To me Rick Santorum makes all the sense in the world.
1. There’s a case in Texas involving the act of “gitchygoo” in the privacy of somebody’s bedroom.
2. Gitchygoo is illegal in Texas.
3. The people that did the Texas gitchygoo want the Supreme Court Of The United States to tell all the states that they can’t make laws that take away the right to do gitchygoo or anything else because it’s private. (nothing in the Constitution says anything about “all private things are legal”).
4. Rick Santotum’s statement was meant to ask the Supreme Court to leave states rights alone and to stick to the constitution. Otherwise we’re going to start down a slippery road towards who knows what.
People need to realize that there is a difference between (a) a belief that something should be illegal and (b) an understanding that the constitution does not prevent such illegality. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits banning the import and sale of apricots. Stating this fact about the constitution is not the same as stating one's opposition to the import and sale of apricots. And if my state did ban the import and sale of apricots, I would not be 'anti-apricot' by stating that there is nothing in the constitution on the topic. In fact, insofar as I happen to like apricots, I would say this:
There is nothing unconstitutional about the apricot ban. It might be a silly law, or unenforceable, or even offensive, but until we change the constitution, the apricot ban is not unconstitutional. We might want to add a 'right to apricots,' but until that amendment succeeds, a ban on apricots is well within the authority of the government.
Thank you for a rational post. The point of Santorum's statement was not regarding the morality of the various acts. The point was that if states cannot outlaw an act because it is "private" then they cannot outlaw ANY private acts.