Marriage

Santorum: Homosexual Acts Are a Crime, but Maybe Not Quite As Bad As Molesting Children

|

Rick Santorum's comments about gay marriage in a 2003 interview with the Associated Press have been getting a lot of mileage lately, but they are often misreported. In a January 4 profile of Santorum, for example, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg describes the notorious quote this way:

He once offhandedly invoked bestiality in arguing that states should have the right to regulate homosexual acts. "That is not to pick on homosexuality," he said. "It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog." 

That makes it sound as if Santorum was saying homosexuality is not as bad as pedophilia or bestiality, which is the interpretation he embraced in a January 4 interview with CNN's John King:

King: How do you connect homosexuality to bestiality? And you went on in that interview to talk about bigamy. Connect those dots.

Santorum: Hold on a second, John. Read the quote. I said it's not, it is not; I didn't say it is. It says it's not. I'm trying to understand what you're trying to make the point. I said it's not those things. I didn't connect them; I specifically excluded them.

Nice try, but the relevant passage (which King read) does not support that gloss:

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. 

In context, the it clearly refers to marriage, not to homosexuality. Santorum is saying marriage traditionally has excluded certain relationships, including those between people of the same sex, between adults and children, and between people and animals. He is not necessarily saying these relationships are morally equivalent, although that seems to be the implication. In any event, Santorum makes it pretty clear in the same interview that he thinks sex between two men is bad enough that it should be a crime:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution; this right that was created, it was created in GriswoldGriswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family….

The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. 

Here Santorum is not just objecting, on constitutional grounds, to the Supreme Court's interference with a state's decision to criminalize homosexual sex; he is defending such laws, saying sodomy "destroys the basic unit of our society." Evidently he does not think that position will help him win the Republican nomination. As with his bizarre denial that the federal government imprisons nonviolent drug offenders (with families!), Santorum is not defending his principles; he is trying to weasel out of their implications.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

167 responses to “Santorum: Homosexual Acts Are a Crime, but Maybe Not Quite As Bad As Molesting Children

  1. New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg

    HOMOSECKS AGENDA!

    1. You know, if you’re going to post under the name “Rick Santorum”, you might as well list the website spreadingsantorum so that it drives the google rankings for Rick Santorum more towards the poo-related page.

    2. Could you kindly go fuck yourself?

  2. Speaking of teh gheys: this sounds a lot like entrapment, doesn’t it?

    According to Ranger Charles Moore’s report:

    Moore was working undercover in the picnic area about 12:35 p.m. and backed a car into a parking spot. He saw a man, later identified as Hartenburg, drive into the lot in a Jeep and pull into a spot three spots away. Hartenburg rolled down his passenger window. The ranger did the same and Hartenburg struck up a conversation.
    Moore pulled his car closer to the Jeep and Hartenburg asked Moore how his day was going, where he worked and lived and if he wanted to go to Moore’s house. Hartenburg then asked if he could enter Moore’s vehicle and Moore said, “no, let me get out of my car.”
    Moore stood at Hartenburg’s driver’s door and saw him rubbing himself. Hartenburg reached for Moore’s crotch and asked to see it. Moore asked to see Hartenburg’s. Hartenburg again asked if Moore wanted to go somewhere. Moore said no and Hartenburg exposed himself.
    Moore identified himself as a ranger and arrested Hartenburg, who said Moore “led him on.”

    What a fucking cocktease that ranger is.

    1. Something tells me they’re not going to write an episode of “Walker, Texas Ranger” based on this story.

      1. Lol.

  3. I can’t be the only one who thinks the comparison between homosexuality and polygamy is completely legitimate. Both are consensual relationships that happen to fall outside the social mainstream. The only difference as far as I can tell is that, since homosexuality hasn’t been illegal (generally speaking, that is; I’m aware of Lawrence v. Texas) gays have been able to mobilize and politicize, which as in turn made it far more socially acceptable than polygamy. But isn’t dismissing polygamy for being unnatural and unpopular essentially the same argument that’s been used against gays this whole time?

    1. I would argue that polygamy is more historically acceptable than homosexuality. But your point still stands.

      On a related note, I cant think of any biblical rules specifically requiring monogamy. There are ones that state that church leaders should have one wife, but that isnt a universal anti-polygamy statement.

      Im probably missing something though.

      1. I think you’re right re: the Bible and monogamy, though I too am not a biblical scholar.

      2. Here’s what you’re missing.

        1. I’m not sure how that answers the question. Yes, Jesus replaced the Old Covenant with a New Covenant, and yes polygamy in the Bible is documented in the Old Testament. That would be useful if the issue was the Old Testament allowing polygamy and the New Testament forbidding it. But Rob’s question is whether there’s any part of the Bible that specifically mandates one husband-one wife.

          1. It was a joke, equivocating marriage with death.

          2. Ephesians 5 comes to mind, equating human marriage to Christ and the church and the two becoming one flesh.

            1. What about all those brides of Christ otherwise known as nuns? I guess it’s different if you’re the son of a god.

          3. I think it’s 1 Timothy where Paul recommends that elders in a church be the husband of only one wife. Given how limited the scope of that recommendation is, and how much of that stuff is generally interpreted as being culturally bound (women should be silent in church, etc.) it would be really difficult to stretch that into a blanket prohibition against polygamy.

            When a Mormon challenged Mark Twain to name one verse in the bible that prohibited polygamy, he shot back, “No man can serve two masters.”

            1. I heart Mark Twain.

              1. Eg, 1 Tim 8-12 says deacons (like bishops) should only be husbands of one wife. Deacons must also “be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre,” etc.

                Doesn’t mean that laypersons can be greedy drunkards.

    2. Any marriage between any number of any type of adults should be legal.

      Even multiple tranny on tranny marriage! Why not let Chaz Bono marry another sexual omelet? Or four or five?

      1. And that’s the thing. Let the gays and the horse perverts and the polygamists and every last non-straight monogamous relationship call it “marriage”, let the church say, “no it’s not”, and get the government the fuck out of the whole mess.

        I always get lost at the part about why I should care in the first place. And if the answer is, “because the government cares,” then my response to that is that it shouldn’t.

        Rick Santorum is fucking vile in his desire to control other people and their relationships.

        1. To me, it comes down to the entitlement issues. If you allow homosexual marriages (or polygamy, etc.), then it just means more entitlement payouts (spousal benefits). It just opens up the door to more and newer ways to get the government to pay out more benefits.

          1. To be clearer, eliminate spousal benefits and all the problems with gay marriage disappear.

          2. Yeah and let’s be honest, that’s what they really care about – benefits.

            1. That and forcing legitimacy onto their lifestyles so that they have a stick to beat John Q. Public with when he disagrees and says mean things about them.

              1. I almost responded, but then I saw your name (West Texas)and realized, what’s the point?

                1. Ha. Note my original post.

                  I’m good with people doing whatever they want in their own homes and I certainly don’t want the government regulating anyone’s behavior. But that certainly doesn’t mean that I also don’t think other private individuals can’t be free to have their own opinion of the same behavior. FREEDOM ALL AROUND!

                  1. The government’s already in it though, so shouldn’t we think in terms of how things work as they do right now? The states handle marriage themselves, so why are you worried about the Fed govt getting involved? Newbie here not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand and ask questions.

        2. Man/horse marraige is just silly. Animals cannot enter in to contracts.

          Though man, horse divorce would be hilarious.

          1. Divorcing a horse, of course, of course?

          2. Animals cannot enter in to contracts.

            Exactly, and it’s why the argument about such is just a red herring.

      2. Chaz Bono is saving up for a penis and can’t afford a nice wedding. http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=693991

    3. Arguably gay monogamous marriages and straight monogamous marriages are much more similar than either are to plural marriages.

      At any rate, gay couples shouldn’t have to answer for polygamists. Let polygamists have their day in court. You don’t deny equal civil rights based on a slippery slope argument.

      1. At any rate, gay couples shouldn’t have to answer for polygamists.

        Maybe they shouldn’t have to, but as Sullum points out in the article, it’s defending your principles. It would be pretty weaselly for a gay rights activist to protest against polygamy. Keep the government out of our bedrooms and out of the lives of consenting adults, and all that.

        Besides, I took Club Med’s point to be that the gay rights argument should apply to polygamy, not that polygamy objections should be applied to gay marriage.

        1. It’s not a big leap to say government should treat heterosexual and homosexual couples equally. Indeed there is no convincing secular argument why it shouldn’t.

          It’s a much bigger leap to say government should endorse plural marriages by providing benefits. It’s hard to say even how it would work. Who gets to decide when the composition of the marriage should change? Just the man, or any one of the wives? It’s an entirely separate issue.

          1. it’s not a big leap at all. You are defining “leap” on the basis of numbers when, in fact, we are talking about consenting adults making decisions among themselves. Why do they need some bureaucrat’s permission to do that?

            1. You don’t need a bureaucrat’s permission to enter into any sort of consensual adult relationship you want.

              You do need piece of government paper to get the government benefits and rights that come with marriage. If you want to abolish all of those, okay, convince the straights to go along with it first. Until then, equal rights seems only fair.

              1. “”You don’t need a bureaucrat’s permission to enter into any sort of consensual adult relationship you want.”‘

                Tell that to Florida. It’s a crime to co-habitate with a member of the opposite sex.

                1. State’s rights!

      2. At any rate, gay couples shouldn’t have to answer for polygamists. Let polygamists have their day in court. You don’t deny equal civil rights based on a slippery slope argument.

        Holy shit, I actually agree with Tony on something.

        Wait, that could be the start of a slippery slope! AAAAAGGGGH!!

    4. Completely agree. Santorum was arguing with some hot college chick and she was aghast~! at the idea that gay marriage and polygamy could be compared. It’s amazing how even on the topic of marriage, liberals keep a “rights for some but not for others” mindset.

      1. A friend of mine was in his college’s gay straight alliance, and when he brought up the idea that polygamy should also be legal, the gays were aghast. It boiled down to, “But love can only be between two people!”

    5. I don’t think there would be anything wrong with polygamy if the men were marrying women over 18….

    6. The issue at hand is that you have to forget about the religious connotation of marriage, because it isnt important. What marriage really is at its core is a legal contract regarding ownership of assets. Polygamy causes an issue of dividing assets amongst multiple parties. In theory, everyone in the world could be married to everyone else which would cause a legal nightmare. Two people, however, are what the concept of a contract was built around. There needs to be a difference between spiritual/religious marriage, and legal marriage.

  4. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families.

    Live not for yourselves, comrades! Live for the state!

  5. If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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.

    As long as they are consenting adults I don’t see the problem with any of those even if some are creepy (incest) and despicable (adultery in most cases).

    1. Yes, sometimes giving people rights means they’ll make decisions you don’t like. I’m not sure why some people have a hard time coming to grips with the fact. I mean, should I argue against the right to vote just because some people will use that right to vote for Santorum?

      1. As ever, there’ an Iron Law for that:

        You aren’t free unless you are free to be wrong.

      2. So, when do we find out that Santroum is a closeted bisexual, young cousin diddler and has a secret Russian mail order bride in Johnstown?

        1. The mail doesn’t go to Johnstown, silly. Why would it?

          1. Maybe Murtha pulled some strings.

      3. Yes!

    2. Bigamy is specifically multiple marriages AGAINST THE LAW, so that one can be removed, since polygamy is on the list.

      1. I’ve found that quadrigamy is the optimal arrangement.

        1. Force ’em?

    3. Well, incest has the possibility of harming a third person (inbreeding) and adultery is probably violating a contract which could be grounds for nulling the contract. Otherwise, I don’t have a problem either.

      1. Come to think of it, adultery has the possibility of harming a third party in the form of a male paying 18 years child support on someone else’s kid.

      2. “Well, incest has the possibility of harming a third person (inbreeding)”

        I’d imagine that fucking a forty year old woman is much riskier for the potential offspring, so maybe we should ban that first.

        1. Well, you have a point.

          Does a pregnant woman have the unalienable right to smoke crack?

          1. No, crack is illegal – moron.

      3. Cynical is right. If we are going to ban incest for that reason then having a child after 40 should be too because it becomes more and more of a risk of genetic defects after that age. First cousin incest is actually a very low risk. Even sibling incest is surpassed as the age over 40 goes up.

        The danger with inbreeding is more in the long term, multiple generations of intermarriages like in European royalty back in the day.

        1. I agree it is a good point. I wasn’t arguing that incest should be banned, just pointing out that it poses a risk to a (potential) third party, so it’s not as clear cut in libertarian terms as polygamy.

          Again, where does a pregnant woman doing something damaging like smoking crack fit into this spectrum?

          1. I’m pro-life so at some point I think a mother should be responsible for her actions. Just like parenting outside the womb though it would be hard to make a clear cut standard where the line has been crossed.

            I don’t see this as analogous to “rolling the dice” with genetics. At that point no human being exists, only a hypothetical one. I think there is a very slippery slope with dictating what are “acceptable” genes for breeding. A kid with genetic defects is still a human being deserving of protection once they exist as an individual though.

    4. just take the first part of that: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home”

      and the rest is immaterial. This man actually believes that some group of federal employees gets to determine what sort of consensual behavior adults can engage in IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES. Really? That he believes the federal govt should have such power ought to disqualify him from running for anything. Ever.

  6. Capt. Spaulding: [to Mrs. Rittenhouse and Mrs. Whitehead] Let’s get married.
    Mrs. Whitehead: All of us?
    Capt. Spaulding: All of us.
    Mrs. Whitehead: Why, that’s bigamy.
    Capt. Spaulding: Yes, and it’s big of me too.

    1. Just me, and you. And her. And her, and her, and her. But no more men!

  7. The bestiality/child molestation argument is a reductio ad absurdum, not moral equivalency.

    Sort of like when we said if you invade Libya to get rid of a bad dictator, to be consistent you have to invade most of the world, too… that’s not saying that invading Libya is the same as invading most of the world; in fact the implication is that the latter is worse, since we’re bringing it up to argue against the former.

    1. This is true, but the real problem is that doing this particular reductio undermines the point Santorum is trying to make and doesn’t support it.

      He makes it clear that the bottom-line justification for making these things illegal is to protect the family. Not to protect individuals from abuse.

      For that to be true, it would have to be true that you could create a great, fantastic, wholesome and functional family unit with a pedophile who was really into bestiality, if we could just use laws to stop him from acting on his impulses.

      And that’s kind of ridiculous.

      You don’t want to be in a family with a pedophile who likes to fuck sheep – even if you can successfully use the threat of prosecution to get him to refrain.

      That’s not actually a straight reductio from adultery or homosexuality. You may be able to argue that if you stop people from indulging their adulterous desires, you could then get them to remain in stable families. You might then argue that you don’t believe in genuine homosexuality, but believe that if we just made being queer illegal, people would bite the bullet and live heterosexual lives in stable families. That would be extraordinarily difficult to argue, but you could try it. But you really can’t argue that making pedophilia illegal induces pedophiles to live in stable families. It makes them live in creepy and dangerous time bomb families.

      1. Well put, sir.

    2. The bestiality/child molestation argument is a reductio ad absurdum, not moral equivalency.

      Well, no – the point is it’s not a reductio – the argument doesn’t work. The arguments for gay marriage are not also arguments for child molestation. It really is just a slippery slope fallacy.

  8. I don’t know why libertarians are complaining about this guy.

    From trolling on this blog for over six years, I’ve come to the conclusion that Libertarians are OK with giving up civil liberties for lower taxes. And, this is why libertarians generally vote republican.

    If there is a choice between

    PERSON A who would offer more personal freedom (no homo laws, loose drug/weapon laws, etc.) but want taxes for safety nets.

    or

    PERSON B: a person that would eliminate all taxes for safety nets and doesn’t believe in personal freedom

    PERSON B wins every time with the CATO Inst. crowd.

    1. I’ve come to the conclusion that Libertarians are OK with giving up civil liberties for lower taxes.

      I’ve gotta see this. Fire up the way-back machine and show us.

    2. I don’t know why libertarians are complaining about this guy.

      Because your conclusion is false, as evidenced by the fact that libertarians are complaining about this guy?

      And as noted when you accidentally posted the same in the wrong thread, PERSON A doesn’t exist AFAIK. Hell, I’m not even sure PERSON B exists.

      And it’s more than a little misleading to focus on “safety nets”. I suspect your examples of PERSON A are going to consist of

      PERSON A who would offer more personal freedom [gay marriage, medical marijuana, gun ownership for “sporting purposes”, etc.] but want taxes for safety nets [which are either so expansive as to be functionally equivalent to outright socialism, or which constitute a minority of what they want taxes for]

      and your example of PERSON B are going to consist of

      PERSON B: a person that wouldn’t even dare to talk about eliminating any taxes for safety nets, but wants to defund PBS, and doesn’t believe in personal freedom [gay marriage, medical marijuana, abortion] except for gun ownership for “sporting purposes”.

    3. 6 years of trolling…now that’s hard to believe.

  9. What’s the over-under on the upcoming Santorum gay sex scandal?

    1. Santorum is not an anti-gay hypocrite. I’ll give him that. What he is, is worse: a crusading know-it-all who wishes to impose his beliefs on you and me with the force of government.

      1. which makes him, all together now…a statist. Not to mention the dictionary definition of a hypocrite since he is running for the nomination of hte party that pretends to embrace smaller govt.

  10. It better be low.

    He would be such a hypo if it turns out he’s another Larry Craig…I don’t think so.

  11. I love how it’s inevitable that whenever there’s an internet thread on Santorum’s use of the slippery slope in that particular quote, someone always proves him right by saying “And what’s wrong with polygamy anyway?”

    1. That doesn’t prove him right.

    2. Ah, but the strawberries! That’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist! And I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t pulled Caine out of action! I-I-I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer and!……

    3. why should we care about polygamy? As long as the mormons are only marrying the over 40’s, cheer’em on. I get kind pissed when they hog all the hot 20 year old blondes, but that’s my problem.

      the real problem with polygamy is that only cultists wanting to marry and rape 12 year olds really practice it anymore.

  12. Santorum: “The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that.”

    Guess it’s time for a refresher course in 5th grade civics for former Sen. Frothy: The state has powers, not rights.

    What a scumbag.

  13. For me the only reason – and it’s only marginally a good one – to keep polygamy illegal is because it has historically (in the US at least) been associated pretty exclusively with religious cults where young girls were treated as property.

    Cult polygamous marriage makes me nervous because I don’t really believe all parties are consenting.

    To me polgyamy isn’t analogous to homosexuality – it’s more analogous to underage sex. I’m sure lots of 15 year old kids can legitimately consent to sex psychologically – but we make it illegal for them to do so to protect the set of 15 year old’s who can’t really consent. So while there may be lots of women who would legitimately consent to polygamous marriage, we’re keeping it illegal because there is a substantial non-zero number of women (largely within nutjob religious groups) who would be exploited.

    Get rid of the nutjob religious angle and I’d have essentially no problem with polygamy.

    If polygamy was some kind of metrosexual thing where hipsters were amalgamating into multiple marriages, I’d have absolutely no reason to think that we should continue to have them be illegal at all.

    1. It’s only okay if hipsters do it? Don’t think that’ll be a winning platform.

      1. What does it being a winning platform have to do with anything?

        If we could trust that all polygamous marriages would be consensual, we wouldn’t have to worry about polygamy. That’s pretty much the bottom line.

        And note that this means that Santorum should be PRO-polygamy. By the terms of his own argument.

        His argument is that the unit of moral value is the family and not the individual, and that it doesn’t matter if individuals are unhappy or don’t get what they desire as long as the overall family unit is stable.

        That means he should LOVE cult polygamous marriages. Who gives a damn if 15 year old fringe Mormon child brides are happy? They’re just individuals and their silly individual desires mean nothing. If their family units are stable, that’s the important thing.

        Seriously, by the terms of Santorum’s argument, what’s HIS beef with polygamy?

    2. Perhaps you didn’t notice that several of these awful cults operated in a legal environment where polygamy was illegal. The lack of a marriage certificate from the state didn’t protect those women.

      If you outlaw X, only outlaws will have X.

    3. Get rid of the nutjob religious angle and Rick Scrotum would have nothing to campaign on and no one to pander to.

    4. the cultists always screw up in the end. Prosecuting them for polygamy is not like only being able to catch mobsters using racketeering or mail fraud.

  14. Marriage should be between consenting adults and whatever god they stand before. Its not my business, its not DC’s business, and sure as fuck isn’t Santorums business. This is a vile disgusting human being.

  15. Bestiality? Only the consenting sheep.

    http://www.bing.com/videos/wat…..72/67urhfa

  16. Yeah, I’d prefer a lingering BO in the Oval Office to a Santorum mess.

  17. After Tuesday we get to start slurring Newt again.
    Wait, he’ll be meat too.

    Who’s left?

    1. Huntsman is asking “is it my turn yet”

      GOP guy:”No John, only 1 Mormon per election year”

  18. This is what I was hoping for. Weeks of “Santorum said this,” “Santorum said that.”

    Making that guy scramble like a one-legged quarterback is my entertainment.

    1. Yeah, but he didn’t write any newzletterz 20 years ago.

  19. How about this: marriage should be whatever individuals want it to be. If you want to marry your dog and your ceiling fan and your taste in cheese, go for it.

    1. That’s a good idea, but I’m not married to it.

    2. dogs can’t consent

    3. ad reductio cheesum.

  20. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families.

    Fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap!

  21. Sanctimonium’s position on this issue raises a very frightening notion…that the government has an interest not only in protecting or defending individuals but also “institutions”. While it might be argued (somewhat questionably in my opinion) that laws against polygamy or marrying children serve to protect the “innocent” parties to such relationships who might be harmed by the objected-to acts, the same argument is clearly not being made against gay marriage.

    1. Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?

    2. Sanitarium belongs in an institution.

      Not only is he suggesting that gov’t protect (i.e. enforce) family institutions, he wants gov’t to define them as well.

  22. Why is there so much concern and argument over “marriage”, but very little over “wedding”? I am confuse.

  23. Shorter Santorum:

    “We don’t condone men marrying animals, other men, or children.”

    Nope, no moral equivalency there.

    The point of his whole bigoted rant is that bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality are immoral. How is that not moral equivalency?

    1. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Santorum thinks homosexuality is immoral.

      His point (or attempt at one) is that society has a vested interest in limiting marriage to what it already is.

      1. Society should have a vested interest in prventing the duggars from futher procreating, but we don’t stop them.

        1. +100 babies

  24. I wore my mother’s wedding dress at my wedding.

  25. I pity Santorum’s poor wife, a woman who surely has no idea what an orgasm is.

    1. Well, I don’t want her to have to face public embarassment, but I would be grinning ear to ear if a story broke about Santorum having a gay lover or hired male escorts AND there was proof. Now, I know people often say NTTAWWT, but I think there is. He’s married, so it would be 1) cheating and 2) hypocrical. I so love watching assholes like him go down because of hypocrisy of that magnitude, but I do pity their families.

      1. Sorry, guys, but I’d much prefer to see him disappear because our fellow Americans saw him for the bigot control freak that he is.

        If he is a frustrated closet-libertine, then may he stay in the closet so that he can imagine he is saving us from ourselves. Let that be his punishment. A self-imposed one that would make him even more of a cipher.

      2. Sorry, guys, but I’d much prefer to see him disappear because our fellow Americans saw him for the bigot control freak that he is.

        If he is a frustrated closet-libertine, then may he stay in the closet so that he can imagine he is saving us from ourselves. Let that be his punishment. A self-imposed one that would make him even more of a cipher.

    2. The guy that lives five houses down from me I’m buddies with is with a different women every week. Dude looks like Bradley Cooper with much more facial hair and darker skin. We should mail Santorum’s wife and ask her if she’d like to have some real fun before she ages and dies. I’ll call my neighbor. We can’t just sit idly by and let the poor woman’s life pass before she has a time to party the shit out of herself, eh?

      1. I gotta tell you guys, Santorum does not strike me as the closeted type, or the sort that would cheat on their wife. I mean, I get that some republicans just scream “gay escorts,” but to me, this guy is dork all the way, missionary position all the time. I don’t think he “gets” gay sex at all, because that would presuppose he understands the connection between sex and pleasure.

        1. Sometimes I think it’s those sexually repressed anal retentive types that end up self-destructing like that. You know who else was sexually repressed.

          1. Obama? I mean, he’s black, and he only has two kids.

            /Grand Wizard.

          2. HITLER! FTW!

        2. Hetero males can be forgiven for not understanding how sticking your dick in a biological garbage can be related to pleasure.

          1. why? They’ve been engaging in sex with hookers for thousands of years…

          2. why? They’ve been engaging in sex with hookers for thousands of years…

        3. I get the impression Santorum is the kind of guy who has to have all the lights out, and his wife under the covers, missionary position only, and when it’s over (which is quickly), he runs to the bathroom and has a shower and gags while trying to suppress his feelings about the whole experience and scrubbing his genitalia with a stiff bristle brush and soap.

  26. If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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.

    Why is it ANY business of the government? It’s not, so eff off Santorum! As long as everyone involved consents, why are you trying to interfere?

  27. “The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that.”

    *Yoda voice

    “And that-is why you fail.”

    1. And why you fail, that is. Yes, hmmm?

  28. What was the point of this article? I mean no ones called Santorum a douch more than me on this site but the douch said thats not what he meant and refuted it. Do we need this much text for a typical trivial gottcha word parsing game. Seriously. Theres more than enough reasons to hate this guy as it is.

    1. the douch said thats not what he meant and refuted it

      Except its clear that’s exactly what he meant.

      1. I don’t know. I’m sure as hell a not going to go out of my way to defend him. Just seemed like a lot of print to try and prove someone meant thay said something that they later said they didn’t really mean. I mean it’s not like it’s not already obvious how he feels about gays. This seemed trivial in comparison. That’s all.

        1. ^agreed!

        2. What’s interesting is that he is walking his position back because it’s not helping him in the campaign. That means the GOP has changed a lot.

  29. OK, Rick Santorum is a sick joke. The fact that even Obama is a better choice than him, is sad, but true. However, it is obvious that he is saying that homosexuality is not adult on child, etc. Just read the damn quote. “That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s NOT, you know….”
    Jeez, might as well be reading the daily kox, uh, koz.

    1. What he’s saying is that he’s not picking on gays; he treats them the same as he does pedophiles and bestiality enthusiasts.

      1. ^great comment!

      2. No, it reads like he thinks that it’s less immoral than pedophilia and bestiality.

        1. Less immoral. Who gives a fuck! That what his conscience dick-tastes. I think most of us here are whining in our typical whining fashion that he wants to dictate his dick-tastes with the full force of the law.

        2. I don’t think so. He seems to be saying that straight marriage is on one moral plane, and all other relationships are on another, lower plane.

          I don’t see anywhere in his remarks where indicates that he thinks gay sex is less bad than diddling sheep or kids.

  30. Why the hate for bigamy/polygamy? There are no unnatural acts going on there, they’ve been practiced throughout human history (even to the present day), and are mentioned casually in the Bible as if they are no big deal. So what’s the beef?

    1. You are falling for a common fallacy: just because something has been practiced for years and years does not make it natural and acceptable to continue. Maybe you’d care to expand on that to include your opinion on genocide, rape, etc..

  31. Gay marriage involves two males or two females. How do you get to polygamy? Or bestiality? Gay marriage typically involves two humans only, so what the ***? That’s one giant leap against mankind. In any event, this aricle and all commenters purposely ignore the fact homosexuality is something a human is born with, not acquired through wishy-washy morals. LOL @ everyone who thinks gay people choose a life of hell…

    1. In fact, I can’t recall the day I chose women. Maybe another commenter can enlighten us?

      1. Guess not. That’s what I thought..

      2. You were recruited? I say this in jest, only recently learned of the concept. I agree with your argument and I’ll further it to say that even if a straight man wanted to experiment, it is none of the State’s business. Just sayin’.

        Of course, marriage is nothing but a contract. I don’t think peeps like Santorum see that. He only sees the religious sacrament. What makes him a tremendous fuck stain is that he believes that only social constraints keep people in line and even worse that they must be legislated because social pressure isn’t enough. So what he’s admitting to is that he is above the fray and as a godling he needs to look out for us. Seriously, he should explore the polytheism inherent in Mormon doctrine.

    2. In any event, this aricle and all commenters purposely ignore the fact homosexuality is something a human is born with…

      No. We don’t care, since we don’t see homosexuality or gay marriage (or hetero sex / hetero marriage, for that matter) as something the government should get involved with, and most people here don’t view it as a moral issue, so long as the sex is consensual.

      1. It doesn’t matter to your argument whether or not humans are born hetero/homo? Really? It seems like that would cut through a lot of BS. And the state’s involvement is not the issue here, as marriage is already a state issue, and you cannot change that. IE, it is handled and regulated by the states, not the Fed govt. So, if marriage is already an issue the state regulates, then why do you say you want the state to keep their grubby hands off of it? Too late. I guess I’m not following your comment.

        1. He is saying that the motivations for your wanting to have sex with him/her are irrelevant. He is not denying that there are those who don’t have a proclivity to either side of the backslash. He’s simply stating that the proclivities of any human so long as they don’t involve coercion are simply none of the State’s or Fed’s business.

          To involve more invites you into Santorum’s camp wherein the government must legislate not just tolerance but social engineering by the state. Santorum is gay America’s true enemy. Libertarians are not. But if you expect someone to push gay is beautiful, maybe that is what you misunderstand about libertarians. If such is your expectation, then you are just the anti-Santorum. Most of us aren’t that. We just think he sucks because he wants to impose his will on us. There is a difference.

          1. Again, what will is he trying to impose? THAT IS MY QUESTION. The state currently handles marriage, and each state gets to decide, not a GOPer running for president. Even if he became President, what could he do? Executive power only goes so far…

            1. Sadly, executive power is expanding without any restrictions. Also, federal law is increasingly taking precedence over state law. As it currently stands, your point about state laws is true.

              My original comment was meant to point out that the origin of the desire should not be relevant when dealing with consensual adults, since their activities should never be illegal unless they violate the rights of others.

              1. You are right about that (exec power expanding)! Just recently Obama tested the limits of executive power, and Bush was pretty good at it too.

            2. He is trying to Federalize marriage contracts. You are right to call bullshit on that because that is not a Federal power. But look to the Dep of Ed as an example of how things can change. I think we agree that he is just posturing for the sociocon vote, fair enough.

              If you are declaring that even state’s shouldn’t go into who can and cannot marry, well then, you have a fellow traveler, but that’ll have to be done state by state.

              A Constitutional amendment would imply that the Constitution was in the marriage business in the first place. Hey, wanna get married, go to x state. Lots of corporations go to other states because of differing contract law and it’s tax consequences.

              What’s wrong with 50 choices? Even the Mormons figured that one out. Make your own state, so to speak. I am not condoning any particular state’s laws. Personally, it’s robbery that I have a problem with right now, but that’s not to say that I don’t side with you on your right to marry whom you please.

              1. “”What’s wrong with 50 choices?””

                That’s fine as long as you don’t travel outside your state. If you’re driving across the country and end up in a car crash, another state could decide not to give you information on your spouses health because you’re not considered married in that state.

                Current issues with CCW permits have been in the news lately.

                Not that I support federalizing marriage, far from it. But reprocity is important. The more ways you have, the more ways other governments can screw you.

  32. If “Privacy” is not an inherent right, then there is no such thing as an “unreasonable” search and seizure, as long as the government gives your stuff/papers back after the trial. Wiretaps, reading your mail, mandatory GPS on every car… all constitutionally kosher if there’s no right to privacy.

    1. The 4th recognizes a right to security in one’s person, house, papers, and effects. Not a right to privacy.

      1. Can’t tell if serious

      2. Without a How can a search be “unreasonable” then so long as they don’t bust up your house? I assume you don’t mind national, mandatory registration of gun owners? Or a court order for wiretaps, because listening in on any conversation at will is not “unreasonable” unless there is a right to privacy. It is base hypocracy to cry about our rights… then seek to use government to compel people to obey our religion.

        1. Correct that 1st sentance to read “Without a right to privacy, how…”

      3. …The 4th recognizes a right to security in one’s person, house, papers, and effects.

        So the Constitution provides security in where I place my papers but not my penis?

    2. hey….what if the Constitution had a part that protected your from unreasonable searches of your stuff. Obviously with this administration, that document is useless but one would like to think conservatives would favor it.

      1. That’s the difference between a “Social Conservative” and a “Constitutional Conservative.” A “Social Conservative” is really no different from a Liberal when it comes to respecting other people’s rights. Nanny State in a different color apron.

      2. “” that document is useless but one would like to think conservatives would favor it.””

        What conservatives?

        The few that would get marginalized.

  33. “He is not necessarily saying these relationships are morally equivalent, although that seems to be the implication.”

    Weak, Jacob, I expect more from you. If I say, “I don’t want the government infringing rights whether it is enslavement, the war on drugs, or censoring books” I have not implied that banning bud is morally the same as enacting slavery.

    1. That’s not quite analogous to what Santorum says, though.

      He’s saying one thing is OK (straight marriage), and everything else (sheepfucking, kiddy-diddling, gay sex) is not. He makes absolutely no distinction amongst the latter. In fact, he is at pains to say that he views them all the same.

      1. He’s saying one thing is OK (straight marriage), and everything else (sheepfucking, kiddy-diddling, gay sex) is not.

        Not only that, but if one reads a bit more closely, he is also implying that even straight marriage is only exceptable because it furthers the family and society. He’s really taking the same position as the Pope (John ?) back in the 60’s that sex is only morally acceptable if it can lead to more children – ie. church memebers and tax slaves. The man’s a damned socialist whether he knows it or not.

    2. Weak, Jacob, I expect more from you. If I say, “I don’t want the government infringing rights whether it is enslavement, the war on drugs, or censoring books” I have not implied that banning bud is morally the same as enacting slavery.

      Strawman, because Santorum isn’t comparing different types of societal ills, its one type (improper sexual relationships). If he wanted to seperate the morality of them, not using them in the same sentence would be a start. they might not be entirely morally equivalent in his mind, but they are all things Santorum dislikes and wishes there was less of and should be dealt with politically. The only question would be how different his punishments would be for violation of each.

  34. I call bullshit on Santorum’s family claim. He only applies that argument for thing he likes.

    When it comes to pulling the plug on your brain dead spouse. Santorum thinks the government trumps the doctors and spouses.

  35. When this guy throws a bomb at Iran, make sure he is attached to it. The world doesn’t need another Hitler

  36. such a shame. people should always be respecting people.

    Pabyang, http://www.bulletproofvestshop…..rmor?.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.