Rick Santorum is an indictment on America

I guess you’ve heard by now that Rick Santorum has said that if he’s elected president not only will he try and ensure that gay people cannot marry anywhere, he’ll actually try to void the marriages of gay couples who have already legally gotten married.

He was confronted with the fact that most Americans support marriage equality and Santorum gave half of a good response.

“Just because public opinion says something doesn’t mean it’s right,” he said in the NBC interview.

True!  Doesn’t matter if the majority want to put a prayer banner on a government building’s wall or if the majority want atheists jailed.  It doesn’t matter if the majority wanted Christianity outlawed.  The majority does not make right.

But then Santorum continued…

“I’m sure there were times in areas of this country when people said blacks were less than human.”

They just had it wrong: blacks were 100% human and deserve equal rights, it was the gays that don’t get the same rights as full humans!

That’s the point, Rick!  People didn’t think a minority was equal, but they were.  How does it not occur to Santorum that this is an argument against his position, not for it?

The whole article is full of the standard list of bullshit attempts to dress bigotry up as nobility.

“Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron” because marriage can only be a male-female relationship, said the council’s Peter Sprigg.

Yes, you can’t change things because that’s the way they are right now.  Just like “free blacks” was once an oxymoron, because blacks were slaves.  Or just like “interracial marriage” was once an oxymoron, because blacks couldn’t marry whites until 1967.  That was the definition, and you can’t just go around redefining things willy nilly, can we?

This just in: if the definition of something is teeming with discrimination, the definition does not get precedence over ending the discrimination unless you are a horrible human being.

But here’s the deal: if it was just a couple of hateful people saying this shit, fine.  In any large population there’s going to be a couple of bad apples.  But this guy is leading the polls for Republicans.  Santorum is saying patently evil things to appeal to a lot of people, and it’s working.  Santorum’s words may confirm that he’s a bad person, but that his words resonate so effectively is an indictment on America.  Seriously, in what other nation can someone get so far running on a platform of gays are evil, my opponent wants to educate your children and keep you healthy, and if you’re a woman you’re going to get pregnant if you’re having sex?  Many American citizens are not special, they are humiliating, and they contribute to making America a laughing stock to the civilized world.

And the fact that the people with whom his words resonate are almost universally believers in Jesus is an indictment on religion as an promulgator of ignorance and hate.

  • http://idioprag.com WilloNyx

    Tide is changing. I can feel it. I remember a time very well that I thought nationwide gay marriage might be a pipe-dream. Now I see it as inevitable and I am happy.

    People like Mr. Frothy Mixture, need to be “blessed” with a gay child or grandchild. I have seen the effect loving someone who turns out to be the antithesis of what your religion tells you is right can have on parents and grandparents. I of course say this hoping that he does actually love his children. Sad that there is no certainty in that.

    • San Ban

      @WilloNyx:
      I used to wish for this, too, naively believing in the transformative power of love, but this is a man that has passed a dead fetus around among his children, and seems to have little regard for women, including his wife and daughters, as persons in their own right. I wouldn’t wish a parent like that on an lgbt child!

    • Dave, the Kwisatz Haderach

      No, no he really doesn’t. It would not be a learning experience for Mr. Frothy, it would be an ongoing horror for that poor child. No one deserves a parent like him.

  • Sastra

    “Just because public opinion says something doesn’t mean it’s right,” he said in the NBC interview.

    Wait …. wha? I thought Santorum and his supporters believed that democracy means that “majority rules.”

    Oh, right. First you have to use the SuperSpecial God Decoder to figure out what the “Natural Law” prescribes and proscribes upfront. Good luck with that. Have fun establishing your interpretation as law without being able to fall back on a simplistic childlike taunt of ‘majority rules.’ Theology has a bad record on consensus-building.

  • Steve

    But I thought the will of the majority always trumps the minority for these people? That we should just let everyone vote on everything.

  • smhlle

    I think someone should ask him if he’s going to come to the homes of gay adoptive parents and try to take their children away.

    • slc1

      Why assume he would stop there. Would he show up on Mary Cheney’s doorstep and demand that her two children be taken away from her?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ben.schuldt Ben Schuldt

    So God *should* destroy America.

  • Dan L.

    Pure pedantry here, but this is not true:

    Just like “free blacks” was once an oxymoron, because blacks were slaves.

    “Free blacks” was the term used to describe black folk who were freemen rather than slaves, either because they got here under their own power rather than on a slave ship or because they were set free by an owner. For example, Crispus Attucks, a black man who was slain in the Boston massacre in the run-up to the American revolution, is almost always described as a “free black”.

  • Gwynnyd

    Isn’t a “biblical marriage” between a man, his wives, their maids, some varying number of concubines, whatever daughters his hosts hand him, and the occasional boy for variety? This one man – one woman idea isn’t biblical at all!

  • Randomfactor

    Here’s how far things are changing: Santorum isn’t even representative of the majority of American Catholics. And the church itself is starting to recognize that.

    http://www.bilerico.com/2012/03/catholic_church_withdraws_from_maine_marriage_equa.php

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Karen Santorum defends Rick on women’s issues
    What’s she doing on TV? Shouldn’t she be be pregnant and in the kitchen?

    • Cheron22

      You just dont understand. What he says on TV and in debates is just the media trying to trap him. What he really means is that women should just put an aspirin between their legs … doh now I have to get my wife to log in and say I was traped by the media.

  • carlie

    “I’m sure there were times in areas of this country when people said blacks were less than human.”

    What the fuck? “I’m sure there were” is what you say when you are, in fact, not entirely sure, but hedging your bets. If you’re sure, you just say “there were”. He’s just admitted that he doesn’t know anything about American history. Like the constitution.

  • Mark

    If homosexual marriage is legalized, how will people know it is wrong?

  • Rieux

    Piling on Dan L.’s comment @6—re JT here:

    Or just like “interracial marriage” was once an oxymoron, because blacks couldn’t marry whites until 1967.

    That’s not quite right, at least with regard to the United States. (And, as a guy who’s in an interracial marriage, this is an issue sort of close to my heart.)

    1967 is when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, a case that invalidated Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law. As of the date of that decision, sixteen states—the former Confederacy, plus Okahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Delaware—still had such laws on the books, but the other thirty-four didn’t.

    So the upshot is that blacks could marry whites in most of the nation before 1967—for example, in 1961 Barack Obama Sr. married Ann Dunham in Hawaii. Hawaii and eight other states (including mine—woo-hoo!) never had anti-miscegenation laws. Twenty-five had had them but repealed them before Loving was decided, the last being Maryland, which repealed its provision while that case was being litigated.

    JT’s statement regarding ’67 still applies to Virginia, Missouri, and fourteen other states, though.

    Another interesting angle is what happened to the surviving anti-miscegenation laws after Loving invalidated them. Starting after Loving was decided, civil-rights groups pressured Southern state governments to remove those vestiges of institutionalized racism from their statute books (and frequently state constitutions). It took a long time, but when Alabama voters passed a amendment repealing the anti-miscegenation provision from their state constitution in 2000 (!), that finally was the end of on-the-books anti-miscegenation policies in American law.

    This history provides a stark contrast to state-law provisions (in several of those same states) that brutally violate atheists’ civil rights: seven state constitutions, even today, explicitly provide that atheists are not allowed to hold public office. Arkansas (sorry, JT) goes the furthest, barring anyone who doesn’t believe in gods from both public office and testifying in court.

    Now, these state provisions blatantly violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition (in Article VI) on religious tests for public office. And the Supreme Court recognized that in 1961—six years before Loving v. Virginia—in a Maryland case called Torcaso v. Watkins. So the anti-atheist provisions are invalid and unenforceable, but they’re still on the books… which is why some assholes in North Carolina were able to threaten to file suit to enforce that state’s ban on atheists holding office in 2009 in the case of Asheville City Council member Cecil Bothwell.

    Anyway, anti-miscegenation laws were all invalid and unenforceable in the United States as of June 12, 1967—and activists spent thirty-plus years working to get those off the books anyway. Isn’t it a little ugly that no one seems to care about Torcaso-violating state laws remaining on the books today?

    • Dave, the Kwisatz Haderach

      That can’t be right, everyone knows Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Atheist Communist WharrGarbl! so his parents clearly couldn’t be from Hawaii.

  • carpenterman

    It’s The Stupid. Rick Santorum has bought into The Stupid in a huge way; swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The utter faith in narrow definitions of nebulous, unsupported concepts; the refusal to change an opinion no matter how much contradictory evidence he’s presented with; the absolute, unshakeable certainty that he is right because in his world (like G.W.’s before him), facts are subordinate to feelings. Santorum has not just accepted The Stupid into his life; he has become The Stupid.
    And speaking of feelings… let’s not for a moment think Santorum’s opposition to gays is based on the law, or the Bible, or any other reason except one: Rick Santorum hates gay people. No one makes this much fuss if it’s not personal. He HATES these people. I don’t know why, but there’s simply no room for any other conclusion. He hates them. And you show me a man full of hate, and I’ll show you a man full of fear. I wonder what he’s so afraid of.

  • christophburschka

    This exact argument – right down to the segregation analogy – is one that we make all the damn time when people like Santorum claim gay marriage is wrong and prayer in school is right because the majority says so.

    Christie vetoed a marriage equality law in NJ because he wants a referendum. Clearly Republicans care about the majority opinion – as long as the majority holds their view. If they don’t, then the majority is wrong.

    Can these assholes even hear themselves talk?

  • G.Shelley

    So many justifications are offered. At least some people are honest, and admit it is because their religion tells them it is wrong,and I think on some level, many people who complain about changing the “traditional” definition of marriage are sincere, though they rarely care about previous changes, or indeed, other changes (I recall little objection from them when states change the definition of marriage so that rape within marriage is actually possible), and they similarly don’t seem to care about changing other definitions (again, rape would be an example).

    But even with that, other than the really crazy ones who thing that being near gay people will warp children, what do they think such laws achieve? Other than when legislating their own morality, most of them would agree that if government is going to enact a law, it should benefit some people, or at the very least, have such a benefit to the nation/society at a whole, that any negative impacts on people is overwhelmes.

  • NotAProphet

    Being around people who believe a certain thing of behave a certain way does not make people believe that thing or behave that way, otherwise most of us here would be Christians!

    What CAN happen is that people who harbour a latent belief in something, or desire to behave a certain way, but suppress it for reasons such as guilt (the Catholic’s bread-and-butter) or societal pressure, may feel less guilty or pressured if they are exposed to others who believe/behave openly and happily.

    I suspect it is this that people who fervently hate the idea of gays being able to enjoy a full, open, happy life are actually afraid of; it is nigh impossible to have such strong feelings about something that you do not believe would affect you personally. Thus it makes one wonder what latent feelings Santorum and his ilk are suppressing.

  • Pingback: Foster Freiss is going to keep investing in Rick Santorum.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X