Oct

3

Mmmm….Santorum

Written by

santaWhile campus liberals gear up for an appearance by the founder of the anti-immigrant Minutemen, they might want to know what else College Republicans President Chris Kulawik has up his sleeve: family values Senator Rick Santorum, scheduled to visit at the end of October. Sources inside the Student Governing Board say that the Republicans blew their cover by submitting a security request form. Bwog finds the invitation somewhat ironic, considering Kulawik’s admission in a recent Spec article that “he worked to bring the men to campus because he said he thinks discussing issues instead of having candidates speak is less divisive during an election year.”

Good news for the College Dems, who chose to go to Ohio to help out senatorial candidate Sherrod Brown (father of Liz Brown, C ’07) instead of Pennsylvania to campaign against Santorum over election day weekend. Now they can throw spitballs at him without leaving campus!

Tags: , , ,

54 Comments

  1. all right  

    counting the 3 ex terrorists their bringing next wednesday, it's a farking disgrace who the repubs can bring to this campus while we don't get anybody even centrist or left of center here

    and give me a break--while he may have meant it generally, bringing corsi and gilchrist and the others to talk about immigration is actually a great way to have people talk about an issue--and frankly regardless of that comment i would jump on the chance to bring santorum to campus

    what i don't understand is why santorum will be speaking on campus so close to the election considering he's in a race he needs to be completely focused on if he wants to even have a chance

  2. hey  

    two points:

    1- the minuteman aren't 'anti-immigrant'. from what i can tell their officially 'anti illegal immigrant' which is an enormous difference despite protesters attempts to conflate the two

    2. i'm guessing if the republicans submitted a security request to an organzation headed by student who advocated reconquista hey were quite aware their 'cover' would be blown

    • John  

      1. To be effectively anti-illegal-immigrant, one has to rile up people against the same population that provides most of our legal immigrants. Once the public hates Mexicans, it couldn't care less whether they're legal or not; though it probably starts to assume that they all are.

      Furthermore, creating such xenophobia when many legal and illegal immigrants are already too well-installed to go back to Mexico (i.e. we have a second and third generation in many cases) is a recipe for institutionalised racism, which is unfortunately self-perpetuating and conducive to political schisms down the road.

      Keeping in mind the likelihood of Hispanic majority in the near future, that looks to be a real looming disaster. So: yes, the Minutemen are anti-immigrant and yes, they are vigilantes and yes, they are self-defeating and yes, they are going to harm all of us in the long run.

      2. I agree. Bwog is being naïve and congratulating tipsters needlessly. The last time the campus Republicans needed security, they just asked the CU football team to cover them. I wouldn't be surprised if they do the same this year.

  3. its the first stop  

    on his farewell tour. He must want to get in more speeches while hes still in office.

    I'm just hoping we hear more brilliant quips from Santorum, such as his comparison of gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

  4. dear you're stupid  

    you're own link indicates that santorum didn't say that gay marriae was pedophilia or beastiality--rather he was makign the point that the reasoning behind the lawrence case creates a slippery slope which then easily translates to polygamy and arguably to pedophilia and beastiality

    this isn't even an unorthodox argument at this point as one of the law schools top hires, elizabeth emens, actually suggests application of lawrence to concensual polyamory

    considering there are documented cases of people marrying animals and the us itself has organizations which advocate consensual relationships between adults and minors non of his statements are intellectually implausible

    expect this santorum to appear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQUK9NQpI5M and not the charicature that you've grown to hate

  5. santorum!

    Ask Alice should co-sponser the Santorum event! It will be a learning experience for all, thanks to sex columnist Dan Savage:
    http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

  6. yeah

    google "santorum" -- the first link ain't the senator's homepage.

  7. meeeeeeeeeeeee

    man on dog speech!

    milorad pavic would be proud.

  8. that sounds  

    like a conflict of interest... if i've ever seen one before.

  9. santorum  

    santorum's argument against gay marriage is still ridiculous. allowing two people who love each other the same rights and privileges that others have does not lead to beastiality or polygamy. has heterosexual marriage led to these thigns? NO. would homosexual marraiges lead to these things? NO. santorum is blatantly homophobic. and we will protest. "none of his statements are intellectualy implausible?" i'd think again. marriage to snakes is not happening nor could happen. marriages to minors is almost unheard of. let's be real here, that argument has NO basis or foundation against the fight for equality for all PEOPLE WHO LOVE PEOPLE.

    • good god  

      follow the argument here. first of all i don't hold the same views of santorum. i think there's an inherent problem sanctioning any marriage (hetero or homo) so quit being a emotional turd.

      What i was referring to is exactly what santorum was talking about. Lawrence relied on a reading of the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment which found the existence of a right to privacy. Becuase of this fundamental right, the rational basis test was applied in the case and consequently the court found in favor of lawrence. We're not talking about a direct casual link between homosexuality and polygamy or beastiality etc. We're talkign about relying upon the same legal argument to allow these actions. Polygamy is becoming more and more of a slam dunk case in that sense because it still relies on privacy and has consenting individuals. Beastiality adn pedophilia are both more tenuous arguments but there are definitely arguments which try to imply an ability to have consenting relationships. Your ignorance is not an excuse: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/ and http://216.220.97.17/

      so before all teh unhinged liberal activists start screaming on this particular connection, they should realize there's a validity to his point--which is completely separate from a whole host of other reprehensible and indefensible attacks against gays (such as allowing discrimination against employees based upon sexual orientation)

      by the way, if you seriously want to reply, try to understand the legal argument

  10. How

    can the college dems explain having a budget at least 4 times greater than CR and C4 combined yet Chris is out there kicking their butts on speakers and events. Its amazing that a club as small as theirs on campus can bring in such national level speakers. Way to Go!!

    And to the poster number 11, just because someone has a position that does not validate the gay agenda message does not mean they are "homophobic". One can disagree with the concept of gay marriage, the idea, however you want to phrase it, and still not "hate" homosexuals. Just because someone doesnt agree with the agenda or political position of another doesnt mean that person hates.

    It seems that anyone who doesnt agree with a position on the left is automatically deemed to hate it, or the hate a certain person or race. There are many people that believe that you can choose to love or date or be attracted to whomever you choose, without believing that gay marraige is a right.

    Believe it or not there are people out there who believe that marraige should remain defined as between a man and a woman,yet harbor no ill feelings towards anyone whatever their chosen sexual preference, and have a rational argument for their decision. You (poster number 11) apparantly are quick to judge guilty of something without proof of said charge, Very ironic considering you are quick to levy judgements against others yet do not care to be judged yourself.

    • wtf?!?!  

      A couple point, buddy:

      1) What the hell is a "gay agenda"? you make it sound like the gays are out to convert heteros and break up marriages, lure innocent children into their lairs with candy, and corrupt soiety to its core. If the "gay agenda" is one that's interested in granting equal rights to all members of society, regardless of sexual orientation (or race, gender, handedness, etc), then maybe I could see where you're coming from. For now, you're just using an old Republican phrase to disparage an aspect of society that threatens your cozy little outlook on the world.

      2) How the hell can you say that Santorum doesn't "hate" homosexuals, yet he wants to deny them the right to have consenual sexual relations in the privacy of their own homes? That's about the same as me saying that I really have no problem with straight people, but I don't want to let them have sex, get married, or act on their personal, sexual desires. This whole "blame the sin, not the sinner" mentality denies homosexuals the right to act out their sexual identity, and implicitly (though practically explicitly)says that they are not good, or even human, enough to be granted the same rights as heteros.

      3) And lest you try to argue "Oh, um, well what if the person attracted to dogs? If he was gonna be allowed to act out his sexual identity, then shouldn't he be allowed to marry Fido?" The whole point of marriage is that it's a conpact between TWO CONSENTING HUMAN ADULTS. Two, meaning not polygamy. Consenting, meaing that they are not forced or coersed into marriage. Human, meaning not animals. Adults, meaning emancipated from their parents and legally independent.

      • refer to my 21 post  

        for replies to your #3 where you finally address teh legal issues, rendering your first two points to be rubbish

        what is the fascination w/two? you'll find two is actually an arbitrary number based upon 'tradition' the same dead horse conservative beat in arguments against gay marriage. Otherwise you admit that consent is thee other main issue. In polygamy this can be readily found (did anybody real the article or prof. emens work?) While more tenuous, attempts to establish consent in beastiality or pedophilic relationships can be done through substantive arguments of the cognitive capabilities of some animals and the cognitive abilities of varying ages of humans (the former will obviously seem ridiculous but one only needs to read law review articles regarding animal's cognitive abilities to see an argument could be made).

      • refer to my 21 post  

        for replies to your #3 where you finally address teh legal issues, rendering your first two points to be rubbish

        what is the fascination w/two? you'll find two is actually an arbitrary number based upon 'tradition' the same dead horse conservative beat in arguments against gay marriage. Otherwise you admit that consent is thee other main issue. In polygamy this can be readily found (did anybody real the article or prof. emens work?) While more tenuous, attempts to establish consent in beastiality or pedophilic relationships can be done through substantive arguments of the cognitive capabilities of some animals and the cognitive abilities of varying ages of humans (the former will obviously seem ridiculous but one only needs to read law review articles regarding animal's cognitive abilities to see an argument could be made).

    • yes!  

      right on. im a "liberal," i'm sick of this hate business, and i adore chris kulawik.

    • John  

      Well, I think the answer to your question is this:
      "Next week, former US Attorney General John Ashcroft is speaking here at Columbia. Ashcroft — the guest of the Columbia Federalist Society, Columbia College Conservative Club, College Republicans and Young Americans Foundation..."

      So there is plenty of money. Private donors, too, have been no small help.

      Whereas the College Democrats are situated on an overwhelmingly democratic campus in a country where most universities are overwhelmingly Democratic. There are only so many speakers to go around.

      The Bible gives a good account of why the GOP's allies might find the opportunity to speak at Columbia worth seizing:
      "What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than the ninety-nine that never went astray."
      —Matthew 18.12f

      While you may say that there are plenty of sheep gone astray in the academic herd, few are quite so influential as Columbia. And few are so willing and ready to welcome conservative voices. That is to say, to be found.

      Kulawik has got it easy, though I don't doubt his energy.

  11. you should

    learn to read lest you make claims.

    First and foremost Senator Santorums press secretary is gay. I would tend to doubt that he HATES him. You can disagree with someones choice without hating them.

    There is a gay agenda as much as there is an agenda of anyone looking to push through legislation that they feel is necessary, desired or adventageous. Again you jump to conclusions and assume that when the term gay agenda is used its automatically derogatory. It isnt. As I said above every political group, or group that uses politics to advance their position, has an agenda. In this case its to gain certain rights they feel they are being denied, and to gain validation.

    Marraige is a compact between a man and a woman with the ultimate goal of reproduction. Being against the union of two people of the same sex does not make one homophobic. Said person could be in favor of civil unions which bestow the same rights of property, et al. By your logic if you are not totally in favor of allowing marraige between two people of the same sex then you are automatically homophobic.

    Dont be so inane as to suggest someone was going bring up the "dogs" argument. There are many other valid arguments for one to use regarding gay marraige without devolving into that idiocy.

    Again, my point is clear and simple, just because you do not want the term marraige, which has been defined over the course of human history as between a man and a woman changed to fit a small percentage of the population who want it changed becasue of their choice of lifestyle does not make them a bigot or a hater.

    Sounds to me that you are the one "hating"

    • Ooh!

      Tokenism! You're right, I'm sorry, Santorum is an American hero! I'm still waiting for the posthumous Strom Thurmond revalation that he fathered a gay baby. Oh, wait.

      The automatic left-bashing that is so endemic to American politics in this decade comes down to a simple argument: are fundamental human rights subject to the political whims of people like you? Yeah, you don't like gay marriage. And some other guy doesn't like interracial marriage. And some other guy doesn't like Jews. And so on down the ladder.

      It's hard to find an American that doesn't agree that some rights are above debate -- find me an American that hates free speech! But when it comes to the views that they were raised on, even relatively libertarian individuals suddenly jump at the first opportunity to restrict the rights of others.

      Until, as a society, we can mature to the point where we don't vote down the basic needs of a minority population, there's a lot of work to do. I'm not gonna call you "hateful" [I'd taboo the word on campus if I had the choice], but I'm certainly going to say that you're misguided. Relying on (dubious) tradition is a poor excuse to avoid coming to terms with the world around you.

  12. [email protected]  

    "Good news for the College Dems, who chose to go to Ohio to help out senatorial candidate Sherrod Brown (father of Liz Brown, C '07) instead of Pennsylvania to campaign against Santorum over election day weekend. Now they can throw spitballs at him without leaving campus!"

    Contact [email protected] to go on the campaign trip over Election day Weekend!

    http://columbia.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2200388907

  13. It's amazing...

    how an anonymous SGB board source can suggest on the bwog one week that the College Republicans get so much less in funding than the Democrats because they have not proven what they can do with the funds they have, and then the next week more anonymous SGB sources are leaking the College Republicans' big upcoming speakers.

    They've seen Ashcroft, they see the Minutemen, and now they are leaking news of Santorum's visit. Exactly how many more big speakers have the Democrats brought recently? I can count them on one hand without using all my fingers even.

    SGB is a disgraceful example of overbearingg liberal bias at Columbia. If it's board members are going to leak big Republican speakers after the Republicans submit MANDATORY security forms, and if those leaks will make security costs for the event rise -- and they will, those same board members should at least be honest enough to foot the bill and give Republicans a more "equal opportunity" in terms of funding.

    With two leading College Democrat figures on the SGB board and one open advocate of reconquista, though, let's not kid ourselves; SGB is clearly not an honest or impartial board for student activities. Instead, it's a collection of left-leaning political activists using their "impartial posts" to further their own political agenda. They pretend the Republicans do nothing and deserve substantially less funding, and then they do everything possible to stifle the big name events that the Republicans to land with leaks and bureaucratic hurdles. To add to it, the SGB leakers don't have the guts to at least come out openly and show who it is that is leaking the information. I'd blame Karl Rove, of course, but he's not actually on the SGB Governing Board.

    Even so, I'm sure the SGB board -- particularly Sakib Khan (of reconquista fame), Vice-Chair Josh Lipsky (former Membership Director of the College Democrats), & Treasurer Jon Siegel (former College Democrat Presidential Contender) -- will blame Karl Rove as the most likely leaker regardless.

  14. kulawik  

    is great. i love that guy. i've become a much more of a socialist since coming to columbia, but seeing that kid shake things up around here week after week just brings me joy. get's you all so uncomfortable.

  15. how is

    it having to come to term with the world around you when a scant two percent of the population should be entitled to change what has been defined over 5,000 years of human history. I admit that if a tradition is built up over one generation or a few years it does not qualify as something that is "unbreakable" but something that is defined by every major culture and every major relgion and by every major society through the history of man, that should qualify as a tradition with just a bit of value. If it is "equal rights" you are fishing for then a civil union grants those rights which you seem to feel are being dubiously held back.

    The fact of the matter is that there is something to be said for one's choice of in life and having to reap the benefits or results or consequences of ones choices. There is also something to be said about trying to force people to condone and validate ones actions by insisting that they follow your version of what should and shouldnt be.

    The fact of the matter is that in a civil society it is society which determines and defines what is accepted and what isnt. Society has determined, through history and through elections, that marraige shall be defined as between a man and a woman. There are also a number of people who believe that we should be granting civil unions to couples of the same sex which bestow rights of property et al on couples which choose to enter into this union.

    Your choice of the word misguided could also be applied to your thoughts on this matter. Its amazing how self-rightous you are in your decision to judge that people who dont believe as you do are bigoted, racists, homophobic, misguided etc. Its amazing that people like you clamor that we live in a democracy and the people should decide, but when the people say (as they have in election after election) something you dont agree with then they are misguided or its some scheme or plot against you.

    The fact of the matter is that, and I dont know how to make this any clearer, just because someone doesnt AGREE with your choice, with your lifestyle, with your politics, doesnt mean they hate you. It means they DISAGREE with you and have a different opinion of how things should be.

    As for tokenism, its amazing that you retort with that. So are you saying that Santorum went out looking for a gay man to be his press secretary or could it just be that he was looking for the person best qualified for the position and probably hired that person. Its ridiculous that there is some need to qualify every person on a staff or that if someone only has a certain number of a certain group on staff then those who are on staff can only be considered "token". What happened to the days of just hiring the best people, which is what Santorum probably did.

  16. DHI  

    The thing is, Santorum's views on privacy particularly regarding sex between consenting adults are wrong, and the slippery slope argument as applies to sodomy isn't valid because other things it leads to should be allowed. Polygamy is a marital law, so it isn't really subject to the same arguments; marriage is not private. Should adultery be illegal by law? I would say it definitely should not. Bestiality should be illegal but only because it concerns a non-consenting animal. I'm just saying that you should not illegalize things like sodomy, adultery, Cleveland Steamery, 13-people orgies, vacuum-fucking, or anything else people want to do that's their own business. Just think: what would the world be without Booyah?

  17. wow.  

    what an utter amount of vapid dribble.

    the problem isn't that groups that oppose illegal immigration rally people against mexicans. its that people like you like to yell out racist at any attempt to talk about real crimes committed by violating american laws.

    seriously john, lets take your deluded little argument out to its full extension:

    because you claim that to rile up people against illegals you have to rile them up against an ethnicity you're effectively claiming there are no distinctive subgroups withing a race which can be separated on a non racial basis (essentially black gang members are not criminals- they are the entire african american ethnicity). consequently lets apply this to the ku klux klan or to the crips or bloods. in order to rile up a population against them you are effectively riling up people against the entire white or black race- fodder for eugenics.
    Once the public begins to hate black or whites it cares not for any other subdistinction but hates indiscriminately. the question this begs though is why we haven't seen continuous and large scale race wars across america throughout its history. the reason is you're full of crap.

    People are smart enough to distinguish subgroups within an ethnicity. In fact if you got to major news channels or even the minutemen's site you'll see they specifically make this distinction. The truth is people don't like those who break laws becuase theyre criminals. as a result they don't like illegal immigrants for the crime they've committed. the majority of this illegal immigration comes from the mexican american border, so it makes sense to concentrate efforts there though concerns about the canadian border are also warranted.

    anyway, nwo that we've debunked you're bs arugment and can do away w/the your racism in ascribing anybody who dislikes the breakign of american laws as a xenophobe, we can address your second point which is actually somewhat valid and important. The way to handle the high number of illegals living here does likely need to involve something besides just deportation. However don't try to assume deportation inherently implies racism again. Breaking a law usually entails a punishment. In this care there isn't even a punishment, but instead a restart. People are safely sent back home instead of being punished. Your claim that its insitutionalised racism that will perpetuate silly concepts like 'political schisms' is absurd. If you agree to enforce laws, it doesn't imply racism regardless of how much you want it to. There certainly may be racist elements amongst those who wish to send back illegals and who may dislike all immigrants. They are reprehensible idiots who are small minority. However your attempts to conflate them w/teh opinions of the american people, who in poll after poll have supported cracking down on illegal immigration, is actually racist in itself.

    As for what to do w/immigrants, you're right if you're claiming that most americans don't support deportation of all. Gallup polls have shown only about 20% support such a strategy--thus it would be worthwhile to ask whether the minutemen (perhaps at an event at your local university) shoudl support the majority who favor allowing immigrants to stay if they meet certain standards instead of just claiming they're racists.

    Finally, you're last point is so ludicrous i wonder whether you thought before you made it. Hispanics only recently passed african americans as the largest minority in america--but are still not even 20% of the population---a far far cry from a majority. So please try to learn something about american demographics before spouting such nonense. All you've proven is that the minutemen aren't inehrently anti immigrant (they still may not hold the same views most americans do in terms of how to deal w/illegal immigrants) and instead that you're actually quite racist, think americans are in general racist, think you're far smarter than everyone else, beleive your false tautologies can explain teh world and that you don't even do simple research to butress your points.

    • John  

      Wow,

      Four paragraphs is not an utter amount of anything, unless you are in first grade.

      To your concluding point, I would have produced research—immigration and integration are the only subjects I’ve seriously pursued over the past year, both through secondary sources and on my own, here and abroad—but I thought I would save you from the ‘drivel,’ which has nothing to do with ‘dribble,’ which does not accord with vapidity.

      You accuse me of not researching the subject, and before that you accuse me of being a racist. Where did that come from, Wow? You, not I, encourage keeping workers out of the United States because they are Mexicans.

      I would love to address all of your points in depth, but addressing each unfounded assertion you make would take a paragraph at minimum. Don’t take it as a sign of disrespect that I am going to ignore large sections of your response; most of it is irrelevant to what I said; most of it is rhetorical bluster and diversion.

      Firstly: legal, temporary, and illegal immigration policy in the United States (as regards Mexicans) closely approximates that of post-war France (as regards Algerians): legal immigrants are not predominantly intellectuals; guest workers are let in on a short-term basis, without their families, to work in agricultural and manual subsectors; and illegals are generally allowed passage (with harassment) to form enclaves subjected to exploitative labor and insalubrious living conditions.

      The consequences in France: nonintegration, racial discrimination (it is six times harder to find employment for those with North-African names or addresses in predominantly North-African quarters), endemic poverty, ghettoization, the creation of under-funded municipalities where these marginalized ethnicities DO MAKE UP THE MAJORITY and provide a weakened tax base, leading to difficulties funding social services and education—and therefore to institutionalized racism (if you were unsure of what I meant by that, creating biases correlated to—not caused by—race tends to encourage stereotyping and hence xenophobia).

      If the current political debate in the United States regarding issues both with Hispanics and the ‘Black’ minority you harp on can tell us anything, it is that we are seeing the same problems that France saw. She still sees them; they haven’t gone away. It doesn’t take a race war to distort an economy and a democratic polity.

      Two concluding points:

      I agree that breaking the law is insupportable; however, the law, which is still up for debate, is hardly problem-free. If it were, the Minutemen would have no purpose.

      Race and social issues aside, our country’s agricultural sector depends on illegal immigrants’ sub-minimum-wage, benefit-free labor (a subsidy, de facto) to keep prices low. If you could see the price indices for foodstuffs in Europe and industrialized Asian countries, you would be able to grasp that intuitively. The Minutemen are forcing an already ugly political situation by attempting to halt the flow of exploitable labor across the border.

      No matter which social science you choose for a framework of analysis, the Minutemen are doing us no favors.

  18. thank you dhi  

    i appreciate that you're trying to approach santorum's arguments legally which is how he's makign them. And i don't disagree w/your view. I agree that rights to sodomy, adultery etc do probably past any reasoning test (under what provision is questionable), but you claim that polygamy doesn't fall under privacy law is false. Polyamory is certainly a private practice and is outlawed by many states- refer to prof. emens on this. Either way, santorum is obviuosly mostly concerned about gay marriage which again isn't a completely private matter but is still likely protected by some combination of privacy/equal protection. Either way, against consent is a big issue in the other cases and there are arguments, however implausible, to be made there. Consequently while i agree with you dhi, santorum is making a valid argument when he suggests that finding a right to privacy opens up a whole host of possible activities people can engage in and which can only be restricted based upon specific reasoning tests.

    As a tangent, this is in my opinion a result oriented and faulty way to approach law, but its obviously done for political expedience as opposed to having to explicate the demerits of finding a right to privacy under the controversial substantive due process clause.

  19. DHI  

    I just have a lot less of a problem with the law drawing what might be an overprotective brightline around what it defines as consent (thus invalidating arguments that consent would be reached outside that line) than regulating private sexual practices that involve clearly defined consent, but I think maybe realized posting here was a mistake because any poltical posts will start a shitfit. A shitfit that should be legal, for if any number of people want to fling feces at each other in a private room, that's really not my problem.

    • unfortunately  

      DHI, such is the nature of online blogs.

      You're view on clearly creating consent guidelines is a laudable idea, but in practice is probably tougher than we can imagine. While beastiality is something which would likely fall outside such a line, there would likely be a huge amount of trouble deciding on an age where 'minors' can actually provide consent. Still, I agree with you that legally santorum is probably wrong on this. However, his argument isn't implausible just because its likely wrong and words like bigot and racist have to be thrown around more carefully.

  20. sadly  

    kulawik is more dynamic politically then the rest of the columbia community

    which is like saying flavor flav does a better job bringing in ratings than the rest of vh1

  21. DHI  

    Well at the point where a polygamous marriage seeks to be recognized it's no longer a privacy issue; if it's secret polygamy in effect then, yes, it's a harder issue to approach specifically because of polygamy, and maybe it does need regulation because of the coercive nature of many of these polygamous relationships. However, given how tricky this issue is to approach (and how to define such polygamy, and if and when it should be dealt with legally) seems like an issue for which normal privacy rights should not be sacrificed.

    • I agree completely  

      that in the case of polygamy and specificially polamory (which doesn't involve marriage and which about 20 or so states have laws against [though rarely enforce]) privacy right probably shouldnt be sacrificied if one's acceptign the substantive due process argument. However, even you've recognized there may be reasons to restrict such practices and that the issue isn't necessarily black and white. As a consequence its perfectly viable to claim taht there are problems with the idea of a 'right to privacy' as a fundamental rights from a constitutional perspective and from a results oriented view. The slippery slope argument is one argument of the latter approach and as even you admit at the very least might apply to polygamy.

      This doesn't mean santorum is right, just that he's not necessarily a bigot (he may be but i don't know) for making such arguments.

  22. DHI  

    Substantive due process, I believe, relies on consent, which if defined separately to always exclude minors when consenting with an adult above a certain, would not be able to used to justify pedophilia unless the consent laws themselves were attacked separately.

    Of course, Santorum using the argument he does not necessarily make him a bigot, but it seems to be bad policy with far more dangerous slippery slope consequences in the other direction (both in terms of civil liberties in general and privacy specifically), and I think that he should be disagreed with on those terms.

    That being said, it is my view that Santorum is an asshole who overapplies moral standards to legislation, and I believe that he does want to outlaw sodomy even without considering the legal consequences. Of course, as you correctly point out, this does not at all legally follow from his statements on Lawrence v Texas, but rather is an opinion of what I think about him based on ideologues with whom he alligns himself. This has no place in an argument about his policies, and further is not a view that can really be proved or refuted by logical argument and is more of a judgment call. I disagree with Santorum on much of his policy; separately from that, I don't like him. Not that he shouldn't be allowed to speak, just that I don't want him to get general support.

  23. fair enough  

    DHI. thanks for being civil too.

    about a couple of your points- i don't doubt santorum applies moral standards to legislation. however, all politicians do and in fact their role as legislators drives them in that direction. The judiciary asseses constitutionality. Legislators should generally think about the legal viability of their laws/bills but often time such things are passed/drafted in spite of such possible problems or on purpose. Thus having a different set of moral beliefs doesn't necessarily make one a bigot or reprehensible for believing in a different set of views. The beauty of this however is that voters can and should dislike politicians who consistently advocate other views though they shoudl probably just do it from a political vantage point. All your views seem to fit that as you even agree that he shoudl be allowed to speak.

    In terms of a reverse slippery slope, there's probably less of problem in that context because tradition has already restricted such liberties to a high degree.

    Finally, substantive due process doesn't necessarily rely on consent, though in right to privacy cases any type of reasoning test definitely probably needs consent as a precursor. Defining consent is the holy grail in that sense, but its a much more tricky matter than i think you might believe. For example, w/acceptance of more religious and cultural practices as well as recognitiion of variation even amongst states, the age for consent may not be a trivial thing to establish. Furthermore, there also the much greater debate of constitutional interpretation which also weighs in on this question.

  24. are you serious?  

    in reply to #25.

    did you ever think that society has been misguided? misinformed? or just wrong? society is a fallible construct because it is administered by humans who are fallible.let's not forget this.

    the whole "history" argument really baffles me. i mean, so because of tradition we are to disallow basic human rights to individuals? history is chock full of mistakes, blunders, discrimination, and errors that should not have happened, yet did. most were resolved. some, continue to penetrate society today. oh, example time: well, slavery was in existence in a number of societies for what, 3,000 years, if not more, and does that mean we should just continue such practices because history tells us that "it's ok" or somehow validates such practices as "normal" and "natural" since they existed for such an extended period of time? no. slavery was abolished because it was finally recognized as being immoral. denying basic rights to two people of the same gender is also immoral, any way that you look at it. just because it has taken over 5,000 years to reach this point of recognition we should NOT sit back and allow past history to invade and flavor public policies of TODAY.

    and never describe sexual orientation by means of a CHOICE. do you think people would consciously choose to be of a sexual identity that is so hated if they didn't naturally feel inclined to be who they are? yes, folks, i hate to break the news to you, but, homosexuality is NATURAL and biology affirms this. (ever heard of population control? yup, homosexuality, there we are) the concept of homosexuality has been vilified and wrongly perceived and understood for far too long for this to have any effect on most people, and probably yourself, #25. but, it doesn't mean it's not true. let me ask you one more thing, #25 - did you choose your sexual orientation?

    finally, any time someone thinks that it is ok to deny a person their basic human rights, there HAS to be a hidden fear or some sort of bias from which the thought process of said person derives itself. so, any way that you slice it, santorum is discriminatory against homosexuals. plain and simple. and the "history" argument or the "man and woman" argument still promote an undeniable bigotry against a group of people who cannot be classified under such limited ways of thinking and understanding humanity.

    santorum subscribes to aforemenionted arguments, therefore, santorum is maybe not a complete bigot, but at the very least TERRIBLY IGNORANT.

  25. i love bananas  

    a triumph, a triumph!

  26. actually

    biology proves that homosexuality is NOT natural. Every species first and most NATURAL instinct is to reproduce and perpetuate the species. Population control occurs in nature through things like sickness and such, not homosexuality. In the human species reproduction can ONLY occur when the male and the female have relations. Its plain and simiple, there is nothing more natural for a species than reproduction, going against that is therefore unnatural.

    As well, to your question would someone choose to be that way, my answer is yes. Your assumption above that homosexuality has been proven to be natural is just blatently false.

    Nice for you to compare the tradition of marraige to the tradition of slavery. Come on give me a break, really. There is no one who reads this, who attends Columbia or any rational human being in this country that advocated slavery or that thinks its anything less than abhorant. Marriage betwen people of the same sex can not be compared to slavery, that is just an inane and insane comparison.

    As for denying basic human rights, again, I can not make it any clearer, what basic human rights are beying denied? I think Ive made it clear, and most people would be in favor of civil union which grant the rights of property, hospital visitation, death benefits, insurance benefits for people who choose to to cohabitate or join in the civil union with someone of the same sex.

    So stop trying to claim racism (and this is not racism anyway because any bigotry towards homosexuals is not because of race but orientation) or homophobia because there are people who dont condone your lifestyle. As well dont think that someone who doesnt condone your lifestyle doesnt think you have the right to live the way you want. This is America and everyone has the right to choose how they live, but when you talk about the government and people being forced to sanction a lifestyle that goes against most of their moral principles and nature then thats where the line has been crossed.

    And to close, there is no inherrent fear just because someone doesnt approve of a lifestyle, they may just actually believe that its wrong and it goes against their principles. Thats not fear my friend.

    Someone doesnt have to be ignorant because they dont approve of a certain lifestyle and they are not ignorant because they dont believe what you believe. The same argument could be said between catholics and protestants by your assumption and its not that way. Their beliefs dont make them ignorant anymore than yours make you ignorant.

    • wtf  

      "As well, to your question would someone choose to be that way, my answer is yes. Your assumption above that homosexuality has been proven to be natural is just blatently false."

      I really don't think you are remotely close to being in a position to make that statement. How dare you assume that, when you don't even know what it's like to be gay??? (and I apologize if you do) Ask any gay person whether they would choose to be gay, and 99% of them will say no fucking way- who would choose a life where most people around the world villify you, and many organized religions tell you that you have no place being on this world?

      Before you say that you KNOW that it's a choice and not natural, why don't you walk a mile in a gay person's shoes and have to deal with trying to force yourself to be in a straight relationship, coming out, and dealing with homophobia and people trying to deny you basic rights. That should be enough (unless you're a heartless ultra-conservative like Santorum) to convince you that no one would ever make the choice to be gay.

    • Not quite  

      Hey, remember me? I was arguing with you awhile ago, but then all these better-spoken people showed up...

      "wtf" guy is pretty sharp. Why is it different from slavery? Social context. Civil unions [even if we chose to believe, as you do, that "most people" would sanction civil unions, an assertion that's been disproven in about 31 states] fall under the pretty well-beaten concept of "separate but equal", and you're ignoring a lot of precedent if you think "separate but equal" is anywhere near "equality." Or don't you believe in equality?

      And going with the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument? Yeah, that's not homophobic. A good tip is to go back and read your other posts before you make yourself look like a fool.

    • Cam  

      "biology proves that homosexuality is NOT natural. Every species first and most NATURAL instinct is to reproduce and perpetuate the species"
      Ahhahahahahahahahaa. Haha!

      So tell me, do you really think that urge you've been going after for most of your pubescent life has been the *ahem* natural instinct to reproduce?

      No, dude, no. That's your sex drive. Gay people have it too. As do gay wolves, and dolphins, and a few other observed animal species besides. There is no such thing as a natural instinct to reproduce. There is just a sex drive.

      Evolution means the majority of sex drives are born straight. Recessive genes mean the gay sex drives don't just go away.

      Also, about tradition? For thousands of years of recorded human history, women have been property. This endured for long, long after the ancient social structure under which it made sense, for the men.

      Why? Because it was always that way. Because women had no right to change the establishment of history.

  27. your..  

    ....moral principles are abhorent.

  28. huh?  

    #43, you make me sick.

  29. just a note  

    post 21/29/38 is not the same person as 41.

    you'll notice that 21/29/38 doesn't hate gays

  30. man  

    nothing gets columbia students fired up like anal sex byproducts.

  31. actually, man  

    It is a lot more like civil rights than slavery. There's an enormously huge difference between not having social equality (which is still the case for minorities) and having all your labor subjugated by what is effectively violence (in that there is direct physical enforcement of your position). I mean there are a million ways in which slavery is worse, but my point is if you're going to make an analogy, at least go for civil rights.

  32. DHI  

    I agree with 50. It shows a lack of appreciation for how perverse an institution American slavery was to say it is no different than any of the countless situations around the world in which there is social inequality. Not that these inequalities aren't unjust and don't require immediate correction, just that slavery goes far beyond that.

    I feel like an idiot, arguing on blog comments, I just wanted to wrap up this discussion with 21/29/38.

    First, while all Santorum's style is to apply more personal morals that do not have direct effect on others (and are sometimes justified in very-hard-to-establish-either-way "decline of society" ideas) in legislation to a far greater degree than I consider appropriate.

    As for the reverse slippery slope, it does seem that from both conservatives and liberals there is something to worry about in terms of a reduced individual domain of the individual as opposed to government, and that this is a real concern that would be made more dangerous by something like a reverse of the Lawrence ruling.

    Anyway, I'm done here in terms of argument. I think I have to agree with the old saying: "Fighting on the internet is like racing in the Special Olympics - even if you win you're still a retard."

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.