Molestation, Sexuality and Santorum
Published April 28, 2003
This entry started as a tangent to one I'd posted in my blog about Ari Fleischer's comment on behalf of the President in regards to Rick Santorum's statement, and touches on issues I've raised before - but I felt it deserved an entry all it's own.
While the gay-rights's issue raised by the court case Santorum was commenting on (which challenges a Texas law that makes gay sodomy illegal, while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal - a law apparently passed during the same year the state rescinded a law that had made private beastiality illegal - meaning that it's ok for someone to have sex with an animal in private, but not ok for two men or two women to do so) are important, the substance of Santorum's comments went beyond even that.
In the interview, Santorum blamed the problem of priests molesting children on the growing tolerance for homosexuality. It is hard for me to express just how offensive this idea is. Priests do not molest boys because Americans find homosexuality less objectionable than before. Many of the molestations that are being reported now occured many years ago, before homosexuality was nearly as well "tolerated" as it is today (if it's status today can even be called "tolerated").
Sexual molestations - be it a man molesting a boy or a girl, or a woman doing the molesting - has little to do with sex in and of itself. It's an issue of power, just as any rape is. The desire for power may manifest itself in a sexual way, but the issue is still power.
For our President - though whatever method - to be sending a message of support for a man who believes that priests (or anyone else, for that matter) molesting teens are engaged in a "normal homosexual relationship" is inexcusable. Would either Senator Santorum or President Bush consider an adult molesting a teenaged girl a "normal heterosexual relationship"? If so, shouldn't we then just do away with statuatory rape laws? Somehow, I doubt either man would be in support of that.
- Molestation, Sexuality and Santorum
- Published: April 28, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Kriselda Jarnsaxa
- Kriselda Jarnsaxa's BC Writer page
- Kriselda Jarnsaxa's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
K, I think you are exactly right that this is the worst, most ill-informed part of his laregy incoherent rambling, agree that the behavior is among the very worst of betrayals, that adults have no business interacting with minors on a sexual level, that is mostly about power and the misdirection of pent-up sexuality. Priests should be no more required to be celibate than anyone else. The Catholic church's tepid, conspiratorial response to this wretched behavior indicates the degree of immoral rot within it.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/4926)
Kriselda,
Every time I look at the full text of those comments, I find something new to be astonished by. I wouldn't be surprised or concerned to hear some drunk bigot spouting off at a local bar like this--clearly this kind of prejudice against gays (and Catholics and, um, adulterers) exists all over the U.S.
But in the third-highest-ranking Senator?
Unfortunately, the Republican establishment seems to have decided that while praising segregation is worthy of punishment, there's nothing wrong with a little fag-bashing. After all, race isn't a choice, but being a homo is just plain wrong. And the Christian Right has sent out a message in no uncertain terms that Republicans have a choice to make: You're either with God, or with the fags.
I take a little bit of comfort (very little) in noting that there is a tiny little wing of the Republican party that actually wants to be tolerant. But those are mainly New England Republicans who can afford to be seen as a little light in the loafers (ifyaknowwhatimean).
The only good thing about the Santorum flap is that it offers an opportunity for this conflict to force the Republicans to explicitly state where they stand. I hope the Democrats continue to fan the flames here, forcing Republicans to state whether they are tolerant of gays, or if they condemn them. The more intense the pressure gets, the more likely that there can be one of two equally good results:
1) The Republican party decides to become a party of tolerance, call the Christian Right on its bigotry, and tell the Family Research Council and other proponents of "Christian" hate to take a hike.
2) The Republican party aligns itself with bigotry, and thus destroys itself (as most Americans are far more tolerant than the Christian Right). Then, having been taught a lesson, the GOP can regroup, without the whole "culture war" aspect, and we can have a two-party system in which one of the choices does not require hating people just to get lower taxes.
I think this issue--the backward values of the Christian Right, and how they are embraced by a shocking number of Republicans, including the one in the Oval Office--is the best political weapon the Democrats have going for them in 2004. With any luck, they'll have the guts to use it. As soon as Santorum, Bush and their ilk are forced to acknowledge their extreme views explicitly and in public, rather than with a nudge and a wink and a secret meeting, they'll no longer be able to smuggle these noxious ideas into the U.S. government.