|
Born Against
|
Quote:
|
Is there a bigger scumbag than Tom Delay?
|
Hmmmmmmmm, I dunno. I'm an amoral liberal and can't tell the difference between right and wrong.
Actually, I have to agree with Rage that Rick Santorum is pretty high on the list of insufferables, even among politicians in general, who as a group set the bar pretty high.
Here's Rick's top message today on his website:
Quote:
"I am deeply saddened to hear that Terri Schiavo passed away because all efforts to reinstate her feeding tube were unsuccessful. Terri Schiavo, a daughter, a sister and most importantly an innocent person was penalized by a court system that grants convicted murderers fair treatment under the law, but not a woman whose only crime was not filing a living will...Many people have fought heroically to save Terri’s life and, as President Bush has said, to ‘err on the side of life.’ Ultimately, this fight was lost in the courts, and I am deeply disappointed that the courts chose to deny Terri the chance to live."
http://santorum.senate.gov/public/
|
And here's his reaction to the Supreme Court taking on the anti-gay sex laws:
Quote:
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
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 —
AP: 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. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...737EDT0668.DTL
|
|