'Gay' Activists Target Santorum for Alleged Discrimination
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
April 23, 2003

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Homosexual activists have targeted Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) for removal from his post as leader of the Senate Republican Conference for alleged "discrimination" because of comments he made comparing homosexuality to other sexual behaviors he considers immoral.

But an attorney involved with the Supreme Court case Santorum was discussing told CNSNews.com Tuesday that Santorum is guilty only of asking the same questions justices raised during oral arguments.

In an interview with Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan, Santorum responded to the legal challenge to Texas' sodomy law currently under review by the high court.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Jordan quoted Santorum as saying.

"It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy," he continued, " that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

In a statement issued Tuesday, Santorum said that his remarks were "specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws."

He noted that, as had been argued by the State of Texas: "If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws."

The conservative Christian stressed that he is "a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution" and added that his "comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles."

In Lawrence v. Texas, the plaintiffs' claim that the choice to engage in homosexual activity is protected by the same "privacy" concept that was used to create the "right" to abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision. They also argue that the Texas law discriminates against "gay" people in violation of the "equal protection" guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. The Texas law, they argue, should therefore be declared unconstitutional.

Remarks about Supreme Court Case Mirrored Justices' Questions

Jordan Lorence - an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed a friend of the court brief supporting the Texas law - agreed that Santorum's comments mirrored a "major topic of discussion" by justices who heard the case March 26.

"This is definitely something that was being discussed in oral arguments, and Senator Santorum adopted a different position on what he thought was the logical implication of the constitutional arguments raised by Lambda," Lorence explained.

Lambda refers to the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a pro-homosexuality group that funded the attack on the Texas law. Paul Smith argued the case before the Supreme Court, though he is identified only as a "cooperating attorney assisting on the case" on the organization's website.

Justices questioned Smith about some of the same implications Santorum discussed in his interview.

"Aren't there statutes in many States about adultery that don't cover sexual relations of one of the married couple with someone else of the same sex?" one justice asked Smith. "Are they unconstitutional because of denial of equal protection?"

(Justices are not identified by name in Supreme Court transcripts.)

"You think adultery laws are unconstitutional?" another justice asked.

One of the justices asked District Attorney Charles Rosenthal of Harris County, Texas, similar questions.

"Don't you think that what laws a State may constitutionally pass has a lot to do with what laws it has always been thought that a State can constitutionally pass [such as laws against] bigamy, adultery, all sorts of things like that?" the justice inquired. "And isn't that determined pretty much on the basis of what kind of laws the State has traditionally been allowed to pass?"

Homosexual Groups' Lawyer Conceded Points Santorum Made

Lorence noted that, in response to the justices' questions, Smith finally conceded the very argument for which Santorum has been criticized.

"As for adultery and all of the other parade of horribles [sic] which people have raised in their briefs," Smith acknowledged, "the idea that by recognizing the right of all adult couples to make choices like this in their own home the court is going to open up a whole can of worms, I submit, is correct."

That admission, Lorence argued, makes the topics broached by Santorum "fair game."

"This is far from a bigoted statement," Lorence insisted, "but is indeed a fair comment on an important case at the Supreme Court."

Homosexual Activists Compare Behavior to Ethnicity

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest homosexual political lobbying group, issued a press release calling Santorum's statements "the second time in recent months that a Republican leader has made comments marginalizing or attacking an entire segment of the population."

The reference was to a Dec. 2002 birthday party for then-Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). At that party, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) made statements interpreted by some African Americans as supportive of segregation. Lott was forced to resign his post as senate majority leader due to the ensuing criticism from liberal activists.

The group invoked the concept of civil rights protections for African Americans in its criticism of Santorum.

"HRC is calling on Republican leadership to demonstrate that tolerance and civil rights are important to them - not simply something that is politically expedient," said Winnie Stachelberg, HRC political director.

At least some African Americans don't agree with the connection.

"It's that kind of petty politics that they've seen work in the past, and they're trying to get it to work again," said David Almasi, director of Project 21, a group of conservative African-American leaders. "And I don't think there's any way you can equate this to Trent Lott."

Almasi explained his disagreement.

"I don't think you'd find a Project 21 member who would say that race - something you're born with - can be lumped into the same thing as homosexuality, which is an acquired behavioral trait," he said. "This is something that people are choosing to do, and they cannot say that they have the same kind of civil rights claim that someone would get for race or disability or something like that."

'An Ongoing Tactic by Homosexual Activists...'

Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, agreed.

"It's an ongoing tactic by homosexual activists to equate their sexual behavior with race or ethnicity," he said. "That's why they keep bringing up the Trent Lott case.

"This has nothing to do with what Trent Lott said. There's no comparison," Knight continued. "Trent Lott said something unfortunate. Mr. Santorum said something admirable, and yet, they're trying to compare the two."

'The Fallacy...What You Do Sexually Is Who You Are'

Steve Black, political director of the Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance, was also quoted in the HRC press release. He continued the theme that Santorum was attacking a group of people rather than criticizing types of behavior.

"Discrimination against any group of citizens based on who they are is simply wrong," Black argued.

Knight agreed with the notion that discriminating against people "for who they are" is wrong but disagreed that the description can be applied to those who choose to practice homosexual behaviors.

"The fallacy here is that what you do sexually is who you are," he argued. "Homosexual activists have seized upon the concept of 'sexual orientation' to try to create an identity and create a civil rights class much like ethnicity or race. This is entirely artificial."

It is important to remember, Knight stressed, that thousands of adults who previously engaged in homosexual activity now live completely heterosexual lives.

"There's no reason to equate it with race," he added. "It's a misnomer to do so."

Will Activists 'Ask for the Supreme Court Justices to Resign?'

Lorence found an additional motive in the attempts of homosexual activists to tie the two concepts together in their attacks on Santorum.

"They are trying, basically, to intimidate into silence anyone who agrees with one side of the legal argument in Lawrence v. Texas," Lorence said. "I think that is a chilling threat to freedom of speech and for vigorous dialogue and debate on important issues."

In a somewhat sarcastic, yet somewhat concerned tone, Lorence speculated on the possible extension of the homosexual activists' tactics.

"One thing I'm curious about is: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and rejects the argument of Lambda on the grounds that their constitutional right is too broad, that it would allow legalization of adultery and fornication or grant that a constitutionally protected status?" he asked. "Are they going to ask for the Supreme Court justices to resign?"

E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.