I guess this is the new thing to do in American politics. When someone with political ideology on the opposite end of the spectrum for your own makes statements you disagree with, you call for his or her resignation. In the case of Trent Lott, his demotion was done for internal GOP reasons. That’s fine. But the uproar over Rick Santorum’s remarks about homosexuality is absurd.

Here’s the text of the AP interview. Read it yourself. Basically, here are the highlights:

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions. ….

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. 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? 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.

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.

I don’t understand what the problem is. I think the comparison between homosexual acts and bigamy, polygamy, and adultery are all perfect comparisons. The comparison to incest, while a bit of a stretch, still merits some debate, as does bestiality. He’s making legal, social, and moral arguments about homosexuality. He’s not gay-bashing. A lot of what he said reflects the sentiments of millions of religious Americans, Catholics and Protestants.

It should also be noted that the reporter who first filed a story on this interview is a woman named Lara Jakes Jordan. Fox News pointed out that she is married to Jim Jordan, who just happens to be the presidential campaign manager for Sen. John Kerrey. Kerrey, along with candidate Howard Dean, blasted Santorum for the remarks.