The controversy du jour surrounds Sen. Rick Santorum's purported "attack" on homosexuals. Here is the unedited transcript of his comments on homosexuality in an AP interview. It's clear that the original report was lacking in proper context as well as in actually misquoting him, as pointed out by Andrew Sullivan in his blog today. I don't believe that this signals the coming sexual police state that Sullivan is worried about, but I agree with him in that I also think that the difference between generally accepted, consensual sexual acts and bigamous and/or lewd sex acts with animals and such are two totally different things. As such, I agree with the point that this seems to be a contradictory stance by Santorum.
Essentially, as a conservative, Santorum is for less intrusive government in all aspects of life. To draw a line at private sexual activity strikes me as hypocritical. Is there no more private act than what two people (or more?) wish to do consensually and in private? I understand Santorum's concern regarding illegal acts, but, again, those acts which are generally accepted, especially within heterosexual relationships, are no business of the government's. Finally, I don't think that "anything goes" is proper either, but if the people involved are both consenting adults, the government has no place inserting itself into their lives.