Dear toughlover-ga;
Clearly, he had neither votes nor logic in mind when he said what he
said.
Let's objectively seperate church and state here and discuss the
political errors:
Santorum made a number of professional mistakes, not the least of
which was being unable to seperate church and state, or to seperate
his professional and private opinion.
- He allegedly criticized an entire group of his constituents (which
is political suicide)
- He reportedly opened his mouth and inserted his foot (a sophmoric
error that he should have learned to avoid years ago)
- He may have allowed his personal passions to overrule the interest
of the people.
- He poorly worded his thoughts and left himself open to condemnation
unecessarily.
- It appears that he may have not only forgot where he was, and who
was listening, but what CENTURY this is.
In his defense, let's assume for a moment (regardless of what we may
or may not think we know about his position) that he actually intended
to DEFEND "the law" (i.e. the legal system, the sanctity of it, and
the need for consistency in the enforcement of, and respect for the
law) as opposed to disagreeing with this particular law itself. Had
this been his intent, the results would have been quite different
provided he chose another example to draw from.
Santorum allegedly criticized homosexuality while discussing a pending
Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law by reportedly saying, "If
the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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." Politically, he got a bit
carried away without thinking of the potential ramifications. Let's
just assume for a moment that he opened his mouth and all of this
simply fell out.
What he allegedly said was quickly taken out of context by the easily
offended and those willing to dispute his examples by bibilical
comparision. He unwittingly "invited" religious doctrine to be used
against him even though his references were strictly LEGAL and not
BIBILICAL at all. (Don't forget, bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery
are ALL STILL ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES in Texas and in many other states,
regardless of what religious doctrine of any kind does or does not say
- they are simply against statutory law to this day in the eyes of the
court). Because of this, his point instantly became moot and the
erroneous comparison to that of bibilcal history became the primary
focus - effectively renderng his political position on the matter a
"non-issue".
Right or wrong, had he said simply, "If the Supreme Court says that
you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, which has
clearly been ruled illegal in the state of Texas, then we must examine
how Texas, and indeed the rest of the United States, enforces ANY law
in our homes and why they choose to enforce some laws while ignoring
others.", suggesting that the very idea smacks of out-dated and
ineffective laws, corruption, discrimination and selective
enforcement, nothing would have been said about his position OR his
statement whatsoever.
Now, logically (and this is the only logic involved here), we KNOW
that Santorum does not think or believe the same theology as all of
his constituents, but then again neither does Senator John Doe (an
atheist) or Senator Jane Doe (a lesbian) or a host of other
polititians who DO place our collective interests before their own
beliefs as we rightfully elect and expect them to do. That's cool -
and we can respect that. We KNOW that they might differ from some of
us in religious beliefs, social upbringing, and family values. Again,
this is known fact. We are humans. We are individuals. We are all
different from one another. As a chosen leader though, these things
must be kept in check (especially in public) and one must forego his
own desired and consider the greater good of the people - of those who
put him, based on his wisdom and leadership abilities, in the position
to make laws and to enforce them.
Could he have said, "...if people are having gay sex in the privacy of
their own homes and getting away with it then let's just let them
smoke dope in their homes and get away with that too!", and gotten the
same point across? Certainly, but he didn't do that. He chose an
analogy which suggested (or at least opened to door to question) that
he subscribes to puritanical thinking - a BIG professional NO-NO in
today's politics.
No, he wasn't thinking about votes or about logic. In fact, he just
wasn't thinking. Unfortunately, (if you've been keeping up with the
news lately) neither were many other podium tongue waggers who have
recently been interred in the rapidly filling political graveyard.
As my dad once said of someone, "it appears this fellow engaged his
mouth before putting his brain in gear". Whether he was at fault or
not, the magnitude of the Santorum's resulting crash will undoutedly
be measured to scale in the days to come by the best accident
reconstructionists money CAN'T buy.
Regards;
tutuzdad-ga
WASHINGTON POST
"Gay Groups Want Santorum Out of Leadership"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13111-2003Apr22.html |
