Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

When Do We Get to Meet Elizabeth Santorum's Imaginary Gay Friends?

Posted by on Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Originally posted early this AM, moved it up because I can.

Yesterday the Huffington Post profiled Elizabeth Santorum, Rick's 20-year-old daughter and a big piece of his "campaign infrastructure." Two items of interest:

It is tough, after all, being a young surrogate for a candidate/father clinging to an older worldview. Her father's stance on same-sex marriage and gay rights, in particular, has caused some friction from non-supporters. "It's a policy thing, he thinks this is the right thing for America and the foundations of our country," she said of gay marriage.... Opposed to same-sex marriage herself, Elizabeth said she has gay friends who support her father's candidacy based on his economic and family platforms. But her father's doctrinaire opposition to change on these fronts has made her the occasional target at school and on the trail—"never aggressively," she said, though "obviously, there are certain people that aren't [respectful]."

Yeah, Elizabeth, it's tough out there for a 'phobe. You know what else is tough? Losing your home after the death of your spouse because your marriage isn't recognized by the federal government. Seeing your husband deported because your marriage isn't recognized by the federal government.

What really interests me about the HuffPo interview, however, is Elizabeth's claim to have gay friends. Elizabeth Santorum—follow her on Twitter @esantorum2012—has gay friends. Just like her father. And Rick Warren and Joel Osteen and Donny Osmond and Sarah Palin. All the high-profile homophobes seem to have gay friends. Or at least they claim to have gay friends. No one has ever met—and no reporter has ever asked to verify the existence of—one of Rick Santorum or Elizabeth Santorum or Rick Warren or Joel Osteen's gay friends.

Um... political reporters? Stop accepting homophobes' claims of gay friendship at face value. Elizabeth Santorum says she has gay friends who support her dad based on his family platform? That is an astonishing assertion. Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his having compared sex between consenting adults of the same sex to child rape and dog fucking? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his having asserted that gay relationships are a threat to "homeland security"? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his opposition not just to gay marriage, but to any legal recognition of same-sex relationships at all (no civil unions, no domestic partnerships)? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his promise to write anti-gay bigotry into the US Constitution, forcibly divorce every same-sex couple that has gotten legally married in the US over the last decade, and reinstate DADT? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his opposition to adoptions by same-sex couples?

Who are these faggots?

Political reporters? When Elizabeth Santorum says, "I have gay friends and they support my dad because they agree with him about family issues," i.e. her dad's opposition to gay people having a families of their own, your immediate response should be a request for the names and phone numbers of some of these gay friends. Because that claim requires checking out before you put it in print or pixels. Reassure Elizabeth you'll quote her friends anonymously to protect them from potty-mouthed gay bloggers, they can talk to you on background or whatever, but tell her that you're going to need to verify the existence of these gay friends. Because you're a journalist, not a stenographer. You'll either catch Elizabeth Santorum in a revealing lie—what does it tell us about this moment in the struggle for LGBT equality that even homophobes like Elizabeth and her dad perceive a political risk in being perceived as homophobic?—or you'll land a fascinating interview.

And then there's this:

She is aware of her father's so-called "Google problem," part of a campaign by columnist Dan Savage to redefine the candidate's last name after he compared same-sex relationships to bigamy, polygamy and incest. "Savage and his perverted sense of humor is the reason why my children cannot Google their father's name," Rick Santorum wrote in a letter to supporters earlier this year. "That just makes me sad. It's disappointing that people can be that mean," she said,

I'm sorry I gave Elizabeth Santorum a sad. You know what gives me a sad? This does:

Ed Watson wasn't a "policy thing." He was a human being. And he died in December, still waiting for the Prop 8 decision to come down, still denied the right to legally marry the love of his life.

And you know what, Elizabeth? Making a dirty joke at the expense of a politically powerful elected official with designs on the White House—a man who has pledged to do everything in his power to make sure that gay people continue to lose their homes, see their spouses deported, and watch their partners die while waiting for their full civil equality to be recognized—is whole lot less mean than attacking a minority group and pledging to strip members of that minority group of the few rights they have secured.

 

Comments (114) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Chris in Vancouver WA 1
Dan, I don't think hetero members of the media, evebn gay-friendly ones, find the idea of gay folks supporting Frothy Mix's anti-gay stances as ridiculous as we do. They just go, "OK"
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on January 3, 2012 at 7:35 AM · Report this
2
You tell 'em, Dan. You fuckin' tell 'em!
Posted by tniel on January 3, 2012 at 7:41 AM · Report this
--MC 3
"Hey, I can't be a bigot, I have (race I'm complaining about) friends."
That's such an old meme, I'm surprised the Santorums (Santorii?) don't realize they're using it. Then again, the recent sload of GOP candidates don't seem to have much ability to see that sort of thing, or think critically about themselves.
Posted by --MC on January 3, 2012 at 7:43 AM · Report this
Helenka (also a Canuck) 4
Because you're a journalist, not a stenographer.
EXACTLY.

But the sad fact is that such claims are accepted at face value, no proof required.

P.S.
You broke me with that video clip.
Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on January 3, 2012 at 7:44 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 5
Kick ass.

Too bad this is going to stir up Seattleblues and the anonymous troll (make registration mandatory already - all arguments for allowing unregistered comments have long been disproven.)
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM · Report this
scary tyler moore 6
'osteen', not 'ornstein'. he ain't jewish.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on January 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM · Report this
7
well said Dan. I wish I could articulate my thoughts as well as you.
Posted by analoguestash on January 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 8
Also, 100 comments minimum by lunchtime, if not 10 am.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 3, 2012 at 7:50 AM · Report this
Fancy's_Pants 9
I wonder if they do exist, those gay friends who support her daddy...are they in danger if being accused of self-loathing? Are they gay and wish they weren't? Are they doing their best to "atone" for being gay? Is there any logical way they could exist?

Posted by Fancy's_Pants on January 3, 2012 at 7:53 AM · Report this
slaggy 10
I wish the Santorum family would all just grow up.
Posted by slaggy http://www.videowatchdog.com on January 3, 2012 at 7:57 AM · Report this
11
I worked on this video and associated campaign for the Courage Campaign. Even though I saw th video at least 100 times while editing it, it still gets to me. Ed and Derence were an amazing couple, I was so sad to hear that Ed had passed away.

The Santorums owe an explanation to the nation on many issues. They casually toss about lies and slanderous BS whenever it seems helpful for Ricky's career. Fortunately the voters of PA saw through his bullshit (18 points!). But, hey, maybe he'll win the GOP nomination, that would sure be interesting.

I do not have the same belief system as Ricky, but I'm guessing that his calls for a dude with a pitchfork to ask the questions that don't get answered in this life.
Posted by Sfbriancl on January 3, 2012 at 8:04 AM · Report this
12
Hey top comment. I'm straight as fuck. And I 100% see through santorum's (ew) lies and obviously feeble attempts at getting in a good light.

Though I might just be a outlier... sigh...

Anyway fuckin' tell em Dan. Right on.
Posted by Nardo on January 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM · Report this
13
Didn't Rick Santorum have a gay chief of staff at one time? Maybe that's who his daughter was referring to.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM · Report this
14
Most of the GOP candidates have imaginary gay friends. Except Bachmann, she married a real one.
Posted by Zayaz on January 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM · Report this
Brunobär 15
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that these gay friends actually exist; in every election, a certain number of gay voters vote Republican, as you have pointed out several times, Dan, not to even speak of openly gay prominent supporters and staffers for Republican politicians (Mary Cheney, anyone?) . Now, while Santorum may have used (and continued to use) particularly vile anti-gay rhetoric, he is not actually that far from the Republican mainstream on these questions in terms of actual policy positions.

So, yeah, probably there are gay people out there supporting Santorum (or Bachmann or Huckabee or whoever) . Now whether they're actual friends of Elizabeth or rather mere acquaintances or FB friends or 'friends of friends'...I don't know. But the idea is not absurd.
Posted by Brunobär on January 3, 2012 at 8:14 AM · Report this
Vince 16
Her father is a bully. A papist bully. And papist bullies have a very, very long history of cruelty and evil.
Posted by Vince on January 3, 2012 at 8:15 AM · Report this
17
While I disagree with the stance that one cannot support gay rights and be a republican (my husband's entire family, including his gay brother, vote republican. All cite an alignment to republican fiscal policies, and an aversion to the republican disenfranchisement of any subset of the population that are deemed less moral by the clearly biased and broken republican yardstick) I maintain that no one with a shred of compassion or respect for human rights will support this frothy mix.
Posted by catballou on January 3, 2012 at 8:17 AM · Report this
kim in portland 18
I think to ask that question you need to have an agreed upon decision about what being friends mean? Ms. Elizabeth may consider individuals whose services her family has hired as "friends" in this scenario, as it isn't uncommon to round relationships up when you are painting yourself in the prettiest way.

There is also this reality, I am going to acknowledge my own cynicism here, and put this in a rather Austen-ish way, there are many who rank the demands of their pocketbooks above the demands of their hearts. Money is a mighty god, many believe that it is their identity and self-worth, and when you come from a privileged background you often can't (or won't) consider the reality of those who don't have a padded pocketbook. Ms. Elizabeth is from a privileged background and odds are that her "friends" are also or aspire to become so. I'm guessing that Ms. Elizabeth's "friends" have the means to buy what they and any partner might need. Just my $0.02.

I'll leave the thread to those who oppose your opinion and will put it another way, the tired trope that society should not have to "support" the "choice" of being gay. Or more simply put heterosexuals deserve financial and legal benefits, from the government, because of their sexual anatomy and choices. I think Churchill was right when he said that "a fundamentalist is a person who won't change his mind and refuses to change the subject."
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on January 3, 2012 at 8:22 AM · Report this
19
Did someone say Papist? Nom.
Posted by SweetDarkLord on January 3, 2012 at 8:24 AM · Report this
20
@3: The singular isn't santorius, why would the plural be santorii? about the only word I can think of that pluralizes to have two is at the end is radius.

Instead, I propose santora. Of course, since santorum is a mass noun, like sand, or bread, there aren't a lot scenarios where you'll need a plural.
Posted by Ben on January 3, 2012 at 8:25 AM · Report this
21
@15 Plenty of homos are down with the cut taxes/get government off our backs side of the Republican message. However, it's hard to believe a self-identified LGBTQ person would support a family values christian conservative like Santorum.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 3, 2012 at 8:25 AM · Report this
22
Donny Osmond has gay friends? Does Marie?
Posted by cab61160 on January 3, 2012 at 8:29 AM · Report this
sirkowski 23
As a fan of Charlie Chaplin, Adolf Hitler was very hurt by The Great Dictator.

I used to know an Israeli Jew who was an admirer of Mussolini. He was also a closet case and a furry. True story.
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on January 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM · Report this
24
@15, Mary Cheney is not a good example. Her father, loathsome as he is, has come out in support of gay partnerships. Moreover, you don't hear the Cheneys speaking out in support of Santorum. I also have conservative gay friends, but they'd not vote rather than support Santorum.

For the records, as a hetero single/never-married woman, I share your anger. Sure, Santorum's never likened my sex life to bestiality but, with all his talk of the importance of families, I certainly feel as if I have little-to-no value in his idea of society.

Let's keep Spreading Santorum until he drowns in the frothy mix!!!
Posted by BerkeleyGirl on January 3, 2012 at 8:45 AM · Report this
25
That video was so sweet it brought tears to my eyes. Anyone who watches that and still supports denying marriage to same-sex couples is either brainwashed or lacks a heart.
Posted by mitten on January 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM · Report this
26
Donny Osmond isn't gay? Granted I'm hetero, so my gaydar isn't the best, but come on.
Posted by Marrena on January 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM · Report this
27
The Huff Post writers didn't even get it right...they're Bowdlerizing Santorum's original statements: "...compared same-sex relationships to bigamy, polygamy and incest" should read "...compared same-sex relationships to bigamy, polygamy, incest and bestiality."

I'd expect better from a semi-left leaning media operation.
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on January 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM · Report this
28
right on dan! keep posting about him, people need to know the truth.
Posted by ProAnneJ on January 3, 2012 at 9:05 AM · Report this
29
Where would she have a chance to make friends with a SSA person? She's only twenty and has been home schooled in smallish towns/ex-urbs her whole life. I hadn't heard of U of Dallas but the Wiki makes it sound like commuter college. I went to large urban public schools my whole life and a collection of pretty electic friends and, while met a few, it was my mid-twenties before I actually befriended an open gay person.
Posted by rbaron321 on January 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM · Report this
30
@24 I think that a large part of the motivation for opposition to abortion is an unspoken belief that sexually active single straight girls are evil sluts who need to be punished. It might seem contradictory for a pro-lifer like Santorum to oppose public assistance for single mothers. However, his real agenda isn't protecting unborn babies, but to compel women to get married whether they want to or not. Banning abortion and not helping single moms both serve that purpose.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM · Report this
scary tyler moore 31
osteen, not orstein. come on, dan, make the correction, please.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on January 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM · Report this
32
Corrected, Scary! Sorry about that!
Posted by Dan Savage on January 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 33
@ 30, that's the whole thing that reveals the lie behind calling fetuses "babies." If conservatives gave a single shit about children, they'd be leading the charge for public assistance and education for the poor, and support all manner of REAL (not abstinence-only) sex education. But just about every one of their policies reveals their utter contempt for these babies once they've come to full term.

Anti-choice is all about social control. No more, no less.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM · Report this
34
I'm acquainted with a gay man who is essentially a teapartier. He hates Obama with a passion, but will probably not vote Republican this year because the only candidate he finds remotely acceptable is Jon Huntsman, who won't get the nomination.
Posted by Jared Bascomb on January 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM · Report this
35
I dunno, Dan. Republicans have gone from 23% of the gay vote to 31% between 2004 and 2010. And there are plenty of gay Republicans out there in politics, both closeted and not - Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, Roy Washburn - who have no problem aligning themselves with the most evil anti-gay elements in the country. I don't doubt for a second that Elizabeth Santorum has gay friends of the wealthy self-hating type.
Posted by mdg1111 on January 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM · Report this
36
Of course they have gay friends! People like Larry Craig, George Rekkers, etc. Hell, Michelle Bachman even MARRIED a gay man. How much closer can friends be?
Posted by LML on January 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM · Report this
37
Bigots are very similar to vampires in their lusts -- they have to have people that are attracted to their ideas, or have mind victims, or they disappear, or switch blood types to a new boogie-man species. They move from incarnation to incarnation through the centuries, morphing from demonizing one minority to the next. That's where the "I have gay friends who are attracted to dad" lie comes in. Without converts, bigot vampires become insecure and thirsty. Dan is a superior Van Helsing, chopping off the blood supply. But where will the bigot vampire emerge in the next generation, when this battle is won? Let's keep finding them, as they seek to sleep in the shadows, only to emerge fresh when they sink their teeth into the next minority.
Posted by Lan on January 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM · Report this
38
@29. University of Dallas for undergrads is pretty sheltered, you have to live on campus or at home unil you're 21. Theologically, they were very conservative but that might be waining a little since they had one group move to Ave Maria, that clusterfuck in th Florida swamp. Of course they've been accused of heresy by those that don't think they are devout enough, or FSM forbid, they actually question things. The catholic league would be right at home there, according to friends who actually went there.
Posted by Sideshow Bill on January 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM · Report this
39
Gee, if only the Stranger had writers who at least consider themselves political reporters...and were in Iowa...and could ask these questions.

Oh, wait: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Posted by bigyaz on January 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM · Report this
40
Poor Little Danny really lets Rick get under his skin......
Posted by poor poor little danny on January 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM · Report this
41
There are always A-Gay Wannabes, who aspire to nothing so much as to grow up to be just like the character so waspishly portrayed by "Sirina" McKellan in Tales of the City.

There's also the Phyllida Erskine Brown effect. Once she begins to overcome the prejudice against women and succeed at the Bar, Phyllida is in no great hurry to help the sisterhood to join her. She likes being the only barrister who can succeed in court by reducing Judge Bullingham to a quivering blob of sexual excitement. Why invite competition and lose an advantage?
Posted by vennominon on January 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM · Report this
42
This was brilliantly said. Perfect. Thank you, Dan.
Posted by jade on January 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM · Report this
43
catballou:

"All cite an alignment to republican fiscal policies, and an aversion to the republican disenfranchisement of any subset of the population that are deemed less moral by the clearly biased and broken republican yardstick) I maintain that no one with a shred of compassion or respect for human rights will support this frothy mix. "

Let me guess - the 'republican fiscal policies' they supposedly are aligned with would be 'fiscal conservatism', am I correct? IOW, something that the GOP has been against for thirty years now.

Posted by Mother-luving_comment_system on January 3, 2012 at 11:02 AM · Report this
44
OMG yes a thousand times YES. I've written about this a ton of times. Our media is so freaking lazy I could scream. Enough with the stenography, people. This is an age of YouTube, I can hear what someone says for myself. I need a reporter to do some work and actually, you know, verify some stuff. Be skeptical. Call bullshit on this stuff more often.

It's not just on the gay issue, it's on EVERYTHING these idiots say. Here in Tennessee our wackadoodle governor and lieutenant governor have taken to saying any old crap -- there are jobs but no job applicants bec… is a famous example -- and the reporters just print it. No one ever says "Really? Who told you they have job openings and no applicants? Give me a name."

Please, I beg of you. A return to skepticism in our news media would do the nation a whole helluva lot of good.
Posted by Southern Beale on January 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM · Report this
45
Dan, this face value stenographer problem is widespread... I did my dissertation on mainstream news coverage of the Civil Rights Movement and you will routinely see, for example, Newsweek journalists "interviewing" a "reformed" white segregationist who swears they've found interracial healing.

Surprise surprise: the "I have black friends" defense inevitably follows. Never does a skeptical, "Really? Name 'em."

Another example of this is when white Arizona voters turned down a referendum to reinstate the King holiday several years running (until threats to pull the Super Bowl forced the issue to the right side of history). If you look at CBS's coverage of that, they only interview blacks outraged over the referendum. Despite being on location in Arizona, they don't interview a single white voter who cast the majority vote. The framing was not, "Why did the voters reject this?" but, instead, "Why are those black people so mad about it?"

This is how mainstream news outlets protect the privileged, be it along lines of race, sexuality, or just plain ol' power. They do not interrogate, they subtly corroborate. And an easy way to do so is to omit the most obvious questions that need asking.
Posted by maddy811 on January 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM · Report this
46
Oh, and one more thing...

Yes, self-hating closet cases exist.

Yes, there are conservative gays who carefully compartmentalize away the anti-gay hysteria of the right and focus, instead, on their (equally batshit) economic policies.

The existence of either is entirely beside the point. Any person who cannot stand by their argument without invoking "phantom" friends on the other side of that argument is a guilt-driven narcissist with poor reasoning and debating skills. "Well, so and so agrees with me" provides no real evidence for any argument. It is a self-deluding evasion, nothing more. It is a person looking for moral cover or exoneration.
Posted by maddy811 on January 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM · Report this
47
Remember, Ernst Röhm was a gay Nazi. So, logically, gays must have supported the Holocaust, right? Because at least one homosexual was a Nazi. (Oh, yeah, they killed him pretty early on...)
Posted by LML on January 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM · Report this
48
Bad Dan Savage! You made me watch that video and cry!

I was thinking about the issue of gay people who vote Republican and wondering why they would vote against their own self-interest when I realized that they vote Republican for the same reason that most people who vote Republican do. They think they'll get to keep more of their money because bad people they don't know won't get it, and *nothing else will change.* The roads will be there, the cops and fire department will be there, an educated populace will still be there because none of those things take tax dollars. And they'll never need special services beyond what they can afford, anyway, because they're the "right kind of people." Not a lot of rational thinking there.
Posted by greennotGreen on January 3, 2012 at 11:38 AM · Report this
49
And by gay friends, lkely means some poor members of the ex-gay movement.
Posted by nekosune on January 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 50
There are gay republicans out there, just as there are black republicans. A rarity, but they exist. Nevertheless, a gay republican is more likely to support a more moderate candidate, like perhaps Romney or Huntsman. No way are they going to support the most homophobic candidate in the entire republican lineup. There are other choices, even amongst the Rs.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on January 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM · Report this
51
Holy crud, those political reporters should do it! Yes, there are conservative gays out there, but it would be very interesting to hear why a non-insane gay person would support such an anti-gay candidate. Santorum should encourage it as well. What could do him more credit than a gay supporter saying what he likes about Santorum's financial or military stances?
Posted by DRF on January 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
52
I would love to see Rick Santorum get the nod to be the Republican candidate. What better way to force the issue and his preposterous views out into the open?

I try to do the equivalent all the time. I'm a Canadian, and even though I'm straight, I revel in the opportunity to ridicule those who argued against the passing of same sex marriage up here. They predicted the end of the family and everything short of catastrophe up here if two people of the same sex could have their marriage recognized. They DESERVE ridule...let's get on with it.
Posted by popeye4 on January 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM · Report this
53
I get supporting fiscal conservatism. That being said, how much would it cost (the average person) to allow marriage equality? How much (money?) would we save by increasing the pool of adoptive and foster parents?

Social progressivism shouldn't have much in the way of dollar cost. Start taking away non-religion reasons for denying equality, and frame the argument (against) as an attempt to establish a state religion.

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM · Report this
54
@51, that was exactly what I thought. Since Mr Santorum (and his daughter) would gain politically from having their "gay friends" publicly defend him and his ideas, the fact that this hasn't happened -- that we don't see "gay friends of Rick Santorum" coming forward to explain why they like his "family values" politics -- suggests that they (unlike gay supporters of fiscal conservatism and small government) don't really exist.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 55
"It's a policy thing"? Discrimination is now "policy" not discrimination in the mind of bigots and haters. I see. I suppose a nation in decline needs its evil corrupting element, be they the mentally ill, Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, what have you. It's all just policy, you know, like being paid twice a month or wiping the counters down with bleach water, just policy here in America, nothing more than policy.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM · Report this
puppydogtails 56
From the article on Ed Watson's death (one of the men in the video):

"Kernek could not be reached for comment because, according to Courage Campaign organizer Anthony Ash, their telephone was recently disconnected."

This is one of the most heart-breaking things I think I've ever read.
Posted by puppydogtails on January 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM · Report this
57
This helps prove your point. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/01/0…
Posted by BerkeleyGirl on January 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM · Report this
58
I was in Seattle for the Great Santorum Definition -

So I love this column but I think it needs more links to www.santorum.com
Posted by rmholt on January 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM · Report this
Posted by rmholt on January 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM · Report this
60
Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his having compared sex between consenting adults of the same sex to child rape and dog fucking?

I think they're all in GOProud.
Posted by Pope Buck I on January 3, 2012 at 3:45 PM · Report this
Eva Hopkins 61
@21 - The GOP hasn't been for the things they used to be for for 25 years (at least). Look at the spending record of any Republican administration & then get back to me about how they are "fiscal conservatives". They're not.

Both parties kinda disgust me. I guess the Democrats slightly less so.

@57 - I read that. do those young folks not know about Ron Paul's homophobic comments? Or, do they just not care? I guess the latter. & easy enough to say "oh gays have plenty of rights" when you live somewhere w/ marriage equality.

Oh, Dan. Those two, dear old men. & the one left on his own has no phone? Wouldn't it be a good Flying Monkey thing to take up some kinda collection for that guy?

I will start buying the physical newsprint newspapers from any that actually ask to see the gay friends of the Santorii.
Posted by Eva Hopkins http://www.lunamusestudios.com on January 3, 2012 at 4:28 PM · Report this
devinderry 62
Honestly, my first thought was that they *had* to be at Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster%27s_…)
Posted by devinderry on January 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM · Report this
63
I love you Dan! A true great GAY SUPERHERO!!!
Posted by Christ420 on January 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM · Report this
64
The GOP is evil and hate filled; it is not just Santorum...
Posted by Gary52 on January 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM · Report this
65
Amen. And Ladies, let's not forget the froth also has said that he plans on going after birth control, and then backed down. If he were to get into the White House, I'm convinced it would be a Walker-style "I didn't really campaign on this, but you knew who my handlers were, so SUCKAAAAHHHH" and make laws making it more difficult/illegal to get. Oh, but no extra support for foodstamps/medicaid/WIC... because people need to be accountable for their actions.... which apparently we weren't when we made sure we weren't getting pregnant by using proper birth control.
Posted by MinnySota on January 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM · Report this
KaraC 66
@33 Spot on, it is all about social control. Small government is the phrase they constantly bandy about, bit seem to see no contradiction in forcing women to give birth, dictating what sexual acts people can perform, and who you should be able to love and live with in a legally recognized, committed relationship. Even if someone supports the fiscal policies of the GOP the sheer hypocrisy of their social policies should surely stop straight people, gay Republicans aside, from supporting such candidates. My dream ticket for them would be Santorum and Bachmann, since that would assuredly prevent them gaining the presidency and rolling us back years in civil rights.
Posted by KaraC http://www.facebook.com/karaconnor1 on January 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM · Report this
67
What do you want to bet that if a reporter DID ask her to produce these gay friends, she (and probably her father) would whine about how the liberal media pounced on her with a gotcha question.
Posted by Bitter Scribe on January 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM · Report this
68
Plus si change... In Rita Mae Brown's 1976 "A Plain Brown Rapper" (pg 49) she describes an exchange at a 1969 feminist panel discussion:

"Charlotte Sun stood up and in a low, controlled voice repeated painfully: 'I'm tired of hearing a slick public relations rap that doesn't come from the gut. Let's look at the oppression right here in this room. You women on the panel have used your heterosexual privilege to silence the topic of love -- especially since that topic was love between women, which would seem to me to be critical to the movement.'

Another stunned silence. Marlene Dixon [on the panel] allowed as how some of her best friends were homosexual. At this point a woman two rows in front of us exploded with:

'SHE SAID IT! SHE ACTUALLY SAID IT!'

Laughter."

They never learn.
Posted by 23skidoo on January 3, 2012 at 8:00 PM · Report this
69
What do you want to bet that if a reporter DID ask to meet one of these gay friends, she and her father would whine that it was a liberal media gotcha question.
Posted by Bitter Scribe on January 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM · Report this
70
Oops. Sorry for the double post. It's my first comment here and I was a bit flummoxed by your signup system.
Posted by Bitter Scribe on January 3, 2012 at 8:05 PM · Report this
71
Just spent the evening last night with a couple of gay men and got into an argument with them when they started espousing how inspiring and intelligent they though Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are. Bizarre. Still not sure what to make of it...
Posted by LikeItIs on January 3, 2012 at 8:06 PM · Report this
72
You know, I think the most dangerous thing that gay people have done in the past two decades or so is to marry and have/raise children in large numbers. It was one thing to rally behind gay sex and sexual liberation, politically. It was worthwhile. It was important. But I think that kind of personal, individual freedom pales in comparison to the way we feel about defending our families and our children.

There are some gay people -- more than a few -- who care more about their tax bill than they do about anything else. They see it as a point of pride to be intellectually independent of the gay issue. Okay, but they sure as hell are not coming to any of my parties. And if they are brave enough to take me on in open debate, I will give them no quarter.

Christians hate being called on their hate because they really want to be seen as people who love everyone. So call them, call them, call them on it. Make them uncomfortable. They are lying about us. They are being bad fellow citizens. They are shaming this great country that we all share. In my humble opinion, they are shaming their faith. Politicians need to be forced to own up to their bigotry and their lies and not hide behind the Bible.
Posted by SDK on January 3, 2012 at 8:11 PM · Report this
73
I'm sure these folks do actually have gay friends, but they'll never tell you the names of these gay friends because they're all self-hating closet cases.
Posted by nothingsmonstered on January 3, 2012 at 8:52 PM · Report this
mtnlion 74
Go Dan go! Well-written and legit. And I didn't even cry because I'm too afraid to watch the video that will inevitably make me cry, and I'm already on your side.

I find it too bad that Elizabeth Santorum will likely never read this and never really be confronted with the tragic consequences of keeping gay marriage illegal. How she'll never have to compare the "sadness" of children being denied "Google Santorum" privileges to the truly sad facts of people losing their loved ones and their entire livelihoods over a "policy thing." And meanness? Really? Head explode! Of course, people like her and Rick are already biased towards being unsympathetic because they believe it's a choice, and will continue to do so because that's the only thing they can believe that will protect their consciences from processing the suffering homophobia causes.

Oh and I believe there are "friends"--just like I'm friends with all the customers I serve coffee to: in passing, we're all polite to each other.
Posted by mtnlion http://radicalish.wordpress.com on January 3, 2012 at 9:01 PM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 75
..wasn't it just yesterday that her dad claimed he knew black people ?..and then named a couple. ? so sure.. asking for names is TOTALLY fair.
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on January 3, 2012 at 9:04 PM · Report this
76
Ed and Derence's story STILL brings tears to my eyes and all I had to do was read their names. :(
Posted by dakoneko on January 3, 2012 at 9:43 PM · Report this
77
This is why I read Savage even when he annoys me--the good stuff is just FAR too good to miss! Damn straight, why does the media engage in stenography rather than reporting? Why do they let Santorum say that Obama is engaging in un-American activities? What?! Make him specify, please, or else offer a rebuttal in the article. This ridiculous effort to seem "unbiased" only allows the crazy people to dominate the discourse.
Posted by Suzy on January 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM · Report this
Prairie Dog 78
@71 LikeItIs: I too am amazed at the level of Schitzophrenia and denial needed for that to occur: gay people supporting Bachman or Palin. I have to assume that these people are either self-hating on some level, or able to compartmentelize thier thoughts or beliefs to an amazing extent. The Rebublicans seem to have made a most amazing propaganda advance at some point that convinces people to vote against thier own self interest. It seems to allow people to agree with them on some level on some litmus test issue for the voter (fiscal conservatism, smaller government) then ignore or downplay thier position on other issues that are vital to thier own self interest (gay rights, or women's issues). I've noted this at my work in the environmental field as well, some people are so wrapped up in the Repubs mythical stance on smaller government or fiscal conservatism that they ignore thier smoke-stack-hugging environmental positions. I point out that if environmental regulation or its enforcement is rolled back, they literally might not continue to have jobs in thier field, they then just look at me bewilderedly say they don't support those posistions, and change the subject back to the evil of entitlement programs.
Posted by Prairie Dog on January 4, 2012 at 4:03 AM · Report this
Alanmt 79
Something else that the reporter failed to follow up on:

Elizabeth said: "People are entitled to live the way they want . . ."

So she says. But her father reiterated in October that he thinks Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided and that he supports laws criminalizing sodomy. So, no, he doesn't believe that gay people are entitled to live their lives the way they want. Why didn't the reporter call her on this?

He is not Rick "leave the gays alone" Santorum. He is Rick "throw the dirty gays in jail" Santorum. Does his little mouthpiece daughter agree with that? Let's get it out in the open. Because I want people to know that a vote for Santorum is, philosophically, a vote to put my daughter's daddies in jail.
Posted by Alanmt on January 4, 2012 at 8:09 AM · Report this
80
Sadly, I believe these homophobes' claims of gay friends. There are plenty of self-loathing gays who will cozy up to these high-profile creeps. Who else fills the ranks of the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud?
Posted by Keith Heimann on January 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM · Report this
81
Awesome commentary, Dan. The instead she said she knew gay people, I immediately thought she was lying. THEY always lie, and no one calls them out on their lie. Enough already. You say you have gay friends? Prove it, or shut the hell up.
Posted by David in Houston on January 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM · Report this
82
Sorry, "instead" should have been "moment". When I get angry, the words tend to get jumbled. I get angry a lot ;-)
Posted by David in Houston on January 4, 2012 at 8:34 AM · Report this
John Horstman 83
"...part of a campaign by columnist Dan Savage to redefine the candidate's last name after he compared same-sex relationships to bigamy, polygamy and incest."

Well that's completely disingenuous, like saying "...after he drank a glass of water." Yes, I'm sure Santorum both drank a glass of water and "compared same-sex relationships to bigamy, polygamy and incest" at some point in time before Dan's santorum campaign, but the impetus was comparing gay sex to dog-fucking and child-fucking. Big fucking difference, especially since I don't think bigamy/polygamy or incest are necessarily, intrinsically bad (they're actually more-valid comparisons as socially-marginalized sexualities involving, or at least that can involve, consenting adults; I think they DO frequently play out problematically, in part because most - but not all - incest involves non-consenting minors, but there's no intrinsic harm to plural marriage, multiple sexual partners, or sexual activity with someone with whom one shares some genes or a social family unit). I definitely think fucking little kids should be illegal, though I think zoophilia is more complex: if we allow factory farming, we've lost any sort of ethical ground with respect to the treatment of animals on which to base "don't fuck/get fucked by animals". There may be safety concerns, but I really don't think it's the place of public policy to stop people from engaging in self-harming behaviors, either. Anyway, my limited apologism for zoophilia notwithstanding, this provides examples of bad journalism in all sorts of ways.

@69: They'd be correct, since it would certainly gotch them. "Gotcha" questions can only exist if one runs around spouting off about something about which one doesn't actually know anything AND one claims to know something about the topic ("I don't know," is a perfectly acceptable answer, right up until one has been repeatedly claiming to know something). I've NEVER understood the willingness of both politicians and media personalities to play Lowest Common Denominator, especially when candidates who actually know what the fuck they're talking about can put the lie to their opponents' statements/claims by not pandering. Let them whine about "gotcha" questions or "Liberal bias", and then mock them mercilessly about it and/or completely refute their idiotic and/or nonsense claims.
More...
Posted by John Horstman on January 4, 2012 at 10:48 AM · Report this
84
Gays simply cannot risk supporting any non-progressive Republican in the change-ripe society such as ours. Nor can gay-friendly folks.
Say what you want about policy and economics and which party has the right solution. You know what, NONE OF THEM has it figured out. Between the partisan wrangling and one-upmanship and lobbyists, and big business, no single party has the solution.
But I will tell you one thing: IT IS TIME FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO TAKE A GIANT LEAP INTO THE 21ST CENTURY ON SOCIAL ISSUES AND THERE IS NO CURRENT GOP CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVANCE THE ISSUES OF EQUALITY FOR LGBT CITIZENS.
It's all about the economy--yeah right. It's tanked. And it will recover.
But citizens who deserve equality cannot risk another 2 steps backward on issues that undermine what this Great Constitution was created to enforce: we are all of us created equally and all deserving of the same rights as every other citizen.
The line is being drawn, people.
Posted by tdubtx on January 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM · Report this
85
I'm a student at the University of Dallas (and, I guarantee you, the only one who agrees with any of you), and I can guarantee you, if she has gay friends, they sure as hell do not attend UD.
Posted by UD Student on January 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM · Report this
86
Gays simply cannot risk supporting any non-progressive Republican in the change-ripe society such as ours. Nor can gay-friendly folks.
Say what you want about policy and economics and which party has the right solution. You know what, NONE OF THEM has it figured out. Between the partisan wrangling and one-upmanship and lobbyists, and big business, no single party has the solution.
But I will tell you one thing: IT IS TIME FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO TAKE A GIANT LEAP INTO THE 21ST CENTURY ON SOCIAL ISSUES AND THERE IS NO CURRENT GOP CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVANCE THE ISSUES OF EQUALITY FOR LGBT CITIZENS.
It's all about the economy--yeah right. It's tanked. And it will recover.
But citizens who deserve equality cannot risk another 2 steps backward on issues that undermine what this Great Constitution was created to enforce: we are all of us created equally and all deserving of the same rights as every other citizen.
The line is being drawn, people.
Posted by tdubtx on January 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM · Report this
87
@Matt from Denver

I think it is best put like this. The GOP cares about children till they are born, then they are on their own!
Posted by KCfromTN on January 4, 2012 at 12:30 PM · Report this
88
OK, I skipped a lot of the comments, and I imagine someone has already said this, but I wanted to say it myself. There's a BIG difference between being a Republican and being a Santorum/Bachmann style Republican. A lot of Republicans identify with fiscal policies, and not so much the social stuff (libertarian-style Republicans disdain that shit outright, because it's none of the government's business). Santorum and Bachmann have built their careers around intense homophobia. It's their primary hook for voters. People who are interested in other Republican virtues do NOT vote for Santorum, because they can get those values elsewhere without all the pointless, destructive--and ultimately counter-productive--hate.
Posted by chicago girl on January 4, 2012 at 12:50 PM · Report this
89
Always wondered about this "sodomy." Supposing it is Ecclesiastical Latin: peccatum Sodomiticum. First, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is fictional, but even if it were true, it seems odd that Lot would offer his virgin daughters to a group of people that most evangelicals say were homosexual. Everyone knows that gay guys like nothing better than virgin girls. There is no logic in this story, a poorly written metaphor at best. Only thing I can get out of it is turn your back on this god and he'll supply you with a lifetime of free seasoning. I tried it (turning my back on this god), well, lets just say I still have to go to Food City and buy salt.
Posted by KCnTN on January 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM · Report this
90
It's hard to put into words how the Santorum garbage makes me feel. This is OUR LIVES he's trashing, our LOVE he's criminalizing. Whenever I see him talk on TV he's broadcasting HATE against good, decent people to millions of viewers across the nation. May he and all the people like him go down in history as the lying, malicious, self-serving scum of the earth bigots that they are!!
Posted by NaruDK on January 4, 2012 at 2:54 PM · Report this
91
You should have said "personal lubricant" instead of "lube". But I guess if you're going to confirm homophobes' perception of gays as vile by circulating something disgusting about gay sex, you might as well present yourself as unsophisticated and immature at the same time. By the way, what kind of lube gets frothy?
Posted by jasonjonson on January 4, 2012 at 3:31 PM · Report this
92
Perhaps the people who would have asked such a question choose to do a different job.

It seems like the profession used to have a very high status. 'Investigative reporter' was a stock heroic character. It was Superman's job.

Maybe the type of girl who used to want to be Lois Lane doesn't want to work for Rupert Murdoch and has a blog instead.

Posted by James Hutchings on January 5, 2012 at 2:10 AM · Report this
93
This is the LGBT version of racist politicians' earnest claim that "Some of my best friends are black."
Posted by Sally Hemings' daughter on January 5, 2012 at 6:55 AM · Report this
94
Oh, Dan Savage, how do I love thee? This post is beautiful and perfect. I read it to aloud to my husband last night, and it caused us both chills. When you shine, you are blindingly and heartbreakingly brilliant. You are a national treasure. Thank you for saying exactly what needed to be said in exactly the manner it needed to be said.
Posted by MarleyBarley on January 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM · Report this
95
*gave us both chills, not caused us both chills lol. Sorry, I'm slightly over-caffeinated, and I think two separate thoughts got a little muddled in my fingers' rush.
Posted by MarleyBarley on January 5, 2012 at 6:58 AM · Report this
96
I think Elizabeth is confused. She probably has gay friends who support santorum the sexual byproduct, not Santorum the presidential candidate.
Posted by The Random Hubiak on January 5, 2012 at 10:36 AM · Report this
97
Reminds me of the time in 1975 that an ex Nazi (a professor of neurology in Freiburg, Germany) told me that some of his best friends were Jewish....
Posted by M. E. Goldberg on January 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM · Report this
98
I'm not into gays. I don't have any gay friends. I don't want to be around gays. I hope none of my kids come out gay. I wouldn't care if gay didn't even exist. It would not matter to me. That said, I'm not so closed minded and mean spirited as to give a damn if an adult male marries another consenting adult male. Same applies to lesbians. It's none of my business. Why people feel the need to control and classify other people has never made any sense to me. Pray that Ron Paul is somehow allowed to win the presidency. He thinks like me. He just doesn't give a damn about gay people, whites, blacks, greens, browns, yellows, etc. We're all individuals and as individuals we all have the same rights. That is what gay people, ALL PEOPLE, should want.
Posted by Mildly.Evil on January 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM · Report this
99
amen
Posted by greengirl on January 6, 2012 at 7:18 PM · Report this
100
We should ALL be supporting Santorum, not for president, but for the GOP *nomination* for president! Think about it: he has a Google problem that makes him unelectable, he sounds more blatantly extreme and far right than Romney even though they both will follow most of the same wingnut policies if elected, and getting him nominated will force the political discussion into the discussion we want to talk about, i.e. women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, because his positions are so blatantly out of the mainstream that they will catch the media's attention. It's nothing but upside for the left if Santorum gets nominated.
http://santorumforgop.tumblr.com
Posted by TemporarySantorumFan http://santorumforgop.tumblr.com on January 7, 2012 at 12:13 AM · Report this
101
I totally support the nomination of Rick Santorum for President. If I could vote in a Republican primary to do so, I would vote to nominate him. I want him to be THE candidate up against Obama. Today, I turned on Rush by mistake and listened for about five minutes. He was almost hyperventilating about the issue of electibility, essentially saying that Santorum is electable. It made me begin to wonder if he's really a conservative or perhaps a liberal (like me) who wants this whole thing to burn and die, or maybe he's just an idiot. Probably, the third.

Liberals, even those in the NYTimes, seem to think that Romney is only a fiscal conservative, not a values one. I'll bet dollars to donuts that if he gets elected, we're in some big trouble, because this guy has gone to dark side, and he is electable. Very scary. So, let us throw and heave our support his way and totally embrace the nomination of Rick Santorum because independents will not vote for this nutcake, while they will for Romney, who seems like a cool glass of water, after lunatics like Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum, the newest flavor of nut this week. The only problem is that Romney is as nutty as they are. He just talks a better line and seems to seem sane, cause he keeps his mouth shut unless he has to say something. Then he says things like, "I'd be proud to have Dick Cheney as my VP," or "I will vote against abortion in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother," or "I am for DADT and against gay marriage." Some say, he is saying these things to get elected. i happen to believe him. I think we should be very scared of his nomination and hope and pray that Santorum takes it.
Posted by Truthsayer1 on January 7, 2012 at 1:23 AM · Report this
lilbit 102
I find it sad that Ms Santorum doesn't view her fathers platform as mean.

Am new here, thanks to Laura Novak mentioning you on her blog.

Great article Dan.
'
Posted by lilbit on January 10, 2012 at 5:41 AM · Report this
geoz 103
I can't understand the gay voter who supports the GOP. I do understand have conservative fiscal ideas. I just don't see how that trumps the "who you are" portion of voting.
Posted by geoz on January 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM · Report this
104
Hey Danny!

They were talking about you on CNN tonite!

by name!

(we know how much you get a hardon about being on CNN....)

Pierce Morgan had on Rick; and the wife and kids
(damn lovely family, we must say.
you know Danny,
you could have married a nice catholic girl and had a houseful of kids as well.....)

So the daughter was saying how she prays for your depraved pathetic soul.

She seemed like such a nice kid, you almost wonder if god would answer her prayers.

PS....oh, hey, Slog fanboys- were your ears burning too?
(and still the yellow discharge? eeeeew....no, just kidding!)
Cause Morgan said people who mock the Santorums for how they grieved the loss of their child are first rate assholes.
are you going to let him call you first rate assholes?
Farting Monkeys! to your email!!
Posted by Flame&Fortune on January 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM · Report this
105
I go to school with her (I'm a 3rd semester senior so I'm technically in her class) and I've definitely seen her around campus... I've not seen her this semester perhaps she's campaignin­g for her dad? I'm a fish out of water at this school. One of maybe 5 democrats, so I'm definitely rallying AGAINST her father, but I think I know the gay kids she's referring to. To be at this school and be OUT is a death sentence. I barely made it these 4 years by being open about (1) voting for Obama (some girls saw my bumper sticker and said they'd 'pray for me') and (2) my rallying for things like immigratio­n and gay rights. This school prides itself by being "The Catholic University for Independen­t Thinkers", but as long as you think the same as everyone else, you're in for a hard time.
Posted by UDClassOf2011 on February 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM · Report this
106
You remind me of an old line of Paula Poundstone's: "What do these Lob Cabin REpublicans do at their meetings? Gather in parking lots and beat each other up?"
Posted by Tom Crisp on February 8, 2012 at 7:28 AM · Report this
107 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
108
Of course the Santorums have lots of gay friends. Larry Craig, George Rekers....

What they don't have is gay friends who aren't CPOSs.
Posted by EclecticEel on April 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM · Report this
109 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
110 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
111 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
112
Go, Dan! As always, you fucking ROCK!
Posted by auntie grizelda on April 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM · Report this
113
For reals! Do your freaking jobs, journalists! It's called a follow-up...they evade, you follow-up.
Posted by portland scribe on April 29, 2014 at 11:50 AM · Report this
114
Run, Rick Poopshake, RUN!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Posted by auntie grizelda on April 29, 2014 at 5:17 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy