Bible,
Constitution Support Santorum
If gay groups are right, why haven’t courts
protected bigamy, incest?, asks Marvin Olasky.
Spokane
Spokesman-Review, April 25, 2003
Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Fax: 509-459-5482
Email: editor@spokesman.com
By Marvin Olasky, Creators Syndicate
Last week’s Washington tempest blew in when Sen. Rick
Santorum, R-Pa., said that if the Supreme Court in a pending case rules that
homosexual practice is constitutionally protected, “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.”
Gay advocacy groups quickly made political hay. The Human
Rights Campaign expressed outrage that Santorum “compared homosexuality with
bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery” in his “deeply hurtful” remarks.
The Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights similarly complained that “his
remarks show nothing but contempt for lesbian and gay people.”
Whoa! Who’s showing contempt here? Logical gay groups
should applaud Santorum’s recognition that a Supreme Court gay breakthrough
will also bring liberation for others with non-monogamous sexual interests.
Since when do homosexuals look down on others who follow their own bliss? But
maybe this is good news: Our headline could read, “Gays join conservative
Christians in criticizing bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.”
The Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance unctuously
proclaimed, “Discrimination against any group of citizens based on who they
are is simply wrong”—yet the gay lobbies were implicitly discriminating
against those involved in consensual incest. “Extremism in the defense of
vice is no vice,” they should say, and then proceed to the postmodern claim
that it’s all a matter of opinion whether a particular act is vicious or
virtuous.
But let’s move to the politics, since this is all about
trying to drive a wedge within the GOP. “We’re urging the Republican
leadership to condemn the remarks,” said David Smith, a spokesman for the
Human Rights Campaign. “They’re the same types of remarks that sparked
outrage toward Sen. Lott.”
No, they’re not. Trent Lott resigned his Senate
leadership post in December after making remarks widely seen as supporting
racial discrimination. Lott’s words ran counter to the Bible, which is
color-blind.
Santorum’s words reflect the Bible, which says that
homosexual practice, like adultery or incest, is wrong. President Bush, who
looks to biblical teaching for guidance on important issues, rightly
criticized Lott, but he should support Santorum continuing as conference
chairman, the third-highest seat in the GOP Senate leadership.
Good politics, good theology and good constitutional law
go together here. The Republican Party should be open to Bible believers,
people of other religions and atheists, but if it wants to retain the support
of Christians and Orthodox Jews, it should not chastise those who defend
biblical truth.
Besides, even though the state of Texas may have been
unwise under current social conditions to prosecute a case concerning
homosexuality, the Supreme Court should not establish a new, loose
constructionist constitutional right.
Some Republicans who covet gay lobby campaign
contributions will pressure the president to signal a Santorum sack. Because
he spoke out in the Trent Lott controversy, he should not sit this one out;
Santorum foes will see silence as consent. This is a crucial political fork in
the road, and the George W. Bush—who was tough enough to stand up to
supporters of Saddam—should refuse to be pushed around by supporters of
sodomy.
Instead of being defensive, Republicans who are both wise
and shrewd will go on offense. They should ask gay interest groups and
Democrats to respond to Santorum’s challenge: Make a constitutional argument
that will differentiate the right to consensual gay sex from a right to
bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery. Legislatures, of course, have long
differentiated among certain acts, but what happens if the Supreme Court tells
them to cease and desist?
Republicans (and others) who want to become wiser on such
issues should read “What We Can’t Not Know,” a new book by my University
of Texas colleague J. Budziszewski. The book is not a Bud Light, but
non-professors can readily follow its discussion of “natural law,” the
“developmental spec sheet” that God has given us. As Santorum knows, once
we move off that spec sheet, anarchy reigns.
Bible ‘Spec Sheet’ Has Deadly Solutions
Spokane
Spokesman-Review, May 1, 2003
Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Fax: 509-459-5482
Email: editor@spokesman.com
Letters
Marvin Olasky’s April 26 article defends Sen.
Santorum’s recent condemnation of gay lifestyles. Olasky praises Santorum
for defending “biblical truth” and admonishes us all to follow the
dictates of the “developmental spec sheet that God has given us.”
Upon close examination, we find that Olasky’s God-given
“spec sheet” not only condemns homosexual activity, it instructs us to
murder those who practice it (Lev. 20:13). However, homosexuals should not get
the impression that they are being singled out for such harsh treatment. The
Bible teaches that “witches” (Exod. 22:18), rebellious sons (Deut.
21:18-21), adulterers (Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22), non-virginal brides (Deut.
22:13-21), and those gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36) should also
be put to death.
If Olasky does not endorse the death penalty for these
“offenses,” then how does he decide which biblical injunctions to follow
and which to ignore? (See Matt. 5:17-20 and Luke 16:16-17).
If he does favor capital punishment for the
aforementioned “offenses,” then he is at least consistent in practicing
what he preaches. In which case we can no doubt look forward to a future
article in which he will call for re-establishment of involuntary servitude,
which is also promoted in the Bible.
- Jack R. DeBaun, Sandpoint, Sandpoint, ID
[Home] [Editorials]
[Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
