counter statistics

Saturday, April 26, 2003

Salon gets comments on SantorumGate from other Republican Senators....

Friday, April 25, 2003

Response to Comparison of Santorum and Democrat Fred Phelps......

Rusty Morris responds to the article - and a comment I made comparing Santorum to Democrat Fred Phelps (which was tongue in cheek):

Sorry, Eva, but this is total republican propaganda horseshit.

Bush is the farthest thing from"inclusive"...his "message" is indeed as stated below, in other words he did say the "we are all gods children" bunk...but his ACTIONS are the opposite.

He has an ongoing underground agenda to fill the courts with the most right-wing extremists he can find, he seeks to HONOR a man who sat by and let barry winchell be murdered and whom afterwards refused to even acknoweldge it was a problem. He has destroyed the economy and took us from a huge surplus to a huge deficit that will take 20 years to recover from (and still more to come)...he has LIED and SOBOTAGED the CDC and is complicit in the MURDER of 100's or 1000's of gays, teens and heteros who are now denied the advice to practice safe sex if they intend on having it.

Bush doesn't need to :lay it all out for all to see", he does his work UNDERGROUND and OUT OF SIGHT...while he LIES to the public he enacts an agenda diametrically opposed to his PUBLIC LIES and PRETENSE.

SANTORUM is a completely typical republican politico. Fred Phelps is NOT a politico. Fred Phelps is not in public office.
Only those in public office, deemed to serve the "ALL" of this country are to be included when discussing "politics" by "politicos". The typical republican politico IS Santorum at this time.

EY: Rusty makes a fair point about the distinction between Santorum and Fred Phelps.


A Democratic Plant?

James Pinkerton's Expanation for SantorumGate. Thanks to Charles Francis of the Republican Unity Coalition for the tip.

Santorum Fan Mail

Got the following link in email:

Letter to the Editor: Santorum should be commended
Friday, April 25, 2003

To the editor: This week, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who is a dedicated Christian, was viciously attacked for comments he made comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy and adultery.
He defended his comments and ignored demands that he apologize and resign from his Senate leadership post, the Reuters news agency reported.

Here are Sen. Santorum's comments:

* "My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles," he said in a brief interview with the Associated Press published on April 21. Sen. Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, had discussed a Texas sodomy law now being challenged before the United States Supreme Court.

* "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum said. "You have the right to anything."

The court is now determining whether the Texas law violates privacy rights and unfairly targets same-sex couples or if the state has a legitimate interest in setting moral standards, Reuters reported.

In his statement, Sen. Santorum said: "My discussion was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the Constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution." Santorum's comments sparked severe criticism from some Democrats and gay rights groups.

Here is God's stand on this issue as recorded in Romans 1: "God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth away from heaven. However, God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted to -- yes, vile and sinful things with each other's bodies.

"Because they deliberately chose to believe lies, that is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God's natural plan and indulged in sex sin with each other. And the men, instead of having a normal sexual relationship with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved."

Should the Supreme Court rule against the Texas sodomy law, they also will be ruling against God and his stand on this issue.

Sen. Santorum should be commended, not harshly attacked for his truthful comments concerning this Supreme Court case. The attack against him shows the hatred there is in America toward Christians. So much for tolerance!

Many people in America are just like the people in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. They are utterly evil and everything they do is wicked.

Fortunately, 60 to 70 percent of voters in America agree with Santorum's comments. And I do also.

Wilbur Fast

Lesbian Romance on All My Children

If anyone is interested in watching the Lesbian Kiss from All My Children, Soapnet carries re-runs of soaps. All My Children reruns are sunday afternoon. You can also read - and contribute AMC Fan Fiction. I saw the show (on Soapnet), and it's an interesting plot. Ofcourse the usual suspects among the Leviticus crowd are whining and bleating about how this show undermines the family, yada yada.

Santorum Condemnations Continue.......

Contact: Doxie A. McCoy
April 24, 2003 (202) 225-8050, (202)225-8143-cell Web Site:

Washington, DC-Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today issued the following statement in response to the comments made by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): Once again Republican gay bashing has crossed the line into the territory of unmitigated bigotry, with Senate and party leader Rick Santorum's recent remarks. Incest, bigamy, polygamy and adultery are offenses against other people. Private consensual homosexual behavior is--or should be--no offense at all. Republicans may choose to keep Santorum as their leader, pathetic apologia and all, at their peril. However, if Santorum remains the face of their party, Republicans should expect and will rightly deserve the same repudiation the American people reserve for bigotry against Blacks and other Americans. Bigotry is bigotry. Only the targets change.


"Senator Santorum’s comments are an affront to the growing number of same-sex households raising children in loving and caring homes," said Martín Ornelas-Quintero, LLEGÓ executive director, in a letter to Frist and Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican. “Our families are as legitimate as heterosexual families, and deserve the same level of respect and recognition.” Other sexual minority advocacy groups, including the nation's largest--the Human Rights Campaign--have also called for Santorum's removal from his Senate leadership position, as have many Pennsylvania organizations such as the state's Log Cabin Republicans and the Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance.

And Howard Dean: Once again, I call on President Bush to repudiate Sen. Santorum's remarks. The President of the United States must represent all Americans, regardless of race, gender, class or sexual orientation. In a nation dedicated to equality under the law, everyone must be equal under the law. By refusing to stand up for gay Americans under attack by members of his own party's leadership, this President sends a message that intolerance and bigotry is acceptable. That is not acceptable

EY: And the story continues in the news...... Googling Santorum, Sodomy and Bush

An enterprising blogger has purchased a sponsored link to "santorum."

Thursday, April 24, 2003

Andrew Sullivan on Why People Leave the GOP.....

I hope Marc Racicot understands why so many want to support this party, but, under the current circumstances, simply cannot. I hope the president does too. People like Santorum and Lott are a big part of the reason. They make tolerant people who support Republicans look like fools.

mc_masterchef comments (in response to an Atrios blog)

I think the problem is the traditional, small-government, low-tax libertarian-style conservatives have been too blinded by their hatred of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party and too exulted at the prospect of being back in control of all the major branches of government that they're only just now taking a moment to stop and look around to see just what kinds of people they've allied with on their scramble to power. Social conservatives want to use the power of the government to enforce their own moral codes and have never hidden that fact from anybody who took a few minutes to listen to them. Sullivan, Chaffee, and any other moderate Republicans out there had best wise up and pay attention to who's in control of the Republican Party these days, because it sure as hell isn't them.

Quite an astute comment. MC's blog is fun also.

White House Hypocrisy

The White House has declined to weigh in on Santorum's remarks, in contrast with the administration's denunciation of comments last December by Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, that many criticized as racially insensitive. And in March, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer had harsh words for Rep. James Moran, D-Virginia, who said Jews were a driving force behind the war with Iraq.

In both cases, the men were forced to resign their leadership posts within their respective parties. Lott stepped down as Senate majority leader and Moran resigned as a Democratic regional whip.

EY: This is where the National GOP and the State GOP differ. The state house republican caucus have managed to take the high road on this issue - by avoiding filing ethics complaints against Rukavina for making the "Osama Bin Awada" comment. Ofcourse there has been plenty of whining about that subject. Bush and the Senate and House Republicans don't have any standing on this - because they did the same thing to Moran as the Dems - along with the Whitehouse - and the FRC did to Trent Lott.

I called into Jason Lewis's show today because they were discussing Lindner. I challenged Georgia Dietz - who was whining to Jason that Stonewall Democrats were going to screen candidates for school board - and she ofcourse couldn't screen because she was not a democrat. Well duh - Stonewall only screens Dems. I challenged her to screen for the Log Cabin Republicans endorsement - since LCR does screen Republicans.

Then we got into it over Santorum. Jason claimed that Log Cabin Republicans had called his statements "evil". I said they did not. Then Jason quoted from the LCR press release:

"Senator Santorum's press statement this afternoon is woefully inadequate. Senator Santorum has a leadership role in coalition building as the Senate GOP conference chairman - you don't build coalitions by divisive and mean spirited statements. Without a more forceful apology from the Senator, it is hard to imagine that he can effectively promote the compassionate conservative message of President George W. Bush," said Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.

Well, my comment to that was that I didn't think an apology from Santorum would be sincere, and I really didn't care whether he appologised for his comments, and I didn't care what he thought of "homosexual acts". What continues to appall me, is that Santorum thinks that it is a legitimate role of government to use sodomy laws with threat of imprisonment for something that really isn't Santorum's - or the Government's business.

I then said, I agree in general with the official press statements of LCR, but sometimes might disagree slightly about specifics.

I also said that I thought Lindner's statements were stupid - but I didn't think they were unethical. After all, I wouldn't want people to lodge an ethics complaint against me for saying Lindner's statements were stupid.


There it is - another headline suggesting that it is conservative to support sodomy laws - and that Santorum's statements have anything to do with limited government conservatism.

So far, I think the NGLTF did the best press release condemning Santorum - because they focused on his foul mouth.....

Well Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee Come Down on Santorum

And the FRC Bleats are getting shriller.....

The 'Santorum Shuffle'

Call it the "Santorum Shuffle," the frantic two-step prominent Republicans are doing to avoid having to address the issues raised by Sen. Rick Santorum's comments on the Texas anti-sodomy law case. The prancing politicians are dancing all around the controversy.

EY: Ofcourse they are - but very few are getting the main problem with what Santorum said - I'll take him at his word that he wasn't trying to compare gays to incest perpetrators, but rather giving the slippery slope argument regarding whether the right to privacy should be used here. The main problem is Santorum seems to think that policing the consensual activity of adults in the privacy of their own homes is an appropriate role for Government.

More Bleating:

Few have offered any public support for Sen. Santorum or have come to the defense of marriage and family.
EY: Yeah, I tried to get Senator Norm Coleman to comment on this, but his press office won't return my calls.

Liberal Republican Senators Sue Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have condemned Sen. Santorum's comments, but other GOP leaders have remained conspicuously silent. RNC Chairman Marc Racicot, for example, has yet to utter a syllable in public in support of Sen. Santorum.
EY: Why should he? Santorum helped get sodomy repeal through in live and let live Montana.

Still More FRC Bleating....
The White House continues to bob and weave, as though defending marriage were a controversial issue too hot to handle.

EY: No, the White House just doesn't want to go down on the Sodomy Issue.

Still more spin from the Family Research Council. I still don't quite get their argument that getting rid of sodomy laws allows for gay marriage. That seems to be a stretch, even for the rather obscessed FRC. But then their Minnesota Affiliate, the Minnesota Family Council testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee that repealing the sodomy law would increase the rate of teen pregnancy. If anyone can explain how this works to me, please comment here.


MPR Interviews Ethics Committee Members

Ethics committee member Greg Davids, a Republican from Preston, says Lindner's comments were offensive, but Lindner has the right of free speech.

Rep. Greg Davids

"I believe Rep. Lindner's interpretation of history is wrong, somewhat bizarre and odd. But I keep coming back to, while I do not agree with Rep. Lindner's... with what he said or his statements... I do believe he has the right to say it," Davids said.

Davids and the other Republican on the committee, chairwoman Sondra Erickson of Princeton, voted not to pursue the ethics charges. Erickson says legislators often say hurtful things on the House floor without apologizing. She cited recent debate over a 24-hour abortion waiting period.

"It was hurtful to hear us have the woman's right to know referred to as the stupid women's bill. That was an insult to women, but it was so hurtful to those of us who take a different position. Or to hear the baby in the womb referred to as the fetus," Erickson said.

Then a pretty bizzarre argument from the Dems:

Rep. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, says the Ethics Committee missed an opportunity to take a stand against historical revisionism.

"This is much bigger than a simple ethics complaint. Rep. Lindner was relying upon materials which he and chair Erickson say is just a difference of opinion. The materials he was relying upon are part of a total historical revisionist movement in this country which are totally discredited by any legitimate scholar," Latz said.

EY: Huh? Say what? Who cares - how is this unethical?

Lindner comments on the Ethics hearing

No apologies, no regrets.... No new stupid statements.

Hearing about the Lindner Stupidity Virus Ends Up in a draw via sixfootpole

Comments added for Lloydletta..... So please let me know what you think.

GLBT Press on Domestic Partners Debacle at the Legislature......

Basically according to this article it's all the fault of those evil republicans - nothing about how AFSCME was pushing to introduce a bill with dp benefits stripped out. I did give Brad a comment on this, it obviously wasn't used. I can't blame the Democrats for trying to use this issue. Republicans do share some blame - but AFSCME Council 6 also deserves to be called on the carpet for this, which gets me back to thinking about paycheck protection legislation.

Still Kudos to Karen Clark, Scott Dibble and Keith Ellison for voting against the contract because it selectively removed the negotiated domestic partner benefits.

Media Reports Indicate Linguist Shortfall Impacting Iraqi Operations; Military Still Discharging Gay Linguists

Several newspaper editorial boards have recently called for an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges, including The Washington Post, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The New Orleans Times-Picayune and The New York Daily News. “The military cannot afford to brand as unfit for service,” the Washington Post wrote on April 16th, “qualified men and women who wish to put their talents – whether those lie in combat roles or languages – in the service of their country.”

As Dixie Osborne of the Service Members Defense League says: “The safety and well-being of our men and women in uniform, and those they are working alongside in Iraq, depends on skilled language specialists. The Pentagon is instituting a dangerous practice of discrimination over security that puts everyone involved at a needless increased risk of harm.”

One of the ironies of the ENDA legislation is it doesn't covered the government sponsored discrimination in the military.

Dennis Sanders of the Moderate Republican blog comments on Santorum

The Moderate Republican blog has very thoughtful commentary about foreign affairs.

Typical Idiocy on the Board

As long as the fa g stuff was kept in the bedroom and not on our TV.

Most people did not say much. Oh ya we joked. But that was to be expected.

But will we draw the line someplace? And if so where?

I myself am a lesbian who is stuck in a mans body. I feel their pain.

But where do we draw the line?

Is the line drawn at the man boy love thing? I mean they (The men see nothing at all wrong with it).

Can we draw the line at no buggering farm animals before they are sold to the super markets?

Do all Americans have the right to a sex change to be paid for by the tax payers? What if they want a change back? Do the tax payers have to spring for that one also?

What about the Mother son, Father doutgher, father son, and the son doughter combo?

I new a guy once who married his cousen. They later got devorced. I bet the family gatherings were a good time after that one.

Where do we draw the line? Is there a right and wrong? And if so, do we have the right to talk about it?

We really should stop bashing the French. After all they are very considerate people. Just look at how they planted all of those wonderfull trees along their roads just so advancing Armys could march in the shade.

EY: Idiots like this are an embarrassment to the Republican Party.

Let's See How Long I last at this board

I just posted the following on the board:

As usual, gets it wrong with framing the question. He just said this to get gays mad at him to curry favor with the Leviticus Crowd.

The issue isn't whether Santorum is or is not a bigot (I happen to believe he made some bigoted statements - but I'm more upset by his statement comparing "homosexual acts" to "man on dog" sex. The man's mind is clearly in the gutter - which is typical for the Leviticus Crowd who go on and on about "torn rectal linings", "gerbils" and "fudgepackers" - all of which says much more about them than it does about gays.

The issue is whether Santorum is correct - that we should have sodomy laws, and these laws ought to be enforced.

How is being in favor of sodomy laws conservative?


Wednesday, April 23, 2003

Is Santorum a Troll?

Meanwhile Frist and Specter come to Santorum's Defense......

Well folks are finally coming to Santorum's defense, saying "he's not a bigot" - so it's a bit more of a defense than people did for Lott. That's not the point - I'd like to know what these Senators agree with Santorum that the Government should be enforcing sodomy laws.

At the White House, press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) had no comment on the matter.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), a fellow Pennsylvania Republican, said he accepted Santorum's statement that his comment should not be misconstrued as a statement on individual lifestyles.

"I have known Rick Santorum for the better part of two decades and I can say with certainty he is not a bigot," Specter said in a statement.

Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee also issued a statement supporting Santorum.

"Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate, and to suggest otherwise is just politics," Frist said.

Letters to the "No Spin Zone".....

OReilly's site only includes the most obsequious letters.........

OReilly totally missed the boat on Santorum

OReilly tried to spin this as Santorum said something stupid, and the evil left is trying to call him a hater, and he shouldn't have to resign his position. LCR's Patrick Guererro was on the show (first time I've seen him). He did well with pointing out that Santorum's comparison of gay sex with incest was insulting, but OReilly said this wasn't what Santorum said. Too bad Guererro missed the opportunity to also mention Santorum's quote about homosexuality vs "man on dog" - which makes Santorum sound truly wacky.

Still I think Santorum showed no balls not showing up and answering the questions directly from OReilly - but then what is in it for him to do that, when OReilly spins Santorums statements better than Santorum can do for himself.

Why the Democrats are Too Stupid to Win!

Some Democratic Strategist gets it dead wrong.....

from the article:

Several conservative organizations released statements supporting Santorum, while GOP leaders in the Senate remained silent, and White House officials declined to rebuke him Tuesday. Strategists from both parties predicted that unlike the Lott controversy, which festered for weeks before leading to his demotion, a slap at the gay community is likely to be viewed as a problem only for a small segment of voters.

"Fact is, there is no debate in this country about whether African Americans should be treated as second-class citizens," said one Democratic strategist, comparing the Lott and Santorum cases. "The debate on homosexuals is still taking place."

EY: As the Lavender Interview with Wheelock Whitney shows, this anti-gay drivel coming from a small segment of the Republican so called "base" is hurting the party with moderate voters who believe in a fair and inclusive party.

Ofcourse the strategist misses the other part of this story - is that even among social conservatives, there is a division of opinion about sodomy laws.

Republican Unity Coalition (RUC) Statement on Senator Santorum

April 23, 2003
Contact: Charles Francis

For Immediate Release

Republican Unity Coalition (RUC) Statement on Senator Santorum

It is flat-out wrong for Senator Santorum to compare homosexual conduct with bigamy, incest, polygamy and adultery. These are false and harmful comparisons that do not distinguish between conduct that is harmful and hurtful to fellow humans and society, and conduct between consenting adults in the sanctity of their own home that harms absolutely no one. To suggest that the American family is harmed by homosexuality is simply not true, and the State of Texas did not even attempt to argue this, or to present any evidence this is so, when they had an opportunity before the United States Supreme Court (Lawrence v Texas).

Senator Santorum owes an apology to gay men and women who support, build and have loving families all across America.

However, the RUC believes there is a difference between being wrong and being accused of all kinds of bigotry. While the RUC filed an amicus brief on behalf of petitioner Lawrence urging that the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law be declared unconstitutional (, we believe it is well within bounds of speech and propriety for Senator Santorum to support the State of Texas. Good people with animus toward no one can and will disagree on Lawrence v Texas, just as they do on many contentious cases that come before the Court.

Thanks to Lawrence v Texas, the country is now entering a robust debate on harmful sodomy laws that deny one class of citizens (gay persons) a life of physical affection and intimacy. Laws like Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law apply unequally, criminalizing specifically defined conduct for an unpopular minority that is legal for the majority. It is time to move forward in Texas. It is time to move forward in unity for the GOP. Let the Supreme Court make a common sense decision that all Americans stand equal before the law.

* * *

National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Denounces Santorum Comments; Joins Call for His Ouster April 22, 2003

Justin Nelson

NGLTF Criticizes Santorum's "Gutter Language"

I have criticized NGLTF in the past. However, I think they make some very good points about Santorum's statements and the problems with them.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Slams Santorum's "Gutter Language" Comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia, Bestiality

NGLTF Communications Department
Pager: 800-757-6476

from the release:

Comments comparing committed same-sex relationships to bestiality and pedophilia are unbecoming of a United States
Senator," said Lorri L. Jean, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "This is the gutter
language of the extreme right wing in this country. And Senator Santorum is wrong to portray gay families as 'antithetical'
to the institution of the family. Research shows that half to three quarters of lesbians and gay men are in committed,
caring, long-term relationships. The 2000 Census showed that 34 percent of lesbian couples and 22 percent of gay male
couples are raising children under the age of 18. It is despicable that a United States Senator would devalue our
families by presenting them as a threat to the American family, and by comparing them to man-dog, man-child
'relationships,'" Jean said. "We are the American family."

Jean also challenged Santorum's characterization of the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal as "a basic homosexual
relationship." "When a man abuses a young girl, the problem is not heterosexuality," Jean said. "Few would characterize
such abuse as a heterosexual act similar to consensual sex between an adult man and woman. Similarly, when a man
sexually abuses a boy or underage teen, the problem is not homosexuality. The problem is child abuse. Period."

Howard Dean's Blog continues to feature the Santorum and Sodomy story

Andrew Sullivan's Salon article has been reposted on the Andrew Sullivan blog.

Kevin Drum opines this could be a good campaign issue for the Democrats.....

I know I keep harping on this, but I really think the Democrats could make some electoral hay with gay rights as a (secondary) campaign issue. There are just so many horribly bigoted comments about gays from Republican politicians — comments that go much further than even some conservative voters are willing to tolerate. If it becomes a campaign issue, they are forced to either repudiate the bigots, which will lose them part of their core constituency, or else stay silent, which might well break off a chunk of their moderate supporters. Surely someone can figure out how to run with this?

EY: Kevin is right, the Republican Party is divided on this issue. However the Democrats tried to use this in 2000, and did horribly at it. Gore especially blew it big time during his debate with Bush.

Log Cabin Republicans comments on Santorum Again

Patrick will be on NBC Nightly News this evening (barring breaking news) and on O'Reilly Factor on Fox this evening. He will also appear on Buchanon and Press on MSNBC. We have done dozens of radio and print interviews as well. The website has been updated with these releases.

The LGBT Medical Association condemns the Bush Administration for targetting research that is explictly targetting GLBT subjects.

From the release:

Proof of this enemy-status and the Bush Administration’s desire to block our rights to health care was reinforced yet again this month. Officials within the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health confirmed that researchers seeking federally-funded grants have been warned (by sympathetic officials within these agencies) to purge all references to gay, homosexuality and numerous other key words and phrases from all communications. Researchers were warned that grant applications and e-mail correspondence flagged for such language would result in increased scrutiny of grant applications by the agencies and members of Congress. Scientists who seek only to conduct research to improve health care for our community are being attacked, black listed and denied funding. The Bush Administration’s reckless targeting of LGBT-specific research has health care providers and researchers alike running scared.

EY: I'd like to hear more proof of this besides rumors. I plan to follow up on this with some people at the University of Minnesota doing this type of research.

Tim Pawlenty on Sodomy Repeal

From: Eva Young
Date: Fri Jan 26, 2001 1:49 pm
Subject: Pawlenty Clarification: He OPPOSES Sodomy Repeal

I asked Tim Pawlenty if he knew what the sodomy law covered. He did not, so I told him that it prohited oral and anal sex between any couple (human couples), including married couples. He did offer that while he thought the law was a poor law, and that much of the population was breaking this law, that it was perhaps better to let "sleeping dogs lie", since the law
is not enforced.
Tim Pawlenty would like to clarify his position. In his own words: [this was Tim Pawlenty writing from his capitol email address:]


I read your earlier e-mail about the event last night and want to make sure there is no confusion--I do not support repealing the sodomy laws. Please make sure my position is accurately conveyed if you are asked. I do not want to create any false impressions about my position. Thanks.

Tim Pawlenty

EY: Now it would be interesting to get a comment from Pawlenty in light of the current situation with Santorum. At this same event Pawlenty made a point of telling me he had supported the 93 amendment to the Human Rights Act. This was before he had figured out he regretted this vote.

KSTP AM - the Talk Station Buzzing about Santorum

Just got off the phone with Ron Rosenbaum of KSTP AM's Morning Show. The topic was Santorum's statement and what is the future of the Republican Party. Ron mentioned they had called Coleman to get his comment on this issue, and he refused to comment.

We also got into the Domestic Partner issue, and I mentioned that the real issue with the legislature on that was anti-gay bigotry. Ron seemed to agree with that analysis.

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Does the NIH screen out grant applications using the term "gay"?

The complete transcript of the AP interview with Santorum is available

Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry has also condemned Santorum's remarks - and attempts to bring the Whitehouse into the fray. (from CNN)

Andrew Sullivan poses the crucial question

We now know where Santorum stands. But what about his party?

EY: And what about Norm Coleman?

More Bleating from the Leviticus Crowd.....

CWA Condemns `Gay Thought Police' for Attacks on Sen. Santorum

The Log Cabin Republicans have shown that they don't see any room in the `big tent' for people who object to homosexual behavior.

Thus does the Concerned Women for America weighs in on the Santorum drama.....

Log Cabin Republicans Comments on Santorum.....
APRIL 22, 2003

For immediate release

CONTACT: Public Affairs Mark Mead 202 347 5306 ext 112
mobile 202 297 5026

Santorum statement is inadequate

(WASHINGTON) - For the second time in two days the Log Cabin Republicans have called on Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) to fully apologize and disavow his comments disparaging gay Americans.

"Senator Santorum's press statement this afternoon is woefully inadequate. Senator Santorum has a leadership role in coalition building as the Senate GOP conference chairman - you don't build coalitions by divisive and mean spirited statements. Without a more forceful apology from the Senator, it is hard to imagine that he can effectively promote the compassionate conservative message of President George W. Bush," said Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.

"The choice for Senator Santorum is whether he will embrace the inclusive and winning message of President George W. Bush or the rejected team of Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer and their grand total of zero electoral votes. The choice is clear for Senator Santorum," concluded Guerriero.

"As the largest gay and lesbian Republican organization in America, Log Cabin believes that Santorum's statements are neither compassionate or conservative. We work every day to insure that tolerance and inclusion become a permanent part of the American political landscape - these comments don't help that mission," added Guerriero.

Log Cabin Republicans is the nation's largest gay Republican organization,
with state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time Washington office and
a federal political action committee.

Hate Radio Fights Back

Jan Michelson responds to Rekha Basu's Des Moines Register column criticising his harrassment of Gay Teens (via Hesiod).

Comments Mikelson's reply to my email (above):
Dear Mr. Pryor... just what the hell is wrong with you, picking on a talk show host without checking out the whole story. I caused no disruption, made no calls, asked no one to call, and made no high school student's situtation worse. You are a disgrace to the vast left wing conspiracy.

In the slim chance that you are even interested in the "rest of the story" check out
(end of his email to me)

A caller tried to bring some rational points up with this, and Michelson compares homosexuality with stealing.

Other Bloggers comment on Santorum:


David Howe of Six Foot Pole

Arthur Silbur of Coldfury

And I stop by Atrios and comment on his latest Santorum story.

Star Tribune calls Senator Santorum's Comments "Conservative" via Six Foot Pole - MN

Santorum was also a topic at the April 22 White House Press Briefing

Q Secondly, Senator Santorum said the other day, in talking about landmark gay rights legislation, quoted, "The Supreme Court says that you have a right to consensual sex within your home, that 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 the White House agree with those views?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not seen the entire context of the interview, and two, I haven't talked to the President about it. So I really don't have anything to offer beyond that.

Q Do you need context?

MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't talked to the President about it; I haven't talked to Senator Santorum. So I just don't have anything for you on it.

Q But is the White House satisfied to just let those words fly through the air?

Q They've been out there for a couple days now.

MR. FLEISCHER: I just don't have anything more on it.

Q Well, why -- because you're unaware that he said that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because I've been a little busy focusing on other activities and events, and I haven't talked to the President about it.

DSCC calls on Santorum to Resign his leadership position.... via Six Foot Pole - MN

from the article: WASHINGTON - The Senate Democrats' political organization on Tuesday called for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum to resign his leadership position after the lawmaker compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.

One day after gay-rights groups urged GOP senators to consider removing Santorum from his leadership post, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said the two-term Pennsylvania senator should step down as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the No. 3 job in the party leadership.

The DSCC called Santorum's remarks "divisive, hurtful and reckless" and said they "are completely out of bounds for someone who is supposed to be a leader in the United States Senate."

Good for the DSCC and Howard Dean....

Santorum Clarifies

It further stated:

Sen. Santorum recently sat down for an interview with the Associated Press with an understanding that a profile piece would bepublished ragarding his eight-year tenure int eh Senate. As part of the interview, the senator discussed a case that is currently being considered by the Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas.

"When discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws.

"In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws.

"Again, my discussion with the Associated Press was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the consitutrional right to privacy in general and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be misconstrued in any was as a statement on individual lifestyles."

Also on Senator Santorum's site.

EY: This doesn't address why he used the comparison....... I wonder how Santorum would feel if someone compared him to a thief or a child molester or a liar - and then said, oh no, nothing personal.

Free Republic Threads on Santorum

"aligning himself with the fringe right-wing extremists of the party"

Conservatives are fringe? I guess that's what the Log Munching Republicans have to tell themselves to vote Republican.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.

SODOMY : Forever and Ever, Amend (Sodomite Unions)

Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation?

1. In the United States, the civil rights which we all enjoy are rooted in the laws of nature and of nature's God, in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. [I have been in contact with all 187 legislators on this matter, at least five to eight times. I've heard back from 48 of them, and none of them will dispute the statement I just gave to you.]
2. The only source for unalienable rights in all human history is the Creator, the God of the Bible. [I've had a couple of people try to dispute me on this. And some years ago one was Nadine Strossen, who is president of the ACLU. And I said that the only source is the God of the Bible, and she started off that evening, and the topic was homosexuality and civil rights that evening. And she quoted the language from Jefferson, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And as she quoted that, I said you started at the same source that I started: unalienable rights. And so I just have one simple question. Who is the Creator that Thomas Jefferson was referring to? And Jefferson was a rationalist. He was not by any stretch an evangelical Christian as myself, and yet he and those with him who were from an orthodox Christian background in a Protestant context, appealed to a source higher than King George III. They appealed to the Creator. So I asked Nadine Strossen, who is the Creator? She looked at me and said well, you have your Creator and other people have their Creators. I said no, you've just described polytheism. In other words, that's not the context to which Jefferson was referring to. And if you look at every polytheistic culture in all of human history, they have no concept of unalienable rights. Rights go to those who are in power, whereas the concept of unalienable rights upon which this nation is founded, are rooted in the biblical understanding of the Creator, that says that all people deserve the same rights because they are people, and not because of any other secondary reason.]
3. The God of the Bible defines true marriage as one man, one woman, one lifetime. [This is the order of creation, the image of God.] The health of society is rooted in this foundation.
4. In human history, no society has ever affirmed both homosexuality and unalienable rights. [So here is an intellectual challenge, to track out history, to find out where unalienable rights are affirmed. And if you can find any society that ever has affirmed homosexuality and unalienable rights together, you won't find it.]


Chris Tremoglie

Posted on 04/22/2003 12:41 AM PDT by U.S.Zorro

“We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident” By: Chris Tremoglie

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the First Amendment of the Constitution. As we all know it entitles us Americans to certain liberties and freedoms that are not granted to other people around the world. This is an Amendment for ALL Americans - even government and legislative officials. So when Rick Santorum makes a comment about homosexuals and he gets asked to resign because of them, I ask you, where is the Freedom of Speech? Similar to the attacks on Reggie White several years ago for comments depicting homosexuality as a sin in certain religions, the same unwarranted attacks have befallen on Mr. Santorum. Again, I reiterate, don't all Americans have Freedom of Speech? Unless “words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create clear and present danger” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled in (Schenk v. United States) 1919, all Americans are entitled to freedom of speech. That is unless the topic or speech of homosexuality. It seems people are allowed to be pro-homosexual but if someone raises thought or feelings against homosexuality, or dare I say anti-homosexuality, one is castrated and targeted as an enemy and thus apparently loses all their constitutional freedoms. It will make the most non-violent peacenik turn downright ugly. Pardon me a second while I put on my Eminem CD. “May I have your attention please: will the real homosexuals please stand up?” Contrary to what people over at GLAAD may believe, people are entitled to be anti-homosexual. As I recall, homosexuality is a sin in the bible and therefore by expressing sentiment AGAINST homosexuality, one is doing nothing wrong. It seems as if just being accepted is not enough. The homosexual population now wants special consideration to wipe out freedom of speech and religion if it is against them. The people at GLAAD want it to be okay to stand and shout, “Hey, I am a homosexual” but want to hush those who say “Hey, I am a heterosexual and proud of it.” With all of the current events recently, I did not know our First Amendment privileges had been altered to say only positive things about everything. I didn’t realize that a Marxist utopia overtook our capitalist Republic. Our country has not changed and our principles have stood. Our country was founded as a Judeo-Christian country and since its inception, has expanded to include many different religions. In one religion, adultery is a sin. In another religion, not facing Mecca to pray daily is a sin. In another religion, eating pork is a sin. And in another religion, homosexuality IS a sin. As it says on their web page, “The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.” This is all well and good no matter how many people disagree or agree with homosexuality. When a United States Senator is asked to resign because he is adhering to his religion that is wrong. When a Pro-Football Hall of Famer is criticized for doing nothing more then speaking his mind, giving his constitutionally protected opinions, and abiding by his religion, it is reverse discrimination in its NASTIEST form. A homosexual is a human just like everyone else and is entitled to the same unalienable rights as everyone else. However, to expect everyone to like and promote homosexuality even when it goes against religious principles, that is where the line MUST be drawn. Promoting equality yes; promoting homosexual ADVANCEMENT – no!

Another Free Republic poster commented:

To: alwaysconservative

It was a dumb thing to say and if this doesn't sink him he will be lucky.

EY: Amen...... Hopefully blogs will keep this one alive in the same way the Lott statement got kept alive.....

More Hysterical Bleating from the Family Research Council

What is causing all this constirnation? The possibility that the Supreme Court might find sodomy laws unconstitutional and that Republicans are reaching out to the LGBT Community.

To: Friends of Family Research Council
From: Ken Connor, President
Date: April 22, 2003 - Tuesday

Homosexual Lobby: Follow the Money

Last month Republican National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot met secretly with the leadership of the Human
Rights Campaign, the lead lobbying group for the homosexual political agenda. The meeting appeared to be part of a
larger Republican outreach to homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual voters. The homosexual lobby is reaching out,
too, in an effort to garner influence among Republican leaders with the objective of winning support for its political agenda, silence pro-family advocates, and mute support for marriage and family in GOP circles. Homosexual political organizations spin such events as the Racicot-HRC meeting as signs of a new openness among Republicans to the
gay agenda. Another way the homosexual lobby seeks to extend its influence among Republicans is through campaign
donations. In politics the old truism applies: If you want to trace influence, then follow the money. Here is a
listing of Republican senators and congressmen who received donations from HRC's PAC in 2002:

In the Senate: Susan Collins (ME) $9,419;
Gordon Smith (OR) $1,000;
Arlen Specter (PA) $10,000.
In the House: Charles Bass (NH) $1,000; Judy Biggert (IL) $10,000; Sherwood Boehlert (NY) $10,000; Mary Bono (CA)
$1,000; Mike Castle (DE) $2,000; Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
$1,000; Mike Ferguson (NJ) $10,000; Mark Foley (FL)
$10,000; Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ) $10,000; Amo Houghton
(NY) $3,000; Nancy Johnson (CT) $10,000; Sue Kelly (NY)
$10,000; Mark Kirk (IL) $10,000; Jim Kolbe (AZ) $10,000;
Mike McNulty (NY) $9,285; Deborah Pryce (OH) $10,000;
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) $10,000; Chris Shays (CT) $5,025;
Rob Simmons (CT) $10,000; John Sweeney (NY) $10,000.

Santorum, Marriage under Attack

Barely a month after RNC Chairman Mark Racicot met with the Human Rights Campaign, that homosexual lobbying
organization has launched an attack on Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. HRC, which also is working with Democrats
to block confirmation of several of President Bush's judicial nominees, demands Sen. Santorum either repudiate
his remarks about the Texas anti-sodomy law case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, or be stripped of his
leadership position. In a press interview, Sen. Santorum made the same point FRC raised in its amicus brief filed
with the court in the Texas case: If the justices overturn the Texas law and hold sodomy to be a constitutional right
on the grounds of privacy, then laws against bigamy, incest, polygamy, adultery and other purely "private" sexual relationships must also be unconstitutional. This is hardly a novel point of view. Many legal scholars have made the same argument. HRC's attack on Sen. Santorum, a champion of the family, is intended to intimidate defenders of marriage and silence critics of the homosexual political agenda. The leader of the Log Cabin Republicans, another homosexual activist group, accused Sen. Santorum of "aligning himself with the fringe right-wing extremists of the party" and likened his comments to those of Sen. Trent
Lott praising racial segregation. We urge Chairman Racicot to repudiate the smear tactics of HRC and the Log Cabin Republicans, publicly defend Sen. Santorum, and reiterate his support for the party platform's defense of marriage.

EY: Now my question is how promoting the rhetoric of anti-gay bigotry supports a defense of the institution of marriage.

Howard Dean Condemns Santorum's Remarks via Atrios and Howard Dean's Campaign Weblog


In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum’s remarks.

That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments—comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their families—is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive.

The silence with which President Bush and the Republican Party leadership have greeted Sen. Santorum’s remarks is deafening. It is the same silence that greeted Senator Lott’s offensive remarks in December. It is a silence that implicitly condones a policy of domestic divisiveness, a policy that seeks to divide Americans again and again on the basis of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation.

It is a policy that must end, and it is a policy that will end with a Dean Presidency. This Saturday, April 26th, marks the third anniversary of the signing of the Civil Unions bill in Vermont. I signed that bill because I believe no human being should be treated with less dignity than others simply because that person belongs to a different category or group. I also believe that, as Americans, it is our duty to speak up when others are treated wrongly—especially when others are treated wrongly by a member of the Senate leadership.

I urge all Americans, and members of both parties, to join me in condemning Sen. Santorum’s remarks. They are unacceptable, and silence is an unacceptable response. By standing up against such divisive rhetoric—whether one is gay, lesbian, or straight—we can begin to achieve the American ideal of equal rights for all people.

Howard Dean

We are all sodomites now - by Andrew Sullivan

More commentary on the Texas Sodomy case...... Lavender Greens has also put out a press release on the topic. Both Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coaltion have submitted briefs on the subject to the Supreme Court.

From the Greens argument:

"What consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation, choose to do behind closed doors is private and does not hurt anyone," said Nathalie Paravicini, secretary of the Green Party of the United States. "The government has no right or justification to intrude into one's private life -- there is no more basic right than that of privacy. This is inherent in the Constitution's affirmation of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's urgent now more than ever, in a time when civil liberties are under assault from all fronts by Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration."

EY: Ofcourse it was the declaration of independence and not the constitution that talked about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Andrew Sullivan comments on the FRC Bleating

THE FAR RIGHT'S ANGER: One sign of the domestic moderation of the Bush administration is that some elements of the religious right are furious. Not so long ago, RNC chair Marc Racicot visited the Human Rights Campaign, the major gay rights group. The Family Research Council has gone nuts about this. FRC's head, Kenneth Connor, claims that the party chair shouldn't meet with groups who disagree with official party platform policy. Does that mean that no Republican president should ever address the NAACP, I wonder? Or Hispanic or Jewish groups who don't agree with everything in the GOP platform? Connor further says that the GOP believes that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. But even the Pentagon doesn't believe that, and allows closeted homosexuals (and increasingly some not-so-closeted ones) to serve their country. Rcaicot was right to reach out to gays and lesbians. He's right to implicitly deny that being gay-inclusive and pro-family is somehow an incoherent or un conservative position. Gays are members of families;they always have been and always will be. The question is whther they will be pushed out of family life or included in it. In his private email, Connor calls HRC "a radical organization working to advance an extremist agenda." This is baloney. I know the gay left; and HRC is the gay center. They increasingly understand thay many gays are conservative and moderate and have intelligently reached out to conservative thinkers, writers and politicians. Heck, Jonah Goldberg and David Brooks addressed the same conference as Racicot. The Bush administration needs to know that its impulse for inclusion is the right one; in fact, it's the only one that will give the GOP a healthy and moral future.

EY: I called Norm Coleman's press secretary and asked her to comment on the two contrasting pictures of the Republican party presented in the last two stories.

Senator Senatorum - Republican Conference Chair Lays an Egg via Yahoo News

Commenting on the Sodomy case before the Supreme Court, Santorum says:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said in an interview published on Monday by the Associated Press.

Majority Leader Frist can't be found to comment. It would be interesting to see what Senator Coleman thinks about this one.

"There is nothing conservative about allowing law enforcement officials to enter the home of any American and arrest them for simply being gay," said Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Patrick Guerriero. "I am deeply troubled that Sen. Santorum would divide America in a time of war. Mainstream America is embracing tolerance and inclusion. I am appalled that a member of the United States Senate leadership would advocate dividing Americans with ugly, hate-filled rhetoric."

Santorum's local Log Cabin chapter also weighed in: "The discriminatory remarks made by Sen. Santorum clearly do not reflect the compassionate conservatism promised by our president," said John Partain, president of the Pennsylvania Log Cabin Republicans.

"I thought we were past these type of remarks now that Jesse Helms is no longer in the Senate," Partain said.

Monday, April 21, 2003

FRC Continues Bleating about Republican Party Chair Racicot meeting with the HRC

Where is the GOP Headed on the Gay Agenda?

In the aftermath of the revelation that RNC Chairman Mark Racicot met secretly last month with the leadership of the
Human Rights Campaign, the leading homosexual political lobby, a number of people have contacted FRC to express
concerns. Pro-family conservatives were understandably unsettled by the news of the Racicot-HRC meeting. I
addressed some of these concerns in an Op-Ed column published yesterday in The Washington Times. HRC is not just another garden variety group that the RNC chairman meets with in the routine workaday duties of his position. HRC is the leading proponent of the homosexual political agenda, an agenda that includes legalization of so-called same-sex marriage, taxpayer funded domestic partner benefits for
unmarried gays, mainstreaming homosexuality in the public schools, passing "hate crime" legislation to criminalize
politically incorrect thoughts, and adoption rights for homosexuals. Most recently HRC opposed and sought to
defeat the confirmation of Timothy Tymkovich, nominated by President Bush to the federal appeals court. HRC also is
working to block confirmation of several other Bush judges.

So HRC is not just a benign human rights organization. It is a key player on the political Left, a radical organization working to advance an extremist agenda at odds with the Republican Party platform and the views of the overwhelming number of rank-and-file pro-family[1] Republicans. Because so many of these concerned Republicans have contacted FRC regarding the Racicot-HRC meeting, over the next several days the Washington Update will review the administration's and the RNC's recent record on issues related to the homosexual political agenda. Tomorrow we will look at the money trail and name the Republicans who have taken contributions from the Human Rights Campaign.

1. In FRC parlance "pro-family" is synonomous with anti-gay. It is interesting to read this as a counterpoint to the Lavender Editorial about Gay Marriage. The FRC and other groups that like them focus on anti-gay bigotry think that gay marriages are cheepening the institution of straight marriages. A perusal of shows like "the Bachelor" and "Who wants to marry the millionaire" suggests that heterosexuals are doing a fine job of degrading the institution of marriage all by themselves.

But it's so much easier to blame the gays.....

And they still think that gays are harming the institution of heterosexual marriage.....

Perhaps it all started with The Dating Game. Television took the blind date a step further and broadcast it for the world to enjoy. Since 1965, the premise of The Dating Game, and relationship-based reality TV in general, has taken off.

From ABC's The Bachelor, to the oh-so-unoriginal The Bachelorette-not forgetting other notables, including Joe Millionaire, Blind Date, and the seafaring Shipmates-television has demystified courtship, while providing Americans with countless hours of mind-numbing heterosexual dating scenarios. The worst are at least intended to result in a marriage proposal.

Taking the wedding cake, it seems, is Fox's new show, Married By America, whose Web site at has the following intro to its homepage: "Marriage is a sacred union between two people who have grown together over time. Fox says #@*% to that! You match. You vote. They marry."

Hold the ceremony just one damn minute. For years, gay marriage opponents have held the position that allowing gays to marry would undermine the sanctity of this time-honored union. Yet, two individuals selected by Monday night television viewers can enjoy that same union?