The author of “Santorum’s comments were not controversial (April 24 letter) claims Sen. Rick Santorum’s remarks are not controversial. Controversy means “to turn against.” People are turning against Santorum’s words, making them, by definition, controversial.

Maybe the author means that the comments “should not” be controversial, but I challenge him to stay quiet when somebody equates him to one who has sex with his mother. He doesn’t get the essence of Santorum’s words. Texas is arguing that it is a legitimate function of government to enter residences and arrest and imprison people for performing “unapproved” sex. Santorum voiced support for this law.

In legal terms, sodomy refers to any sexual act other than married, vaginal, reproductive sex. Does the author really want the state to imprison people for licking one another’s genitalia or having group sex?

To arrest and imprison those who might choose, as consenting adults, gay or not, in the privacy of their own homes, to engage in behavior that falls afoul of official “morality” guidelines, is repugnant to my understanding of what conservatism means.

Santorum invoked states’ rights in this case. As a lawyer and a politician, I would expect him to have a better understanding of the function of the Supreme Court. It exists to render opinions on federal, municipal and state law. It’s very reason for existing is to correct states when they pass laws that are in violation of the Constitution, as the Texas sodomy law clearly is.