Lisa Kyle, Associated Press Sen. Rick Santorum Click photo for larger image.

With the 2006 election looming, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., is most likely in for a tough race to keep his seat. But rather than beat around the bush, so to speak, the Republican has decided to lay it all on the line in his book "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." His views are definite, if not always PC. He and his wife, Karen, home-school their six children.

---

Do you worry that all the exposure from the book has set your family up for some very tight scrutiny?

People already do that when it comes to my family. Everything you do in public life has its ups and downs. The book is a public policy book. I mean there's a little bit about my family in the book. It's not a book of "here's what we do in our family and here's what you should do." I do mention we home-school. I mention the importance of family time at dinner, but not specifically about how we parent.

When you titled the book, you must have had Sen. Hillary Clinton's book in mind.

Yeah, not her book per se, but the idea, that was expressed by her and others, that society is best managed from the top down as opposed to bottom up.

Do you believe liberalism is the root of all evil?

No. No, I mean, I think I say liberals did some good things. I give them credit for the strides they made, for example, in Social Security, Medicare, the civil rights crusade. Look, the point I try to make is the stewardship of patrimony. What I'm saying is, look, there may be problems, and there certainly are problems and things we can change, but you don't throw everything out. You change what's wrong and try to build around those things. I really do believe the book is just common sense.

Would you say it's ludicrous to think that any one religion, ideology or political party has all the answers?

Do I believe that my answers are right? Sure I do. I mean I wouldn't believe them if I thought they were wrong. Do I believe that other people have a right to be in the public square and argue against me? Sure. And sometimes ideas that conservatives have put forward in the past have been wrong, sure.

How did your comments about women working and the idea that feminism has detracted from society go over with Condi Rice and Karen Hughes?

I'm not too sure they are going to read it. But what I talk about is "radical" feminism. You know, it's a matter of changing things for the better and then going to the extreme. For example, should women have been more affirmed in the workplace? Yes. Should it be to the point where women who decide not to work and stay at home are not affirmed in that choice? No.

So you don't have a problem with women working ?

No. My mother worked all her life. But my mom and dad worked their schedule around so my dad would go to work late and my mom would get home early. My dad got us off to school; my mom was already at work. When we got home, my mom was home.

Well, the divorce laws put a lot of pressure to go back to work onto women who would love to stay home and raise the children.

We need to do something about the divorce culture. The marriage contract should be at least as hard to break as a contract for chicken feed. I talk about covenant marriage, and that we in society have to begin to elevate marriage more instead of trying to deconstruct it. Marriage has fallen victim to a culture that says, "It's about me. I'm not happy." It's a selfishness. You have to know that of course you are going to go through bad times, and if you are not committed to each other in a selfless fashion, then marriages fail.

Do you think gay marriage would build up or tear down the institution?

Oh, I think it would completely tear it apart -- rip it at the foundation. Again, what's the point of marriage? And what kind of attitude do you have to have going into a marriage? I say the point of society having the institution of marriage is fundamentally about the next generation. Why does society care about two people living together? I mean, what interest do they have? Every civilization known to man has had a rite of marriage to memorialize this bond for the next generation. It is the best environment for these children to grow up in.

If you have two committed people of the same sex who adopt and stay together, doesn't that create a stable family?

That's the exception rather than the rule. We have to structure our laws around the rule, not the exception. Does anybody disagree that the best environment, the ideal for a child, is a mother and a father? That is not to say that a good father and a good father -- you know, two men -- aren't better than abusive parents. But you don't match the ideal against the worst; you match the ideal against the ideal. The ideal is what we should strive for, honor and support. Those who want same-sex marriages want their lifestyle affirmed. That's what they are looking for here. Affirmation from society that they are accepted, and that's not what marriage is about. It's not about adults; it's about the kids.