Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry. Jim Moran can say something terrible - like blaming the war in Iraq on American "Jews" who supported it - and he gets a free pass from fellow travelers in the media.
Us conservatives, though, will defend our boys when they're right and denounce them when they're not. Past hits include Trent Lott's recent foot-in-mouth disease, Dan Quayle's less-than-stellar public speaking abilities, and virtually everything Jerry Falwell has ever said.
Dealing with this fallout may often be a pain, but there's a comfort in doing so in the name of intellectual honesty.
Now, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., steps up to the plate: "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."
Uh-oh.
Santorum's remarks were in reference to a current Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Texas' sodomy laws, which make consensual sex between same-sex adults illegal.
Double uh-oh.
As far as sensitivity goes, it doesn't get much touchier than homosexuality (no jokes, please). You might remember that this very semester a letter to The State Press from a certain rude conservative - I won't say his name, but it rhymes with Man Doody - in regard to a new gay studies program prompted such an unprecedented e-mail typhoon that an entire page was devoted to our readers' righteous indignation.
So, this column isn't touching the "is homosexuality wrong?" issue with a twenty-foot pole. If you really want my opinion on anything from gay marriage to Big Gay Al, ask me in person. It's not that I'm a coward; I just draw the line at people pouring sugar in my gas tank over a column.
Anyway, the first important thing to remember about Santorum's remarks is that he is not holding sexuality on morally equal ground with polygamy, incest, etc. What he's doing is making a slippery-slope argument, implying that if the (manufactured) constitutional right to "privacy" is extended to literally any kind of consensual sex, then it will likewise protect polygamy, incest, etc.
Polygamy and bigamy are off the mark here; marriage is a legal institution and goes beyond the privacy of the bedroom. But as far as incest goes, he's got a point: Making sex legal between any two consenting adults would effectively legalize sex between, say, an adult brother and sister.
I find that incredibly reprehensible. Considering that you're spending your time reading this newspaper and not too busy, say, munching on human fingers like mozzarella sticks while waiting for the voices to tell you who to kill next, you probably have enough of a moral compass on reality to agree with me.
And that's my point: incest is bad. Pretty much everybody gets that, and pretending that incest laws will actually stop those few fringe, potential kissin' cousins is sort of like hoping that gun control laws will actually stop violent criminals.
Regardless of Santorum's moral views toward homosexuality, he has to acknowledge that any use served by "sodomy" laws is far outweighed by their absurdity and impracticality. How, for example, do we enforce such laws? Would the government set up a special agency for sodomy, a la the ATF?
I have little doubt that Sen. Santorum is a good man who is standing up for what he believes in. But in this case he's simply incorrect.
What do you think about Sen. Santorum's comments? Post your opinion in the forum below.
Eric Spratling is a journalism junior. Reach him at ericspratling@cox.net.
