In Defence of Sen. Rick Santorum - Criticism of Gay Sex Acts is Not Equal to Racism

If the Moderator will permit me, I want to post this message to express my concerns over the hysterical attacks on Sen. Rick Santorum, by the organized gay lobby.

I am new here, and I just registered, after having been a lurker for 3 weeks. I am from Philadelphia, and my representatives in the Senate are Arlen Spector and Rick Santorum. I am a political independent, who is fiscally liberal but conservative on social issues (I admire FDR, Truman, and LBJ). I have strong disagreements with Sen. Santorum's political philosophy mostly over issues concerning the poor and underprivileged in Philadelphia, and because I am from the Social Justice tradition of the Catholic Church, while he is more of a Calvinized Catholic on economic and social justice issues. But I take the teachings of the Church on traditional morality and family, very seriously. And part of those teachings obligate me to defend Santorum, a man I disagree with vigorously on economic issues, if I feel that he is being attacked unfairly. Here are some of the myths I want to challenge, as a way to help those who want to defend Santorum among progressive circles:

The reality is that there is no right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution. There are many things you could do within the privacy of your own home that are illegal. It is illegal to use drugs in your own home, even if you may be using marijuana you cultivated as a potted plant at home, and did not buy from a dealer. And as Sen. Santorum pointed out so eloquently, polygamy, bigamy and Incest are illegal, even when practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own home. What Sen. Santorum was trying to say is that - if a state has absolutely no right to regulate homosexual sodomy on privacy grounds, then on what legal basis would the state challenge a man living with three women, or a father having an affair with his 21 year old daughter?

MYTH #2: Sen. Santorum's statement challenged those strongly committed to diversity and multi-culturalism.

On the contrary. Most of the world's cultures and major religions do not agree on much. But one thing they all agree on, is that homosexual acts (not people) are sinful, repugnant, disgusting, sick, nauseating, and perverse. That is true if you are a traditionalist Catholic, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a conservative Protestant, an Orthodox Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a traditionalist Buddhist, a Sikh, etc. Even the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan Muslims, who has ties to Hollywood elites, is on record as having described homosexuality as a sin. I was amazed to discover that even the peace-loving and Pacifist Bahais, oppose gay sex acts. What more multi-culturalism can you ask for?

So many people have suffered from the pain of racism in the past, and there are many racial minorities who suffer today in terms of housing discrimination, discrimination in department stores, restaurant tables, and other humiliations. Too often in the past, the Christian Church failed to forcefully condemn racial bigotry as a sin. As a way to compensate for such glaring injustice, many well meaning white liberal Christians who care about social justice issues as much as I do, are too willing to endorse deviant acts as "okay", as a way to prove to themselves that they are not bigots.

But they fail to realize the fact that sodomy is BEHAVIORAL ACT, and not an unchangeable physiological feature like skin color. The pain of racism is very real, because people cannot change their skin color. But men can will themselves not to commit acts of sodomy, by keeping their pants zipped up. Racial minorities understand this very clearly, and that is why a majority of blacks and hispanics in California supported the recent ballot proposition defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

MYTH #4: Texas sodomy laws punish people for who they are, not what they do, because gays are born that way.

Let us assume that homosexuality is partly genetic. If you go to any state with sodomy laws, and declare publicly that your orientation is homosexual, you will not be arrested. But if the state learns that you dropped your pants and "did it" with someone of the same gender, that constitutes a sex act in violation of the sodomy laws. You are not being punished for your self-declared orientation. You are being punished for specific sex acts. Get it?

Another example. My family has a long history of alcoholism, and I believe that alcoholism is genetic and runs in families. But, although I am genetically inclined toward alcoholism, I do not fear being arrested on a DUI, simply because of my Irish alcoholic genes. In order to be arrested, I actually have to go to a pub, fill my gut with alcohol, and then drive recklessly on the freeway. But if I can keep my "alcohol genes" under control, then so can a person with a "gay" orientation.

The equal protection argument you present turns upon itself. The Texas law applies to everyone, male or female. Your argument proves too much. Do laws against armed robbery violate the equal protection clause because they only affect those who commit armed robbery, and not those who don't? I will have to go and pull the case of Bowers v. Hardwick from 1986, I believe, but I think the issue was addressed there.

Your logic is at least working. I disagree with you though. Banning anal sex or oral sex for people of the same gender while not banning it for a man and a woman is not equal protection under the law. I can see your logic, and I hope the lawyers for Texas try to use it before the Supreme Court. We'll see how well that works.

I just took a quick look at the Bowers case, and it does not seem to address the equal protection issue of 14th Amendment, only the DPC of the 14th. I do think that my logic (for once) holds on the equal protection issue. It is akin (sort of) to parking regulations. You can park your car (body part) here (body orifice) legally, but if you park it (body part) THERE (body orifice) it is illegal, and you are subject to a fine or other punishment. Parking laws apply to all persons, just as the sodomy law in Virginia applies to all persons. Now, if the argument was that deviate sexual intercourse by a male with another male was expressly prohibited, the argument would be different. I would still side with the opinion of the Court in the Bowers case though, holding that there is no constitutional right to homosexual intercourse.

Because neither local, state, nor national laws are enforced unless there are several layers of laws backing each other up.

We sure are not getting our money's worth as citizens. Immigration laws are ignored, sodomy laws are ignored, we are being made slave laborers to illegals and minorities, when it comes to the government, they are above the law, yet can't wait to make an example of the every day joe that follows their example.

The Congress get's all holier than thou about Enron, when Congress has been cooking it's books for years. So if layers and layers of laws dealing with the same issue is what it takes to get them to enforce them, then so be it.

You know what will solve the problem of laws not being enforced? More laws. And when those laws aren't enforced, we'll make more laws. And then....

Do you see where I'm going with this?

2) Society has a vested interest in preventing deformed or genetically weak children as much as possible. Incestual intercourse and marriage must then be stopped.

Let me see if I understand your point here. Am I to infer from this post that you are saying that the state has an interest or right to intervene in the pregnancy of a woman who finds herself carrying a genetically defective or weak child in utero when she was impregnated by normal heterosexual non-incest relations?

Second, since abortion and birth control are easily available now, if a brother and sister decide that their love is complete if they marry and they agree that if any of their children are "defective" they will abort, have we removed enough of your concerns to move forward with this type of union?

It is all very simple. Santorum is correct.

1. The family is the BASIC unit of society. When the family
breaks down society suffers and ends up in chaos.

2. Homosexual behavior militates against the family and causes its breakdown.

3. It matters not that it is done "behind closed doors."
The common good must prevail.

Yes, I do, I was pointing out how hopeless the situation is without the Supremes attacking what laws a state does have on the books for the already limited protection of it's citizens.

The local cops are not going door to door looking for sodomy, but when someone does call in with a problem the cops may pay a visit and inform the guilty that there can be a penalty for their behaviour. A cop knocking on their door and warning them to leave the kids in the neighborhood alone, that there has been a complaint, can go a long way in dealing with them. That is mainly what Texas sodomy laws are on the books for, unseemly behaviour control that deals with keeping the bedroom door of perverts closed.

" I have to say something. Dummocraps? Honestly. Can't we just say they're policies are dumb?"

No, that would never cover the vast reality of it. Their 'policies' are beyond dumb, they're criminal. They have turned congress into a crime syndicate.

BTW, Fascist has nothing to do with the question of right or left; it is the element of tyranny applied to any political direction. Communist is a mild description of about 30% of the dems that hold elective office. The progressive caucus is anti-freedom, anti-christ, and anti-property; that puts them solidly into the relm of communism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.