Sen. Santorum, I Can't Believe You Said That

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by ResIpsaLoquitor *
**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. **

See for yourself: www.laroche.edu

We are a Catholic school-our president is a Monseignor, and next door to the college is the Mother house for the Sisters of Divine Providence, which used to be affiliated with the school.
I don’t know how Catholic you would judge it, since I never really payed attention to abortion politics while there. In fact, this happened before I came to school, and I was told about by two of my professors-one of whom was there at the time.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by tramp *
**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.

:rolleyes: **

Can you give us an example of who these letters went to, what they said, etc?

Just for example. Hehehee…I hate Santorum. The prick. PRICK PRICK PRICK!!!

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
**As wring points out, invalidating laws against incest is not the same as invalidating laws against child molestation. It’s wrong to be intimate with a child regardless of whether or not they are related. Incest laws naturally also apply to relations between adult members of the same family.

**
I conceed the point. I’d completely missed the adult thing. I was confusing it with child molsetation.

**

You’re simply wrong on the second point. Bigamy is not defined in relation to the lack of consent of any party. Indeed, you could substitute the word “polygamy” and it wouldn’t change the law any; I suspect bigamy is the preferred term because in common usage it implies a multiple-party marriage rather than an open sexual relationship. **

Forget the law for a moment: I’ll certainly bow to your greater knowledge However, I submit that in common usage “polygamy” conjures up the image of multiple spouses living together, all aware of all of the others, while “bigamy” generates a mental image of a man (or woman) shuttling back and forth between two (or more) spouses, who don’t know their partner has other husbands/wives. Regardless of the law, I think there is a distinction here.

Fenris

[Siege]

Guinastasia, I think I got one of those letters. I wrote Mr. Santorum objecting to his hypocrisy in being against abortion, even to save the life of the mother while voting against using tobacco settlement money to provide health insurance for uninsured children. I got a generic “thank you for your interest and support” letter. I don’t support Santorum; I’ve voted against him every chance I’ve gotten, and I will continue to do so. On the other hand, given the track records of candidates I vote for, he’s probably guaranteed a spot in the Senate for life.

The general impression I’ve got of Santorum is that he genuinely has no idea what it’s like to be an upper class, straight, white male, nor is he particularly interested in what life’s like for us slobs. He talks about how noble he and his wife were when they chose not to abort their handicapped son, while overlooking the fact that an underemployed tech like me would go bankrupt trying to pay for the medical treatment he required. I am glad they have a son who they love deeply and who they can afford to take good care of for the rest of his life. On the other hand, bus service is about to be decimated in my city, social programs are being cut all over the place and since my new job pays less than the old one and doesn’t have a 401k, any worries I had about taxes on dividends are long past.

Getting back to the OP, if homosexuals don’t have the right to sexual intercourse in their own home, where will we stop? Does this mean if I decide to have Polycarp come up to Pennsylvania for an in depth exploration of sins (with Skulldigger’s consent, of course!) will that become illegal? How about cuauhtemoc? After all, according to Catholic doctrine, both are immoral. I also heard Santorum’s remarks before I read them (he was on the morning news this morning) and he didn’t sound like he was making a fine point of constitutional law, but rather denouncing immorality. I couldn’t believe it at the time.

There is, of course a joke which could be made about politicians screwing the country, but I’ve got a splitting headache, so I’ll leave it to someone with more skill.

CJ

[iampunha]

CJ, if B were so-inclined, we’d have no problem with you coming down for a long discussion of hedonism. Neither of us is Catholic, so you don’t need to worry about driving us to fornication;)

[sub]Drove my own damn self down here, thank you VERY much!:D[/sub]

[Guinastasia]

You’re not Catholic, but your dad’s a monk. Hmmmm…

Wait…even if the mother’s life is in danger? What an asshat.

[iampunha]

Guin, I just turned around three different directions trying to wrap my mind around what the hell you’re implying with that comment.

You don’t owe me a new monitor or keyboard.

You owe me something FAR more expensive:

A new spine:D

[Blalron]

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?

Bigamy is generally based upon fraud, that’s why. Plus the state doesn’t have to give special sanction to a union of more than two people, the marriage privlidges would be too problematic if forced to be extended between one person and an unlimited number of other persons.

If its just a bunch of people living together and having sex, no the state shouldn’t be able to ban that.

[Governor_Quinn]

Engaging in political commentary not directly related to the OP, Santorum is an odd duck, in my observations. In the Northeast (which includes Pennsylvania), the Reps elected statewide tend to be moderate-to-liberal, and even the conservatives tend not to be of the type that, for example, my state (California) tend to have. This is especiallt true in Pennsylvania, where the tradition statewide is more along the lines of, say, Tom Ridge, or Arlen Spector, or the late John Heinz, than it is of Santorum. He owes his career almost solely to the fact that, in 1990, longtime Democratic Congressman Doug Walgren ran a poor campaign. His elevation to the Senate in 1994 was due to a combination of the fact that he’s from the Pittsburgh area (in recent years, one Pennsylvanian Senator is from Philadelphia, the other is from Pittsburgh, and the Governor comes from somewhere else)and the fact that it was a very Republican year.

CJ, I assume that you dropped a word along the lines of “not” in your comment “doesn’t seem to know what it’s like to be a upper-class, straight white male”, and I’d tack on to the end “in the suburbs”, as that seems to be Santorum’s base.

[Guinastasia]

I mean, were you raised Catholic?

[Leaper]

Well, in my opinion, if the Family Research Council is praising his statements, it’s a pretty good sign in my book that he wasn’t talking about just legal nuances…

[wring]

here’s more on the Sen’s comments

But, according to unedited excerpts of the taped interview released late Tuesday by The Associated Press, Santorum spoke at length about homosexuality, and he made clear he did not approve of “acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.”

In the April 7 interview, Santorum describes homosexual acts as a threat to society and the family. “I have no problem with homosexuality,” Santorum said, according to the AP. “I have a problem with homosexual acts.”

So, seems gobear was correct about his assesment, now that further evidence from that interview is available.

Got a few questions for the locals here -

“homosexual acts” - would that be Seigfried & Roy or Ellen DeGeneres?

Also:

Santorum won some backing for his comments. Concerned Women for America, a conservative interest group in Washington, released a statement criticizing the “gay thought police” and saying Santorum was “exactly right.”

Genevieve Wood, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, another conservative group, agreed.

“I think the Republican party would do well to follow Senator Santorum if they want to see pro-family voters show up on Election Day,” she said.

are the gay thought police hiring?

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

FWIW, Santorum’s [url-http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030422/ts_nm/politics_santorum_dc_3]latest comments on the recent tempest in a teapot:

“My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles,” Santorum said in a brief news release issued by his office.

[…]

In his statement on Tuesday, Santorum said: “When discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws.”

“In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars, and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws,” Santorum said.

“My discussion … was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution,” Santorum said.

[…]

“I didn’t say anything that needs to be apologized for,” Santorum said. “I talk a lot about this issue of activism in the courts. I talk about the issue of privacy and the extension of the right of privacy to a variety of different areas that I think would be injurious to our country.”

Fenris: You say polygamy, I say bigamy, let’s call the whole thing off. The label is less important than what the law actually says. When Mormon splinter groups are prosecuted in Utah for having multiple wives, the charge is bigamy, and those wives are certainly aware of each other.

[beagledave]

Article from the Boston Globe here

[zut]

For reference:
Unedited portion of AP interview transcript. (CNN)
Senator Santorum’s press release in response (from his Web site)

Dewey, how can you characterize this as a “tempest in a teapot”? Santorum clearly stated “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.” He did so before the subject of the current Supreme Court case was raised. Yet, in his recent statement, he implied, quite strongly, that these comments were part of the court case discussion, and, furthermore, that his “comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.” How can the bald statement that “I have a problem with homosexual acts” not be construed as a statement on individual lifestyles? One’s position on the legal status of the “right to privacy” in the context of Lawrence v. Texas surely doesn’t make one homophobic, but, at the same time, trying to mask homophobic comments as a legal commentary, as Sen Santorum did, doesn’t make them any less hateful.

[tramp]

I would just like to make the point again that Santorum is a total tool and I can’t believe I ever worked for the guy.

Mea culpa, mea culpa.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by zut *
Dewey, how can you characterize this as a “tempest in a teapot”? **

Because I would lay odds that this will blow over in a couple of weeks.

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
**Because I would lay odds that this will blow over in a couple of weeks. **

I’m sure Lott thought the same thing. The straight-supremists and defenders of bigotry are on the run.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Homebrew *
**I’m sure Lott thought the same thing. The straight-supremists and defenders of bigotry are on the run. **

I would be very surprised to see Lott-style fallout from this. Are reporters from the same networks that are too queasy to show the male lead in Will & Grace passionately kissing another man going to be able to credibly criticize Santorum’s discomfort with homosexuality? Probably not.

I think Santorum’s wrong on his views of homosexuality (even if he’s right in his view of constitutional law), but as a practical matter I’d be very surprised to see this turn into more than a one-week story.

[Otto]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
**It is impliedly understood that “forced” means “make this choice or pay money damages.” **

Understood by whom exactly? Can you cite me a source for this understanding? And supposing that this understanding is correct, an employer willing to pay the money damages still wouldn’t be “forced” to hire anyone. So unless you can be a leeetle bit more specific, I’m gonna have to call bullshit on this.