Santorum’s
Stance on Gays Is Well Grounded
Providence
Journal, April 25, 2003
By Earl H. Tilford
Grove City, Pa.
SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R.-Penn.), a
devout Roman Catholic, sowed the wind to reap a whirlwind when he stated,
regarding a pending U.S. Supreme Court case on the Texas sodomy law, “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. You have the right
to anything.”
The senator is making a legal argument. I think it is one
firmly grounded in basic Judeo-Christian morality. The League of Gay and
Lesbian voters and “OUTfront,” a wing of Amnesty International, among many
other gay-rights advocacy groups viciously attacked Santorum’s remarks. The
Democratic left is incensed. What’s new?
Santorum holds that he firmly believes in equality before
the law for all Americans regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual
orientation and we should take him at his word.
The sinfulness of homosexuality is more of a moral
argument than a legal one but it also is fundamental to a Judeo-Christian
understanding of morality. Biblical proscriptions against homosexual behavior
appear in both the Old and New Testaments. Leviticus 18:22, in a portion of
the Jewish law dealing with basic morality, describes homosexual behavior as
“detestable.” The verse above condemns child sacrifice and what
immediately follow forbids bestiality. Two chapters later, Leviticus 20:13,
also describes homosexual practice as a “perversion” punishable by death.
The previous verse deals with incest . . . same punishment . . . the following
addresses sex with one’s mother-in-law . . . and verse 15 requires death for
bestiality. (PETA take note, the animal dies too.)
Likewise, the Apostle Paul condemns homosexual behavior
in Romans 1:24 and in I Corinthians 6:9. Santorum’s position is grounded in
Christian morality.
While not all Christians accept Biblical proscriptions
against homosexuality, the majority do. In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),
the denomination to which I belong, for nearly two decades a small but
vociferous minority advocated ordination of gay and lesbians and performing
same-sex marriages. In three separate votes put to the church’s membership,
elders and ministers affirmed retaining Biblical standards of sexual behavior
by successively larger margins. Furthermore, the position condoning
homosexuality as an “alternative” to heterosexual relations within the
sanctity of marriage is a minority position within Christendom as a whole.
The same goes for Judaism and I would imagine Islamic
proscriptions against homosexuality would be equally strong.
Rick Santorum, like us all, is a man informed by his
morality. His comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and
adultery no doubt offends many people. While Senator Santorum asserts that his
remarks must be taken within their legal context, legality and morality do not
always equate. After all, chattel slavery and segregation were legal. German
lawyers were present in force at the Wannsee Conference on Jan. 20, 1942, when
Reinhard Heydrich planned the Holocaust under the direction of Hitler.
Whatever the legal ramifications, the notion that
homosexual practice is immoral issues from traditional Judeo-Christian
understandings of sexual morality. To accept homosexuality as moral within a
Biblical context one also must accept bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.
Ultimately not even our pets will be safe.
Advocates for gay and lesbian rights, particularly those
who argue that homosexual activity is morally acceptable, base their arguments
on several related assumptions.
First, and perhaps most compelling, is that since
homosexuals are “born that way” their behavior is natural and, therefore,
acceptable. Leaving aside that the evidence that homosexuality is a matter of
genetic disposition, from a moral perspective it also is irrelevant. The
evidence that alcoholism results from genetic determination is far greater,
but does that mean we condone public drunkenness? Try that argument on your
highway patrolman. What about getting smashed in the privacy of your own home?
Certainly, we have that right, but insurance companies also have a right to
decline health and homeowners insurance to drunks. Natural does not equate to
good. Otherwise Ted Bundy might be a free man getting his “natural”
gratification by inflicting pain and death on co-eds.
A modified form of this argument holds that this is a
social-justice issue, like civil rights for African-Americans or women’s
rights. Legally, that argument may have merit, but morally it fails because it
is no more a sin to be born an African-American or a woman than it is to be
born a white male. From Judeo-Christian perspective, we are all subject to
original sin. Christians believe that sinners need redemption, not
confirmation. Gay and ethnicity do not equate.
Then there is the argument that homosexuality is
widespread, so it must be socially and morally acceptable. How
“widespread” homosexual behavior actually is is a matter of debate.
Gay-lesbian groups tout figures such as “10 percent” but in reality 2 to 3
percent probably is more realistic. The vast majority of us are heterosexuals.
In the final analysis, what people do in the privacy of
their own bedrooms is their business, a matter between them and God. Senator
Santorum said nothing that denies treating everyone equally before the law.
One’s moral fiber, however, is essential to one’s character and it will
determine our conception of man’s relationship to the universe.
In any event, all Christians believe in forgiveness and
redemption.
Ultimately, the voters of Pennsylvania, of which I am
one, will decide if Senator Santorum’s service to our interests warrants
keeping him in office. A factor I will weigh is the extent to which his moral
convictions determine his political actions.
[Slightly rewritten version five days later. -Bob]
A Morality Informed by Christian Convictions
Centre
Daily Times, April 30, 2003
Box 89, State College, PA 16801
Fax: 814-238-1811
Email: pcarty@knightridder.geis.com
By Earl Tilford
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn Hills, a devout Roman
Catholic, sowed the wind to reap a whirlwind when, regarding a pending Supreme
Court case on the Texas sodomy law, he stated, “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. You have the right to anything.”
The senator is making a legal argument. I think it is one
firmly grounded in basic Judeo-Christian morality.
The League of Gay and Lesbian voters and “OUTfront,”
a wing of Amnesty International, among many other gay-rights advocacy groups
viciously attacked Santorum’s remarks.
The Democratic left is incensed.
What’s new?
Santorum holds that he firmly believes in equality before
the law for all Americans regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual
orientation and we should take him at his word.
The sinfulness of homosexuality is more of a moral
argument than a legal one, but it also is fundamental to a Judeo-Christian
understanding of morality.
Biblical proscriptions against homosexual behavior appear
in both the Old and New Testament. Santorum’s position is grounded in
Christian morality.
While not all Christians accept biblical proscriptions
against homosexuality, the majority do.
In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the denomination to
which I belong, for nearly two decades a small but vociferous minority
advocated ordination of gays and lesbians and performing same-sex marriages.
In three separate votes put to the church’s membership,
elders and ministers affirmed retaining Biblical standards of sexual behavior
by successively larger margins. Furthermore, the position condoning
homosexuality as an “alternative” to heterosexual relations within the
sanctity of marriage is a minority position within Christendom as a whole.
The same goes for Judaism, and I would imagine Islamic
proscriptions against homosexuality would be equally strong.
Sen. Santorum, like us all, is a man informed by his
morality. His comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and
adultery no doubt offends many people.
While Sen. Santorum claims that his remarks must be taken
within their legal context, legality and morality do not always equate. After
all, chattel slavery and segregation were legal.
German lawyers were present in force at the Wannsee
Conference on Jan. 20, 1942, when Reinhard Heydrich planned the Holocaust.
Whatever the legal ramifications, the notion that
homosexual practice is immoral issues from traditional Judeo-Christian
understandings of sexual morality. To accept homosexuality as moral within a
biblical context one also must accept bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.
Ultimately, not even our pets will be safe.
In the final analysis, what people do in the privacy of
their own bedrooms is their business, a matter between them and God. Sen.
Santorum said nothing that denies treating everyone equally before the law.
One’s moral fiber, however, is essential to one’s character and it will
determine their Weltanschauung.
All Christians believe in forgiveness and redemption.
Ultimately, the voters of Pennsylvania, of which I am one, will decide if
Santorum’s service to our interests warrants keeping him in office.
A factor I will weigh is the extent to which his moral
convictions determine his political actions.
[Home] [Editorials]
[Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
