Now that hostilities have subsided in the Iraq war, we’re all hoping for an outpouring of democratic spirit. At the same time, we fear the nation may be falling into the hands of fundamentalist demagogues. I’m not talking about Iraq; I mean the United States of America.
Three weeks ago, Rick Santorum, the Republican junior senator from Pennsylvania gave an interview to the Associated Press in which he compared homosexual sex to bigamy, polygamy and incest and said states should be free to outlaw homosexual acts, even performed behind closed doors by consenting adults.
In the interview, Mr. Santorum made a clear distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts. “I have no problem with homosexuality,” he said. “I have a problem with homosexual acts.”
Senator Santorum is a Roman Catholic and his statement reflects precisely the official Catholic position on homosexuality – accept the person, condemn the action. The AP interview and the controversy that followed it, remind me of the 1960 election, when John Kennedy went to great lengths to assure Americans that, if elected, he would not take orders from the Pope on public policy.
Two decades later, Catholic Governor Mario Cuomo defended his pro-abortion position by saying he refused to impose his religious beliefs on others because he did not want others to impose their religious beliefs on him. Another two decades pass and Senator Santorum is conforming his views on public policy with the Pope and he seems willing to impose his views on others.
For me, the most disturbing thing Rick Santorum said in the interview was that, in his opinion, there is no constitutional right to privacy. Mr. Santorum may be able to unerringly quote Catholic doctrine, but it’s shocking that a member of the United States Senate thinks there is no constitutional right to privacy.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution makes clear that Americans shall not be subject to unreasonable searches. If that’s not a right to privacy, I don’t know what is. Rick Santorum seems to think the police should have a right to barge into our homes to see if anyone is committing what he calls “acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.”
Aside from the specific protection afforded under the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees all Americans are equal before the law. That means there can’t be one law for straights and another for gays and lesbians.
If Senator Santorum has his way, where would he draw the line? Perhaps states could outlaw inter-racial relationships as “non-traditional.” How about inter-faith marriage? The Pope frowns on that too; maybe we should outlaw “Bridget Loves Bernie.”
Mr. Santorum is free to believe and worship as he chooses, but he took an oath, swearing to God, that he would uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Having sworn that oath, he has an obligation to live up to it.
It seems, however, that Senator Santorum sees fit to ignore his oath on issues he feels strongly about, especially if his strong feelings are shared by his political base on the religious right.
The worst aspect of this sorry affair is the hypocrisy. While Rick Santorum is willing to march lock-step with the Vatican if it means denying constitutional protection to gays and lesbians, he becomes conveniently deaf when the Pope announces moral opposition to the war in Iraq.
Vatican Roulette
Now that hostilities have subsided in the Iraq war, we’re all hoping for an outpouring of democratic spirit. At the same time, we fear the nation may be falling into the hands of fundamentalist demagogues. I’m not talking about Iraq; I mean the United States of America.
Three weeks ago, Rick Santorum, the Republican junior senator from Pennsylvania gave an interview to the Associated Press in which he compared homosexual sex to bigamy, polygamy and incest and said states should be free to outlaw homosexual acts, even performed behind closed doors by consenting adults.
In the interview, Mr. Santorum made a clear distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts. “I have no problem with homosexuality,” he said. “I have a problem with homosexual acts.”
Senator Santorum is a Roman Catholic and his statement reflects precisely the official Catholic position on homosexuality – accept the person, condemn the action. The AP interview and the controversy that followed it, remind me of the 1960 election, when John Kennedy went to great lengths to assure Americans that, if elected, he would not take orders from the Pope on public policy.
Two decades later, Catholic Governor Mario Cuomo defended his pro-abortion position by saying he refused to impose his religious beliefs on others because he did not want others to impose their religious beliefs on him. Another two decades pass and Senator Santorum is conforming his views on public policy with the Pope and he seems willing to impose his views on others.
For me, the most disturbing thing Rick Santorum said in the interview was that, in his opinion, there is no constitutional right to privacy. Mr. Santorum may be able to unerringly quote Catholic doctrine, but it’s shocking that a member of the United States Senate thinks there is no constitutional right to privacy.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution makes clear that Americans shall not be subject to unreasonable searches. If that’s not a right to privacy, I don’t know what is. Rick Santorum seems to think the police should have a right to barge into our homes to see if anyone is committing what he calls “acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.”
Aside from the specific protection afforded under the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees all Americans are equal before the law. That means there can’t be one law for straights and another for gays and lesbians.
If Senator Santorum has his way, where would he draw the line? Perhaps states could outlaw inter-racial relationships as “non-traditional.” How about inter-faith marriage? The Pope frowns on that too; maybe we should outlaw “Bridget Loves Bernie.”
Mr. Santorum is free to believe and worship as he chooses, but he took an oath, swearing to God, that he would uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Having sworn that oath, he has an obligation to live up to it.
It seems, however, that Senator Santorum sees fit to ignore his oath on issues he feels strongly about, especially if his strong feelings are shared by his political base on the religious right.
The worst aspect of this sorry affair is the hypocrisy. While Rick Santorum is willing to march lock-step with the Vatican if it means denying constitutional protection to gays and lesbians, he becomes conveniently deaf when the Pope announces moral opposition to the war in Iraq.
(c) Mark Floegel, 2003