Amanda Rubio's remarks in her April 28 letter "Santorum's Words Disgraceful" demonstrate an admirable desire to encourage a more tolerant nation and inclusive Republican Party. Nevertheless, Rubio fails to recognize the actual intent and substance of Senator Santorum's remarks.

In his recent AP interview, Santorum discussed an upcoming Supreme Court case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. Santorum expressed concern that if the Court extends the so-called "right to privacy" to strike down such laws, the Court would be unable to justify upholding laws which ban activity such as polygamy or incest. Santorum never directly compared or equated these activities. He simply suggested that if the "right to privacy" is extended to one logical conclusion, Congress and state legislatures would be forbidden from restricting other kinds of sexual activity.

Furthermore, Santorum did not "denounce" any person based on orientation, nor does the Catholic Church. Santorum drew a distinction between persons and actions; he took issue with homosexual acts, not homosexual people. While Santorum said "I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution," acts and people are two very different things. Santorum's distinction closely mirrors Catholic teaching and is held by many Americans; it deserves examination and discussion, not automatic denunciation.

Laws banning homosexual activity between consenting adults should be repealed. But the Court should not strike down laws by creating and extending a "right" which does not appear in the Constitution and which was not intended by the founders. The "right to privacy" has already forbidden legislatures from regulating in any significant way the practice of abortion on demand and may inhibit their ability to prohibit or restrict suicide, polygamy and incest. The founders did not believe that these activities merited constitutional protection; those who disagree should attempt amendment.

Americans hold many different views about homosexuality, and Santorum's perspective is neither hateful nor extremist. Debate about which activity Congress or state legislatures should be able to regulate constitutes a perfectly acceptable public policy discussion in which our elected representatives should participate.

Greg Wright

law student

April 28

• Figuring out how to say good-bye
  
• Act like an adult to be treated like one
  
• Look closer before charging "extremism"
  
• Distinguish between persons and acts
  
• Notre Dame Board must tackle tough questions to improve community life