<I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Well, hey, anonymous AP interviewer... it's freaking me out, too.

Down another branch of this thread I concluded that Santorum was baiting those of like mind to focus their attention on Lawrence & Garner v. Texas [and apparently it worked, in at least this instance]. Now, having read the fuller transcript of the interview (thanks for the post, Tom), I see it's much more dangerous and deep-seated. Predictably, even as we began this discussion last evening, Santorum had begun backpedaling - Sen. Santorum Defends Remarks from Reuters (4/22/03):

In his statement on Tuesday, Santorum said: "When discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws.



"In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars, and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws," Santorum said.

"My discussion ... was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution," Santorum said.


[emphasis mine; one assumes he was firmly instructed in the wording of the statement]

Quite an elaboration on the actual text of the interview... makes it seem much more scholarly than were the words themselves as recorded. A re-reading of those words makes it clear that not only does Santorum specifically deny the legitimacy of a Constitutional right to privacy, but equates its elucidation from case law with the bogeyman of general moral decline: the "slippery slope" he illustrates with a list of other deviances that (as Don has pointed out) are irrelevant to the case at hand, but which Santorum considers as inevitable as the Southeast Asian "dominos" of his childhood (and mine).

I infer from Santorum's original remarks that he believes the Framers had a deliberate purpose in omitting Privacy from the list. I also infer that Santorum (and those he alleges to speak for) believes the intent of the omission was to preserve a 'loophole' for governments, Federal, State and otherwise, to intervene - that is, invade a citizen's assumed privacy - when considered necessary. The question now becomes "what is necessary?"

Laws regulating sexual conduct fall into two broad categories; the first is meant to safeguard against the use of sex as a weapon - rape, other violence during which sex is a part, and coercion of children; i.e.; where one party does not give consent, or is deemed incapable of doing so. A victim (or a witness) to such a crime has recourse in the established criminal justice system to report the crime and aid the subsquent prosecution (and one hopes she or he would do so). No Constitutional right is violated if the rules of due process are observed in attaining search and arrest warrants. The second category of sexual conduct laws have no victims (prostitution is the classic example), and are enacted for the sole purpose of safeguarding public morality. They cannot be enforced, let alone in a in a uniform manner, unless the "crime" is witnessed by a third party. As the vast majority of such "criminals" are circumspect, the presence of witnesses can only be either accidental or a deliberate invasion of privacy, and the public morality is not affected. Where then is the 'clear and present danger' to the State? What harm is done?

One might sooner (and easier) argue in favor of re-enacting Prohibition and adding tobacco use to the lists of prohibited behaviors - there, at least, victims can be clearly identified. Sodomy laws, and other laws like them, have one purpose only: not to protect individual citizens from harm in their persons or possessions, but to somehow protect the society which passed the laws from moral degredation. Whose morality? Those laws have, as their basis, the Book of Leviticus and similar passages in the Bible. If, as asserted therein, such acts are sinful and "an abomination unto the Lord," it is the Lord's to deal with, not the State's. Can you say, "First Amendment"?

I knew you could...