From Raw Story:
On May 24, Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania appeared on the nationally syndicated radio show, “Janet Parshall’s America,” to discuss the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a bill that would amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
During the broadcast, Santorum called same-sex marriage “harmful to our country,” mocked the term “alternative lifestyles” and described the FMA as a means “to counter what Hollywood is purveying to our young people.”
He pointed to the film Brokeback Mountain as an example of insidious homosexual influence in popular culture.
While Parshall and Santorum acknowledged the FMA’s bleak prospect of passing a full Senate vote, Parshall cast the bill as an attempt to “speak back to the culture.” Santorum agreed, declaring that the debate over the FMA would be “an opportunity for us to get beyond, you know, ‘We should treat people nicely.'”
There are people that shouldn’t be treated nicely. Nazis, for example, should be dealt with harshly. Pederasts don’t deserve to be treated nicely. But, gay people? They don’t deserve to be treated nicely? Really, Rick? How about homophobes?
Everyone should be treated nicely. Except Rick Santorum.
What we need in situations like Santorum-Casey is a “none of the above” option that would leave the seat vacant and require a special election for which the losing candidates in the regular election would be ineligible.
Wow. Could you imagine like $100M spent and nobody elected?
Personally, I’d love to see both Santorum and Casey with huge campaign debts and nothing to show for it.
Yes, I can imagine that.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that if there was such a category, there would be NOBODY elected.
I know that “none of the above” would be my first choice.
I have an alternative idea for this particular race. Send Santorum to the defeat he so richly deserves, then lobby President Gorefeingoldwhoever to reward the junior senator from Pennsylvania by making him ambassador to Chad, where he’ll never be seen or heard from again. By that time Slick Rick will be in Club Fed and ineligible to run, and our Pennsylvania Progressives should be able to get Pennachio into office toot sweet.
Brilliant, no? 🙂
“an opportunity for us to get beyond, you know, ‘We should treat people nicely.'”
How can he and his friends get beyond that when they haven’t yet come that far?
I can see what you mean Booman. I’m big on free speech and not censoring people, but the way hate-speech like this can be casually placed in our media is ridiculous. Sure, this guy has a right to his opinion, but I don’t understand how it can be accepted as just another view or as the conservative angle.
The way the media curtails to perpetuating the concept that the middle ground or truth lies half-way between the bipolar partisan nature of its broadcasts is absurd. Simply abusrd.
Link
What vast and astounding knowledge he has.
The man-on-dog-obsessed bastard.
How dare he think himself important enough to act so superior! Who the fuck is he? A fucking nobody. I don’t give a damn that he’s a senator. And??? His shit still stinks. In fact, especially so.
Punk bastard.
Santorum(and others) are taking THEIR religious beliefs and trying to impose them on a Constitution set up to be non-religious and eschewing religious ideology for very good and just reasons.
Religious marriages a completely different lifestyle that many choose to go through which is not in any way recognized by our government. There is nothing wrong with religious ceremonies but they are not legal and binding as far as any laws are concerned.
No one has put forth the idea that people ‘have’ to be married in a religious ceremony of any kind for it to be legal. Marriage in any religion is strictly symobolic to that religion and belief in that religion.
This whole religious deal is a complete red herring for homophobic beliefs by assholes who want to make the government sanction their particular religious ideology…completely contrary to separation of church and state. And to the equality of all people living in this country.
Santorum is being completely dishonest in his statement of history of marriage. His idea and other religious nut jobs have taken the idea of marriage and implied that religious ceremonies with men/women being equal partners have been around since the beginning of marriage. Nothing is farther from the truth and marriage as we know it with men/women being supposed equal partners(and marrying for love and not arranged or expedient marriages) has only been around for a scant number of years-like 20/30 years…I think?
As for the idea that a certain group of Americans are less entitled to the joys/benefits (if they choose to marry as it should be a matter of having a choice)of marriage because they are deemed to be ‘different’ for various religious reasons is abhorrent. Simply because someone is not heterosexual does not make them any less normal than someone who is not gay.