“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.” — Senator Rick Santorum (Associated Press interview, April 7)
When transcribing this interview and writing it into a story, Lara Lakes Jordan of the Associated Press edited the quote above to read, “… consensual (gay) sex …” instead of, “…consensual sex ….” The ink had barely dried on the story when, to put it politely, the organic farm fertilizer hit the sprinkler.
Since the story was published, Santorum has received heat from Democrats and several homosexual activist groups. Many of his critics have demanded his resignation, claiming that his statement is demeaning and offensive to the gay community in America.
Santorum made his comments in reference to a pending U.S. Supreme Court case regarding a Texas statute prohibiting sodomy. Santorum, like many social conservatives, is concerned about the U.S. Supreme Court further expanding the “right” to privacy.
No such language in the Constitution grants this right. Rather, the Supreme Court invented this right in 1965 when ruling on the Griswold v. Connecticut case. This case was cited, and the “right” to privacy was expanded by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision — a decision that has resulted in the state-sanctioned death of more than 40 million innocent babies in the United States.
In the Texas case, the Supreme Court could possibly make a blanket statement affirming the “right” to privacy and expanding it to legalize anything that occurs in that context. When making his comments, Santorum correctly pointed out the unintended consequences of such a ruling.
Besides the examples that he cited, a few others come to mind. What will happen to the perverted priests on trial for their sexual misconduct? What becomes of the policies at many public universities that prohibit relations between instructors and students? While reasonable people can argue whether these acts are consensual, these questions could easily become serious legal issues if the Supreme Court is not cautious in its ruling on the Texas case.
What bothers liberals the most is not Santorum’s sharp legal analysis in this case, but rather, the fact that he was discussing homosexual activity in the same interview as adultery, incest and polygamy. However, at the same time, it’s clear that many of his critics are not truly offended by his comments. After all, the reporter had to insert a word into his statement.
Rather, Santorum’s critics see this as an opportunity to drag his name through the mud while demonizing social conservatives in general. Liberals are willing to accept a certain level of insensitivity, whether real or concocted, against minority groups if it allows them to gain power. Indeed, the only thing that is truly offensive about this situation is the tactics used against Santorum and those who support him.
Additionally, the liberals’ position on this runs directly contrary to their usual arguments of moral relativism. For years, they have defended homosexual activity on the basis that morality is defined by individual choice and that nobody can decide that for others. If liberals were true to their ideas, they would proudly defend all forms of sexual activity and hail the Texas case as an historic opportunity. However, consistency comes at a price. In this case, it would cause social liberals to lose all credibility with the American public.
As Santorum pointed out, consistency from the Supreme Court on the “right” to privacy would also come at a price — it would damage the moral fabric of the country even further. He ought to be praised, not criticized for pointing this out.
Mark Baumgardner ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.