Santorum痴
Big Mouth
United
Press International (Unification Church), April 25, 2003
By Michael Kirkland, UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
WASHINGTON?Want to know what痴
the buzz among the Washington media corps?
The favorite topic among reporters in the nation痴
capital isn稚 the ongoing situation in Iraq.
It isn稚 the threat of nuclear weapons from North
Korea.
It isn稚 the president痴 chance of being re-elected
in 2004.
It isn稚 the frightening advance of severe acute
respiratory syndrome祐ARS.
It痴 not even the war against terrorism, or the odds of
getting charred if Osama bin Laden sets off a radioactive 電irty bomb?
near the office.
What has the Washington media talking is a comment by
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., on homosexual sex.
The inside story is that the senator痴 words were even
more picturesque than originally reported. Santorum痴 comments were so
beyond the pale, the shaken interviewer had to call for a break to get back on
track.
Last month, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the
Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy.
The challengers, a gay Houston couple rousted from the
privacy of their bedroom by police answering a phony weapons call, argue that
the Texas law is unconstitutional in two ways:
It bans sodomy for homosexuals, but not for
heterosexuals, in violation of the Constitution痴 guarantee of equal
treatment under the law.
And it violates an intrinsic 菟rivacy and liberty
interest? implicit in the Constitution and that guarantees consenting adults
the right to do what they want in the bedroom.
Santorum said the danger is in the second
proposition擁f the Supreme Court rules that there is indeed such a
菟rivacy and liberty interest? for consensual sex, then anything goes.
If government can稚 ban homosexual acts, the senator
reasoned, then it can稚 ban 菟olygamy,? 澱igamy,? 妬ncest? or
殿dultery.? The senator also apparently mentioned a form of trans-species
sex, but that was left out of the final published interview.
In an odd way, Santorum was making a legitimate point.
If the Supreme Court finds a 菟rivacy and liberty
interest? for private homosexual conduct, then all government耀tate, local
and national謡ill lose its grip on the bedroom.
The senator thinks that will be a bad thing and many
people agree with him. Many don稚, but that痴 what makes America such an
interesting place.
Santorum痴 problem is not in his analysis but in his
extremely poor choice of words. In the interview, he seemed to be equating
homosexuals with incestuous step-fathers, polygamous mountain men and a
peculiar breed of animal lovers.
That kind of comparison was tough to stomach publicly,
even for compassionate conservatives.
The truth is that in Washington too many gays and
lesbians are out of the closet for this kind of dreck to pass for wisdom.
Everybody has a gay cousin or friend or co-worker. There are gays working in
the White House. There are even gays on congressional staffs.
They all seem pretty normal to me.
Many Republicans, probably after watching an episode of
展ill and Grace,? are scrambling to put some distance between themselves
and Santorum痴 comments.
Democrats are jumping on the interview as if it were a
piece of red meat.
Some are calling for Santorum to step down from his
leadership position in the Senate祐en. Trent Lott, R-Miss., had to step down
as majority leader last year after publicly musing how nice it would have been
if the racist Dixiecrats had defeated Harry Truman in 1948.
What flabbergasts Washington insiders, and I知 sure
other Republican leaders, is that Santorum is no neophyte, and his misstep
came so soon after Lott痴.
Santorum is a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania; he didn稚
just fall off the turnip truck. He痴 the third-ranking Republican in the
Senate, serving since 1995. According to his own official biography, he痴
殿 high profile spokesman for the party.?
What痴 worse is that Santorum still doesn稚 get it.
In a statement released earlier this week, the senator
claimed to have been blind-sided by a 杜isleading? story. The interview
was supposed to have been a 菟rofile迫read puff piece葉alking about
his eight years in the Senate.
展hen discussing the pending Supreme Court Case
Lawrence vs. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the
broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws,? Santorum said
in the statement.
The senator said he was just echoing the concerns of
constitutional scholars.
的 am a firm believer that all are equal under the
Constitution,? he added. 溺y comments should not be misconstrued in any
way as a statement on individual lifestyles.?
Fair enough.
In the end, the Supreme Court will probably agree with
Santorum.
Most of the justices will not find a 菟rivacy and
liberty interest? that protects consenting adults from government snooping
in the bedroom.
At least I don稚 think they will, though there is an
outside chance, given their comments from the bench during last month痴
argument.
But a majority of the justices almost certainly will
agree with the senator that 殿ll are equal under the Constitution,? and
will strike down the Texas statute on that basis.
[Home] [Editorials]
[Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]