In Defense of Rick Santorum: His Own Words

CNN.com ^ | April 22, 2003 | Associated Press

[Icey]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The following is an an unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).

AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?

[Icey]

So, in defense of the senator, I have taken a couple of cliffs notes and inserted one piece of critical commentary.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

There you go FReepers. He just thinks it's a more local morality issue that should be regulated at that level. And while I personally disagree on the abortion issue and think that it should be completely illegal across the country, I believe he is exactly correct on the right to privacy.

ARTICLE CONTINUES:

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: 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. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, 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 has 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, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Just trying to help you guys out in defending Mr. Santorum, because he deserves to be defended. If he made comments saying that he thought homosexuals were subhuman or the like, I would join the Left, and most probably the majority of the country in condemning him. This is not a Lott issue where he merely said something inane. This is a deliberate character smear using quotations out of context. As a young journalist and aspiring broadcaster, I'm absolutely disgusting by the irresponsibility of the Associated Press. However, I'm not surprised as this is what the world of journalism has become. Reality is not reported; only the slant.

[madprof98]

I don't understand why any defense of Santorum is called for. A few years ago, any sane person would have said exactly what he said to CNN--though there probably would have been no occasion for it.

[Texas Eagle]

Somebody contact Tim Robbins! A fellow American's free speech rights are under attack!

[RAT Patrol]

Personally, I'd like to seem someone just admit that it's an immoral lifestyle. Anyway...I'm thrilled with Santorum right now. It's about time a conservative start sounding conservative.

[T. Jefferson]

Best thing he can do from here on is give the exact same answer to any question: my previous statements speak for themselves and I stand by them.

[MEG33]

Bill Press smeared him..Press was really off base.

[Russell Scott]

If you don't stand for the truth, you will fall for anything.

If you ignore God's instruction, your obeying Satan's destruction.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

I question Senator Santorum's judgement-in agreeing to give the AP an interview in the first place.When are the Republicans going to learn ?? Fox News reports that the interviewer is married to Kerry's campaign manager. What a coincidence.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Personally, I'd like to seem someone just admit that it's an immoral lifestyle. Anyway...I'm thrilled with Santorum right now. It's about time a conservative start sounding conservative.

Ted Nugent did in a speech at some college. I think it was posted here awhile back. It was a good speech.

[katze]

Santorum is a decent, honest man; the Democrats can't handle that.

[katze]

What is the scummy Press doing these days? As much as I like Bob Novak, I could never watch Crossfire because of Press.

[MEG33]

I was just cruising and heard him.Never watch him!He ended up laughing like the slam was harmless fun..GRrrr

[RAT Patrol]

Good for him.

[thoughtomator]

The 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room that no one is talking about is [b]divorce[/b]. There is nothing in our nation today that more destroys the fabric of society than the ease of divorce and the very strong incentives provided to women to divorce their husbands.

If homosexuality, adultery, and polygamy are wrong on the grounds that they are antithetical to healthy families, then divorce is certainly not only among them, but many orders of magnitude greater in its destructive effect. Only perhaps the crimes of abortion can match the destruction wrought by the ease of divorce.

But of course a lot of divorced people vote, and they don't want to hear about the consequences.

[BOBTHENAILER]

By not standing up and saying something acknowledges acceptance. If you see something wrong and don't say something you have no right to come back later and bitch about it. IMHO

Agreed in spades.

[Icey]

Agreed. I find divorce to be absolutely abhorrent and the main contributor to the destruction of the American family. Not just the American family actually, but the nucleus as a whole around the world in supposedly "developed" countries. We may be rich in terms of economic wealth, but we're morally bankrupt.

That being said, it is not the federal government's job to legislate morality except in an abstract sense. Leave that to local governments, or to individuals themselves. You can't blame government at any level for the demise of our values. You can only blame yourself. Why? Because the Left has repeatedly, and successfully, attacked the core of our morality and we refused to make the effort to back our beliefs on Constitutional grounds. Too often we made it about principle and religion instead of winning the fight on their turf, which we could have.

Now the next generation, my generation, will be forced to fight a battle in which we'll have to conquer a fortress of immorality and bloated government. But we'll do our damnest I assure you. The SSS has recognized me as a man, as of April 13, so I guess the fight is officially in my hands.

[lavaroise]

Why is it we have to refute anthropological scientific finding that man is not homosexual, nor heterosexual, but inherently a SEXUAL ANIMAL consuming anything sexualy? WHY REFUTE THIS FOR SAKE OF GAY NAZI AGENDA CREATING A PERFECT HOMOSEXUAL RACE LIKE THE NAZIES!!!!!???? WE SHOULD BE OUTRAGED OF THE NAZI AGENDA OF THE GAYS!!!!