The Real Reason Sen. Santorum is Under Fire

The hounds have been set loose to nip at the heels of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), my favorite Senator from my Commonwealth (not much competition, though). He has done the dastardly deed of talking openly about a case involving one of the Great Un-enumerated Rights (so un-enumerated it was probably not even thought of by the Founders other than with a shudder).

But WHY have the usual suspects been braying so loudly over what are actually legitimate comments on a case before the Supreme Court of the United States? As with most things that set lefties to foaming, it is surely much more than moral indignation over having some of their fellow ideologues "insulted." As is clear from reading Santorum’s interview account, he said nothing that wasn’t millennia-old Catholic doctrine or nothing that wasn’t also said during the Court’s hearing on the matter of the Texas homosexual sodomy law.

In all of the official punditry on offer over the past few days on this subject, I have not seen or heard what must surely be the main motivating factor of the heel nippers.

The premise of the Right to Sodomy is that laws proscribing such acts are an offense against the Constitutional right to Privacy (imagine trumpet fanfare here). Hmmm. I still have not sent in my box tops for one of those newfangled emanating penumbra copies of the Constitution. However, Privacy must be in there right with freedom to practice religion and keeping arms.

Should the Court uphold the right of the State of Texas to legislate against the private act of homosexual life style consummation, what other private acts may be un-enumerated? I think I overheard some people talking about some settled law decision from way back in the early 1970′s. It would also seem to put a higher degree of difficulty on the current legislation-via-lawsuit press for legal recognition of homosexual "’til death do us part" promises. This is a threat not only to updated morality; it even presents the chance for federalism to respond to external stimuli. Yikes.

The activists who have dedicated their lives to the cause of undermining the moral foundations of society have made tremendous headway over the last few decades. Their progress has generally been spearheaded by successful legal actions from which legislation must follow to protect the judicial decisions after which the morally uninformed conclude that if it is the law, it must be right. Hence, social mores evolve. However, there remains some lingering consciousness of a thing being right and wrong. As the activist’s job is never done (they simply MUST have something to be active about), and the achievements they have made could even devolve, they simply cannot allow such troglodytic thoughts and statements to be uttered without the utteree being pounded down to a height where his knuckles no longer drag only proverbially.

Senator Santorum had the temerity to state his deeply held political and moral convictions. Those convictions comport with traditional Western understanding. He simply cannot be allowed to do such a thing. He must be smashed. What if the yokels hear what he really said?

Leave a Reply

Submit Comment