Rick Santorum Santorum Defends Stance On Anti-Sodomy Laws

[COpatriot]

Santorum is stuck in the 1930s. Ass-backwards.

And this is the exact same crowd that so ardently opposes Islamic sharia, but just as strongly supports Christian sharia even though both groups hate a lot of the same things. Incredible.

Bill Maher nailed it when he said that Santorum was the Japanese guy on an island who still doesn't know the war is over.

 

[Zap!]

Santorum is stuck in the 1930s. Ass-backwards.

And this is the exact same crowd that so ardently opposes Islamic sharia, but just as strongly supports Christian sharia even though both groups hate a lot of the same things. Incredible.

Bill Maher nailed it when he said that Santorum was the Japanese guy on an island who still doesn't know the war is over.

More like stuck in the 90's. Just 10-15 years ago, no one mentioned gay marriage, not even the most militant gay. I'd like to go back to those times.

 

[Erentheca]

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".

This.

Furthermore, I cannot see how anyone on here can possibly make the argument that Santorum and Paul "agree" on this subject. Whether you agree with Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution or not, Ron Paul is actually just defending state's rights, defending the letter of the law, and essentially telling the judges that the bench is not the right forum for political activism. If a judge wants to practice political activism, each judge is free to step down from the bench first, then lobby, educate, or run for the state legislature.

Ron Paul is trying to steer us away from Federal Court tyranny, which is dangerous to everyone. Ron Paul also called sodomy laws ludicrous, so I am sure that indicates his views on controlling personal behavior. If he had his druthers, we would have no laws regarding private behavior. No moral state should ever initiate force against an individual unless that individual has initiated force against another individual to: deprive property, liberty, or life. It's pretty simple.

 

[COpatriot]

More like stuck in the 90's. Just 10-15 years ago, no one mentioned gay marriage, not even the most militant gay. I'd like to go back to those times.

I wasn't even talking about gay marriage. Sodomy laws are stupid as hell. How do you enforce them? A Jesus Police Force?

 

[low preference guy]

I wasn't even talking about gay marriage. Sodomy laws are stupid as hell. How do you enforce them? A Jesus Police Force?

who cares... let texas deal with it

 

[Zap!]

I wasn't even talking about gay marriage. Sodomy laws are stupid as hell. How do you enforce them? A Jesus Police Force?

You don't enforce it in the bedroom, but if Texas wants to ban gay pornos, more power to them. The feds should not have a say.

 

[smhbbag]

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".

The Founding Fathers were not libertarians, nor was there any significant measure of what we now call social libertarianism in America's history except very, very recently.

Jeez, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence also drafted a law for VA that mandated castration as the penalty for polygamy or sodomy. Laws and penalties like that were universally understood as good and necessary. You don't like that. I get it. But let's not pretend that there was any support whatsoever for neutrality in government on sexual deviation, marriage, etc. before the last generation.

And that was Jefferson trying to liberalize the laws that had sodomy being a capital crime. And Jefferson's efforts at liberalization were rejected. Even castration was seen as too light on sodomy. This just goes to show that you simply cannot appeal to the Founding Fathers for help on this issue.

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every single state in the Union. You are, of course, free to argue for social libertarianism, especially here where so many will agree with you. But it's just plain false to appeal to some sort of previous America that did not exist.