In Defence of Sen. Rick Santorum - Criticism of Gay Sex Acts is Not Equal to Racism

myself

[AveMaria]

If the Moderator will permit me, I want to post this message to express my concerns over the hysterical attacks on Sen. Rick Santorum, by the organized gay lobby.

I am new here, and I just registered, after having been a lurker for 3 weeks. I am from Philadelphia, and my representatives in the Senate are Arlen Spector and Rick Santorum. I am a political independent, who is fiscally liberal but conservative on social issues (I admire FDR, Truman, and LBJ). I have strong disagreements with Sen. Santorum's political philosophy mostly over issues concerning the poor and underprivileged in Philadelphia, and because I am from the Social Justice tradition of the Catholic Church, while he is more of a Calvinized Catholic on economic and social justice issues. But I take the teachings of the Church on traditional morality and family, very seriously. And part of those teachings obligate me to defend Santorum, a man I disagree with vigorously on economic issues, if I feel that he is being attacked unfairly. Here are some of the myths I want to challenge, as a way to help those who want to defend Santorum among progressive circles:

MYTH #1: The Constitution guarantees a right to Privacy.

The reality is that there is no right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution. There are many things you could do within the privacy of your own home that are illegal. It is illegal to use drugs in your own home, even if you may be using marijuana you cultivated as a potted plant at home, and did not buy from a dealer. And as Sen. Santorum pointed out so eloquently, polygamy, bigamy and Incest are illegal, even when practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own home. What Sen. Santorum was trying to say is that - if a state has absolutely no right to regulate homosexual sodomy on privacy grounds, then on what legal basis would the state challenge a man living with three women, or a father having an affair with his 21 year old daughter?

MYTH #2: Sen. Santorum's statement challenged those strongly committed to diversity and multi-culturalism.

On the contrary. Most of the world's cultures and major religions do not agree on much. But one thing they all agree on, is that homosexual acts (not people) are sinful, repugnant, disgusting, sick, nauseating, and perverse. That is true if you are a traditionalist Catholic, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a conservative Protestant, an Orthodox Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a traditionalist Buddhist, a Sikh, etc. Even the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan Muslims, who has ties to Hollywood elites, is on record as having described homosexuality as a sin. I was amazed to discover that even the peace-loving and Pacifist Bahais, oppose gay sex acts. What more multi-culturalism can you ask for?

MYTH #3: Criticism of homosexual Acts is the same as racism.

So many people have suffered from the pain of racism in the past, and there are many racial minorities who suffer today in terms of housing discrimination, discrimination in department stores, restaurant tables, and other humiliations. Too often in the past, the Christian Church failed to forcefully condemn racial bigotry as a sin. As a way to compensate for such glaring injustice, many well meaning white liberal Christians who care about social justice issues as much as I do, are too willing to endorse deviant acts as "okay", as a way to prove to themselves that they are not bigots.

But they fail to realize the fact that sodomy is BEHAVIORAL ACT, and not an unchangeable physiological feature like skin color. The pain of racism is very real, because people cannot change their skin color. But men can will themselves not to commit acts of sodomy, by keeping their pants zipped up. Racial minorities understand this very clearly, and that is why a majority of blacks and hispanics in California supported the recent ballot proposition defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

MYTH #4: Texas sodomy laws punish people for who they are, not what they do, because gays are born that way.

Let us assume that homosexuality is partly genetic. If you go to any state with sodomy laws, and declare publicly that your orientation is homosexual, you will not be arrested. But if the state learns that you dropped your pants and "did it" with someone of the same gender, that constitutes a sex act in violation of the sodomy laws. You are not being punished for your self-declared orientation. You are being punished for specific sex acts. Get it?

Another example. My family has a long history of alcoholism, and I believe that alcoholism is genetic and runs in families. But, although I am genetically inclined toward alcoholism, I do not fear being arrested on a DUI, simply because of my Irish alcoholic genes. In order to be arrested, I actually have to go to a pub, fill my gut with alcohol, and then drive recklessly on the freeway. But if I can keep my "alcohol genes" under control, then so can a person with a "gay" orientation.

[AveMaria]

Rick Santorum cannot be allowed suffer what Trent Lott (deservedly) faced. Rick Santorum was merely stating what the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in, including a majority of blacks, hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans.

[RAT Patrol]

Nicely done, AveMaria. We'll work on your fiscal beliefs another day. ;)

[Tijeras_Slim]

Nice job, and welcome to the non-lurking world.

[MEG33]

He was commenting on the law...this is just the latest piling on ploy.It won't stay an issue except for the desperate libs.

[aruanan]

You may have missed the news that it was the news service that inserted "gay" into Santorum's remarks, changing considerably their context and meaning.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Your "fiscal beliefs" are in series danger if you hang out here long enough. If you have come here a confused Republician, you will find yourself to be an informed Republician pretty soon. Don't be afraid to admit you have made mistakes in the past. To err is human....Welcome to the other side.

[Senator_Blutarski]

Most of the recorded history of mankind has chronicled our attempts to rise above the other animal species and above our animal instincts. Now the homosexual community wants to drag us back down there by defining their existence in terms of abnormal sexual acts.

What does it say about homosexuals when they define their entire existence in terms of their bedroom behavior?

[Remedy]

BUMP!

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

is fiscally liberal ...(I admire... LBJ).

Why would anyone do that to themselves? Just teasin' As a fellow Catholic, welcome to FR AveMaria.

Interesting points. Particuarly the Right to Privacy Judicial Activist myth. I wasn't particuarly interested in this issue until Santorum said it so well. It really is a slippery slope.

Despite paranoia to the contrary, I think this principled stand brings more people to the GOP than it repels.

[Kuksool]

Great thread. Santorum ought to tell John "Ketchup" Kerry, Howard Dean and other liberals to pound sand.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Ahh, my political foil the populist. Greetings. Here are my questions:

1) Just because a majority of people believe something to be bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. And whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, the right to privacy has been established as part of the United States Constitution. We have precedent. That whole unreasonable search and seizures thing is pretty clear though. Do we really want our government to get bigger and bigger to the point it is knocking on people's bedroom doors to find out what they are doing?

2) Since when has this government, or any other government, been successful in regulating morality onto people's hearts? Homosexual intercourse is definitely a sin. So is sex between unmarried men and women, and so is sex where birth control is used, and so is sex where the partners do not love each other. This is Catholic doctrine on sex. Eating pork is a sin to many groups, but should it be illegal? What if those people who believed it was a sin were a majority?

3) Since when does Conservative mean giving the government more powers?

4) Polygamy and bigamy aren't just illegal because they're immoral. They are illegal because it (unfairly, in my opinion) allows 30, 40, or 50 year old men to enslave 13 year old girls as one of their "wives".

5) Incest is bad because it creates the possibility of horribly mutated children.

[AveMaria]

[....Your "fiscal beliefs" are in series danger if you hang out here long enough. If you have come here a confused Republician, you will find yourself to be an informed Republician pretty soon....]

Not likely, although Bush's message of compassionate conservatism, did tempt me. Unfortunately, I was travelling overseas at the time, and did not get an opportunity to vote in 2000.

Pennsylvanians who care about social justice are proud, in that they elected the late Bob Casey, as Democratic Governor. He was both pro-life, and supported strong government support for the poor: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0008/opinion/george.html

But when the Democrats refused to allow Bob Casey to address their national convention, I ended my 30 year membership in the Democratic Party (as did many other pro-life Democrats), and became an registered independent.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Glad you brought up Myth #3. Comparing what a person does with their orifices (like you said, an act) to a person's ethnic identity is ridiculous.

I'm waiting to see how long it will take for another group who uses some different apparatus (or species) for gratification to claim special status.

[drlevy88]

There is a method in their "madness." It's being likened to race now. Wait for the sads to liken it to religion.

[Torie]

Santorum is basically against all sex acts outside of marriage, and wants to make them all illegal, because they "undermine the family." The man is an extremist. Few agree with that point of view.

Regarding the right of privacy, polygamy and bigamy are legal states, not sex acts, and inapposite. One could reasonably argue there is a compelling state interest ban incest that trumps the privacy right, that does not obtain to banning sodomy.

I think Santorum's career may well end with his current term. It certainly should. JMO.

[AveMaria]

[....Polygamy and bigamy aren't just illegal because they're immoral. They are illegal because it (unfairly, in my opinion) allows 30, 40, or 50 year old men to enslave 13 year old girls as one of their "wives".....]

1. Does that mean that you wouldn't object to polygamy, if it involved a 50 year old man, and five women in their twenties (i.e. Clinton's fantasy world)? If privacy is a constitutional right, then on what basis would you object to a polygamist living with five wives who are all consenting adults?

2. If a 60 year old man decided to marry his 30 year old daughter, then on what basis can society object to that marriage, if the right to privacy is absolute?

Rick Santorum was making the same point I am raising on those two issues. Our laws have to reflect our values, and community standards have to be observed. Changing the Texas law is the responsibility of the state legislature, not the courts.

[Kuksool]

Pretty soon the liberal media will brand Santorum as the new Jesse Helms.

[lilylangtree]

"gays are born that way"

Absolutely NOT! Don't fall for the line. Homosexuality is a choice.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Underclassman,

Stay in school. My favorite part of your rant was when you accused this admitted more liberal-independent of 3) Since when does Conservative mean giving the government more powers?

HA! That's great, way to beat that straw man. Why don't you save that zinger for someone it relates to? Did you even read anything they wrote?

I won't even bother refuting all your sometimes extreme-always totally wrong-NAMBLA wing of the Liberatarian Party points, but one that really bugged me;

Don't soil the arguement of those against greater government intrusion by claiming that something is in the Constitution because whether you like it or not...We have precedent. How offensively hypocritical and ignorant.

[JimVT]

I agree with much of your statement but some of your comments puzzle me.

"Rick Santorum cannot be allowed suffer what Trent Lott (deservedly) faced."

Lott apologized profusely and to every known species of humanity for his offhand remark, got hammered incessantly and lost his leadership role.

Trent Lott said:"You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today," Lott was quoted as saying of Thurmond in a November 3, 1980, article in The Clarion-Ledger, a Jackson newspaper.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, Friday called the Lott comments "a salute to bigotry."

I need not comment on Kennedy who represents "a salute to manslaughter."