a) Sodomy isn't constitutionally protected, and therefore the Supreme Court cannot strike down state laws outlawing it. It is true that this was the gist of the Bowers v. Hardwick decision, and as such is the current state of affairs. (However, one reason the Supreme Court is revisiting this general issue is that the law in question in Texas does not outlaw sodomy outright, but same-sex sodomy).
b) Santorum has expressed his opinion that he would vote for and otherwise support efforts by states to criminalize behavior such as sodomy, adultery, etc.
Now, even if one wants to stake out a supposedly principled view of constitutional law and say that he has a point in a), I have little or no understanding why so many people aren't incensed about b). Sure, the Jeebofascists among us live to do nothing but control sex and women, but I have a hard time believing that there are that many Republicans who have never had sex outside of marriage and/or engaged in sodomy (yes, that includes oral sex boys and girls!) within marriage.
If you want to claim that Santorum is simply a theocrat and not a bigot - as if a religious belief cannot be bigoted regardless of what it is - feel free to nurse that little fantasy. But, Jeebus, I didn't know so many people were happy about politicians who want to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies.
Weird.
CalPundit and Virginia Postrel have similar thoughts. As Virginia says:
-
The policy question is also the one to which Andrew Sullivan has primarily addressed his remarks. It's far more interesting--and, in my view, much easier--than the constitutional question. But it's the question conservative pundits mostly want to dodge.