Why the left cannot cheer this liberation

Rick Santorum is a bigot. And, like others bigots before him, he seeks to promote his views be claiming the American people face "threats" that do not exist.
Santorum, the Pennsylvanian who chairs the Senate Republican Caucus, is blatant about his bigotry. Unlike former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, who got in trouble for praising Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat presidential campaign of 1948, Santorum was talking about the here and now when he objected to efforts to strike down sodomy laws because he opposes lifting criminal sanctions against gay and lesbian relationships. To this senator's view, gays and lesbians who engage in consensual, monogomous and loving relationships "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family."
Just as Santorum is blatant about his bigotry, he is equally blatant in his fearmongering, arguing that, "(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."
Santorum told an Associated Press reporter that respecting the rights of adult citizens to engage in loving, respectful relationships is wrong because such a stance "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."
Wrong as he may be, Santorum has a right to his point of view -- just as people have a right to believe in trickle-down economics and other dangerous fallacies. But Santorum has no right to have his retrograde viewpoints treated with respect. To do so would be to legitimize the bigotry that has eaten away at his ability to recognize -- or, at least, respect -- reality.
Charges that striking down laws that criminalize same-sex relationships will eliminate restrictions on incest and polygamy used to heard quite frequently from politicians who sought votes by pitting groups against one another. But even on the right-wing of the political spectrum, such talk has become less common in recent years. Why? Because states across the country have been striking down sodomy laws for more than 40 years, without weakening laws against incest and polygamy.
Twenty-six states have repealed sodomy laws since Illinois began the trend in 1962. The courts have struck down sodomy laws in nine more states.
More than two dozen states have passed laws barring different forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians since Wisconsin did so in 1982. Hundreds of communities have done the same. The courts have upheld these moves, while continuing to recoginize the ability of states and communities to impose sanctions against incest, polygamy and other behaviors on Santorum's list.
So the senator is wrong. And, because of his prominent position and history of dealing with social issues as the fair-haired boy of the Republican right, it is fair to assume that he knows better. So it is certainly reasonable to assume that Santorum is motivated not by genuine concern about the spread of polygamy but by his bigotry against lesbians and gays.
Fair enough. There are plenty of bigots in politics. And, in this democracy, voters are permitted to elect them.
However, voters are also permitted to ask whether Santorum speaks for the Republican Party. He is, after all, the chair of the party's caucus in the upper house of the Congress.
Two prominent Republican moderates have been appropriately critical of Santorum. "Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Senator Santorum's unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity," says Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, says that, "I thought his choice of comparisons was unfortunate and the premise that the right of privacy does not exist -- just plain wrong. Senator Santorum's views are not held by this Republican and many others in our party."
But is Chafee right? Is Santorum the one who stands outside the GOP mainstream? So far, the nation's leading Republican is refusing to comment on the Santorum flap. The Bush White House is officially silent. Most leading Republicans in Congress have also gone uncharacteristically mum -- though, in some cases, they are actually defending Santorum. The man who replaced Lott, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, has gone so far as to claim that Santorum is "a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party."
So where does the Grand Old Party stand? Exactly how big is the big tent? The moment demands some clarification, and Republicans have a model for how to approach such a circumstance.
When Trent Lott made statements that seemed to suggest a sympathy for the racist bigotries of the 1940s, President Bush and his aides were quick to distance themselves from that senator's sentiments. So too were a number of prominent conservative Republicans in the Senate. Bush and other party leaders ought to do the same with regard to Santorum, unless, of course, they share his point of view.
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=610

[...]May 7 - Jewish students, faculty and campus visitors were verbally assaulted and threatened following a pro-Israel rally organized by Hillel members at San Francisco State University. A group of pro-Palestinian counter-demonstrators allegedly hurled epithets at a few dozen organizers, screaming slogans such as "Go back to Russia" and "Hitler did not finish the job." In response to the incident, the Anti-Defamation League has been in contact with the SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan with recommendations to respond to the incident and address issues of bias and anti-Semitism on campus. President Corrigan has assured ADL and the wider community that a full investigation is underway, and that any students involved in the episode could face disciplinary measures, including expulsion, or prosecution if the actions involve criminal violations. The university has requested that the District Attorney assign a member of the hate crime unit to aid in the investigation.

May 7 - The Muslim Student Association at UC - San Diego distributed fliers on campus titled, "The Jenin Massacre." At the same time, fliers appeared on campus with an anti-Semitic diatribe written by the right-wing extremist and former Klansman David Duke. [/color]

[...]

Apparently Santorum has come to the conclusion that he is presidential timber

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Protesting ?'Patriots'
Town Among Several Vowing to Block Patriot Act Enforcement

It hardly seems like the front line in the war on terrorism, but try telling that to some of the town's 17,000 residents.
"We're all patriots," said Allan Spalt, a Carrboro resident. "We're all against terrorism. We all believe in protecting the country."
Local residents are worried the federal government has become too intrusive and that federal agents could sweep into town and violate their constitutional right to privacy. [...]
Residents have pressured the City Council to pass a "Bill of Rights defense resolution."
The measure requires federal investigators who visit the town to report to city hall and state their business. It also directs local police to stand in the way of any unreasonable searches or seizures. [...]
Constitutional scholars say the new Patriot Act renews old distrust in federal authority.
"Under this standard of terrorism," said Kimberly Crenshaw of Columbia University, "the civil rights movement, the freedom riders, the sit-in demonstrations, all of these people could conceivably have been prosecuted as terrorists." [...]
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WorldNewsNow/patriotact_carrboro030427.html

EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act
That Relate To Online Activities (Oct 31, 2001)
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html

DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html

Talking Points I: Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 ("Patriot II")
The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law on Oct. 26, 2001. For months, Congressional legislative and committee staff have anticipated follow-up legislation. The Administration consistently indicated that, although many ideas were being considered, specific proposals weren't ready to be shared with Congress. However, on Friday, Feb. 7, 2003, the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity (CPI) posted on its website a copy of a confidential draft of proposed legislation dated Jan. 9, 2003, entitled the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," together with a "control sheet" which appears to show that the confidential draft had been transmitted on Jan. 10, 2003, to House Speaker Hastert (IL) and Vice-President Cheney (presumably in his capacity as President of the Senate). Availability of the document was publicized by Bill Moyers on his Feb. 7, 2003, PBS TV program, "Now with Bill Moyers," when Mr. Moyers interviewed Charles Lewis, the head of CPI. The Justice Department did not dispute the authenticity of the draft, although it denied that Rep. Hastert or Vice-Pres. Cheney had been sent the document.
The proposed law would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authority; reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over certain surveillance; authorize secret arrests, detentions, and grand jury subpoenas; create a DNA database of individuals who are suspected of association with terrorism or terrorist groups; create new death penalty provisions; and empower the government to remove American citizenship from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.
Some highlights of the proposed act:

Increases secret surveillance. The proposed act would create broad new powers of surveillance by the Administration, broadening the definitions of who can be secretly watched, the certification that the Administration must make to receive a warrant, and the circumstances in which the Administration can conduct surveillance without a warrant. It would terminate or alter consent decrees set up to curb illegal surveillance by local law enforcement authorities.

Increases control over immigrants. The proposed act would expand the control of the Justice Department over immigration matters, including expedited deportation. It would criminalize many regulatory violations and remove judicial discretion from some immigration rulings.
Establishes new crimes, criminal procedures, and sanctions. The proposed act would create new crimes, criminal procedures, and punishments relating to non-violent activities that could be linked to terrorism or groups deemed to be "terrorist groups" by the Administration. It would give the Justice Department new powers concerning certification of evidence, submission of secret evidence, and mandatory pretrial detention. It would permit surveillance of the content of home computers and multi-use handheld devices, and would permit surveillance of banking and credit accounts. It would expand the Justice Department's subpoena power to include "administrative subpoenas," issued without judicial oversight. It would increase the government's control over banking activities and further enhance money laundering provisions. It would make even standard encryption of Internet and e-mail messages an enhancement to other felonies.
Names new death penalty crimes. The proposed law would provide for imposition of the death penalty for certain terrorism-related crimes.
Grants right to autopsy. The proposed act would give federal officials power to order an autopsy without permission during a federal criminal investigation if the death occurred from terrorist attack or "other deadly crimes."
Decreases access to public information. The proposed act would restrict public Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access to public information about those detained during terrorism investigations. It would restrict available public information about potential pollution by private chemical businesses, curtailing environmental and local government oversight. The proposed act would also prohibit disclosure of information by witnesses and others subpoenaed in terrorism cases, transforming these investigations from public to secret.
Establishes a new terrorist-related DNA database. The proposed act would create a DNA database under Justice Department control. Anyone the Administration suspects of association with terrorism would be forced to contribute DNA samples. Any "reasonably necessary" means could be used to get the samples, and failure to comply would bear criminal penalties. The DNA database information could be shared with state and local law enforcement agencies.
Alters procedure for taking away U.S. citizenship. The proposed act would allow the government to strip a citizen of his or her citizenship by government inference of intent to relinquish citizenship, inference rising from behavior including fighting with a hostile foreign government or terrorist organization, or even engaging in lawful activities of a group designated as a "terrorist organization" by the Attorney General.
Allows extradition without treaty and expanded deportation. The proposed act would permit extradition of individuals to countries with whom the U.S. has no extradition treaty. It would permit deportation to any location deemed acceptable by the Attorney General if deportation to the country of origin is "impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible," even if the destination's government is not recognized by the U.S. or it has no government at all.
The proposed act is laced with interactions between federal law enforcement activities and foreign intelligence activities. It would further intermingle traditionally separated federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The proposed act completely by-passes the Homeland Security Department, new home to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and numerous crime and foreign intelligence operations. In addition, the provisions of this proposed act would represent a fundamental change from the Constitutional framework of separation of powers of the branches of government, to delegating power to the Administration without oversight or accountability. It would further decrease information about government functions to the public. The proposed act would remove numerous protective walls between government agencies, erected by statute and regulation to correct past abuses.
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/immigrant/sup/patriot-2_tlkpts.htm