse the issue and control the debate. This requires nothing but making them define their terms at the start of argument, then focusing the debate on clarifying the definitions and exposing their illogic and hypocrisy.
Consider sexual orientation, for example. Does orientation mean "state of mind" or conduct? If it includes conduct, which conduct? Does it include sodomy? Fisting? Rimming? Sadism? If not, why not? Regarding diversity, what is the standard used to decide who gets to be in the circle of inclusion? They don't have one, but you'll have fun with this -- especially if they attempt to draw the line at "hate" groups. What is their definition of hate? (and by that definition, do they "hate" us and thereby invalidate their own membership in the community of diversity?) Speaking of hate, remember that they have defined homophobia as "hate and fear of homosexuals." Ask them to identify some examples of non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They can't do it because they define all opposition as "homophobic." Do they really believe that disapproval of sodomy/rimming/fisting/sadism is irrational bigotry? You get the idea. You'll find that this technique derails virtually every pro-"gay" argument because each one relies on deceptive rhetoric.
Fourth and finally, get off the defensive and take the offensive on the homosexual issue by purging "gay" activism from the Republican Party. The implicit goal of the "gay" movement is the normalization of an anything-goes sexual morality -- the antithesis of the family values so dear to our Republican base. Instead of inviting into our tent the very constituency that many Republicans have spent years and fortunes opposing, why not conduct a meaningful family-values outreach to ethnic minorities? Let the Democrats continue to be the party of sexual deviance and let us exploit that identification to woo away their healthy families to the higher Republican standard.
What is needed from Republican leaders is articulate, confident and continual advocacy of the pro-family world view. Without it, we might as well say farewell to Rick Santorum and other defenders of family values, because if things continue as they are, these courageous people will have no place in the future GOP, the Gays' Other Party.
Republicans Confident Gay Rights Issue Will Hurt DeanRichard White (search), a Republican state senator from Mississippi, said any candidate talking about gay rights might as well not even visit his state.
"The people down here, they are not going to put up with that kind of stuff," White said. "We're not prepared for all that in Mississippi or anywhere else in the southern states."
Support Sen. Santorum's strong stand for family (PETITION) 19,375 Signatures
... Let the Democrats continue to be the party of sexual deviance and let us exploit that identification to woo away their healthy families to the higher Republican standard ...Apparently we have a few mullahs of our own.
No guts - that is, take yet another poll.
No glory - look to "all thumbs" Frist, "booby" Hatch, ...
Apparently we have a few heathens of our own.
Apparently we have a few heathens of our own.Lots and lots and lots, yes. And we want lower taxes too--free trade, firmer property rights, 2nd amendment rights etc., etc. Those of us who enjoy sex and those of you who are opposed to it should discover common ground.
Oh, great.... a purge. Feh.
I'd be unwelcome in the Dems, because I support low taxes and the 2nd Amendment, as well as opposing partial birth abortion. I'd be unwelcome in the Libertarian Party, because I supported the war in Iraq and an active foreign and defense policy. Now, I'd be unwelcome in the GOP, because I oppose anti-sodomy laws and support legal recognition of gay marriage. I don't want to be an independent, as I can't vote in primaries.
Nope. I ain't leaving the GOP. I have nowhere else to go. And the fact that I doubt that this ideological purging is too likely to come off means that, if this isn't my political home, it's the closest I have right now.
because I oppose anti-sodomy laws and support legal recognition of gay marriage.
Unlike mouth-to-genital sex, mouth-to-anus activities cannot possibly be considered medically benign. There is simply no way to 'safely' lick or insert the tongue into the anus without ingesting biologically significant amounts of fecal material. Not only do a host of viruses (e.g., Hepatitis A), bacteria, and other infectious organisms (e.g., Giardiasis, amebiasis) reside in feces, but various forms of hepatitis, herpes and many of the same organisms that cause food poisoning are transmitted through its ingestion.3
Separating feces from the food chain and living areas via modern sanitation has arguably been the single most important contribution of modern public health. Avoiding the ingestion of fecal material in either food or in sex practices is healthy; any oral exposure to feces is unhealthy. This is precisely what much of modern 'sanitation' is about.
Indeed, in 1981, at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, Dr. M Heller, Director of the Division of Emergency Medicine at the University of California's Moffitt Hospital, San Francisco, observed4 that "the large number of patients, virtually all male and all gay, with these diseases [various enteric infections collectively called 'gay bowel syndrome'] is indeed a new phenomenon" which he noted was associated with "the emergence of a well-defined 'gay scene,' including gay bars, restaurants, movies, clubs, indeed whole neighborhoods catering openly to the gay lifestyle."
The recipient of oral-anal sex is not immune to infection either. Unlike the mouth, the anus is designed to eliminate waste, not to process and incorporate semen, saliva, etc. So it has few protective devices. The mouth can and does transmit sexual infections to the anus. Ultimately, for either the 'doer' or the one to whom oral-anal sex is done, the claim that "engaging in... anal sex does not result in... physical dysfunction" is absolutely false. Penile-anal sex:
Placing a penis in the anus is also fraught with medical risks. For the recipient, there is good evidence to suggest that the rectum and anus are negatively affected over the long term by the insertion and movements of the penis during sexual activity. Men who are the recipients of penile-anal sex are many times more apt to develop anal or rectal cancer and to lose sphincter tonus, perhaps up to 20 times the national average.5 Those who put their penis in others' rectal cavities are also more apt to get urinary infections. After all, the penis is bathed in feces or surrounded by fecal residue during the process.
The bottom line is that the rectum was not designed for sexual activity. Indeed, because of its one-cell-wall thickness and rich supply of blood vessels, the rectum is almost 'perfectly suited for infection.' This is undoubtedly the reason that the vast majority of MSM who have gotten infected with HIV practiced penile-anal sex.
While only a smattering of evidence suggests that the 'insertor' of the penis has contracted HIV from anal sex, there is overwhelming evidence that the rectal 'insertees' got their HIV from penile-anal sex. Indeed, the practice of penile-anal sex is associated with well over 95% of all HIV infections among MSM.
There is also fair evidence that a disproportionate degree of HIV infection among women is due to penile-anal as opposed to penile-vaginal sex.6 The same is true of hepatitis B, syphilis, and all the other blood-borne pathogens. In short, the natural functions of the rectum (e.g., efficient absorption of water and other nutrients from the fecal mass) act to make it unsuitable for penile intromission.
Furthermore, there is good evidence that depositions of semen in the rectum are deleterious, per se, to the functioning of the immune system. This was first demonstrated in rabbits and has been confirmed in both male and female prostitutes.7 Oral & Anal Sex: Not Benign
Oral & Anal Sex: Not Benign
Analysis of the obituaries of over 9,000 gay men suggests that they are unusually subject to cancer of the mouth, pharynx, stomach, and esophagus, all of which may be related to typical sexual practices among MSM of ingesting semen, urine or feces.8 Indeed, while the constellations of morbidities differ between the groups (with men who have sex with men [MSM] exhibiting higher rates of infectious diseases than heavy drinkers or illicit, but non-shooting/non-IV drug users), the lifespans of MSM are similar to the lifespans of very heavy drinkers or heavy consumers of illicit drugs, but not as short as regular IV drug abusers.
The evidence on women who have sex with women [WSW] is less certain, but it appears that their lifespan may be only a few years longer on average than the lifespan of MSM.
Those of us who enjoy sex
Texas Physicians Resource Council, Christian Medical and Dental Association, Catholic Medical Association In fact, same-sex sodomy has resulted in the transformation of diseases previously transmitted only through fecally contamin-ated food and water into sexually caused diseases primarily among those who practice same-sex sodomy.
I like sex just fine.Your "version" of it, yes.
I just don't like the purveyors of the perverted versions trying to shove it down my throat, or to impose their degraded morality on my children. In fact, I take great exception to it.Interesting. You don't want others "shoving" their "versions" down *your* throat, but you seem quite comfortable enforcing your version as an article of public policy. How do you resolve the contradiction? Can you imagine some sort of happy compromise where we all get to pursue our own "versions" without passing laws against one another?
Doesn't make me a mullah, jerk.Aside from a few doctrinal subtleties, how are you different than any mullah?
You don't want others "shoving" their "versions" down *your* throat, but you seem quite comfortable enforcing your version as an article of public policy.
Center for the Original Intent of the ConstitutionIt is a settled constitutional principle within our federal republic that states possess general police powers. Inherent within these powers lies the duty to regulate the "health, safety, and morals" of their members. Barnes v. Glen Theater, 501 U. S. 560, 569 (1991) (referencing public indecency statutes which were designed to protect morals and public order). States have used this police power to promote marriage and direct the sexual activities of their citizens into marriage by criminalizing a wide variety of nonmarital sex acts, such as polygamy, rape, fornication, adultery, prostitution and incest. While crimes such as rape and incest are not consensual, adultery, prostitution, polygamy and fornication are private acts between consenting adults that have been regulated throughout our nation's history. As we shall demonstrate, states have possessed and properly exercised the authority to regulate deviate sexual conduct including sodomy at all relevant times in our nation's history.
Oral & Anal Sex: Not Anyone's Business.
how are you different than any mullah?
Thomas Jefferson on Sodomy Sect. XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy* with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.
Oral & Anal Sex: Not Anyone's Business.
A. Guiding Citizens to Good Morals is a Cen-tral Purpose of the Law . the Western legal tradition has long recognized that one of the primary purposes of the law is to steer the people to good morals.
Over 2300 years ago, Aristotle opined that "virtue must be the care of a state which is truly so called. . . ." ARISTOTLE, POLITICS Bk. 3, Pt. IX (Benjamin Jowett, trans. in 2 THE COMPLETE WORKS OF ARISTOTLE, Princeton, 1984) This concept of the purpose of government is central to the Western tradition: "It is, above all, the belief that law and politics are rightly concerned with the moral well-being of members of political communities that distinguishes the central [Western] tradition from its principal rivals." GEORGE, supra 20.
C. Any interest in personal autonomy does not extend so far as to invalidate a long-standing criminal prohibition. 1. Glucksberg recognized the limits of personal autonomy.
In Glucksberg, as here, the Court was confronted with private, consensual conduct between adults. Relying on this Court's decisions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 19 , and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health 20 , as do Petitioners here, the physicians in Glucksberg asserted a fundamental liberty interest in "personal autonomy" and "self-sovereignty." 21 The Court refused to transform the limited protections afforded such interests into an absolute and unlimited right: "That many of the rights and liberties protected by the Due Process Clause sound in personal autonomy does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected." 521 U. S. at 727 (emphasis added).
The Court further held that the Washington statute easily met the low bar of the rational basis test. It noted, too, that "[ t] o hold for respondents, we would have to reverse centuries of legal doctrine and practice." Id. at 723. 22
2. Personal autonomy should not intrude on the broad discretion accorded the states to enact morals legislation. As a matter of sound policy, imposition of a limit on the reach of morals laws on the basis urged by Petitioners must be rejected. That there are limits to a state's police power is certain. But the discretion afforded the states in the exercise of that power to protect the health, safety and morals of its citizens is, and of necessity must be, exceed-ingly broad. While "the police power cannot be put forward as an excuse for oppressive and unjust legislation, it may be lawfully resorted to for the purpose of preserving the public health, safety or morals, or the abatement of public nuisances, and a large discretion 'is necessarily vested in the legislature to determine not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests. ' " Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 392, 18 S. Ct. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780 (1897) (quoting Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 136, 14 S. Ct. 499, 38 L. Ed. 385 (1894)); see also Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 31, 5 S. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed. 923 (1885) (" neither the [14th] amend-ment broad and comprehensive as it is nor any other amendment, was designed to interfere with the power of the State, sometimes termed its police power, to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, educa-tion, and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State, develop its resources, and add to its wealth and prosperity").
IV. STRIKING THE STATUTE WOULD DESTROY THE ONGOING POLITICAL DEBATE ON HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS AND UNDERMINE THIS COURT'S OWN MORAL AUTHORITY.
So what is your 'version'?
Interesting. You don't want others "shoving" their "versions" down *your* throat, but you seem quite comfortable enforcing your version as an article of public policy.
No. I want you and those who promote deviancy to stay the hell away from me and my kids...and I don't want one of my tax dollars going to promote your destructive 'lifestyle choices'.
How do you resolve the contradiction? Can you imagine some sort of happy compromise where we all get to pursue our own "versions" without passing laws against one another?
No contradiction on my part--and no.
Aside from a few doctrinal subtleties, how are you different than any mullah?
If anyone is acting like a mullah, it's you--trying to enforce your twisted worldview on my and my family, with my resources.
... Inherent within these powers lies the duty to regulate the "health, safety, and morals" of their members ...Cool. So if a majority of Americans decided that what you would want to call devient sexual conduct were, indeed, "moral," then they could pass regulations criminalizing your lifestyle.
The vast majority of Americans believe in tolerance, not the fundamentalist/bigoted views articulated in this post.
Condemnation of homosexuality, however, is by no means directed at specific ancient rituals alone. Among the cardinal sins of Judaism, which one is bidden to lay down his life rather than engage in, are murder, idolatry and "gilui arayot," the immoral uncovering of nakedness (Lev. 18), which includes adultery, incest and homosexuality. Indeed, the Torah reserves its most intense condemnation for homosexuality:
"to'eva" - abomination...
If anyone is acting like a mullah, it's you--trying to enforce your twisted worldview on my and my family, with my resources.I want nothing from you but to be left alone. You're the one railing against human sexuality, or at least those expressions of it you find objectionable. So, again, how are you different from any mullah?
LOL...you all are so funny...thinking that your views reflect any kind of majority of anything, much less the GOP.
Wait, I guess you could work up a consensus---in a gay bar, or in a Democrat caucus....
The homosexual agenda that is being pushed--even at the fringes of the GOP--is an attempt to normalize such behavior, to teach it to my children using my tax dollars, and to gain civil rights status for destructive behavior.
Go back in the closet, and you won't hear a peep out of me.
Since the first federal resources were made available to state and local health agencies for AIDS prevention in 1985, federal funding, which now includes money for research, treatment, and housing, has skyrocketed to $13 billion for fiscal 2003. As a result of the work of highly mobilized lobbying forces, more is spent per patient on AIDS than on any other disease, though it does not even currently rank among the top 15 causes of death in the United States. In one year, 1998, heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death, killed 724,859 Americans only 6.8 percent less than the 774,767 who have contracted AIDS in the last 20 years.2 Of those 774,767 total AIDS cases, 462,766 have died. During that same period, 14 million Americans 30 times more have died of heart disease.
Research expenditures at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) demonstrate the uneven use of federal resources. In 1996, NIH spent an average of $1,160 for every heart disease death, $4,700 for every cancer death, and a whopping $43,000 for every AIDS death.3 Even though they get far less research money, that year heart disease killed 24 times more and cancer killed 17 times more than the number of people who died from AIDS in 1996, when AIDS was still the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S.
Good grief! (Now excuse me while I go and throw up.)
I can. It would involve using no tax dollars to pay for the results of reckless behavior; removal of all pro-gay propaganda from public institutions; and restoring the right of free association so that people who are truly turned off by homosexual behavior can exclude it from their private lives and property.
With it out of my wallet, my school, and my face, I'll be happy to live and let live.
To quote from Kipling's "The Portent"
Whence public strife and naked crime And -- deadlier than the cup you shun-- A people schooled to mock, in time, All law--not one. Cease, then, to fashion State-made sin, Nor give thy children cause to doubt That Virtue springs from Iron within-- Not lead without.
Keep and enforce laws with regard to what consenting adults do in private and you will make a society that has no respect for the law as a whole.
Go back in the closet, and you won't hear a peep out of me.What does going "back into the closet" entail, precisely? Are you saying that we should simply be discreet, but otherwise we should be free to pursue happiness as we choose to define it? Or is this like some sort of national, "don't ask, don't tell" policy? OR does this mean that you get to pass laws against the sorts of sexual behaviors that you don't like? Or what? I mean, why should your "version" of the world be privileged over anyone else's? Please advise.
I think it might be a little naive to assume that "gay Republicans" ever actually vote for Republican candidates or ever have.
I see the Log Cabin group as much more of propaganda device than any legitimate conservative group. They are not organized to nor do they work to move fellow-sodomites to the Republican position. Their entire concern is about their sexuality and their special rights.
If someone is trying to use a "Republican" group as a propaganda ploy and all they ever talk about is sodomy rights, then I suspect they vote Democrat in a ballot box.
I think the case should be compared to black Republicans. Among black Republicans, they actually work hard to swap people toward conservativism. And they have made some real inroads. So, even if 91% of the black vote went to Gore, it would have been more without black Republicans and their efforts. And I think they will continue to make more inroads. But it's still a tough fight ahead for years to come.
So black Republicans are definitely serious conservatives. I don't think you can say the same for homosexual advocacy groups who label themselves as Republicans so they can play Trojan Horse.
Or is Trojan Horse perhaps offensive to the anti-condom crowd like Sullivan?
For those who are interested, Sullivan's web sites were cached and placed on display before he could get them shut down. This a link to the front page of those cached copies of his sites at AOL and BarebackCity:
Andrew Sullivan's barebacking sites Warning: very explicit photos of Sullivan on subsequent pages (not on first page). But this should tell you more about what gay rights mean to Andrew Sullivan and what he does with his freedom.
Sullivan is HIV-positive and advertises for sex without condoms with others. There's nothing remotely conservative about him.
With it out of my wallet, my school, and my face, I'll be happy to live and let live.On this point we are in complete agreement.
I suppose you could monitor people for what they do that adds to the price of your insurance, as long as they can monitor you for how fast you drive, what foods you eat, what your sleeping habits are, and anything else you might do that would affect how much they pay for insurance.
You just advocated rape and murder.Explain how.
this law would require each person's household to be monitored in a way that would violate the rights with regard to legal searches.
No more than other illegal activites (murder, rape
You need due process for those crimes -- crimes which are non-consensual acts, BTW.