The Santorum Thing

I thought that with the Hiatus I took from blogging (I was busy, OK?) I would miss my chance to comment on this whole Santorum anti-gay comments thing but the issue is still generating some interesting discussion.

One of the things I am happiest with is the wedge it is driving between the libertarian and traditional values (i.e. christian right) wings of conservatives. The libertarians see this is, rightly in my opinion, less about homosexuality than about the right to do whatever you want in private, as long is it doesn’t harm anyone, without interference from the government. One of the core beliefs of many conservatives is that the government should be minimal and get out of people’s private lives.

From Andrew Sullivan:

The blog today is again devoted to the now-amplified comments of the third leading Republican in the Senate. I make no apologies for this. This is not about homosexuality as such. It is about the principles of limited government, tolerance, civility, compassion and the soul of the Republican party. There are no deeper political issues.

Sully also shows what he calls a “typical email” he has received from a conservative who is very disappointed in the Republican party:

…I defended Bush and the party as best I could, even during the Bob Jones fiasco, Bush’s statement that the unsaved don’t get into heaven, and his mocking of Karla Tucker. However, the Trent Lott episode finally did me in. Of course Bush told him to step down, but clandestinely so. However, there has been no denunciation over Santorum’s remarks from the White House yet, nor will there be anytime soon. I know there are plenty of intelligent, open-minded people in the party, and that they’re fighting the good fight. However, I cannot, on principle, belong to a party that still has someone as high up as Santorum believing and saying the things he does. I refuse to support an organization that pursues American economic and military hegemony overseas in the name of freedom, but will not disown the most reactionary of social principles at home…

Of course as Dan Savage points out in his editorial for the New York Times (via Matthew Yglesias. Also how did I almost miss this? Dan Savage in the New York Times.):

Gay groups are trying to turn Senator Rick Santorum into the next Trent Lott. It’s not going to work. Mr. Lott lost his post as Senate majority leader because he said something he wasn’t supposed to. Mr. Santorum, who holds the No. 3 position in the Senate leadership, was only repeating what many Republicans have already said.

Indeed Atrios, who brought Sullivan to my attention, wonders why Sullivan should be “shocked, no SHOCKED, about all of this” considering:

Those of us who actually follow politics on planet Earth, as opposed to politics in AndyLand, know what Bush’s view of homosexuality is. When asked about Texas’s sodomy law, which is limited to same-sex sodomy, Bush said “I think it’s a symbolic gesture of traditional values.”

As governor, “Bush supported a measure that banned gay couples from becoming foster parents or from adopting foster children.”

As Calpundit has been saying for some time, gay rights could be a very useful issue for the Democrats, exposing the most radical elements of the Republican party and alienating moderate and libertarian voters from the Republicans. I hope the issue remains about equal rights, privacy and government interference, not about gay marriage, which I strongly support but I imagine many moderates do not.

I couldn’t end this post without linking to this post by Radley Balko, which does a great job of showing the libertarian position on the issue and also is a good conclusion to this topic. I am a libertarian leaning lefty, not a real libertarian and certainly not a conservative, but I generally agree with the libertarian view of this issue: that the government should have no business regulating behavior between consenting adults.