Catching up on Rick Santorum
I’m late to the party on Rick Santorum’s comments on the right to privacy and homosexuality. There’s good commentary from Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh, Virginia Postrel, Chris Lawrence, Kevin Drum, John Scalzi, Jonah Goldberg, and Andrew Sullivan. Jacob Levy has posted an awesome collection of links as well. Having read the entire interview — you ...
I'm late to the party on Rick Santorum's comments on the right to privacy and homosexuality. There's good commentary from Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh, Virginia Postrel, Chris Lawrence, Kevin Drum, John Scalzi, Jonah Goldberg, and Andrew Sullivan. Jacob Levy has posted an awesome collection of links as well. Having read the entire interview -- you should too -- I do tend to agree with Eugene Volokh that Santorum has a leg to stand on in regard to his legal arguments. Nevertheless, the following seems clear to me: 1) Santorum thinks that the public acceptance of homosexuality is destroying our country's moral fiber 2) Santorum equates homosexuality with other activities -- polygamy, adultery, sodomy, or "man on dog" -- that he believes is destroying our country's moral fiber. 3) Santorum's lack of faith in Americans' ability to stick to their respective faiths is pretty appalling -- although, as Virginia Postrel points out, perfectly consistent with certain strands of conservative thought. 4) Santorum was not duped into this conversation -- he knew what he was saying. 5) That's one freaked-out AP reporter UPDATE: Via Sullivan, I found this CNN transcript. Tony Blankley's comments on this are worth repeating:
I’m late to the party on Rick Santorum’s comments on the right to privacy and homosexuality. There’s good commentary from Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh, Virginia Postrel, Chris Lawrence, Kevin Drum, John Scalzi, Jonah Goldberg, and Andrew Sullivan. Jacob Levy has posted an awesome collection of links as well. Having read the entire interview — you should too — I do tend to agree with Eugene Volokh that Santorum has a leg to stand on in regard to his legal arguments. Nevertheless, the following seems clear to me: 1) Santorum thinks that the public acceptance of homosexuality is destroying our country’s moral fiber 2) Santorum equates homosexuality with other activities — polygamy, adultery, sodomy, or “man on dog” — that he believes is destroying our country’s moral fiber. 3) Santorum’s lack of faith in Americans’ ability to stick to their respective faiths is pretty appalling — although, as Virginia Postrel points out, perfectly consistent with certain strands of conservative thought. 4) Santorum was not duped into this conversation — he knew what he was saying. 5) That’s one freaked-out AP reporter UPDATE: Via Sullivan, I found this CNN transcript. Tony Blankley’s comments on this are worth repeating:
I disagree with almost everything he [Santorum] said, both his legal analysis, which is — I don’t think it’s sustainable. I’m confident the Supreme Court can distinguish between consensual conduct by gays and lesbians in private and incest, which is not consensual, by definition of the relationship. So I don’t buy his argument. I don’t buy his argument that American families are in danger from the 1 percent to 2 percent of homosexuals in the country. We’ve had that population since the beginning of time, and American families are fine. However, I’m in the minority, not just in the Republican party, in the Democrat party, amongst independents, in the country, in the world, that he sits and heard him say that the standard Catholic position. I disagree with it. I’m not a Catholic, but that is the received position of the vast majority of mankind. I wish it weren’t, but that’s the position.
That’s a pretty good summary of what Alan Wolfe’s research says on the topic as well.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
