It was predictable that the homosexual lobby and its supporters in the media and political life would come down like a ton of bricks on Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) for having the audacity to speak the truth about homosexuality.
Probably the most serious criticism to be made of Santorum is that he should have seen it coming. With the connivance of major sectors of the communications and political establishments, homosexual organizations have been working hard for years at this particular exercise in what the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan called “defining deviancy down” — the process by which aberrant, socially destructive behavior is redefined so as to make it seem acceptable.
As a result of this campaign, we are nearing — if indeed we haven't already reached — the point at which anyone who puts aside euphemism in favor of straight talk about homosexuality does so at his or her own risk. As Senator Santorum presumably now knows.
But what did he say? Essentially, two things.
First, that homosexuals shouldn't be penalized for being homosexual. Second, that it would be a serious mistake for the Supreme Court to bestow the protection of the United States Constitution on Sodomy — the reason being that, logically at least, doing that would pave the way for demands that other practices destructive of social morality and family life like bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery receive similar constitutional protection.
Here is the key passage from Santorum's now-famous interview with the Associated Press that set the stage for this hullabaloo: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [homosexual] 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.”
The senator, of course, is correct. The leader of a polygamist sect in Utah unwittingly confirmed his point when he complained about the linkage of polygamy with these other noxious practices. If polygamy is to join sodomy on the list of approved behaviors, one might ask, what reason, except blind prejudice, could there possibly be for keeping anything else off? One looks forward to the first New York Times editorial making that point.
Meanwhile, the Times chimed in with an editorial excoriating Santorum, as did The Washington Post. Other media fell in line. Writers like the Times' Maureen Dowd and the Post's Richard Cohen contributed mindless name-calling to the fun (Dowd on Santorum — “obnoxious,” Cohen — “a moron”). As judicious readers are aware, when columnists take to name-calling, it's a sign they have no serious arguments to make.
Note that Santorum was not speaking in vacuum. The real-life context for his remarks was a case now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the anti-sodomy laws of Texas and, by implication, a dozen other states. A decision is expected before the court adjourns late next month. The Supreme Court may overturn these statutes, even though it upheld them as recently as 1986.
As I have remarked before, in the abstract you can make the case that the private sexual behavior of consenting adults is beyond the reach of the law. Abstract arguments aside, however, a Supreme Court ruling that discovered a constitutional right to sodomy would supply legitimacy for much else — including, it's much to be feared, the legalization of gay 'marriage.'
But it's dangerous to say that these days. The homosexual lobby will get mad if you do. So will Maureen Dowd and Richard Cohen. Shame on you, Santorum!
Russell Shaw is a freelance writer from Washington, D.C. You can email him at RShaw10290@aol.com.
To purchase Shaw's most popular books attractively priced in the Catholic Exchange store, click here.
