Let’s Pretend
Barney Frank, Congressman,
4th District, Massachusetts, May 6, 2003
Washington Office: 2252 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5931
Congressman Frank Issued the Following Statement Today
Contact: Peter Kovar 202-225-9400
Dorothy Reichard 617-332-3920
“My occasional interactions with Concerned Women for
America have made it very clear that their grip on reality is extremely
tenuous, but I had not expected the organization to confirm this voluntarily.
“Apparently disappointed with the efforts that their
fellow right-wingers have made to defend the notion that people should be
subject to criminal conviction for private consenting sex acts between adults,
the Concerned Women have distributed a primer on how to argue the case. Oddly,
even for them, this takes the form of a “hypothetical Q & A with Rep.
Frank.”
“The document consists of an imaginary dialogue between
me and a debater imaginatively named “Answer” in which I ask a series of
questions, some of which are fatuous and few of which I have ever asked, only
to receive answers from Answer that are meant to refute these positions.
“What is interesting is that even in this format in
which they make up the questions and provide the answers, the Concerned Women
of America don’t seem to me to do very well in the debate. I am reminded of
the hapless candidate who debated an empty chair and lost the debate.
“Since I have in fact debated right-wing
representatives on this issue on several occasions recently, with transcripts
available from TV shows, it is telling that they eschew the use of what I’ve
actually said in favor of debating me by imputing to me a variety of things
that they have made up. I am impressed at least by their self-knowledge—they
seem to realize that reality is not something they are good at.”
A copy of the “script” is attached.
#####
Q&A: How to Answer Barney Frank on the Rick Santorum Issue 4/24/2003
By Robert Knight
Editor’s note: The Associated Press reported that Sen.
Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), referencing the upcoming Supreme Court ruling
on the legality of Texas’ sodomy law in Lawrence
v. Texas, said, “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.” The Log Cabin
Republicans, the Human Rights Campaign and other homosexual pressure groups
are calling for Mr. Santorum to step down from his No. 3 leadership post in
the Senate. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), openly homosexual himself,
has been commenting on the issue. In the interest of equipping pro-family
Americans with answers to probable questions that arise in the media, here is
a hypothetical Q&A with Rep. Frank.
REP. FRANK: Trent Lott once compared gay people to
kleptomaniacs. Isn’t Sen. Santorum doing the same thing?
ANSWER: No. Trent Lott was right about the nature
of addictions, including sexual addiction, but this is different. Sen.
Santorum was rightly pointing out that removing the state’s ability to
regulate any private sexual conduct would mean legalizing incest, bigamy, and
here’s one he didn’t say but would be likely—prostitution. No community
can survive without marriage and families, and families cannot thrive in
sexual anarchy. I’d like to see you explain to the wrecked generations down
the road why we removed even the most sensible restraints and incentives to
channel sex into marriage.
REP. FRANK: “But gay people can’t get married.
Does this mean you support gay marriage?”
ANSWER: Two men or two women don’t make a
marriage. Or three people, for that matter. You’re talking about a
counterfeit. Marriage is the joining of the two sexes. And marriage loses when
we create counterfeits. Given the high divorce rate and its destructive
consequences, we should be strengthening marriage, not creating substitutes.
Also, the state has no business creating incentives for people to continue
being trapped in destructive or immoral behavior. That’s anything but
compassionate.
REP. FRANK: Some states criminalize sodomy even
between a married couple. Do you think a married couple ought to be thrown in
jail for what they do in bed?
ANSWER: The Texas law is specific to homosexuality
because, Congressman, the marital bed IS sacrosanct. What a husband and wife
do is none of the state’s business, unless they take it outdoors. But
because sex outside marriage is so harmful and destructive, particularly
homosexual sex, it IS the state’s business to lay down markers based on
public health and morality. That’s why we have laws against prostitution,
incest, and bigamy. This behavior hurts not only individuals but also
communities.
REP. FRANK: But some states criminalize oral sex
between married people? I ask you again, would you have them jailed?
ANSWER: It’s not up to me or you, Congressman.
It’s up to the people to decide where the lines are drawn, based on public
health and morality. The medical data are clear: Homosexual sex is profoundly
unhealthy, leading to an increased risk of AIDS, human papillomavirus,
hepatitis A, B, and C, syphilis, gonorrhea, “gay bowel syndrome,” tearing
of the rectum, and other consequences.
REP. FRANK: But do you personally believe that
oral sex is wrong, even for a married couple? Answer the question!
ANSWER: You know, Congressman, you might have a
keen interest in sitting here discussing various sex acts, but I don’t. This
is a legal, political and social question.
REP. FRANK: You mentioned morality? Whose
morality? Yours? Mine?
ANSWER: How about Nature’s morality, or if you
will, God’s, which is universal. Natural law says that homosexual sodomy is
unhealthy, immoral and dangerous, which is why societies all over the world
have discouraged it. But in our democratic system, the people set the rules.
If the Supreme Court decides that Texans can’t take public health and
morality into effect when making laws, it will be an act of tyranny.
REP. FRANK: There, you brought up God. You’re
trying to impose your views on me and that’s why I take it personally.
ANSWER: Again, it’s not up to you or me. Or a
court. The people should decide these issues, not a few judges. Courts have
too much power and need to be curbed. If the people of Texas want to scrap the
law, that’s their business. But they have every right to keep it, too.
[Home] [Editorials]
[Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
