Probably you’ve all heard by now Senator Santorum’s progressive statements on homosexuality and the right to privacy. If not, here’s the transcript, which is a very funny read until you remember that he’s the 3rd highest ranking member of the Senate. My personal favorite quote is from the astonished interviewer:


The original topic of discussion was the Texas anti-sodomy laws, but maybe “man on dog” is what Santorum should really be concerned about here. Because, as Andrew Sullivan points out, In the same year that Texas passed its current anti-sodomy law for gays, it repealed the law against bestiality.
Between that revelation and reading about the show Mr. Personality, I started to wonder if I hadn’t awakened this morning in an alternate universe. Seriously, how is it that the same legislature passing anti-sodomy laws repeals the anti-bestiality laws? Who’s the legislator who’s going to propose it? Who the hell wants a pro-bestiality vote on his voting record? Is there a massive constituency for this in Texas? A powerful lobby, perhaps? Just what year was this?

I’m sure my readers would love for me to explore this topic in depth, but I’m sure I’ll already be drawing some disturbing Google searches. So, back to the original topic – Santorum is described as a rising star among the GOP, which causes concern over just what kind of views the Republican Party is prioritizing these days. (Shocking that I should be concerned about this, I know.) Also, the AP article I just linked describes him as a “compassionate conservative”. If this is compassionate conservatism, what’s the alternative? Fred Phelps, I guess.

If it’s decided, as Santorum argues it should be, that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy, said right should be added to it with all possible speed. Surely all those proponents of limited government in the Republican Party would agree…