Politics

Rick Santorum, just stop.

August 22, 2011

I’ve been trying to stay out of the Republican nomination race, but I just have to say something.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNxpS1GHsA8]

Transcript:

Anchor: Uh, I-I know you personally, a little bit, and my impression of you I’ll share with the viewers is you are an incredibly nice guy; you’re very compassionate, you’re very caring, you look out for other people. When I talk to some of my friends who are gay and lesbian, they don’t understand that characterization of you, because they think that you have it in for gays and lesbians, because you’re pro- you’re anti-gay marriage, and you’ve called it wrong and you’ve called it destructive of the family, and I want to give you the chance now to explain why they should not feel that way about you.

Santorum: Well I appreciate the opportunity, Megan, and the bottom line is we can have a public policy difference about what, uh, what the proper, uh, marriage law should be in this country and what’s in the best interest of society, and not hate somebody or-or feel ill will for them, as I’ve said many times I have friends who are gay, uh, I, uh, I accept them for who they are, but I disagree with them vehemently about what is in the best interest for society and what we’re going to teach our children in schools, what the impact of those marriage laws will be on our faith communities and their ability to be able to proclaim the truth as God has laid it out in the Bible- all of those things are ramification of a public policy debate where, again, I’m going to stand and be very vocal about, but that doesn’t mean that I dislike or hate anybdoy because of their orientation. I respect that decision, but I also, you have to respect me for feeling very differently about trying to take that orientation and then try to project an agenda on the American public that is consistent with that. That is where I’ll have a disagreement, but it’s not personal, it’s about policy.

Rick Santorum or anybody who has used this defense, I’m going to say this about as clearly as I can- I believe that you can tell yourself that you don’t dislike or hate LGBTQ people. But- putting policy into place that denies them a basic human right as well as equality under law means that you more than hate or dislike somebody- you are condescending, arrogant, and bigoted.

That is all.

(Except to say- can we please play “Conservative anti-LBGTQ buzz word bingo with this or what? It’s about the children and what they’ll be taught in school! It’s about an agenda! It’s about being anti-God! Yeah, okay. Because it couldn’t possibly be about people wanting to be accepting and celebratory about themselves, their lives, raise children, etc.)

You Might Also Like

2 Comments

  • Reply Abbey Moothart August 22, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    sorry, just couldn’t leave this one alone. :p The reason behind Christians wanting to prevent gays/lesbians from getting married is not because they are trying to prevent them from having relationships, or even to prevent them from receiving the same benefits that those who are married receive. It’s more about the word, the name, than anything else. The word marriage originated in the Bible, so we want to keep that word with the definition as we agree with it. If you ask the majority of Christians, they would have no problem with gays/lesbians having civil ceremonies, or really anything else you want to call it. Why are the gays/lesbians fighting so hard for the right to call their commitments marriage? Granted, I know more than just Christians get to call their commitments to each other marriage, but the others who do so also follow the guidelines that Christians have established. I know why it’s so important to us, but if everything was the same (same benefits, same expectations of society, you name it, they are identical in all but name) then why does it matter?

    • Reply Elizabeth Anne August 22, 2011 at 9:55 pm

      Abbey! Thank you for writing this comment. I’ve actually done quite a bit of research on the topic of marriage, and if it’s okay, I’d like to leave a few links here. All can be seen in the Wikipedia article about marriage here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

      1. “Marriage” as a social construct of couplings originated far before the Hebrew Bible, which predates Christianity itself. Hinduism, which is far older than organized Israel, had marital constructs in its texts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Hinduism

      2. Marriage as defined in the Bible was far more about property and progeny. If our definitions of marriage were coming from the Bible, then polygamy would be more than legal, it would be highly acceptable.

      3. Various types of same-sex marriages have existed throughout this history of the idea of marriage. http://books.google.com/books?id=hR0_CoNj6GAC&pg=RA1-PA16&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

      4. The definition of “marriage” is constantly changing, even in the United States, where less than 100 years ago interracial couples (even heterosexual ones) could not get married. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

      5. I’m sorry if my point got muddled- I wasn’t arguing against Christianity here, I was arguing against the idea that this kind of situation- where same-sex couples can have their own kind of marriage but not “marriage”- is okay. Think about it in the opposite way- what if Christians were not allowed to be married, but were allowed to have civil unions instead? What if marriage was for atheists/agnostics/freethinkers/secularists/etc. only, but Christians were allowed to have a separate legislation? That would never be okay. Any kind of “separate but equal” situation is always separate but never equal.

    Leave a Reply