It didn't take too long for feisty Democrats to latch onto Sen. Rick Santorum's notorious - and seemingly nonsensical - remarks as a means to "expose" the GOP's commitment to intolerance and homophobia. Of course, certain factions of it haven't done much to help.
But if the handling of Santorum's commentary has exposed anything, it has demonstrated the hypocrisy, ineptitude and underhanded maneuvering I've come to expect from Democrats.
Make no mistake. I'm not defending Santorum's idiocy. The average 5-year-old demonstrates more logical reasoning than Santorum showed in his interview, which reached its pinnacle when he equated homosexuality with the Catholic Church scandal because the priestly offenders, all Catholic, were committing "homosexual acts."
Of course, this means because rape is generally committed by men against women - a clearly "heterosexual" act - all straight men should be equated with rapists. And Santorum, being a Catholic heterosexual male, must therefore consider himself a child-molesting rapist. Impressive for a college graduate.
Yet while Santorum provided an apparently endless plethora of absurdities, the Democrats, including our beloved Howard Dean, focused on the comparison between bigamy, polygamy and incest to nontraditional sex.
Yes, the outrage, to think someone could make a comparison between the illegality of nontraditional sex (essentially all incest is) and nontraditional marital structures. It seems many of Santorum's critics are perfectly content to legislate consensual sexuality as long as the legal litmus test is set by their conception of what constitutes acceptable sexual activity.
With such duplicity on their side, certain Democrats intensified their efforts to promote themselves as courageous fighters of the "bigoted" Republicans.
So, where were these courageous Democrats before the Santorum debacle? Because, of course, the senator wasn't attempting to introduce new legislation - he was defending legislation already implemented.
What have Congressional Democrats been doing about sodomy laws all these years before it became politically convenient? What was Al Gore doing from 1992 to 2000 to promote the abolition of sodomy laws?
Where has Howard Dean been on the Lawrence V. Texas case Santorum was responding to? Weren't sexual liberties important before Santorum made it necessary to respond?
I should also note none of the presidential candidates advocated a total removal of the government from sex; Dean is the only of the nine suggesting full marital rights for gay couples.
Clearly, prominent Democrats aren't so much appalled by the existence of sodomy laws as they are of the idea that some people might actually be outspoken about their support. Basically, it's legitimate for legislators to regulate sex as long as they're not candid about it.
Or perhaps they're showing their support for sexual rights by being silent.
On a related note, why aren't the supposed defenders of free speech, still shocked by the "silencing" actor Tim Robbins, standing up to defend Santorum? If Robbins, actress Susan Sarandon and the Dixie Chicks are protected from criticism by the First Amendment, isn't the senator?
Or in our "living" constitution, is there an inherently different Bill of Rights for politicians? Perhaps a different Bill of Rights for those opposed to the war in Iraq?
Therein lies an admirable distinction between Republicans and Democrats. When a Republican says something controversial in regards to the U.S. Constitution, the party responds to the consequent criticism. When Democrats say something controversial, they declare criticism is unconstitutional.
Parties aside, there won't be real progress in the sexual arena as long as the majority of the country isn't fundamentally opposed to a nonintrusive limited government. Until then, it shouldn't be a shock to witness a government that supports turn into a government that controls.
Be the first to comment on this article!