Is Rick Santorum the Voice of Justice?

-cman- · Apr 30, 2003

I love a good headline...

I'm not one of your knee-jerk lib-Dems who is howling for Rick Santorum to resign. I am a firm believer that everyone should be able to make a fool of themselves in public. It is, after all, the guiding principle that allows myself and so many of my countrymen to get through the day. I mean heck, It's not like he publicly pined away for a return to the days of Jim Crow or anything.

Before I get to the question I wish to post to the forum, a clip from today's NYT:

Mr. Santorum, who did not speak in public today, has refused to apologize and said that his remarks were more directed at the right to privacy rather than homosexuality. He said his position was shared by a majority of the Supreme Court in upholding a Georgia antisodomy law in 1986.
Mr. DeLay repeated that point today, saying the court found "that it is very dangerous to say that whatever you do behind closed doors is your right to privacy."

"It undermines a lot of moral questions that we have in this country," he said.
Click to expand...

By the way, hot Ricky was speaking in reference to an recently argued case Lawrence v Garner in which two police officers, called to a residency to investigate a burglary, instead arrested the men for engaging in homosexual sex, a misdemeanor under Texas law. The suit aims to challenge the 1986 SCOTUS decision in Bowers v Hardwick in which the Supreme Court narrowly construed a Georgia statute that prohibited a number of sexual acts between any combination of genders, to be regarding homosexual sex. The court in part ruled:

that because of our country's long tradition of criminalizing homosexuality, it would be "at best, facetious" to maintain that the Constitution protects a privacy right to engage in such behavior.

The Georgia statute challenged in Hardwick, unlike the Texas law currently before the Court, was gender neutral - it prohibited enumerated sexual acts regardless of whether the partners were of the same or of the opposite sex. A majority of our Supreme Court, however, treated Hardwick as a case about gay sex.

The Court said specifically in Hardwick that "[t]he only claim properly before the Court . . . is Hardwick's challenge to the Georgia statute as applied to consensual homosexual sodomy. We express no opinion on the constitutionality of the Georgia statute as applied to other acts of sodomy." Findlaw.com
Click to expand...

The question I wish to pose to the group is the following. Is the concept; as long as no one is harmed and no-one's rights are violated, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's home, a core American value? Are sexual morality laws just?

The key word there is "just" not legal. I'm going to assume you people know the difference.

-cman- · May 3, 2003

Bumping to beat the bushes for anyone willing to take up the banner for sexual morality laws.

Bueller?

Blitzz Boy · May 4, 2003

Anti-polygamy laws fall under "sexual morality" laws like indoor soccer is soccer.

But polygamy is Federally Funded Child Molestation and the laws against these Short-Eye Perverts are not strong enough.

Actually, we don't need laws against polygamy; we just need to Air Condition these Child Molesters' skulls with a 50-caliber.

If polygamists breathe, then air should be illegal.

There, are you happy?

Hugs & kisses,

Bueller

-cman- · May 4, 2003

Um... I think you are confusing polygamy with pederasty or pedophillia.

The first is multiple WIVES, the second is sex with children. I'm down with otherwise.

NEXT!