3.  SANTORUM IS A THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
    by Todd Andrew Barnett 
    Special to TLE      http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/>     Issue 222

One of the problems that a statist politician like Senator Rick Santorum
(R-PA) has is that he publicly endorses unconstitutional public policies,
which threaten the very fiber of individual liberty, particularly when one
of those policies invades the personal affairs of its citizenry. Now that
his recent comments with regard to the Lawrence and Gardner v. Texas case
have already become a matter of public record, it's quite clear to many
observers and pundits that his credibility is now called into question and
his future in the Senate leadership is hanging in the balance. While many
other conservative collectivists have already run to his defense, many
leftist and rightist gay rights groups and liberal collectivists have just
taken potshots at Santorum for his remarks, which were published by the
Associated Press on April 20th.

According to an excerpt of an interview with Santorum published by the New
York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Santorum-Gays-Excerpts.ht
ml?ex=1052102939&ei=1&en=9330902a3299959e> and various press
accounts, the Republican senator provided his comments about the Texas
sodomy case pending before the Supreme Court to the AP on April 7th, in
which he stated the following:

"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."

Santorum was also quoted as saying, "I have no problem with
homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts."

As soon as Santorum's comments reached the airwaves and were splashed on
the front page of many newspapers, leftist and rightist gay groups such as
the Human Rights Campaign, National Stonewall Democrats (NSD), OutFront,
and the Log Cabin Republicans, screamed bloody murder, calling for his
resignation from the Senate leadership.

Human Rights Campaign spokesman David Smith condemned the senator's remarks
saying, "We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the
remarks. They were stunning in their insensitivity, and they're the same
types of remarks that sparked outrage toward Sen. Lott. We would ask that
the leadership reconsider his standing within the conference
leadership."

Of course, Santorum's statements outraged gay conservative Republicans.
"The discriminatory remarks made by Senator Santorum clearly do not
reflect the compassionate conservatism as espoused by President George Bush
and the mainstream of the Republican Party," said John Partain, a
member of the gay conservative Pennsylvania branch of the Log Cabin
Republicans.

One can easily see that Santorum is making one logical point: that if the
Supreme Court decides that if an individual has the right to engage in
private, consensual behavior, then the individual has the right to commit
other peaceful, nonviolent acts in the bedroom. However, it should be noted
that the liberal collectivists didn't help when addressing this entire
ruckus, considering that they are very selective on what private acts
should not criminalized and which acts should. The other bad part involving
the liberal collectivists is that they can't take into account the
reasoning behind Santorum's valid - and only valid - point.

Nevertheless, the point is - Santorum is completely wrong on this issue. He
claims that consensual gay sex and other so-called "deviant"
lifestyles that are out of the norm "undermine the basic tenets of our
society and the family." Moreover, while he claims that he has
"no problem with homosexuality," and that he has "a problem
with homosexual acts," he fails to address one point: that the
conservative movement has deteriorated into a cesspool of moral degeneracy
and bankruptcy. This is problematic for conservative collectivist like him
who claims to be in favor of free markets,
limited government, private property, federalism, personal responsibility,
and the rule of law.

While his reasoning in that one point is valid, it is - or should be -
blatantly obvious to anyone that Santorum's claim that homosexuality and
"homosexual acts" constituting a direct assault on the
"basic tenets of our society and the family" is highly erroneous.
Don't conservative collectivists know that the REAL direct assault on the
"basic tenets of our society and the family" is the government's
intrusions into our personal and economic affairs on a daily basis?

After all, aren't conservative collectivists, who claim to champion family
values, lower taxes, school choice, personal responsibility, private
property rights, individual liberty, and limited government, the ones who
support the immoral and pervasive federal income tax, the War on Drugs, the
War on Poverty, Keynesian tax and spend policies, gun control, occupational
licensure, economic regulations, and "saving" Social Security?
Aren't they also responsible for preserving the morally bankrupt and
perverse public "government" school system? Aren't they also
responsible for supporting pork-barreled spending, government fiat, wage
controls, price controls, trade controls, and immigration controls? Aren't
they also responsible for supporting our disastrous and destructive foreign
policy of global interventionism, which has ignited more sentiments of
resentment, bitterness, and animosity towards the government? Aren't they
also supportive of foreign aid (which is really global welfare for nations
that receive subsidies from our government), corporate welfare, and
conscription?

One can easily argue that liberal collectivists do support the same things,
and they do. However, if one examines their modus operandi, he can notice
that at least the leftists admit it. However, that doesn't make them any
worse or any better than their conservative counterparts.

Like the leftists, rightists do enjoy the theatrics. They hide behind the
shroud of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility,
and free enterprise while supporting a massive expansion of the government.
Conservatives USED to support limited government, individual liberty, free
enterprise, and personal responsibility, but they no longer do. They may
speak it, but their actions speak otherwise.

Doesn't the federal income tax "undermine the basic tenets of our
society and the family?" Unfortunately, Santorum doesn't seem to
believe so.

Doesn't the public "government" school system "undermine the
basic tenets of our society and the family?" He doesn't seem to
believe so.

Doesn't the War on Drugs "undermine the basic tenets of our society
and the family?" Not according to him.

Doesn't the War on Poverty "undermine the basic tenets of our society
and the family?" Again, not according to him.

Doesn't our current foreign policy "undermine the basic tenets of our
society and the family?" Again, not according to him.

Don't the government's excessive regulations on business and the economy
"undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family?" No,
not according to him.

Doesn't the government's War on Terrorism "undermine the basic tenets
of our society and the family?" He doesn't believe so. Nevertheless,
you get the point.

The problem with Santorum is that he is a hypocrite. All other
collectivists from the left and the right are hypocrites because they are
selective of what liberties peaceful, honest, individuals can enjoy and
cannot enjoy. Not only that, but collectivists like him believe that
freedom of association and individual liberty are only granted to those who
are worthy of having it.

He even claims that individuals don't have the right to privacy in the
comforts of their own homes. You would think that view also applies to
Santorum, but of course - like the other collectivists, the rules are
different for him. He has special interest power, thanks to the support of
religious conservative collectivists who share his ideals.

What's really also disturbing is the fact that the senator made the mistake
of comparing homosexuality to other acts like incest, bigamy, polygamy, and
adultery. What does homosexuality have to do with these acts? Nothing. The
point that he seems to have missed is that bigamy and polygamy are all
about pubic sanction for multiple relationships, and they have nothing to
do with private behavior, even though some states outlaw them. Incest is a
private, consensual agreement between two adults, even though some people
may view it morally reprehensible. Adultery, which is not a crime in most
states, has to
do with infringing upon a publicly recognized contract.

The truth is that conservatives like Santorum proudly display their
arrogance and their self-aggrandizement to the press, to their
constituents, and to the communities at large. By showing off those two
traits to the people, they are boldly showing their true colors. They're
not for limiting the cost, size, and scope of government - they're for
maximizing it.

If conservatives are disgusted with what individuals do in the privacy of
their own home, they don't have to associate with those who engage in such
practices. They can disassociate themselves from those who make those
decisions. But they don't have the right to impose their values on those
who are not imposing their values on others. But of course that line of
reasoning isn't good enough for Santorum and his ilk. But then since when
is any line of reasoning good enough for statists like him?

Whether people realize it or not, Santorum is a threat to individual
liberty. He, like the collectivists on the left and the right, get to
decide how our lives should be. It just goes to show that he doesn't have
respect for the individual, even if the issue involves one's sexual
orientation.

Senator Santorum, get your nose out of our bedrooms. If it's none of our
business when it comes to your private life, then it's also none of your
business when it comes to ours as well.
- - -

(c) 2003 by Todd Andrew Barnett. All Rights Reserved. Permission to reprint
any portion of or the entire article is hereby granted, provided that the
author's name and credentials are included.

---