![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From the New York Times....
Apr. 26th, 2003 12:16 amG.O.P. Hypocrisy
( Cut-tagged for your viewing convenience )
The op-ed piece can be found here if you'd prefer not to read it within the cut.
Personally, i know of same-gender couples who would be way better parents than many "conventional" couples. And, since they don't have biology in their favour, it takes significant effort for gay and lesbian couples to adopt (or seek out donors or surrogate parents). Damn, but if that's not a commitment to being an active and involved parent, i don't know what is.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, the role of the government be in a position to define the sanctity of a relationship between individuals. Even more so, it is not the role of the government to pass judgement on what defines a family, at least to the extent of daring disqualify people who are willing to take on the challenges and overcome the obstacles which are mandated by becoming a parent.
And for a representative of that government to condemn the acts of a homosexual couple as on par with bestiality and incest is simply wrong. In as much as it is not directly harmful to society at large or to specific classes of individuals, it is of no business of the government to tell individuals with whom they can and cannot engage in sexual acts.
Yes, Mr. Santorum, homosexuality is like one of the things mentioned on your list- adultery. But not in the way you think. It's like it in that you'll find both amongst Republicans.
How dare you, sir, use your position to declare what is or isn't "antithetical to strong, healthy families?" Would you like an answer from another vantage point? Anyone who would legislate against loving people who wish to nurture and raise a child in a safe, protected environment; who would judge individuals on the basis of whether they would choose to marry one or more individuals, regardless of gender is "antithetical to strong, healthy families," sir. Keep your damn close-minded ideals away from legislation regarding other people's bodies and freedoms.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do not dare attempt to abrogate these rights, Mr. Santorum. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
( Cut-tagged for your viewing convenience )
The op-ed piece can be found here if you'd prefer not to read it within the cut.
Personally, i know of same-gender couples who would be way better parents than many "conventional" couples. And, since they don't have biology in their favour, it takes significant effort for gay and lesbian couples to adopt (or seek out donors or surrogate parents). Damn, but if that's not a commitment to being an active and involved parent, i don't know what is.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, the role of the government be in a position to define the sanctity of a relationship between individuals. Even more so, it is not the role of the government to pass judgement on what defines a family, at least to the extent of daring disqualify people who are willing to take on the challenges and overcome the obstacles which are mandated by becoming a parent.
And for a representative of that government to condemn the acts of a homosexual couple as on par with bestiality and incest is simply wrong. In as much as it is not directly harmful to society at large or to specific classes of individuals, it is of no business of the government to tell individuals with whom they can and cannot engage in sexual acts.
Yes, Mr. Santorum, homosexuality is like one of the things mentioned on your list- adultery. But not in the way you think. It's like it in that you'll find both amongst Republicans.
How dare you, sir, use your position to declare what is or isn't "antithetical to strong, healthy families?" Would you like an answer from another vantage point? Anyone who would legislate against loving people who wish to nurture and raise a child in a safe, protected environment; who would judge individuals on the basis of whether they would choose to marry one or more individuals, regardless of gender is "antithetical to strong, healthy families," sir. Keep your damn close-minded ideals away from legislation regarding other people's bodies and freedoms.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do not dare attempt to abrogate these rights, Mr. Santorum. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
