From the New York Times....
Apr. 26th, 2003 12:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ravencallscrowsG.O.P. Hypocrisy
April 25, 2003
By DAN SAVAGE
SEATTLE - Gay groups are trying to turn Senator Rick Santorum into the next Trent Lott. It's not going to work. Mr. Lott lost his post as Senate majority leader because he said something he wasn't supposed to. Mr. Santorum, who holds the No. 3 position in the Senate leadership, was only repeating what many Republicans have already said.
After telling a reporter that he likes homosexuals just fine - provided we refrain from engaging in homosexual acts - Mr. Santorum came out in support of laws against sodomy. A right to privacy, he said, "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" - for gays, straights, anybody. He then compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. Too much freedom - allowing gays and lesbians to live openly and without fear of arrest, for example - is "antithetical to strong, healthy families," he said. Homosexuality may not be as bad as "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be," he said, but ——
At this point the reporter broke in. "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about `man on dog' with a United
States senator," she said. "It's sort of freaking me out."
She wasn't the only one. Gay groups called for Mr. Santorum's head, while antigay groups like the Family Research Council, once headed by Gary Bauer, rushed to defend him. But Mr. Santorum needn't worry about his leadership post. Unlike the former majority leader, Mr. Santorum didn't slip up and say something in plain English that every good Republican knows must only be said in code. Unlike Republican appeals to racist voters, Republican appeals to homophobic voters are overt. During the 2000
campaign, Alan Keyes appeared on the same stage as George Bush and denounced the "radical homosexual agenda" that he
said was destroying the American family. Candidate Bush, now President Bush, failed to respond, even though his running mate's daughter is a lesbian.
But gays and lesbians are more than just sons and daughters. We're moms and dads, too. My boyfriend and I adopted a son five years ago, and we plan to adopt again. As more same-sex couples start families, it's going to be harder for Republicans like Mr. Santorum to say we are somehow a threat to the American family.
As much as it may dismay Mr. Santorum and his defenders, there really is no word other than "family" to describe the three people who live in my house. When it comes to marriage rights, gays and lesbians are willing to play semantic games. We will use awkward phrases like "civil union" and "domestic partnership" so long as we can get what our families really need: the rights, responsibilities and safeguards of legal marriage. But two adults who love each other and are raising children together? What are we if not a family? What other word is there for us?
In our culture, homosexuality is discussed only when it presents a problem - for the armed forces, for closeted gay students in high school, for those who imagine gays are undermining society. Rarely is homosexuality credited with the creation of something positive and lasting. Desire brought my boyfriend and me together. And it's simple desire that brings most couples, gay or straight, together. Responsibly acted on, this desire is a good thing in and of itself, and it can often lead to other good things. Like strong, healthy families.
Dan Savage is editor of The Stranger, a weekly newspaper.
The op-ed piece can be found here if you'd prefer not to read it within the cut.
Personally, i know of same-gender couples who would be way better parents than many "conventional" couples. And, since they don't have biology in their favour, it takes significant effort for gay and lesbian couples to adopt (or seek out donors or surrogate parents). Damn, but if that's not a commitment to being an active and involved parent, i don't know what is.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, the role of the government be in a position to define the sanctity of a relationship between individuals. Even more so, it is not the role of the government to pass judgement on what defines a family, at least to the extent of daring disqualify people who are willing to take on the challenges and overcome the obstacles which are mandated by becoming a parent.
And for a representative of that government to condemn the acts of a homosexual couple as on par with bestiality and incest is simply wrong. In as much as it is not directly harmful to society at large or to specific classes of individuals, it is of no business of the government to tell individuals with whom they can and cannot engage in sexual acts.
Yes, Mr. Santorum, homosexuality is like one of the things mentioned on your list- adultery. But not in the way you think. It's like it in that you'll find both amongst Republicans.
How dare you, sir, use your position to declare what is or isn't "antithetical to strong, healthy families?" Would you like an answer from another vantage point? Anyone who would legislate against loving people who wish to nurture and raise a child in a safe, protected environment; who would judge individuals on the basis of whether they would choose to marry one or more individuals, regardless of gender is "antithetical to strong, healthy families," sir. Keep your damn close-minded ideals away from legislation regarding other people's bodies and freedoms.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do not dare attempt to abrogate these rights, Mr. Santorum. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
April 25, 2003
By DAN SAVAGE
SEATTLE - Gay groups are trying to turn Senator Rick Santorum into the next Trent Lott. It's not going to work. Mr. Lott lost his post as Senate majority leader because he said something he wasn't supposed to. Mr. Santorum, who holds the No. 3 position in the Senate leadership, was only repeating what many Republicans have already said.
After telling a reporter that he likes homosexuals just fine - provided we refrain from engaging in homosexual acts - Mr. Santorum came out in support of laws against sodomy. A right to privacy, he said, "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" - for gays, straights, anybody. He then compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. Too much freedom - allowing gays and lesbians to live openly and without fear of arrest, for example - is "antithetical to strong, healthy families," he said. Homosexuality may not be as bad as "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be," he said, but ——
At this point the reporter broke in. "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about `man on dog' with a United
States senator," she said. "It's sort of freaking me out."
She wasn't the only one. Gay groups called for Mr. Santorum's head, while antigay groups like the Family Research Council, once headed by Gary Bauer, rushed to defend him. But Mr. Santorum needn't worry about his leadership post. Unlike the former majority leader, Mr. Santorum didn't slip up and say something in plain English that every good Republican knows must only be said in code. Unlike Republican appeals to racist voters, Republican appeals to homophobic voters are overt. During the 2000
campaign, Alan Keyes appeared on the same stage as George Bush and denounced the "radical homosexual agenda" that he
said was destroying the American family. Candidate Bush, now President Bush, failed to respond, even though his running mate's daughter is a lesbian.
But gays and lesbians are more than just sons and daughters. We're moms and dads, too. My boyfriend and I adopted a son five years ago, and we plan to adopt again. As more same-sex couples start families, it's going to be harder for Republicans like Mr. Santorum to say we are somehow a threat to the American family.
As much as it may dismay Mr. Santorum and his defenders, there really is no word other than "family" to describe the three people who live in my house. When it comes to marriage rights, gays and lesbians are willing to play semantic games. We will use awkward phrases like "civil union" and "domestic partnership" so long as we can get what our families really need: the rights, responsibilities and safeguards of legal marriage. But two adults who love each other and are raising children together? What are we if not a family? What other word is there for us?
In our culture, homosexuality is discussed only when it presents a problem - for the armed forces, for closeted gay students in high school, for those who imagine gays are undermining society. Rarely is homosexuality credited with the creation of something positive and lasting. Desire brought my boyfriend and me together. And it's simple desire that brings most couples, gay or straight, together. Responsibly acted on, this desire is a good thing in and of itself, and it can often lead to other good things. Like strong, healthy families.
Dan Savage is editor of The Stranger, a weekly newspaper.
The op-ed piece can be found here if you'd prefer not to read it within the cut.
Personally, i know of same-gender couples who would be way better parents than many "conventional" couples. And, since they don't have biology in their favour, it takes significant effort for gay and lesbian couples to adopt (or seek out donors or surrogate parents). Damn, but if that's not a commitment to being an active and involved parent, i don't know what is.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, the role of the government be in a position to define the sanctity of a relationship between individuals. Even more so, it is not the role of the government to pass judgement on what defines a family, at least to the extent of daring disqualify people who are willing to take on the challenges and overcome the obstacles which are mandated by becoming a parent.
And for a representative of that government to condemn the acts of a homosexual couple as on par with bestiality and incest is simply wrong. In as much as it is not directly harmful to society at large or to specific classes of individuals, it is of no business of the government to tell individuals with whom they can and cannot engage in sexual acts.
Yes, Mr. Santorum, homosexuality is like one of the things mentioned on your list- adultery. But not in the way you think. It's like it in that you'll find both amongst Republicans.
How dare you, sir, use your position to declare what is or isn't "antithetical to strong, healthy families?" Would you like an answer from another vantage point? Anyone who would legislate against loving people who wish to nurture and raise a child in a safe, protected environment; who would judge individuals on the basis of whether they would choose to marry one or more individuals, regardless of gender is "antithetical to strong, healthy families," sir. Keep your damn close-minded ideals away from legislation regarding other people's bodies and freedoms.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do not dare attempt to abrogate these rights, Mr. Santorum. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
