Senator Santorum replies!

[giza]

Awhile back, I pissed and moaned about Senator Santorum, and how he engaged in a little gay bashing in a newspaper article. Since I live in the same state that he represents, I wrote a polite bitch letter to him explaining that I was not at all happy with his comments, and how they would cost him my vote.

Today, I got a reply from him in the snail mail. I'll type it in below...

Dear Mr. Muth:

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify the resent Associated Press (AP) store in which I was quoted regarding the right to privacy and the United States Constitution.

I ofered an interview to the Associated Press with the understand that they would produce a general profile piece covering my entire 8-year tenure in the United States Senate. As part of that interview, I discussed a case currently being considered by the Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas. Instead of the expected profile covering my past accomplishments and current legislative agenda, the AP chose to produce a relatively brief article in which they highlighted just a portion of my
comments regarding the Lawrence case, absent the appropriate historical of legal context.

In discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right of privacy and the broader implications of a potential outcome on other state laws. 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: simply stated, that if such a law restricting personal conduct were to be held unconstitutional, so could other existing or future state laws. I believe that regulation of personal conduct should be left to the democratic process, where public consensus can be debated and ultimately reflected in policy outcomes, rather than regulated through the judicial process.

Regarding the case, I said, "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." The AP inserted the word "gay" in brackets after "consensual" in the original quote, and various media organizations repeated the modified quote, suggesting that I was equating homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery. I was not equating homosexuality with these acts.

I based my comments on a 1986 Supreme Court case, Bowers b. Hardwick, involving privacy relative to a Georgia state sodommy law [478 U.S. 186 (1986)]. In that case, the Court upheld the state law, setting the precedent against which the Lawrence case is being debated. In a quote strikingly similar to my own, Justice Byron White wrote, "And if respondent's submission is limited to the voluntary sexual conduct between consenting adults, it would be difficult, expect by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even if they are comitted in the home. We are unwilling to start down that road." Justice White, appointed to the Supreme Court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, was joined in his 1986 majority opinion by Chief Justice Burger and Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Powell.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to overturn the Bowers decision when it rules on the Texas privacy case in May or June. Until then, the Bowers decision is Supreme Court precedent, the law of the land. Again, my quote pertained to Court precedent in light of a privacy case currently pending before the Court, and the constitutional right to privacy in general.

I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution, and I have had a policy of non-discrimination in my offices throughout my tenure as a senator. My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely.
[signed]
Rick Santorum
United States Senate

I dunno... maybe he's trying to BS me, but I do find it disturbing that the AP reporter apparently added in the word "gay". Why would they do such a thing? Did they "assume" that Senator Santorum "meant" to say that?

Comments

*retch*

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

I dunno... maybe he's trying to BS me,

Probably...

...but I do find it disturbing that the AP reporter apparently added in the word "gay".

Apparently? Bullshit. It was added deliberately. Am I surprised? Not in the slightest. Journalistic Integrity has gone out the window with all the other pipe dreams of the sixties and seventies. Roger Mudd and Ed Bradley are doing infomercials selling diet drugs and exercise equipment.

Why would they do such a thing?

Pull that square thing out of your back pocket and look inside at those ugly, green bits of rectangular paper. That's why they did it.

Did they "assume" that Senator Santorum "meant" to say that?

Reporters these days assume nothing. But they say anything to get those bits of paper added to their pockets.

And if any of you out there are reporters and care to disagree with me, you go right ahead. When was the last time you reported on something accurately and got to see every word in print? I only took two journalism classes in college, but that was enough to teach me the difficulty in finding the truth.

The majority of reporters have sold their souls to the Almighty Dollar and the easy path of political correctness, rather than take the rocky path of Truth and Fairness.

because...

[starbiter.livejournal.com]

the media's job is to hype and distort, not just transmit objective facts.

[quentincoyote.livejournal.com]

It is true that the AP did insert the word 'gay', in brackets, in the original article.

However, having acknowleged that, it's still perfectly legitimate to point out that you do not agree with Santorum's arguments justifying those laws, and, as a voter, you're right to let him know that he will not have your support if that is the position he advocates.

It's commendable actually, that he wrote to you (though it's probably just a form letter that he sent out to all such complaints). But it seems like he's looking for an "Oh? well since you put it that way, okay then" reaction to it. It might serve well for him to see a few "I understand your clarifications, but I still disagree with you, you don't represent my views, and I'm not supporting you"'s

It's also interesting that he goes on to quote Justice Byron White at such lengh. What he seems to have forgotten to mention, is that years later, White regretted and recanted the whole thing, saying it was the worst decision he ever handed down. Might want to look that up, and send *those* quotes back, in response, since you already seem to have a civil dialogue opened up.

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure it was White, but if not, then there was definitely at least one Justice who did that, about Bowers vs. Hardwick)

Q.

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

> And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.

And some of us go "...yes, so?". Wasn't even aware adultery was considered illegal; as far as I've seen it, it's just considered an instant-win situation come divorce time. "You had sex, I get the house." :p

[thraxarious.livejournal.com]

I THINK that there are some states and localities where adultery is considered a possible criminal offense. I'm not positive, it was very vangue when I heard about it.

[technomom]

1) I find it very difficult to believe that someone as presumably press-savvy as a senator would not keep his own recordings of interviews. I sure as hell will if I do any more of them.

2) As I have said in the past:

My experience with the press in the US is just this: they lie. They will do whatever it takes to get the story they've decided they want, no matter what the facts are, no matter who they have to deceive, no matter how much deceptive editing they have to do. Period.