Santorum Revisited

For many in the HIV/AIDS community, we remember the words of Senator Rick Santorum in his Associated Press interview back in April of 2003, where he compared gays and lesbians to bestiality and incest. We remember when he said on national television that birth control (code word for condoms) is unhealthy for women. But, for most of the American public not directly affected by HIV/AIDS, Rick Santorum might not show up on your radar. This is what Housing Works says about Rick Santorum: Rick Santorum is leading the fight against reality-based HIV prevention strategies like clean needles for active drug users and condoms for youth who are having sex. Federal studies have shown we could save more lives, but they choose extremist politics over saving lives. • Rick Santorum is leading the fight against cheaper AIDS medications for domestic and global health care programs. Millions more overseas could be treated, state health care programs could save billions here at home, but they choose protecting drug company profits over saving lives. • Rick Santorum has attacked our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, comparing their relationships to bestiality and incest. Understanding the reality of homosexuality and bisexuality in America can lead to HIV education and prevention programs that work, but they choose division and intolerance over saving lives. Now, Let’s revisit his interview with the Associated Press: AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality? SANTORUM: 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. AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex? SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — 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. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. 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.