Posted on 04/22/2003 3:35:45 PM PDT by Brian S
Tue April 22, 2003 05:51 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on Tuesday ignored calls that he apologize and resign from his Senate leadership post as he defended comments he made comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. "My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles," Santorum said in a brief news release issued by his office.
In an interview with the Associated Press published on Monday, Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, discussed a Texas sodomy law now being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"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," Santorum was quoted as saying. "You have the right to anything."
The court is considering if the Texas law violates privacy rights and unfairly targets same-sex couples or if the state has a legitimate interest in setting moral standards.
In his statement on Tuesday, Santorum said: "When discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws."
"In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars, and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws," Santorum said.
"My discussion ... was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution," Santorum said.
His comments on Monday ignited a firestorm of criticism from some Democrats as well as gay rights groups, a number of whom demanded an apology.
In addition, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) called on Santorum on Tuesday to step down as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the No. 3 job in the party's leadership. A DSCC spokesman called his comments "divisive, hurtful and reckless."
"Senator Santorum has no reason to apologize," a spokesman for Santorum said, adding that the senator was ignoring as unwarranted the Democratic call to step down.
The flap comes four months after Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi was forced to step down as Senate Republican leader for racially charged remarks.
"Yet another Republican member of Congress has insulted an entire group of Americans," Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe said on Tuesday.
At the White House, press secretary Ari Fleischer had no comment on the matter, saying, "I have not seen the entire context of the interview" and had not discussed it with Bush.
An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).
AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?
SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.
The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this while idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.
AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold - Griswold was the contraceptive case - and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you - this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy - you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
Did he endorse Trent Lott's right to say what he did? Did you?
This is what happens when you let Democrats believe they can railroad Republicans. In Lott's case, Republicans piled on too.
Response for Santorum: I am completely disgusted and utterly revolted that the democrat party equates being black with buggery.
Yes, that is right if with someone who has reached the age of majority, and is of sound mind. And that is how it should be. Oh yes, the comment about polygamy is stupid, because that implies two legal wives, which is not a privacy issue. And is Santorum suggesting that adultery should be illegal? Santorum gets the award for the dumbest comment of the week, although as I say I agree with it, but not as a rationale for the court continuing to deem anti-sodomy laws as constitutional.
Well, that's allegedly two (although I disagree); what do the Rats have to say for themselves? The entire Rat party is an insult to all Americans.
I agree. He had asked that everyone read the interview to get the "context."
Well,the context of "man-on-dog" makes it worse, Senator, not better.
I'm not sure why he ever started talking about this in the first place. It's read meat for some, even on here, but he's likely to be out there on his own with this one.
I don't think you'll see one single Republican Senator defending him.
He was trying to argue an arcane slippery-slope legal point, and instead starts talking about bigamy and men-with-dogs.
He said "nothing I said should be construed as a comment on individual lifestyle." In fact, it's all about lifestyles and he knows it.
States could very easily outlaw adultery just like sodomy and incest and bestiality. Would such laws be generally enforceable? Doubtful, but it's up to the state to decide. Adultery and incest and anal sex aren't the constitutional rights you think they are.
Bigamy and polygamy are a little different but related.
You just have to attack everything to do with Judeo-Christian morality, don't you? Abortion, gay rights, who knows what you think about assisted suicide, stem cell research, et al.
Trent Lott was just trying to make an old man happy on his 100th birthday, and he got branded a racist a month later.
What's with the "man-on-dog" stuff? Was he being intentionally inflammatory?
Polls have consistently shown that most blacks agree.
Gay activists are launching yet another an anti-family offensive and many FReepers are cheering them on. It's disgusting.
If anything, states are going in the other direction.
Laws on the books that are not enforced ought to be repealed.
There is no comparison between this and what Lott said. In fact, for all you people obviously peeing your pants on this this thread, if the DNC pushes hard on this for him to step down and he doesn't I'm telling you this will blow up in their faces.
Santorum is pretty sharp, from what little I've seen. He could come out of this a champion of political incorrectness if he's articulate, just stop leading the charge for his head!
He mentioned bestiality as a deviant sexual behavior. What, like it doesn't exist? Talk to the animal rights people, ask 'em how many cases have been prosecuted, not to mention how many go unreported. And you attack Santorum for MENTIONING it???
Geez, what's y'all's problem here? The HRC screams "Santorum Hates Gays" and you blame SANTORUM??????
THAT is the defeatism in the conservative movement, people like y'all.
Nice of you to join up to support the militant gays' attack on Senator Santorum.
I'm sure you'll be here for a long time, too.
I'm with you for the most part but I have to disagree with this statement. While some may "choose" homosexuality (though I doubt it), for most it is "chosen" for them by either troubled parental relationships or abuse at an age before sxuality should be a defining issue in their lives.
Let's see if this works:
Black activists and Democrats are, after Lott's remarks, launching yet another attempt to brand the GOP as racist, and lots of FReepers are cheering them on.
This won't be as big a deal as Lott's, since you won't get any Republicans openly opposing what he said.
But you won't find many (if any) agreeing with him, either.
Uh, isn't this statement true? If the Constitution prohibits the state from regulating consensual sex within the home, then it prohibits the regulation of all forms of such activity. I don't see any principled basis under the Constitution for differentiating gay sex from the other forms listed above (and several others that are not listed). I can understand why gay activists are unhappy with this outcome, but, unless I am really missing something here, I don't think they can refute the argument.
There is no other way to say it, and this makes me so angry; The conservatives running for cover and condemning the Senator is so pathetic. How can consertatives ever hold a majority with these empty cans rattling the most canibalizing our own to silence the DNC Chairman?
I would wager that most Americans would not equate homosexuals with men who like to mount mares.
Santorum should shut his mouth. He's not helping himself with his explanations.
Ten-to-one he addresses a gay group before this is over.
This is not a hugh deal. What Santorum said is perfectly normal, unless you're a left-wing extremist who believes gay sex is a constitutional right while gun ownership isn't! LOL!
Rick, tell 'em to shove it!
Polygamy, bigamy, even adultery involve harm to a third party. Consensual sex between unmarried adults is nobody else's business.
I know, right! Some would say PAT TOOMEY!, but granitestateconservative would object strenuously and demand MELISSA HART!
Both are pretty dang close to clones of the Senator's compassionate conservatism!
That's exactly what Santorum has a problem with!
Senator Santorum is not out there on his own. I'm with him because he is absolutely and totally correct in what he is saying. Thank God we have at least a few people in our society who are willing to stand up for the TRUTH.
Singing of 'Onward, Christian Soldiers', of course, is optional...
I was born Catholic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.