Sorry, but this is a crock of shit. I’ve made very similar arguments in the past; am I a homophobe because of it? If the constitutional right to privacy encompasses all consensual adult relations, then it necessarily encompasses the things Santorum mentions. Pointing that out ought not get the homophobe label hung around your neck.
Again, Santorum may well be the epitome of evil. Apparently Guinistasia and tramp have personal experience in that regard. I look forward to hearing specific instances of Santorum’s conduct from them. But that one quotation just plain isn’t the smoking gun you think it is.
My boss used to work for Traficant… Between the stories of the mob using his office as a hideout and his loony take on politics, I must say, that is a job I am glad I didn’t have…
Oh yeah, for real, he is one of those crazy Catholic types. I mean he is way too Catholic for even a semi Catholic like myself. We used to have these stupid prayer times in his office for the staff… I used to pray for a new freaking job.
Guin, can you clarify on exactly how “Catholic” LaRoche is? Is it nominally Catholic, or are a bunch of in-line, faithful-to-the-magisterium priests in charge of it? Was there a lot of open disagreement with the church? Was there a large pro-abortion sentiment at the school?
I don’t intend to be accusatory. My question is whether the school’s Catholic status had anything to do with the uproar. Was Santorum booted because he was on an improper tirade, or because the school’s administration/faculty had a political disagreement with him? I’m skeptical of the term “Catholic” university, however, based on my experiences on the east coast of the state.
As a recipient of one of your letters, and given your confession and repentence, I take back the horrible things I said about you and your family. I don’t think I expected anything from that pig but a grunt, but it was a topic I felt compelled to express myself to him about. He is dogshit stuck to the bottom of my shoe - sure I can still get around, but there is a stink I can’t get rid of. I am sure that he has a different first name, such as Phillip or Peter, so that his actual name must be P. rick Santorum.
I have tried to vote him out, and I will do so again.
And where did I say that? Let’s stay on track here, folks. My point is that Santorum, like other 'phobes, thinks that incest is icky and that homosexuality is equally icky. He apparently believes that if the Supremes legalize one form of icky behavior, then that will allow all forms of icky behavior to be legal.
As for me, I dislike incest but I see no bar to it in the constitution.
Forgive me, but I’m genuinely curious. Is the right to heterosexual intercourse constitutionaly protected? If not, why can you draw the line in one place but not another?
These latests comments by Santorum are in a vacuum, Dewey. His past anti-gay comments color these recent ones.
Late last year, in an interview with the Washington Post concerning Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative, Santorum said he would “fight for a provision to allow religious groups to discriminate against certain people - gays, for instance - when hiring if they don’t share their religious beliefs.” Even when the provision would contradict Local and State anti-discrimination laws. He’s a states-rightser if the state agrees with him. Otherwise he’s a Federalist.
Santorum has voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and for DOMA.
Supreme Court precedent on the matter has been limited to making procreative choices, e.g., the right to birth control and the abortion procedure. Arguably, the Supreme Court has said the state may proscribe sodomy for both heterosexuals and homosexuals (the statute in Bowers v. Hardwick did not distinguish between the two).
The issue is federal funding. As I’m sure you know, the courts have found that Religious organizations, when privately funded, can discriminate. However, Santorum et. al. want to make it legal to discriminate even when receiving public funding, which IMHO is unacceptable.
Fair enough. The question’s still interesting, though. Should a Catholic or Islamic charity not recieve funding on grounds that they discriminate against women?
Before I answer, lemme turn this back around on you: should David Duke be forced to hire a black secretary? Should Brawn-ee-man Construction be forced to hire a female construction worker? Should Pat Buchanan be forced to hire a Jewish campaign aide?
I really don’t know a great deal about the constitutionality of the laws that we’re talking about here. I just have a couple of comments on the OP.
I agree with those on this thread who have suggested that no sex acts between consenting adults should be prohibited by law. Nor should consenting adults be prevented from marrying whomever they like, whether it be a man, a woman, or multiple men and/or women.
I also think that, despite the possible legal correctness of the Senator’s statement, it was still largely motivated by homophobia, based both on the comments themselves, and on Santorum’s past record.
Thanks, I am sure alot of people have said bad things about me because of the letters I wrote. I sometimes tried to tone the rhetoric down in the letters but was overruled by a higher power.
David Duke, Brawn-ee-man and Pat Buchanan are not religious organizations where such discrimination is part of their religious dogma, and thus are not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
As a general matter, I’m suspicious of antidiscrimination employment laws anyway. If an individual employer wants to voluntarily exclude some largish portion of the labor pool on some foolish factor unrelated to the job itself, he’s only hurting the quality of his own workforce – his nondiscriminating competitors will eat him alive because they’re drawing from a bigger talent pool. That kind of conduct only truly becomes a problem when there is a de facto agreement among all or most employers in an area to refrain from hiring members of a certain race, etc., such as the situation in the Deep South during the civil rights movement.