During last Thursday’s Republican debate, Rick Santorum proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is very confused about sexuality. Here’s the exchange in question:
SANTORUM: The fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we’re going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege and removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I think tries to inject social policy into the military and the military’s job is to do one thing — and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so…and I believe this undermines that ability.
KELLY: So what would you do with soldiers like Steven Hill. Now he’s out…so what would you do as president?
SANTORUM: Look, what we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now and that’s tragic. I would just say that going forward, we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president. Period. That policy would be reinstituted and as far as people in, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in conformity to what was happening in the past, which is — sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself — whether your’re heterosexual or homosexual.
Presumably, if we’re going to ban sexuality in the military there will be a celibacy requirement? Even that won’t ban sexuality, because any but the most simplistic, barbaric understanding of human recognizes that sexuality transcends genital contact. Even celibate people are sexual beings. Sexuality is a matter that affects our identity, our socialization, our recreation, the way we relate one to another in all of our relationships, and in fact reaches into every corner of our lives. You can no more “remove” a person’s sexuality by forcing them to hide it than you can remove a person’s heartbeat by refusing to use a stethoscope.
In her excellent novel, Angel, Laura Lee has her protagonist, Paul Tobit, say to a woman who states that she wishes homosexuals wouldn’t broadcast their sexual orientation because she doesn’t broadcast her heterosexuality. Paul responds simply by saying, “Nice wedding ring you have there.” Rick Santorum fails to understand that by wearing a wedding ring he is, in fact, declaring his sexuality. If we’re going to make sexuality something we don’t talk about, wedding rings need to come off.
While we’re at it, he really shouldn’t wear a suit and tie, because that broadcasts his sexuality. We all really need to begin to dress in a more androgynous manner. Perhaps we could all start wearing robes – all people. We should probably make all restrooms unisex, because by walking into a gender specific restroom we declare our gender, which is a component of our sexuality.
The truth is that Gallup polls have revealed that 1996 was the last year when America was evenly divided on the issue of homosexuality. Every year since then, the majority of Americans have expresses the attitude that homosexual orientation should be accepted in American life. While it’s true that there is a significant minority opposed, it’s also true that 51% of Americans are in favor of marriage for all. That would seem to indicate a high degree of acceptance. Why is it that politicians would ignore voter’s attitudes when they most often changes their positions as the polls change?
Finally, why is it that the Republican candidates, traditionally the hawkish, pro-America, “support our troops,” flag waving party have all stood by in silence as first executions and later allowing a man to die rather than give him medical treatment were cheered and last week an American soldier was received a chorus of boos?
Ironically, the only answer I can come up with is that they are morally bankrupt. They are willing to sell their integrity for votes, unwilling to display leadership of any kind, unwilling to challenge statements or beliefs that they disagree with becoming in the process spineless chameleons. I wonder how they manage to look at themselves in the mirror and even recognize what they have become. Surely they didn’t enter politics the equivalent of five dollar whores, peddling their values to the lowest bidder, but somehow that’s precisely what they have become.
Can there be any wonder as to the causes of voter apathy? How tragic is it that most of us, regardless of party affiliation, are forced to go to the polls to choose not the best candidate, but the least objectionable candidate? Where has the notion of excellence gone in the political arena?
Maybe the real answer is that in pandering to the lowest common denominator politicians have proven the theory that what you spend all of your time looking at is what you will become.
