After telling a reporter that he likes homosexuals just fine — provided we refrain from engaging in homosexual acts — Mr. Santorum came out in support of laws against sodomy. A right to privacy, he said, "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" — for gays, straights, anybody. He then compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. Too much freedom — allowing gays and lesbians to live openly and without fear of arrest, for example — is "antithetical to strong, healthy families," he said. Homosexuality may not be as bad as "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be," he said, but ——
At this point the reporter broke in. "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about `man on dog' with a United States senator," she said. "It's sort of freaking me out."
She wasn't the only one. Gay groups called for Mr. Santorum's head, while antigay groups like the Family Research Council, once headed by Gary Bauer, rushed to defend him. But Mr. Santorum needn't worry about his leadership post. Unlike the former majority leader, Mr. Santorum didn't slip up and say something in plain English that every good Republican knows must only be said in code. Unlike Republican appeals to racist voters, Republican appeals to homophobic voters are overt. During the 2000 campaign, Alan Keyes appeared on the same stage as George Bush and denounced the "radical homosexual agenda" that he said was destroying the American family. Candidate Bush, now President Bush, failed to respond, even though his running mate's daughter is a lesbian.
But gays and lesbians are more than just sons and daughters. We're moms and dads, too. My boyfriend and I adopted a son five years ago, and we plan to adopt again. As more same-sex couples start families, it's going to be harder for Republicans like Mr. Santorum to say we are somehow a threat to the American family.
As much as it may dismay Mr. Santorum and his defenders, there really is no word other than "family" to describe the three people who live in my house. When it comes to marriage rights, gays and lesbians are willing to play semantic games. We will use awkward phrases like "civil union" and "domestic partnership" so long as we can get what our families really need: the rights, responsibilities and safeguards of legal marriage. But two adults who love each other and are raising children together? What are we if not a family? What other word is there for us?
In our culture, homosexuality is discussed only when it
presents a problem — for the armed forces, for closeted gay students in high
school, for those who imagine gays are undermining society. Rarely is
homosexuality credited with the creation of something positive and lasting.
Desire brought my boyfriend and me together. And it's simple desire that brings
most couples, gay or straight, together. Responsibly acted on, this desire is a
good thing in and of itself, and it can often lead to other good things. Like
strong, healthy families.
Dan Savage is editor of The Stranger, a weekly newspaper.
To the Editor:
Re "G.O.P. Senator's Remark on Gays Draws Fire" (news article, April 22):
As a fellow Pennsylvanian and a Republican, I am appalled by Senator Rick Santorum's remarks equating homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.
With his comments, Senator Santorum, like Senator Trent Lott before him, has displayed a level of intolerance and disdain for the concept of equal rights, which is at the heart of this great country.
Senator Santorum should heed his own advice from his Web site:
"It is the understood duty of a compassionate people to
reach out to their fellow man."
ALEXANDER MUNOZ
Marshalls Creek, Pa.,
April 22, 2003
To the Editor:
Senator Rick Santorum's comments comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, adultery and incest were shocking in their insensitivity and lack of understanding ("Persistent Conflict for Gays and G.O.P.," Congressional Memo, April 23).
It seems ironic to me that as a conservative Republican, Mr.
Santorum believes in less government interference in the lives of Americans, yet
he seeks to regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own
homes.
REBECCA FORMAN
Brooklyn, April 23, 2003
To the Editor:
Re your April 22 news article about Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about gays:
Love between two people, no matter what their sex, is the basis of a stable family. From a self-described compassionate man, all I see is a hatred of difference.
As this administration and its allies continue to demonize
those with less political power, I fear that soon none of us will be safe.
SETH ROSEN
New York, April 22, 2003
To the Editor:
Re "Senator Santorum Sounds Off" (Topics of The Times, April 23):
Why is it that the constitutional right to freedom of speech seems to apply only to the liberal left? Right-wing conservatives represent members of our country, too; don't they get the same rights as everyone else?
I would love to see the day when the extreme left practices
the same tolerance and acceptance for others that it so ferociously espouses for
itself.
KITTREDGE WHITE
New York, April 23, 2003
To the Editor:
In "Senator Santorum Sounds Off" (Topics of The Times, April 23), you castigate Senator Rick Santorum for his remarks about the relationship between the ideals behind the push for judicial affirmation of homosexual lifestyles and those of polygamists, bigamists and adulterers.
This parallels the response from other gay rights supporters in two respects: avoiding the argument and mischaracterizing those of us who support the senator's remarks.
In no major statements criticizing the senator is anyone confronting the substance of the argument itself: with a rhetoric focused on tolerance of diverse lifestyles, it is absurd to claim that these groups, polygamists especially, do not have an equal claim to judicial affirmation.
Furthermore, instead of dismissing Mr. Santorum as a
"retrograde" loyalist to traditional values, maybe people should consider that
the reason these issues are being addressed in the courts is that democratic
attempts to "embrace" homosexual lifestyles, such as through expanding the
definition of marriage, have failed.
MICHAEL F. LORELLI
Cambridge,
Mass., April 23, 2003
Close Window to Return to TBC Web
Site