Still Knee-Deep in Homophobia

By: O. Ricardo Pimentel

Let me translate into "bigotspeak" what Sen. Rick Santorum meant when he compared gays to bigamists, polygamists, and practitioners of incest and adultery.

Translated: Hey, I place you in the same category as all those scummy people I just mentioned. Oh, and if you act on who you are, you're also a criminal.

But, he added, he has no problem whatsoever with homosexuals.

OK, I have no problem with bigots as Senators. I just object when they spew bigotry.

This is no less true for Santorum than it was for Trent Lott, who was forced from his Senate leadership post after he expressed his admiration for the good old days of segregation. Santorum should also step down from his party leadership post.

This is getting old, but Lott, at least, had the good grace to say he didn't mean what he said. Santorum is employing that tired old dodge of arguing that he has no problem with the sinner, just the sin.

Sorry, he's still labeling the person a sinner - for just being. And lumping gays into the company of those who commit incest does even worse. It says that gays are not just sinners, but deviantly evil. Moreover, their actions are so vile that they are outside the protection of the law. Presto, we've just made it illegal for two consenting adults to make love.

Santorum made his remarks while opining recently on an upcoming Supreme Court ruling on whether gay consensual sex in the privacy of a home should remain illegal in Texas.

"...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", he told the Associated Press. "You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."

Gimme a break. Placing gay love beyond the reach of the law will not open the door for any of the above. That's because they are not even close to being the same things.

(Besides, if adultery were illegal, we wouldn't have enough prison cells.)

Meanwhile, Ken Connor, the head of the conservative Family Research Council, was angry because, at least initially, the White House was sitting this one out. He was also upset that those defenders speaking up were not offering a "spirited defense of marriage...".

Sorry to have to break it to Connor and Santorum but the duress under which marriage finds itself has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Most of the folks doing all this awful disavowal of vows are decidedly heterosexual. Some of them are probably in Congress. It appears many of them get divorced and continue their consensual heterosexual acts with multiple others. And they do this under a presumption of privacy that Santorum says doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Let's face facts. The siren song of homosexuality is not causing heterosexuals to avoid marriage, bail out of it, or be unfaithful to their spouses. And legalizing gay unions will not cause heterosexuals to be any more or less committed to marriage.

Many have called for Santorum to resign his chairmanship of the Senate Republican Conference, the GOP's No. 3 post.

He won't. He doesn't have to.

That's because, sadly, many Republicans in and outside the Senate - and more than a few Democrats - agree with everything Santorum said. And then there are the folks who view his remarks as mere misstep, much like folks in the 60's and 70's might have known in their hearts that the "N word" was unacceptable in polite company but countenanced it anyway.

Democrats will get some initial mileage out of this most recent bigoted utterance, but it will not have the legs for any long-haul criticism.

Unfortunately, homophobia continues to enjoy a disturbing degree of public acceptance. We've gone from Ellen to Will & Grace, but are still stuck in many ways in the Donna Reed Show.

In relatively recent history, we tried miscegenation and intermarriage laws. We came to understand, however, that government had no business in the bedroom or in relationships generally. This is no less true with gays.

Please, spare me the scripture readings. I know many take refuge in religion for their beliefs about gays. Religions evolve, however. And they often do so because the religious evolve before their leaders do.

We're not quite there on this issue, which is part of the reason Santorum will likely hold on to his leadership spot. You see, when it comes to gays, we are, in many respects, still knee-deep in the dark ages.