Molestation, Sexuality and Santorum

This entry started as a tangent to the previous one about Ari Fleischer's comment on behalf of the President in regards to Rick Santorum's statement, and touches on issues I've raised before - but I felt it deserved an entry all it's own.

While the gay-rights's issue raised by the court case Santorum was commenting on (which challenges a Texas law that makes gay sodomy illegal, while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal - a law apparently passed during the same year the state rescinded a law that had made private beastiality illegal - meaning that it's ok for someone to have sex with an animal in private, but not ok for two men or two women to do so) are important, the substance of Santorum's comments went beyond even that.

In the interview, Santorum blamed the problem of priests molesting children on the growing tolerance for homosexuality. It is hard for me to express just how offensive this idea is. Priests do not molest boys because Americans find homosexuality less objectionable than before. Many of the molestations that are being reported now occured many years ago, before homosexuality was nearly as well "tolerated" as it is today (if it's status today can even be called "tolerated").

Sexual molestations - be it a man molesting a boy or a girl, or a woman doing the molesting - has little to do with sex in and of itself. It's an issue of power, just as any rape is. The desire for power may manifest itself in a sexual way, but the issue is still power.

For our President - though whatever method - to be sending a message of support for a man who believes that priests (or anyone else, for that matter) molesting teens are engaged in a "normal homosexual relationship" is inexcusable. Would either Senator Santorum or President Bush consider an adult molesting a teenaged girl a "normal heterosexual relationship"? If so, shouldn't we then just do away with statuatory rape laws? Somehow, I doubt either man would be in support of that.

I have never understood how people can get the idea that somehow kids - even teens - who are molested are in any way consenting to the abuse. Adults, and, in particular, adults who hold any kind of a position of authoritiy, such as teachers, parents, clergy, coaches and law-enforcement personnel, are also people who kids want to please - and they will often to go any lengths in order to ensure that they are pleased, even if it means doing things they don't want to do or feel that they should be doing. In no way does their "giving in" imply actual consent. The adult has the power in the relationship, and has the reponsiblity to be looking out for the child's best interest. Any harm that comes to that child through the adult's actions is the sole responsiblity of that adult.

While Santorum's comments about homosexuality in general are offensive enough, it is this assertion about priestly molestations that needs to become the focus of the outrage. Blogs may not yet have a huge amount of influence on what gets covered in the mainstream media, but as the situation with Trent Lott showed, if some enough of a hubbub can be raised in the blogosphere, and if some of those higher up in the blogging food chain would start covering that aspect of the story more, it very well might break out into the mainstream media, and questions can be raised about why the President would give his support to a man who says that priests molesting teens are just engaging in a "normal homosexual relationship". There's nothing normal about it - its quite simply a crime.