Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Sen. Rick Santorum

Senator Rick Santorum will be one of the speakers at Justice Sunday III this weekend where I will be liveblogging in Philadelphia, and I am really looking forward to it. He took a lot of heat from the left regarding his opposition to same sex marriage as you might recall. I have always found him to be intelligent and charming and a compassionate conservative.

You gotta love a guy who has listed on his webpage under "calendar of events" a happy hour. Heh.

In researching a bit about Sen. Santorum, I found the usual sick sites that don't just disagree, but have to be disgusting as well. Ugh.

Here is the interview regarding homosexuals that got so much attention. This is the first time I have read the whole interview. (the man on dog statement is what got so much attention) At first I was a bit disturbed by these statements:

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.

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.

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 — (interviewer interrups)


I was disturbed from a secular point of view because I believe constitutionally that what goes on between 2 consenting adults is private and none of our business, but when I re-read it I realized the Senator was talking about the Church, not the state. He begins by saying "within the church...." Well, then I totally agree. When you tell people that anything goes, then anything does go and we reap the consequences. Now, in a free society people are free to do that. I wouldn't have it any other way. And apparently neither would Sen. Santorum. He just wants it our laws to reflect what the people want. (even if it disagrees with our religous belief) Not some judicial activist judge overiding the people. Here is how he ends the interview:

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.

So it is clear that Sen. Santorum was defining his beliefs within the Church, but saying that even though they may differ with what people vote or decide, he would, of course, accept that. Which is exactly how I feel.

We religious conservatives are often bashed for trying to "impose" our beliefs on society. Well, I have news for you. The entire political spectrum from people for gay rights to environmental rights are trying to "impose" their beliefs on society. Why should someone's religious belief be any different? The people look at the issues, hear all sides, and then vote on what they want. That is Democracy. But being religious does not exclude me from stating my beliefs within the political arena. If they don't vote the way I wish, then that is just the way it is. And I accept that just as Sen. Santorum clearly does.