Santorum’s comment was not intended as a glos on constitutional issues, so top dragging up the law. The point being made here is that Santorum’s intention was a slam on gays.
Let me clarify, Dewey, I was saying that I would agree with Santorum that the SCOTUS affirming a right to consensual homosexual sex would imply a right to other consensual sex acts like adultery, and I don’t have a problem with that.
And your basis for this is…what? You have one sentence, taken sans context, delivered in an interview which in part discusses a case before the Supreme Court. Gee, do you think that maybe, just maybe, that in a statement given while discussing a legal issue involving an important area of constitutional law that is being pursued in the highest court of law in the land that Santorum just might have been making a point about the law?
Shocking, I know.
I suppose if you go looking for offense, you are sure to find it.
Dewey, you might be a very sharp lawyer, but you are not very good at listening. Santorum is an anti-gay, hard right-wing politician. The comparison of himosexuality to incest, wife-swapping, bestiality and son on is a constant refrain from gay hating sons of bitches like Santorum. I know EXACTLY what he intends by his comments, so do not presume to lecture in an area you know little about.
Yeah, right, the law. :rolleyes: What a fearless defender of the constitution…
Maybe he was just pandering to the religious right. Is that possible too? I frankly don’t think Santorum is intellectially capable of forming a legal opinion. I’ve seen him on TV. He’s not very bright.
I have repeatedly said that Santorum may or may not be a raging homophobe. I can’t believe you’re saying I’m a bad listener.
This is a cute argument on your part, though: “Trust me! Santorum’s evil! I don’t need to provide evidence, I just know! I’m a mindreader!” Do you really expect that argument to be taken seriously? Does being gay confer on you some kind of supernatural homophobe radar?
We have one statement from Santorum, a statement that is a fairly dry statement of law. That statement does not show anything about Santorum’s views on gays. If you wish to show Santorum is anti-gay, you need to present evidence other than this quotation. And I have no dog in this hunt: if Santorum has indeed made anti-gay statements, I will join you in denouncing those remarks.
Glibness on TV equates to intellectual rigor?
Little more context, from the AP article that started it all:
Sure, he’s speaking in the context of this particular Supreme Court case, and, in some sense, is really talking about the right to privacy. Seems to me though, that the “antithetical” line is pretty damning.
No, you are simply being blind. No mindreading is required to understand his intent when he compares homosexuality to incest, which is as I already said a standard tactic of antigay rhetoric.
Depends. Does “those things” refer to only bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, or does it also include homosexual conduct? This would be a good place for a followup question from the interviewer to clarify. According to the OP, he has since clarified that he has no problem with gay relationships, which would seem to argue for the former interpretation. Of course, he could also just be covering his ass. YMMV.
Please point out where Santorum compared homosexuality to incest. He did not. He stated that if the constitution protects one, it must necessarily protect the other.
I used to work for the Senator! I quit after I couldn’t look at myself in the morning because I had spent 10= hours a day doing his evil, bigoted bidding.
If you remove the bracketed “[gay]” from his quote, then he’s saying that consensual sex is “antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.” If you leave it in there, then he’s saying that gay consensual sex is “antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.”
Dewey, which reading do you favor? If you favor the latter reading, how does that not justify my calling him a homophobe?
Or do you favor some reading that’s not occurred to me yet? Given the man’s history – given his signing on to the Contract with America back in 1994, which prohibits giving federal money to any project that condones or accepts homosexuality (according to several websites I found – I no longer have a copy of the expanded Contract with America); given his constant support for groups like Focus on the Family; given the fact that his CARE bill relaxes civil rights protections for religious nonprofit groups that receive federal funds – I don’t think I’m stretching by calling him a homophobe.
Daniel
Oooh, tramp, c’mon, spill!
Reread what you just wrote. Think about it. Then think about your marriage being included with incest.
Oh, and Dewey, I live in PA, Santorum is a moral bigot.
gobear, not to hijack this, but am I reading you correctly that you think laws against incest between consenting adults are constitutional?
Let’s put aside laws against conceiving children between closely-related adults, because that can be made illegal without making all incest illegal. If you think that incest between consenting adults can be made illegal, on what basis do you think that?
Daniel
DCU
I hope you will pop over to this thread and explain further.
Meanwhile, let’s get serious. Why is it reasonable to think that Santorum’s remark expresses an anti-gay attitude? Because historically several of the things he mentions as being permissible should SCOTUS strike down sodomy laws have been shackled to homosexuality by opponents of civil rights protection based on sexual orientation. Propose a “gay rights” ordinance and without hesitation or fail the right wing will appear and drag out the incest, polygamy, bestiality and even necrophilia sticks to try to beat the idea to death. Is it possible that Santorum’s remarks were made purely in the spirit of a comment on a pending case? Sure. Is it likely? I seriously doubt it. Is it fair to label Santorum as anti-gay? If not based on his comment, his voting record seems to warrant the conclusion, seeing as how he has a 24% record overall since he soined the Senate. So while I certainly applaud and enjoy rational discourse on the subject of constitutional law, trying to claim that Santorum’s comment was such discourse is, come on, completely ridiculous.
Yeah, tramp, don’t tease us like that! We want dirt! I’ve had a deficiency of “inside gossip on morally-unsound Congressmen” since my last fix, when I talked to a guy who’d worked for James Traficant, who apparently is a certified (and now incarcerated) loon. From what that guy told me, Traficant should have pleaded insanity.
I used to work in his DC office as a Legislative Correspondent… it was my job to write letters to constituents and other people and sign the Senator’s name to them. Some of the letters I had to write… ugh… it went against everything I believed in. After a while it really wears on you so I left to work off of the hill.
I can say, without reservation, that he is a facist, right wing, reactionary conservative voted out of office by the good people of Pennsylvania.
Oh, and FYI- I have a picture of him and I and his hand is just about touching my boob… Should I leak it to the press?