by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 26, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

annibalizing his foot, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) delivered yet another blow to the Republican Party, following the clumsy footsteps of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). Lott's foolish remarks at retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-N.C.) 100th birthday bash cost him his leadership post, sparking criticism after praising Thurmond's run for president on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket in 1948. Hitting a raw nerve, Lott didn't know what hit him, watching his distinguished leadership career evaporate before his eyes. Now the 44-year-old Satorium, the Senate's third ranking Republican, opened up a can of worms, commenting about an upcoming Supreme Court ruling about privacy issues concerning a gay couple caught by Texas authorities engaging in sodomy. Now challenged in the Supreme Court, Santorum argued that the Constitution affords no privacy rights to consenting adults engaged in confidential acts.

     Expressing his personal views, Santorum told the Associated Press on April 7 he had problems with homosexual acts. Satorum, a devout Roman Catholic, holds highly conservative views opposing abortion and supporting traditional family values, leading to his recent gaffe. In a colossal non sequitur, "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts," said Satorium, making an absurd distinction between thoughts and actions. Sexual orientations don't involve imaginary play, they involve real alternative lifestyle choices, making thought and action indistinguishable. Tipping his hand, "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to [gay] consensual sex within your home," said Santorum, "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."

     No benign interpretation of Santorum's remarks excuses his abysmal judgment and common sense. No matter what his personal or religious views, public officials can't offend large constituencies without repercussions. Harboring reactionary ideas is one thing, but openly airing them establishes a public forum for criticism. "It's divisive language," said Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), "and I don't think that's constructive," rebuking Santorum for alienating a powerful voting constituency. Even Log Cabin Republicans, a high profile group of gays and lesbians, denounced Santorum for equating "homosexual acts" with criminal sexual behavior. Despite taking flack, the conservative Family Research Council and Free Congress Foundation jumped to Santorum's defense, revealing, in some strange way, that many religious and social conservatives share his views.

     Most conservatives have the good judgment to avoid incendiary remarks about race and sexuality. After watching Lott go down, you'd think that the Republican National Committee would establish clear talking points, warning politicians about making politically incorrect or offense statements. Both Santorum and the GOP gain nothing from outrageous public displays. Without a coherent game plan, it's hard to figure out what Santorum hoped to accomplish by publicly attacking the gay community. Commenting about polygamy, adultery and sodomy, "All those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable traditional family," Santorum insisted, delivering a lecture on family sociology. After engulfed in controversy, Santorum backpedaled, saying he was "misconstrued" and not judging "individual lifestyles." Whether well intentioned or not, the GOP must take a serious look at Santorum's judgment.

     With Iraq on the backburner and the economy front and center, Republicans didn't need another civil rights controversy. Walking a fine line, the White House ducked the controversy. "The president typically never does comment on anything involving a Supreme Court case, as Supreme Court ruling or a Supreme Court finding—typically," said Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Santorum's remarks went far beyond pending Supreme Court cases, airing personal opinions. Even Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell learned the hard way to tone down inflammatory rhetoric about homosexuality. "Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate, and to suggest otherwise is just politics," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), trying to save Santorum's hide, but making matters worse failing to acknowledge his bad judgment and insensitivity.

     Santorum's oblivious remarks demonstrate gross insensitivity and poor judgment. Key leadership positions require keen awareness of political fallout from recognized controversies. Santorum didn't need to compare private homosexual acts to criminal sexual behavior to comment on current cases before the Supreme Court. Whether Santorum survives the controversy is anyone's guess. Unlike the Lott situation, public gaffes about homosexuality are far more forgivable than incendiary remarks about race. Getting beyond the crisis requires Santorum to, at the very least, apologize for offending any groups affected by his public remarks. Beyond that, GOP officials must take a careful look at whether key leaders lack the control and social sophistication needed to advance the party agenda. Whether Santorum represents prevailing GOP views doesn't excuse his incredibly bad judgment.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.