One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”Hey, Rick? I'm gonna talk about something that no president likes to talk about, too. Like which version of the constitution - which contains the president's rather limited job description - you're using to justify becoming the nation's archbishop.
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act.
Is that the King James constitution? The Douay constitution? Pretty sure it's not the Good News constitution...
5 comments:
He said he is going to talk about the issue. This is waht is known as using "The Bully Pulpit". There is a big difference between that and pursuing legislation. Also, just because he might be president does not exclude him from the first amendement thingy. How's that for an angry rebuttal?
"just because he might be president does not exclude him from the first amendement thingy."
Correct. It also doesn't shield him from criticism of his bone headed anti constitutional point of view by politically aware citizens.
Velcro: Your First Amendment point is favorably taken. Everyone, including the president, is allowed to speak freely. Trouble is, presidential free speech can too easily be packaged as an "executive order."
I love how scientific illiterates tell me how things are "supposed" to be.
I can't imagine living in that demon-haunted world...
Nobody has revoked Santorum's "first amendment" license to make a public idiot of himself. Congress has passed no such law I'm aware of.
But the last I heard, he was running, prominently, for president. Which means the things he says have consequence. Certainly for him, possibly for us. As Jim correctly said, 'free speech today, executive order tomorrow.'
He's not denouncing free contraceptives in ObamaCare. Hell, he's only tangentially denouncing contraceptives. What he's actually against is non-procreative sex!
Read what he said! "...it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act."
I'd find that a little weird in anybody, but not really objectionable so long as he's never in a position to impose his will on me. In a guy who might be the next prez, I find it scary.
But then, I happen to favor non-procreative sex. At my age, I favor it exclusively.
Post a Comment