I find myself in the incredibly awkward position of defending one of my least favorite people in the world-Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
While I completely disagree with his stance on the lack of rights for homosexuals, he did not compare homosexuality to polygamy or incest. Instead, he completely disagrees with the notion that we have a right to privacy guaranteed under the Constitution.
He said that he disagreed with Griswold v. Connecticut, the case that ruled that states could not ban access to contraception. He truly believes that the government should be able to regulate what people do inside their bedrooms. It is this point that people should be disputing.
His stance on homosexuality is a religious one and I don't think it's fair to say to him that he has to be OK with something that he believes to be against his religion. But it is a legitimate argument to say that the government has no business telling any consenting adult what he or she can do inside the privacy of their own home-that we do in fact have a right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution by virtue of the \penumbra"" of rights guaranteed under the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.
His view that we have no rights to privacy, combined with his views that homosexual acts should be illegal, makes him scared that the Supreme Court will expand this right to privacy that he does not believe exists, therefore preventing laws against incest, etc. His views are certainly disputable and from the stone age, but that doesn't mean he likened homosexuality to incest.
