So, Republican Senator Rick Santorum opened his mouth during an AP interview, and Democrats want to fry him for it. Here are the 'inflammatory' statements that Santorum made.

And 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?

My first question, is where was this democratic outrage when Rep. Jim Moran, a Democrat, blamed the Jews for the war in Iraq? Second, what is so bad about what Santorum has said?

First of all, I'll give you my position. If someone wants to have consensual gay butt sex, I don't really care. If someone practices consensual incest, or polygamy, I don't care. Basically, I don't care about someone else's sex life in the privacy of their own home, since it doesn't affect me. Adulterers, on the other hand, deserve to face the wrath of their spouse. Unless their spouse consents to them sleeping around, it is not a victimless crime.

Now, go back and read what Santorum said. Really, you should read the full interview, so that nothing is taken out of context. Santorum is merely making the point that our society currently imposes moral standards on the private bedroom activity of their neighbors. If you want to change the moral standard, it should be done at the ballot box, and not in a court room. If the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue, they are altering the legality of the behavior, not the morality of it. After all, the SCOTUS doesn't decide morality, they deal with legality. Morality is beside the point when it comes to the SCOTUS.

From a strictly legal standpoint, you cannot permit one behavior, and disallow another. Declaring a law against sodomy to be an unlawful violation of personal freedom and privacy, would effectively negate laws against any so-called sexual deviance. Therefore, similar laws against polygamy and incest would be null and void.

Santorum is just making the point that if you have a moral postion against consensual polygamy or incest, than you're going to have to 'take the good with the bad', so to speak when dealing with the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if you hold the position that our moral views have changed, then it needs to be settled at the ballot box, and not in the courts, because courts cannot dictate morality.