Santorum interview worse than previously thought

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, and everyone online has already blogged extensively about the Santorum controversy, but I wanted to follow up on some thoughts from Friday.

As you know by now, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum started quite a political controversy last week by equating “consensual (gay) sex” with polygamy, bigamy, and incest. And as much as the comment was offensive directly to gays and those of us who find homophobia morally reprehensible, the interview was scandalous for far worse reasons.

To appreciate just how bizarre Santorum’s philosophy about civil liberties and a right to privacy is, you’ll just have to read the entire transcript of the interview. This is clearly one of those instances when additional context makes a controversial statement look worse, not better.

For example, the context of Santorum’s infamous anti-gay remark was his response to a question about what people can legally be permitted to do in the privacy of their own home. The AP reporter interviewing Santorum heard the Senator reject, in his words, a “right to privacy lifestyle.” She asked, “Should we outlaw homosexuality?”

Santorum didn’t exactly say no. “I have no problem with someone who has other orientations,” Santorum said. “The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions.”

In other words, Santorum was saying he can tolerate someone being gay, he just opposes gay people being intimate with other gay people behind closed doors. That’s moronic, of course, but essentially what one should expect from Santorum.

In fact, if that’s all there was to it, it’d be a simple controversy about another homophobic senator. Santorum’s remarks wouldn’t even be particularly creative. The whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach has been common in conservative circles for as long as I can remember.

The problem, though, is that he also believes the government has the right, indeed the responsibility, to make that intimate behavior illegal.

A closer look at his comments also shows that Santorum wasn’t actually singling out gays for discrimination. The senator clearly believes that no one — regardless of their sexual orientation — has a right to privacy. He actually believes such a right “undermine[s] the basic tenets of our society.”

“I would argue this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution,” Santorum said. He added, “And the further you extend it out, the more…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.”

Santorum is entitled to his beliefs, but this philosophy is on the furthest fringes of conservative thought in America. Santorum was advocating the largest of all possible governments — the government that regulates what adult Americans do in their own bedroom and literally criminalizes sexual behavior that Santorum finds deviant.

“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions,” Santorum said. “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.”

Then the interview got a little twisted. Santorum was trying to explain how he applies his principles to everyone equally.

“That’s not to pick on homosexuality,” Santorum said. “It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”

At this point, the reporter was feeling pretty uncomfortable. She said, “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.” To which Santorum replied, “And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately.”

Actually, no, that’s not where we are in society. That’s only where we are in Santorum’s perverse mind. As blogger Daily Kos said on his site Friday, “Tell me, what kind of person walks around talking about ‘man on dog’ sex? I can confidently say that the thought never enters my mind unbidden. Yet Santorum, in the course of a conversation with a reporter, casually mentions bestiality…. I would be freaked out if anyone started talking to me about ‘man on dog’ sex. It’s not normal. For a Senator to bring the topic up to a reporter is, well, beyond belief.”

Not only was Santorum proving himself a supporter of a totalitarian state, he also hinted at the fact that he’s a sick weirdo.

Santorum’s political philosophy is, in a word, scary. Attorney General John Ashcroft is usually the first person I think of when I consider public officials with disdain for civil liberties, but Santorum actually articulated a viewpoint that’s considerably worse. Ashcroft wants to tape our phone calls, read our emails, and arrest our Middle Eastern neighbors whether they’ve committed a crime or not. Santorum wants to do all of these things plus peek in our bedroom doors to see if he approves of our intimate behavior — and arrest us if he doesn’t.

He appears to apply this philosophy almost universally. When it comes to his religious beliefs, for example, Santorum believes he is perfectly justified in imposing his theology on everyone through the power of the state.

Santorum said two years ago that he rejects John F. Kennedy’s 1960 endorsement of church-state separation, concluding that Kennedy’s vow not to take orders from the Roman Catholic hierarchy has caused “much harm in America.”

Interviewed in Rome while attending an event sponsored by Opus Dei, a far-right Catholic group, Santorum told the National Catholic Reporter, “All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for someone else?’ But it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

It’s almost hard to believe that a lawmaker in the 21st century would conclude that the freedom of conscience is a “corruption.”

Keep in mind, this isn’t just some nut job, he’s a Republican member of Congress. And he’s not just a GOP congressman, he’s a senator. And he’s not just a senator, he’s one of the body’s principal leaders — the third highest ranking senator in the chamber.

Please remind me again, Mr. Nader, about how there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.