The obligatory “Santorum ready to go after Internet porn as president” post

posted at 8:55 pm on March 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Noted social conservative notably socially conservative.”

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking…

Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.

Can he do that? Sure, says con law prof Eugene Volokh:

Santorum’s administration could take American-based porn distributors to court for violating obscenity laws, said Volokh, and have them shuttered. But that would leave foreign-based sites untouched.

To black out foreign sites, Santorum would likely need legislative action requiring Internet service providers to use “a mandatory filter set up by the government or by the service providers,” said Volokh.

But the government could also prosecute individual citizens who view porn, and already has the legal authority to do it.

“Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,” noted Volokh. “You can’t prosecute them all … but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions, he explained.

Here’s a quickie primer on the, er, ins and outs of First Amendment obscenity jurisprudence. The Miller test is key; note how much leeway there is potentially in the definitions of “community standards” and “patently offensive.” (Note too that Miller protects works that have “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” Under President Santorum, expect the genre of Shakespearean porn to explode.) Beyond what Volokh says, another way Santorum could get at Internet porn, ironically, is by helping porn studios to enforce the copyrights on their movies against the galaxy of piracy sites. That might actually be more palatable politically: When his opponents accuse him of squelching free speech, he could counter that he’s not trying to ban porn but rather to ensure that consumers pay the people who produced it. He’s a property rights guy! In that case, both sides get something they want — porn viewing would likely drop sharply overall since casual consumers won’t be willing to pay and revenue for porn studios would leap when devotees who can’t do without it decide to pony up. Imagine shelling out for a DVD and then finding yourself prosecuted by the Santorum DOJ. Double whammy.

Question: Why is this suddenly coming up now? Did the media simply notice a longstanding statement on Santorum’s website about porn or is he actively circulating it, presumably to counter the meme that he’s anti-woman? Plenty of women will appreciate his position on this, among them the right’s favorite liberal feminist. It’s not a position that Romney, Obama, or any other mainstream politician in America would lightly criticize him for either, even if they think it’s a threat to free speech and a ruinous waste of prosecution resources. Some reporter’s bound to ask Mitt about this in the coming days. What does he say? A la contraception, that we should just leave porn alone? Or that Santorum is right and it’s time for a crackdown, which will bug the hell out of libertarians but pose no problem to social conservatives? It’s time for a social-issues GOP civil war! Let’s do this.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

Ugh, I want a candidate who will beat Obama, do what is possible to reform our tax code, create an environment for strong economic growth and reform entitlement programs.

I don’t want a preacher-in-chief using government power to try to abolish “sin”! Who are you people voting for Rick Santorum? I would be EMBARRASSED with Rick Santorum as our nominee.

Obama must be defeated this November, and nominating someone like the judgemental, extreme social conservative Rick Santorum would all but ensure Obama’s reelection.

bluegill on March 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM

.

And how are you going to do that if you can’t be fair enough not to mock and to distort the political positions of Rick Santorum beyond recognition?

And how are you going to do that if you can’t be fair to and respectful of the views of potential coalition partners, coalition partners without whom you would be lucky to pull 5% of the 2012 vote?

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM

He’s really working hard to drive Libertarians and Independents away from the party.

SANTORUM = The only way the GOP can lose to Obama.

joncoltonis on March 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM

FIFY

SANTORUM Romneycare Romney = The only way the GOP can lose to Obama.

joncoltonis on March 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM

balkanmom on March 16, 2012 at 1:21 PM

He’s really working hard to drive Libertarians and Independents away from the party.

SANTORUM = The only way the GOP can lose to Obama.

joncoltonis on March 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM

.
Nonsense.

Ron Paul = The only way the GOP will lose to Obama.

Each of the remaining three candidates is problematic in his one way. Each has strengths. By Summer it could be clear that Romneycare will have doomed Romney’s candidacy. By Summer, Santorum ability to speak the language of Catholic social justice could be the winning ticket.

Each GOP candidate has flaws and each candidate has strengths and never forget Libertarian make up a small silver of the American electorate and fair or not any Libertarian candidate for POTUS would be crushed by DNC and MSM as a non-caring extremist and even as a freak.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Never mind the science behind how porn makes humans barbaric animal, ruins marriages, is addicting, is a real struggle for men to see women normally, shall I go on?

Gatekeeper on March 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM

He’s really working hard to drive Libertarians and Independents away from the party.

SANTORUM = The only way the GOP can lose to Obama.

joncoltonis on March 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM

.
Nonsense.

Ron Paul = The only way the GOP will lose to Obama.

Each of the remaining three candidates is problematic in his one way. Each has strengths. By Summer it could be clear that Romneycare will have doomed Romney’s candidacy. By Summer, Santorum’s ability to speak the language of Catholic social justice could be the winning ticket.

Each GOP candidate has flaws and each candidate has strengths, and never forget Libertarians make up a small silver of the American electorate and fair or not any Libertarian candidate for POTUS would be crushed by DNC and MSM as a non-caring extremist and even perhaps as a freak.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Never mind the science behind how porn makes humans barbaric animal, ruins marriages, is addicting, is a real struggle for men to see women normally, shall I go on?

Gatekeeper on March 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM

It’s also a 4 BILLION dollar industry. (according to Forbes.com)

Keeping in mind that you cannot stop people from watching Porn any more than you can keep them from stealing music. The best thing that an aggressive enforcement of the laws would cause is for the Internet Porn sites to move out of US Jurisdiction.

Example? A California city recently decided to enforce a condom law for Porn makers. So now the Porn Studios are looking to move to Nevada to avoid the law.

So instead of keeping that 4 BILLION in the US, you just kicked the economy in the head and gave it to someone else.

I’m sure China would LOVE to get their grubby little hands on 4 BILLION dollars worth of American Credit Card Numbers.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 16, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Never mind the science behind how porn makes humans barbaric animal, ruins marriages, is addicting, is a real struggle for men to see women normally, shall I go on?

Gatekeeper on March 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM

LOL.

“Science”, huh?

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I’m sure China would LOVE to get their grubby little hands on 4 BILLION dollars worth of American Credit Card Numbers.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 16, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Porn industry $ 4,000,000,000

Unfunded long-term Federal deficit $211,000,000,000,000

I say we give the Chicoms our $4 billion porn industry if they cancel all of the US Treasury T-bills they own in exchange.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 2:35 PM

ITguy on March 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM

This is a bit disingenous, although I do not think you are intentionally doing so.

You are taking the quotes of Founders like Washington and Adams out of their historical context. You are placing the same words in a modern world, rather than looking at them in the world in which they lived.

In the era in which the Founding Fathers lived, a church was the center of community activity. It was not just a place of worship, it was a where the community gathered for most community-wide gatherings and discussion. It was the center of their daily community life, extending far beyond just the religious activities. Every town square was built around a church, it was the one building that every town (and also had the space for the entire community to gather). In short, their churches were not our churches. Their churches were essentially a community center and a place for almost all community activity, both religious and non-religious, not like our churches which most people view as purely places to engage in religious services and activities.

So, when Washington or Adams spoke of the church as a pillar of society and it’s governance, they were speaking of a church as a center of the community not some requirement for any particular religion’s dogma as the basis for government. If they had wanted that, then what the point of the First Amendment be? In that time, they could easily have instituted a Christian based government It would have been easy and more widely accepted at a time when a larger percentage of the population was far more religious than today. But they didnt do that. Perhaps you have forgotten the Stamp Act, one of the biggest reasons contributing to their break from the British Crown? It was specifically to pay for the King’s Angilican Church. They didn’t want to pay for a church to which they did not belong. So, we have the First Amendment.

I will grant you that they understood the value of religion as a moral compass… they understood and valued it strongly. But they specifically avoided the codification of any religion into law. They rightly believed that moral teachings were the proper role of church in society, not the proper role of government. Maybe you aught to go dig up the many quotes where the Founding Fathers described an inherent understanding that churches were comprised of men, and men are inherently fallible by the teachigns of the very religions to which they adhere, and therefore those religions were inherently fallible. As they believed, only God is infallible, men are not. Government is always men ruling men, therefore all government is fallible because men are. In their thinking it logically followed that one cannot use fallible government to enforce fallible religion and declare it infallible in the name of God.

gravityman on March 16, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Ron Paul = The only way the GOP will lose to Obama.

Each of the remaining three candidates is problematic in his one way. Each has strengths. By Summer it could be clear that Romneycare will have doomed Romney’s candidacy. By Summer, Santorum ability to speak the language of Catholic social justice could be the winning ticket.

Each GOP candidate has flaws and each candidate has strengths and never forget Libertarian make up a small silver of the American electorate and fair or not any Libertarian candidate for POTUS would be crushed by DNC and MSM as a non-caring extremist and even as a freak.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Just when I think it couldn’t get any worse, a Santorum supporter starts shilling for Catholic social justice. Good gravy.

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Just when I think it couldn’t get any worse, a Santorum supporter starts shilling for Catholic social justice. Good gravy.

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Day after day, these “conservatives” here just expose themselves for who they truly are.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Day after day, these “conservatives” here just expose themselves for who they truly are.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 2:59 PM

It finally dawned on me why they support “conservatives” like Romney/Santorum/Gingrich: A lot of these conservatives are actually afraid of true freedom and are afraid of the consequences of losing their government goodies. But they talk a good game!

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”
― Thomas Jefferson

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM

From Commentary Magazine: Santorum Is His Own Worst Enemy

Actually, Santorum is the Republican Party’s Own Worst Enemy.

hepcat on March 16, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Just when I think it couldn’t get any worse, a Santorum supporter starts shilling for Catholic social justice. Good gravy.

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM

.

Yes Libratarians do seem to have inordinate difficulty playing well with others

I’m a Irish American Roman Catholic. I’m not a fellow who shrills for Catholic social justice because I’m a Neocon however I attend Mass no less than once a week and I am active in my parish etc. So I’ve regularly deal with Catholic laymen, religious and priests who think and live and talk Catholic social justice. I can talk to them and make meaning points with them. With that in mind I can tell you that no few of you would come across as repulsive extremists. You would alienate most of the Catholic voters Romney will need to win over in November. Your boneheaded intolerance and bigotry alone is enough to undermine any GOP coalition that could succeed.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM

We aren’t the ones in your post who are bigoted, but I will say that I am intolerant of neoconservatives, people who preach social justice, and people who are anti-freedom (and your charge that libertarians don’t play well with others is laughably ignorant).

If I may, I’d recommend you switch political parties; you’d be more at home in the Democratic Party.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM

… no few of you would come across as repulsive extremists. You would alienate most of the Catholic voters Romney will need to win over in November. Your boneheaded intolerance and bigotry alone is enough to undermine any GOP coalition that could succeed.

Just sayin’ …

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”
― Thomas Jefferson

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM

.

Good ol’ TJ preferred the bloodcurdling head choppers of the French Revolution … until of course the Black slaves of the French in Haiti caught the spirit and cast their White slave owners into a tempestuous sea of Liberty. Thereafter the French former slaveholders of Haiti fled to the Carolinas and Virginia and TJ changed his tune.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Good ol’ TJ preferred the bloodcurdling head choppers of the French Revolution … until of course the Black slaves of the French in Haiti caught the spirit and cast their White slave owners into a tempestuous sea of Liberty. Thereafter the French former slaveholders of Haiti fled to the Carolinas and Virginia and TJ changed his tune.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Yeah, that ol’ “TJ” was a real dum-dum. Do you attend mass at Father Phleger’s church?

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”
― Thomas Jefferson

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM

… TJ had a pretty good grasp on things if they were spelled out for him in black and white

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

… TJ had a pretty good grasp on things if they were spelled out for him in black and white …

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Are you a democrat?

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Talk about losing the silent majority…..

On a serious note, this is a good issue for Romney to confront Santorum with by stating the following: “The law on Pornogrophy is well settled that it is a local issue for local communities to deal with. As President, I will not waste one minute on a local matter. My Presidency will be focused on two things: Growing the Economy and Reducing Obama’s Debt Burden. This is why Santorum is not the right choice to go against Obama; he will allow Obama to use these peripheral issues to distract from the Economy and his Debt Burden.”

Santorum understands these issues fairly well, but he can’t help himself get distracted by these side issues. He will play right into Obama’s hand…

RedSoxNation on March 16, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Are you a democrat?

iwasbornwithit on March 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

… a long time registered Republican voter, financial supporter and occasional GOP volunteer … I never miss a GOP primary or a general election.

BTW TJ was a Democrat, founder of the Democratic party you know. Me? I’ll take Lincoln any day.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

On a serious note, this is a good issue for Romney to confront Santorum with by stating the following: “The law on Pornogrophy is well settled that it is a local issue for local communities to deal with. As President, I will not waste one minute on a local matter….

RedSoxNation on March 16, 2012 at 4:30 PM

.

Dude, Romney’s position is identical to Santorum’s! Both in effect point out that Attorney General Eric Holder is not enforcing current federal law on pornography (for which Attorney General Holder should be fired or impeached if Obama won’t fire him). Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, all three say they will enforce current federal law on pornography . Dude, that comes with the Oath of Office!

You guys playing right into Obama’s hand.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM

So, first we were all appalled and outrageously outraged at Santorum’s position on this issue, and now that we found out that Gingrich and Romney agree with him, we’re appalled that Santorum’s made it a “focus of his campaign.” Never mind that it’s the last thing on his priority list, this is proof that Sweater Vest is going to ignore the economy and other pressing issues, and bust into people’s bedrooms.

As much as I cringe at the use of this kind of rhetoric, I’m forced to, in this instance:

“Haters gonna hate.”

You Santorum haters really should be proud of your objectivity. Congratulations!

JannyMae on March 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

I will grant you that they understood the value of religion as a moral compass… they understood and valued it strongly. But they specifically avoided the codification of any religion into law.
gravityman on March 16, 2012 at 2:35 PM

.

The Founders specifically codified free practice of Religion into the Bill of Rights and that free practice included enacting a lot of Christian morality into law such as: thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false testimony ( commit perjury). What they specifically avoided codifying into federal law was specifically Religious Establishment, such as making the Anglican Church or the Presbyterian church the official government supported church of the USA. An Establishment of a Religion, it is a specific thing. It is what the Church of England is in Britain.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You Santorum haters really should be proud of your objectivity. Congratulations!

JannyMae on March 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

.

They’re playin’ right into David Axerod’s hands!

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

… TJ had a pretty good grasp on things if they were spelled out for him in black and white …

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

And then only after he saw the results of his rabble-rousing, pseudo-democratic anarchistic beliefs in France and Haiti. After which it was a bit too late to undo the damage…

MelonCollie on March 16, 2012 at 5:23 PM

BTW TJ was a Democrat, founder of the Democratic party you know. Me? I’ll take Lincoln any day.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Like I said, you’d find more like-minded people in the Democratic Party. Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

The Founders specifically codified free practice of Religion into the Bill of Rights and that free practice included enacting a lot of Christian morality into law such as: thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false testimony ( commit perjury).

Those are pretty universal and basic laws in most religions, not just Christianity (whether supposedly religious people adhere to them or not is another matter, in any religion). You really don’t even need a religion to figure those basic common sense moral rules out all by yourself, that is why they can be codified in law under our system. Each and every one of those rules would violate another person’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, hence why they are easy without any reference to religion. All I need to know in order to divine those rules is “your rights end where mine begin” and the good ol’ “golden rule”.

And FYI, Lincoln was one of the biggest violators of our rights of any President in our history (suspension of writ of habeus corpus anyone?). Granted, his situation was rather unique from that faced by any other President, but that doesn’t really excuse some of his violations of our basic rights.

gravityman on March 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

The Founders specifically codified free practice of Religion into the Bill of Rights and that free practice included enacting a lot of Christian morality into law such as: thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false testimony ( commit perjury). What they specifically avoided codifying into federal law was specifically Religious Establishment, such as making the Anglican Church or the Presbyterian church the official government supported church of the USA. An Establishment of a Religion, it is a specific thing. It is what the Church of England is in Britain.

Mike OMalley on March 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You realize the Ten Commandments predates Christianity, right? Besides, morality existed before religions ever did.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

WTF?

This guy does much better when he focuses on more important issues. Is he not capable of understanding this? Of the myriad of economic, fiscal, foreign policy & domestic problems that demand discussion… This guy chooses to focus on this crap?

Work on the priorities first, and stop being a Santmoron.

Danny on March 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

over 800 posts and its not about Palin and I could not find
Dr. Tesla ‘s name on post.

must be an important thread.

LOL

gerrym51 on March 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Never mind the science behind how porn makes humans barbaric animal, ruins marriages, is addicting, is a real struggle for men to see women normally, shall I go on?

Gatekeeper on March 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM

“Science” also shows how damaging alcohol is. Should we bring back prohibition? Would certainly put a damper on the HA drinking games…

For the record I don’t disagree about the damaging nature of porn. I am just hesitant of the government’s role in enforcing morality.

gotsig on March 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Let me edit my first sentence to “… how damaging alcohol can be“.

gotsig on March 16, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The obligatory “Santorum ready to go after Internet porn as president” post

He’s going about this the wrong way.

All he needs to do is:

1) ban the internet and porn will not be able to be seen on it, or
2) ban porn and the internet will not be able to show it, or
3) ban sex and there will be no porn to be shown on the internet.

He should ban all three, just to be sure.

rukiddingme on March 16, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Ya know I really can’t believe Allah didn’t do a follow up on this post. Considering that Romney, and Gingrich have made the exact same promises and statement to go after obscenity.

Allah, its all over twitter, you are usually better at this.

TendStl on March 16, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Actually, I did… which was the whole point… since Sanctimonious is Catholic…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM

No..You’re sanctimonius..the Catholics are a religion. you may believe or not and that is all

DevilsPrinciple on March 16, 2012 at 9:31 PM

You are a weird person.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM

That’s what all the uneducated misandrists like you say

DevilsPrinciple on March 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Internet porn is a problem, but if we Republicans want to win in November, we need to be presenting ourselves as the adult, patriotic party whose priorities are the national debt, the balancing of the budget by cutting spending, the repeal of ObamaCare, the making of America more economically competitive, the development of energy so that we are not paying $5 or more a gallon of gas, the preservation of American military power, the protection of America from radical Islamists, the reinstitution of Reagan Adminstration pro-life policies, the appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench, the support of traditional marriage and the return of power to the state and local governments from the federal government.

Phil Byler on March 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Prominent homophobic bigot Rick Santorum now wants to stop adults from being able to look at porn on the internet?

This freak Santorum has more than a sick obsession with the sex lives of people he doesn’t know. First the retrograde bigot Rick Santorum supports government bans on private, consensual homosexual activity between adults, and now this?

Rick Santorum is a joke, and I’d be EMBARRASSED to have him as our nominee.

Anyone who votes for Rick “Porn Police” Santorum is voting for another 4 years or Barack Obama, since Rick Santorum as the nominee would guarantee an Obama landslide reelection victory.

A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Barack Obama’s Reelection

bluegill on March 16, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Why does Rick ‘Sanctimonious’ always have to comment on things like this that common sense tells you that every candidate would feel the same about. He makes it a major issue instead of focusing on the real issues of the day (economy, jobs, etc.) that people want to have addressed.

It is understandable why he lost his Senate seat in an overwhelming defeat. The guy is really disorganized, failing to get on all the ballots in Ohio, Illinois, and Virginia, and not even completing in America Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Virgin Islands, and blowing his only visit to Puerto Rico. He and Gingrich should drop out now. Their egos keep them in, and hoping for a brokered convention. A brokered convention will assure Obama of another 4 years and will bring major changes that he still intends to make in this country.

lhuffman34 on March 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Internet porn is a problem, but if we Republicans want to win in November, we need to be presenting ourselves as the adult, patriotic party whose priorities are the national debt, the balancing of the budget by cutting spending, the repeal of ObamaCare, the making of America more economically competitive, the development of energy so that we are not paying $5 or more a gallon of gas, the preservation of American military power, the protection of America from radical Islamists, the reinstitution of Reagan Adminstration pro-life policies, the appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench, the support of traditional marriage and the return of power to the state and local governments from the federal government.

Phil Byler on March 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Maybe for you it is, so find your own personal solution for your own “problem”.

Dante on March 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM

There are endless morality laws on the books, especially on State levels.
Nobody prosecutes these.

The porn industry has been the subject of token prosecutions, and there are the stories of PTA Presidents getting busted for running sex toy mail order companies out of their homes, and making the mistake of shipping across State lines, etc.

For Santorum to fall for this and suggest it would be part of his 2012 platform?…is batty.

The way the GOP wins is if they 1) stop their own from crossing over to Obama this time, and 2) win the small margin of Independent voters needed to get elections. 3) Electorate hijinx.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 17, 2012 at 4:20 PM

All that’s needed is for Christianity to be allowed to be practiced out in the general public, on public property, without any anxiety of being “charged” with a a crime.

If that SCOTUS decision were overturned, ‘public stigma’ would take care of the rest of it, WITHOUT any arrests, or courts being clogged with illegal porography cases.

No more laws, no more “Santorum Inquisition” police (like me) running around spying on your bedrooms, Motel rooms, parked vehicles (especially trucks or vans with astro-turf), haylofts, the Mens room at gay bars, etc.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2012 at 12:04 AM

What are you talking about? Stonings or something? If you think criminal laws are holding you back from being a good Christian, something is wrong with you, your church, or your concept of Christianity, if not all of the above.

Were you being satirical?

contrarytopopularbelief on March 18, 2012 at 3:19 AM

Is it really so shocking that the same guy that wants to make birth control among married Protestants a campaign issue also wants to ban pornography?

Like this gem of a quote from him:

“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.”

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.”

BradTank on March 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM

.

Emphasis added.
.

Scary, yes? Rick Santorum wants to talk about cultural changes which significantly contributed to the emergence of the Underclass in American, 2/3 of American poverty, significant damage to American children; and changes which are now contributing to the demographic collapse of Europe. And it is not like the demographic collapse of Europe does not at this very moment threaten to cause a second worldwide Great Depression. And it is not like the demographic collapse of Europe is not emerging as having substantially contributed to the American economic crisis of 2008.
.

Is it scary that an American leader has emerged who understands that it is important that we begin a national conversation about some of the destructive cultural changes which we have experienced since the 1960s? Or is it scary that any American who wishes to hold such a conversation risks relentless vilification and demonization?

Mike OMalley on March 18, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9