kitty
04-23-2003, 11:59 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/...gays/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/santorum.gays/index.html)
Santorum defends comments on homosexuality
White House maintains silence on issue
Wednesday, April 23, 2003 Posted: 4:29 PM EDT (2029 GMT)
WILLIAMSPORT, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Sen. Rick Santorum on Wednesday complained that his remarks about homosexuality -- under fire by gay rights groups and some Democrats -- were "taken out of context," but at the same time he defended them as an accurate reflection of the law on the matter.
Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, was questioned about his comments at a town hall meeting by a 23-year-old man who identified himself as "a proud, gay Pennsylvanian" and said he was offended by the remarks -- part of an interview with The Associated Press -- in which Santorum appeared to compare homosexuality to incest, bigamy and adultery.
"You attacked me for who I am .... How could you compare my sexuality and what I do in the privacy of my home to bigamy or incest," the man asked Santorum.
Santorum, however, stood by his comments, even as he said they had been taken out of context. He said that if states were not allowed to regulate homosexual activity in private homes, "you leave open the door for a variety of other sexual activities to occur within the home and not be regulated."
Santorum, a lawyer, said that was not an expression of intolerance. "It is simply a reflection of the law," he said, saying Justice Byron White articulated that view in a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that dealt with homosexuality.
In the AP interview, Santorum criticized homosexuality as he discussed a pending Supreme Court case over a sodomy law in Texas.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said in the AP interview.
Meanwhile, in Washington the White House maintained a hands-off posture about the comments for a second day in a row.
"I haven't personally talked to the president about it, so I don't have anything direct for the president to share," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said in response to a question about Santorum's comments.
Fleischer said the president typically doesn't comment on matters pending before the Supreme Court or people's interpretation of cases, and he cast Santorum's remarks in that context.
Santorum, however, also talked about homosexuality in general during the AP interview, and he made it clear that he did not approve of "acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships."
In the April 7 interview, Santorum describes homosexual acts as a threat to society and the family. "I have no problem with homosexuality," Santorum said, according to the AP. "I have a problem with homosexual acts." (Interview excerpts)
The White House's reluctance to offer its opinions about Santorum's remarks stands in sharp contrast to its response to comments made by Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, in December that many believed were racially insensitive and remarks in March from Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, about Jews and the war in Iraq. In both cases, the White House criticized those comments.
And in both cases, the two men gave up their respective leadership positions under pressure. Lott resigned as Senate majority leader and Moran resigned as a Democratic regional whip.
Gay groups have blasted Santorum's comments, including the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans.
Some Democrats have called on Santorum to step down from his Senate leadership position. Santorum serves as chairman of the Republican Senate Caucus, the number three position in the GOP leadership.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one of nine Democrats seeking his party's 2004 presidential nomination, Wednesday, called on Santorum to step aside from the leadership post.
"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral," Dean said in a statement. "Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate. Today, I call on Rick Santorum to resign from his post as Republican Conference chairman."
Santorum has stood by his comments, saying they should be viewed in the context of the Supreme Court case. In a Tuesday statement, he also stated his belief that "all are equal under the Constitution" and that his remarks in the interview were not meant to be a statement on "individual lifestyles."
Several conservative groups have come to Santorum's defense.
Concerned Women for America, a conservative interest group in Washington, released a statement criticizing the "gay thought police" and saying Santorum was "exactly right."
Genevieve Wood, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, another conservative group, agreed.
"I think the Republican party would do well to follow Senator Santorum if they want to see pro-family voters show up on Election Day," she said.
-- Written by CNN.Com Producer Sean Loughlin in Washington.
AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?
SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.
The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this while idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.
AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe --
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
Santorum defends comments on homosexuality
White House maintains silence on issue
Wednesday, April 23, 2003 Posted: 4:29 PM EDT (2029 GMT)
WILLIAMSPORT, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Sen. Rick Santorum on Wednesday complained that his remarks about homosexuality -- under fire by gay rights groups and some Democrats -- were "taken out of context," but at the same time he defended them as an accurate reflection of the law on the matter.
Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, was questioned about his comments at a town hall meeting by a 23-year-old man who identified himself as "a proud, gay Pennsylvanian" and said he was offended by the remarks -- part of an interview with The Associated Press -- in which Santorum appeared to compare homosexuality to incest, bigamy and adultery.
"You attacked me for who I am .... How could you compare my sexuality and what I do in the privacy of my home to bigamy or incest," the man asked Santorum.
Santorum, however, stood by his comments, even as he said they had been taken out of context. He said that if states were not allowed to regulate homosexual activity in private homes, "you leave open the door for a variety of other sexual activities to occur within the home and not be regulated."
Santorum, a lawyer, said that was not an expression of intolerance. "It is simply a reflection of the law," he said, saying Justice Byron White articulated that view in a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that dealt with homosexuality.
In the AP interview, Santorum criticized homosexuality as he discussed a pending Supreme Court case over a sodomy law in Texas.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said in the AP interview.
Meanwhile, in Washington the White House maintained a hands-off posture about the comments for a second day in a row.
"I haven't personally talked to the president about it, so I don't have anything direct for the president to share," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said in response to a question about Santorum's comments.
Fleischer said the president typically doesn't comment on matters pending before the Supreme Court or people's interpretation of cases, and he cast Santorum's remarks in that context.
Santorum, however, also talked about homosexuality in general during the AP interview, and he made it clear that he did not approve of "acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships."
In the April 7 interview, Santorum describes homosexual acts as a threat to society and the family. "I have no problem with homosexuality," Santorum said, according to the AP. "I have a problem with homosexual acts." (Interview excerpts)
The White House's reluctance to offer its opinions about Santorum's remarks stands in sharp contrast to its response to comments made by Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, in December that many believed were racially insensitive and remarks in March from Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, about Jews and the war in Iraq. In both cases, the White House criticized those comments.
And in both cases, the two men gave up their respective leadership positions under pressure. Lott resigned as Senate majority leader and Moran resigned as a Democratic regional whip.
Gay groups have blasted Santorum's comments, including the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans.
Some Democrats have called on Santorum to step down from his Senate leadership position. Santorum serves as chairman of the Republican Senate Caucus, the number three position in the GOP leadership.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one of nine Democrats seeking his party's 2004 presidential nomination, Wednesday, called on Santorum to step aside from the leadership post.
"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral," Dean said in a statement. "Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate. Today, I call on Rick Santorum to resign from his post as Republican Conference chairman."
Santorum has stood by his comments, saying they should be viewed in the context of the Supreme Court case. In a Tuesday statement, he also stated his belief that "all are equal under the Constitution" and that his remarks in the interview were not meant to be a statement on "individual lifestyles."
Several conservative groups have come to Santorum's defense.
Concerned Women for America, a conservative interest group in Washington, released a statement criticizing the "gay thought police" and saying Santorum was "exactly right."
Genevieve Wood, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, another conservative group, agreed.
"I think the Republican party would do well to follow Senator Santorum if they want to see pro-family voters show up on Election Day," she said.
-- Written by CNN.Com Producer Sean Loughlin in Washington.
AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?
SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.
The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this while idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.
AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe --
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.