Last edited: January 27, 2005


Sen. Rick Santorumís Comments on Homosexuality in an AP Interview

The Associated Press, April 22, 2003
(04-22) 15:51 PDT

(AP)óAn unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldnít be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).

AP: If youíre saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?

SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And thatís a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.

The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and weíre trying to do with other programs is, weíre setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They donít want to judge. They say, Oh, you canít judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if youíre taking my money and giving it to them. But itís this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if itís my money, I have a right to judge.

AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, theyíd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as itís in the privacy of your own home, this ďright to privacy,Ē then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as itís private, as long as itís consensual, then donít be surprised what you get. Youíre going to get a lot of things that youíre sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we donít really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, donít be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: Whatís the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what weíre talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. Weíre not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. Weíre talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as itís consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say thatís fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? Whatís the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I donít believe _

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual 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 homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone whoís homosexual. If thatís their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So itís not the person, itís the personís 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 argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesnít exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in GriswoldóGriswold was the contraceptive caseóand abortion. And now weíre just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more youóthis freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, itís my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior thatís antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether itís polygamy, whether itís adultery, where itís sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And thatís what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. Thatís not to pick on homosexuality. Itís not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _

AP: Iím sorry, I didnít think I was going to talk about ďman on dogĒ with a United States senator, itís sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And thatís sort of where we are in todayís world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesnít have rights to limit individualsí wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And weíre seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacyóyou donít agree with it?

SANTORUM: Iíve been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I donít agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesnít want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldnít agree with it, but thatís their right. But I donít agree with the Supreme Court coming in.


[Home] [News] [Lawrence v. Texas] [Santorum] [Spreading Santorum]