Question
for Santorum
Washington
Times (Unification Church), April 25, 2003
3600 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002
Fax: 202-269-3419
Email: letter@twtmail.com
The Weekly Dish
By Andrew Sullivan
The senator from Pennsylvania made some valid points
about Constitutional law, but many grotesque smears in his recent AP
interview. One of those points was that if we allow people to have any kind of
adult, consensual sex in their own bedrooms, any number of horrors could
ensue, including incest, bigamy, you name it. So let me turn the slippery
slope argument around. Mr. Santorum argues that gays should be jailed for
having private consensual sex in their own homes. (He lets it slip at the end
of the interview when he says: “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 ...”) Why does he believe this? Because,
somehow, private gay sex prevents others from forming “strong, healthy
families.”
I have no idea how that linkage works—but leave that
for a moment. If that is the criterion for the government to police our
bedrooms, then why should not adultery be criminal? It has a far, far more
direct effect on “strong, healthy families” than homosexuality. It’s
far, far more common than gay sex—hurts children, destroys families, wounds
women, and on and on. To argue that gay sex should be illegal but adultery
shouldn’t be, makes no sense at all. So here’s Mr. Santorum’s campaign
slogan: Throw adulterers in the slammer! Do you think his fellow senators
might feel a little queasy about that?
[Home] [Editorials]
[Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
