posted on April 24, 2003 08:30:58 AM new
I can\'t believe this story has not been brought up yet..........
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top Democrats and gay rights advocates blasted comments by Sen. Rick Santorum in which he appeared to compare homosexuality to incest, bigamy and adultery, and they called on the Pennsylvania Republican to repudiate the remarks.
One prominent Democratic group Tuesday also called on Santorum to resign his leadership post in the Senate.
Santorum made the comments in question during an interview with The Associated Press. During that interview, Santorum criticized homosexuality as he discussed a pending Supreme Court case over a sodomy law in Texas.
\"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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,\" Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
Gay groups were quick to denounce Santorum\'s comments, the latest in a series of divisive remarks by some lawmakers.
\"Senator Santorum\'s remarks are deeply hurtful and play on deep-seated fears that fly in the face of scientific evidence, common sense and basic decency. Clearly, there is no compassion in his conservatism,\" said Winnie Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation\'s largest gay advocacy group. She called for \"quick and decisive action\" by Republican leaders to repudiate Santorum\'s remarks.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called on Santorum to resign as chairman of the Republican Senate Caucus, the number three position in the GOP leadership.
\"Senator Santorum\'s remarks are divisive, hurtful and reckless and are completely out of bounds for someone who is supposed to be a leader in the United States Senate,\" said Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the DSCC.
In a statement released Tuesday, Santorum did not dispute the accuracy of the quote, but criticized the AP story as \"misleading.\" His said his comment was specific to the pending Supreme Court case.
\"I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution,\" he said. \"My comments should not be construed in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.\"
But, according to unedited excerpts of the taped interview released late Tuesday by The Associated Press, Santorum spoke at length about homosexuality, and he made clear he did not approve of \"acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.\"
In the April 7 interview, Santorum describes homosexual acts as a threat to society and the family. \"I have no problem with homosexuality,\" Santorum said, according to the AP. \"I have a problem with homosexual acts.\" (Interview excerpts)
Democrats weighed in on the earlier remarks throughout the day. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the sentiments expressed by Santorum are \"out of step with our country\'s respect for tolerance.\"
One presidential contender tried to draw the White House into the controversy.
\"The White House speaks the rhetoric of compassionate conservatism, but they\'re silent while their chief lieutenants make divisive and hurtful comments that have no place in our politics,\" said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who is seeking his party\'s presidential nomination for 2004.
Indeed, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer refused to comment on Santorum\'s remarks, telling reporters at a briefing Tuesday that he did not know the \"context\" of the comments and that he had not discussed the matter with President Bush.
The White House did weigh in late last year when Sen. Trent Lott appeared to express nostalgia for segregation while paying tribute to Sen. Strom Thurmond, who has since retired. President Bush called Lott\'s comments \"offensive.\" Under pressure, Lott, R-Mississippi, resigned from his post as Senate majority leader.
More recently, Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, stepped down as a Democratic regional whip amid criticism for his comment in March that Jewish leaders were pushing a war with Iraq. In that instance, Fleischer called Moran\'s comments \"shocking\" and \"wrong.\"
The leading gay Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans, said Santorum\'s statement was inadequate, and it called on him to apologize or step down from the leadership post.
\"If you ask most Americans if they compare gay and lesbian Americans to polygamists and folks who are involved in incest and the other categories he used, I think there are very few folks in the mainstream who would articulate those views,\" said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the group.
Guerriero said the comments could complicate Bush\'s efforts to cast the GOP as inclusive.
Santorum won some backing for his comments. Concerned Women for America, a conservative interest group in Washington, released a statement criticizing the \"gay thought police\" and saying Santorum was \"exactly right.\"
Genevieve Wood, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, another conservative group, agreed.
\"I think the Republican party would do well to follow Senator Santorum if they want to see pro-family voters show up on Election Day,\" she said.
posted on April 24, 2003 08:55:14 AM new
What the senator said is essentially true. If the constituion permits consenting adults to have sex with whoever they wish without interference from the law, then if it is between consenting adults, incest, bigamy,polygamy, and whatever your imagination can come up with between consenting adults can not be outlawed.
But in the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that fundemental protected sexual rights can be considered only within the context of acts that can directly result in procreation. That is why the Georgia anti-sodomy laws were upheld.
However the present case is about an anti-sodomy law that applies strictly to homosexuals, so it will be an equal protection/due process issue rather than a fundemental liberty interest in sexual activity.
In any event, the senator is right, although unduely alarmist.
posted on April 24, 2003 09:24:51 AM new
::"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday. ::
I realize that he states that the remarks were taken out of context but since he does not say he was misquoted I have to say that this is one of the more irresponsible and legally ignorant statements I have read in a long time.
Sodomy is a sexual act, Marriage is a legal union. One has nothing to do with the other so how would decriminalizing Sodomy have any relevence at all in bigamy or polygamy.
Incest is an illegal act regardless of the form in which it is practiced. It is illegal when commited while using non criminal "traditional heterosexual practices" so why would the decriminalization of "homosexual practices" suddenly make it legal?
If adultery is indeed illegal in Texas I would imagine that it is is based upon engaging in sexual intercourse with a person outside the legal union. Is the position relevent? If adultery is indeed a criminal offense in Texas I'd love to know when someone was last charged.
My favorite comment he made though is the one he said whle defending himself....
:: \"I have no problem with homosexuality,\" Santorum said, according to the AP. \"I have a problem with homosexual acts.\"::
In other words... you can be gay, but you have to do it by yourself.
In an article I read yesterday he said that homosexuality was a threat to the American Family. I have never understood or found the logic in this arguement. I'm sure there is someone that even if they do not agree with it, can tell me the theory behind it.
[ edited by neonmania on Apr 24, 2003 09:27 AM ]
posted on April 24, 2003 10:34:26 AM new
marriage, sodomy, etc., have everthing to do with the underlying constituional principle.
If all sexual acts between consenting adults were protected then incest, bigamy and polygamy etc could not be against the law.
The senator's statements are not legally ignorant, but overreach the case in question.
Sodomy is a sexual act, Marriage is a legal union. One has nothing to do with the other so how would decriminalizing Sodomy have have any relevence at all in bigamy or Polygamy
In the Texas case in question it has everything to do with marriage as well as hetrosexual activity and homosexual activity. The case is not challenging the state's right to outlaw sodomy, which the Supreme Court has ruled a state can. At issue is the Texas law that applies only to homosexual sodomy. Sodomy within a marriage or perhaps hetrosexual is permitted - BUT hetro sodomy outside marriage in Texas may also be against the law under an adultery statute. If Texas made ALL sodomy illegal, then there is no case. Marriage, sodomy, homosexuality, and hetrosexuality, are all at issue. Marriage is entangled into the issue because most states recognize sexual privacy rights within marriage that are not recognized outside the marriage.
The constitutional principle that the senator is expounding upon encompasses sex within the marriage, outside marriage and between any consenting adults.
Bigamy and polygamy do not necessarily mean that one has more than one "civil" marriage partner. It depends on the state, but it can also include sexual co-habitation with more than one person.
In fact, it is actually impossible to be "married" to more than one person, because at law if the first marriage still exists, all subsequent marriages are void ab initio - the crime is therefore attempt.
In any event, if the Supreme Court were to rule that sex between consenting adults was protected as a fundemental right, then defacto bigamy, polygamy, and incest could not be outlawed by the states if it were between consenting adults.
Incest is an illegal act irregardless of the form in which it is practiced. It is illegal when commited while using non criminal "traditional heterosexual practices" so why would the decriminalization of "homosexual practices" suddenly make it legal?
Incest is generally prohibited under marriage laws, and I am aware that Georgia, Idaho,Utah and Alabama have anti-incest laws without regard to age of the actors on the books. BUT, if the Supreme Court goes outside the procreation theory of sexual freedom and adopts the consenting adult theory, then even incest can not be prohibited.
If brother/sister, mother/son, first cousins, or even homosexual unions of mother/daughter father/son occur and all actors were adults, then there could be no law against these acts.
Incestuous marriage was generally outlawed due to genetic problems and is a somewhat modern prohibition. Sex outside marriage was also a very serious crime just a few centuries back (and still is in some primitive societies).
The problem with modern society is that these old notions of marriage and sexuality no longer are understood and rarely can be accepted or applied.
This all comes out of women being property, and the sexual "use" of that property, blended with proof of parentage of offspring, and chastity. Homosexual acts were just plain crimes. Sexual acts outside of missionary intercourse were criminal. And it all came out of cannon law.
The intercourse notion still exists in our juris prudence of the constitution. Sexual intercourse that can result in procreation has certain protections, which can be regulated by the states through marriage laws, hence adultry laws. The cases leading up to Roe v Wade began with contraception laws as applied to married couples.
What we end up with is a tangle of constitutional thought still mixed in with ancient notions of marriage, sexual license in a marrige as a marriage property right, chastity and out of wedlock births being controlled by adultery laws, and the unspeakable crime of homosexuality still being treated as a crime.
Nothing fits anymore. What the senator stated is what could come about if the Supreme Court were to adopt a new principle.
The treat to marriage that legal homosexuality woulod bring is a postion that marriage is somehow exalted by the privileges that can only occur and are only recognized through marriage. It includes everything from benefits through employers and at law law such as not requiring spouses to testify against each other.
posted on April 24, 2003 10:46:08 AM new
neonmania -
I am not advocating anything - just explaining what others have said.
The usual theory behind the "threat" of homosexuality is the insistance that homosexuals obtain new members by recruitment like a club. Many feel that there is no such thing as having a predisposition to gay feelings not even as a disorder or disease - but rather it is strictly a matter of choice.
We just had a letter in our local paper from a mother who shrilly denounced the fact a local school system allowed a gay student group to meet after school. She saw this a a threat to her own children who might be sucked into this group and persuaded to adopt a homosexual life style the same as one might be persuaded to adopt the benefits of playing chess or tennis.
It is sort of hard to understand how she pictures such recruitment taking place. I suppose she pictures them setting up a projector and showing porn or something...
Perhaps just the promise that they too could enjoy the benefits such as having their family reject them and becoming a punching bag at school....
I doubt if she has ever known a person as a normal social or business acquaintence who also allowed her to know he or she was gay.
posted on April 24, 2003 11:21:25 AM new
If homosexuality is classified as an alternate "lifestyle" how is it an error to compare it to
polgamy or bigamy or adultery. For that matter, what is legally defined as "incest" in many states is a "lifestyle" in many countries.
posted on April 24, 2003 11:36:41 AM new
::The treat to marriage that legal homosexuality would bring is a postion that marriage is somehow exalted by the privileges that can only occur and are only recognized through marriage. It includes everything from benefits through employers and at law law such as not requiring spouses to testify against each other. ::
I am aware of the arguements surrounding the legalization of same sex marriages but it's the most commonly head against arguement, the same one your hear when every and issue concerning homosexuality comes up, the: legitimizing / endorsing of Homesexuality is an attack upon / threat to the "American Family".
I'm lost to understand how decriminalizing homosexual intercourse or ,allowing a legal union of gay couples in order to extend legal rights held by married couples such as medical recognition of Next of Kin status or as you mentioned, insurance issues have any effect on this entity that they call the American Family.
I also have to wonder how they are defining the family. Is it the Nick at Night version with Mom, Dad, and 2.3 kids or is it the actual 2003 version which bares very little resemblence to the family values version and which is far more threatened by economic issues than homosexuality.
posted on April 24, 2003 11:46:09 AM new
::The usual theory behind the "threat" of homosexuality is the insistance that homosexuals obtain new members by recruitment like a club.::
Gravid - I remember seeing a gay comedian once joking about pitch used in to recruit.....
Come on, join the club! Sure you lose half your rights, your friends, your family and become ostracised by society But hey, you get a free rainbow sticker for your car!
posted on April 25, 2003 10:53:45 AM new
I have several substantive issues with this issue and the statements made here. But before I make them, I have one question:
reamond,
I don't know of any states that regard simple sexual cohabition by a married person with someone other than their spouse as bigamy. Which are they?
"The president has confidence in Senator Santorum, both as a senator and as a member of the Senate leadership," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters.
posted on April 25, 2003 12:29:30 PM new
His statements were based on the law and how it is writing so I saw nothing wrong with them. just like any other subject people can read whatever they want into it no matter how far left or how far right they want to spin it.
posted on April 25, 2003 12:32:27 PM new
While we are waiting for Reamond's answer, this is the interview in which Senator Santorum broached the subject of bestiality along with homosexuality.
posted on April 25, 2003 02:43:03 PM new
Seems like we'll be waiting for awhile. The reason I asked is because, quite frankly, I doubt he's right. Meanwhile ...
Santorum's remark is just bone stupid. There is no correlation between homosexuality and the behaviors he listed.
There has to be a balancing act whenever the government intrudes on personal freedom. The question is whether a particular behavior endangers or somehow harms society. Otherwise, there's just no justification to thrust the government into the private lives of citizens.
The people fighting the Texas case are not arguing whether there's a "right" to engage in homosexual activity. That's beside the point. The question is whether the government can meet the test to justify invading someone's home and violating their substantive privacy in order to enforce the law.
First off, homosexuality is not a behavior, or even a "lifestyle." It's a biological fact. A person can be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. They can fool themselves and everyone else about which of the three they are. But they can't change it. And there is no demonstrated "harm" that attaches to society from the existence of homosexuals or stable, loving homosexual relationships. In fact, irresponsible heterosexual activity does a lot more damage to society as a whole, because it can produce unwanted, uncared for children. But the risk of that is too low to justify invading a straight couple's bedroom - even if they're committing adultery.
Incest, on the other hand, does damage society. Almost always, incest involves an adult exploiting their position of authority over a younger, weaker family member (this is true even when the younger person is technically an adult.) It also puts any offspring at an increased risk of genetic defect.
Bigamy, by definition, is not a private offense - since marriage is a de facto public act. And it also damages society, even when it doesn't involve deceipt of one or more of the spousal partners (though it often does). Bigamy creates an invalid contract and makes it very difficult to determine the legal parentage of any children born from a bigamous union, and snarls inheritance issues. These are not sweeping moral issues, but they are societally significant enough to overcome any privacy consideration that might exist. If there is one, which there isn't.
Bestiality may be the hardest argument to make, but the bottom line is that it is an outrage in our society. Homosexuality is not. It may have been, 80 years ago, but it is not an outrage any longer. (And before people start chiming in that it outrages them, the issue is whether it outrages the community as a whole. For evidence of that, see the ad revenues on "Will and Grace."
[ edited by msincognito on Apr 25, 2003 02:55 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2003 02:55:34 PM new
Misincognito, I think you are confusing "acceptance" with "tolerance" and you will find many many communities that do not find that behavior any more acceptable than any other deviant behavior. They may "tolerate" it but the underlying fact is they do not accept it.
"Will & Grace" well now the show with the Gay man... who in real life is straight... yep that makes perfect sense... Also the show makes it more fun of being gay and shows them as sterotypical gay men...
posted on April 25, 2003 03:03:11 PM new
I don't believe I am confusing acceptance with tolerance at all. Most people treat homosexual people as they would any other person, on the basis of their behavior and integrity. There are always a few people who can't behave that well (just as there are a few people who always treat racial minorities as second-class citizens) but they clearly are not in the mainstream of American society.
In fact, people often don't realize how accepting they are until they are confronted with it. My mom gets her hair done at my sister's salon, and the assistant there is quite openly gay. The first time Mom and "Brian" met, they hit it off. By the time she realized he was gay, she already was very fond of him ... and that's when she realized she just didn't have that much of a problem with it at all.
Part of the process of growing up is realizing that you can't judge people based on what they are.
[ edited by msincognito on Apr 25, 2003 03:04 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2003 05:33:50 PM new
A quote from the "Federalist":
In the Senate, with former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's leadership head trophied on their walls, Leftist agitators have their crosshairs trained on obtaining Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's resignation from the third highest Senate position as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. Straightforward remarks from Sen. Santorum have been ballyhooed this week as "bigoted," "hateful" and "intolerant." His offense? He dared speak forthrightly about the consequences, should the Supreme Court strike down the anti-sodomy law of Texas, offending one of the Left's most ardent constituencies -- homosexuals.
Mr. Santorum observed: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to [homosexual] 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. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."
Of course, this is not about "big brother" in the bedroom, as the Left is portraying it, but about federalism, and the several states Constitutional authority to set such standards where the Constitution is silent. And, as with the "right to privacy" as construed in Roe v Wade, the Constitution is, indeed, silent. Should the Supremes conclude that all sexual conduct falls under this extra-constitutional rubric for "privacy," then pedophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality -- indeed, all manner of sexual and other deviancy -- cannot be restrained under state laws either, by the same "reasoning."
Construing that sexual deviancy is protected under our Constitution's legitimate assurance of the right to privacy is tantamount to suggesting pornography is protected under the Constitution's legitimate assurance of the right to free speech -- and that is precisely the argument pornographers use.
Typical of the Left's response is that of Démocrate presidential candidate Howard Dean: "Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public-policy discussion; it is immoral. Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate." Of course, left-leaning Republicans were singing the same chorus, including Senate RINO's Sue Collins and Lincoln Chafee. Notably, RNC Chairman Marc Racicot, who met secretly with leaders of a Republican homosexual lobby last week, has yet to utter a syllable in public in support of Sen. Santorum. (And not a word either from Leftist anti-war politicos and celebrities in defense of Santorum's right to express his opinion...)
Démocrates are desperate after our success on the Iraqi front of the war against Jihadistan, which has bolstered President Bush's job approval rating. The Left's principal political strategy is "divide and conquer," and thus they are attempting to split the differing social-issue constituencies Mr. Bush has assembled in uneasy coalition. Those who believe -- as we and other Christians like Sen. Santorum do -- that homosexuality is sin (though we are still commanded to love the sinner) are subject to condemnation.
And a footnote on the Senate: It convened for the first time on this day, April 25, 1789, and every session has opened with prayer.
posted on April 25, 2003 05:54:15 PM new
Howard Dean - Isn't he the same presidential democratic candidate who said something along the line of "I don't know if the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam"? He's running for president and he doesn't know IF the Iraqi people are better off being free? Oh....brother.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 25, 2003 08:04:31 PM newI don't know of any states that regard simple sexual cohabition by a married person with someone other than their spouse as bigamy.
I never said that-what I said was:
Bigamy and polygamy do not necessarily mean that one has more than one "civil" marriage partner. It depends on the state, but it can also include sexual co-habitation with more than one person.
What you have described is adultery, more specific open and notorious adultery, and is illegal in many states.
It could be bigamy if the couple hold themselves out to the public as being married, since bigamy can also mean being married to one person and "going through the form of a second marriage".
Msincog- Aren't you the person who was wrong about the First Amendment applying to a private shopping mall ?
Santorum is also not the first to say this about sodomy. Look at the US Supreme Court case of Hardwick - it is the one that challenges the Georgia sodomy law. Santorum said the same thing the Justice said in this case.
It has nothing to do with equating homosexuality with these other things, it has everything to do with the constitutional principle used to define the privacy interest in consenting adults sexual acts.
posted on April 27, 2003 07:16:17 PM new
President puts lid on Santorum flap
Controversy causes awkward moments
By JULIE MASON Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- As governor of Texas, President Bush fought the extension of hate-crime laws to protect gays, opposed gay marriage and once declined to meet with gay Republicans, citing the potential for a "political nightmare."
Given the history, few in politics were surprised last week when the White House remained tight-lipped for several days before defending Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum for his remarks comparing homosexuality to incest, bigamy, poligamy and adultery.
Bush's defense of Santorum signaled an end to the burgeoning political flap and dimmed the hopes of those calling for the embattled senator to apologize or resign his party's leadership post.
At the same time, the incident created several awkward moments for the Bush administration, which has strived to portray itself and the GOP as inclusive and tolerant, in part by reaching out to gays.
In addition, the White House response to Santorum could not escape comparison to an incident last year, when Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott lost his leadership position after Bush criticized him for statements deemed racially insensitive.
"Certain groups can be offended without retribution if they are not part of your basic constituency," said Stephen Hess, an expert on presidential politics at the Brookings Institution. "That might be a political rule."
Santorum, who is ranked third in his party's leadership, was commenting on a Supreme Court case originating in Houston that challenged Texas' sodomy laws, when he told the Associated Press that he opposed overturning the law.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said.
In the maelstrom that followed, Democrats and gay rights group called for Santorum to apologize or step down as GOP conference chairman.
Reaction from Republicans was mixed, with a few stepping up to defend Santorum as a champion of inclusiveness, while others called his remarks unfortunate and not reflective of the Republican Party.
The controversy spun along for several days, while at the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer declined to answer questions about Santorum, saying it was Bush's policy to avoid comment on Supreme Court cases.
Reminded that Bush did remark recently on a case out of Michigan involving affirmative action, Fleischer still declined to answer.
On Friday, after the Santorum issue had lingered all week and appeared to be gathering momentum rather than fading, Fleischer broke his silence.
"The president has confidence in the senator and believes he's doing a good job as senator," Fleischer said. "The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes."
The White House defense of Santorum galvanized the concern of Democrats and gay rights proponents who claim there is a double standard at the White House, one tolerating remarks against gays but not against blacks or other minorities.
"The real question before us right now is whether or not the president actually supports inclusion and equality, or if it is simply something that is convenient from time to time," said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Washington-based gay rights group Human Rights Campaign.
In December, Lott was similarly under fire for paying tribute to former Sen. Strom Thurmond's 1948 pro-segregation presidential campaign, saying the country would have been better off had the Dixiecrats won.
At the time, the White House backed Lott for several days in the face of strenuous criticism from Democrats and black organizations, before the president eventually admonished him. Lott soon after resigned his position as Senate majority leader.
One of the key differences between the Lott and Santorum cases, experts noted, are the ongoing efforts of the GOP to woo black voters to support the president, while gays still chafe certain segments of the party.
"I think we have made a lot of progress, but we keep forgetting that the religious right is still active in the party, and frankly I think they have been disappointed these past few years, expecting President Bush to be one of their players," said Alex Wathen, a board member of the Log Cabin Republicans of Houston, a gay political group.
During the bruising 2000 Republican presidential primary, Bush took several anti-gay positions, opposing the hate crimes bill, gay marriage and adoption.
Then, a warming trend began. Seven months before the election, Bush reversed his initial refusal to meet with gay Republicans, holding a meeting and afterward declaring himself a "better person" for the experience.
During the 2000 Republican Convention, the Bush campaign invited Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, the only openly gay Republican in Congress, to make a speech to delegates on trade issues.
Since then, Bush has made other overtures to gay interests, including devoting a sizeable portion of his last State of the Union address to AIDS.
Reaching out to gays has been part of a GOP strategy to cut into the margins of traditional Democratic voting blocs, which also include blacks and Hispanics.
To a certain extent, the effort has paid off. Exit polls showed Bush won 25 percent, or 1.1 million votes, from voters who said they were homosexual.
While many in Washington last week were waiting for a sign from the White House on the Santorum dust-up, the administration also was gauging public reaction and the response from Santorum's colleagues on Capitol Hill.
Bruce Buchanan, professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin and a longtime Bush observer, said that reticence to take the lead on a controversial issue is typical of the president.
"His pattern on this issue and other hot-button issues is to hang in the background and say very little, not lead the charge," Buchanan said. "He kind of let Lott hang out there a long time, and when he finally did signal a preference on the matter, he did it in a very low-key way."
A politician will call you intelligent to keep you ignorant. I tell you that you are ignorant so that you may want to be intelligent - Eugene Debs
[ edited by mlecher on Apr 30, 2003 04:54 PM ]
