Poor Rick Santorum

[dgs49]

In brief, what Mr. Santorum has said is that if the Supreme Court strikes down sodomy laws on the basis that they violate the (non-existent) constitutional right to privacy, then many other behaviors that most adults consider abhorrent must also be permitted. They are private sexual behaviors that produce no apparent physical harm: Incest, bigamy, polygamy, and bestiality. When he speaks of sodomy, he is CLEARLY referring to homosexual sodomy, because that is the subject initially at issue.

The Senator's point is not even arguable, and I haven't heard anyone even purport to counter his main point: That the Court's "right of privacy" is boundless because it is based on nothing. In fact, I would like to hear the current "constitutional" argument against incest. Or bigamy. Or polygamy. Under the current "constitutional" law, no prohibition of these activities could stand up.

But of course, you could just say that Santorum is an idiot and let it go at that. It's easier than making a cogent point.

[quaddriver]

Thank you Sue for illustrating how quotes get abused.

What Santorum said, word for word is thus:

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".

emphasis mine.

Vs what was REPORTED he said:

Santorum then generously notes that homosexuality, while antithetical to his (again, erroneous) notions of traditional marriage, is distinguishable (barely!) from "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be,"

As can be seen, clearly, the reality is far different from the reporting. The source that Sue cited got exactly 12 words right, leaving off the most important 2: Its NOT

"NOT" isn't equating as put forth in the OP, but rather un-equating. What was quoted in Sues source was editorialization. Such is not good reporting. Its not even reporting. However, too often it is credited as reporting.

All the rest of the stuff is fluff - we (the PA electorate) sat Mr Santorum down. He has less chance of being elected president than I do, and Im not running.

So returning back to the original topic. Mr Savage CLEARLY lied when he justified what he did. Why is he not on trial here? this would never be tolerated if, ohhhhh, say Mr Santorum did that....

[Scooter]

Incest in 99.9999% of cases is non-consensual and therefore by definition harmful. Ditto bestiality. Bigamy is fraud, and is therefore by definition harmful. Polygamy as it has been practiced in the U.S. is for the most part non-consensual and engaged in with minors and therefore harmful.

The fact that no credible challenge to prohibitions against any of those practices has ever been mounted, and that same-sex sexual activity has been legal in many states for decades without any move to point to that legality as a means of legalizing any of those other activities, should give a clue as to the ridculousness of Santorum's argument. At least, it would give a clue to someone with brain cells numbering more than those of a rutabaga.

[Sue U]

The source that Sue cited got exactly 12 words right,

Um, Quad, the source I cited was the word-for-word transcript of the interview, which I linked to. The "what was reported" part you quote is my contextualization of his comments. Aside from the words shown between quotation marks -- which, by conventional use, are those little squiggly things that are intended to indicate these are exactly Santorum's words -- everything else is MY words. Please be so kind as to read what actually appears in my posts! Here's some practice, with a few of my descriptors removed:

Santorum then ... notes that homosexuality, while antithetical to ... traditional marriage, is distinguishable ... from "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be," but then immediately asserts ... "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions."

That last quote was in response to the AP reporter saying: "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out." Santorum: "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions." You can obviously draw your own conclusions as to what he was talking about, but it looks pretty clear to me -- exactly as I described it previously.

The Senator's point is not even arguable, and I haven't heard anyone even purport to counter his main point: That the Court's "right of privacy" is boundless because it is based on nothing.

This is just dopey. Is there any constitutional right that is "boundless?" Is there any constitutional right based on anything other than some words on paper that are declared to be the law? Do you think there is no right to simply be left alone and not have the government intrude on what you do in your bedroom?

[BoSoxGal]

He just needs someone to rick his santorum

Bwahahahaha!


This is the perfect moment to share my new sig line, which if I do say so myself, is quite fucking brilliant.

[Crackpot]

Unfortunately is knowing what I do about H.L. Menckin He probably said that for reasons you'd find personally appalling.

[dgs49]

The so-called "right of privacy," is boundless because it is based on nothing in the constitution. When people speak of a violation of their privacy, they are invariably talking about one form or another of eavesdropping. The Court has expanded it to mean, in effect, the right to do anything I want privately, as long as it doesn't (apparently) harm anyone else. What are the limits? There are none.

If an adult man and his adult daughter wanted to "get married," they could make exactly the same arguments as people convicted under a sodomy law, and the law against incest would HAVE TO BE THROWN OUT. On what basis could it survive? The medical bases for anti-incest laws are obsolete.

And bigamy is not fraud, as long as all participants are aware. Again, on what basis could an anti-bigamy law survive if the parties are all in agreement? This is PRIVATE sexual behavior. It would have to be struck down.

Beastiality is the same thing. If the animal is owned, and is not harmed, and it is done privately, how is it not protected by the Right of Privacy? Absent some sort of tangible and real threat of spread of disease, anti-beastiality laws could not survive a Constitutional challenge.

Santorum was right. I challenge any of the lawyers here to make an argument that incest, polygamy or bestiality laws could be upheld, based on the expansive right of privacy that the USSC has created. What are the limits on the sexual right of privacy?

[quaddriver]

Sorry Sue, I thought you were quoting editorialization from the other author. My bad.

However,

this kinda makes it worse no? At no point did Santorum 'equate' anything. At no point did he indicate anything was 'barely' different;

'distinguishable (barely)' brushed over the fact that he said it 'is NOT'. 'Not' has clear and consise meaning such that it is a basic logical construct. 'Not' cannot be redefined at will to mean what someone wishes it meant.

When he said "A is NOT B or C" then game over, discussion over.

We still have not addressed the clear fact that Savage lied and took actions based on his lie. We (royal - not you) have instead defended Savage and his actions, which I clearly pointed out were bush-league. (or worse)

Which is the worse problem in the US? that the majority of people oppose homosexual marriage, or that "people who are not agreed with" act as douchebags? (and as you research Mr Savage you find this is not his first rodeo, and likely will not be his last)

[BoSoxGal]

Unfortunately is knowing what I do about H.L. Menckin He probably said that for reasons you'd find personally appalling.

Oh, I don't know. Jaded as I've become, I share his views with regard to representative democracy generally resulting in the rule of the superior by the inferior.

Here is something Mencken said about the Presidency with which I agree wholeheartedly - in fact, I think it's already come to pass, in the person of our last President, and very likely will come to pass again in the person of the next, if the GOP is successful in 2012:

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. ~ H.L. Mencken

[Gob]

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. ~ H.L. Mencken

Jesus, he nailed Chimpy a treat there!

[Long Run]

dgs49 wrote: The so-called "right of privacy," is boundless because it is based on nothing in the constitution. When people speak of a violation of their privacy, they are invariably talking about one form or another of eavesdropping. The Court has expanded it to mean, in effect, the right to do anything I want privately, as long as it doesn't (apparently) harm anyone else. What are the limits? There are none.

The limitation is the judgment of the judiciary. We draw lines in the middle ground in all walks of life, rather than have an absolute one way or the other. Potentially, a court could rule to the extremes you and Santorum suggest, but thankfully we will never have a judiciary that does not overlay some common sense on their decision making. The real argument, of course, is that the judiciary is substituting its judgment of where to draw the line in matters of privacy in place of the judgment of the legislature.