Rick Santorum; under fire for appearantly anti-gay comments

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-23 08:11pm

CNN Link #1: Gay groups criticize Santorum remarks as insensitive
CNN Link #2: With eye on leadership, Santorum politics driven by family (this is sort of what Rick Santorum's ideology, which ties into the issue)
CNN Link #3: Schneider on Santorum: Bigotry or morality? (Schneider on the issue)
CNN Link #4: Santorum under fire for comments on homosexuality (Top democrats calling for Santorum to stand down from his leadership post)
CNN Link #5: Santorum defends comments on homosexuality

In short, he's been getting a bunch of flak for comments he made about a Texas court case which pits Texas' Sodomy Laws against home privacy. The comment was thus: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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,". This ticked gay rights groups and Democrats off, who are calling for action against Santorum by the GOP, IE pressure him to step down from his leadership post.

Now, for one thing, I'm no fan of Rick Santorum. He and Arlen Specter, who are my states senators, are a bit further to the Right of even President Bush and are big in the Christian Right. I, for one, have no trouble imagining that he really honestly does think that homosexuals are equivlent of sheep fuckers. That being said, I also think that he was monumentally dumb for saying those comments, but should be able to apologize for them and get on with life (though he's being stubborn about it, since if he isn't it will hurt his reputation among his fundie buddies).

So what is your opinion about the matter? Are his comments defensible and out of context or are they bigotted? Should he be punished for his comments or get by by apologizing for them? Who do you think will be harder on him, the Democrats or the Republicans?

Personally, I think that the White House will keep their traps shut on the matter. Bush has an election coming up, and on one hand, he cannot afford to speak out against Santorum in order to distance himself from him, as some of his biggest supporters are in the Christian Right. On the other hand, if he doesn't distance himself, since the two are pretty tight, he might get associated with Santorum and get bit in the butt that way. I also think that moderate Republicans will distance themselves from Santorum, for their own sakes and even go after him, and that Democrats will largely be all over him.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-23 08:19pm

The GOP will leave him alone. They can't risk alienating the fundies.

By the way, I don't know if Arlen Specter has recently changed his positions, but he certainly doesn't have a conservative record. He is, like most moderate Republicans, a complete sell-out on economic issues, although to his credit he has spoken out against the religious right in the past.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-23 08:26pm

Durran Korr wrote:By the way, I don't know if Arlen Specter has recently changed his positions, but he certainly doesn't have a conservative record. He is, like most moderate Republicans, a complete sell-out on economic issues, although to his credit he has spoken out against the religious right in the past.

Specter has always seemed pretty far right wing to me, but left of Santorum. I could be wrong, but I thought he was pretty heavily conservative.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-23 08:32pm

He does seem to have been moving rightward after 9/11, but historically he's been fairly moderate. His voting record has pretty frequently been opposed to the Republican party line, especially on spending/taxes issues.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-23 08:35pm

After finally hearing the actual quote, it doesn't sound to me like he thought homosexuality was the same as incest morally but rather that if states can't regulate one form of sex then they can't regulate any others. It wasn't very well phrased, but that's what you get one someone's not reading off a card.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-23 08:43pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:After finally hearing the actual quote, it doesn't sound to me like he thought homosexuality was the same as incest morally but rather that if states can't regulate one form of sex then they can't regulate any others. It wasn't very well phrased, but that's what you get one someone's not reading off a card.

He did also say "All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family, and that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately" as mentioned in link #2. He is actually calling homosexuality (along with incest and polygamy) "antiethical", to use his word.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-23 08:43pm

the quote looks reasonable.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-23 08:48pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:the quote looks reasonable.

Only if your idea of "reasonable" is a slippery-slope fallacy at best, and outright bigotry at worst.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-04-23 08:49pm

Typical slippery slope of the religious right : legalize gayness in one's own home, and open the door to all sorts of nastiness

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-23 09:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:the quote looks reasonable.
Only if your idea of "reasonable" is a slippery-slope fallacy at best, and outright bigotry at worst.

well, I see his point. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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,".

if you allow consensual sex in your home, period, then whoever is willing is allowed. which would bring in polygamy, incest, adultery, or whatever.

. . . not that I, personally, have a problem with most of those.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-23 09:29pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:the quote looks reasonable.
Only if your idea of "reasonable" is a slippery-slope fallacy at best, and outright bigotry at worst.
well, I see his point. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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,".

if you allow consensual sex in your home, period, then whoever is willing is allowed. which would bring in polygamy, incest, adultery, or whatever.

. . . not that I, personally, have a problem with most of those.

Bullshit. Polygamy is marriage, which is a public contract, not a private act. And nobody goes to jail for adultery, so I don't know what the fuck he's talking about with respect to that issue.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-23 09:41pm

o_O eh?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-23 09:54pm

Gil Hamilton, in quoting Santorum, wrote:"All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family, and that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately"

Fuck him. Hard.
These assholes make me sick everytime they appeal to their "good old days" fantasy. There never was a world where your biblical morality was the only thing that mattered to people, no matter how loud you scream we're going to hell in a handbasket. Queers have always been here, always will be here, and crying how two men having sex makes the baby Jesus cry will never change it.
It's the fact that idiots of his ilk think they're the defenders of morality that really makes the vomit spurt forth. Consentual sex between adults is not the business of government, if you deserved your place in it you would know this.

Ignorant twit · Post by **Ignorant twit** » 2003-04-23 10:08pm

Bullshit. Polygamy is marriage, which is a public contract, not a private act. And nobody goes to jail for adultery, so I don't know what the fuck he's talking about with respect to that issue.

I agree that polygamy and bigamy do not follow.

However does the government have any right to say anything about incest, adultry, or any other sexual act if a right to consensual sex is recognized?

As it stands, in at least some states, adultry DOES have a legal standing. Normally it is admissable in divorce court and can illicit greater monetary damages for ailimony.

The government also has laws about incest. If the court says the government have the right to consensual sex, wouldn't that require tossing out the laws against adultry and incest (among consenting adults only of course)?

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-23 10:43pm

This guy is a flaming nutball. Let people do what they want with sex so long as all parties are of legal age, and let them run wild. What the fuck does the state of Texas care that a man wants to put it in another man's (or woman's) ass? If that's his thing, then let him do it. And if anti-sodomy laws aren't a violation of privacy, then the enforcement of those laws is. The ONLY way that law enforcement officials could be tipped off about the occurrence of anal sex is if they busted into the room as the act was being committed. Sorry, but that's unethical and illegal.

Santorum also said that being gay messes up the nuclear family structure, and does not endorse good family values. Well hell, single parenthood isn't illegal, is it? Or foster parenthood? Or even GAY parenthood! So gays can raise kids, so long as they don't have sex, because having sex ruins families????

SOMEONE NEEDS A SLAP!!

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-23 10:46pm

As to his stances on bigamy and polygamy, I would bet anything that if that overstuffed mantlepiece with lips encounterd three sultry, willing, attractive, wayward, bi- or bi-curious females between the ages of 18 and 25, he would all of a sudden have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with polygamy.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-04-23 10:49pm

To top it all off.

The first lines in my e-mail

ConservativeAlerts.com wrote:Once again, a staunch conservative in the U.S. Senate
is under fire from radical liberals for a statement he made.
Only this time, the Senator is in good company -- and the
statement he made is RIGHT.

G'night and good riddance.

Cyaround,
Jason

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-23 11:27pm

Ignorant twit wrote:However does the government have any right to say anything about incest, adultry, or any other sexual act if a right to consensual sex is recognized?

No. Nor should they. While I disapprove of incest and adultery, if they occur between consenting adults, the state has no business throwing someone in jail over it. If some 25 year old man and his 25 year old cousin want to fuck, how does that affect anyone but them?

As it stands, in at least some states, adultry DOES have a legal standing. Normally it is admissable in divorce court and can illicit greater monetary damages for ailimony.

Emotional cruelty is also admissible in divorce court and can illicit greater monetary damages for alimony. Does this mean that the use of insults is now regulated and punishable by law? Of course not.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-04-24 12:00am

The guy's an asshole. We'll see what the GOP does with him. They've got to keep from pissing off the fundies too much unfortunately.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-24 12:23am

Jesus Christ. I fucking love it when guys who are nominally on my side spew shit like this. Let him burn, for all I care.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-24 12:24am

Jon Stewart made fun of him on the Daily Show, so this little incident will not go unnoticed.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-04-24 12:53am

I still can't believe these anti sodomy laws, and the fact that half the people on this board in some way shape or form would be punishable under these laws.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-24 01:37am

Bah, more than likely he will recieve massive preasure behind the scene to just not run again or perhaps if we are really lucky, resign. While I don't think he meant it to be as bad as it sounds, what he wanted to say was just as bad. Fuck him, and stay out'a my bedroom....

Hey, Santorum...

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-04-24 01:41am

Hmmm, I remember when Santorum was elected back in 94 (I think). It was a narrow margin. But put it simply, Santorum is history. He can kiss his current position goodbye.

Obviously idiots abound in this world. Santorum learned nothing from Lott's stupidity, or the Dixie Chicks or anyone else. Spoken words can have serious consequences. It's rare for any idiotic politician to escape, Byrd got lucky with his past.

In this case, people are going to keep up the drumbeat, probably because it's the only thing Democrats can harp on at this point and hope to drive it against Bush. Either forcing Bush to criticize and thereby undermine Santorum, or pray that Bush say nothing, and come back and say the Republicans are a party of bigots. In either case, Santorum is history, he will be asked by his colleagues to step down from his position, and that'll be that.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-24 02:15am

Well, I seriously think that the White House will not make a peep about it. Since Bush is coming up for election, it's in his best interest not to say anything supporting or criticising Santorum. It would damn him if he did and would damn him more if he didn't. Best to pretend it didn't happen.