Another Senator gets stricken with the foot in mouth disease

[renata]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.gays/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top Democrats and gay rights advocates blasted comments by Sen. Rick Santorum in which he appeared to compare homosexuality to incest, bigamy and adultery, and they called on the Pennsylvania Republican to repudiate the remarks.

One prominent Democratic group Tuesday also called on Santorum to resign his leadership post in the Senate.

Santorum made the comments in question during an interview with The Associated Press. During that interview, Santorum criticized homosexuality as he discussed a pending Supreme Court case over a sodomy law in Texas.

"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," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.

Gay groups were quick to denounce Santorum's comments, the latest in a series of divisive remarks by some lawmakers.

"Senator Santorum's remarks are deeply hurtful and play on deep-seated fears that fly in the face of scientific evidence, common sense and basic decency. Clearly, there is no compassion in his conservatism," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy group. She called for "quick and decisive action" by Republican leaders to repudiate Santorum's remarks.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called on Santorum to resign as chairman of the Republican Senate Caucus, the number three position in the GOP leadership.

"Senator Santorum's remarks are divisive, hurtful and reckless and are completely out of bounds for someone who is supposed to be a leader in the United States Senate," said Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the DSCC.

Cites 'misleading' story
In a statement released Tuesday, Santorum did not dispute the accuracy of the quote, but criticized the AP story as "misleading." His said his comment was specific to the pending Supreme Court case.

"I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution," he said. "My comments should not be construed in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles."

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." (Interview excerpts)

Democrats weighed in on the earlier remarks throughout the day. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the sentiments expressed by Santorum are "out of step with our country's respect for tolerance."

One presidential contender tried to draw the White House into the controversy.

"The White House speaks the rhetoric of compassionate conservatism, but they're silent while their chief lieutenants make divisive and hurtful comments that have no place in our politics," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who is seeking his party's presidential nomination for 2004.

White House mum
Indeed, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer refused to comment on Santorum's remarks, telling reporters at a briefing Tuesday that he did not know the "context" of the comments and that he had not discussed the matter with President Bush.

The White House did weigh in late last year when Sen. Trent Lott appeared to express nostalgia for segregation while paying tribute to Sen. Strom Thurmond, who has since retired. President Bush called Lott's comments "offensive." Under pressure, Lott, R-Mississippi, resigned from his post as Senate majority leader.

More recently, Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, stepped down as a Democratic regional whip amid criticism for his comment in March that Jewish leaders were pushing a war with Iraq. In that instance, Fleischer called Moran's comments "shocking" and "wrong."

The leading gay Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans, said Santorum's statement was inadequate, and it called on him to apologize or step down from the leadership post.

"If you ask most Americans if they compare gay and lesbian Americans to polygamists and folks who are involved in incest and the other categories he used, I think there are very few folks in the mainstream who would articulate those views," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the group.

Guerriero said the comments could complicate Bush's efforts to cast the GOP as inclusive.

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.


This is the same bright guy who introduced Senate bill S. RES. 91 declaring March 17, 2003 to be a national day of prayer and fasting. (Discussed http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=398332 )

Democrats don't have to win elections, the top Republican leadership is doing a fine job of imploding- Lott, now Santorum. Of course Democrats have Moran, and that Rep (forgot her name, she was not reelected last year) who said Bush orchestrated 9/11. The scary thing is that I think these people really believe this.

[Bentspoon]

Form the article:

"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," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.

Now there is some well thought out reasoning!!! It is amazing the conclusions that you can derive if you think reallly really hard about something.

Also from the article:

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." (Interview excerpts)

Another brilliant line of reasoning - what exactly is homosexuality without homosexual acts of some sort. And how do they threaten anyone?

Personnally I have no problem with stupid unreasoning senators unless they are stupid and unreasoning.

Bentspoon

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bentspoon
Personnally I have no problem with stupid unreasoning senators unless they are stupid and unreasoning. :D

[renata]

Update: White House does no comment on the controversy, conservative groups come to his defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/santorum.gays/index.html

The White House maintained a hands-off posture Wednesday regarding comments from a leading Republican in the Senate, who angered gay rights advocates and many Democrats with critical comments about homosexuality.

"I haven't personally talked to the president about it, so I don't have anything direct for the president to share," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said in response to a question about the comments from Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania.
....
The White House's reluctance to offer its opinions about Santorum's remarks stands in sharp contrast to its response to comments made by Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, in December that many believed were racially insensitive and remarks in March from Rep. Jim Moran, R-Virginia, about Jews and the war in Iraq. In both cases, the White House criticized those comments.

And in both cases, the two men gave up their respective leadership positions under pressure. Lott resigned as Senate majority leader and Moran resigned as a Democratic regional whip.

Gay groups have blasted Santorum's comments, including the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans.

Some Democrats have called on Santorum to step down from his Senate leadership position. Santorum serves as chairman of the Republican Senate Caucus, the number three position in the GOP leadership.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one of nine Democrats seeking his party's 2004 presidential nomination, Wednesday, called on Santorum to step aside from the leadership post.

"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral," Dean said in a statement. "Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate. Today, I call on Rick Santorum to resign from his post as Republican Conference chairman."

Santorum has stood by his comments, saying they should be viewed in the context of the Supreme Court case. In a Tuesday statement, he also stated his belief that "all are equal under the Constitution" and that his remarks in the interview were not meant to be a statement on "individual lifestyles."

Several conservative groups have come to Santorum's defense.

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.



Great commentary on this subject from Howard Kurtz- mirroring what Bentspoon said
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21423-2003Apr23.html

Santorum has "no problem" with gays – some of his best friends, etc. – but believes they have no constitutional right to engage in consensual activity, the way that heterosexuals do?

In other words, he has no problem with gays except for the sexual behavior they engage in. He thinks it should be illegal.

He would no more grant gays legal protection for consensual sex than he would those who engage in incest.

Keep in mind, this isn't one of those tricky public-policy conundrums – like gays in the military or gays in the Boy Scouts or whether gays should be protected against workplace discrimination – that involve other people and institutions. It's about what gay people do in the privacy of their home.

Is this George Bush's vision of compassionate conservatism (or Dick Cheney's for that matter, since he has a daughter who's a lesbian)?

No knuckle-rapping from the White House, at least not yet. Ari Fleischer ducked the question yesterday, saying he hadn't seen the interview and hadn't discussed the matter with Bush.

How can Lott talking about a segregationist candidate in '48 be more offensive than Santorum disrespecting gays in '03?


And, although I am not a fan of Andrew Sullivan, he says ( quoted in the link above

In Salon, Andrew Sullivan finds the senator's legal theory chilling:

"Santorum's position is therefore that there should be no constitutional restraint on the power of government to regulate sexual morality – even within your own bedroom. The only restraint – especially against any sexual minorities – would be mandated by majority decisions. . . .

"What Santorum is proposing is far more radical. It is not simply that we should have public standards for morality, but that this can and should be imposed even on people in their private homes. He would not simply assert a social norm; he would enforce it with the power of the state. . . .

"Notice one other thing. Santorum also believes it should be legitimate for the government to police adultery"

[Tmy]

He sort of has a point. Why sould those other acts be illegal?

[specious_reasons]

"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," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.

His quote puzzled me.

Bigamy and polygamy are qualitatively different than incest, adultery and consentual sex.

Also, isn't sodomy generally defined as anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse? What's his stand on heterosexual sodomy?

Tmy,
Why sould those other acts be illegal?

Sen Santoro will tell you why! And it will be well reasoned and thoughtful, I guarantee!

[renata]

Just when you thought it could not get any weirder...

The polygamists are angry at Santorum also!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/24/santorum.polygamy.ap/index.html

The leader of one of Utah's largest polygamist sects has objected to Sen. Rick Santorum's comment lumping plural marriage with other practices the Pennsylvania Republican considers to be antifamily.

Santorum has been under fire for comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.

But Owen Allred, 89, head of the United Apostolic Brethen, based in the Salt Lake City suburb of Bluffdale, agreed with Santorum in part.

"He is absolutely right. The people of the United States are doing whatever they can to do away with the sacred rights of marriage," Allred told The Salt Lake Tribune.

But Allred said Santorum's inclusion of polygamy in his list tarnishes a religious tradition whose roots are traced to biblical figures such as Abraham, Jacob and Moses -- defiling them as "immoral and dirty."

In an interview with The Associated Press published over the weekend, Santorum criticized homosexuality while discussing a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law.

"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," Santorum said.

"Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," he said.

Polygamy was abandoned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than a century ago and it excommunicates members who advocate it, but it is estimated that tens of thousands in Utah continue the practice.

Membership estimates for Allred's church range from 4,000 to 6,000, and there also are a number of independent polygamists loosely affiliated with his group.




I am waiting to hear from the powerful incest lobby.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by renata
Just when you thought it could not get any weirder...

The polygamists are angry at Santorum also!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/24/santorum.polygamy.ap/index.html



I am waiting to hear from the powerful incest lobby.

The news hasn't reached Arkansas yet.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by renata
Just when you thought it could not get any weirder...

The polygamists are angry at Santorum also!


I am waiting to hear from the powerful incest lobby.

Oddly enough, the case at hand doesn't really address polygamy in the form of "having multiple spouses." It really affects polygomous sex and having multiple _sex_ partners.

IOW, the state could make every guy's fantasy (1 man, 2 women) illegal were this law upheld.

[renata]

Copying a recent exchange from http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=438745#post438745

Per request from Baker and hgc, let's continure this discussion here.

This started with Kodiak posting

hgc originally posted:

All news sources quote this part of the original interview (AP, April 7)

quote:
"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," Santorum was quoted. "You have the right to anything."


FYI, the word "gay" (in brackets) was adding by the AP reporter and was not what was said by the congressman. Try reading it without the word "gay", and then consider the context, which was the position by some that consent is all that is necessary for the right to privacy.

Santorum's comment is reasonable once you have the context and an unaltered quote...



I said

Here is a link to his remarks

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...s.ap/index.html

Here are the excerpts. If anything, they appear more damaging to me. He blames Catholic church scandals on liberals. He also says it is OK to be gay, as long as people don't act on it. He also appears to say anything outside a monogomous child producing relationship undermines society. He also thinks right to privacy is wrong. Emphasis mine throughout



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe --

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Kodiak replied

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by renata
He also thinks right to privacy is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



More accurately, he thinks right to privacy should be decided by the individual States, on a case by case basis.

Santorum said: "So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."


I said

You are indeed correct. However, he personally has a problem with it as he does with any acts outside of a monogomous heterosexual relationship.

Kodiak

He has that right...and at the very least, you know exactly where the man stands on this issue.

Me-
When you say " he has that right" do you mean to say you think he is correct, or that he has a right to think that?

Assuming the latter, while being a bigot is a right, I do not want people like that in the government, espcially in the leadership position. It is is a shame that the White House and the Republican leadership is mum on this, and I hope voters of his state will remember this at the next election.

And as a side note, isn't the Republican party one of personal responsibilty and keeping government out of people's lives? How can this be reconciled with his position?

Then Baker said

Shouldn’t this topic have its own thread?
I'm not complaining but it would make a good thread to go over the issue this thread seemed to be mainly to attack Fox news

And hgc, the thread creator

You are correct. I started this thread to point out what I think is an instance of biased reporting from Fox News. Many of the underlying issues discussed here deserve their own threads.

And Kodiak again

The latter. I personally have no problem with open homosexuality or sexual promiscuity. To each their own...

You have every right to disagree with Santorum and oppose his reelection or the furtherance of his political career.

IMO, the GOP is anti-federal and pro-state/local control, not "keeping government out of people's lives" (unless you assume that to mean the federal government).

So here we are!


Answering Kodiak: You may have a correct interpretation of the GOP. However, the slogans and the spirit I hear is for all government out of people's lives. I doubt GOP as a whole would like to criminalize and prosecute adultery. It seriously bothers me third ranking Republican senator thinks states should out law sexual acts outside of monogomous heterosexual ( I also assume married) relationship.

[davefoc]

Santorum makes a couple of points I think:
1. If you use "the right to privacy argument" to invalidate rules against sodomy then doesn't the same logic provide that all other sexual acts involving consenting adults would also be legal?
2. Homosexual acts are bad and should be banned although homosexuals are great folks.

Most of us disagree with his point 2 and it hardly seems worth discussing in a skeptics forum where most people disagree with it and you're not likely to get anybody to defend it. Not only do most skeptics disagree with it, I think the majority of conservatives disagree with it and I would think the vast majority of people that would identify themselves as liberal disagree with it.

But point 1 is interesting to me. I see it as a few questions:
1. Is there a right to privacy guarantee buried somewhere in the constitution that can legitimately be interpreted to invalidate anti-sodomy laws?
2. Should there be such a right to privacy provision in the constitution or should regulation of this kind of thing be left to the states?
3. Even if there isn't such a right to privacy should the supreme court justices just decide that laws against sodomy are invalid because they think it's just part of our inalienable liberties as humans or something like that?
4. What about the slippery slope argument? If you think that there is a right to privacy guarantee in the constitution does that also mean the constitution protects prostitution, beastiality, necrophilia, polygamy, incest (between adults), etc.?

Anyway, I'm not going to give my opinion because I'm not really sure what it is anyway, but I would be interested in what other people think.