Posted by Tina
“Tonight was not just a victory for us, but tonight was a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and Tea Party people, who are out there every single day in the vineyards building the conservative movement in this country, building the base of the Republican Party, and building a voice for freedom in this land.”
Rick Santorum had a good day yesterday winning in Colorado, Missouri and Minesota.
The Romney campaign attempted to downplay the wins but the surprise triple punch did shake up the contest and signal to voters that the race is still open. In Minnesota, for instance Romney failed not only to secure first place but missed the number two slot which was awarded to Ron Paul. In Colorado, where Romney won 60% of the caucus votes in 2008, he was only able to secure 35% this time around even with the largest ground game of all the candidates.
This primary is not decided. Next up…a barrage of negative ads designed to take out Rick Santorum. Santorum’s game depends on a lot of door knocking and talking directly with the people. Speaking about personal freedom and the rights of individuals Santorum vowed the following:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”
Tina I recall that Santorum has this long narrow head, but is that picture right? His head looks deformed.
Jack…is it better now?
I adjusted this photo several times and eventually decided enough! I guess I needed a second opinion…lol!
Are we really supposed to be excited about this religous nutcase? He is against birth control for crying out loud and he wants all laws tied to the Bible. That sounds a lot like Shariah law to me.
I cannot believe this group is the best the GOP had to offer us. Oh wait, it wasn’t but Jon Huntsman dropped out.
Thanks a lot RNC.
Princess all our laws are already to tied to the Bible, but if you are referring to those nutty things we might find in the Old Testament…nah, not to worry. This guy just wants to make sure that our rights are protected and we’re treated fairly. I’m totally confident of this.
As for the unborn and their rights, that is a medical issue that belongs between the patient and her doctor. Both sides of this issue are right and wrong. So nobody should ever presume to be smart enough to pass legislation that would be fair by causing one side to lose. I say just keep government out of it and let it be a medical decision and then we’ll have to trust to the mother and the doctor to do what is right. Medical school should provide a lot of counseling on this subject and how it relates to medical ethics. THERE IS NEVER GOING TO BE A PERFECT ANSWER ON THIS SUBJECT, there’s just too many exceptions or situations that we could never anticipate to write the perfect law for the most complex moral decision of our day.
Ah much better, he looks more human now! lol
The scary headlines proffered by Salon, HuffPo and others about Santorum’s political position are just that, lefty scary headlines. It reminds me of the campaign back ’59 ’60 when the talk was that Kennedy would take his marching orders from the Pope…scaaaary!
Santorum does not intend to impose his values on anyone. He is willing to defend the constitution. There are two good articles that explain his position well:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/9852412-452/santorum-not-after-your-birth-control.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287419/santorum-birth-control-kathryn-jean-lopez
The tolerant left is constantly attempting to paint conservatives with dark scary makeup. We’re going to throw grandma off the cliff when we talk about the unsustainable situation in the Medicare and SS systems. We want to poison the air and water because we think the piles of regulations we already have are more than sufficient to protect Americans, especially given that the science surrounding some of this regulation has been shown to be way overstated.
Voters today have to be willing to dig to get to the truth.
Jack: “This guy just wants to make sure that our rights are protected and we’re treated fairly. I’m totally confident of this.”
May I ask why? This is a man who has said he does not agree with the decision of Lawrence v. Texas, which found that laws outlawing oral and anal sex were unconstitutional. According to Santorum, people–whether gay or straight–do not have the right to consensual sex in their own homes. What makes you think he wants to protect our rights?
Chris everyone has their opinions, he has no power to act on whatever religious convictions he has…none. Name one thing you think he could do as a President to harm you? Checks and balances…
Jack it’s not surprising Chris thinks Santorum would impose his values (his will) on others. This is the left today; it is exactly what they do and so assume everyone else would also.
Tina, Jack, I don’t understand what part of this you’re not getting. The reason I think Santorum would try to impose his religious values on others is because he has specifically said that the government has the right to impose religious values on others.
He thinks that states have the right to ban certain consensual sex acts falling under the umbrella of “sodomy:”
“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.”
If Santorum really believes that people–even married couples–do not have the right to consensual sex in their own homes, why on earth would you think he has respect for our rights? And why on earth would you trust him to protect those rights as president?
Also, would it be too much to ask for you to say whether or not you agree with Santorum’s position that the state has the right to punish people for engaging in certain sex acts he doesn’t like? I’d really like to know if you think that’s a good policy or not.
Now, of course, I don’t think Santorum would be able to enact laws as radical as that as president. But his disrespect for individual rights and his contempt for “personal autonomy” he has voiced on other occasions shows that he would pose a danger to freedom. As president, he could push for measures that would further limit access to birth control. He would aggressively defend DOMA, which is unconstitutional. A Santorum Justice Department would likely turn a blind eye to hate crimes against gays and other minorities. Santorum has also been a vocal opponent of the repeal of DADT. When asked a question about the repeal by a gay soldier, Santorum didn’t even thank the soldier for his service, and continued to disrespect the soldier by calling his inclusion in the military “tragic” and a “social experiment.” As commander in chief, Santorum could move to re-institute the ban on openly gay service members. We could discharge many good soldiers simply because their sexual orientations do not align with Rick Santorum’s religious beliefs.
I have every reason to believe Rick Santorum does not care about individual freedom. He has not made individual freedom a platform in his campaign at all, and his entire career shows a myopic and radical focus on social issues to the detriment of all others.
Chris your side of the aisle, from old Ted Kennedy to Ms. Queen Bee Pelosi, have shown very little consideration or respect for individuals with differing beliefs nor have they respected the religious rights of others guaranteed in the Constitution. A lot of people on your side think they have the right to impose sexual values on children using the public school system. Your side believes they have the right to take children to get abortions and birth control without the consent of their parents. This runs incredibly close to child abuse from my perspective but because its the hip thing in popular culture it isn’t even recognized as such…the freedom, rights, and parental obligations of the parents of those kids are being trampled upon daily and with impunity!
I believe that consenting adults can do in their own homes whatever they choose. I’ll bet Rick Santorum would agree. I don’t think they have the right to impose those practices, or acceptance of those practices, on others and especially on other peoples children.
I also think that religious people who believe that some behaviors are wrong and unhealthy should be as free to express that opinion as you are to express an alternative view.
I also think that your side would, if they could, silence Rick Santorum and anyone else who dared to express an opposing opinion. I think that attempts to demonize and silence others for their opinions is a hell of a lot more dangerous to our society than anything Rick Santorum would do as president.
“A Santorum Justice Department would likely turn a blind eye to hate crimes against gays and other minorities.”
That is just plain stupid and wrong. Chris you are emotionally incapable of making a judgement in this area. You see boogie men behind everything and you refuse to get that someone could believe that a behavior is wrong without thinking that laws should ignored or that anyone should get away with mistreating another. The human being rule, remember. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect because they are human beings.
Some day you’re going to figure it out…social issues is a money making, vote getting scheme! Social issues are excuses to grow government and control outcomes. those in power who talk up social issues could give a rats ass about people…”it’s the issue STUPID” could be the slogan for the progressive political machine!
Freedom, privacy, individual conscience! Progressives don’t value these things. They value division, concensus, and most of all CONTROL!
Achhhh…waisting my time here.
Tina: “I believe that consenting adults can do in their own homes whatever they choose. I’ll bet Rick Santorum would agree.”
Why would you bet that? He said the exact opposite of that. He explicitly said the Supreme Court was WRONG to say that consenting adults can do in their own homes whatever they wish. He has never backed away from these statements. So I’m going to ask again: what are you basing this conclusion off of? Is it just the fact that Rick Santorum identifies as a conservative that makes you believe this? Is it that you find him likeable? Because you’re certainly not basing your conclusion on what he has said and done.
“Some day you’re going to figure it out…social issues is a money making, vote getting scheme! Social issues are excuses to grow government and control outcomes. those in power who talk up social issues could give a rats ass about people…”
Wait…so you DO have a problem with Rick Santorum? He certainly likes to “talk up social issues,” so are you saying he could give a rat’s ass about people? He uses social issues as an excuse to grow government and control outcomes (since he believes that government has the right to ban sodomy), so will you condemn him for that?
Chris can you conceive of someone holding a personal belief that is not in agreement with the laws we have? PERSONAL OPINION AND BELIEF? PERSONAL!!!!!
I base my opinion about how Sanorum would govern based on what he said when asked about contraception issues. As the article’s author wrote: “…when he was pressed on what exactly this means, he made it expressly clear that he believes this is not an issue for the president to take on in any kind of legislation.”
It is you who brings an emotional irrationality to the discussion. It is you who makes assumptions about what Santorum would do as president based on emotion.
Like I said it is the left that makes social issues, private issues, everybodies business. It is the left that uses the law to shape society to meet their beliefs. It is the left that insists we must all conform and think alike. It is the left that seeks to silence anyone who dissents.
“Freedom, privacy, individual conscience! Progressives don’t value these things. They value division, concensus, and most of all CONTROL!”
Santorum would govern in the capacity of president…not community organizer! And not social czar!!
Our readers might find the following article of interest given recent comments about personal beliefs and public service. It is a window into the history and ideology that has shaped the legislators and leadership that wrote current law:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290717/lsquoto-stop-multiplication-unfitrsquo-michelle-malkin
Tina: “Chris can you conceive of someone holding a personal belief that is not in agreement with the laws we have? PERSONAL OPINION AND BELIEF? PERSONAL!!!!!”
Tina, can you conceive of the difference between these two positions:
1. Sodomy is wrong.
2. Sodomy is wrong, and should be illegal, and the Supreme Court is wrong to say that adults have the right to consensual sex in their own homes.
You don’t seem to understand this difference, because you keep acting as if Santorum said the former when he very clearly said the latter.
I don’t care what Santorum’s personal opinion is on sodomy. I do care what his opinion is on the CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANTI-SODOMY LAWS. To pretend that a presidential candidate’s opinion on a constitutional issue is merely a “personal belief” which wouldn’t affect his behavior as president is the height of silliness. One of the president’s jobs is appointing Supreme Court justices.
“Like I said it is the left that makes social issues, private issues, everybodies business.”
If you’re saying “only” the left, which this statement implies, then you are flat-out lying.
Chris: “You don’t seem to understand this difference, because you keep acting as if Santorum said the former when he very clearly said the latter.”
I believe that when someone speaks we should make every effort to get what he is saying not what we think he is saying.
http://post-gazette.com/nation/20030423santorum0423p1.asp
“I’m saying that every social issue that we argue about today has come about because of legal challenges brought by the left.”
Well, of course. Are we not the improving party? The “right” being only too content to lanquish in diseased ignorance?
“Name a social issue that the right initiated in conversation or using the courts.”
The integration of the armed forces, then public schools. Equal access to public health services.
Anti-discrimnation laws re the workplace.
Wait, no, you’re right. None of this was instigated by the right!
And you are bragging on this?
Libby: Are we not the improving party?
Depends on what is meant by improvement. There is a big debate going on about that. From my perspective little has been improved and much has been destroyed.
“The “right” being only too content to lanquish in diseased ignorance?”
Intersting choice of words. In the late fifies to early sixties when people minded their own business, were serious about marriage vows and child rearing (including educating children for adulthood), believed that people should be responsible for their own needs while giving to charity, STD’s were very nearly irradicated in the USA. In general people were a lot less self-serving and narcissistic.
“The integration of the armed forces, then public schools. Equal access to public health services.
Anti-discrimnation laws re the workplace.”
Wrong of you to take credit for those Libby. None of them are exclusive to the left…and some of them…equal access to health care/workplace are mostly mythical political interpretations and regulation meant to control more than increase opportunity. It’s actually a very backward way of thinking. If liberated why the need to force?
“And you are bragging on this?”
You bet! That old warn out liberal progressive crap is killing the country and it can’t hold a candle to freedom, personal responsibility, and charity.
Tina: “I believe that when someone speaks we should make every effort to get what he is saying not what we think he is saying.”
Tina, you keep implying that there is a difference between what Rick Santorum said, and my interpretation of what Rick Santorum said. You have acted like my interpretation is radical, unfair, and colored by emotion. But you haven’t articulated HOW my interpretation differs from his actual statements. If anything, the quotes you cited confirm my interpretation.
Furthermore, you directly contradict yourself by correctly stating that Santorum’s views align with those of Justice Scalia, who also thinks that anti-sodomy laws are constitutional and that adults do not have the right to consensual sex in their own homes. You also say that you agree with both Scalia and Santorum. Yet you didn’t acknowledge the shift in argument you’ve made, from “Santorum wouldn’t use the government to impose his beliefs on others” to “Santorum is right to say that the government should impose his beliefs on others.” This is not the first time you have changed your argument without acknowledging it, and I have to tell you, that is a very frustrating debating tactic.
As for Scalia’s dissent–it’s nonsense. This idea that the Supreme Court should bow to the will of the people, even if the will of the people overrides the rights of others, shows a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of the judicial branch. The Supreme Court exists as a check against mob rule. The Founders realized that human rights were not an issue that could be put up to a vote; the judicial branch exists precisely so that it can rule on matters such as those under consideration in Lawrence v. Texas. That Scalia thinks such questions are so out of bounds, or that the Court shouldn’t even rule on the matter, shows that he doesn’t even get what his own job is.
Furthermore, the notion that adults do not have a constitutional right to consensual sex in their own homes is absurd on its face. Even if one acknowledges the validity of critiques against the “right to privacy,” there’s no doubt that bans against certain consensual sex acts violate the American people’s rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is simply no legitimate government interest in preventing consenting adults from engaging in oral or anal sex, and the idea that the government can punish citizens for engaging in such acts should be abhorrent to anyone who values individual freedom.
Finally, while advocating for the constitutionality of such bans would be despicable no matter who is doing the advocating, this position takes on added levels of irony and hypocrisy when expressed by people like you, Santorum, and Scalia; the very same people who claim that the government is vastly overstepping its bounds and violating the liberties of its citizens simply by requiring its citizens to buy health insurance. I can’t fathom how one could think that THIS is a gross violation of our constitutional rights, but that bans on commonly practiced consensual sex acts are not. And I can’t fathom how you can possibly expect me to take your arguments seriously when you are trying to hold both those positions at the same time.
“What do you think about his right to express his opinion regardless whether you are able to hear it without having an emotional melt down?”
Tina, I have never said or implied that Santorum does not have the right to express his opinion. But can you not see how backwards this question is? You are imagining an assault on Santorum’s rights by me, a blog commenter with no political power; and yet, at the same time, you are completely ignoring the assault on constitutional rights by Rick Santorum, who is currently the most popular Republican candidate for President in the 2012 election.
Also, I’m getting really tired of this tactic of you calling me “emotional” whenever you are losing the argument. I hope you don’t think I’m being too much of a “control freak” by asking you to please stop doing that.
“The opinion has to do with what best serves/preserves civilization and not with what people do in private. It has to do with setting precedent that will further the erosion of civil society.”
Tina, do you really believe that getting rid of laws which criminalize anal and oral sex are “furthering the erosion of civil society?”
Because there is nothing “civil” about that.
Tina: “I’m saying that every social issue that we argue about today has come about because of legal challenges brought by the left.”
Let’s be clear: this may be what you are saying now, but this is not what you said before.
You said, among other things:
“Some day you’re going to figure it out…social issues is a money making, vote getting scheme! Social issues are excuses to grow government and control outcomes. those in power who talk up social issues could give a rats ass about people…”
When I pointed out that Santorum “talks up social issues,” and asked if you think he fits the descriptions of people who do so you listed above, you refused to answer, and instead decided to change your argument without acknowledging that you did so. This is called “moving the goalpost,” and it is a supremely annoying debating tactic that reveals weaknesses in your ability to make a logical argument.
You did this a while back, and I remember asking if you even notice when you do this. But I’m starting to think that you do notice, and that you just hope the people you’re debating with won’t notice. You do this way too frequently for it to be unintentional. You’ll make some extreme, generalized statement, and then when challenged on it, you try to weasel out by claiming you actually said something else.
As another example from this same conversation, you said this:
“I believe that consenting adults can do in their own homes whatever they choose. I’ll bet Rick Santorum would agree.”
But now you’re arguing the complete opposite of that. You now acknowledge that Santorum DOES NOT think consenting adults can do in their homes whatever they choose, and you say that both you and Justice Scalia agree with him on that.
Which is fine; people have a right to change their minds. But you didn’t acknowledge this as a change; you’re trying to play it off as if this has been your position the entire time, when it clearly hasn’t.
Can you imagine how frustrating it is to argue with someone who does this? Perhaps I have come across as a little “emotional” at times in my debates with you, but it’s a little annoying when the person you’re debating with can’t keep their own positions consistent with one another over the course of a few different comments, and then refuses to acknowledge any inconsistency. It makes me feel like there is no point debating with you, since you are never going to admit error on your part; you will just keep moving the goalposts and hoping no one will notice. And even when we do, you still won’t acknowledge it.
Chris: “you keep implying that there is a difference between what Rick Santorum said, and my interpretation of what Rick Santorum said”
Your interpretation leads to the conclusion that Rick Santorum would work to create federal law to outlaw certain forms of homosexual sex. I think you are wrong and I made the case based on what I think he said, what Antonin Scalia wrote, and my own understanding of how conservatives view social issues. If anything we believe these are matters best left to the individual states because that is basically what is called for in the Constitution and because citizens can vote with their feet if they don’t like what the community has decided.
I also think that you read Scalias opinion with the same emotional bias that you often have when responding to me. He did not say that “…adults do not have the right to consensual sex in their own homes”. He said that the Constitution does not address such matters and so those are left to the states or individuals. He said it with a lot more elegance.
“The Supreme Court exists as a check against mob rule. The Founders realized that human rights were not an issue that could be put up to a vote; the judicial branch exists precisely so that it can rule on matters such as those under consideration in Lawrence v. Texas.”
The Supreme Court exists as a third branch in a balanced system. The court’s purpose is to determine whether or not laws are constitutional. Our constitution recognizes civil liberties including rights of speech, religion, etc. The notion of human rights is fairly new and in my opinion a slippery slope that will lead to “man” as the moral authority. No thanks. I like the bare bones limits of our constitution. I like that it does not attempt to become a moral authority. I like that it’s grounding is liberty. Under that constitution you can do in your house as you may and I can do in mine as I may. Backed up by a general moral code of mutual respect this model has been successful for many generations.
The living document theory brings opinion and moral relevance into the picture and attempts to force one size fits all morality on everyone.
“I’m getting really tired of this tactic of you calling me “emotional” whenever you are losing the argument.”
No ego there. I do not believe I am losing the argument. In fact there is no argument. There is my position and you judging that and what Santorum said through a prism that distorts.And on this particular subject you do get very emotional. It is personal to you, I get it.
“When I pointed out that Santorum “talks up social issues,” and asked if you think he fits the descriptions of people who do so you listed above…”
Santorum talks about social issues. Of course he wants to influence people. I have no problem with that on either side. Santrorum does not file lawsuits, create entire organizations to push his agenda, force his values (beyond the golden rule) in the classroom, deride or make fun of those who hold differing opinions and lifestyles, deem anyone who holds a different opinion backwards (religious freaks clinging to their guns).
He would like to have an adult conversation. That would require greater respect from his fellow citizens to talk about the place for privacy in our lives, the place for individuals to have the freedom to raise their children as they see fit regarding private matters on both sides…and so much more.
Many of us see a general errosion of morality and civility in our communities and we see it in part to be a result of bringing private moral matters into the mainstream and attempting to make everyone fit a mold.
It’s impossible to discuss this if you have not been able to get my position (or Santorums). You don’t have to agree but you do have to know what I’m saying otherwise this becomes a complete waste of time for both of us.
Perhaps a different method would serve us better. I will take questions one at a time but I won’t respond to you in the usual long, tedious fashion.
What do you want to know? I’ll do my best to keep my answers brief.
Tina: “Your interpretation leads to the conclusion that Rick Santorum would work to create federal law to outlaw certain forms of homosexual sex.”
No, it doesn’t. I specifically said I don’t think he would do that. My interpretation has always been that Santorum thinks the states have the right to implement such bans, which you previously said was untrue and now are admitting is correct. Based on this alone, I think it’s clear that Santorum does not respect the rights of American citizens and would not make a good president. And I think he would use federal law to push other repressive measures, such as DOMA or attempting to re-implement DADT. He would also likely use his position to further the push to make access to birth control harder for many poor women.
“I also think that you read Scalias opinion with the same emotional bias that you often have when responding to me. He did not say that “…adults do not have the right to consensual sex in their own homes”. He said that the Constitution does not address such matters and so those are left to the states or individuals.”
Tina, there is no difference between those two things. If he is saying that the Constitution doesn’t address such matters, and that states can pass bans outlawing certain types of consensual sex, then OF COURSE he is saying that adults don’t have the right to those types of sex. Having the right to do something means that the state has no right to stop you. I’m amazed that you don’t seem to get this.
“Our constitution recognizes civil liberties including rights of speech, religion, etc. The notion of human rights is fairly new and in my opinion a slippery slope that will lead to “man” as the moral authority.”
Tina, I use “human rights” and “constitutional rights” interchangeably.
“No thanks. I like the bare bones limits of our constitution.”
Do you think the bare bones limits of our Constitution permit the government to stop consenting adults from engaging in certain types of sex? Really?
“I like that it’s grounding is liberty. Under that constitution you can do in your house as you may and I can do in mine as I may.”
Now you are contradicting yourself again; this is becoming incoherent. According to Scalia and Santorum, you do not have the right to do in your house as you may if that includes oral or anal sex, and if your state has laws forbidding you from doing that. That is absurd.
“The living document theory brings opinion and moral relevance into the picture and attempts to force one size fits all morality on everyone.”
I didn’t say anything about the living document theory. The idea that the government should not interfere with the private decisions of its citizens, barring some kind of very compelling government interest, fits well into conservative constitutional theory as well. It is clear that sodomy bans violate the constitutional rights of citizens and go far beyond the proper role of government, whether the bans come from the state or federal level.
“No ego there. I do not believe I am losing the argument.”
Then why do you keep changing it? If you believe in what you’re saying, you should be consistent and not contradict yourself so much.
“In fact there is no argument. There is my position”
Call it what you want.
“and you judging that and what Santorum said through a prism that distorts.”
As I’ve made clear, I have not distorted anything. You are trying to draw distinctions without a difference, as when you claimed that Scalia didn’t say that adults have no right to consensual sex in their own homes, when that is EXACTLY what his dissent says.
“Santorum talks about social issues. Of course he wants to influence people. I have no problem with that on either side.”
So you are admitting that you didn’t actually mean what you wrote earlier?
“Santrorum does not…deride or make fun of those who hold differing opinions and lifestyles, deem anyone who holds a different opinion backwards (religious freaks clinging to their guns).”
Seriously, Tina? Saying that gay people “destroy the basic unit of our society” is not derisive, and it does not deem them as backwards or defective? You can’t really believe that.
And Obama never called anyone “religious freaks;” now who is distorting?
“He would like to have an adult conversation.”
There is no “adult conversation” over whether or not we should criminalize people for engaging in consensual bl*wj*bs. I’m sorry, such a conversation is not possible.
“That would require greater respect from his fellow citizens to talk about the place for privacy in our lives,”
I can’t have “respect” for a presidential candidate that has no respect for my freedom or your freedom, Tina.
“Many of us see a general errosion of morality and civility in our communities and we see it in part to be a result of bringing private moral matters into the mainstream and attempting to make everyone fit a mold.”
As if private moral matters were never in the mainstream before! It’s just funny, Tina. You don’t seem to think that bans on sodomy attempt to “make everyone fit a mold,” and you blame those “leftists” who brought court challenges for making it an issue. No, the people who decided it would be a bright idea to criminalize sodomy made it an issue. The “leftists” that took it to court were merely defending their constitutional rights against an overly intrusive government that was attempting to regulate their sex lives.
“You don’t have to agree but you do have to know what I’m saying otherwise this becomes a complete waste of time for both of us.”
It’s hard to know what you’re saying when you don’t even seem to know what you’re saying. First you say that people have the right to do in their homes as they wish, then you say that states can stop adults from having consensual sex in their own homes. Which is it? They can’t both be true.
“Perhaps a different method would serve us better. I will take questions one at a time but I won’t respond to you in the usual long, tedious fashion.
What do you want to know? I’ll do my best to keep my answers brief.”
OK, that sounds like a plan.
First question: What legitimate government interest does the state have in stopping consenting adults from engaging in oral and anal sex with one another? As I’m sure you know, in order to intervene in the private decisions of individuals, the government must have a very compelling reason to do so. What do you think this reason is?
Second question: If a state is going to implement bans on sodomy, would this have to apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples? Since both types of couples can and do engage in such acts, it would be arbitrary discrimination to apply it only to one group and not the other.
One more thing, Tina: I just stumbled across this article, in which Santorum says that he approves of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in all 50 states:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-would-invalidate-gay-marriages_n_1178450.html
Such a move would go beyond even DOMA. His idea that there should be one marriage law for all 50 states certainly undermines his earlier “states rights” claims regarding sodomy bans. This is yet another example of how Santorum wants to impose his values on the rest of us. By using a constitutional amendment, Santorum would invalidate gay marriage even in states where it has passed by majority rule. This is why he has no business being anywhere near the presidency.
Chris: “No, it doesn’t. I specifically said I don’t think he would do that.”
You weren’t very clear then when you wrote:
If you don’t think that what difference does it make what he believes personally?
“Santorum thinks the states have the right to implement such bans…”
I do too…if the people of a state agree and by democratic process institute such a law. The reality is that in today’s world no law that seeks to peek behind the bedroom curtain would go over with the people…a man’s home, and particularly his bedroom, is still his castle where consenting adults make choices.
Perhaps this will help to make my position clear: 1. I believe the federal government is limited by the Constitution and was formed for specific purposes only. 2. I believe that choices are best made close to home: personal choices for self and family first, local community second, state third, and finally the federal government. 3. I believe that all human beings have certain unalienable rights and that our founding documents spell out those specific rights clearly. 4. I don’t believe abortion or alternative lifestyles come under the heading of rights; these are matters of personal choice and obligation. 5. I believe that our representatives in the federal government have been overstepping their powers over the past sixty to seventy years and trampled on the rights of Americans. 6. I believe activist judges have decided rights that are not in the constitution exist so that the leftist social agenda can be forced on all of the people. 7. I believe that this living document ideology is undermining our republic, intruding in our personal lives and causing great divisions among the people.
I will have to continue this later
Tina: “If you don’t think that what difference does it make what he believes personally?”
Tina, I think I have been clear on this. I believe his opinion on this subject matters because he clearly does not understand the proper role of government or the rights of citizens. I believe him when he says he would not try to re-institute bans on sodomy, and I believe him when he says he thinks this an issue for the states. But believing that consenting adults do not have the right to have sex in their own homes is an extreme, fringe position, and it shows that he does not respect the rights of American citizens. He probably won’t try to use federal power to push sodomy bans, but he could use it to do a whole lot of other unconstitutional things, as I’ve mentioned above.
“I do too…if the people of a state agree and by democratic process institute such a law.”
But why should people be able to decide, by democratic process, what you can do with your husband or boyfriend in your own bedroom? Doesn’t that strike you as wrong? What interest do the people of your state have in such a private matter? Why do they get a voice in this decision? It’s none of their business! This just isn’t a government issue, at all.
“The reality is that in today’s world no law that seeks to peek behind the bedroom curtain would go over with the people…a man’s home, and particularly his bedroom, is still his castle where consenting adults make choices.”
Don’t you think this is a good thing? Why would anyone want this to be otherwise, unless they were, to borrow a phrase, a total “control freak?”
“5. I believe that our representatives in the federal government have been overstepping their powers over the past sixty to seventy years and trampled on the rights of Americans.”
Do you think it is possible for state governments to overstep their power as well? And if so, don’t you think that criminalizing adults engaging in consensual oral and/or anal sex amounts to overstepping their power?
Chris: “But believing that consenting adults do not have the right to have sex in their own homes is an extreme, fringe position…”
A personal moral belief, Chris, is something you believe for yourself, would teach your own children, and think unwise for others but not something you impose on others. The idea that he doesn’t think consenting adults can have sex in their own homes however they choose is absurd but if asked he’s not going to lie and pretend he believes it is wise.
“He probably won’t try to use federal power to push sodomy bans, but he could use it to do a whole lot of other unconstitutional things, as I’ve mentioned above.”
First of all legislation is written and passed in congress. Do you honestly think that he would make any of this a high priority given the enourmous financial and world problems there are to address at this time?
See what I think is that he is being asked these questions to scare or worry voters like you. I think its all part of the Obama plan for reelection. Avoid the really important issues and the terrible record and consentrate on all of the things that set a liberals hair on fire…abortion, contraception, gay marriage, gay sex, healthcare, entitlement. The scary republicans are going to take everything away and rob you of your rights!
It’s pathetic!
“But why should people be able to decide, by democratic process, what you can do with your husband or boyfriend in your own bedroom?”
See why its a dumb…and most likely a set up!?!
“It’s none of their business! This just isn’t a government issue, at all.”
NO KIDDING!!!
“Do you think it is possible for state governments to overstep their power as well? And if so, don’t you think that criminalizing adults engaging in consensual oral and/or anal sex amounts to overstepping their power?”
Of course it’s possible. And yes I have said as much. Geez, Chris, you really are obsessed about this subject. The constitution doesn’t protect us against stupidity or error…we get to figure it out ourselves. Please don’t confuse a moral beleif I hold for myself and think unwise for others as something I would always seek to impose on others…particularly soemthing as private as this. The conservative rule works best. Mind your own business and treat others with respect.
Tina: “The idea that he doesn’t think consenting adults can have sex in their own homes however they choose is absurd…See why its a dumb…and most likely a set up!?!…NO KIDDING!!!…Please don’t confuse a moral beleif I hold for myself and think unwise for others as something I would always seek to impose on others…particularly soemthing as private as this.”
Tina, now I am really confused.
You said earlier that Santorum is right when he says the state has the right to pass anti-sodomy laws. Now you seem to be saying that such a belief is “absurd.”
Which is it?
Seperate personal beliefs and what we acknowledge is possible as process in government.
The people in a given state, through their representatives, can pass any law. Right?
I can hold a personal belief and still not think it wise to legislate about that personal belief… but at the same time I acknowledge that others might.
I don’t know why this difference is so hard to understand.
The Bible speaks about sin. It is up to the individual to make moral decisions for his own life; Christianity acknowledges free will. (The founders certainly did) So it is important for each of us to respect another’s free will. At the same time there are things that citizens agree need to be restricted or discouraged for public order and protection.
There is a third element in this. Christians have been bullied to silence on issues of morality. I think many of us, while respecting differing opinions and choices, now feel it necessary to express our moral beliefs, especially after witnessing the moral decline in this nation that followed our silencing. We know we will be villified and scorned but that is a price we are willing to pay. It is necessary to speak up about what we consider the unwise choice and it is also important that we stand up for our right to speak! It is important to reestablish that there are things that have become acceptable that might not be good for individuals and the community at large.
Tina: “The people in a given state, through their representatives, can pass any law. Right?”
Wrong. If the people of a state pass a law that violates the constitutional rights of other people, then the Supreme Court has a duty to strike down that law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. That is the reason the Supreme Court exists, and this is what they have done since our country’s inception.
For instance, anti-miscegenation laws used to hold widespread public support in southern states. I believe I’ve seen a poll showing that when laws against mixed race marriages were finally found unconstitutional, about 70% of people in those states still supported such laws. If they had taken a vote, the people would have likely voted to continue preventing mixed race couples from marrying. Luckily, this was determined to be a rights issue, not one that could be left up to majority rule. The same thing happened in Brown v. Board of Education, which found other segregation laws unconstitutional. These laws were supported by the people, but the people did not have the right to impose those laws because they violated the constitutional rights of others.
Now, I am glad you are making it clear that you would disagree with laws prohibiting sodomy. I see now that you are saying, despite your disagreement, you still think that the people have the right to pass such laws, and that they are constitutional. I didn’t understand this opinion earlier, because to be fair, you weren’t expressing yourself very clearly. While I understand what you are saying now, I still think you are clearly wrong. No government has any rational basis for depriving people of the right to have consensual sex in their homes. The judges in Lawrence v. Texas were correct when they found sodomy bans unconstitutional, and history will not look kindly upon Scalia’s dissent.
Tina: “First of all legislation is written and passed in congress. Do you honestly think that he would make any of this a high priority given the enourmous financial and world problems there are to address at this time?”
Tina, Santorum has made social issues a priority during his entire career. He believes that keeping same-sex couples from marrying is crucial to upholding Western civilization. As the link I posted above shows, he is even willing to push for a constitutional amendment which would prevent any state from recognizing gay marriage. This goes far beyond DOMA, which allows state recognition of gay marriage but does not allow federal recognition. So yes, I do think Santorum would continue to treat the culture wars as a priority.
The financial crisis has not stopped Republicans from continuing the culture wars. Their push to defund Planned Parenthood is one example, their complaints against the repeal of DADT another. Other Republican presidential candidates have made social issues a priority as well. Rick Perry, who also publicly disagreed with Lawrence v. Texas before forgetting he had done so in a recent debate, put out an infamous campaign ad in which he said that there was something wrong in this country because gays can serve in the military (and within two days, this ad became the “most disliked” video on Youtube!). Michele Bachmann once claimed that gay marriage was the defining issue of our time, although now she prefers to focus on economic issues. So I don’t think I am being paranoid in thinking that Santorum is just going to put his differences with the gay community aside once he is president, and focus completely on the economy and foreign policy. If anything, winning the presidency would only embolden him and other Republicans to continue pushing their social agenda.
That said, I still don’t think there’s any chance of Santorum ever winning a presidential election, so this is all hypothetical. He is doing well right now in certain states, but nationally, he doesn’t have a chance, especially if Obama’s campaign goes after him hard on his controversial stance on social issues.
“See what I think is that he is being asked these questions to scare or worry voters like you.”
Tina, he’s being asked questions about these issues because he has made controversial statements about these issues. It’s important that we understand what exactly his positions are on these issues and reporters have a duty to ask. Of course Obama is going to use Santorum’s positions against him in the campaign–he’d be stupid not to. Santorum’s positions are unpopular, and they’re getting more and more unpopular among Americans each year. We need a president who can lead us into the future, not one who is stuck in the past. Sure, Obama isn’t the great progressive leader people thought he would be, but if you think he is a divisive figure, the guy who doesn’t believe in birth control is probably going to be even more divisive.
Chris: “Wrong. If the people of a state pass a law that violates the constitutional rights of other people, then the Supreme Court has a duty to strike down that law…”
Then your answer to the question should be “right, states can pass any law.”
Of course it doesn’t mean the law would stand if challenged. A lot of people, including those sitting on the SC think Roe is not constitutional but here we are.
“No government has any rational basis for depriving people of the right to have consensual sex in their homes. The judges in Lawrence v. Texas were correct when they found sodomy bans unconstitutional, and history will not look kindly upon Scalia’s dissent.”
I would describe it as “depriving people of the choice to have consensual sex in their homes”. Sex acts are not a constitutionally grantedor guaranteed “right”. Abortions aren’t a right either.
Scalia’s dissent was that the federal government should remain neutral because the federal constitution does not specify sexual preferrence as a “right”. All things that are not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution are to be left for the people or the individual states to decide. I think that history will find Scalia’s opinion right on the money!
In this case, I think “the people” (individuals in the privacy of their own homes) should decide.
“…he is even willing to push for a constitutional amendment which would prevent any state from recognizing gay marriage.”
And? Look back at the feminist “push” for the “Equal Rights Ammendment”. It is very difficult to ammend the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
He may use the bully pulpit to talk about social change but I don’t see why this is a big problem. Obama has done this as have other presidents before him.
“The financial crisis has not stopped Republicans from continuing the culture wars.”
I can’t think of a single issue that wasn’t pushed front and center by media questioning of the candidates. The Presidents birth control mandate (talk about legislating morality!!!) brought birth control into the conversation. In my opinion the left has been the pushy force when it comes to private matters and choices going mainstream: legislating morality both through legislation and in the courts, in social conversation, in schools, and in art, books and entertainment.
“…and within two days, this ad became the “most disliked” video on Youtube!”
Which should tell you that your fears are a bit overblown and exagerated. As I have indicated, talking about a thing and making it the law of the land are two entirely different things.
We have had too many leaders that live the “its your thing do what you want to do” life as if they were teenagers rather than people in positions of authority. Adults in positions of great authority have a moral obligation to behave and speak as responsible adults. The youth of America is watching. Bill Clinton was a shameless perpetual teen…he wanted the kids to like him. I was frankly disgusted, not only by his own personal behavior but at the many so-called adult women who thought it was cute to publically offer him their BJ services. We have serious problems in this country…health problems and social problems. Many of them are a result of rampant promiscuity: unwanted pregnancy (too often resulting in abortion), std’s, single mothers without means…and we have men acting like giggly irresponsible teenage boys or living with their parents for the rest of their lives. If ever there was a time for a strong moral leader it is now. I want all adiults to be mindful of public expressions about private matters. And yes…I think it is not only necessary as a means of maintaining civility, I think it is necessary to guarantee a healthy childhood and teen years for our young people so that they are more likely to form strong families and become contributing citizens.
“…Obama’s campaign goes after him hard on his controversial stance on social issues”
Yes, Obama, who famously said he was for abortion because he didn’t think his girls should be “punished with a baby”. Now that is a morally superior opinion. Let’s encourage our children avoid the consequences of their actions and let’s further damage their character by taking care of the consequences for them even if it means eliminated the life that was started in our child’s belly because of irresponsible sexual behavior. What a lesson for young people! Don’t worry, honey, go ahead and sleep around, planned parenthood is right around the corner! Pregnancy is dangerous anyway…and since you will one day be a full grown woman you have a right to eliminate, wipe out, terminate, kill the life growing inside you. Yep, that’s bound to go over big on the “controversial social issues” circuit.
There are many things that will haunt and chase Obama in the coming year.
“…he’s being asked questions about these issues because he has made controversial statements about these issues.”
Everybody makes controversial statements…that is what disagreement brings. The above statement by Obama is extremely controversial. (it was a big gaff if you ask me…even if you think it it isn’t wsie to say it outloud)
“It’s important that we understand what exactly his positions are on these issues and reporters have a duty to ask.”
Too bad nobody ever bothered to ask Obama anything; we wouldn’t be still in this mess.
“Santorum’s positions are unpopular, and they’re getting more and more unpopular among Americans each year.”
Time will tell. Recent polling on abortion would suggest otherwise. Also people tend to become more conservative as they mature and as they have children of their own. People are about evenly divided in terms of whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. Some that are pro choice still believe it is morally wrong:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx
many of Obama’s positions are unpopular. Americans have hard choices to make but one thing is sure. WE CAN NOT LET THIS TAX AND SPEND MANIAC RUIN OUR ECONOMY FURTHER!!!!! His socialist and redistributive economic positions are much worse than “talk” about social issues could ever be at this time.
“We need a president who can lead us into the future, not one who is stuck in the past.”
Then Obama needs to be tossed on the trash heap of history along with the Marxist/socialist regimes that have failed or are failing all over the planet! He is the past and it doesn’t work.
“Obama isn’t the great progressive leader people thought he would be…”
Great progressive leader? Good grief what were you expecting?
Economically this is the most progressive president this nation has ever seen. His breach of the Constitution makes Bush look like a timid child by comparison (Which makes sense since Bush actually wanted to uphold the Constitution and Obama feels limited by it and believes it is inadequate to his purpose of transformation).
“…if you think he is a divisive figure, the guy who doesn’t believe in birth control is probably going to be even more divisive.”
Wrong! One of these guys believes in liberty, personal responsibility and free will. It isn’t Obama, not on a single count.
Obama believes government has the responsibility and right to decide winners and losers. He believes government can arbitrarily force citizens or organizations to buy products. Obama thinks government can tell private business where it can and cannot build a new place of business. According to Obama, power and control resides not with the people but in government, and specifically the president. Obama believes the nation is a coalition of groups, instead of private individual citizens, and he believes he should decide which groups get to pay and which groups get the prize. He couldn’t be more divisive!!!