On Sunday, the Associated Press released a profile piece on Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.-the third-highest ranking Republican in the Senate, and a man who White House political director Ken Mehlman called \one of the original compassionate conservatives."" The article outlined his path to power-first as a congressman from Pittsburgh, then as a brash Senate candidate that rode the Contract With America wave to victory in 1994, then as a matured Senator at the top levels of prestige and influence.
In an interview for the piece, Santorum was asked about Lawrence v. Texas, a case before the Supreme Court that concerns the constitutionality of a state law that prohibits homosexual sodomy. Two men who were convicted of this misdemeanor are challenging it because they believe that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as well as the peripheral ""right to privacy"" that is suggested by several constitutional provisions.
Their equal protection argument is persuasive. For decades, Texas law banned sodomy outright-which is to say that the prohibition applied equally to straight and gay couples. However, in 1973, the law was amended so that only ""deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex"" was illegal. Hence, the appellants believe that homosexuals, along with anyone else who is inclined to have intimate relations with a partner of the same sex, are being subjected to separate and unfair treatment.
The Texas appellate court disagreed, saying that the state could treat heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals differently if the statute was ""rationally related to a legitimate state interest."" (By contrast: laws that discriminate on account of race or national origin, as well as laws which infringe on fundamental rights, must be ""narrowly tailored"" to serve a ""compelling state interest."") The court went on to say that the legitimate interest served by this law was-wait for it-the preservation of ""public morals."" And with reliance on centuries of American law, British common law, and religious doctrine, the court summarily rejected the privacy argument.
Santorum, to put it mildly, is a big fan of the opinion. And he encouraged the Supreme Court to uphold it. Specifically, Santorum said the following:
""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. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution.""
And this came from someone who is described-seriously, now-as ""one of the original compassionate conservatives."" Now, Santorum might have forgotten to mail in his ""compassionate conservative"" renewal form. Or he might not have been compassionate to begin with. My money is on the latter.
Let us start with the decades-old comparison between consensual homosexual intercourse and child molestation. In 1977, Anita Bryant-singer, former Miss Oklahoma, then-spokesperson for Floridian producers of orange juice-launched a successful campaign to repeal an anti-discrimination ordinance in Miami. In speeches made to supporters of her ""Save Our Children"" campaign, she said the following: ""As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children. Therefore, they must recruit our children.""
This type of inflammatory and groundless rhetoric was appalling and wrong in 1977. It still is. End of discussion.
Then there is the supposed offense to two-parent families. Look: I would like, just once, to see someone say how the lives of those in ""healthy, stable and traditional"" households are specifically affected-not in the abstract, mind you, but in specific, concrete terms-by the fact that there are people in this nation who engage in intimate relations with another person of the same sex in the privacy of their own homes. Just one time.
Now, Santorum's comments are bad enough. But the silence from Santorum's colleagues is telling. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.-who was the direct beneficiary of a similar gaffe, remember-had no comment. And White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer also had no comment because, as he said yesterday, ""I've been a little busy focusing on other activities and events, and I haven't talked to the president about it.""
That is very interesting, seeing as Sunday's major activity at the White House was the Easter Egg Hunt. So we can reasonably conclude that the White House's silence was due not to a lack of focus, but to their indifference to clear discrimination and injustice. How sad-and typical.
