I’m not sure where you got that. I read the interview more as his belief that the Right to Privacy should be revised because gay relationships were damaging to the basic social structure of American life and should be eradicated.
maybe. :) not to be a lyrics-nazi, but its “I’m in here, please take me home. starla dear, I’m all alone. (when you can’t decide what’s on your mind,) it’s clear, (I’m here,) starla dear.”
:) I’m quite obsessed. You should see me in grammar-nazi mode. :)
yeah i got that as well. but i think he was portraying that more as his own personal opinion but saying that in terms of its application it should be left up to the states through referendum or legislation rather than the supreme court writing laws, which some see as a bad thing (i don’t have an opinion one way or the other).
Seriously though… I didn’t see anything that led me to think he meant it should be “left up to the states”. He seemed to be criticising any entity that might not have anti-sodomy laws. I think he criticised the “current surpreme court case” (which I assume is the Texas vs…? one?) for hearing a case that might overturn anti-sodomy laws not because he believes individual states should be allowed to decide their own laws, but because he doesn’t like the idea of homosexuality being protected by law. Quote “and [the sodomy laws] were there for a purpose” leads me to believe he’s focusing on the sodomy, not on state-level jurisdiction. link.
SANTORUM: … The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. … I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
kidorhi | 23-Apr-03 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
And this guy is helping to run the country *sighs* Oddly enough, I was listening to I Kissed A Girl as I read this…
breethvines | 24-Apr-03 at 2:58 am | Permalink
starla dear,
its clear… im in here. please take me home. starla dear..!
im all alone
i should listen to peices Iscariot sometime today
fellnearshiva | 24-Apr-03 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
he’s basically saying it should be up to the individual states rather than a supreme court decision.
starladear6 | 24-Apr-03 at 5:19 pm | Permalink
I’m not sure where you got that. I read the interview more as his belief that the Right to Privacy should be revised because gay relationships were damaging to the basic social structure of American life and should be eradicated.
starladear6 | 24-Apr-03 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
maybe. :) not to be a lyrics-nazi, but its “I’m in here, please take me home. starla dear, I’m all alone. (when you can’t decide what’s on your mind,) it’s clear, (I’m here,) starla dear.”
:) I’m quite obsessed. You should see me in grammar-nazi mode. :)
fellnearshiva | 24-Apr-03 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
yeah i got that as well. but i think he was portraying that more as his own personal opinion but saying that in terms of its application it should be left up to the states through referendum or legislation rather than the supreme court writing laws, which some see as a bad thing (i don’t have an opinion one way or the other).
starladear6 | 24-Apr-03 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
Seriously though… I didn’t see anything that led me to think he meant it should be “left up to the states”. He seemed to be criticising any entity that might not have anti-sodomy laws. I think he criticised the “current surpreme court case” (which I assume is the Texas vs…? one?) for hearing a case that might overturn anti-sodomy laws not because he believes individual states should be allowed to decide their own laws, but because he doesn’t like the idea of homosexuality being protected by law. Quote “and [the sodomy laws] were there for a purpose” leads me to believe he’s focusing on the sodomy, not on state-level jurisdiction. link.
breethvines | 25-Apr-03 at 4:08 am | Permalink
yeah
such a great groovery.
oh i was putting the words in other orders
fellnearshiva | 25-Apr-03 at 8:05 am | Permalink
SANTORUM: … The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. … I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
starladear6 | 28-Apr-03 at 6:37 am | Permalink
hmm… guess I didn’t see that part when I was writing my last reply to you. that’s from the same AP interview? got a link?
fellnearshiva | 28-Apr-03 at 8:56 am | Permalink
no, it’s from the same one. it’s at the bottom.