Much has been made of the short segment of the interview that has been plastered all over the place and is being used in the call to remove Santorum from his leadership position. However, it was another section of the interview that caught my attention.

First, we have to lay some context. Based on the interview, it was pretty clear that the AP interviewer was taking the opposing side of the debate. Whether this was simply to play devil’s advocate or because of personal preference, it might be hard to judge. That is except for one section of the interview that opens the door to the mind of the interviewer.

SANTORUM: . . . Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality. . .

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Many on the left would cry foul with such a law regarding sodomy as now exists on the Texas books. To them the homosexual actions are north of their moral line. However, at some point, that line gets crossed. For this interviewer, it appears that line is just above bestiality. Ah, but where is the outrage that such behavior is currently restricted?

The bottom line really has nothing to do with your sexual preferences. It has more to do with the role society has in setting standards for a community. This is the overlooked portion of the interview. Rather than being a setback for homosexuals, they should see it as an opportunity.

Santorum says, near the end of the interview, “I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.”

What Santorum is advocating is the concept of Federalism. If homosexuals want to see that law removed from the books, then they need to organize to have it removed through the legislative process allowed in the state of Texas. If they can’t succeed there, then perhaps they should move to Vermont. However, don’t try to do an end around by using the court system. Let the people decide through democratic vote or through their representative body. While not true to Federalist principal, they could also push for a federal law specifically allowing the practice.

The counter then comes, “Yeah, but if you took that approach, we would still be segregated.” Would we? However, more importantly, the comparison of “sexual freedom” to something as the equality and freedom of human beings is a stretch. That comparison must be countered at every turn. First, it lowers the importance of the latter while incorrectly raising the importance of the former.

The bottom line is not about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, but the role of a society in determining what "freaks them out" -- more accurately translated as what they deem detrimental to the strength of their society. That line seems to get lower and lower as those seeking moral equivalence continue their campaign. What then. . . ? The right for “love” between humans and animals becomes a part of the Civil Rights Act?