Santorum and his views on our privacy rights

[East_TN_Patriot]

During a debate with a friend of mine on the issue of same-sex marriage, I happened across this article written by Rick Santorum for the Heritage Foundation. In it, he makes some comments that I think are absolutely stunning and dangerous. Here is the quote:

"The problem is, although privacy is not an enumerated right in our Constitution, some activist judges are reading that right into it in their decisions. But rulings that expand privacy--a purely selfish right--do nothing to serve the common good.

Recently, I participated in an event at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia on the Preamble to the Constitution, the five principles that form the basis of our democracy: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." My address focused on "promote the general Welfare," the one principle that was fundamentally different from all the rest because responsibility to promote the common good rests not just with the government, but with all citizens. Indeed, our Founding Fathers established all the rights in the Constitution not for the individual's gain, but for the common good.

The notion of a right to privacy is not about the common good, but about "ME."

Clearly, Santorum has no understanding about the significance of the 4th Amendment or doesn't care. He believes that privacy rights are a myth and an obstacle to the "common good." He believes that the right to privacy is damaging to our society and not for the common good. Santorum has no clue about what our society is about. Damn right it's about ME. Our society was founded on the idea of individual rights, freedoms, and liberty. The concept of the "common good" as a foundational principle to a democratic society was that adopted by the French and you see where that got them. His mentality is what got us the Patriot Act, the TSA, and other threats to our privacy.

I strongly believe that we have a right to our privacy and to live our lives as we choose to as long as it doesn't directly harm other people. This means we have to tolerate other lifestyles, beliefs, and behaviors we may not necessarily agree with. This is especially the case when these behaviors take place behind closed doors in our own homes. When we see a politician who labels himself as a conservative, but decries the right to privacy as a detriment to the "common good," it is time to be afraid.

Link to the original article is here:

The Necessity of Marriage

[East_TN_Patriot]

According to an article from ABC News, in another 2003 interview he said:

“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,” he said, referring to a Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down a sodomy law in the Lone Star state. “This right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.”

Do you think you have a right to consensual sex in your own home? Santorum is clear that he doesn't think so. I really am shocked to see this coming from a guy who has gotten so much support from Republicans. And he is calling Ron Paul dangerous and crazy...

Rick Santorum in the Hot Seat Again for Gay Marriage Stance - ABC News

[Oh Shoot]

According to an article from ABC News, in another 2003 interview he said:...

Pretty damn wacky. Adultery is not against the law in any state, bigamy and incest are in most or all. Don't see how he can make such an illogical leap between those.

And of course passing moral judgement or worse, supporting actual legislation against any sexual act between consenting adults is just pathetic.

Seems he looks back fondly on the days when the Catholic Church basically functioned as a government agency. Maybe would have made a good Torquemada.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, that doesn't sound good. I did not know about this. Thanks, ET

All those laws are whacky and lead to some whacky people doing even whackier

things. Behind closed doors with consenting adults, anything goes. That really

doesn't need to be an issue.

I wonder if he is already regretting this?

[mikegideon]

Let me google that for you

[Guest lostpass]

Santorum is pretty much everything wrong with the Republican party.

What most people want is to make their own decisions. Decisions about guns, decisions about who to sleep with, decisions about health care. I don't see that there is any party that that will support my right to make my own decision. I only want to sleep with my wife in a decidedly uninteresting manners so I'd be fine if Santorum was pres but I'll be damned if I am going to support that jerk.

I've had plenty of the government telling me what to do, I don't need them in the bedroom as well. Besides, sometimes we get all freaky and do it with the TV on.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thats what I've been sayin the last few days. He's not just a useful idiot who can get rid of the commies.

[mav]

I wasn't aware of those quotes ETP. Good post.

[kieefer]

RightWingNews.com :: Archives

also in defense I'd say this subject is the least of our worries.

[Oh Shoot]

....I've had plenty of the government telling me what to do, I don't need them in the bedroom as well. Besides, sometimes we get all freaky and do it with the TV on.

:D I often giggle, but every now and then you completely unglue me.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

also in defense I'd say this subject is the least of our worries.

I would never worry about a millenarian-inspired nuclear war in defense of Israel!

[kieefer]

I guess everyone read both articles completely, I mean he’s talking about the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act both of which RP supports and the rest on the stage. All I read into it is that he wants to save the definition of marriage. Maybe there’s more here than I thought who accept gay marriage?

Given the high stakes for society, it is important for public leaders to understand why marriage is important and to communicate that to the American public. But many politicians still do not understand what makes marriage worth defending.

The evidence is overwhelming: We need to promote and protect marriage to secure a healthier society. Therefore, the public policy implications are clear: The government must promote marriage as a fundamental societal benefit.

“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,” continued Santorum, then the Republican Conference chairman. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.

Maybe Thomas Jefferson’s solution to un-natural acts would suffice?;

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.

Was Jefferson also wanting to take away your rights to do whatever your wanting to do in the privacy of your own home??

I think some are reading more into this than there really is, all he wants to do is save the tradition of marriage and he raises a good case of why we should.

I guess I'm in the minority on this one.

[mikegideon]

Some folks believe that homosexuality is a choice. Personally, I believe religion is a choice, and refuse to have it forced on me by the government. I will never vote for a guy like Santorum. My guess is that way over half of the voting population feels the same way.

[USMCJG]

I guess everyone read both articles completely, I mean he’s talking about the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act both of which RP supports and the rest on the stage. All I read into it is that he wants to save the definition of marriage. Maybe there’s more here than I thought who accept gay marriage?

Given the high stakes for society, it is important for public leaders to understand why marriage is important and to communicate that to the American public. But many politicians still do not understand what makes marriage worth defending.

The evidence is overwhelming: We need to promote and protect marriage to secure a healthier society. Therefore, the public policy implications are clear: The government must promote marriage as a fundamental societal benefit.

“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,” continued Santorum, then the Republican Conference chairman. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.

Maybe Thomas Jefferson’s solution to un-natural acts would suffice?;

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.

Was Jefferson also wanting to take away your rights to do whatever your wanting to do in the privacy of your own home??

I think some are reading more into this than there really is, all he wants to do is save the tradition of marriage and he raises a good case of why we should.

I guess I'm in the minority on this one.

I am much more worried about the quote in the first post, which is flat out scary, than I am the quote in the second post, which is just insanely idiotic. As far as the whole sanctity of marriage argument, to have this argument we must assume that the government has any business being involved in marriage at all- whether traditional or not. I would take the position that the government has no place in anyone's marriage.

[kieefer]

I am much more worried about the quote in the first post, which is flat out scary, than I am the quote in the second post, which is just insanely idiotic. As far as the whole sanctity of marriage argument, to have this argument we must assume that the government has any business being involved in marriage at all- whether traditional or not. I would take the position that the government has no place in anyone's marriage.

Well, we wouldn't be having this argument if gays didn't insist that their perverted behavior is normal just like married folks. Add to that the liberal agenda that's eroding society and we will see more of what the government should and shouldn't dictate.

If we did what TJ wanted to do we wouldn't be in this predicament.

[sigmtnman]

I guess everyone read both articles completely, I mean he’s talking about the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act both of which RP supports and the rest on the stage. All I read into it is that he wants to save the definition of marriage. Maybe there’s more here than I thought who accept gay marriage?...

Dr. Paul's support of DOMA was because he believes the Fed has no place telling the States what to do. He feels marriage is basically a contract between 2 people the .gov has no place in it.

Edited January 8, 2012 by sigmtnman

[kieefer]

Some folks believe that homosexuality is a choice. Personally, I believe religion is a choice, and refuse to have it forced on me by the government. I will never vote for a guy like Santorum. My guess is that way over half of the voting population feels the same way.

Do you believe gays should be married? Do you believe marriage can be between anyone?

RS is not forcing anything on you, he wants to save the values that made America a great society.

[mikegideon]

Well, we wouldn't be having this argument if gays didn't insist that their perverted behavior is normal just like married folks. Add to that the liberal agenda that's eroding society and we will see more of what the government should and shouldn't dictate.

If we did what TJ wanted to do we wouldn't be in this predicament.

Don't know where you've been, but the consensus in todays society is that it's not perverted behavior. That term is reserverved for stuff like raping altar boys.

[mikegideon]

Do you believe gays should be married? Do you believe marriage can be between anyone?

RS is not forcing anything on you, he wants to save the values that made America a great society.

I know a couple that ARE married, except for the way they are taxed.

[mav]

I guess everyone read both articles completely, I mean he’s talking about the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act both of which RP supports and the rest on the stage.

Yes, that is correct. Paul did support DOMA. However, Paul would like to take it a step further. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that we need to get the government out of the marriage business. Santorum believes just the opposite. He states that the government should be promoting traditional marriage. I used to believe the same thing Santorum believes. I still believe that marriage is only between a man and woman. However, I cannot deny someone else's right to partake in the financial and civil benefits that come from marriage.

The only solution I can come up with that is fair for everyone is the implementation of civil unions for everyone. Traditional marriage will still be available for those like myself who believe in it. However, we will be required to enter into a civil union or contract in order to receive any state or federal benefits. States or local communities that do not want to recognize same-sex marriage are still free to do so, but they cannot deny two individuals wishing to enter into a civil union.

[kieefer]

Dr. Paul's support of DOMA was because he believes the Fed has no place telling the States what to do. He feels marriage is basically a contract between 2 people the .gov has no place in it.

Yea, yea, we all know about RP, problem is is that he's not 2nd to Romney.

Ron Paul Gay Marriage and Gay Rights

[mikegideon]

Dr. Paul's support of DOMA was because he believes the Fed has no place telling the States what to do. He feels marriage is basically a contract between 2 people the .gov has no place in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N59WDWw6ux

And I think Dr. Paul is 100% right. It is all about the contract. I don't think I know any gays that are looking for the Pope's approval.

[sigmtnman]

Yea, yea, we all know about RP, problem is is that he's not 2nd to Romney.

Ron Paul Gay Marriage and Gay Rights

No, you don't appear to know about RP because you continue to distort his views.

[USMCJG]

Well, we wouldn't be having this argument if gays didn't insist that their perverted behavior is normal just like married folks. Add to that the liberal agenda that's eroding society and we will see more of what the government should and shouldn't dictate.

If we did what TJ wanted to do we wouldn't be in this predicament.

Since it's Santorum's business what adults do consensually in the privacy of their own homes, I think I'll make it my business too. From now on, sex can only be had by people who have been married for not less than four years, missionary position only, on every third Tuesday of a month that ends in "R". So let it be written. So let it be done. Edited January 12, 2012 by USMCJG

[mikegideon]

Since it's Santorum's business what adults do consensually in the privacy of their own homes, I'll think I'll make it my business too. From now on, sex can only be had by people who have been married for not less than four years, missionary position only, on every third Tuesday of a month that ends in "R". So let it be written. So let it be done.

You might as well throw my ass in jail right now