Far
Right Issues Hypothetical Barney Frank Interview
The
Advocate, May 7, 2003
The far-right group Concerned Women for America has
published a hypothetical interview with openly gay U.S. representative Barney
Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts, regarding Sen. Rick Santorum’s recent
comments comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery.
The “interview,” initially titled, “How to Answer
Barney Frank on the Santorum Issue,” is apparently meant to help their
members debate the many charges that comparisons such as those made by
Santorum are antigay.
After reading the “interview,” Frank issued a statement
saying he thought he fared pretty well in the debate. “Even in this format,
in which they make up the questions and provide the answers,
the Concerned Women for American don’t seem to me to do very well in the
debate,” he said. “I am reminded of the hapless candidate who debated an
empty chair and lost the debate.”
Frank added, “Since I have in fact debated right-wing
representatives on this issue on several occasions recently, with transcripts
available from TV shows, it is telling that they eschew the use of what I’ve
actually said in favor of debating me by imputing to me a variety of things
that they have made up. I am impressed at least by their self-knowledge—they
seem to realize that reality is not something they are good at.”
The piece has now been retitled “How to Answer
Liberals on the Rick Santorum Controversy.” The transcript of CWA’s
hypothetical interview follows:
LIBERAL:
Isn’t Senator Santorum comparing gays to people who practice incest?
ANSWER: Sen. Santorum was making a
legal point, which is that if the Supreme Court strikes down a state law
governing private, consensual sex, then any law dealing with that is in
jeopardy. He was not weighing particular offenses against one another.
Democratic appointee Justice Byron White made the same point in Bowers v.
Hardwick (1986).
LIBERAL: Trent
Lott once compared gay people to kleptomaniacs. Isn’t Sen. Santorum doing
the same thing?
ANSWER: No. Trent Lott was right
about the nature of addictions, including sexual addiction, but this is
different. Sen. Santorum was rightly pointing out that removing the state’s
ability to regulate any private sexual conduct would mean legalizing incest,
bigamy, and—here’s one he didn’t say, but would be
likely—prostitution. No community can survive without marriage and families,
and families cannot thrive in sexual anarchy. I’d like to see you explain to
the wrecked generations down the road why we removed even the most sensible
restraints and incentives to channel sex into marriage.
LIBERAL: But
gay people can’t get married. Does this mean you support gay marriage?
ANSWER: Two men or two women
don’t make a marriage. Or three people, for that matter. You’re talking
about a counterfeit. Marriage is the joining of the two sexes. And marriage
loses when we create counterfeits. Given the high divorce rate and its
destructive consequences, we should be strengthening marriage, not creating
substitutes. Also, the state has no business creating incentives for people to
continue being trapped in destructive or immoral behavior. That’s anything
but compassionate.
LIBERAL: Some
states criminalize sodomy even between a married couple. Do you think a
married couple ought to be thrown in jail for what they do in bed?
ANSWER: The Texas law is specific
to homosexuality because, Congressman, the marital bed is sacrosanct. What a
husband and wife do is none of the state’s business, unless they take it
outdoors. But because sex outside marriage is so harmful and destructive,
particularly homosexual sex, it is the state’s business to lay down markers
based on public health and morality. That’s why we have laws against
prostitution, incest, and bigamy. This behavior hurts not only individuals but
also communities.
LIBERAL: But
some states criminalize oral sex between married people. I ask you again,
would you have them jailed?
ANSWER: It’s not up to me or you,
Congressman. It’s up to the people to decide where the lines are drawn,
based on public health and morality. The medical data are clear: Homosexual
sex is profoundly unhealthy, leading to an increased risk of AIDS, human
papillomavirus, hepatitis A, B, and C, syphilis, gonorrhea, “gay bowel
syndrome,” tearing of the rectum, and other consequences.
LIBERAL: But
do you personally believe that oral sex is wrong, even for a married couple? ANSWER
the question!
ANSWER: You know, Congressman, you
might have a keen interest in sitting here discussing various sex acts, but I
don’t. This is a legal, political, and social question.
LIBERAL: You
mentioned morality. Whose morality? Yours? Mine?
ANSWER: How about Nature’s
morality, or if you will, God’s, which is universal. Natural law says that
homosexual sodomy is unhealthy, immoral, and dangerous, which is why societies
all over the world have discouraged it. But in our democratic system, the
people set the rules. If the Supreme Court decides that Texans can’t take
public health and morality into effect when making laws, it will be an act of
tyranny.
LIBERAL:
There, you brought up God. You’re trying to impose your views on me, and
that’s why I take it personally.
ANSWER: Again, it’s not up to you
or me. Or a court. The people should decide these issues, not a few judges.
Courts have too much power and need to be curbed. If the people of Texas want
to scrap the law, that’s their business. But they have every right to keep
it, too.
[Home] [News] [Lawrence
v. Texas] [Santorum] [Spreading
Santorum]
