Sen. Santorum's AP Interview

[TheGeepster]

Some of you may have heard that Sen. Rick Santorum has stirred up a bit of anger in something he said in an Associated Press interview. The claim is that his statements were hurtful, bigoted and uncalled for.

Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL) is the unedited section of that interview. What I'd like to know is how people feel about his comments, and whether or not the people calling for his dismissal from leadership in the GOP is justified or not.

[Beldaran]

I disagree with him, but that's no excuse for him to have to resign. He was elected. If no one likes him, then they don't have to re-elect him.

[SomUnknown]

Originally posted by Beldaran
If no one likes him, then they don't have to re-elect him.

That's exactly how I feel.

He's allowed to say whatever he wants, basic right. If people don't like it, then don't vote for him.

Besides, will his personal views get in the way of his job? Just because he's in a spotlight doesn't mean he doesn't get to have an opinion.

[Gerudo]

as far as homosexuality goes, to each their own...

this guy says he doesnt have problems with homosexuals, just their acts... well i can SORTA agree with that, but you you are gay, and want to have sex, well, theres basically only 1 option, which is what they do...

i agree that he SHOULD NOT have to step down / resign / whatever...

[Ich]

I think it's the left, like from the communist manifesto, who are causing these problems. Undermine the opposition by calling them a racist, homophobe etc., and then you can take control. I agree with him.

[TheGeepster]

The two groups crying out against Santorum thus far are the gay rights activists and Democrats, although I just checked Drudge, and apparently the head of the United Apostolic Brethren, a Mormon sect is upset he included polygamy in that list..

Polygamy has long been abandoned by most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, btw.

I also note that in the quote they're griping about, someone added the word 'gay', which Santorum apparently did not use. Interesting..

[fatcatfan]

that's at the core of the issue. They misquoted him.

but look at what he's saying. The court is trying to make a ruling based on "right to privacy". That is the issue to which he is responding. His response was that if you allow sodomy (and therefore homosexual acts) based solely on the right to privacy, you are opening the door for many many other things. If it's okay, based on this premise, then what is wrong with prostitution? It's consensual sex, and money just happens to exchange hands. What about incest? There are well-known reasons incest is bad; it brings about genetic disorders in the children of such relationships. But if it takes place in private can it be considered illegal under this ruling? That is what Santorum was speaking out about.

When pressed on the issue of homosexuality, he gave his own personal feeling and opinions, which had little or nothing to do with the issue at hand. The simple fact is that not everyone in America is sensitive to or supportive of homosexuals. They have that right and have the right to express their opinions on the matter. A Senator isn't responsible for representing *everyone* but only the people who elected him. I dare say few homosexuals voted for him, just based on the fact that he is a Republican.

[Menokh]

Fatcatfan is probably right.
Not knowing what the full extent of what he said is, I still would have to say he has the right to say whatever he damn well pleases.

If people don;t like what he said, then don;t vote for him. That is why we have elections.

Privacy is a very sticky issue. One one hand I think we have the right to privacy, but on the other if it is known that we have done illegal things in private then they are still illegal. As for homosexuality, I find it perfectly natural, and should be allowed in much the same way it is in England.

[TheGeepster]

My first post of the thread includes the relevant unedited transcript of Santorum's comments, for anyone to examine themselves.

There is an interesting philosophical twist to the whole thing. Santorum argues, and I agree that the Constitution does not guarantee any right to privacy between consenting adults. And yet, many people feel (and they do have a good point) that such laws as would make these acts illegal are difficult to enforce, precisely because they take place in the privacy of homes.

However, in those cases where law enforcement go in with just cause, and discover proof of those acts, the law allows such to be prosecuted.

And so my thought runs along this line: States and Cities have the right to limit passions as they deem fit, especially in order to encourage a society friendly to traditional family values. If they deem it a bad idea, or are otherwise unwilling to pass such laws, then there is no perogative to do so.

As for the enforcement of them, law enforcement ought to enforce such illegal acts as they find in the natural course of their job, without undue poking into the lives of the citizens (which would violate the search and seizure principle).

[Mercy]

Santorum is a bit of an ass, in my opinion, and I do disagree with what he said in the interview but his statements were not so dangerous as to require his resignation. His constituency will have the oppurtunity to decide if he should leave come election time.

But...

People like Senator Santorum and those of you who agree with him scare the hell out of me. Privacy. No more inherently harmful than water yet vilified due to it's potential for abuse. Give up your right to privacy and you give up your freedom to be other than just another exhibit in the zoo of life. The very idea that we are not considered capable of comporting ourselves properly in private so as to require legislation against privacy is a personal insult to each and every citizen.

And since I think it has been about a year since I posted this last:

The Legend of Ruritania

There was once a far away land called Ruritania, and in Ruritania there was a strange phenomenon - all the trees that grew in Ruritania were transparent. Now, in the days when people had lived in mud huts, this had not been a problem, but now high-tech wood technology had been developed, and in the new age of wood, everyone in Ruritania found that their homes were all 100% see-through. Now, until this point, no one ever thought of allowing the police to spy on someone's home, but the new technology made this tempting. This being a civilized country, however, warrants were required to use binoculars and watch someone in their home. The police, taking advantage of this, would get warrants to use binoculars and peer in to see what was going on. Occasionally, they would use binoculars without a warrant, but everyone pretended that this didn't happen.

One day, a smart man invented paint - and if you painted your house, suddenly the police couldn't watch all your actions at will. Things would go back to the way they were in the old age - completely private.

Indignant, the state decided to try to require that all homes have video cameras installed in every nook and cranny. "After all", they said, "with this new development crime could run rampant. Installing video cameras doesn't mean that the police get any new capability - they are just keeping the old one."

A wise man pointed out that citizens were not obligated to make the lives of the police easy, that the police had survived all through the mud hut age without being able to watch the citizens at will, and that Ruritania was a civilized country where not everything that was expedient was permitted. For instance, in a neighboring country, it had been discovered that torture was an extremely effective way to solve crimes. Ruritania had banned this practice in spite of its expedience. Indeed, "why have warrants at all", he asked, "if we are interested only in expedience?"

A famous paint technologist, Dorothy Quisling, intervened however. She noted that people might take photographs of children masturbating should the new paint technology be widely deployed without safeguards, and the law was passed.

Soon it was discovered that some citizens would cover their mouths while speaking to each other, thus preventing the police from reading their lips through the video cameras. This had to be prevented, the police said. After all, it was preventing them from conducting their lawful surveillance. The wise man pointed out that the police had never before been allowed to listen in on people's homes, but Dorothy Quisling pointed out that people might use this new invention of covering their mouths with veils to discuss the kidnapping and mutilation of children. No one in the legislature wanted to be accused of being in favor of mutilating children, but then again, no one wanted to interfere in people's rights to wear what they liked, so a compromise was reached whereby all homes were installed with microphones in each room to accompany the video cameras. The wise man lamented few if any child mutilations had ever been solved by the old lip reading technology, but it was too late - the microphones were installed everywhere.

However, it was discovered that this was insufficient to prevent citizens from hiding information from the authorities, because some of them would cleverly speak in languages that the police could not understand. A new law was proposed to force all citizens to speak at all times only in Ruritanian, and, for good measure, to require that they speak clearly and distinctly near the microphones. "After all", Dorothy Quisling pointed out, "they might be using the opportunity to speak in private to mask terrorist activities!" Terrorism struck terror into everyone's hearts, and they rejoiced at the brilliance of this new law.

Meanwhile, the wise man talked one evening to his friends on how all of this was making a sham of the constitution of Ruritania, of which all Ruritanians were proud. "Why", he asked, "are we obligated to sacrifice all our freedom and privacy to make the lives of the police easier? There isn't any real evidence that this makes any big dent in crime anyway! All it does is make our privacy forfeit to the state!"

However, the wise man made the mistake of saying this, as the law required, in Ruritanian, clearly and distinctly, and near a microphone. Soon, the newly formed Ruritanian Secret Police arrived and took him off, and got him to confess by torturing him. Torture was, after all, far more efficient than the old methods, and had been recently instituted to stop the recent wave of people thinking obscene thoughts about tomatoes, which Dorothy Quisling noted was one of the major problems of the new age of plenty and joy.


m.

[fatcatfan]

I never said we should not have a right to privacy, and neither did Santorum. He is opposed to the court making a ruling based on the right to privacy - which *IS NOT* a Constitutional right, even though we will all agree some measure of personal privacy *is* a right. The job of the Supreme Court, as it concerns overturning laws, is to judge whether laws are Constitutional. They simply cannot judge that a law violates the right to privacy when the Constitution guarantees no such right. To do so creates a precedent which would allow for all kinds problems.

It isn't about privacy *or* homosexuality. It's about the court overstepping its bounds. Oh... take note that Congress *still* hasn't approved our President's judicial nominees.

[AtmaWeapon]

All the man said is that he disagrees that it is correct to say that anything you do is all right in the privacy of your own home. Much like you have an opinion, he has one too. He feels that homosexuality and other practices are undermining the family unit, something that has been the foundation of our society for thousands of years.

Woe is the day that a man loses his job in AMERICA, land of the free, for having an OPINION and expressing it.

I daresay that by suggesting he is unfit to do his job because of his opinion, you are no better than the government of Ruritania. You don't like the opinion, don't vote for him, but I'm tired of REPUBLICANS losing their political positions over things they say "because their views are tainted" when there are DEMOCRATIC congressmen that were once Ku Kux Klan members.