Skip to main content

View Diary: Students give Rick Santorum hard time on marriage equality (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bigamy, Polygamy, Adultry, Sodomy, Incest. (0+ / 0-)

    Santorum has effectively said we have a right to bigamy, polygamy, sodomy, adultry, incest and bestiality.

    In April 7, 2003 he tied those rights to a case then pending before the US Supreme Court (see below).

    Posted 4/23/2003 10:37 AM
    Excerpt from Santorum interviewThe Associated Press
    An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. ...

    SANTORUM: 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 —

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS
    CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
    No. 02—102. Argued March 26, 2003–Decided June 26, 2003

    ...(a) Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement–“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy … ,” 478 U.S., at 190–discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3—6.
    ...

    Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

    by Into The Woods on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 04:17:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (142)
  • Community (69)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (37)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Climate Change (30)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Media (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Spam (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • White House (15)
  • International (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site