|
No “right” to consensual non-marital acts, says Santorum
Blowing the AP reporter’s mind, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania argues at length that there is no “right” in the U.S. Constitution to consensual sex outside of marriage, and that laws restricting extra-marital acts are completely under the purview of the states. Santorum’s statement is an utter refutation of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey philosophy, but it goes well beyond that, enunciating a view of traditional sexual morality within the framework of constitutional federalist principles. Here is the complete transcript of the interview, which is unlike anything I’ve ever heard from a public official in this country. Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 23, 2003 02:01 AM | Send Comments
The Senator’s interview is amazing and welcome. But his expected total capitulation is not far off. The Senator seems to be craw fishing now. In a Fox News article online, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84827,00.html, the Senator is quoted as follows, “I was not equating one to the other. There is no moral equivalency there.” The article proclaims that he is accused of morally equating homosexuality with polygamy, adultery, and incest. It seems justifiable to equate homosexual behavior with those things. Certainly incest between a parent and his minor child is alone in a moral cellar. But incest between the venerated “consenting adults” is not less sinful than homosexuality, at least according to the Catholic Church. Homosexuality, like polygamy and incest, is a form of adultery according to scripture. What is remarkable about the inevitable uproar, at least as reported by Fox, is that everyone left behind old Fido, the family dog. Perhaps the establishment politicians and “balanced” reporters at Fox are so brainwashed they failed to see Fido in the Senator’s compelling logic and in his actual words. Posted by: P Murgos on April 23, 2003 11:36 PMFollowing is the text of an e-mail I sent Senator Santorum. “Thank you for speaking out in the Associated Press interview, for which you are being wrongfully vilified. It would be helpful to you if you did not back off on or use double talk about the homosexual behavior you oppose. If your enemies smell blood, you will never be left alone. Your logic is valid. Many that have shared your values have been cowed by liberalism, which today means intolerance. (See http://jkalb.freeshell.org/texts/tolerance.html.) What book or Website or other source did you rely on in formulating your viewpoint? It would help your cause if your sources linked with other sources. Here is a site with standards second to none that coincides with your views, if you are searching for logical and philosophical arguments to support your views: http://www.counterrevolution.net/. Specific to your controversey is this article: http://jkalb.freeshell.org/web/sex.php. Your bravery is noticed and admired.” |