My Thoughts on Santorum

Recently, Sen. Rick Santorum, D-Pa., was widely criticized for supporting a Texas sodomy law now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence, John, et al. v. Texas.

In an earlier Georgia case, Bowers v. Hardwick, the high court upheld a criminal law prohibiting sodomy between two people in the privacy of their home. The Texas law is being attacked because in this case the prohibition against sodomy (oral and anal sex) applies only to same-sex couples, and not to heterosexuals.

Sen. Santorum said, “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 incest, you have the right to adultery.”

In response to demands that he apologize and resign from his position as chairman of the Republican Party conference, Sen. Santorum said that he was engaging in a “legitimate public policy discussion,” and that his comments “are the law of the land.” He cited the language of the late Justice White in the earlier Georgia case.

Some of Santorum’s critics call him a bigot, comparing his remarks to those of Sen. Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond, saying the country would be better off if Thurmond, advocating segregation, had been elected president in 1948.

Now come I to comment about Sen. Santorum, some might say foolishly rushing in where angels fear to tread.

During my 12 years as mayor, I initiated and implemented landmark proposals to protect New York City residents who are gay or lesbian. In January 1978, as soon as I took office, I issued an executive order that prohibited discrimination by government against anyone based on their sexual orientation.

In 1986, I signed a local law prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations in the private sector against anyone because of their sexual orientation. The state of New York did not adopt a similar law until last December.

I also implemented the domestic partnership concept in New York City by providing some spousal rights to domestic partners. Those rights were expanded by my successor, David Dinkins. In addition, I support allowing same-sex marriage or its equivalent so as to provide equality in spousal rights to same-sex couples.

I also recognize that this is a complex moral issue. Is it bigotry for Santorum and his fellow Catholics – as well as Orthodox Jews, many Protestants and Muslims – to believe that sodomy is sinful and should be prohibited by civil and criminal law?

Is it fair for Daily News columnist Richard Cohen to write of Santorum, “If you have the orientation of a moron, do you still have to talk like one?” I think Cohen is engaging in Catholic bashing.

While I believe in the right of privacy and think the previous court decision on sodomy to be morally wrong, and legally flawed, it is the law of the land unless and until overruled by a subsequent court decision or constitutional amendment.

The same Richard Cohen writes: “My head aches when I try to decipher the sage words of Senator Rick Santorum about homosexuality. He has ‘no problem with homosexuality,’ he said, but he has ‘a problem with homosexual acts.’”

Santorum’s statement expresses the traditional Catholic view oft-stated by the late John Cardinal O’Connor: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” But why, it is fair to ask, should the views of a majority of the U.S. population less accepting of the sexual activities of gays be more tolerated than bigotry directed at African-Americans or Jews?

In the latter cases, while bigotry still exists, a great majority of Americans believe it wrong to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. In the case of homosexuality, we have not reached that enlightened state of tolerance.

I understand that this is a difficult issue for people in public office. When I first ran for office in 1962 for the New York State Assembly, my platform included repeal of New York’s sodomy laws and those prohibiting abortion, and amending the divorce law so as to permit divorce on grounds other than adultery. All three changes occurred years later, but I lost that Democratic primary.

The way to hold Sen. Santorum accountable for his statement is to challenge him when he runs for re-election and subject him and his constituents to an educational campaign in the interim. But insulting the senator and his constituents with personal attacks has the effect of hardening hearts, ending dialogue and retaining the status quo.

Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down the Texas law and, better still, retroactively reject its ruling in the earlier Georgia case.

No matter how long it takes, the battle for equal rights for our citizens in a host of areas, including race, religion, sex and sexual orientation, must go on until victory is achieved. But the tactics used in achieving those goals can affect the pace of progress. Ad hominem attacks on Santorum could end up doing more harm than good.