April 28, 2003
|
Senator, You’re Freaking Us Out!
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
With all the well-deserved hoopla surrounding Sen. Rick Santorum’s comments to the Associated Press linking homosexuality with bigamy, incest and even bestiality (prompting the AP reporter to state: “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”) BuzzFlash decided to take a look back at an article Santorum wrote last year that offers some "insight" into his recent comments.
Writing for Catholic Online in July 2002, Santorum blamed the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church on “cultural liberalism” and called for “a new evangelization of America”:
“The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities. […] It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning ‘private’ moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”
Santorum, whose quick rise to power has landed him in the Senate Republican leadership’s No. 3 position, should know better than to point a finger at the illusionary liberal "Democratic" boogeyman. He is, after all, a disciple of Newt Gingrich (that grand role model of GOP moral relativism and hypocrisy), who regularly saw his Grand Hypocrisy Party "morality" grandstanding backfire on him.
Think back to 1994, when Gingrich went after so-called "liberal Democratic cultural values" in the wake of Susan Smith's horrifying drowning of her two young sons in a South Carolina lake. Gingrich was quick to blame the heinous crime on a Democrat-led breakdown of society, declaring, “How a mother can kill her two children, 14 months and 3 years, in hopes that her boyfriend would like her is just a sign of how sick the system is, and I think people want to change. The only way you get change is to vote Republican.”
Just one problem for Newt's "liberal" bashing hypocrisy. The most important contributing factor to Smith’s psychological scarring was the sexual abuse she received for years at the hands of her stepfather, who was a key operative in the South Carolina Republican Party.
According to South Carolina press reports at the time, “[Smith] detailed one incident at about 5 a.m. one March morning when she woke up to find Russell (her stepfather) standing over her. Russell, a Christian Coalition member, had been out putting up campaign posters for presidential candidate Pat Robertson, the televangelist who founded the Christian Coalition, Smith said. He kissed her and then took her hand, thinking [she] was asleep and put her hand on his genitals and kissed her again.”
Ah, yes a Grand Old Party poobah sexually abused his stepdaughter, which left her such a psychological basket case that she ended up killing her kids -- and Newt Gingrich blamed it on the Democrats.
So Rick "Man/Dog" Santorum might learn a lesson from his former mentor's Republican "morality" comrade in South Carolina, except Republicans never do. They are all repressed about one thing or another. In fact, the only thing that they aren't repressed about is hypocrisy about their own behavior.
So when will Republicans stop pointing fingers and start realizing that "moral relativism" was invented and patented by the hypocritical behavior of the Republican Party?
Probably never. Come to think of it, the outcome of any self-analysis would probably freak them out.
We mean any senator who likes to talk to an Associated Press reporter about man/dog sex....Well, let's just say, we would keep our dogs away from THAT senator.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
* * *
BuzzFlash
Note: You must read the transcript of the Rick Santorum exchange
with the Associated Press reporter to understand how
truly demented and inappropriate this man is. Go to: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL&type=printable
Take special note of this exchange between "man/dog" Santorum
and the AP reporter:
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.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you.
Please note that this is supposedly a "conservative" Republican talking about the government regulating our conduct in our houses and bedrooms.
* * *
Second BuzzFlash Note: We were mighty amazed to learn that Oral (AKA Orrin) Hatch apparently "took offense" at Santorum's lumping polygamy together with homosexual acts as examples of immorality that the government should prohibit. The polygamists he knows are fine upstanding people, and he isn't aware of any "forced" polygamy marriages of girls in their early teens. No, BuzzFlash is not making this up! Just when you think that THEY can't get any creepier, they do.
