[mabelkitty]

Wrong. This isn't about politics for Rick Santorum - this is about his faith.

The First Amendment protects his faith, and if he wants to speak out about, well dang, there's that pesky little amendment to back it up.

[Shroom]

And if Saint Torum continues to use his religion to make public policy, he will religate the Republicans to minority status for decades to come.

If he wants to preach his faith, let him become a minister, not an elected official.

[Regulator]

Actually, it isn't about his faith. It's simply about whether a state has the right to make a law regulating private behavior of any sort. If there is an all encompassing "right to privacy" which proscribes the passage of any law that regulates private consensual behavior, then

• The laws against prostitution are unconstitutional
• The laws against assisted suicide are unconstitutional
• The laws against drug use in your home are unconstitutional
• And as Santorum said, a whole host of laws defining the relationships acceptable to this society are unconstitutional.

That's his point and it's well worth taking. Does a society have the right to pass laws to define the structure of itself? If the Constitution says "no", then what have we been doing the last 220 years? Was it all a big mistake?

The question isn't whether homosexual acts or bigamy or polygamy or whatever is good or bad. The question is, does the Constitution forbid us from deciding, through the state legislatures, whether they are good or bad for us as a society.