Republicans
Affirm Faith in Santorum
The
Data Lounge, April 30, 2003
WASHINGTON—Returning from the
spring recess, Republican leaders in Congress rallied behind Senator Rick
Santorum Tuesday, dismissing calls by gay civil rights groups and Democrats
for him to be step down or be replaced as the third-ranking Republican in the
Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Santorum’s
leadership post is not in jeopardy, providing the Pennsylvania Republican with
an important vote of confidence three weeks after his remarks about gay people
prompted calls for his resignation.
“It’s solid, it’s absolutely solid,” said Frist,
responding to a reporter’s question about Santorum’s hold on his
leadership position.
“People who work with Rick day in, day out understand
he’s a man of caring, compassion and tolerance,” Frist said. “Strongly
religious, a man of great faith, an effective and strong leader. In terms of
questioning his leadership ability or position, it’s a non-issue.”
House majority leader Rep. Tom DeLay went so far as to
praise the embattled senator. “I think Senator Santorum took a very
courageous and moral position based upon principles and his world view,”
said DeLay. He added he was “proud” of Mr. Santorum for “standing on
principle.”
Some moderate Republican senators have criticized the
remarks, but the White House and other Republicans have stood behind him.
Frist had previously called Santorum “a consistent voice for inclusion and
compassion.” Santorum, a conservative, said his remarks comparing
homosexuality to adultery and polygamy were taken out of context and meant to
refer directly to the Supreme Court ruling on privacy, not he said, as “a
statement on individual lifestyles.” It is clear from the full transcript,
however, Santorum strayed from the case and discussed the morality of
individuals in his remarks.
Lara Jakes Jordan: O.K., without being too gory or
graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not
have sex?
Santorum: We have laws in states, like the one at the
Supreme Court right now, that have sodomy laws and they were there for a
purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our
society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right
to consensual 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. Does that undermine the fabric of
our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue,
this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States
Constitution.. . .
In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever
to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality.
It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.
It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the
quality. . .
Ms. Jordan: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to
talk about ‘man on dog’ with a United States Senator. It’s sort of
freaking me out.
Santorum: And that’s sort of where we are in today’s
world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to
limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we
absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live
out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our
society.
[Home] [News] [Lawrence
v. Texas] [Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
