On
Tolerance and Privacy
Chicago
Tribune, April 26, 2003
435 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611
Fax: 312-222-2598
Email: ctc-tribletter@tribune.com
Editorial
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania recently
spoke his mind on the hotly debated issue of whether sexual behavior should be
protected by the Constitution as a privacy right. Now, leading activists for
gay rights are demanding that Santorum be removed from the chairmanship of the
Senate Republican Conference, much as Republican Sen. Trent Lott was forced
out as Senate majority leader last winter after he made racially insensitive
comments.
In Lott’s case, Republican leaders recognized that his
expression of a certain wistful longing for the days of southern segregation
were extraordinarily damaging to the GOP. Santorum, though, has so far enjoyed
the protection, or at least the silence, of GOP leaders.
Santorum had his say on a case before the Supreme Court
involving the constitutionality of a Texas sodomy law. Here is what Santorum
said:
“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.”
Santorum later attempted to make clear that he was
drawing a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. He has
“no problem with homosexuality,” he said, just “homosexual acts.” He
noted that the Supreme Court has been divided on the privacy issue, and his
own views have been supported in the past by some justices.
Public attitudes are moving toward greater tolerance and
respect for the rights of homosexuals, as they should. But the nation remains
sharply divided on the matter. So does the Republican Party. While party
leaders have welcomed support from the Log Cabin Republicans and other gay
rights groups, social conservatives have blindly railed against gays as an
affront to “family values.”
Lumping homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and
adultery exposes a certain intolerance on Santorum’s part toward gays.
Bigamy, incest and polygamy violate long-established law designed to protect
innocent victims, particularly children. By contrast, many states have
rescinded laws prohibiting certain sexual acts between consenting adults,
recognizing that that is a private matter.
Santorum should not be forced from a party leadership
position for holding a position on a matter of law that is clearly open to
debate. It was the matter of privacy rights, not a judgment on homosexuality,
that was at the crux of his comments.
The best way to change public views on a matter is
through open and vigorous debate, not by attempts to silence the opposition.
With that in mind, as Santorum urges others to be
tolerant of his views, he should appreciate the desire of others to live their
lives without worrying about police breaking down their doors and arresting
them for matters that are no one else’s business.
[Home] [Editorials]
[Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
