Santorum Lies About His Predictive Power

Like many social conservatives, Rick Santorum threw a tantrum when the Supreme Court overturned state laws against sodomy in 2003, predicting all manner of horrible things that would happen as a result. And in a radio interview this week he claimed that he had been proven right on them.

After host Lars Larson told the former presidential candidate that “the last several years have proved that you were absolutely right” on “homosexual issues,” Santorum said that “if you go back and look at the interviews I did when the Lawrence v. Texas case was decided and I said here are the consequences of what’s going to happen here, I said it in the next ten years and it was the next eight years or nine years.”

Psst. Rick. There’s this thing called the internet now. We can actually look up what you said. And guess what? None of the things you said would happen have happened:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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,” Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.

Bigamy now legal? Nope. Polygamy? Nope. Incest? Nope. Adultery you already had a right to long before that. So you’re lying, Rick. Which I doubt is going to surprise anyone at all. But you did it in the name of Jesus, so I’m sure that makes it okay.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    Hey! He was right that people would … um … start to think of LGBT people as human beings!

    Oh, the horror!

  • Crimson Clupeidae

    Bigamy now legal? Nope. Polygamy? Nope. Incest? Nope. Adultery you already had a right to long before that.

    So he’s 1 – 3? sorta?

    That’s like, a winning record, but not quite perfect, I guess…..

    Of course, Santorum scores these things like Calvinball.

  • matty1

    Yes but you missed the most important one anything is now legal (except for the things that aren’t) that is a radical change you can blame The Gays TM for.

  • ambassadorfromverdammt

    Santorum doesn’t give a shit what the eavesdroppers think. He knows that his target audience will lap it up hook, line, and stinker.

  • NitricAcid

    Speaking of the internet, be careful when googling his name. And didn’t he make a prediction that used the phrase “man-on-dog”?

  • cry4turtles

    A giant asshole can sling a lot of shit!!!

  • Matrim

    Bigamy is a form of polygamy. And I’d wish we’d hurry up as a society and stop looking at it like its such a terrible thing.

  • vmanis1

    Santorum’s `man-on-dog’ comment was in an AP interview in 2003, reported here. I am still waiting for the first man-on-dog wedding, so that I can send presents: a bottle of Ralph Lauren Polo cologne for the dog, and a chew-toy for the man. The Senator is a lying puddle of santorum.

  • felidae

    Icky Ricky, what do you have against blowjobs?—O, I get it, wifey would never oblige you.

  • scienceavenger

    Lars Larson LOL, and dunderhead totally worthy of being Santorumed on.

  • Thorne

    I have to say, I don’t understand the problem with bigamy or polygamy, or polygyny, or group marriages, or any other combinations. As long as all parties are in consent, what’s wrong with them?

  • matty1

    @11 Well I see no moral issues but there are practical problems.

    For example you can get pensions that are passed on to a spouse if the original pensioner dies, how would that work with two wives or two husbands- do they each get half the pension, each get a full pension (how is that funded)? The more people you add the harder it is to share those kinds of things and I’d imagine similar problems with tax.

    Nothing inherently unsolvable but more work for the lawyers than same sex marriage, which just means lifting a restriction on who can get a licence but changes nothing about how third parties interact with the couple.

    For the record I’m not sure a ban on *adult* incest is defensible either. Yes there is an increased risk of recessive genes but lots of things can increase the risk of inherited disease and we don’t ban people from marrying if they both have a family history of cystic fibrosis.

    Let me be clear what I mean here. I am talking about those cases, which do happen although rarely, where a brother and sister as adults choose to have a sexual relationship. Most commonly these are people who were not raised together and meet as adults. I know the word incest is sometimes used as a synonym for child abuse within the family and am absolutely not talking about that.

  • cptdoom

    I remember when Ricky was so adamant that Gingrich was an inappropriate GOP candidate because of his serial adultery… oh wait that never happened.

    @matty1 #12 – I think the incest question is going to get very interesting as children conceived via assisted reproduction grow up. Here in DC we had a fertility specialist use his own “material” to impregnate dozens of patients, claiming all the time to be using random donors. Those kids are now teenagers or young adults and it would not be shocking for two of them to meet up.

  • Michael Heath

    Ed writes:

    So you’re lying, Rick. Which I doubt is going to surprise anyone at all. But you did it in the name of Jesus, so I’m sure that makes it okay.

    I don’t think Muhammed and Jesus grade-out so well on the quality of their associations.

  • eava

    I must double check, but I thought a federal court struck down a state polygamy law after the Windsor decision came down.

  • had3

    Adultery is still illegal in Virginia, fwiw.

  • eava
  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    Santorum Lies About His Predictive Power

    Well that at least was very predictable!

  • dingojack

    I was looking elsewhere for something else (as is often the way with such things) when I came across this document, a debate in the English House of Lords. Some Lords opined:

    LORD AUCKLAND : …

    In one of the more popular Sunday newspapers last week there appeared an account, which some of your Lordships may have seen, of a homosexual wedding in a Continental country. I think the newspaper concerned is to be congratulated on high lighting this very nasty happening. I only hope that if this Bill becomes law, as I believe it will, the most vigilant eye will be kept on practices of this kind. I do not think these things could happen in this country, but it is possible, and I hope that the Government will read this particular article. I cannot remember in which newspaper it appeared.

    THE EARL OF DUNDEE It was the News of the World. “

    and others:

    BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: … I can understand that those noble Lords who oppose this Bill find certain practices repugnant. The way in which the noble and learned Viscount [VISCOUNT DILHORNE] who has just sat down pronounced the relevant words, the emphasis that he himself put, is, I think, a sincere testimony to the repugnance with which he views these practices. I ask myself: what are the opponents of this Bill afraid of? They cannot be afraid that these disgusting practices will be thrown upon their attention, because these acts are legalised only if they are performed in private. They cannot be afraid that there will be a corruption of youth, because these acts will be legalised only if they are performed between consenting adults. And obviously, they cannot be afraid, as they might be afraid in the case of illicit heterosexual intercourse, that such action will result in irresponsible procreation. I can only suppose that the opponents of this Bill will be afraid that their imagination will be tormented by visions of what will be going on elsewhere. Surely, if that is so, that is their own private misfortune, and no reason for imposing their personal standards of taste and morality on the minority of their fellow citizens who can find sexual satisfaction only in relations with their own sex.”

    And so it goes, around again. Same old canards from those opposed – same sane responses to counter their nonsense and fear mongering.

    And when were these speeches made?

    SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL

    HL Deb 13 July 1967 vol 284 cc1283-323 [emphasis mine]

    Dingo

  • birgerjohansson

    “Lars Larson” is an extremely Swedish name. Why, oh why must those of swedish descent turn to the nuttiest political groups?

    I don’t like the Swedish conservatives, but at least they have a relaxed attitude to these things -they have both gay people and atheists among the members of parliament.

  • dingojack

    From the above mentioned debate:

    “THE MARQUESS OF QUEENSBERRY : We have information from other countries that have altered their laws in a more lenient direction, and I do not think anybody has produced one shred of evidence to indicate that this change in the law has produced an increase in homosexuality. When I spoke on this subject before, I pointed out that in Sweden, where the laws were amended along the lines of the Wolfenden Committee recommendations in 1944, there has been no indication of an increase in homosexuality. One would like to know which countries that have altered their laws have seen a savage outbreak of homosexuality, and indeed an outbreak of those strange clubs that have been referred to in this House and in another place as “buggery clubs”. I am confident that a careful study of this problem would indicate that these fears are without substance.”

    Dingo

  • matty1

    @21 Good to know the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Rick Santorum threw a tantrum when the Supreme Court overturned state laws against sodomy in 2003, predicting all manner of horrible things that would happen as a result.”

    Well, he’s right, dammit!

    Look how he became a laughingstock and saw his name become synonymous with a puddle of froth comprised of semen, fecal dirt and “personal” lubrication. Y’gotta admit, that’s pretty horrible.

  • dingojack

    I looked it up the person speaking was David Harrington Angus Douglas, 12th Marquess of Queensberry.

    His famous ancestor (of boxing fame) was the 9th Marquess, John Sholto Douglas of whom the FoAW says:

    “In 1872, Queensberry was chosen by the Peers of Scotland to sit in the House of Lords as a representative peer. He served as such until 1880, when he was again nominated but refused to take the religious oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. Viewed by some as an outspoken atheist, he declared that he would not participate in any “Christian tomfoolery” and that his word should suffice. As a consequence neither he nor Charles Bradlaugh, who had also refused to take the oath after being elected to the House of Commons, were allowed to take their seats in Parliament. This prompted an apology from the new Prime Minister, William Gladstone. Bradlaugh was re-elected four times by the constituents of Northampton until he was finally allowed to take his seat in 1886. Queensberry, however, was never again sent to Parliament by the Scottish nobles.”

    His eldest son, Francis, Viscount Drumlanrig, was rumoured to have had an active homosexual relationship with the Liberal PM, Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery, and his youngest son, Lord Alfred “Bosie” Douglas, was the close friend and lover of Oscar Wilde. Douglas’ efforts to end their relationship led to his famous dispute with Wilde.

    So David Douglas, it seems, was the appropriate nobleman for the job.

    Dingo

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @ Dingojack : Cheers for all those very informative comments.

  • zero6ix

    The slope, she is a slippery one. Mainly because the slope, she is covered in lube and poo.

  • Thorne

    @ matty1 #12:

    I have to admit I hadn’t considered adult incest, as you describe it. And yes, I can see nothing morally wrong with consenting adults entering into such a relationship. I would hope they would also be responsible enough to understand the genetic risks, and be willing to terminate any fetuses showing disastrous genetic anomalies. But such things can happen in any pregnancy, whether through incest or not. They have a higher prevalence in incestuous pregnancies, that’s all.

    As for the legal aspects you mention, I’m not sure it’s all that different than leaving your estate to a large family. Everyone gets a percentage, unless specified in a will. Granted, there would have to be a few modifications to existing laws, but those shouldn’t be major issues, I wouldn’t think. And let’s face it, anyone who was willing to participate in a multiple partner marriage should be aware of the difficulties of these things.

    The point is that, given modern medicines, there are no really good reasons for prohibiting such marriages. The only “moral” excuses for prohibiting them are religious in nature. Which means there are no good reasons against them.