Posted on 04/23/2003 5:30:41 AM PDT by Hacksaw
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
I disagree with Santorum, I don't want his bedroom laws.
I totally agree with him about marriage being about a man a woman, with children and all; I just think his statements of being pro-homosexual people at the same time he's anti-homosexual activities (of adults) in a lame nuance, and it's really not the business of government.
As for the Jordan's, this is one over-the-top political couple-- send them back to Dakota with Daschle in 2004.
I've been thinking about the consequences of the Supreme Court's eventual decision, not about Santorum's particular pickle. The transcript is enlightening. But I think his reasoning is probably not accurate. The Supreme Court can decide that the Texas law is now designed to limit the practices of one particular group (homosexuals), and therefore is an unconstitutional limitation of their rights, yet at the same time maintain that other practices are morally unacceptable and deeply repugnant to society, and therefore the State still can have laws against them. Incest and child molestation would be covered, both essentially by "age of consent" considerations, and I doubt that anyone would question the laws against marrying one's siblings. (And one wonders if Senator Santorum would have as much of a problem with that; it would constitute a heterosexual marriage relationship, of course, likely with the 'traditional' activities in the bedroom, too). Is it the particular act or the relationship that most concerns him?
Where did you hear about that? Not that I'm doubting you, but I would like to cite something if I tell somebody about that.
You're tag line is one of the best I've seen.
You make this statement as if the law were designed to discriminate against a group defined by an immutable characteristic, i.e., race or sex. These laws affect people based on their behavior, their choice of sexual activity. What you are arguing is that homosexuality is inherently more moral than polygamy, incest, adultery, etc., and is therefore deserving of different treatment than these other sexual activities. What Sen. Santorum is saying is that if you allow one of these activites as a constitutional "right", then you must allow all of them under the equal protection argument.
Incest and child molestation would be covered, both essentially by "age of consent" considerations, and I doubt that anyone would question the laws against marrying one's siblings.
Incest would only be covered under the age of consent laws if one of the participants was under the age of consent (which is as low as 14 in some states). Child molestation was not even addressed in this statement. And I am sure you will find someone who thinks they should be able to marry their cousin or sister... The question that will be raised will not be whether it is morally repugnant, but whether the government can prevent it once a constitutional "right" to engage in any sexual activity involving consenting adults is established. Such a "right" could not be restricted to homosexuality, once established.
This sounds like the NAMBLA wing of the Liberatarian Party line of logic. Not that you are, although I've read some of those kooks on here so I won't defend you until I can be sure.
While these bedroom laws strike terror in the hearts of some, we've always had them, and always need to in a civilized society. Santorums point in this is brilliant, honestly. Repealing these laws sets a dangerous legal precedent that could legally be used by said NAMBLA wing to slide us down a slippery slope of liberatarian extreamism, commonly understood as anarchy. I'd never thought about it this way till this DNC shill published it. Its a good thing she started this controversy.
Prior to marriage, Lara Jakes was the capital (Albany, NY)) reporter for the Times Union newspaper, otherwise known as the Times Useless.
Lara Jakes was extremely liberal and always inserted her extreme liberalism and pro-Demorat bias into her articles.
Lara Jakes created this story, it's more about her and her ideology than it is about Rick S.
I've met her, she formerly worked at the Albany Times Union.
If anyone really wants to know more about her they should ask NY Post's Frederic U. Dicker, their Albany reporter.
You are not going to believe this, but I used to know the $%^#$%(^#$% that wrote the article that MISQUOTED Santorum. A few years ago she subscribed to a mailing list that I ran, and once asked to crash at my apartment when I lived in NYC. She arrived at my office, took one look at me, decided I wasn't attractive enough to even SPEAK TO, much less hang out with, and hemmed and hawed and backed out.
Boy oh boy oh boy, do I hope she is DESTROYED by this false quotation of Santorum.
I don't think I believe in God any more, that people like her get everything handed to them on a silver platter, and I'm stuck unemployed waiting to die alone. Evil does indeed rule this world.
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.