For archives, these articles are being stored on TheWE.cc website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

 
   
April 8, 2003

Sen. Rick Santorum's comments on homosexuality in an AP interview
The Associated Press
(AP) An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).

AP:    If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?

SANTORUM:    Putting more money in their pocketbook is one.   The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has.   And that's a basic power.   The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes.   An average American family now pays about 25 percent.

The argument is, yes, we need to help other people.   But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do.   They don't want to judge.   They say, Oh, you can't judge people.   They should be able to do what they want to do.   Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them.   But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency.   (unintelligible)   My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.

AP:    Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism.   Can you explain that?

SANTORUM:    You have the problem within the church.   Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles.   And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home?   If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get.   You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do.   And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy.   I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP:    The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM:    The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP:    What's the alternative?

SANTORUM:    In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men.   We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds.   We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship.   Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people.   If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP:    Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM:    What would I do with what?

AP:    I mean, how would you remedy?   What's the alternative?

SANTORUM:    First off, I don't believe _

AP:    I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM:    I have no problem with homosexuality.   I have a problem with homosexual acts.   As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.   And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual.   I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual.   If that's their orientation, then I accept that.   And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations.   The question is, do you act upon those orientations?   So it's not the person, it's the person's actions.   And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP:    OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM:    We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose.   Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family.   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.   Does that undermine the fabric of our society?   I would argue yes, it does.   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 — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion.   And now we're just extending it out.   And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family.   You say, well, it's my individual freedom.   Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families.   Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

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 _

AP:    I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM:    And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately.   The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions.   I disagree with that.   I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.   And we're seeing it in our society.

AP:    Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you.   Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM:    I've been very clear about that.   The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions.   And I don't agree with that.   So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, 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.




© 2003 Associated Press







cnn.com

Boy punished for talking about gay mom

Tuesday, December 2, 2003

LAFAYETTE, Louisiana (AP) — A 7-year-old boy was scolded and forced to write "I will never use theword 'gay' in school again" after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged Monday.

Second-grader Marcus McLaurin was waiting for recess November 11 at Ernest Gaullet Elementary School when a classmate asked about Marcus' mother and father, the ACLU said in a complaint.

Marcus responded he had two mothers because his mother is gay.   When the other child asked for explanation, Marcus told him: "Gay is when a girl likes another girl," according to the complaint.

A teacher who heard the remark scolded Marcus, telling him "gay" was a "bad word" and sending him to the principal's office.   The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write: "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again."

A phone message left for Lafayette Parish schools superintendent James Easton was not immediately returned.

The ACLU is demanding the case be removed from Marcus' file and that the school apologize to the boy and his mother, Sharon Huff.

"I was concerned when the assistant principal called and told me my son had said a word so bad that he didn't want to repeat it over the phone," Huff said.

"But that was nothing compared to the shock I felt when my little boy came home and told me that his teacher had told him his family is a dirty word."







© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
An AOL Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.





 For Common Dreams click here
Published on Saturday, August 20, 2005 by The Progressive
Santorum’s People Toss Young Women out of Barnes & Noble, Trooper Threatens Them with Prison
by Matthew Rothschild
On the evening of August 10, Hannah Shaffer of Glen Mills, Pennsylvania, decided to go to the nearby Barnes & Noble outside of Wilmington.  She wanted to see Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who was promoting his book, “It Takes a Family.”

The event was billed as a “book signing and discussion,” Shaffer says.

But discussion was the last thing that the Senator’s people wanted.

Shaffer, her friends, and two other young women were booted out of the store and threatened with imprisonment even before they had a chance to say a word to Santorum, as Al Mascitti first noted in the Delaware News Journal.

Shaffer, 18, thought Santorum’s public appearance might be a good occasion to ask him a few questions.

“He is my Senator,” she says, and she wanted to challenge him on his notorious claim that legalizing gay marriage was akin to legalizing incest and bestiality.

“So I contacted a few of my left-leaning friends, and they said they’d really like to be there because they felt the same way,” she says.

When she arrived at 6:00 p.m., some of her friends were already there, along with two other young women she didn’t know, Stacey Galperin and Miriam Rocek.

As Shaffer was talking with her friends, Rocek made a joke.

She held up a copy of a book by the gay writer Dan Savage called “The Kid,” which is about how he and his partner adopted a son.  And Rocek said, “It would be funny if we got Santorum to sign this book.”  (To discredit Santorum, Savage and his readers in 2003 came up with a nasty definition of “Santorum” that now often appears on Internet searches for Santorum’s name.)

Not everyone enjoyed the joke.

“A woman nearby snapped: ‘He’s only here to sign his own book.  He won’t sign that,’ ” recalls Galperin.

Shaffer says the woman also added, “You’re shameful and disgusting.”

For a minute, the young women thought that would be the end of it.

But no such luck.

A state trooper in full uniform, including hat and gun, was in the store, and, according to Shaffer and Galperin, he met with the person who didn’t care for the Dan Savage joke, along with a few others, including members of the store and Santorum’s people.

Galperin says she heard the trooper ask, “Do you want me to get rid of them?”

And then the trooper, Delaware State Police Sgt. Mark DiJiacomo, who was on detail as a private security guard, came over to the group of women.

Here is the conversation, as Galperin remembers it: “You guys have to leave.”

“Why?”

“Your business is not wanted here.  They don’t want you here anymore.  If you don’t leave, you’re going to be arrested.  If you can’t post bail, you’ll go to prison.  Those of you who are under 18 will go to Ferris [the juvenile detention center].  And those of you over 18 will go either to Gander Hill Prison or the woman’s correctional facility.  Any questions?”

Shaffer remembers the conversation basically the same way.

“I said, ‘Sir, we’re not doing anything wrong.  We’re sitting in a bookstore.  On what grounds would we be arrested?’ ”

“He said, ‘This is private property.  Are you going to leave on your own, or are you going to leave in cuffs?”

Shaffer decided to leave with her friends.

Galperin and Rocek decided to stay.

“That’s it,” he told them, according to Galperin.  “You’re under arrest.  Give me your ID.  You’re going to prison.”

Sgt. DiJiacomo led the two out to his police car.

“You’re going to embarrass your families,” he told them, she recalls.  “Your names are going to be all over the paper.”

He told Rocek to put her hands on the squad car, and then told both of them to call their parents and tell them to bring “at least $1,000 in bail money,” Galperin says.

Galperin reached her father, an attorney.

“I told my dad, ‘I’m under arrest for expressing dissenting opinions.’ ”

Her father asked to speak to the sergeant.

“Your dad says get out of here,” the sergeant told her.  “He’ll meet you at home.”

And so they both left.

By this time, Hannah Shaffer managed to reach her mother on the phone, who was planning on going to the event anyway.

“She came and said whoever wants to return to the bookstore should come with her and we would talk respectfully to the police officer and to Barnes & Noble about why they had kicked us out and threatened to arrest us,” Shaffer says.

“Six or seven of the braver kids got in the car and we drove back over to the parking lot of Barnes & Noble,” she recalls.  “We were standing outside in the parking lot and my mother went into the store.  Just as she entered, the officer came out, and he saw us, and he drove over in his car very fast.”

Here’s her account.

“You’re under arrest.  Get into the car.’

“But my mom took us over here and wanted to speak to you.”

“Do I look like your mother? You’re not wanted here.  You had your chance.  You showed up again.  Now you’re under arrest.”

Shaffer said he then asked the ages of everyone in the group, and he used this information to further threaten her.

“Not only will you be arrested for trespassing, but I’ve got you on the counts for contributing to the delinquency of one, two, three, four, five minors,” he said, according to Shaffer.  “Those are serious charges.  Is that really something you want on your record? Is that something that will make your parents proud?”

And he warned them, she says, that they would be arrested if they ever showed up at the bookstore or the mall again.

At that point, he let Shaffer and the other young women leave.

“I was pretty upset,” Shaffer says.

So was her mother.

“These are the cream of the crop—the outgoing student class president, students who had given hundreds of hours of community service, kids who wouldn’t know how to cause trouble in a public place much less in their own basements,” says Heidi Shaffer, who had encouraged her daughter to go to the book signing.  “This is unconscionable.”

Heidi Shaffer says she approached Sergeant DiJiacomo.

“I actually tried to talk humanely to the policemen,” she says.  “He told me if I took any of the underaged kids in, I would be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.”

Heidi Schaffer says she is most upset about the strong-arm tactics of Sgt. DiJiacomo.  “One of the girls came home and was hysterical for about two days,” she says.  “Some even were afraid to tell their parents.  That this hired gun can say whatever he wants and terrorize these kids is very, very scary.”

Sgt. DiJiacomo did not return my phone calls seeking comment.

“From all indications that we have, he handled his duties and responsibilities appropriately,” says Lieutenant Joseph Aviola, director of public affairs for the Delaware State Police.  Aviola says two customers warned Sgt. DiJiacomo that the young women were planning a disturbance and that there had been a previous incident at a book signing with Santorum.

Aviola says it is not uncommon for Delaware state troopers, in their official capacity, to work for private contractors, who later reimburse the state.

Senator Santorum’s office did not provide comment on this story.  Robert Traynham, communications director for Santorum, told me to contact the public relations firm that was handling the book tour, Shirley&Banister, in Virginia.  Account Supervisor Kevin McVicker at Shirley&Banister failed to return three calls for comment.

When I contacted the Wilmington Barnes & Noble store and asked for a manager, someone named Pam came on the phone, said “No Comment,” wouldn’t give her last name, and hung up.

At Barnes & Noble’s headquarters, Mary Ellen Keating, senior vice president for corporate communications and public affairs, gave this account.

“I spoke to the assistant manager, and what she told me was that the store management was not consulted on how the situation was managed,” she says.  “A state policeman, without consulting management, removed these students from the store.”

Drew Fennell, executive director of the Delaware ACLU, sees the incident in a larger context.  “This is trickle down from Bush: Politicians are now keeping away, out of sight, anybody who disagrees with them,” she says.  “If the Senator’s staff was so put off by the idea he might be asked a difficult question that they brought in the police, that’s a sad commentary on the state of political discourse.”

Fennel is also particularly concerned about the participation of the Delaware state trooper.  “That puts a different and far more disturbing face on this,” she says.  “Frankly, it’s a great deal more intimidating to be asked to leave by an armed police officer threatening you with arrest than if the manager does it.”

She says Sgt. DiJiacomo “truly overstepped the bounds” in threatening the young women.”

While the ACLU and the women involved have not decided whether to take legal action, they are considering their options.





© 2005 The Progressive




Common Dreams © 1997-2005








 
 



























































       Afghanistan — Western Terror States: Canada, US, UK, France, Germany, Italy       
       Photos of Afghanistan people being killed and injured by NATO