I'd never say that the outrage isn't understandable over Sen. Rick Santorum's comments supporting sodomy laws, especially his assertion that if gay sex isn't kept as a criminal offense in Texas and elsewhere, than there's no stopping incest, bestiality, adultery, and polygamy! But I do think it's worthwhile, amidst the outrage, to rationally look at the shifts in the political culture being revealed. And the news, clearly, isn't all bad.
For starters, a few years back when then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott compared gays with alcoholics and kleptomaniacs, it hardly registered as a story outside the gay press. The Santorum blow-up, on the other hand, has received major national coverage, both print and broadcast. That's progress.
Another plus is the President's
better-than-might-have-been-expected response. Again, I'm not
praising Bush, but if we're going to be honest, it's worthwhile to
look at what he said, and didn't say, about this affair. Here's
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, providing
the "official" response:
"The president has confidence in Senator Santorum, both as a senator and as a member of the Senate leadership."
Asked about the president's views on homosexuality, Fleischer said a person's sexuality is "not a matter that the president concerns himself with" and that he judges people on how they act as a whole.
What's missing is any hint of support for Santorum's views on
sodomy laws, or for the belief that consulting adults are not
entitled to sexual privacy in their bedrooms. No wonder some
religious conservatives are upset about this "timid" defense. In
the words of the Family Research Council:
"Beyond a few tepid statements of personal support for Sen. Santorum, no prominent national GOP leader seems willing or able to mount a spirited, principled defense of marriage and family."
And to the religious right, that's come as a shock. The FRC
added, by the way,
"The question naturally arises: Have Republican leaders been so intimidated by the smear tactics of the homosexual lobby and its Democratic attack dogs that they are cowering in silence?"
Well, not quite "cowering," but while Bush won't do or say anything that's seen as too supportive of gays, he won't do or say anything that looks like he endorsing intolerance, either. So Bush praises Santorum as "an inclusive man" (ha!), and says he's interested in how the Supreme Court will rule, shortly, on the constitutionality of sodomy statutes. Right now, all signs point to a ruling that, at the very least, voids same-sex-only sodomy laws, and Bush won't have a problem with that, either.
Thus the balancing act goes on, to the chagrin of both gay activists and their opposites in the religious right -- both sides convinced the President has sold his soul to the other.
SARS Envy?
"Some [activists] question why HIV didn't get the attention SARS
does," says a headline in the April 25 issue of the Washington
Blade (this story isn't online). Talk about comparative
victimization contests! The main governmental responses to SARS
have been contact tracing and quarantine. Just imagine if that had
been the response to AIDS! Obviously, since HIV is NOT spread
casually through the air, quarantine would be inappropriate. A case
might be made for contract tracing to alert those infected with HIV
early on, a standard public health response to a deadly
communicable disease, but AIDS activists put up a fight, fearing -
with some justification - that quarantine could follow. Even today,
the same issue of the Blade has a piece about activists criticizing
a CDC proposal for routine HIV screening by doctors!
--Stephen H. Miller
Recent Postings