Supersizing
Santorum’s Bigotry
WorkingForChange,
April 30, 2003
By Bill Berkowitz
Were Senator Rick Santorum’s now infamous remarks
equating homosexuality with polygamy, bigamy, incest or adultery 1) a nuanced
explanation of the constitutional issues involved in the Supreme Court’s
upcoming decision on sodomy, 2) a man expressing his fundamentalist religious
beliefs, 3) a Trent Lott moment, and/or 4) flat-out bigotry? You may think the
Senator’s remarks were a clear-cut example of narrow-mindedness, or, like
President Bush, you may feel that Santorum is an “inclusive man.”
One thing is sure: Santorum is not your typical
fire-breathing right-wing homo-basher. He’s a powerful big-time politician
with big political plans and an even bigger legislative agenda. No matter how
the Supreme Court rules on the issue, if the senator succeeds in his greater
mission, bigotry against homosexuals will be institutionalized through reams
of Bush-backed congressional legislation.
Santorum’s work revolves around the president’s
faith-based initiative and what is called the “charitable choice”
exemption. “Charitable choice” riders—often tucked stealthily into
legislation dealing with the provision of social services—allow
religious-based organizations to compete for government funds without having
to give up their religious beliefs, including their opposition to state and
local anti-discrimination measures.
Lewis C. Daly, of the Institute for Democracy Studies,
characterized the president’s ambitious January 2001 faith-based proposal as
“a bold effort to transfer a sweeping range of government social services
directly into the hands of America’s churches.” Five years after
then-Senator John Ashcroft succeeded in planting a “charitable choice”
provision into the 1996 welfare reform bill, the president’s faith-based
initiative was intended to extend this provision to a number of other
government provided social services.
But in order to win support for this massive transfer of
funds to religious organizations, the reluctant amongst the president’s
Religious right constituents needed to be brought on board. This, the
administration figured, could be accomplished by including “charitable
choice” exemptions.
A report by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s
Policy Institute, titled “Leaving Our Children Behind: Welfare Reform and
the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community,” defined “charitable
choice” as the massive “transfer of tax dollars to religious
institutions... [that] often would come with no demand for fiscal
accountability, no requirement that religious institutions not discriminate,
and no safeguard against recipients of social services being subjected to
proselytizing and other forms of coercive activity.”
Within six months of its rollout, the administration was
caught negotiating a backroom deal with the Salvation Army. You might remember
Salvation ArmyGate, the scandal that arose when the Washington Post revealed
that Karl Rove, the president’s chief advisor, and Don Eberly, then deputy
director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI),
had been meeting in secret with the charity. They were trying to fashion a
deal that would have the Salvation Army support the president’s faith-based
legislation in exchange for a firm administration commitment that a
“charitable choice” provision would be included in any final bill.
By early 2002, with the president’s faith-based
initiative floundering, the administration called on Senators Santorum (R-PA.)
and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) to craft a compromise measure. While the
liberal Lieberman and the conservative Santorum clash on many issues, they
both support, in principle at least, empowering faith-based institutions to
deal with America’s massive social problems.
And both have an interesting connection to a little-known
Washington, D.C.-based outfit called The Empowerment Network (TEN), where they
are listed as Empowerment Caucus Chairmen. TEN describes itself as “a
resource hub for state legislators, grassroots organizations, and other civic
leaders promoting American family and community renewal of civil society in
the 21st century.” According to its website, “TEN’s grassroots network
provides the winning edge on policy initiatives that support youth character
and family revitalization, entrepreneurship and the unleashing of faith-based
initiatives and cultural remedies.” The founders of TEN, however, are
grizzled veterans of a number of conservative organizations and ideological
battles.
A few weeks ago, The Charity, Aid, Recovery and
Empowerment (CARE) Act of 2003 (S.272) was passed by the Senate, but the
“faith” had been essentially removed from the president’s initiative.
Instead, the CARE Act revolves around new tax breaks for people donating to
religious and other charities. Although willing to go along with the
compromise, Santorum, a key player in moving the president’s faith-based
legislation, was not a happy camper.
To his credit, despite this connection to The Empowerment
Network, Lieberman helped remove “charitable choice” from any
Senate-supported faith-based legislation. However, according to the Associated
Press, Santorum, his legislative partner, promised that he would “revisit
the issue when a bill renewing the welfare program comes to the floor later
this year.” And coming down the pike are a number of other bills that
Republicans will attempt to seed with “charitable choice,” thus allowing
religious groups to discriminate in their hiring practices. Ultimately, the
damage done by the Senator’s ridiculous remarks will pale next to the damage
done to civil rights if bills with “charitable choice” exemptions are
passed.
[Home] [Editorials]
[Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
