Foot in head disease

I was going to write a long screed about Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s recent blithering about gay rights and the impending doom of civilization, but — well, Doyce stole a goodly chunk of my thunder.

I will note that the “love the sinner, hate the sin” philosophy is a difficult but fairly acceptable theological statement, but as a socio-political one it’s a bitch to implement, especially as Santorum frames things. I have no problem with homosexuality — I have a problem with homosexual acts, he says. Right.

The basic argument he puts forward — and what got him into hot water in the AP interview he was quoted from — is that he believes that a Supreme Court ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case would mean that anything done consensually in private would be automatically legal — whereas the actual point of the appeal is that the state must demonstrate a compelling reason to legislate against personal freedoms, and that Texas has failed to do so other than a sort of vague, “It’s icky” standard.

If “it’s icky” is to be the criterion for what the state can prohibit, I fear not many of the freedoms n the Constitution will bear close examination.

Santorum (who, coincidentally enough, was the Bush administration Senate leader for its faith-based charity initiative) eventually becomes more specific in his charges that the Supremes accepting this argument (which, one would think, would be key to any truly conservative political philosophy, but the GOP has always been in favor of Big Government when it comes to the Morals Police) would lead to all sorts of horrors.

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.

Well, again, yes, you can argue that if the state can’t provide compelling reasons why someone should not be able to do something, they should be able to do it. If Santorum thinks that there are no objective reasons against polygamy, incest, and adultery besides his own personal whim, then, yes, I suppose that would come to pass.

Of course, there might be worse horrors in the world than polygamy (which seems to have Biblical approval, whereas homosexuality arguably does not — and let’s not discuss incest), but Santorum seems to see this as the prospective fall of Western Civilization, or at least American society.

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.

Which other laws would Sen. Santorum like to see the states be able to enact to endorse (and enforce?) the “healthy, stable, traditional family”? Eliminate “no-fault” divorce? Require extensive counseling and approval by a governmental third party before marriage and/or child-rearing would be allowed?

The “traditional” family often was an extended one. Should we expect governmental travel restrictions in the future, to ensure that people live near or with their parents? After all, freedom of movement is no more spelled out in the Constitution than freedom of privacy, which Santorum seems so willing to simply dismiss.

Of course, Santorum mistakes “traditional” for “healthy and stable.” There have been unhealthy families, and unstable ones, even under “traditional” guises. But if we omit the “traditional” rubric, how is it that allowing homosexual sex — or even, gasp, homosexual unions (marriages) — is “antithetical” to “healthy, stable families”?

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.

We’ll leave aside Santorum’s rather limited anthropological knowledge, and move right along …

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.

Aha! So we can have a really strong society if we restrict marriage only to couples who are going to bear children. That’s the point of society, right? Children?

And monogamy! Stable relationships! Music to the ears of such traditional GOP stalwarts as Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich … all of whom were divorced, in some cases even with (gasp) children involved.

(We’ll leave aside how many societies, including ours, have enshrined as important, vital members of society those who have pursued celebacy, neither having children nor getting married. Presumably, by Santorum’s societal calculus, these folks — sometimes known as priests, monks or nuns — are equally corrosive to a healthy society.)

Of course, Santorum is a politician, so take anything he says with a grain of salt. In a press release yesterday, in response to the furor, he asserted, “My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.”

What they are a statement on is not, therefore, altogether clear. Is it a matter of “some of my best friends are gay, but I’m talking about all those other ones,” or what?

Hey, look — I wrote a long screed anyway. Go figure.