Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Rick Santorum Loves Gay People! His Pledge to Write Anti-Gay Bigotry into the US Constitution, Reinstate DADT, Ban Adoptions by Gay Couples, and Criminalize Gay Sex? That's Just a Public Policy Difference!

Posted by on Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

“My youngest son is gay," a woman asked Rick and Karen Santorum at a campaign event yesterday. "I debated for the longest time how to handle my support of you, because what he’s been hearing is, ‘Oh, Rick Santorum hates gays.’ I still have that sense of guilt, because his friends react to what they hear. Help me. How do I deal with that?”

Karen Santorum defended her husband:

“I think it’s very sad [what] the gay activists have done out there,” she replied. “They vilify him, and it’s so wrong. Rick does not hate anyone. He loves them. What he has simply said is [gay] marriage shouldn’t happen. But as far as hating—it’s very unfortunate that that has happened. A lot of it is backyard bullying.” The former Senator added in his defense, “I think the problem is that some see that public policy difference as a personal assault.”

Karen? Your husband compared gay people to dog fuckers and child rapists and you didn't call him out at the time. So it would seem that vilification was fine with you... until someone decided to give your vile husband a taste of his own medicine.

I'm thinking this "public policy difference" line must have been polled by the Santorum campaign. Rick Santorum doesn't hate gay people! He just thinks we should be locked up, banned from the military, unable to marry or adopt—but that's not hate! Oh, no: it's just a "public policy difference." Elizabeth Santorum was the first to float this turd: in her now-infamous interview/blowjob with the Huffington Post, Elizabeth Santorum described her father's opposition to gay rights—not just our right to wed but also our right to be intimate, serve in the military, adopt children—as "a policy thing." Nothing personal! No biggie! Certainly not something that should have make her father an object of derision and scorn! I responded to Elizabeth—who also said that gay activists make her "sad" (was that polled too?)—in last week's "Savage Love":

I'm sorry for giving you a sad, Elizabeth. You know what gave me a sad? Reading about Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond. The women, together 18 years, were vacationing in Florida in 2007 with three of their four children when Pond suffered an aneurysm. Langbehn and the children were barred from Pond's room when they arrived at the hospital. A social worker informed Langbehn—who was distraught—that she wouldn't be able to see her wife because they were in an "anti-gay city and state."

Lisa Pond was not a "policy thing," Elizabeth. She was a human being. And her wife and children were prevented from saying good-bye to her because people who agree with you and your father—people who doubtless felt empowered to act on their bigotry thanks to high-profile bigots like you and your father—persecuted them as Pond lay dying.

By being so mean as to oppose legal protections for gay and lesbian families, Elizabeth, you and your father are trying to make sure that other families headed by same-sex couples will suffer as Langbehn, Pond, and their children were made to suffer.

This isn't about marginal tax rates or energy policy. Gay rights, gay marriage, DADT, adoptions by gay couples: this is about a large group of people—gay people—and our right to live our lives free from discrimination, to love each other without risking arrest, to have our relationships recognized under the law so that we do not have to fear being treated the way Lisa Pond and Janice Langbehn were treated. This issue—gay rights—is personal, deeply personal, and Rick Santorum's position on gay rights represents a highly personal attack on the dignity and autonomy and privacy of millions of Americans and our families. And we take it personally.

And in answer to the woman's question: Rick Santorum's hatred of gay people is clear and unambiguous and well-documented. Rick Santorum will do everything in his power to harm gay people—your son included—if he wins the White House. So you can love your gay son or you can support Rick Santorum, lady, but you can't do both.

 

Comments (44) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
despicable me 1
Why am I not feeling the love? Is it just me?
Posted by despicable me on January 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM · Report this
Luisa 2
How this muddle headed liar and her family of muddle headed hateful lying people can live with themselves is beyond me. And now, poor Ricky is the victim. Those backyard bullies. Tsk tsk.
Posted by Luisa on January 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM · Report this
3
More accurately, her choices are:
  • 1) Love her gay son
  • 2) Support Rick Santorum
  • 3) Not be a total idiot
Choose two.

(Let's pretend for the sake of the exercise that {2,3} is a valid selection.)
Posted by Ben on January 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM · Report this
Chip 4
All those people bullying poor Rick's backyard.
Posted by Chip on January 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM · Report this
very bad homo 5
Yeah, my love life is not a "social issue". This man is scum.
Posted by very bad homo on January 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
ryanayr 6
That's what I call tough love.
Posted by ryanayr on January 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM · Report this
7
Thanks again Dan....
Posted by pupuguru http://www.godsweed.org on January 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 8
Well, what do you expect? He tied his horse to that post a long time ago, secure in the knowledge that vilifying gays & lesbians would never go out of style.

Now that is has, what's he gonna do about that albatross around his neck? Karen's solution is to tell everyone that dead bird smell is just the swee-ee-test thing ever.

I'm caught between laughing in derision and having my intelligence brutally insulted. But that's no big thing, it's been like that for almost two decades now.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on January 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM · Report this
9
Rick Santorum wants to claim he is not a bigot but just has public policy differences on these issues. So were people who opposed integrating public schools bigots or did they just have educational policy difference?
Posted by Charlie-45X on January 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM · Report this
Vince 10
Torquemada with a smiley face is still The Inquisition.
Posted by Vince on January 17, 2012 at 1:06 PM · Report this
11
Love the sinner, hate the sin. He's working the compassionate conservative angle.
Posted by Bhamjason on January 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM · Report this
12
poor Danny.

he's just daring that aneurysm to pop....
Posted by Mental Health Counseling is cheaper than a funeral. on January 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM · Report this
ryanayr 13
@11 - Actually, I would theorize he's more of a "hate the sinner, love the sin" kinda guy.
Posted by ryanayr on January 17, 2012 at 1:30 PM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 14
The use of the word "hate" is inflammatory, irrelevant and counterproductive. First, the use of the word "hate" invites wives and daughters to defend husbands and fathers who advocate indefensible policies. Second, I don't think that most slave owners believed that they hated their slaves. But most importantly, I don't care if Rick Santorum hates gay people. Hate away! Sit on your front porch in your union suit in a rocking chair, hold your shotgun on your lap, spit tobacco juice, yell at the neighbor kids and fulminate about the queers. Who cares?

New meme, please.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on January 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 15
Discrimination = Policy. No hard feelings, you understand. Oh but that policy does not go both ways. Just an FYI because you know Gay Americans want to have a "privileged citizenship status".
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM · Report this
16
Why aren't Americans (gay and non-gay alike) up in arms over this man? If he were to swap out the word 'Gays' for the word 'Jews', this man would have his ass handed to him by the media. He's just a bigot hiding behind his religion.
Posted by The fag on January 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM · Report this
17
I think Elizabeth Santorum should be locked in a windowless room for the rest of her life and fed nothing but cockroaches and undersweetened Kool-Aid. That's just a public policy difference.
Posted by truthspeaker on January 17, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report this
18
"Public policy", what an execrable example of deflection and obfuscation. The "final solution to the Jewish question" was public policy.

They must really think people are stupid.
Posted by Westside forever on January 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM · Report this
COMTE 19
@18:

Only the people who's votes they want, apparently...
Posted by COMTE on January 17, 2012 at 1:59 PM · Report this
schmacky 20
It's positively Orwellian. I approve of a policy that mandates the boiling in oil of all those whose surname happens to be "Santorum," but I still love them. Really.
Posted by schmacky on January 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM · Report this
21
OK, I've found a pair of nitrile gloves, so here goes:

[Questioner] Good afternoon Senator and Mrs Santorum and welcome back.

[Mrs Mix? Off camera] Hello

[Questioner] My name is Magda Aguila, I live in Greenville, SC. I have been supporting the senator since he announced his exploratory committee.

[Mrs Mix? Off camera] Well. Thank you.

[Questioner] My youngest son is gay. I have debated for the longest time how to handle my support of you, because what he's been hearing is 'Rick Santorum hates gays'.

Interestingly enough, we had a short conversation and he said 'Well actually I don't have any problems with his stance on gay marriage because I don't believe in gay marriage', but I still have that sense of guilt because his friends react to what they hear. Help me. How do I deal with that.

[Mr Mix] [Starts talking over his wife, then says] Go ahead if you want to jump in.

[Mrs Mix] First of all thank you for that question and you as a mother, a beautiful mother, we all love our kids unconditionally and as Rick's wife, I have known him and loved him for 23 years and I think it's very sad, what the gay activists have done out there - they've vilified him and it's so wrong.

Rick does not hate anyone. He loves them. What he has simply said is marriage shouldn't happen. But as far as hating - it's very unfortunate that that has happened. A lot of that is back yard bullying, where they, people will come up to us and they'll say something, and then we'll ask them to give an example, and they can't even provide one example as to why they took the position they took. You can take it from here.

[Mr Mix] Well, Karen's right - I mean, this is not an issue of not doing what I'm called to do, which is to love everyone and accept everybody, and, but this is a public policy difference, and I think the problem is that some see that personal policy difference as a personal assault. Because I believe that marriage, which has existed before governments existed, marriage existed from the very beginning of time, it's the way we were meant to be, it is, it is not just that but it is what I believe governments, and the reason governments include marriage in their laws is because we need to encourage what is best for mothers and fathers and children which is for them to be together and to give every child their birthright, which is to know and be loved by their mom and dad. And if we don't hold that up as something that society is for, and encourage it, and promote it, then we will get less of it, and then we will be in a sense denying children what is best for them. We shouldn't be a society that denies our children and our future what's best for them. It's already rough enough out there and we need to, we need to affirm that people can have other relationships that are important and they can, and say that they're fine, but they can't be what is essential for the future of our country. There's all sorts of other relationships that people have, and they are valuable relationships, whether they're amorous relationships or friendship relationships or familial relationships they're all important, they all have value, they all should be affirmed, but that does not mean that we should change the laws to order, to create an atmosphere where children and families are not being promoted.

[ends]
More...
Posted by Rubbish_Transcriber on January 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM · Report this
Lise 22
I have to say, Dan, this woman probably does love her son very much. She is probably also a fucking idiot, though, innocuously undermining the previous statement...which I just realized is the point that you were trying to make.
Posted by Lise on January 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM · Report this
Helix 23
I wish I believed in God, so that I could believe that this piece of shit would spend eternity answering for everything he's said and done.
Posted by Helix on January 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM · Report this
24
Ask yourself: would you rather have someone in charge who hates gays but furthers policies that help gay people or someone who does not hate gays but rejects policies that help gay people? I realize it's not a realistic choice, as feeling generally begets policy, but ultimately, policy is much more important to ordinary people than how a politician actually feels about a class of people.
Posted by nanoboy on January 17, 2012 at 2:41 PM · Report this
Fortunate 25
What Helix said.

I really wish I could believe that one day when these people died they would be faced with the truth of how they have harmed others, and have to live for eternity with that regret and knowledge.

But in reality they most likely are going to just die someday in ignorant bliss, and cease to exist without realizing. But their legacy of harm will continue to exist after they are dust.

I come out of every election cycle, after having to hear this kind of crap ad nauseam for months at a time, bitter and angry and having less and less faith in humanity.
Posted by Fortunate on January 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 26
For the record, Republican positions on marginal tax rates or energy policy also destroy people's lives. It isn't like they behave like human beings in every area except the gays. Their deal is pretty much either letting corporations ruin your life, or if the private sector can't or won't ruin your life, they see that as a role that government should step into.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 17, 2012 at 3:24 PM · Report this
Lance Thrustwell 27
'Love the sinner, hate the sin', together with 'we are all sinners; we all fall short of the glory of god' is the most insidiously seductive aspect of Christianity, to me. It offers a false egalitarianism that lets people mask their own prejudices and bigotries FROM THEMSELVES. I have no doubt that Santorum and all the other fundamentalist idiots (and that's what he is, even if he is Catholic) sincerely believe they're filled with love toward gays and everyone else. And that's the scariest part of the whole thing.
Posted by Lance Thrustwell on January 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM · Report this
28
"Public policy difference" is to "hatred" what "job creators" is to "super-rich tax dodging corporate frauds." The Republicans, to give them credit, have a much better PR machine than the Democrats do. They're masters of creating memes that make them look more innocent than they actually are.
Posted by Daniel_NY on January 17, 2012 at 3:49 PM · Report this
29
In other news: Htiler loves Jews. The Holocaust? Just a policy thing.
Posted by ELBSeattle on January 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM · Report this
KaraC 30
@14 Good point about "hate". Given the comments from his family about "Dan being mean" and the "gay activists" I actually think that they really believe that they aren't being hateful. What they absolutely are being is discriminatory, condescending, insulting, trying to force their "moral values", including demanding that people be celibate in some cases, on everyone else. This is completely unacceptable however you label it. We should focus on their proposed legislation and its likely effects, which are abhorrent.
Posted by KaraC http://www.facebook.com/karaconnor1 on January 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM · Report this
rob! 31
Thanks to @21, sounds like Frothy's totally down with "man-on-dog":
...There's all sorts of other relationships that people have, and they are valuable relationships, whether they're amorous relationships or friendship relationships or familial relationships they're all important, they all have value, they all should be affirmed, but that does not mean that we should change the laws to order, to create an atmosphere where children and families are not being promoted.
So somebody should juxtapose that DIRECT QUOTE with this and let him twist in the wind for a bit.

Apparently, it's just that the law-changin' is time-consuming and takes away from watching bestiality porn or something.

It's a rhetorical trap a sixth-grader could have avoided. Does anybody really want a fucking moron (not to mention a closet dog-fucker) and his gold-digging hypocritical wife as President and First Alternative Cum-dumpster?
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 17, 2012 at 4:06 PM · Report this
32
@3 Your post reminds me of an old text-based computer game in which the player had to enter his own brain and kill its logic center so that he or she could hold the items *tea and *no tea in the inventory at the same time.
Posted by DRF on January 17, 2012 at 4:28 PM · Report this
long-time reader 33
@24: That was the best thought experiment I've seen in ages. A+.
Posted by long-time reader on January 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM · Report this
34
@24, is this the Lyndon Johnson question? You can't convince me that LBJ held no racial prejudice against black people. But dammit, he got the Civil Rights Act passed.

@27, I've known some Christian folks who really do live the 'we're all sinners' line.
Posted by clashfan on January 17, 2012 at 7:47 PM · Report this
35
"People come up to us and they'll say something and then we'll ask them to give an example and they can't even provide one example as to why they took the position they took."

Really, Mrs. Santorum? Can you provide us with an example? Even just one example of something that someone has said to you and when you asked them to give you an example of what your husband did or said that made them take that position they couldn't come up with a single one?
Posted by ignatz ratzkywatzky on January 17, 2012 at 9:36 PM · Report this
36
@14, 24 are up to something. The word 'hate' seems to imply a lot of internal feelings that Mr Santorum may truly believe he doesn't have. Maybe he thinks that, when Dan says he (= Santorum) hates gays, he (= Dan) means he (= Santorum) spends time throwing darts at photos of famous gay people, or that he (= Santorum) spends time angrily imagining how he (= Santorum) will kill every gay person in the world, etc. etc. etc.

As @14 above said, not even most slave owners sincerely thought they hated their slaves. Some (like Gen. Lee) actually even provided them with services.

But as others have said, it's the policy that matters. It doesn't matter whether or not Mr Santorum seeds red and and starts frothing at his mouth at the thought of gay people, or whether he truly thinks gay people are humans who deserve love like everybody else. He is furthering policy that makes life more difficult for gay people.

Just as people who fought against interracial marriage don't necessarily "hate negroes" (in the dart-throwing, froth-at-the-mouth kind of way), but still did something that hurt African Americans.

It doesn't matter if you cast stones with love or hate in your heart. The stones still hurt and make real people bleed.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 18, 2012 at 1:40 AM · Report this
37
What utter fucking bullshit!
Santorum is talking about how it's "rough out there"? Since Santorum is a straight white adult man in America, how can he possibly talk about being discriminated against? Throughout history, no person in his situation has ever felt what it's like to experience discrimination based on something that is not within human control.
Wake up call: I am a gay Asian teenage girl. I have everyone who could possibly be against me, against me. Oh, did I mention that I'm athiest as well? And that I'm also gender-queer? Hell, I'm probably Santorum's worst nightmare just by existing!

Mr. Dan Savage, you are the best! Don't let the haters get you riled up too much!
Posted by TheLuciferPerson on January 18, 2012 at 2:41 AM · Report this
38
Of course, as a PA resident, I have been *charmed* with the clusterf*ck of idiocy coming from Santorum's mouth and written in his "book" for many, many years now. But at this point, I am bothered by any conservative who loves a LGBT person choosing Santorum as their candidate for presidency. If you aren't specifically buying into his "conservative" brand of trying to make US into a church state, then why are you supporting him at all. His hypocrisy should be evident to any true conservative that has looked at his reasoning. He believes that states should have the right to make their own laws, then uses bigotry and an amendment to the US Constitution to try to circumvent states that have passed laws to allow gays to marry. Huh? THE ONLY REASON that Santorum should be anybody's choice is BIGOTRY - either against gays, or against Muslims. He speaks eloquently to anybody that carries hatred in their hearts. His grasp of actual policy issues not based on hatred or creating divisions between people is not as good as the other conservative candidates. If you choose Santorum, it is because his bigotry speaks to you - no other way to justify it. Santorum - the candidate of the hateful.
Posted by Prossible on January 18, 2012 at 6:37 AM · Report this
geoz 39
spin doesn't equal love.
Posted by geoz on January 18, 2012 at 7:30 AM · Report this
John Horstman 40
Have we Godwined yet? (TL;DR)

Nazi's didn't hate Jews, they just had a policy difference over whether the state should be rounding up people and throwing them in death camps!

@24: Snap! Well played. We're electing someone because of the FUCKING POLICY INITIATIVES we hope one will pursue/enact, not because of what goes on between one's ears.
Posted by John Horstman on January 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM · Report this
41
What he has simply said...?

As in, "All he said is...." ? What a liar.
Posted by ChrisGrrr on January 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM · Report this
Helenka (also a Canuck) 42
Thanks to (so not) Rubbish Transcriber, I can throw this dangerous man's words back at him:
which is to know and be loved by their mom and dad. And if we don't hold that up as something that society is for, and encourage it, and promote it, then we will get less of it, and then we will be in a sense denying children what is best for them.
Um ... doesn't it sound as if he'd just swallowed a gallon of the Pope's latest Koolaid about teh gheys being the ultimate threat to humanity's existence?

Because that does NOT make any sense. Well, yes, I know it doesn't, but.... ::shakes head because I'm running out of words when it comes to talking about him:: He makes marriage and children sound as exciting as drinking Milk of Magnesia (because it's necessary and good for you ... er ... society). What a positive affirmation. NOT!
Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on January 19, 2012 at 9:50 AM · Report this
43
Wow, did Frothy just suggest that amorous gay relationships (along with friendships, familial relationships, and "other" kinds of relationships) should be "affirmed"? I'm shocked by his use of that word because denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is the opposite of affirmation.

The personal is the political. Frothy can't have it both ways. He can't claim to "love" homosexual people and then make discrimination against them part of his political platform. That would be doublethink.
Posted by brendan on January 20, 2012 at 12:44 AM · Report this
44
@34 clashfan,

I am not an expert on LBJ, but what I have read suggests a VERY complex individual, Texan homilies notwithstanding. I would suggest that he didn't hate Blacks so much as felt superior to them. His understanding of poverty was through first hand observation, unlike the Kennedys. Having the power to change the plight of "colored folks" and the poor must have been... orgasmic (?) ; succeeding in altering the lives of millions, that is true power. Failing at crushing a rinky dink Asian shithole must have been hell.

Ultimately who cares why, as long as he did succeed?

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 20, 2012 at 7:54 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement

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