« Religious Freedom in Texas | Main | Other projects »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

old ari

Were the senators , prior to the time they were elected, superior to the present elected ones? Not trying to make a point, just curious.


If the Republican Senators objected to this partisanship and being sidelined, they would not support Frist. It is therefore clear that they have chosen this process over a more bipartisan approach.

I'm not sure what the Democrats can do about it, but I think we have to assume that the present wave of Republican politicians really don't value bipartisanship or compromise. I suppose if we could get a hold of one of the major houses or the presidency we could force them to engage in a better deliberative process. However, the only real solution for this is to really target them electorally and hope we can defeat them for control of the Senate. Maybe if we did a good job with the Senate we can convince some of their more moderate Senators to jump ship. I really, really don't see what Collins and Snowe and Chaffee get in return for sticking with the Party.


One might think that an article twisting Santorum's words into equating homosexual and bestial relationships when his actual quote did nothing of the sort is also a partisan attack.

Here's the actual quotation, should you readers care to read it. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL&type=printable


As a reader, I was interested in reading the actual quote GE thoughtfully provides. I even had enough time to cut and paste the few sentences at issue:

[Santorum speaking]"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality. . ."(my emphasis)

Now, it is a bit difficult to parse this jumble, not the least because Santorum is speaking here, and we lack the clues that normally help us decipher speech. But it seems to me there are two interpretations possible.

1) Santorum means to differentiate homosexuality from pedophilia and beastiality, presumably on the grounds that it is not as bad, while claiming that it is similarly excluded from the definition of marriage.

This interpretation gets Santorum somewhat off the hook, but it doesn't scan as well as the alternative interpretation, i.e.:

2) Santorum means to point out that homosexualiity isn't the only form of devience excluded from traditional marriage, as pedophilia and beastiality are also forbidden.

This second interpretation allows us to understand why Santorum says that he doesn't want to "pick on" homosexuality in particular. If he wanted to distinguish between homosexuality and the other practices in terms of their relative nastiness, he would have said "It's not as bad as that", or something to that effect. Instead he contrasts these other things, along with homosexuality, to the 'just one thing' that 'proper' marriage is, i.e. between man and woman, and none of the other things, e.g. homosexual, pedophilic or beastial relationships.

Either way, there's nothing bloody obvious about any of it, and Santorum, who is offered multiple opportunities to clarify his position by the shocked AP reportrer, never states that homosexuality is to be distinguished from the other two things he mentions. So I think the accusation is unmerited.

Anton Sherwood

"the number of women [in the Senate] has increased by more than 900% in a decade", eh? How much more? 901%? 933%? 1300%? Why not simply say "more than tenfold"?

I know, it's not as urgent an issue as the preservation of honor among thieves; still it bugs and puzzles me to see anyone go to the trouble of specifying a hundred times more precision than could ever be required.


In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.

Even though I bet that Santorum would like to limit his idea of society to "the West", most native North American groups had some gender category for what were essentially homosexual people. Some even had ceremonies that were centered around these individuals.

I also find the link about Zell Miller very interesting. Unfortunate and somewhat maddening, but interesting nonetheless.


Great piece. I have linked to it from FromTheRoots.org, and added Decembrist to the blog roll. Please feel free to create an account and cross-post pieces about the Senate.


Senates tend to be like a swimming pools. Most of the noise comes from the shallow end...


Senates tend to be like swimming pools. Most of the noise comes from the shallow end...


"It is one thing."

This sentence (from the article about Santorum's statement in the comments above) appears to relate to marriage. He is saying that marriage is "not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be" and not homosexuality.

He doesn't equate bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality, but he groups them together as "not marriage." Its not as bad in this context, but I still disagree with him (regarding homosexuality, not man-on-dog, etc).

Of course, this is all true only if the link provided has an accurate rendering of Senator Santorum's words. I would love to hear the audio tape myself.


Note: The link provided is accurate.


You know, after re-reading the quote... it really sounds like he's equating homosexuality with bestiality. I don't know... I guess it has to do with how you view the man.



John Max Morell

Christian Conservatives who have voted for George Bush should return to the Democratic Party because it follows Jesus' teachings and the Republicans do not. The Democratic Party has always stood for the working man or common man while the Republicans have been aligned with big business. Christians should read Mark 10: 17-22. In it a rich man asked Jesus how he could inherit eternal life. Jesus told him to sell what he had and give to the poor and come and follow him. The man was very sad. Jesus said, "How hardly shall they that are rich enter the kingdom of heaven". The Democratic Party has continually tried to raise the minimum wage whereas the Republicans have prevented this even though there has been no raise for ten years. When George Bush was Governor of Texas he prevented the raising of the minimum wage even though it was only about $3.50 an hour at that time. If people can have no concern for those at the bottom of the economic ladder how can they claim to be followers of Jesus? Republican Christians have tried to demonize Democrats on the subjects of abortion and homosexuality but the fact is that most Democrats are opposed to indiscriminate use of abortions and they are supportive of the traditional family of a man and a woman. Christians should come back to the Democratic Party, the Party of the Common Man. Remember, Jesus said "Blessed are the poor" and not, "Blessed are the rich". You should read my book, "It's Religious Fundamentalism, Stupid" which points out the dangers of Christian Fundamentalism and how we can progress beyond it. It is available from any book store or from Amazon.com. Also see my Website: members.aol.com/johnmaxmorell which is titled, "The Society Of The Universal Man" and suggests that we each are the perfect man, or woman ever though we do not know it.


http://force.hollywoodtheater.org/dlzur4tqdbx/ loudernoisesshop


http://www.bluebeardscastle.com/wwwboard-rent/messages/1505.html hatslikessweatshirts


http://credit.ycba.org/anime/ bunescortedweekly


http://www.businesspalvelin.net/wwwboard/messages/498.html clungglisteningkeyboard


http://www.businesspalvelin.net/wwwboard/messages/498.html clungglisteningkeyboard

The comments to this entry are closed.