It’s going to get Pitted sooner or later, so let’s throw him on the barbie now!
My esteemed U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum, has made a few public, shall we say, impolitic remarks. To be precise, he said, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”
Where on earth to begin? I’m not very good at vitriol, but until a more skilled poster comes along, I’ll give it my best shot. [Sarcasm] You’re right, Mr. Santorum. Consensual sex might lead to or even be indicative of such horrors as love, fidelity, stable relationships, marriage, and even :gasp: the raising of children. By allowing two people to demonstrate their love for each other they might be able to forget for a few hours that they are awful people who are capable of all sorts of immorality and that nothing they can do can make up for it, even if they manage to become the next Mother Teresas. Who knows? Making love to one’s mate might even catch on with long-term heterosexual couples.[/sarcasm]
He has since backed down and said he has no problem with gay relationships, but right now he’s certainly quacking like a duck and I’ve seen him walking around other issues, so I’m a bit sceptical about him being a swan.
I know roast politician is standard fare around here, particularly the various American breeds, but I couldn’t let this one get away.
Santorum is an ass. I don’t care who the Democrat running against him is, I’m voting for him/her.
Why is Santorum an ass? He’s got a habit of speaking without thinking. I know this is a disease of politics, but since I can vote in Pennsylvania, I can do something about this specific ass.
Are his remarks really inaccurate? If the constitution protects all private consensual adult relationships, upon what principled basis is, say, bigamy excluded from constitutional protection?
There is a difference between saying a law is good as a matter of policy and saying the law is not unconstitutional. The latter is a perfectly defensible position to hold in this instance.
I also note the “gay” was added by the article’s author in brackets. True, the context is a Supreme Court case dealing with homosexual sodomy, but Santorum’s comments are just as accurate without the writer’s addition – it was completely unnecessary. But hey, the unaltered quote would make it tougher to call Santorum a homophobe, so I guess that makes it all OK. :rolleyes:
Wrong. The parentheticial inclusion gives the context of the comment, which is relevant.
As to whether bigamy is rightfully excluded from protection, I’ll agree with your suggestion. It’s none of anyone’s damned business if consenting adults want to engage in a polyamorous relationship. And the issue of adultery shouldn’t be a matter of law. So, yes, I think the right to privacy should cover those cases.
The incest charge, however, is clearly an emotional appeal and a red herring. But I’ll go out on a limb and say, once again, when it involves consenting adults then it nobody’s else’s business. Clearly I don’t advocate abusive sex between an adult parent and a minor child; but that is a different issue all together.
So if we acknowledge that society has no right to regulate adult sex lives, where does that leave the institution of marriage? That’s another debate, but for my money, the government should get out of the business of marriage.
But easier to call him a prudish prick. Take out the word “gay” (even though it’s clearly intended), and this asshole still comes off as an offensive asshole. Take out the word “gay”, and this guy still says that any sex not specifically approved by congress will invariably lead to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery. Or at least often enough that we should outlaw homosexuality, and severely restrict rights to consensual (hetero) sex.
The last bit is pure crap, “anything.” His first point, that bigamy and incest are related to sodomy, is true. They are some of the common law felonies.
It’s not that I think religious law in the form of the inherited common law* is a good thing, it just is. When I say “is” I mean “sometimes is.” Of course, we’re scrapping those archaic laws little by little. For example, blasphemy is not charged much any more. Maybe in Georgia.
*Number 7: There they all are bunched together. Trust me, I hate seeing good ole sodomy and fornication right there with incest as much as you do.
Wasn’t it Ron Klink who ran against him in the last election?
He came to La Roche College, invited to speak at graduation once, for about ten minutes or so.
Now, keep in mind, La Roche is a CATHOLIC college.
He went into a forty-five minute tirade on abortion. Several professors walked out in protest during the ceremony.
He was asked by the dean not to come back.
I think that says something. I’ll try and look it up.
The rule should be: consenting, mentally competent adults can do whatever they’d like with one another in their own bedrooms.
Bigamy? Sure. Polygamy? Sure. Incest? A personal ick, but sure. As long as everyone involved is okay with it, it’s not the government’s business.
Some cases of bigamy, of course, involve a nonconsenting spouse: Mr. Sleazebag marries three women in three different states. And you can make a decent case for making this illegal, because not everyone involved is consenting. You could even make the same case against adultery: when one partner in a marriage is cheating without the other partner’s knowledge, you could make a case that the cheated-on partner is nonconsentingly involved in a situation.
You can’t make this case for consensual sodomy, however. In that sense, his comments overstepped: there are reasons to keep some bigamy, some adultery illegal that don’t apply to consensual sodomy.
But generally, despite the homophobia that motivated the comments, I think he was technically correct.
No, that is not what he’s saying. He isn’t saying that a sex act must be approved to be allowable; he’s saying the states (not Congress) may prohibit certain acts without running afoul of the constitution.
The statement is not an agreement with the Texas law as a policy matter. Santorum may or may not agree that such a law is good policy.
He is not saying “we should proscribe homosexual sodomy to prevent bigamy, etc.” (he may of course believe this, but that is not evident from his statement).
He is saying that if the constitution protects homosexual sodomy, it necessarily protects other consensual sexual acts performed by adults.
Upon what grounds do you claim the statement was motivated by homophobia? As noted, Santorum’s statement was a pretty dry quip on constitutional law, and did not reference gays specifically (though a case involving homosexual sodomy did give rise to the comments).
Santorum may or may not be a raging homophobe, but that one statement is not evidence of that fact.
“Homophobe” is like “racist:” it’s one of those labels you ought not throw out casually.
He is explicitly including homosexuality in a list of what he considers to be deviant sexual behavior. In essence, he is saying that protecting the right to privacy for gay folk is lowering all standards of moral behavior.
Now you may or may not agree with his statement, but please have the honesty to admit that the sentiment expressed is anti-gay.
gobear: It isn’t anti-gay – it’s correct. If “consensual sex within your home” is protected under the constitution, then what might be termed deviant behavior is necessarily protected alongside more benign behavior such as homosexual sodomy. Both sets of practices fall within the superset “consensual sexual relations within your home.”
Technically, yes, but are you saying that Santoruim was not in fact denouncing the possibility of the Supreme Court legitimizing the right to privacy for gay folk? Sure didn’t sound supportive of gay rights to me.
Only if you subscribe to a sort of “gay rights by any means necessary” theory. Supreme Court opinions have an impact for cases beyond the scope of the one before the court. They set precedent, precedent which can and will be applied by other courts in other cases. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this case would in fact set a precedent that could be used in the other cases Santorum describes.
Personally, I think the law is foolish and hateful and should be repealed by the Texas legislature at the earliest available opportunity, but do not think it runs afoul of the federal constitution. Does that make me “anti-gay” or a homophobe? Am I insufficiently supportive of gay rights?
Saying a policy is constitutional is not the same as agreeing with that policy. I wish more people would understand the distinction.
I would also say that “adultery” is none of the government’s goddamn business (and, really, neither is incest between consenting adults, icky as it might be). Does Santorum really think we should arrest people for cheating on their spouses? We’d have to start with half of congress.
