Rick Santorum Santorum Defends Stance On Anti-Sodomy Laws

Zap! said:
I wish I could combine Santorum on social issues with Ron Paul on the rest. With that combo, we'd almost have someone as good as Pat Buchanan. Almost, because no one will ever be as good as Pat.
Click to expand...

Wow, what exactly is your problem with RP's stance on social issues?
 
This new nonsense with Santorum is just a sign of how desperate he is getting. He has totally run out of ideas, he has nothing useful to contribute anymore, and now that he is hovering at about 1.7% in the polls, he is doing anything he can just to get his name mentioned. This tactic, however, is also a classic collectivist trick to sling some mud into the race and distract people from the real issue... which is who controls our money.
 
Here's what Paul wrote about the same case Santorum was talking about in the OP.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
It's been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.
The practice of judicial activism — legislating from the bench — is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts' presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law” — a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.

These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.

The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it's gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts — not over the other branches of government. It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
Click to expand...
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I have to disagree with Dr. Paul on this. The implication that a state government has any authority or responsibility to regulate sex is ludicrous. I am in favor of the supreme court overturning authoritarian laws by states and returning freedom and power back to the people.

I am willing to compromise with those that disagree with me, if the supreme court overturns a state law, the state can reestablish that law every 10 years with a 2/3rds majority referendum of the people. Similer to overriding the veto of a president.
 
spudea said:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I have to disagree with Dr. Paul on this. The implication that a state government has any authority or responsibility to regulate sex is ludicrous. I am in favor of the supreme court overturning authoritarian laws by states and returning freedom and power back to the people.

I am willing to compromise with those that disagree with me, if the supreme court overturns a state law, the state can reestablish that law every 10 years with a 2/3rds majority referendum of the people. Similer to overriding the veto of a president.
Click to expand...

The people of a State could conceivably give such a power to a State, but you will find that the majority of States are passing laws without the express consent of the people through the powers the people expressly gave to the States in their Constitution. Any elastic expansion of power is no consent at all.

Without express consent of the people and limited powers expressly authorized through a State constitution for certain and limited functions, the State ceases to be a Republican form of government. Since the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government, and the Declaration of Independence which made the States recognizes the unalienable rights of men and the consent of the governed, this leads me to reject most of our States as being as illegal as the federal government is in their own ways.
 
Last edited:
The constitutional answer to many of these laws is that crimes require a victim.

It's only been relatively recently that we had "public prosecutors" and "crimes against the State". A crime against a state is a ridiculous assertion. You can not have a crime against a "state". You have crimes against people. When you murder someone, you have a victim. When you rob someone, you have a victim. When you rape someone, you have a victim.

The way the United States used to be run is what was called "private prosecution". That means a victim or his family if incapacited or dead, filed charges. All crimes had victims, not state created crimes, but real crimes.

If the real and historical way crimes are suppose to be presented in a justice system was put back in place, all "victimless crimes", crimes against the state, and crimes where both parties are happy, would cease to be crimes. No real victim, no crime.

It is not a new idea. It is the original way our justice system worked. Back when we had "liberty".
 
Last edited:
spudea said:
The implication that a state government has any authority or responsibility to regulate sex is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

That's not the question. The question is whether or not the federal government has the right to interfere with states that do regulate sex. Santorum and Paul say, no it doesn't. Some people here seem to think it does.
 
His homophobia is very suspect to me.
Get your filthy government hands off of other people's... :eek:
 
Guitarzan said:
Fair enough.

The question I should have asked is, do you believe in Federal anti-sodomy laws? And if so, where do you believe the constitution authorizes such laws?
Click to expand...

Not to mention if are crazy enough to enact this into law how in the hell would you begin enforcing this? Unless the act happens in public (Which would be covered under current indescent exposue and a slew of other laws) how would you find out? I'm pretty sure your not going to start monitoring people in there house. So outside of public exposure (regular sex falls into this also) would the state have the right to persue charges? I'm pretty sure the 4th amendmant would protect any activity inside the house such as this. Also you do know sodomy laws also apply to blowjobs right
 
VegasPatriot said:
Wow, what exactly is your problem with RP's stance on social issues?
Click to expand...

Look, I'm voting for Ron Paul. I think he's what this country needs in the dire times we're in. With that said, I wish he were more conservative on abortion and gay rights, and I also like the death penalty. I am far from a neo-con, and a strong isolationist. I go to Ron Paul local meetings. While I'm a supporter, these guys worship him as a god. The only candidate I've ever worshiped was Pat Buchanan.

All in all though, it's fine to have a few disagreements, no one is perfect.
 
Guitarzan said:
Fair enough.

The question I should have asked is, do you believe in Federal anti-sodomy laws? And if so, where do you believe the constitution authorizes such laws?
Click to expand...

No I don't. I think states can have them, and I oppose the Lawrence v. Texas 6-3 decision in 2003. Clarence Thomas said a magnificent dissenting statement.

Thomas' dissent

Justice Thomas, in a separate short dissenting opinion, wrote that the law which the Court struck down was "uncommonly silly", a phrase he quoted from Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut, but he voted to uphold it as he could find "no general right of privacy" or relevant liberty in the Constitution. He added that if he were a member of the Texas Legislature he would vote to repeal the law. However, Thomas also did not believe that the plaintiffs in the case had standing to bring this case before the Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
ERADICATING ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIAS
Replies
1
Views
159
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
PAF
Milei’s Anti-abortion Stance Is Anti-freedom
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
unknown
unknown
Anti Federalist
Frankie the Red's latest outrage: A Queeer Jubilee celebration in the Catholic Church
Replies
0
Views
288
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Gorsuch: Too Many New Laws Could Impair Americans’ Freedoms
Replies
0
Views
215
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
PAF
Lethally Blind: Anti-Republican Legacies of the U.S. Drone Program
Replies
0
Views
36
PAF
PAF
Back
Top