Sex, Santorum and the right to privacy

Lots going on today in blogland - and the general media - about Senator Rick Santorum's comment that allowing "consensual (gay) sex" in the privacy of the home would allow anything in the privacy of the home, including adultery, bigamy, incest and polygamy.

In a Salon article yesterday, Andrew Sullivan noted that the actual quote from Sen. Santorum was actually a much broader comparison.

First off a simple question: What did Santorum actually say? The reason I ask this is that I don't know anyone who speaks in parentheses. Did the AP reporter add the "(gay)" part to provide context for the quote? But such context could easily be provided by a simple sentence beforehand, while leaving the actual quote intact. From the story, it seems as if reporter Lara Jakes Jordan added the "(gay)" in order to get around her poor sentence construction. If so, she ruined a huge and damaging Freudian slip. Because it's clear from the quote that simply consensual sex -- gay or straight -- is precisely what Santorum wants to police.

Atrios notes that, in another quote from the same interview, Santorm claims that post-pubescent men (i.e. teenagers) who had sex with Catholic priests were engaged in a "basic homosexual relationship" that was "consensual" - ignoring, of course, that the victim is still a minor (and would be considered the victim of molestation under almost any law). Just as sexual relationships between patients of any age and their doctors or therapists are considered unethical, and, in some cases, illegal, because these professionals hold a position of authority in the patient's life, so does a Priest hold a position of authority in a parishoner's life, and thus is able to exert a stronger influence on their victim, in effect coercing them through abuse of their perceived power.

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

DailyKOS points out that, while condeming the gay "lifestyle" and how allowing consentual sex be unregulated in the privacy of the home, Santorum makes sure to clarify that he doesn't have any problem with the gays themselves.

But being a good Christian, Santorum doesn't condemn the homosexual. No siree.

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. [...] 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 how does Santorum justify his desire for the government to be able to regulate all private sex acts? He says that the regulation of sexual activites - the regulation of an individuals passions and wants - is necessary because society must support 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.

[..] And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. 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. And we're seeing it in our society.

And, of course, the reason we must protect "the family" is because of children.

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.

So, Santorum wants the government to have the right to regulate individual sexuality because "deviant" practices undermine the "family", and the family is important because that's what produces children.

I would absolutely love it if some reporter could sit Santorum down again and ask him a few more questions. For example, if certain kinds of sexuality are harmful to "the family", and the family is important because it produces children, should all non-reproductive sex acts be banned? What do you do with infertile people, who physiologically cannot have children? And what about couples like my husband and I, who, knowing that we would make rotten parents, have taken steps to ensure that we don't have children? Should we all be told that it's ok for us to have sexual desires (just as he thinks its ok for gays to have sexual desires for people of the same sex), but that we shouldn't act on those desires (just as Santorum believes gays should refrain from acting on their desires)? Where does the line get drawn? Should the government be involved in regulating things such as what sexual positions are allowable - for example, making the "missionary" position the only legal position since that is the one believed to be best for encouraging conception?

Bizzarely, Santorum seems to think that such decisions should be left up to the individual states - so that people who live in one state could outlaw all sex except procreative sex, and another state could allow pretty much anything anyone could want.

SANTORUM: 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.

I find it outrageous that this is a conversation that we should even need to have. Our sexual lives should be precisely that - ours! Santorum believes that there should be no right to privacy in this country, and that without this right, the government could then step in and regulate sexuality. But there may even be a way around that. Now, this is just my own personal "pet" theory, and maybe it wouldn't work at all, but it seems to me that there have been many actions that have been held to be forms of expression or "speech" - things such as flag burning, various forms of art - including performance art - and so on. What is more "expressive" than a sexual act? Now, granted, one Senator speaking out does not a crisis make, so "emergency" tactics are not needed now, nor is widespread panic - but it can't hurt to at least consider what kinds of tactics might be useful for when future cases arise.

On the whole, this will likely turn out to be a tempest in a teacup, but ideas like this cannot be ignored. If they are not shouted down immediately, people who feel the same way will think that these ideas are acceptable, and they're not. Yes, Sen. Santorum and others who agree with him have their right to their beliefs and they have the right to express them. I am in no way suggesting that the government should do anything to shut them up. But the protest against these ideas must be loud and strong so that they cannot find places to flourish. I'm not willing to let the government into my bedroom. I hope you're not, either.

Posted by thorswitch at April 23, 2003 12:15 PM | TrackBack