Santorum
Defends Homosexuality Remarks
While some call for him to resign, he said his words
reflect “the law of the land.”
Philadelphia
Inquirer, April 24, 2003
PO Box 8263, Philadelphia, PA 19101
Fax: 215-854-4483
Email: Inquirer.opinion@phillynews.com
By Alfred Lubrano and Steve Goldstein, Inquirer Staff
Writers
As a tempest whipped up by his own words raged around
him, Sen. Rick Santorum yesterday stood by his remarks that
homosexuality—like polygamy, incest and adultery—is “antithetical to a
healthy, stable, traditional family.”
Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Williamsport, the
Republican senator from Pennsylvania defended his comments in an April 7
interview with the Associated Press, which were sparked by a Texas gay-sodomy
case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Santorum said yesterday that his statements varied little
from Justice Byron White’s 1986 opinion that there is no constitutional
right for gay men to engage in sex, the AP reported. “To suggest that my
comments, which are the law of the land and were the reason the Supreme Court
decided the case in 1986, are somehow intolerant, I would just argue that it
is not,” Santorum said.
In the 1986 case, which was based on police’s
witnessing a homosexual sex act in Georgia, the Supreme Court upheld a
state’s right to regulate such sex.
Santorum’s latest remarks did little to quell outrage
from gay-rights groups and others who decried his original comments as
“appalling” and “tragic.”
“He seemed to put gay people on the same moral and
legal plane as someone who would commit incest,” said David Smith, senior
strategist with Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay-advocacy group in
America. “We’ve asked him to resign. He has outraged us.”
While some Democrats hammered Santorum, Republican
politicians have for the most part remained silent, apparently waiting to take
their cue from President Bush, who has avoided commenting on the issue thus
far. An exception are the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group whose executive
director, Patrick Guerriero, yesterday called for Santorum to apologize for
“insensitive, unnecessary remarks.”
The Santorum controversy is so turbulent because various
complex and emotional issues rage within it: states’ rights to police sexual
activity, the rights of gay people to express their sexuality, the limits of
privacy, the dictates of religion, and differing views of marriage and family.
At the heart of the flap is the Supreme Court case, a
challenge to a Texas statute that disallows “deviate sexual intercourse”
between people of the same sex, but has no application to heterosexual sex.
The couple’s lawyer says their privacy was violated when police witnessed
them having intercourse in an apartment, and that the law unfairly targets
homosexuals. Texas says the state has the right to set moral standards for its
people.
Beyond these issues, some equate Santorum’s remarks to
those of Trent Lott, former Senate majority leader, who was forced to resign
his leadership position after he made statements considered to be racist.
‘It’s unfair’
Several groups have demanded that Santorum, a rising
Senate star, step down from his growing leadership role, as Lott did.
Santorum’s defenders insist his statements were not
nearly as offensive as Lott’s.
“There is no room for racism in public office,” said
William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious
and Civil Rights. “It’s unfair to lump Santorum in the same pot.”
Donohue and other conservatives believe Santorum was
nobly standing up for the sanctity of marriage; far from being a bigot, they
say, he is a hero of family values.
“What Sen. Santorum has rightly said,” explained Ken
Connor of the conservative Family Research Council, “is that if we throw out
this notion that the state has any legitimate interest in regulating sexual
behavior or protecting marriage, then the door is thrown wide open to all
manner of associations and sexual liaisons.
“All the senator did was extend the logic.”
Santorum’s remarks are being interpreted by both
conservative and gay-advocacy groups as part of his Catholicism. There is a
tenet running through the faith that encourages the devout to “hate the sin
but love the sinner.”
‘Misguided’
Thus, they contend, Santorum’s statement to the AP on
April 7: “I have no problem with homosexuality—I have a problem with
homosexual acts, as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be,
acts outside of traditional, heterosexual relationships.”
Such distinctions are puzzling to gay-rights advocates,
who don’t see how one can separate sex from sexual orientation. “It’s
hard to respond to that,” said Marianne Duddy, executive director of
Dignity/USA, a Catholic gay group.
Interpreting Santorum’s remarks, Donohue of the
Catholic League said that for marriage to be “special,” it can only be a
union between one man and one woman. Any other kind of
relationship—“non-married heterosexuals cohabiting, homosexuality,
bestiality, incest, bigamy and adultery, is inferior” and deserves to be
treated as “second-class.” If such “second-class” relationships were
sanctioned, then “we just let everybody fornicate and let kids be born into
a society of bastards,” Donohue said.
Such thinking is distressing to Duddy.
“We speculate Santorum is echoing the kind of misguided
and hateful rhetoric that comes from the Vatican that refers to gay people as
sick and sinful,” she said. “It shows a tragic misunderstanding of
homosexuality and does tremendous disrespect to gay people.”
Politically, Santorum’s statements could pose a major
problem for Republicans. They want to be inclusive of all groups, analysts
say, but they are beholden to a conservative wing with very strong views on
what is acceptable in terms of American lifestyle.
Many Republicans are waiting for the President to say
something, and he has thus far avoided commenting. Analysts say the White
House cannot afford to alienate conservatives or moderates and may continue to
steer clear.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) said of
Santorum, “Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the
Republican Party in the Senate and to suggest otherwise is just politics.”
Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) said in a statement Tuesday
that Santorum is not a bigot.
Rep. James Greenwood (R., Pa.) said that perhaps
Santorum, who he said should not resign, can learn a lesson from this.
“Maybe he doesn’t know about homosexuality,” Greenwood said. Santorum,
Greenwood suggested, may think of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice rather
than simply a way someone is born.
No one has been vigorous enough in their support of
Santorum, Connor of the Family Research Council charged.
“The defense from the Republican establishment has been
tepid and muted at best,” he said. “Republicans are cowering in the
corner.”
Democrats, on the other hand, have not been so silent.
Santorum entered “a new level, a very bad new level, of
intolerance,” said State Rep. T.J. Rooney, chairman of the Pennsylvania
Democratic Party. He called for Santorum’s immediate removal from Republican
leadership ranks.
Gov. Rendell did not demand Santorum’s ouster but
described the senator’s remarks as being “highly inappropriate and
offensive to every gay man and woman in this state.”
Letters: Sen. Santorum’s Remarks on Homosexuality
Philadelphia
Inquirer, April 25, 2003
PO Box 8263, Philadelphia, PA 19101
Fax: 215-854-4483
Email: Inquirer.opinion@phillynews.com
Someone should tell U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum that this is
the 21st century (“Santorum defends homosexuality remarks,” April 24).
Arguing the merits of the current sodomy case is all very well, but to equate
homosexuality with incest and adultery, as the senator has so blatantly done,
is despicable and unworthy of a public servant. Santorum should hang his head
in shame—and the Republican Party shares in his disgrace if they do not
immediately distance themselves from his hateful views.
Ironically, I just saw The Laramie Project, the HBO movie
about Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student who was beaten to
death in 1998. Something one of the characters in that film said resonated
with me: “I guess I never imagined the magnitude with which some people can
hate.” Take a good, long look in the mirror, senator, and ask yourself how
much your insensitivity fuels such mindless hatred.
—John Walzer Jr., Greeenville, Del., jwalzer5@comcast.net
I see where the Democrats and the radical homosexual/feminist lobby in the
media have begun their war dance to destroy Sen. Rick Santorum. Once again, we
see that their view of the First Amendment does not extend to any view that
runs counter to their agenda, and predictably they condemn all views that
reflect Judeo-Christian law and the protection of the family. Their hypocrisy
and hostility to the American family is shameful.
As they attack him personally, I notice that few address
the accuracy and truth of Santorum’s comments. It is a logical and moral
fact that if A, B and C are illegal activities, and some court determines that
your neighbor can do act A in his home, then you will be unable to stop your
other neighbor from doing B and C in his home.
Thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court tried to concoct
the so-called right to privacy, which doesn’t exist in the Constitution.
This has been the single most destructive legal action ever. It has resulted
in the death of 40 million-plus unborn children, destruction in the American
family, and degeneracy in the courts, schools, medical system and other
institutions of this once great nation. This “moral relativism,” in which
each “oppressed” group is permitted to try its hand at refashioning life
in its own image is killing this country.
This is a moral universe of order and absolute right and
wrongs, and this information is readily available to every man, woman and
child. This is the basis of our freedom and responsibility. Within this Divine
framework are life, peace and hope.
Santorum’s comments are not “against” anyone. The
fact that he is a staunch, outspoken advocate for the dignity of all life and
protection under the law for unborn children adds further incentive to the
Democrats’ desire to destroy him.
—John McNamee, Sanatoga, Jlmac1@cs.com
Take heart, homosexuals. Sen. Rick Santorum respects your orientation as long
as you practice celibacy. He wants you to share in all the rights afforded any
citizen, but he cringes at the thought of what you do in the sanctity of your
bedroom. Perhaps Santorum should worry more about our flagging economy than
our bedside manner. Senator, get your mind out of the gutter and concentrate
on your constituents’ needs.
—Anthony J. Frascino, Audubon, ArtGardenr@aol.com
Sen. Rick Santorum’s comments on homosexuality are, indeed, deplorable, but
what I find more threatening are his other positions. Claiming that liberalism
and parts of the U.S. Constitution undermine the family is not only
ridiculous, it is scandalous. Santorum has pledged to uphold the Constitution.
If he cannot, due to his religious beliefs, he should resign.
Santorum and others in the radical religious right are
implementing a religious coup on our democracy. Religion has no role in our
government; we do not live in a theocracy. Religious institutions have no
right to money that is intended for social services.
Traditional welfare hurts families, Santorum asserts. Yet
he supports corporate welfare, which diverts money from schools, health care
and other services that would support families.
Santorum and his ilk are depriving the hard-working and
poor of this country. They are promoting a fundamentalist religious agenda
that is intolerant, unconstitutional and un-American.
—Jay Sweeney, Falls Township, jnln@epix.net
Sen. Rick Santorum has an absolute right to his private beliefs, no matter how
absurd. However, when the senator speaks in public, from his pulpit as the
third-ranking member of the majority party of the U.S. Senate, he has a duty
to the American people and to his constituents to speak fairly and honestly.
In this case, he has spoken either from bigotry or hypocrisy. This should be
recognized and penalized by his Senate colleagues and the voters of
Pennsylvania.
—Kenneth J. Gorelick, Newtown Square, Pulmon@aol.com
While discussing a pending Supreme Court case involving two gay men who were
arrested for having sex, Sen. Rick Santorum said the constitutional right to
privacy “destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior
that’s antithetical to strong healthy families.” Santorum could not be
more wrong. People who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender deserve
equal protection of the laws on the same basis as everyone else. The right of
privacy protects all families by shielding them from government intrusion into
our most intimate decisions and acts. The right to be let alone is one of the
most basic rights, and Santorum should respect it.
—David M. DiSabatino, Executive Director, ACLU of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
I actually believe Sen. Arlen Specter when he says Rick Santorum is not a
bigot. And that is exactly the problem. I am sick to death of Republican
leaders playing to the room, using the nudge and the wink to appeal to human
nature’s lowest common denominator. They continually seek out the small
cracks in the body politic, apply a crowbar and then act surprised at all the
fuss.
I don’t think I’m alone in being fed up with the
politics of division. Ultimately, we are neither gay nor straight, black nor
white, rich nor poor, liberals nor conservatives. We are Americans. And we
need to get rid of those who happily exacerbate and exploit our differences
instead of working for the common good.
—Susan Madrak, Bensalem
Those who wish to silence Sen. Rick Santorum with cheap charges of bigotry
rarely address the substance of his remarks. Santorum expressed a reasonable
concern that if the Supreme Court finds that there is some kind of
constitutional right to engage in all forms of consensual sex, this could mean
not only a right to homosexual activity, but also a constitutional right to
engage in incest, adultery and bigamy. I share Santorum’s concerns, as do
the vast majority of the American people.
—Rev. Gerard Mesure, Springfield
It’s time for Pennsylvania voters to admit they made a mistake, and get rid
of Sen. Rick Santorum. The fact that he has risen so high in the Republican
Senate attests to the power of the Christian right, which is a misnomer
because Jesus Christ was the most tolerant person in history. I’m not an
advocate for gays, but whether Santorum likes it or not, they have won their
rights. But just as Santorum backed Sen. Trent Lott when he made his
prejudicial remarks that enraged African Americans, here the Pennsylvania
senator goes again, demonstrating his narrow view. This man is biased and
arrogant and should be removed from office. He is an embarrassment to
Pennsylvania and to America.
—Thomas Skudlarek, Lansdale
Sen. Rick Santorum’s comparison of homosexuality with
adultery, incest and polygamy is beyond comprehension. Also disturbing is the
senator’s vague view toward homosexuality versus homosexual acts. But, what
is most troublesome is the callousness of his statement when he compared the
private affairs of homosexuals with the public cases of incest or
polygamy—crimes punishable by law.
Santorum was wrong. Having the right to consensual sex
does not give one the right to everything. What one does in his or her private
surroundings is no one’s business, especially the state’s.
—John J. Pino, Newtown Square, pinoj18@hotmail.com
[Home] [News] [Lawrence
v. Texas] [Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
