|
At some low level, your heart's gotta go out to Rick Santorum.
Not because the left hates him; that's to be expected, really. The third-ranking Republican in the United States Senate, Santorum earned an avalanche of criticism after the Associated Press published a profile of him in which he weighed in on Lawrence v. Texas. That's the case — pending before the Supreme Court — in which two men were arrested on sodomy charges after Houston police responded to a false complaint and found them having sex in a private home. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home," the Pennsylvania Senator reportedly fumed, "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 went on to group gay marriage with bestiality and pedophilia.
Well, bad news and bad politics travel fast, particularly in Washington, and as soon as the story hit the wire, gay-rights advocates were calling for Santorum's head, or at least his party leadership post, as were Democrats and many in the press. But hey, what the hell, it's just the commies, the queers and the damned liberal media, right? Well, yeah. Except that it's not. 'Cause now Owen Allred is pissed at Santorum too.
Who's Owen Allred? Why he's the eighty-nine-year-old patriarch of Utah's pro-polygamy sect United Apostolic Brethen, that's who, and he told the Philadelphia Daily News last week that Santorum's comments — that is, his brazen lumping of buggery with multiwifing — made him "so mad I want to swear" (which is to say, pretty goddamned mad). Not that Allred necessarily disagrees with Santorum; not in principle, anyway. As he'd explained the day before to his hometown Salt Lake Tribune, "The people of the United States are doing whatever they can to do away with the sacred rights of marriage." (And marriage. And marriage. And marriage.) Nonetheless, Allred said (in the Daily News) that the Catholic conservative "is an insult to Christianity." Yikes. This from a man with eight wives.
Of course, the pile-on doesn't end there. Even Santorum's GOP colleagues have gotten into the act. "Senator Santorum's views are not held by this Republican and many others in our party," said Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee, and Maine's Olympia Snowe added, "I believe Senator Santorum's remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity." (As damning as they were, neither statement held the entertainment value of Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey's reported onetime crack: "Santorum? Is that Latin for 'asshole'?")
Ah, but back to the matter at hand, the plight of poor, misunderstood Rick Santorum. As David Smith, a senior strategist with the Human Rights Campaign, put it, "He seemed to put gay people on the same moral and legal plane as someone who would commit incest."
Santorum, of course, says he meant no such thing. "I have no problem with homosexuality," he said in the same interview. "I have a problem with homosexual acts" — all but begging for an update to the old drug joke: Problem with gay sex? Move to the Castro, Rick. No more fucking problem.
The great irony here is that Santorum's right — examined more closely, his comments on Lawrence v. Texas aren't actually homophobic after all. No, as it turns out, Rick Santorum isn't anti-gay, he's just anti-sex.
Think that's silly? After all, Santorum has six kids. It's safe to assume he's been engaging in something resembling sex with Mrs. Santorum. But read the quote again. "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 . . . "
Catch that? Not consensual gay sex, but consensual sex. Period. It seems Rick Santorum is making a pretty classic slippery slope argument, the twist here being that the slope begins sloping not in the bedrooms of West Hollywood and the West Village, but in your bedroom and mine as well. In the Senator's eyes, the right to sexual privacy among consenting adults is not a given: "It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold [v. Connecticut]," Santorum said, referring to the 1965 case that established the Constitutional right of heterosexual couples to use contraception within the context of a marriage. Yeah. So if Santorum can't get behind that, he's not going to get behind any form sexual privacy, your own particular kinks — or lack thereof — notwithstanding.
All of which brings us to the heart of the matter. Santorum has been vilified by the left and abandoned by some on the right for turning a legal case into a platform for his bigoted views, and rightly so. But in reality, Lawrence v. Texas isn't about gay sex at all. Well, okay, it is — the sodomy practiced by the couple in question would have been legal if one of them had been a woman (or a horse — gay sex may be illegal in Texas, but bestiality isn't). But what Lawrence v. Texas is really about is privacy. In Texas — and in more than a quarter of all states, it's worth noting — it remains illegal for consenting adults to express their sexuality, even in private, unless their sexuality meets standards laid out by the state legislature.
You think this doesn't concern you? Think again. Because Santorum's right — it is a slippery slope. Seen as a privacy issue rather than a sex issue, the high court's decision in Texas impacts your right to oral sex, it impacts your right to masturbation, it impacts your right to contraception — hell, it impacts your right to everything but the missionary position, man on top, and it may just impact that too. In short, it impacts your right to any kind of sexual autonomy, particularly if you happen to be part of a "second-class" relationship.
That's not my term, by the way. William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, classifies heterosexual marriage as "special" and all other relationships as second-class — in other words, not just the cousin-fuckers and the wife-collectors, but committed homosexual relationships and, yes, unmarried, sexually active straight couples (uncomfortable yet?). And, as Donohue puts it in throwing his organization's considerable support behind Santorum, if the law allows those kinds of relationships, well then we may as well "just let everybody fornicate and let kids be born into a society of bastards."
Uh-huh. The way I see it, as long as Texas law — and the U.S. Constitution — fails to protect our most private rights, well, a society of bastards is exactly what we've got. n°
©2003 Dan Reines and Nerve.com, Inc.
|
Commentarium (70 Comments)
"the sodomy practiced by the couple in question would have been legal if one of them had been a woman"
I live in Texas and not that I'm the states leading authority on sodomy(maybe second or third:), but I believe that sodomy between heterosexual couples is illegal too. I saw a screening of a really funny film called 'The Dildo Diaries' a few weeks ago that is a documentary on Texas' sex and sex toy laws. I know, I know, these laws have serious repercussions on peoples privacy, but sometimes it's okay to use them for a really good laugh and the ladies who made this film certainly accomplished that. Just the thought of all those tight assed old ranchers turned polticians sitting around discussing the in's and out's:) of what people can put in their butts. They don't have distribution for it yet, so I don't know if you can find it, but in my humble opinon it's well worth trying.
I thought this was right on the money. As a law student studying constitutional law, I found it exceedingly disturbing to learn about the rights (or lack thereof) which have been deemed "fundamental" by the Supreme Court, thus entitling them to the fullest constitutional protection possible. The evolution of privacy as a fundamental right has been one of the Court's greatest moves of the mid-to-late 20th century, certainly on par with any of the enumerated rights in the first 8 amendments.
This is why the rhetoric from Santorum et al is so disturbing to me. He (as the author pointed out) is not simply advocating a review of those "fundamental" privacy rights, but instead desires to strike all privacy rights from their privileged constitutional status. While I would agree that there may not be a fundamental right, as such, to engage in a number of specific sexual acts, to say that the privacy right in general should be stricken is beyond absurd, flying into the realm of terrifying.
As a european reader, i thank Nerve for this unique view on America. that is one weird country, you've got there. Was the texan couple really ARRESTED??
That is INSANE, i hope everybody, and not just the gay-rights activists are up in arms about this, it seems pretty anachronistic to us, over here. How is the population divided on this issue? In other words, how does the silent majority stand on this issue?
Sodomy and oral sex are illegal between homo and breeder couples in several states. No one ever heeds such 17th century outdated protestant laws, well, no one except bigotted legislators, I suppose.
since when did pandering legal in New York City? Guess the NYPD must be too busy tracking ho's on the streets, overlooking habitual blow jobs nerve keeps trying to give the gay community w/pieces like these. nerve's resemblance to a really persistent (unattractive) trick who keeps following you around at a sex club and who's so clueless (or closeted) that JUST DOESN"T GET THAT YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED. "editors" of nerve (or whatever you call this lame blog w/flash), please please please, stop with all this pro-gay to make up for years of lame/stupid/insulting/degrading covering of us gays. nerve's has been & always will be some straight people's idea of sex: there's a time to drop the tire pump and stop trying to inflate your cred w/articles such as these.
the thing is, santorum has his view of what is right and wrong...you have your view of what is right and wrong. He's an elected official...you're not. It's easy to point fingers and say 'everything sucks' when you're holed up in your room smoking a j and watching headline news. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, from the religious right to the liberal left. we all have a very different view of what is best for this country.
Good work Dan. These days it is so easy to spin your opponent
I LIKE THE TONE IN YOUR ARTICLE. THANKS FOR GIVING THE NEWS IN AN ENTERTAINING AND INTELLIGENT MANNER WITHOUT REPEATING YOURSELF, THE QUOTES, OR THE INFORMATION OVER AND OVER TO MAKE IT A LONGER PIECE LIKE SO MANY FORMS OF MEDIA DO.
THIS COMMENT IS TRUE OF MOST OF THE NERVE ARTICLES----IT'S APPRECIATED.
You don't mention another issue - abortion rights - that is connected to the Griswold case and may be the reason Santorum is taking issue with sexual privacy.
Roe v. Wade, the abortion rights decision that the right cannot get the Supreme Court to overturn, is based on Griswold, a 1965 decision.
The right may be risking a bit of ridicule to see if it can get the public to consider all of the ramifications of protecting the privacy of the bedroom.
Griswold is coming up in discussion more and more, because the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee are asking judicial appointees about their views on Griswold as a means of getting close to their views on abortion.
Santorum may be a clown, but he didn't write those lines. Someone scripted them for him.
Kick ass article, Dan! Awesome job.
Right on Dan! Hope to see you writing for Nerve more.
What an incredibly talented, tragically witty writer!
This is the first, and hopefully not the last, of this man's work I have read.
Humorous, insightful, educated. Bravo.
Kasey Mahaffy
New York City, NY
awesome article! i laughed, cried, etc. nerve: please make dan a regular contributor to your site, he f*cking rocks.
Wait a minute. How is "consensual sex," homo or other, the same as bigamy? or polygamy? Or incest? Or adultery?
The first is basically about the acts of fucking and sucking, right? And the others define relationships between people who fuck and suck each other. This guy Santorum (and just about everyone else in the US, it seems) is very confused about this. Having laws that regulate how people express affection or passion for each other is completely different from laws that regulate who can fuck and suck who.
And when you get into the territory of proscribing where breeders can can put their mouths and private parts when no one else is looking, you have a recipe for fascism. (But don't tell anybody, OK? People will get alarmed ...)
Ridiculous. And very frightening. *shiver*
to the poster initialed j.k,
even though i know this is not the place to reply to other people's replies, there is something I have to say:
If you don't like the site, don't visit it.
If you don't like the articles, don't read 'em.
And if you don't have anything worthwhile to say (type), then maybe you should keep your mouth closed and your fingers still.
*sigh*
to the poster initialed LTQ, by your way of thinking... in the mid-80's gay people shouldn't have rabble roused when they started dying like flies from AIDS? And the US government was doing nothing? By you way of thinking, I "should" just tune out and turn off? Mmm. Thanks for correcting my mistaken impression that this country was based on the free exchange of ideas . Since you've been so generous about pointing that out, now it's my turn to share: my post was about how nerve DEALS WITH HOMOSEXUALITY IN GENERAL. The site consistenly uses the topic of homosexuality (see Grant Stoddard's awful & voyeuristic "trip" to a gay bar or Michael Martin's "deconstruction" of Details) as bait or to titillate is offensive and demands a response. When nerve goes private for its core readership of forty thousand unemployed 20 somethings holed up in Brooklyn, I'll shut up. But as long as it keeps putting forth dumb ass pieces by stupid white guys (w/bios that make SURE YOU KNOW he's got a "a wife and a baby" and, I'd add, a Granola Girls...SUPERSIZED! beard desperatedly in need of a trim), I will respond. BTW, your advice to "keep your fingers still and mouth shut" (whatever that means: a straight jacket?) goes back to you as thus. Until you know your country's history of civil disobedience (the gay chapter) and demonstrate some inkling of what price gay people have paid (and keep paying) for BEING ALIVE, why don't you close your trap and turn off YOUR blueberry I-MAC.
hey jk, i read the article different from you. it didn't seem to me like it was pandering to the gay community at all. in fact, it seemed to me like the guy went out of his way to say that the texas case wasn't of interest only to homosexuals, but to everyone, including straight couples living together. if anything, i thought it kind of took an ostensibly gay issue *away* from the gay community, didn't it?
mf, if you place the piece in the context of nerve's coverage of gay people, both recent articles & over the years, & what I'm saying will make more sense. why is is that three prominently place pieces about issues relating to the gay community (Reines, Stoddard's & Martin's) are all by avowedly straight--definitely WHITE-men? what I and others are remarking on and calling nerve to task for is it opportunistic use of GAY. Gay people seem to have become a cheap way of getting people to read something. And what's even more bogus is that when nerve deigns to "allow" the gays to speak, the pieces skew inarguably towards the s.o.s. by the same writers.
i don't know. i felt the same way about the stoddard piece -- kind of a gays-are-animals-in-the-zoo kind of a thing. i'm just saying that i didn't see the santorum thing as
"pandering," as you say. it specifically wasn't about the gay community. i too am a straight white guy (uh, sorry?) and i found it pretty relevant.
booyeah -- great article -- read it originally on alternet
too bad the child-abused eunichs so often seem to get the conch, but I say let the un-hung hang themselves.
our personal approach to dealing with these morons: lots and lots of good lovin'.
james and carrie
pasadena
thank you for giving me a new excuse when i'm not feeling up to it... "not tonight, dear... it's illegal"
yeah but then we're letting the terrorists win lol
You miss the point. Santorum is not anti sex, he is anti *consensual* sex. Anybody knows that
good Catholic girls (and any other really good girls) only do it if they're forced to ... even after
six kids.
In reference to some of what J.K. said:
I don't see what's necessarily wrong with a straight, bearded white* guy writing a piece that touches on gays or gay issues. Just because an issue pertains to gays (and, by the way, this particular article pertains to pretty much anyone who wants to be sexually active) doesn't mean that only gay people have the right to discuss it. If you think the article was inaccurate or something, that's fine -- but it's a separate issue. By your reasoning, you, as a gay guy,** have no business writing anything that has to do with straight people, women, members of any race other than yours, etc.
Just an aside about the Stoddard piece: Yes, it did have an "animals in a zoo" feel in places, but that was kind of the point: the article was a study of a group (and I don't mean the gay community, I mean just the guys in that club) by someone who was a complete outsider. More to the point, it was about a person experiencing something that he wouldn't normally have any experience with. Even if one is a member of that group, it's still interesting to see it from such a different perspective. It would have been just as effective to have a gay guy from Frisco who loathes country music do a piece on a line-dance bar in the boondocks.
*By the way, what the hell does his his skin color or facial hair have to do with anything?
**Also, in case anyone's wondering, I'm not exactly straight either.
jm, for someone who's "not exactly straight" (whatever that is), you seem fairly determined to defend the right of straight white men to speak out the gay experience w/out any reference to those they're discussing. Since it's a well known fact that straight white men are WAYYYY underrepresented not just on nerve but everywhere else in the world, I am obviously--and have been--totally off the mark. For me to say that these clueless nerve pieces about the gays nerve reflect in any way the continued assertion of the privileges of race, gender and class, was just so silly of me. To think that a world, already fashioned to reflect the mysteries inner lives of straight white men (and their much wondered thoughts "about" the gays) was just, well, obtuse, singularly so. For the record: as an card carrying fag for now more than half my life, I have watched my experience be marginalized and exploited by clueless mo'fo's like Reines, Stoddard & Martin for years. Pretending, as you seem to suggest, that these pieces--and nerve's ridiculously uninformed coverage of gay culture--is alright reflects your telling allegience to the status quo. This narrowness of mind and intellectually vacuity is equally present in what passes for gay "culture"... So I ask all of you, why is pointing that out so threatening to nerve reader's sense of self (selves)? Were that gay people could actually speak to these issues and their lives on nerve, I would be a lot less agitated but editor Martin's "invitation" to gay people to submit to nerve is fundamentally a lie: since this whole thing started, I've spoken via email to several gay writers, published, w/clips, solid resumes, etdc. who've had the experience of submitting pieces to nerve and NEVER HEARD BACK. The majority of stories about gay people that I read about on nerve are by a) white straight guys or b) "name" gay writers. Thus, the idea that gay people have equal access to nerve in any sort of way is fatuous. None of you seem to hear the gist of what I'm saying: Reines piece is just the latest in (so far as I can research) an ongoing discourse "about" gays by straight dudes (clean shaven or otherwise) on nerve that's limited in scope and reductive in content. Sue me for saying this but I happen to believe that gay people--and not just "famous" ones (or ones annointed by a straight publishing community)--need to be heard on nerve and other venues. And we're not. Nerve's abysmal record of publishing voices about or by gays (other than the famous, white or well connected) speaks volumes.
j.k., is your argument that only gays are qualified to comment on any aspect of gay culture? Also, could you cite some specific examples of how nerve misrepresents gay issues. So far you have made some interesting claims, but you haven't given any examples of gross misrepresentation. I only ask because an example or two might help us to understand where you are coming from.
to rs: I never said that "only" gays could write about the gay experience. I did however, state that I find it alarming that so many pieces about gays/their lives that shop up on nerve have been written by a very limited pool of gay writers and/or straight white dudes in "observation" mode. Within that highly selective discourse--limmed by nerve's admittedly elitist (see your contest intro)--interest in anyone who's not "someone," is indeed (by its limited nature) "misrepresentation." historically, nerve has not cast a wide net or sought to publish gay voices that represent anywhere near a spectrum. (This is similar to the problem that developed at New York Mag a few years back when Maer Roshan was editor Caroline Miller's number two: she relied exclusively on his take to define the magazine's take on gays in New York. Needless to say, Maer Roshan, though a smart fellow, reprented only a tiny sliver of what constitutes a huge community). Supposedly, the internet was going to free us of at least some of these heirarchies, opening the doors to previously unheard or unknown voices. nerve is an object lesson in this not having proved to be the case. You also ask me to specifically illustrate how nerve makes "gross misrepresentation" of gays. Well, aside from three recent very dumb pieces by straight white guys? The gay people nerve has published is a roll call of "names" who are exceedingly familiar to anyone with even a slight bit of knowledge about gay writers: JT Le Roy (famously presented on nerve as a "new" writer by Dennis Cooper when Le Roy was well in his/her way to publishing establishment certification and partying with Courtney & Winona), Dennis Coooper (himself author of unreadable "experimental" fiction"), Keck's "I was a teenage homosexual" (oh, Lord, yet another coming out piece...even fags are bored to death with that), Greg Gorman's kitcschy and kinda creepy just this side of kiddie porn photography, Dan Reines (ugh, him again writing about shaving his pubes; can't he start w/his beard?),Deb Schwartz Stacey D'Erasmo & Michelle Tea (a triumverate of long in the tooth lesbians who phone in their copy), Stoddard's other offensive fag for fun piece, "Kissing Boys," and Simon LeVay (the scientist widely celebrated for his recently debunked theory about the gay hypothalumus.) Could I list ten stories---not just fey opinion pieces but actual investigative NEWS pieces--about the gays that nerve could, certainly, even with its limited resources, pursue? Sure but I was under the impression that the "editors" at nerve were covering that.
dan reines wrote about shaving his pubes? seriously?
just a personal note: i liked your tone.
You know this is completely a mockery of what decent people stand up for. This isn't about sex between a man and a woman who are married...this is about allowing any type of deviant behavior that one can think of and calling it 'normal'. What WILL be next? I, for one, am disgusted that the writer of this article and a minority of others have become the 'frogs in the water that has reached its boiling point' and they are unable to realize a strong difference between what is right and what is wrong. Go ahead and call me a 'bigot'. But, if standing up for what is right and what is wrong is now being a 'bigot'. Then sign me up with a capital "B" for "Bigot".
to sjs and your observation re: Reines piece, "a mockery of what decent people." I'd daresay that decency is equal parts tolerance, intelligence and an embrace of multitudes that Whitman (Emerson or Thoreau, I apologize, I'm not up on my Trancendentalists) speaks about. These are qualities which, apparently, neither you nor nerve seem capable of embracing.
no seriously, did dan reines really write about shaving his pubes? that's odd. where is it?
I believe that sodomy is considered any sex act that isn't coitus i.e. a man and a woman doing the same thing could also have been arrested and charged (they probably wouldn't have been but that just goes to show you that it's first up to the officers on the scene and their open or closed mind)
j.k. submit an artical, they might just publish it, encourage your non-white non-straight friends to publish their work there is a lack of representation of insider opinion about minority gay issues It's easier to be out as a gay white male than a gay latino or black male. White males get away with expressing a lot more radical opinions than other groups.
I think perhaps he stepped on his tounge when he(Sen. Santorum)said "consensual sex". I believe he was simply defending what the law as currently written allows and more importantly, doesn't. The Texas statute males consentual oral or anal penetration between consenting heterosexual MARRIED couples a third-degree felony! Read this indefensible statute and you will find that teenagers are allowed to screw each other blue while keeping anyone over 19(i.e. more responsible) from being allowed to even kiss someone younger than 3 years younger than 17. That means the age of sexual adulthood in Texas is 17. The only defensable portions are those barring incest(sex, consensual or not, adult or minor) and beastiality. The problem I have with the statute is that it lumps all these together as Sen. Santorum did. I believe he was defending the law, however unjust it may be. Some people just believe that the law is the law and that is the end of it. Now, these guys should be cited for a false police report. That would be the end of it if I had written the law. Problem being it was written long before anyone alive today was born. Until the law is changed, it should be obeyed. The Supreme Court will not rule the statute unconstitutional. Each state, under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution-What is not specifically herein isthus delegated to the various states, has a right to make any law it wishes under any given circumstance as long as it passes constitutional(U.S. Constitution) integrity. I personally beleive that no bill passed by any legislative body(city council, state or federal) and signed by anyone in the executive branch(shall become law until it is reviewed by the judicial branch for constitutionality as it is supposed to be under the U.S. Constitution.
statute as read
I think perhaps he stepped on his tounge when he(Sen. Santorum)said "consensual sex". I believe he was simply defending what the law as currently written allows and more importantly, doesn't. The Texas statute males consentual oral or anal penetration between consenting heterosexual MARRIED couples a third-degree felony! Read this indefensible statute and you will find that teenagers are allowed to screw each other blue while keeping anyone over 19(i.e. more responsible) from being allowed to even kiss someone younger than 3 years younger than 17. That means the age of sexual adulthood in Texas is 17. The only defensable portions are those barring incest(sex, consensual or not, adult or minor) and beastiality. The problem I have with the statute is that it lumps all these together as Sen. Santorum did. I believe he was defending the law, however unjust it may be. Some people just believe that the law is the law and that is the end of it. Now, these guys should be cited for a false police report. That would be the end of it if I had written the law. Problem being it was written long before anyone alive today was born. Until the law is changed, it should be obeyed. The Supreme Court will not rule the statute unconstitutional. Each state, under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution-What is not specifically herein isthus delegated to the various states, has a right to make any law it wishes under any given circumstance as long as it passes constitutional(U.S. Constitution) integrity. I personally beleive that no bill passed by any legislative body(city council, state or federal) and signed by anyone in the executive branch(shall become law until it is reviewed by the judicial branch for constitutionality as it is supposed to be under the U.S. Constitution. Period. End of story.
statute as read
I raise a toast to you, Dan.
Now come on down to Alabama where the state legislature voted AGAIN last week NOT to drop the ban on the sale of sex toys slickly inserted into some previous obscenity law.
We Alabamians can USE said playthings. We just may not BUY them in the state boasting a 2-ton stone replica of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of our state capitol, thanks to our state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore. He's been told to remove the rock. So far, it remains.
Order your toys from an on-line catalog or by phone, you might suggest. Some companies refuse to SEND their wares to this Sexual Inquisition boot camp. I - uh- found that out from a friend.
I feel so much better having my morals protected by elected legislators, not only on the national but the state level. I am dismayed, however, that they can't understand how girls (and guys) just wanna have fun.
Wow. Nerve, contriving some bizarre, vaguely related musings inspired by Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's remark, takes a pro-sex stand. Sort of. How bold and unpredicatable Nerve!
Get your facts right! The story in question about Santorum was an embelishment by the person giving the interveiw. This reporter had inserted the word gay in the article, it was not part of the interveiw. Is it a coniencidence that the reporter is married to a senior member of Dick Kearys election campain?
to gls: you're wrong about the reporter "inserting" the word gay into the interview, a misconception peddled by the religious Right & corrected---in detail---in the May 5, 2003 issue of the New Yorker ("Talk of the Town, pgs 35-36.) Not only does the piece provide background for how the interview was presented but also shows both the lead (opening sentance of the article) in comparison w/the nearly identical first sentance of "ABout the Chairman" section of the Senate Republican Conference's website. The A.P. likewise released the FULL TRANSCRIPT of the interview which CLEARLY SHOWS / QUOTES Santorum including his dismissal of homosexual acts, likening it them to bestiality, incest & pederastry. Whether or not he uses the word "faggot" is irreleveant: his statements represent the essential beliefs of the Christian Right, a conservative adgenda that's steadily encroaching on the mainstream, erroding not just the rights of gays but everyone's right. cjs, don't kid yourself--or anyone else--by trying to detract from Santorum's Muslim Cleric inspired "morality" or downplay his fundamental bigotry or the bigotry of the republikan party as its defining itself in the Millenium.
to cos: "j.k. submit an artical, they might just publish it.." etc. that's the gist of my point. nerve doesn't publish writer's (professional or otherwise) who have already been annointed, er, published by major NYC book companies and / or aren't close personal friends of Martin or Rufus. Whether I'm gay, white, male, female, transgendered, a f'ing alien isn't the point: what is the point is that a site like nerve, alledgedly "inclusive" (read its "about us" mission statement, easily clicked to anywhere on the site) & you'd think that anyone had an equal opportunity to be published on nerve. This is not true. martin has also spoken publically (on a site called mediabistro.com) in ernest seeming tones about looking for "new voices, new writers." But the fact is, the only twenty people who get published on nerve are...tah-dah!--people like Martin (when does he have time to edit anything?), Stoddard, Reines. All straight white dudes. The liberal minded discourse is alive & well on nerve... so long as you're white, straight and male! Hmmm. Maybe nerve has more in common w/Santorum than it feels comfortable dealing w/?
I am a practicing Catholic, but I had never tried to impossed my believes in others, like Rick Santorum.He has to understand that he not only represents Catholics but all the people from his distric. Republicans talk about getting the goverment out of people's back, but want to control and dictate what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms. Personally, I have not problem with homosexuality or homosexual acts.
By the way aI agree 100% with Dan Reines article.
Married with three kids and enjoy SEX!
J.K. You really seem to like missing whole point. The point of the article is that the danger is to the right to privacy, which _is_ the core issue under attack. That homosexuality was brought into it was a smoke-screen in the fist place, just to make the right people upset and to make the right people pleased, all while distracting everyone from the real issue at hand -- the right to privacy, which (of course!), since it includs everyone, also includes gay people.
You also seem to be missing the point with the suggestion that you write for Nerve. If you are a good writer (one can't tell from these posts; it may be that you can write well when you aren't pissed), you should try pitching some ideas to Nerve. You seem to have spirit -- maybe enough spirit to break through this wall you say Nerve has!
to abc: "seem to be missing the whole point"? hardly. no, dear, YOU seemed to have missed my point (that who is priveleged to speak to/for/ about an issue is as important as the issue.) What I have said repeatedly is that this essay is only a jumping off point. To distill: a) nerve's discourse about homosexuality is written by about twenty people (gays w/published books or white straight men b) nerve's submission policy is exclusively limited to the aforementioned groups of people and that policy does not, contrary to its editor's oft stated remarks both on nerve & other venues, publish writers w/out these sorts of connects. c) thus, the discourse about the gays (and this applies to not only nerve but OUT, The Advocate, TIME, The New York Timess Magazine, etc.) has become stale because of its "only if we know you" (and/or are fucking you) publishing policies.
d) I have NEVER expressed any interest in "writing for" nerve or any publication so it's a complete & utter mystery to me why you would suggest that. are you, like all the others who've made that suggestion (in varying degress of defensiveness) an editor at nerve? if you are, please stop distracting from the fact of your elitist submission policies and try HEARING the gist of what I'm saying.
This is a horrible interpretation of the meaning of his remarks. I think it's no great leap to recognize that he meant "consensual gay sex"
Just to put my "2 cents" in here... I think it's a shame that this happened... Though, I daresay, it doesn't surprise me... Unfortunately, most of the people in this country don't realize just how the government has changed over the years... Most have 'bought' the propaganda that the government (and BIG BUSINESS) is only doing "what's good for us"... Take, for example, the "On-Star" system for cars... If you lock the keys in the car you just call them and they send out a 'satellite command' and your doors unlock immediately... Soon they'll have it so when your insurance or registration expire, "Auto-shutdown", the car won't move till you're all paid up... The attitude of the government (especially the current administration) is NOT going to get any better towards individuals... I can only hope that people will 'pull their heads out' (no pun intended) before it's too late... Change will not happen until everyone (or at least a solid majority) takes a stand against representation contrary to the public's desire... We live in the age of this country where there has been 2 successful coups and no one (or very few) believe it has happened... The first was in 1963... Anyone care to guess when the second occurred???? Thanx to Nerve for the chance to speak out... Good luck everyone...
mr santorum might have said something very harsh and prejudicial. i dont know for sure. but to tell you, you have not made it at all clear what he said. i tried to read all of your article sincerely, bec i generally do support sex, and the right to have it. but it is only by reading comments about what santorum said that i can figure out what he must have said.
the gay community should not worry a lot about this guy. if he said that if we have the legal right to consensual sex, but this results in anything goes...then he, as an opponent of sex, has made a mistake. that is all i can see. it would be much better to put his full quote in your article, for clarity, examination, and verification. as they make you do in college papers, etc. but i do think that very soon, they will invalidate all laws that prohibit sex with anything but minors and animals. but at this point, amend one has been all but totally used for the purposes of convenience and advantage. few people will consider homosexuality worse than sex with animals, or even porn. not anymore. mellow out a bit. and try to use more complete sentences.
Please! Don't use William Donohue and his conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights as an example of an influential Conservative or Catholic organization.
I'm a practicing Catholic, and I read Nerve. I'm also a former seminarian -- yes, I was almost a Catholic Priest. I'm now married, and yes, Catholics can have healthy, expressive sex lives.
Donohue is nothing more than a very loud mouth in a loud but small and not-very influential organization that does not represent mainstream Catholicism either in the US or in Rome. He wraps himself in religious trappings, and illigitimately announces himself as a representative of the Church. Unfortunately, many people outside the Catholic Church don't know enough of the politics within the Church to understand this misrepresentation, and he gets a lot of media attention.
Donohue is to Catholicism what sponsors of terrorism are to Islam; a misguided believer in perverted doctrine.
Thanks.
Dan,
Thanks for sharing... as the owner of an erotic site for women that moved OUT of Texas because of such crazy laws (like the one that kept me from selling vibrators and dildos... I had to sell personal massagers and educational materials). I appreciate you spreading the word about how crazy things are, and how much crazier they can become.
Jnenn Ramsey
HiddenSelf.com
AMEN! What a great piece of writing!
I'm all for freedom of sexual expression where all parties are consenting and none are being harmed. Although I'm Canadian, and have no knowledge of my country's laws regarding sexual expression (who knows, I could be breaking them all the time!), I find it extremely distressing to know that censorship of this type of expression could be so close -- especially in such a supposedly mature and liberal country as the United States.
So you're a "legal scholar" now - how profound. Keep to the sports stories, you actually may know something about that subject. LOL
Right on! I couldn't have said it any better (and didn't)!
I am very interested in the facts behind the Lawrence v. Texas case as I live in Texas, myself. Can someone tell me where I might get that and how I might get involved?
Generally, I find the construction of conspiracy theories the slippery slope. Was the recent row over the child molestation, etc., of the Catholic Bishops and churchmen
part of a plot to discredit the icons of society? One-by one, if one can discedit all respect for the 'conventional'morals of a society, eventually you can procalim anything as acceptable -- or unacceptable, for that matter. "Pretty soon there is [there was]no one left to protest". Protestors have lost their power.
I think that some people (Donohue & Santorum) have a lack of respect of people's personal sexuality. I think that what every you want to do at your own home is your own business. When they say that homosexuals & people who have sex when they are not married are like people who have sex with there own families. Okay I see the pattern. NOT! They are just a bunch of uptight, conform freaks who can't let anyone live there own lives without putting their nose in the situation. My son was born when I was 16 and unmarried and he is not a bastard. So I think that Donohue & Santorum need to check themselves and get over it.
excellent article. I feel sorry for you Americans who have to deal with this republican crap. Vancouver Canada is much more liberal and we all think (well most of us socially evolved individuals) think Santorum is a nut
You would have to have had your brain formed in a vat of Texas molasses to believe that the Lawerence case, like the Bowers case, has nothing to do with gay sex.
Even if, on paper, Lawerence would ban any sex out of wedlock, let's get real. No one has ever intended or cared to regulate heterosexual sex in Texas, or anywhere else.
Santorum lies to the masses by posing as a Christian, and wielding his doctrine of hate in the name of religion. In truth, it is all about power, and the use of hate to gain power. Let's see that ridiculous primitive bigot point to the part of the Bible that instructs him to vilify homosexuals, or any other group.
Santorum's words, (and Trent Lott's former words of genius on the subject), are no different than if he shouted "NIGGER" out loud. He is a racist hate-monger. I also wouldn't doubt that he has homosexual feelings himself: anyone so pointlessly full of loathing of gays could well be expressing self-hatred of his own feelings.
At least that's how it worked in "American Beauty".
I have no doubt that Rick Santorum, and all of the people who support him, will die miserable political, personal, professional and actual deaths. When that happens, drinks are on me.
Right. Sen. Santorum said we have no constitutional right to privacy or any kind of consensual sex. Since it doesn't say that in the Constitution, he may be right - that's what the Supreme Court gets to decide.
This does not mean that we do not have those rights. Those rights can be put into law (or taken away) by Congress, State Legislatures, or a vote of the people. It is up to us in a Democracy to set the standards as to how far is "not OK".
I can understand disagreeing with Senator Santorum, but the extent to which people have vilified his remarks detracts from the democratic debate we need to have about what is OK in our beds, which is important to those of us who think we should have a great deal of latitude on consensual behavior in our homes.
Oh dear, you said "bastard," oh but you are only quoting catholic clergy.
I am not a man of the catholic faith, I have no problems with expletives.
Do you count yourself as one of "the angry young men?"
I guess not, but then you do have a job, don't you?
I just mention that because I wrote the editor of The Week, which Nerve gives to premium members for free.
After reading some of its articles, I felt like it damn sure ought to be free and even if it was I didn't want it.
My first put off was about Marxists becoming NeoConservatives. It almost sounded to me like The Week could dig it, like right on you fascists who alienate an entire world that was allied with you against terrorism.
And then I read about my old friend O.J. Simpson, excuse me, he is still my friend as he appears to be to quite a few black people (that would be most of them, wouldn't it?) and, Jesus, not having got at The Week yet, I let him have it on this one.
Well he shot back at me, and I again at him, and he again at me, then I ... and now ... all is quiet on the Western Front.
I have hardly kept up with the Santorum issue, but you have clarified it for me. Thank you.
You too seem to be one who likes the middle road.
I can sometimes be seen there and other times not.
Well, it is a great big world, isn't it?
Your writing is simple great, Especially for beginners!
Are you have account in facebook? I want to talk with smart human.
As usual, tons of stupid comments. People, why are you writing in comments - good site, great article, thanks author?
Ok im out now.
Best regards from the my faterland, great germany.
Hot blog with clever texts!
nice, you wrote a excellent one.
Bless them. And bless you, for initiation the thread.
Each month, we get hundreds of questions from our readers
Now you say something