Sex, gays and red tapeThis piece
(linked) takes a closer look at Santorum's 2003 remarks about gay/lesbian marriage, "true marriage" and sex with animals, remarks that seem to get misreported sometimes even by those who are justly against his positions. No, they are not more palatable, in their interview context they are even worse
than they're often credited with. Santorum was hinting, or half-weaseling, back then, that gay sex/gay relations are not "a bit less evil or pervy" than bestiality but just as evil, or near as evil. And moreover, that LGBT sex acts should be a crime in themselves, overriding any right to privacy, even at home.
Quote from 2003 AP interview with Rick Santorum (in another place in the interview, also quoted by Reason in the piece I linked to at the start, he makes the explicit equation, or near-equation, of gay sex, pedophilia and sexual acts with animals):If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution; this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family....
The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.
The consequences being basically that fewer children are born, because gay couples supposedly do not produce or raise kids, that the idea of homosexuality gets propagated as a hip or desirable thing and that the proper roles of men and women get washed out and perverted. And the points he states, if they were to guide actual law, would also have dire consequences for teenage sex, like, to consensual relationships where the parties straddle the 15-year mark but are happy exploring love, sex and sensuality. By the way, shouldn't "seduction into thinking gayness is okay" be a crime too? Get Al Corley and Rufus Wainwright to jail asap!
(I recall a case in Carolina, NC or SC, where a guy was sentenced to several (ten?) years in jail without any possibility of pardon after his younger girlfriend, who was 14, had willingly given him fellatio at a new year's party: the sentence wasn't changed even after the law in question was overturned, and the case had to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine that it was an implausible and grossly oversized punishment enshrined in a questionable law´. By then, the boy had spent a number of years in jail. Excuse my suspicion that he was black and the girl white...).
Well, Santorum isn't actively defending these positions he outlined back in 2003 at the moment - he knows this kind of hard straight line would kill his chances of ever getting close to winning the election, perhaps even to get nominated. But they seem to really tie in with his perspective on sex and human relations. Gives a cue of what policies might be enacted - on or under the table - by a President Santorum.