I had originally planned to leave the Santorum issue alone, that is until I received a few
e-mails from angry readers accusing me and this site of being slanted to the far-left. With
the recent addition of “Ann Coulter Watch” and “Bill O’Reilly Watch,” I can understand
why someone would think we’re a watchdog against the conservative right. Soon, we’ll
be expanding our coverage from O’Reilly to the entire FOX NEWS network. One
e-mailer said the reason why I haven’t attacked Rick Santorum is because it would be
proof that Aggressive-Voice is a liberal site, and all that we do is attack republicans.
Well I’ve got new for that e-mailer; Rick Santorum is right. He did no wrong, and I
completely support what he said in the infamous AP interview that was recorded back on
April 7, 2003.
In the interview, the republican senator from Pennsylvania expressed his condemnation
towards homosexual behavior. Since the interview, Santorum has been lashed with harsh
criticism, mostly from the left, saying he doesn’t tolerate alternative lifestyles. Just
yesterday, several graduates from Saint Joseph's University walked out of the ceremony
when Santorum stood to deliver his commencement address.
It’s time to clear the issue up once and for all. Santorum did nothing wrong, and he
doesn’t deserve the criticism. I’ll be straight; I’m not Santorum’s biggest fan. I disagree
with a lot of his policies, especially his claim that liberalism is responsible for hurting
American families. That’s just absurd, and another right-wing strategy of tiredly pushing
for Bush’s tax cuts.
But in his Associated Press interview, Santorum rightfully supported his case against
homosexual acts and behavior. The conversation leading up to the controversial
comments started off with a talk about priests engaging in homosexual activity with young
boys. Here is a part of the interview, word-for-word.
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with
acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional
heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just
I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their
orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other
The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the
actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would
they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that
sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose....And if the Supreme Court says that you
the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have
right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have
to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It
comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the
States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was
contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further
extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You
well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because
condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy,
it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable,
In case you didn’t observe the bold text I highlighted in the transcript, I will remind you
that Santorum expressed more than once that he has nothing against homosexuals.
Therefore, why is everyone complaining? Why are so many homosexuals, and others,
Here is the truth. Saying “I don’t approve of homosexual behavior” is the same thing as
saying “I don’t approve of breaking the law or committing illegal crimes.” Is there
anything wrong with condemning criminal behavior? Of course not. So how is
condemning homosexual behavior any different? After all, homosexual sex is illegal!
In my studies as a Criminology major, I have observed the 1986 Supreme Court Case that
outlined sodomy laws. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick,
ruled that Georgia and other states had the right to criminalize sodomy on grounds of
It is currently against the law to engage in any form of sex that isn’t straight
genital-to-genital. Without spelling it out in graphic terms, it is fair to say that
homosexual sex between two men is illegal.
The title of this article is “Homosexual Sex is Wrong.” Until homosexual sex is made
legal, the statement is not an opinion, but fact; according to the United States Supreme
Court and current law.
So now I will justify myself. I have nothing against gays or homosexuals. I support Bill
Clinton’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, a plan that makes it legal for gays to serve in the
military as long as they are not open about their sexual orientation. I have no problem
with homosexuals in the workplace or them having the same rights as heterosexuals. In
fact, I differ in opinion with Santorum when I say I don’t personally believe homosexual
sex is wrong. But it is according to the law, so I or anyone else can say that it is
wrong until the law is changed.
Politicians should not have to worry about offending the public every time they open their
mouths, especially when what they have to say is perfectly fine. And in this case,
politicians should not have to worry about offending the public every time they open their
mouths, especially when what they have to say is legal and in accordance to the law of the
United States of America.