Murrel.Org - Sen Santorum is a Threat to All American's Privacy

Murrel. Org

Updated 4/23/2003

Home

USCF

  Sen Santorum is a Threat to All American's Privacy
   by Murrel,
   April 23, 2003

There is currently a bit of confusion going on in the press and political halls across the nation about Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum recent comments in favor of the State of Texas criminal prosecution of two Texas homosexuals who were caught enjoying themselves in the privacy of there own home when the police answered a false report of an armed man in the residence.

While wags focus on his meaning to homosexuals, Senator Santorum claims he was just repeating the arguments of Justice Byron White and reiterated by the State of Texas their prosecution of the pair. But his comments according to this transcript at Yahoo, really indicate that he is opposed to privacy for ALL of us.

This was first pointed out by Ronald Bailey at Reason Online and has largely been ignored by the main stream press.

Santorum's main argument as he states it: 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 ... was created.

This should be chilling for all of us. He is essentially saying that we have no right to privacy and society police have a right to determine what we may and may not do within our own homes. This is the kind of control that the Taliban had. This is the kind of control the Puritans exorcised. This kind of majority rule does NOT exist within our Constitution. There is no place for the government in the bedrooms of our nation. As long as interactions are safe, sane and consentual, there are no victims. And without victims the state has no reason for interest in such activities.

There are some who say that Senator Sentorum is only exercising his first amendment free speech rights just as Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were. Usually these are the same people who normally are telling us that actions have consequences.

But there is a difference. While Sarandon and Robbins used their celebrity to push their positions, they essentially had no power to do anything. Sentorum, oh the other hand, is the third most powerful Senate Republican and, of course, the republicans are a majority in both houses as well as running the executive branch. His views are important - far more important than the average US Senator.

In an uncomfortable irony, Sarandon and Robbins were readily susceptible to reaction from the American public. Sarandon's TV Movie aired this past weekend was a major flop, while Sentorum's accountability is limited and certainly not immediate. Regarding his election to the Senate, only the residence of Pennsylvania will be able to recall him - and then only at the end of his current term in 2006. And even then, since people only get to choose between the choices put forth by the two major parties, he could be the preferable but imperfect choice.

But he also holds additional power and responsibility in the Republican Senate where his fate is only subject to his fellow Republican Senators and not to the will of the people. And after having just gone through the Strom Thurmond/Trent Lott debacle, many are not wanting to open that can of worms again by admitting that some Republicans are insensitive to minorities.

Let us hope that Americans everywhere can see Sentorum's full comments and understand that the implications affect them personally. Its not just homosexuality that is at stake - it is every private personal relationship that does follow the married, missionary, procreative model.

-Murrel Rhodes