DO NOT Ask Rick Santorum About Tim Gill

From the livestream last night of GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum at the Western Conservative Summit–it should come as no surprise that Santorum, when talk turns to wealthy Democrat Tim Gill’s zeal for bringing down the former Pennsylvania Senator back in 2006…well, yeah. As can probably be expected, Santorum goes off a little.

Wow! We thought that Santorum was past defending the whole associating gay marriage with incest and polygamy thing, or had at least discovered a more politic way of doing so. But “Katy bar the door,” you should not have a constitutional right to consensual sexual activity, because it’s an unstoppable slippery slope to eyeing your sister(s). Rick Santorum, everybody!

Shock value aside, there is a relevant (unlike Santorum) political subtext here that’s worth noting. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who also spoke at the conference last night, had a little trouble this week after a 2010 interview of Perry surfaced pretty explicitly stating he would leave the matter of gay marriage up to the states; like a good “Tenther.” This week, Perry was forced to change his tune in an interview with the Family Research Council, where he said he does in fact support a federal marriage amendment. That makes Perry a bad “Tenther,” but the FRC is much relieved.

As Santorum makes clear above, obviously as a shot against the flip-flopping Perry, using federal authority to police American bedrooms…has never been a problem for him.

0 Shares

37 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ClubTwitty says:

    I think there is nothing better for the WH to do than decide how, when, and with whom Americans should have sex.  

    While clearly we don’t need the Depts. of Education or Energy, or the EPA, we do need the SPA (Sex Positions Administration) to ensure that any sex which must occur is quick, as unenjoyable as possible, and within the bounds of normalcy (as determined by Rick ‘Google’ Santorum).  

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      to have better sex than Rick Santorum.

      • ArapaGOPArapaGOP says:

        I would not be so proud of your disgusting “Spreading Santorum” website. For every liberal who thinks it’s funny there are 10 normal people who think it’s gross and uncalled for.

        You’re not winning over anybody who will help you.

        • ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

          Reinforcing his “Google problem” is the point.

          It’s not persuasion, it’s a direct attack on his ability to own his own name online.

        • ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

          Reinforcing his “Google problem” is the point.

          It’s not persuasion, it’s a direct attack on his ability to own his own name online.

        • raymond1 says:

          For every liberal who thinks it’s funny there are 10 normal people who think it’s gross and uncalled for.

          That must be why Santorum, in losing his 2006 re-election by eighteen points, was absolutely clobbered among independents.

          Arap, I know you’d love love for attacks on your boy Rick to yield a massive backlash — but there’s pretty massive evidence it isn’t true. Don’t let the facts get in the way of your wishful thinking, though! The WSJ’s diagnosis applies to well to folks like you:

          “This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell into G.O.P. nominees.”

  2. ClubTwitty says:

    I guess the creator put them there ‘thousands of years’ ago so Rick could run as a ‘jobs’ president.  Good thinking up there, Sir!

    This month, [Perry] appointed a biology teacher who disputes evolution as chairwoman of the Texas State Board of Education.  …It now is considering educational materials that promote intelligent design even though a federal court ruled against teaching the theory that life on Earth is so complex that it must have come from an intelligent higher power.

    “There are clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn’t happen by accident and a creator put this in place,” Perry said.

    “Now, what was his time frame and how did he create the earth that we know? I’m not going to tell you that I’ve got the answers to that,” Perry said. “I believe that we were created by this all-powerful supreme being and how we got to today versus what we look like thousands of years ago, I think there’s enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory.” [Emphasis Twitty]

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      I am suprised Perry admits to evolution (although not suprised that it would have all occured in a couple thousands of years, since the entire universe is only a few thousands of years old).  Is that how he got so white?

  3. BlueCat says:

    we looked pretty much the way we do now.

  4. allyncooper says:

    Can he name even one marriage in New York state that has failed because the law was passed?

    Since the law was passed, there’s more married people than ever before in New York, with a large increase in business to wedding related businesses.  

    • ArapaGOPArapaGOP says:

      I too believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but it’s not the central issue for me that it is to him. Santorum is so focused on homosexuals that he distracts from more important issues. I don’t think it’s what he means to do, though, and some of it is unfair media typecasting.

      • ClubTwitty says:

        Thankfully little Ricky has no chance of going anywhere.  So, offending the one-in-a-hundred who might vote for him is not much of a concern.  Pointing out that Rick ‘Google’ Santorum is indistinguishable from a fundamentalist mullah is merely an exercise in the obvious.  

      • BlueCat says:

        he wants his opinions to be taken seriously. If he believes marriage should be between one man and one women, that’s a religious values judgement and he has every right to it.  But if he’s going to state that any other kind of marriage destroys traditional marriage he’d better have some facts to back that up.

        Can he show a correlation between gay marriage and/or civil unions and  divorce? If he can’t show that, for instance, people are leaving heterosexual marriages in droves to marry same sex partners because the law was the only thing that made them behave in a heterosexual fashion in the first place, he can’t credibly use destruction of traditional marriage as one of his reasons for opposing gay marriage.  

        Occasionally marriages do break up because closeted or confused individuals decide it’s time to be honest with themselves and others.  But every stat shows that the overwhelming number of divorces involve financial, fidelity and just not enjoying each other anymore issues between heterosexual mates, not same sex issues. Makes no sense to blame any of that on gay marriage.  

      • ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

        Do you think that a presidential candidate today would be taken seriously if he compared interracial marriage to pedophilia and incest? The reason the media is “typecasting” him is that he holds an outdated and bigoted opinion that is approaching the same level of social unacceptability as outspoken racism.

      • MADCO says:

        Do tell.

        And I get your point, he just can’t help himself.

  5. AristotleAristotle says:

    here is why Santorum’s statements in 2003 (and today) are erroneous.

    He said that he sounded the alarm because, he says, if consent is the only standard, then incest and polygamy are okay, too, because those can be consensual.

    Good thing, Rick, that the state has interests in personal relationships beyond the level of consent. Consensual incest* may result in offspring who are seriously unhealthy, and might be beyond the capacity of regular care. I think the state has an interest in regulating that. And non-consensual incest is rape, which I think we all agree is bad and should be illegal.

    (Fortunately, nature has a really good way of preventing consensual incest – the Westermarck Effect. Most cases of consensual incest take place with relatives who were separated at a very early age and meet again as adults. See the Stuebing case for an example.)

    How about polygamy? Well, allowing polygamy would require a HUGE overhaul of existing legal code that depends on marriage as being between two adults. Maybe that’s not right, but I do feel that practical issues like this have to be sorted out before polygamy should be legal. Also, I’d want some kind of assurances written into such laws that these would be non-exploitive. Anyone familiar with the Warren Jeffs case knows that polygamy can be a way for a few powerful men to horde all the young girls they want for themselves, and basically live a life of unpunished pedophilia. No one (except the perverts themselves) wants that.

    What does gay marriage have to do with any of this? Nothing.

    So what should we conclude about Rick Santorum’s views on this? Without being able to know the man personally, I have to go on my experiences, and they tell me there are two possibilities here. One, he’s not a very intelligent man, someone incapable of critically thinking about issues like this and seeing the logical fallacies in these comparisons. Or… two, he’s a cynical liar who, in the tradition of race-baiting Southern politicians between Reconstruction and Civil Rights, has found his target, the LGBT community, who serve as the scapegoat for the ignorant and hateful, and distract them from seeing that the politician doesn’t have any concrete policies for the office he’s running for.

    I hope the social conservatives who post here have something illuminating to say about this.

    • Kevin Jones says:

      Santorum’s central point is that the justifications for rejecting traditional marital morality, as understood by Christianity and later Judaism, destabilize the social fabric of the country. From an absurdity, anything follows.

      SSM proponents rely on arguments like the equal right to marry whomever you choose, the equal right to consensual sexual self-expression, and the right to force almost every business and public institution to recognize the legal unions these rights supposedly mandate.

      They say these rights should trump opponents’ appeals to the well-being of children or to social stability, or to religious freedom concerns. If we take their rights as paramount, there really is no argument against polygamy or incest.

      Your points on the health of incestuous offspring apply equally to people with inherited genetic defects. Older couples, too, are more likely to have children with sicknesses and genetic abnormalities like Down’s.

      So if we don’t bar older couples or “defective” spouses on genetic grounds, why bar consensual incest couples?

      It’s also disingenuous to appeal to health concerns when you support male homosexual acts. Don’t gay men have an HIV rate 61x the general population’s? They should be shunned more than smokers, who have only a 23x greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers!

      You say polygamy would cause a legal revolution. So has SSM in states where it is recognized. So that argument is out. At first, not many polygamous or incestuous couples will take advantage of legal recognition. They might not even be so obnoxiously activist as gay advocates.

      But adoption agencies have been shut down, and adults and even kids are being forced to approve of homosexuality in states like Massachusetts. That’s a legal revolution right there, don’t pretend to deny it.

      I’m glad you see that polygamous communities are dysfunctional and undermine the social equality produced by monogamous marriage.

      But one could argue that polygamous communities are dysfunctional precisely because they are excluded from normal society, just like gay couples have allegedly been. So why not formalize it and allow it to come out of the shadows? Maybe they just need role models.

      And even the monogamy emphasis isn’t as strong as it could be. We already allow certain men to “hoard” women. We don’t prosecute men for adultery if they keep mistresses. Divorce allows a kind of non-simultaneous polygamy to wealthy men. The sexual free-for-all in some subcultures (like party colleges) allows “players” all the women they can seduce.

      Santorum’s concerns aren’t idle. Look up the manifesto at BeyondMarriage.org. Look at how little respect SSM advocates like Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan show for fidelity within marriage and monogamy. (Colbert actually broke character when interviewing Savage, so flummoxed was he at Savage’s indifference.)

      Marriage as we knew it was a common good we should restore. We need to return to a New Deal-era family policy, not continue sabotaging the public understanding of marriage. Imagine how much better so many poor kids would be if they had both a mom and a dad?

      I’ll try to wrap up soon.

      Traditionalists stress how marriage supports the complementary nature of men and women for the well-being of both them and their children. They are more socially conscious than both libertarians and liberals.

      One of Santorum’s primary motivations for defending marriage is his Catholic faith, NTTAWWT. If SSM triumphs on the grounds it is a basic civil right, what happens to America’s tradition of religious tolerance? Won’t Catholics and other trad Christians have to go underground or “in the closet”? Won’t they be fired from their jobs or coerced into approving of what they don’t really believe in?

      And if trads believe in their religion and their sexual morality more than the civil rights movement, won’t lumping SSM in with the civil rights movement risk discrediting it in their eyes? Should we really risk what we have achieved already?

      • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

        Another World Is Here

        There was a traffic accident the other day in my hometown, and the local newspaper said that the doctor who was killed was married with children. A day or two later, a bigger feature made it clear that the deceased man had left behind a husband as well as two children, and I was pleased to see that, amid a private tragedy, what was once extraordinary is now ordinary. Victory sometimes seems so quotidian that you have to look twice to notice it. And if you’re not careful, you’ll forget what heroic toil over so many decades transformed the world, making the impossible become ordinary.

      • AristotleAristotle says:

        You didn’t make one single, solitary, legitimate point. Not. One.

        Your “citation” of supposed “male homosexual” rates of HIV are pulled right out of your ass. (And why do you homophobes focus so much on guy’s butts, anyway?)

        But, since you did trot out the whole “marriage is about families” trope, let me take it to its logical conclusion – why do we allow married couples without children to remain married? Why do we allow couples who really are too old to bear children to marry? (My great grandfather, widowered at 84, married a 62 year old woman a couple of years later.)

        That alone undermines everything you have to say.

        But thanks for showing up and demonstrating your position’s complete lack of credibility. It was a nice thing to wake up to this morning.

        (BTW, you’re willfully misrepresenting Dan Savage’s notions of “monogamish” relationships. But you knew you were doing that already.)

        • Kevin Jones says:

          Please explain to me how I’m misrepresenting Savage.

          If marriage is about both families and the union of the sexes, even sterile marriages support the union of the sexes, and help set an example for parents with children.

          As for the HIV rates, quit feigning ignorance. My stats were on the level.

          From the CDC:

          “In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women.”

          http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/

          According to some AP report or other (you can google):

          Dr. Donna Sweet testified Wednesday that the cost of HIV medication typically runs between $1,700 and $1,800 a month, and HIV infected patients on average spend between $28,000 and $30,000 annually for their medical care. … Without medical care, infected patients usually die within 10 years, she said. But with proper care and mediation, a 20-year-old person who contracts HIV can easily expect to live to age 70.

          —-

          50 years * $30k = $1.5 million.

          The US government spends something like $25 billion each year on HIV research and treatment, more than half of which likely benefits homosexual men. And we’re not talking about any of the other lamentable consequences of lechery.

          If I were “homophobic,” I wouldn’t be publicizing these facts for homosexuals and their friends to see. I’d be encouraging them in their debilitating vices, passing out condoms (90% effective!), and praising our grand move towards equality with a false smile.

          I’d prefer homosexual vices, like all forms of vice, to be nigh unmentionable in public.  

          If you don’t want me to care about it, quit publicizing it, quit trying to propagandize society into approving it, and quit making me pay for it.

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            Which “others” do you mean?

            Anyway, I’m going to keep these brief.

            You said:

            “Look at how little respect SSM advocates like Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan show for fidelity within marriage and monogamy.Look at how little respect SSM advocates like Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan show for fidelity within marriage and monogamy.”

            Meaning that “monogamish” relationships lack fidelity. Correct?

      • AristotleAristotle says:

        … I should ask, why on earth would any religion be “forced” to perform SSM if its against their precepts? Don’t we have the right to religious expression in this country?

        Desperation is a stinky cologne, Mr. Jones…

      • raymond1 says:

        … whom Al Franken caught lying, when the Family DoucheMan falsely asserted, in sworn testimony, that a particular “study” showed opposite-sex couples better for raising kids. It didn’t; he was bullshitting in claiming there’s actual reason to think same-sex couples are worst at raising kids, as you are.

        I suppose you’re free to say “same-sex couples are worse at raising kids because they’ll pass along their immorality.” That’s kinda circular, but my other counter is, “you, Kevin, are a judgmental moral jihadist whose kids are extremely unfortunate to be raised as superstitious hatemongers.” Yet I don’t want to take away your right to raise kids, because I’m a tad more open-minded than you are.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.