Santorum’s
Slip
New
York Press, April 29, 2003
By Michelango Signorile
It’s true that Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick
Santorum’s comments last week about homosexuality were more outrageous than
even the most garish gay pride parade. In a now infamous Associated Press
interview, he defended sodomy laws, equating homosexuality with incest,
polygamy, adultery and bigamy. And Santorum later refused to apologize.
But the creepiest bit in the article actually had nothing
to do with gays or sodomy. It was this buried little factoid: “He and his
wife, Karen, have seven children–including, as Santorum puts it, ‘the one
in Heaven.’ Their fourth baby, Gabriel Michael, died in 1996, two hours
after an emergency delivery in Karen Santorum’s 20th week of pregnancy. The
couple took Gabriel’s body home to let their three other young children see
and hold the baby before burying him…”
That’s been reported before–it is in fact often
repeated in the context of Santorum’s crusade against abortion–but having
this weirdness brought forth within the context of the guy’s condemning
other people’s behavior is pretty jarring. I mean, how much more perverted
can you get than walking around with a dead, five-month-old fetus and having
your kids caress it?
It makes me think that Santorum’s new, larger-than-life
visibility in the Republican leadership (he’s number three among Republicans
in the Senate, chair of the Senate Republican Conference) is the best thing to
happen in a while. We knew from the beginning of this imbroglio that the
so-called libertarian Republicans would never have the balls, not in large
enough numbers, to stand up to the theocrats in the party and force Santorum
out. So he can at least now be very useful for the left.
Already, Santorum’s kicked up a real discussion about
sexual privacy, a topic the media has long been lax about addressing, even as
a case challenging sodomy laws, Lawrence v. Texas, came under Supreme Court
review last month. Sodomy laws have lingered over the years and are still on
the books in 13 states. But much of the mainstream press has dismissed them as
“rarely enforced”–cold comfort to those people who’ve been hauled off
to jail in the middle of the night (like the two gay men who challenged the
Texas sodomy statute in Lawrence v. Texas). More than that, sodomy statutes
have been broadly used in pernicious ways. Judges have, for example, refused
to give people custody of their own children in states with a sodomy statute,
ruling that the individuals admitted to engaging in illegal activity by being
openly gay or lesbian. So it was refreshing to actually see some attention
focused on what role government should have in people’s sex lives–even if
it took a wingnut’s comments to do it.
Santorum’s statements may also energize Democrats in
his state and elsewhere, giving them, as well as gay activists, a fabulous
whipping post. When Trent Lott stepped down from his position as majority
leader, the GOP got rid of a lightning rod and an all-around pompous fool who
was bound to say many more stupid things. That allowed the party to claim it
had finally purged the last remnant of bigotry from its Senate leadership. But
now it has another black eye–and another public bigot in a leadership role.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and fellow Pennsylvania
Republican Arlen Specter–heading into a potentially bruising primary race
against a hardcore conservative–defended Santorum. But their defenses were
not an agreement with the remarks as much as laughable denials that Santorum
has something against gays. Mostly, Republicans have been silent–something
that can’t be comforting to Santorum, even if it is cowardly and
unacceptable. And a few moderate Republicans did speak out. By the end of last
week, Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Oregon’s Gordon Smith and
Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffe were criticizing the remarks. John McCain also
said Santorum should apologize.
Santorum’s comments were likely carefully calculated.
He’s a shrewd operator, and his party is adept at feeding nasty stuff
(especially racist code) to prejudiced voters among its base. But Santorum
probably assumed the remarks would remain under the national radar. He gave
the interview to a Pennsylvania AP reporter for publication in papers in that
state. Speaking so strongly to the values of religious conservatives, it’s
likely he was trying to mute some of the criticism he’d received from them
regarding Bush’s faith-based initiatives program a couple of months ago.
Santorum had slightly compromised on the legislation, working with gay groups
like the Human Rights Campaign so that the faith-based plan would not entirely
thwart existing antidiscrimination laws protecting gays in many cities and a
few states.
The AP interview was an attempt by Santorum to give
something back to the religious right–but it blew up in his face as gay
groups called for his resignation and the story went national, possibly
sending a chill through centrists and moderate Republicans across the land.
With the Senate so evenly divided, all it takes is a relatively few moderate
voters to get spooked, and Democrats could take back the chamber.
Santorum’s outburst also further exposes the fraud of
George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism. As Congressman Barney Frank
said of Santorum: “The surprise is that he’s being honest about it, not
that he believes this. This kind of gay-bashing is perfectly acceptable in the
Republican Party.”
It’s a lot easier to deal with an enemy that stands
there with flashing red lights than a moving target like Bush. The president
himself has supported sodomy laws in the past, courting the religious right as
governor of Texas. But his stance in recent years on gay rights, as gays have
become more accepted nationally and as he has moved onto the national stage,
has been to try to seem tolerant–while continuing to quietly pander to his
Christian-right base. The White House often goes both ways on gay issues,
doing a dance that never quite commits it to anything.
That, however, is hard to do when the press is finally
performing its function and putting you on the spot, as it did last week for a
couple of news cycles regarding Santorum’s comments. By first refusing to
offer an opinion on the subject, the White House angered both sides. But the
White House eventually caved in to the fundamentalists and called Santorum an
“inclusive man.” It was further evidence that Bush will remain silent in
the face of bigotry if Karl Rove thinks it’s a good idea. And the Log Cabin
Republicans, who’ve been hawking the notion that Bush is making the party
more inclusive, can’t spin that any other way. Ironically, Santorum’s
blunt statements force even them to be more honest. That’s not a bad thing.
[Home] [Editorials]
[Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
