Via Atrios, I see this shocking mind-numbingly offensive statement from Rick Santorum:
In an interview with The Associated Press, 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, R-Pa., said in the interview, published Monday.
Santorum spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright said the lawmaker’s comments were “were specific to the Supreme Court case.”
I thought Atrios was making this up, it was so outrageous. Unbelievable. Someone please explain to me how this is not one of the most bigoted things uttered by anyone in the last 50 years. Let alone a US Senator. Disgusting. Words are failing me, as you can plainly see.
James Joyner
This is the sort of thing that pretty much every Baptist preacher says every day. This is a commonplace viewpoint among many if not most Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals. Indeed, less than 10 years ago, it was almost certainly the majority opinion in the United States. Thinking homosexuality is evil wasn’t even considered bigoted as recently as when I was an undergrad.
Hell, the leftist folk singer Arlo Guthrie used the word “faggots” in Alice’s Restaurant without any trace of irony.
Brian
Bigamy is a breach of legally binding contract. Adultery isn’t the state’s concern if the other spouse gives consent. I see no reason why people shouldn’t be allowed to have polygamous relationships if they so desire.
I’m thinking he threw incest in there just for scare value.
I defy Sen. Santorum to find a place in our constitution where the government has a right to decide what is allowed sexually between consenting adults in their own home.
BeerMary
If he followed his own train of thought to its fruition, sooner or later he’d have to include heterosexual sex.
Thus proving how ridiculous his argument is.
wes
as a representitive of the state of Pa., this statement alone should raise some serious concern. many of those represented by santorum participate in consentual sex of many kinds, including the homosexual variety. represent your people stupid! concern yourself with important matters, not were YOUR people do with their private parts during their private time.
Brian Carnell
Huh? I didn’t see anything at all offensive in Santorum’s comments. If a state has no compelling interest in preventing homosexual sex, certainly it has little or no compelling interest in preventing polygamous sexual relationships or even incestuous ones. As long as its between consenting adults, it’s okay, right?
Steve Malynn
Any law regarding sex is a moral/religious/social decision by the state. The question before the US Supreme Court is whether the state has the power to make that decision. In over 200 years of US jurisprudence this power was never seriously questioned. In the 500 years of Enlgish common law, of which our legal system is the conscious decendant, that power was not questioned. Santorum is pointing to the issue of the rule of law, and that the decision by the Supreme Court over a state law regarding consentual sex will bind all states, and radically change all 50 state’s laws regarding consentual sex. This is called legislating from the bench. Now, a related question is whether certain laws regarding consentual sex are good policy, but that is really not the province of the Court to decide this legislative question. If you think Santorum is out of line, as his anwser to the policy question is clear, you are certainly allowed to vote against him, and for someone who will change the policy. But this just goes to who’s ox is being gored. The Supreme Court causes too much trouble when it gets involved in deciding sexual policy questions.
David Perron
I heard this on NPR and thought, “this is just about the most sense I’ve ever heard a politician make.” It’s possible that Santorum’s intention was to continue with the Bedroom Police as before, but the statement doesn’t actually say that. It says, if the state has no business in matters of adult consensual sex between homosexuals, it has no business in adult consensual sex in general. While he may well view that as a bad thing, he didn’t actually say that.
On the flip side, if the only issue is consensual sex, is the government entitled to dictate which sexual acts are permissible? I’m thinking no.
HH
santorum.senate.gov/pressreleases/record.cfm?id=203106
Nicole
Quite honestly, I’ve never been so embarrassed to be from Pennsylvania.
Ricky
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
That being said, I must respectuflly disagree with James J. Being a baptist for the last 17 years, I can tell you that I could count on my hands the number of times that homosexuality has even been hinted during a church service, so it’s certainly not across-the-board.
More than likely, because it’s primarily covered in the old testament & us Christians usually dwell on the new stuff. :)
Mike the Analyst
Ricky:
The new stuff contains statements about it too: see 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.
As a basic statement, it doesn’t sound too wrong to me – let alone “disgusting.”
Santorum didn’t say that a right to gay sex means the same as a right to murder, or a right to rape, or a right to child abuse. He compared it to other tendencies that occur between willing people who have a “right to privacy.”
If you believe that nothing is wrong with a man having consensual sex with another man, what problem do you have with a man having consensual sex with his adult sister? or of-age daughter? or multiple (agreeing) wives? If you think one is ok, but the others are not, and it is “bigoted” to compare them to each other, then explain WHY THE OTHERS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Ricky
Mike,
Money word “primary” in my post. :)
Ricky
Er….primarily. ‘doh.
Mike the Analyst
Ricky,
Homosexuality has always been a no-no in Christian tradition, based on BOTH the Old and New Testaments. Its only been in recent years that liberal Protestants have “changed their morals” to “get with the program.”
Can you refer me to the doctrine that says “if something is referred to in the New Testament no more than twice, then we can ignore it in defining Christian morals”?
Brad
Would you people just calm down for a minute? Lord, you hear a statement and if you think you can bash Republicans with it, you jump on it like a fly on a dead body.
It is obvious what he MEANT by that staetment. If the SC decides the state can’t ‘regulate’ consensual sex, then by what basis can it ‘regulate’ bigamy, polygamy, incest, etc? That is ALL he meant. Your attempts at ‘bigotizing’ him are pathetic..
Just know that if a Democrat had said it, no one would be making a sound.
Ricky
Mike, I never said or even hinted that it SHOULD BE IGNORED. I only refuted James Joyner’s assertion that “This is the sort of thing that pretty much every Baptist preacher says every day”.
Based on my experience in the heart of the bible belt & about a hundred different churches during my lifetime, that is an overstatement to say the least. Like I said, I’ll hear a faint reference every 2 or 3 years, but that’s it. I’ve never heard a sermon preached on that subject…ever.
Bill
If you read the transcripts of Sen. Santorum’s comments it is clear that he was NOT simply making a legal argument – he declared that all “those things” including homosexuality, were a threat to “healthy, stable, traditional” families – without a shred of proof. To argue an arcane legal point is one thing (although it begs the question – should we keep gays from having sex, and therefore relationships, because it’s the only way to stop bigamy?) but to argue that a group of people are a threat to the basic unit of society is offensive and bigoted. I will admit the Senator was gracious enough to tolerate us gays and lesbians, but only if we live in enforced chastity by the government.
David Winn
My wives, our daughters, our sons, and Ralph The Wonder Dog (our “Lap Dog,” if you know what I mean, and I think you do), took high offense at Senator Santorum’s remarks.
We in no way condone homesexual sodamiac relations between people who are not family members (unless they are actually from Sodom), and don’t want to be just flung together with them (wellll —- maybe) without considerations for our feelings, or maybe a little money.
Actually, Ralph seems to show a fondness for Senator Santorum (he seems to like to pee on his picture), but I gotta’ tell ya’, Ralph’s always up for pack sex, even with a Republican I guess. He’s what we call “an easy make.”
Thanks for your time.
David Winn
[email protected]
JKC
Mike the Analyst says..”Can you refer me to the doctrine that says “if something is referred to in the New Testament no more than twice, then we can ignore it in defining Christian morals”?”
By that logic, Mike, slavery is OK since it’s mentioned several times in the Bible- even by Jesus, who had nothing to say about homosexuality.
By the way… have you burned all your poly-cotton shirts and pants? No? Better read Leviticus, dude. And that bacon cheeseburger last week… I can smell the brimstone on you already…