Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) recently made national headlines with the following quote: “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 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.” His use of the term “consensual” referred to homosexual sex.
First, Santorum’s comments need to be put in context. The Supreme Court case to which he is referring involves anti-sodomy laws. While the word “sodomy” carries a strong negative connotation, especially in the Bible Belt, its strict definition is non-procreative sex. This means that, among other things, heterosexual oral sex is sodomy.
The case involves Texas’ anti-sodomy laws, although many states have anti-sodomy laws, Mississippi among them (fun fact: “unnatural sex” in Mississippi can get you 10 years in Parchman). The background is this: two men were having sex in their home. Their neighbor called the police because the men were allegedly making a lot of noise and the neighbor thought someone was being harmed. Police go in the house, discover the men having sex and arrest them. The men are charged with sodomy and spend the rest of the evening in jail.
I have to wonder what problem this so-called conservative senator has with the things he names since they involve consenting adults committing the most private of acts. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be in favor of limited government and privacy rights?
This is not to say I endorse incest, bigamy or adultery. But just because something is bad doesn’t mean there should be a law against it. There is a difference between thinking that “a healthy, stable, traditional family” is good for society and thinking that it should be law.
Did Santorum, the No. 3 Republican, have a Trent Lott moment? Democrats and gay rights groups are calling for an apology and demotion, if not outright resignation. Pennsylvania Republicans are quietly quaking because the state’s other GOP senator, Arlen Specter, will face a difficult reelection next year. Pennsylvania has a strong union presence and was for Al Gore in 2000. The last thing they need is their other senator putting a stain on the GOP.
Will Santorum lose his position or over this? Probably not. If anything, it will engender him further to the religious right. It might make his reelection more difficult, but Pennsylvania is not as socially liberal as most northeastern states. The people who are angry over Santorum’s comments wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.
But Santorum shouldn’t be the main issue. Anti-sodomy laws are at the center of this debate. These laws, thankfully, can’t be enforced with any regularity.
So what is the laws’ purpose? They stigmatize homosexual behavior. If the laws just prohibited stuff like adultery, then they would’ve been repealed a long time ago. Otherwise, the cynic in me says that several legislators would’ve been breaking the law.
These laws appease small but vocal groups who claim to have a monopoly on morality and knowing what’s best for the all-important, sacred “family.” An aside-I’d like to ask these groups if being homosexual disqualifies a person from being a part of a family.
The debate over anti-sodomy laws shouldn’t be turned into a debate or the morality of homosexuality, or, for that matter, any other sexual behavior engaged in by consenting adults.
The debate should be about privacy rights. The founding fathers (and true conservatives) treasure them.
Santorum seems to view privacy rights as an obstacle to legislating the most private act human beings can engage in so he can score points with his political base.
Wilson Boyd is a senior economics major.