kalikshama
Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
|
...Of course, not every Republican Presidential candidate is as shockingly ignorant of American history as Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. One Republican very familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut and its implications is former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum is running for President and while his poll numbers are currently very low, it's important that the American people become familiar with his views.
Back in 2003, Rick Santorum was interviewed by Lara Jakes Jordan of the Associated Press. You can read a an extended chunk of that interview, in which he declares his opposition to the right of privacy in no uncertain terms.
In that interview, Lara Jordan questions Santorum on statements he had made previously where he blamed the child molestation scandal within the Catholic Church on liberalism. He responds:
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.
Notice how Santorum is blurring the issue with his use of the word "consensual." It's useful to remember that the scandal within the Catholic Church mostly involved children below the age of consent. Our society has an extremely wide consensus that children are not capable of making decisions for themselves. For this reason, countries and states establish a legal age of sexual consent, and sex with a child below that age is simply not considered to be consensual. It is instead statutory rape regardless whether it take place in a playground or in the privacy of a home or rectory.
Santorum then goes on to repeat the rather tired platitude that he has "no problem with homosexuality" but does "have a problem with homosexual acts." At the beginning of the next passage, Santorum alludes to the Lawrence v. Texas case then being argued in the Supreme Court:
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.
Notice Santorum's mention of the Griswold case. He continues with perhaps the most famous passage of this interview:
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 —
As a result of this particular passage, columnist Dan Savage plotted a way to associate the word santorum with something that previously had no word but was guaranteed to gross out the fogies. It became the most successful Google Bomb ever.
But let's allow the former Senator to continue:
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.
Lara Jordan specifically asks "Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy...?" and Santorum responds:
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.
In other words, Rick Santorum wants the majority to dictate what human rights and privacy rights are granted to the rest of the people. That's simply not how we do things in this country.
I suppose we really need to commend Rick Santorum for knowing something about Constitutional history. It's an area where Sarah Palin and Donald Trump haven't the slightest clue. It's also commendable that he clearly identifies exactly how he feels. But that's not reason in itself to vote for him.
Rick Santorum wants to be President. He also wants into your bedroom to make sure you're not doing anything he disapproves of. He's clearly unfit for either job.
Full article: http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2011/07/Rick-Santorum-Wants-Into-Your-Bedroom.html
|
Rick Santorum Wants into Your Bedroom - 
Profile
LOL... Yeah, I've got a higher probability of winning the Lottery than being arrested for a bit of fun with the poop-shoot!!! Alarmist much?!! 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread