24-04-2003 09:26									#1
	Santorum in defense of his beliefs - It is impossible for a law to be intolerant Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Here's what Santorum said

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. You have the right to anything. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution.

then he defended himself in a public hearing on his beliefs by saying this

quote: To suggest that my comments, which are the law of the land and were the reason the Supreme Court decided the case in 1986, are somehow intolerant, I would just argue that it is not

Ok so any law the Supreme Court says is constitutional means that it is automatically tolerant according to this line of thinking. So Dread Scott being considered property (ie a slave) instead of a person, was actually tolerant since it was the law of the land, and this changed only after the law was repelled.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think laws can be both intolerant and unjust, while still being "constitutional." So what is everyone else's take on this issue?

	24-04-2003 09:40									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Santorum's first bit is mostly correct. If you have the right to commit sodomy with a consenting adult in your own home, then you have the right to pretty much any of those other things in your own home too, at least the adultery and incest parts.

Bigamy and polygamy are specific types of relationships, so Santorum's comparison is flawed there. The legality of specific conduct, and legal sanction of specific relationships are entirely separate issues. Marital relationships involve all sorts of quasi-contract issues, such as community property, (in some states) rights of survivorship, certain legal immunities, dissolution procedures, child custody, etc. States therefore may have a legitimate interest in regulating legal relationships such as marriage, but if ten women want to shack up with some guy and they all happily do their thing, I'm not sure where in hell the state has any legitimate reach.

The notion of so-called conservatives that state power reaches into people's private actions in their own homes, where no other person is harmed, is pretty hypocritical, to say the least. Let's ***** and whine and scream about government regulating commercial activities that affect the public, but let's insist the state has the power to regulate purely private conduct between consenting, legally competent adults. Bullshit.

	24-04-2003 09:40									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

He's backtracking trying to cover his ass but the first quote says it all.

	24-04-2003 09:40									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

My take is you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

If you actually read what you quoted he doesn't say that it is impossible for a law to be intolerant. You just made that up. You have to seperate the independant and dependant clauses. He is saying his views are NOT intolerant. Also he believes his views are the law of the land and the reason for the Supreme Court decision (which he may have a good point).

And his first comment isn't really wrong, btw.

	24-04-2003 09:44									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Bigamy and polygamy are specific types of relationships, so Santorum's comparison is flawed there.

Not really. He is arguing that the 'right to privacy' which is part of the Substantive Due Process framework will allow bigamy and polygamy. He is probably correct (if you follow the right to privacy all the way to its conclusion).

	24-04-2003 10:05									#6
	Put an end to popups!

My big question is why aren't the bigamists, incestors (is that even a word?), adulterers, and polygamists rasing a fuss about being lumped together with homosexuals?



That's a smiley by the way...

	24-04-2003 11:11									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Bigamy and polygamy are specific types of relationships, so Santorum's comparison is flawed there. Not really. He is arguing that the 'right to privacy' which is part of the Substantive Due Process framework will allow bigamy and polygamy. He is probably correct (if you follow the right to privacy all the way to its conclusion).

You have to really stretch a privacy argument a loooooooooong ways to come up with legal status for public relationships like marriage. If some man is masochistic enough, he can have a live-in sexual relationship with as many women as he can fit in his house (unless you want to see a return of illicit cohabitation statutes, lol), and vice-versa if some woman wanted to do the same thing. What who does to who is a private matter, but marriage (or any legal relationship) is not a private matter, it is a public one, because every state recognizes a number of commercial and other aspects to the marriage relationship, that are not recognized outside of legal relationships. The Feds, who aren't even in the relationship business, recognize husband-wife privilege in the Federal legal system, and recognize the marriage relationship (in a negative way) in the tax code.

Even if Substantive Due Process and a right to privacy did result in the state's loss of power to prohibit those types of relationships between informed and consenting adults, is that a worse result than the state having the power to regulate any and all purely personal conduct that involves no harm to others? Because if the state has the power to regulate where you put your pecker while you're in your own home, it has the power to regulate anything and everything else not explicitly prohibited under the Constitution, and that flies in the face of the plain reading of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

	24-04-2003 11:25									#8
	Support Apolyton

quote: You have to really stretch a privacy argument a loooooooooong ways to come up with legal status for public relationships like marriage.

Not really. The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia asserted that there is a right to marriage and in Griswold the court stated that the right to privacy extends to the bedroom. It isn't a streach at all to apply the 'right to privacy' to bigamy and polygamy. The only reason it hasn't been done is because the court is morally opposed to it.

quote: Even if Substantive Due Process and a right to privacy did result in the state's loss of power to prohibit those types of relationships between informed and consenting adults, is that a worse result than the state having the power to regulate any and all purely personal conduct that involves no harm to others?

Not really... but who said this was a policy argument .

quote: Because if the state has the power to regulate where you put your pecker while you're in your own home, it has the power to regulate anything and everything else not explicitly prohibited under the Constitution, and that flies in the face of the plain reading of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Not really. The Ninth Amendment really doesn't mean what the David Floyd's of this forum believe. The Supreme Court has said the Ninth is simply a truism. All it says is that the rights guarenteed by the states will not be invalidated by the Constitution. The federal government cannot throw out an asserted right simply because it is not in the Constitution. They CAN throw it out for any other reason. I'll have to dig up the case (it was linked as SDMB ).

	24-04-2003 11:31									#9
	Got spare money?

Ah, here we go:

U.S. v. Darby

quote: The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

Findlaw annotations of the 9th Amendment say:

quote: is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.

Here is the thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...threadid=172810

	24-04-2003 11:34									#10
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Not really. {snip}

By that logic of combination, one could take a right of free speech, a right to vote, and combine them to a right to campaign and electioneer at polling places on election day, invalidating most states bans on such activities within a certain distance of polling places. All sorts of nifty rights could be assembled out of thin air if you applied that logic.

quote: Not really... but who said this was a policy argument .

It really should be.

quote: Not really. The Ninth Amendment really doesn't mean what the David Floyd's of this forum believe. The Supreme Court has said the Ninth is simply a truism.

Even David Floyd is more or less right on occasion. The Supremes just don't like restricting the power of government unless they have no excuse not to.

	24-04-2003 11:41									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: By that logic of combination, one could take a right of free speech, a right to vote, and combine them to a right to campaign and electioneer at polling places on election day, invalidating most states bans on such activities within a certain distance of polling places. All sorts of nifty rights could be assembled out of thin air if you applied that logic.

What the Hell do you think Substantive Due Process is? Every right that has been asserted under due process clause from Lochner and Giswold on is simply assembled out of thin air. They have no basis in anything except 'history' and 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice'. Of course that depends on how much they want to limit their view. In Bowers it was the right to homosexual sex, rather than the right to privacy.

It is ALL of thin air. Don't delude yourself.

quote: The Supremes just don't like restricting the power of government unless they have no excuse not to.

Perhaps. But all I've seen indicates the 9th Amendment was intended (and can be backed by the plain meaning) to simply guarentee rights granted by the states couldn't be invalidated because they weren't in the Constitution. Just like the 11th was intended to confer soveriegn immunity (though this really can't be backed by the plain meaning ).

Even if they were wrong, its precedent now, so they are right .

	24-04-2003 11:48									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

MtG -

quote: Santorum's first bit is mostly correct. If you have the right to commit sodomy with a consenting adult in your own home, then you have the right to pretty much any of those other things in your own home too, at least the adultery and incest parts.

He screwed up by adding "anything", a right to privacy regarding consensual homosexuality does not translate into a right to do anything, but it does translate into a right to engage in other consensual relationships, e.g., bygamy or polygamy as well as drug use, gambling, and prostitution. However, he's also wrong when he added adultery since that is usually a violation of the marriage contract. That could only be avoided if the married couple agreed to an "open" marriage where adultery is allowed.

quote: Bigamy and polygamy are specific types of relationships, so Santorum's comparison is flawed there. The legality of specific conduct, and legal sanction of specific relationships are entirely separate issues.

Homosexuality is a specific type of relationship, so why is it different? Homosexuality, bygamy and polygamy are all relationships and behaviors.

quote: Marital relationships involve all sorts of quasi-contract issues, such as community property, (in some states) rights of survivorship, certain legal immunities, dissolution procedures, child custody, etc. States therefore may have a legitimate interest in regulating legal relationships such as marriage, but if ten women want to shack up with some guy and they all happily do their thing, I'm not sure where in hell the state has any legitimate reach.

The state doesn't have a legitimate concern in banning these, only setting up procedures for determining inheritance, etc (as you point out, just wanted to highlight the difference)...

quote: The notion of so-called conservatives that state power reaches into people's private actions in their own homes, where no other person is harmed, is pretty hypocritical, to say the least. Let's ***** and whine and scream about government regulating commercial activities that affect the public, but let's insist the state has the power to regulate purely private conduct between consenting, legally competent adults. Bullshit.

Yup.

Imran -

quote: He is arguing that the 'right to privacy' which is part of the Substantive Due Process framework will allow bigamy and polygamy. He is probably correct (if you follow the right to privacy all the way to its conclusion).

True for bygamy and polygamy, not true for adultery or the "anything" which he illogically ended his critique. I have to wonder if he thought about what he was going to say or if he was just spouting off.

quote: He is saying his views are NOT intolerant. Also he believes his views are the law of the land and the reason for the Supreme Court decision (which he may have a good point).

But his rationale for the former is the latter, so the previous court decision is his "proof" for claiming his views are not intolerant. If that was not his proof, what is? He defends his views as tolerant and has no reason for why other than the reference to the courts and the law.

Korn -

quote: Ok so any law the Supreme Court says is constitutional means that it is automatically tolerant according to this line of thinking.

Yeah, that was also pretty stupid. To suggest his position was not intolerant because the law he was defending is constitutional (or even if it was not) is illogical. It was once illegal for slaves to runaway and for others to help them, that is not what I'd call a tolerant law.

	24-04-2003 11:52									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: True for bygamy and polygamy, not true for adultery or the "anything" which he illogically ended his critique. I have to wonder if he thought about what he was going to say or if he was just spouting off.

Oh, I totally agree. "Anything is a bit much"

quote: But his rationale for the former is the latter, so the previous court decision is his "proof" for claiming his views are not intolerant. If that was not his proof, what is? He defends his views as tolerant and has no reason for why other than the reference to the courts and the law.

If you read the rest of the speech (and not just that quote) he talks about it.

Bringing in the law and the Court is basically saying I'm not intolerant, but if you think I am, then so is the Constitution, so nyeh! (basically) Many people don't think the Constitution is intolerant though.

	24-04-2003 11:53									#14
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui What the Hell do you think Substantive Due Process is? Every right that has been asserted under due process clause from Lochner and Giswold on is simply assembled out of thin air. They have no basis in anything except 'history' and 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice'. Of course that depends on how much they want to limit their view. In Bowers it was the right to homosexual sex, rather than the right to privacy. It is ALL of thin air. Don't delude yourself.

Substantive Due Process is reliance on the intent of the Framers to limit the reach of state power, rather than on the narrowest possible interpretation and dissection of the wording of the Constitution.

What is of thin air is the creeping infiltration of statism into a system created from a desire to limit the powers of government and respect the rights of the individual.

quote: Even if they were wrong, its precedent now, so they are right .

You're in law school now, right? Or not yet? Or is it just your g/f? :confuzzled: Anyhow, go grab a Shepard's Citations, and check out what that little "o" and that little "m" stand for. Bad precendent can always be gotten around. When there's a will, there's a way.

	24-04-2003 12:00									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Substantive Due Process is reliance on the intent of the Framers to limit the reach of state power, rather than on the narrowest possible interpretation and dissection of the wording of the Constitution.

Say what?

Substantive Due Process didn't even exist until 1920s. WHICH framers? The framers wanted to limit FEDERAL power. They had no problem with state power. Hell Massachusettes had an established state church until the mid 1800s. Besides the entire idea of Substantive Due Process is made up!

quote: What is of thin air is the creeping infiltration of statism into a system created from a desire to limit the powers of government and respect the rights of the individual.

Where does statism come into legalizing bigamy and polygamy? Aren't those individual rights? Btw, that would probably be based also on an Equal Protection Claim.

quote: You're in law school now, right?

Yes. Btw, how many Supreme Court cases have been overturned? It is very few. Overruling precedent is very difficult, especially if just about everyone agrees with it .

	24-04-2003 12:18									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yes. Btw, how many Supreme Court cases have been overturned? It is very few. Overruling precedent is very difficult, ...

The bits of my Con Law class when the Court was working with two lines of valid precedent at the same time were always my favorite.

PS I never really understood the rationale for the concept of substantive due process. How can anyone with at least a 6th grade education understand the Due Process clauses to do anything other than procedural rights?

	24-04-2003 12:21									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

DD: It is because they really, really, really wanted to assert those rights, and the court had basically said that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment was basically a non-entity.

MtG: Just found something for you:

Zablocki v. Redhail

quote: More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause

	24-04-2003 12:32									#18
	Remove this text

Just a few thoughts:

1) Sodomy is not like bigamy or polygamy; bigamy and polygamy refer to legal contracts, whereas sodomy refers to a sex act. The appropriate analogy would be to threesomes and orgies, and you DO have a right to those -- a fact for which I hope someday to be thankful.

2) I believe you have a right to adultery as well. Adultery is grounds for divorce, but it is not illegal; that is, its a civil and not criminal issue. So once again, there's no analogy here.

3) Here I'm not sure, but I think consenting adults may well have a right to incest; they are barred from marrying, but that is again a civil and not criminal issue. Anybody know for sure?

4) Though nobody talks about them this way, sodomy laws tend to ban specific sex acts rather than banning activities between persons -- and thus apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Some years back, the Democratic political machine in Rhode Island actually conducted arrests of its political enemies and charged them with engaging in sodomy -- in this case, consensual, oral, heterosexual sex -- in violation of state law. I don't know if this law works the same way.

	24-04-2003 12:32									#19
	Support Apolyton

Imran -

quote: Not really. The Ninth Amendment really doesn't mean what the David Floyd's of this forum believe. The Supreme Court has said the Ninth is simply a truism. All it says is that the rights guarenteed by the states will not be invalidated by the Constitution. The federal government cannot throw out an asserted right simply because it is not in the Constitution. They CAN throw it out for any other reason.

HUH? That contradiction makes the 9th Amendment irrelevant. The Congress could say we have no right to eat ice cream, not because no right appears in the Constitution, but because ice cream is fattening. The history behind the 9th Amendment was that Thomas Jefferson et al were concerned that if a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, there might be future peoples who would argue that rights not enumerated in the BoR can be voided by Congress. Alexander Hamilton et al argued against the BoR pointing out that the Constitution, by limiting Congress to several defined powers, was already a Bill of Rights since we'd have all sorts of rights by virtue of Congress' limited authority over us. Madison designed the 9th Amendment based on the Jeffersonian complaint...

quote: But all I've seen indicates the 9th Amendment was intended (and can be backed by the plain meaning) to simply guarentee rights granted by the states couldn't be invalidated because they weren't in the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment changed that by creating a dual citizenship for Americans - state and US citizenship. The states could no longer violate our rights under the Constitution...the Congress and courts have done a terrible job applying the 14th Amendment though as a century of Jim Crow shows.

	24-04-2003 12:33									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause

I'd really like to know how anyone ever reads the recent SCOTUS opinions without a hefty supply of Tylenol if this is typical of the hoops they jump through to get to thier decision.

	24-04-2003 13:07									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Imran -

quote: If you read the rest of the speech (and not just that quote) he talks about it.

It's possible he cleared that up, but the sentence quoted shows an attempt to prove his tolerance by pointing to what someone else - the SCOTUS - said.

quote: Bringing in the law and the Court is basically saying I'm not intolerant, but if you think I am, then so is the Constitution, so nyeh!

The Constitution doesn't support his position. We have equal protection under the Constitution, true? Then why do heterosexual adults have rights to consensual sex and marriage but not homosexuals, bygamists, and polygamists? Btw, pointing to the Constitution, even if he's right, doesn't prove his comments are tolerant.

quote: Substantive Due Process didn't even exist until 1920s.

There was little or no need for it since the 14th Amendment was passed in the 1860's and Congress did a much better job of minding it's own business before that. Once the 14th Amendment was passed and gradually followed by people's attempts to limit the states from taking our rights, substantive due process became important. It's based on the proposition that if Congress cannot take away our lives, liberty, or property without due process (requiring a trial), then can Congress simply write laws to take away these rights? For example, if Congress wanted you dead, can the Congress write a law saying you can't live and then execute you for living? No, because due process presumes we have our rights after the laws are written and substantive due process deals with this problem.

quote: WHICH framers? The framers wanted to limit FEDERAL power. They had no problem with state power.

Actually, the Congress had a very big vote in the early 1790's to decide if the same constitutional limits on federal power should limit the states too. The House voted to limit the states and the Senate rejected the proposal. The 14th Amendment accomplished what the Congress failed to do back then.

quote: Hell Massachusettes had an established state church until the mid 1800s. Besides the entire idea of Substantive Due Process is made up!

Of course it's made up - because the 14th Amendment dramatically changed the federal/state relationship, but it stems from the 5th Amendment.

	24-04-2003 18:36									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So is the Bush Administration going to address this at all, or are they hoping it will fade away?

To me, this is more concerning than the Lott affair--the best that could be said for Lott was that he just wasn't that bright, praising an old man on his birthday with an oblique reference to long-dismissed views. However, the best that could be said for Santorum is that he's a bigot when it comes to homosexuality.

If the Admin says nothing, does that mean the Bushies are against racial intolerance, but have no problem with homophobia?

	24-04-2003 18:42									#23
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Of course it's made up - because the 14th Amendment dramatically changed the federal/state relationship, but it stems from the 5th Amendment.

No, it doesn't. The justices pulled the whole concept from thier collective arses.

	24-04-2003 19:57									#24
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Say what? Substantive Due Process didn't even exist until 1920s. WHICH framers? The framers wanted to limit FEDERAL power. They had no problem with state power.

State has more than one meaning. Howzabout power of the state (as opposed to "powers of the states")

quote: Besides the entire idea of Substantive Due Process is made up!

So was the concept that legislatures could do anything right up to the limits of the narrowest possible interpretation of the exact words used in the Amendments. i.e. how the Federal government and the states got around right to counsel and managed to actively restrict First Amendment rights at their convenience.

quote: What is of thin air is the creeping infiltration of statism into a system created from a desire to limit the powers of government and respect the rights of the individual.

Where does statism come into legalizing bigamy and polygamy? Aren't those individual rights? Btw, that would probably be based also on an Equal Protection Claim.

Statism comes into it when the state determines it is the arbiter of what groups have what rights, and that the state can regulate any activity it wants, regardless of how far removed that activity is from the public or from the intended purposes for which the state is formed.

quote: Yes. Btw, how many Supreme Court cases have been overturned? It is very few. Overruling precedent is very difficult, especially if just about everyone agrees with it .

That's why it took six decades to overrule Plessy, which is another example of made up law. Most people agreed with keeping coloreds in their place back then too. At least in their public place.

	24-04-2003 20:15									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I am with Rufus here.

The state has no more power to regulate homosexual sex acts than heterosexual sex acts (wich means I think most Sodomy laws are crap). The most they can do is create a definition for the age of legal consent, then its over.

As Rufus said polygamy is a contract much like monogamous marriage. Interestingly enough, Snatorum didn't mention polyandry.... maybe he yearns to be a multiple husband.

As for incest, I think, as rufus said, to fall in the category of sexual acts: I fail to see what rationale the courts could have to ban incest between consentual parties without religious or eugenic reasons.

	24-04-2003 20:35									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Another mountain out of a mole hill. I wonder why gays are siding with the Christian right here? They are now opposing the so called right to incest, adultry and bigamy. It seems like they would support Santorum and gladly extend the "right" of unlimited sex between anyone or anything anytime. They again single out themselves for special treatment under the law. Santorum made a valid argument (even though he exaggerated the case).

	25-04-2003 01:02									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: The Congress could say we have no right to eat ice cream, not because no right appears in the Constitution, but because ice cream is fattening.

Congress can probably ban ice cream using the commerce clause, as long as it has a rational basis for that claim (btw, it would be a similar reason as to why Congress can ban drugs).

quote: The history behind the 9th Amendment was that Thomas Jefferson et al were concerned that if a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, there might be future peoples who would argue that rights not enumerated in the BoR can be voided by Congress

This really isn't different from what I said, berz. The Ninth says Congress can void other rights (such as those granted by state consitutions) simply because it isn't in the federal Constitution. It has never been used as a positive grant of rights.

quote: It's based on the proposition that if Congress cannot take away our lives, liberty, or property without due process (requiring a trial), then can Congress simply write laws to take away these rights?

No, it was based on the proposition that SC Justices wanted to expand the 'rights' that people had and wanted to severly limit states rights, so they basically decided to make something up that is no where in the Constitution.

As DD said, they pulled it out of their collective asses.

Btw, the court CAN take away your life, liberty and property. Life: Death Penalty, Liberty: Name a regulation, Property: Eminent Domain.

There is no 'right' to privacy, abortion, marriage, family, etc. as the Framers wrote the document. Those things were to be decided by the states (they were big states rights people, you know).

Ask any law professor, and they will tell you how weak the textual support is for Substantive Due Process is, no matter what their political beliefs.

quote: For example, if Congress wanted you dead, can the Congress write a law saying you can't live and then execute you for living?

It's a Bill of Attainder, so no.

quote: Statism comes into it when the state determines it is the arbiter of what groups have what rights

So, you are saying the entire concept of Substantive Due Process is statism? After all the state is determining that it is arbiter of what groups have what rights.

	25-04-2003 01:21									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

MtG

quote: If you have the right to commit sodomy with a consenting adult in your own home, then you have the right to pretty much any of those other things in your own home too, at least the adultery and incest parts.

is either adultery or incest actually illegal in the same way that sodomy is? I mean can you goto prison for having sex with someone other than your spouse? If so is that law enforced at all? Can two blood related adults actually goto prison for having consensual sex or does it just bar them from marriage?

quote: Bigamy and polygamy are specific types of relationships, so Santorum's comparison is flawed there

agreed

Imran

quote: If you actually read what you quoted he doesn't say that it is impossible for a law to be intolerant. You just made that up. You have to seperate the independant and dependant clauses. He is saying his views are NOT intolerant. Also he believes his views are the law of the land and the reason for the Supreme Court decision (which he may have a good point).

wrong

taking out the dependent leaves you with this

quote: To suggest that my comments are somehow intolerant, I would just argue that it is not

which doesn't give any reasons as to why his comments aren't intolerant, and i found his entire first comment

quote: 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

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...gays_excerpts_2

certainly when one says that engaging in gay acts destroys the fabric of society, then that is implying it is fundamentally bad, also that undermines his "i hate the sin, not the sinner" line of argument intended to shield him from being intolerant

quote: 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.

yet when he says

quote: 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 means even those who don't act on their orientation, but reject the concept of the heterosexual marriage and indirectly undermining society

plus how does two guys getting it on really undermine the basis of society any more than two guys taking a vow of chastity and becoming monks? both have rejected the Santorum's basis of a functional society, how does gay sex really compound this? i don't get his line of reasoning at all, except that he is intolerant of gays in particular, instead of any person who rejects marriage and having children, which makes him intolerant

intolerance is freedom of speech, and if he took that position i'd have less of a problem with him, but the only argument he offers in his defense is that since it is the law of the land, he can't be intolerant for approving of that law, because laws are never intolerant, either that is what he suggests or he has no argument at all in his defense

you mentioned he said more, if you can find it please give me a link

GePap

quote: The state has no more power to regulate homosexual sex acts than heterosexual sex acts

agreed

Lincoln

quote: I wonder why gays are siding with the Christian right here? They are now opposing the so called right to incest, adultry and bigamy. It seems like they would support Santorum and gladly extend the "right" of unlimited sex between anyone or anything anytime.

this looks like a strawman to me, being gay has no connection to incest, and incest has inherent risks to any offspring, so maybe that is why gay groups don't support incest, why should they lobby for things that don't have any bearing on them? the sodomy laws have a direct impact on their life, and why wouldn't they want them repealed?

quote: They again single out themselves for special treatment under the law.

actually the government is the one who singled them out for "special" treatment when it passed laws that only applies to gays

	25-04-2003 01:40									#29
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The issue is the so called right to privacy. There is no such absolute right. You cannot privately abuse your children for example. "Getting the government out of our bedroom" is a great idea for a pep ralley but after the emotion wears off we are left with the real world where people do a lot of things illegal in their bedrooms (such as conspiring to commit a felony or having unprotected sex if you are an aids victim).

Unfortunately Santorum made the mistake of saying anything at all against a "gay" lifestyle. That makes him an automatic "homophobe". Funny that there is no such thing as a conservativeaphobe. Maybe we should just call the people who hate anyone who has strongly held religious beliefs a bigot.

	25-04-2003 02:02									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

News flash Lincoln--some strongly held religious beliefs are bigoted. Some aren't. This one, most assuredly, is.