Santorum: I’m a Leader Because I Wanted to Jail Gay People

Rick Santorum met with state legislators in Iowa the other day and made the rather astonishing argument that he proved his strong leadership by speaking out in favor of sodomy laws that criminalized being gay in many states. Because nothing says leadership like thinking gay people should be thrown in jail.

Addressing the controversy over so-called “religious freedom” measures in Arkansas and Indiana that were softened by legislators to make it more difficult to use them as a cover for discrimination, Santorum lamented that “what happened there was the media created a firestorm and leaders didn’t lead.”

“I’ve been through that firestorm,” he explained. “I go back 13 years to when I was in the Senate and stood up and said, ‘If the Supreme Court decides a case this way, then all these bad things are going to start happening.’ And I said we would have same-sex marriage in this country in ten years. I was wrong: it was five years. And I was put through a national wringer like no one had been put through and I have been put through over and over and over again because I am not going to back down from what I believe is the right course for our country.”

Although Santorum likes to claim that all of his dire predictions about the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas came true, that isn’t exactly accurate. He told CNN at the time: “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.”

And yet here we are 13 years later and bigamy, polygamy and incest are not protected rights. Adultery already was, of course, so that’s irrelevant. And remember, this is an allegedly “small government” conservatism who is arguing that the government should put you in jail for having consensual sex with another adult in the privacy of your own home. In the Republican party, they call that leadership.

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

    Satanorum’s many hates include sex, birth control, and education.

    Satanorum Ave Maria U.

    Where did Satan start? According to Santorum, “The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first — first successful was in academia.

    He hates higher education i.e. colleges and unversities and says so often. Because they have been taken over by satan.

    Satanorum also has three degrees from good public universities, including one in law. He uses his university education to make many millions of dollars. Guy is a raging hypocrite.

    There is something very sick and dark about this wannabe Dark Ages Pope. He finished near the bottom of the last GOP clown circus.

  • matty1

    It’s the old one about wanting a government small enough to fit in any bedroom.

  • Martin Zeichner

    Leadership.

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

  • D. C. Sessions

    It’s the old one about wanting a government small enough to fit in any bedroom bodily orifice.

    Bedrooms are just the beginning.

  • doublereed

    I’ve always said that Santorum is a massive coward. He backs down and whines the moment someone calls him out. It’s all you have to do to show his lack of “leadership.”

  • colnago80

    I wonder if Rick the prick wants his former administrative assistant during his Senate sojourn, who came out of the closet during that sojourn and was not even fired, tossed in the slammer?

  • theguy

    “And I was put through a national wringer like no one had been put through and I have been put through over and over and over again”

    It’s almost like you were put in prison for consensual sex! Oh wait, you weren’t arrested or censored? Well then shut the fuck up.

  • kantalope

    translated from the original wingnut:

    waah, I was criticized for being an ahole just because I was acting like an ahole and saying aholish stuff.

  • congenital cynic

    Santorum is creepy on so many levels. That he’s even a “possible” in the nomination race is a testament to the supreme fuckedupness (™) of republicans.

    I really worry about the state of the US of A. And he’s just one of a large cast of characters that cause that feeling.

    I may have to stop reading this web site. Too fucking depressing.

  • congenital cynic

    Anyone who is opposed to the education of anyone in any culture should be a pariah in any and every culture. Sadly, I will never live long enough for this to be true.

  • jonathangray

    And yet here we are 13 years later and bigamy, polygamy and incest are not protected rights

    Does anyone here think they shouldn’t be?

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    Too bad the debate questions are so rigged and Santorum would never make it that far, anyway. I’d love to see his answer to: “so what do you recommend for criminalizing homosexuality? Is it a felony?”

  • Larry

    Why is it the GOP candidates all seem to think governance of the US begins and ends with other people’s genitals and what they do with them?

  • U Frood

    He proves he’s a leader by showing that nobody listened to him. Doesn’t that mean he’s NOT a leader?

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray@11,

    You contine to surprise me by finding new ways of demonstrating what a shit you are.

  • StevoR

    @9. congenital cynic : “I may have to stop reading this web site. Too fucking depressing.”

    What – and miss out on the comedy? (Also so much good info and more.)

    @11.jonathangray asked :

    “And yet here we are 13 years later and bigamy, polygamy and incest are not protected rights

    Does anyone here think they shouldn’t be?”

    Well that’s three seperate questions with a lot of caveats – certainly not all three at the same time!

    Speaking just for myself here I’d say definitely incest should remain illegal and the first two are kinda the same thing only differing by degree – if (and only if) these are consensual and fully informed agreement for all parties then, frankly, why not?

    @ 1. raven : “There is something very sick and dark about this wannabe Dark Ages Pope. He finished near the bottom of the last GOP clown circus.”

    Actually, I hate to tell you this but Mr Frothymix here finished second only to Mittens Rmoney didn’t he? Yeah

  • StevoR

    Bold fail dammit!

  • tbp1

    I try not to be one of those people who automatically yells “closet case” at anti-gay types, but everything about Santorum just screams “deeply closeted, self-loathing gay guy.”

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    You contine to surprise me by finding new ways of demonstrating what a shit you are.

    Because I imply that bigamy, polygamy and incest are undesirable? Or because I imply that liberals wouldn’t regard them as undesirable?

    StevoR:

    I’d say definitely incest should remain illegal and the first two are kinda the same thing only differing by degree – if (and only if) these are consensual and fully informed agreement for all parties then, frankly, why not?

    Why exclude incest if it’s between consenting persons?

  • Al Dente

    What is undesirable about polygamy? Please be concise.

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon – just to ensure we are all on ‘the same page’, define the terms ‘bigamy, polygamy and incest’, precisely.

    Dingo

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R2XG9CnOj8 Olav

    And yet here we are 13 years later and bigamy, polygamy and incest are not protected rights

    Jonathangray #11:

    Does anyone here think they shouldn’t be?

    I do. If it is between consenting adults, I see no reason why either of those should be illegal.

  • StevoR

    @19. jonathangray : Why exclude incest if it’s between consenting persons?

    Because there’s almost always a massive power imbalance involved rendering true consent at best really dubious and also extremely negative genetic consequences.

  • marcus

    StevoR @ 23 I, and others here I know, have similar issues with polygamy as it is practiced by certain religious cults with regard to “true consent”.

    I would say that the state has a reasonable interest in how many spouses it will recognize with respect to state marriage benefits, but I see nothing wrong with the practice per se.

    And, of course, along with the issue of “consent” with regard to incest (as you mentioned) the state has a reasonable interest in the deleterious genetic consequences of interbreeding,.

  • marcus

    Italics fail.

  • scienceavenger

    U Frood: He proves he’s a leader by showing that nobody listened to him. Doesn’t that mean he’s NOT a leader?

    No, it means he’s a bad leader. Like Bush.

    Jonathen Gray: [I’m a shit b]ecause I imply that bigamy, polygamy and incest are undesirable? Or because I imply that liberals wouldn’t regard them as undesirable?

    You’re a shit, and an intellectually dishonest one, because you pretend that legalizing gay marriage somehow makes the reason all those other relationships are undesirable disppear, when anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that it doesn’t. Your argument is akin to someone objecting to liberalized hunting regulations for wolves by claiming it will lead to the hunting of our household pets.