An upcoming article from the Associated Press will feature a host of religious right leaders whining their familiar refrain that they are in fact the victims of so-called lgbt aggression.
It's a nonsensical view. And the lgbt community can easily prove this by pointing to the comments of one of the religious right's favorite "joyboys" - presidential candidate and former Senator, Rick Santorum.
Yesterday, Santorum said that if elected, he would support a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage:
That "people can live the life they want to live but they have no right to mess with marriage" junk is the same stuff organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research peddles.
And it's a lie that reduces lgbt lives to that of sexual activity. Furthermore, these groups do not feel that lgbts can live the life we want to live, seeing how they interfere with our right to be free from discrimination and to raise children.
Funny I should mention that last part. Santorum has opinions about lgbts raising children:
Long story short - Santorum said that it is "common sense" that we should not "defy nature" just because "a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society."
It gets more interesting. In an interview earlier this year with Glenn Beck, Santorum responded to charges from former Congressman Alan Simpson that he makes cruel comments about lgbts by reiterating that "gay sex" should be outlawed:
No matter how he tries to justify it, if Santorum had his way, lgbts would be unable to marry, adopt children, or be free from criminal prosecution under trumped up "morals" charges.
The sad reality is that if Santorum had said these things about any other group - i.e. Latinos, those of the Jewish faith, African-Americans - he would be rode out on a rail.
BUT since his comments were directed to lgbts, the usual appropriate levels of shock and derision that come when folks make prejudiced and insensitive comments don't apply here.
Why is that? Or better yet, that fact that it is this way is a sad indictment on this country.
No person who has been as vindictive as Santorum has to lgbts deserves to be treated as a serious presidential contender.
And no one who supports his mess should be considered as victims when the subjects of their ire responds to being disrespected (albeit in reasonable manners).
It's a nonsensical view. And the lgbt community can easily prove this by pointing to the comments of one of the religious right's favorite "joyboys" - presidential candidate and former Senator, Rick Santorum.
Yesterday, Santorum said that if elected, he would support a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage:
Santorum - Once people realize the consequence to society of changing this definition, it’s not that we’re against anybody. People can live the life they want to live. They can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home with respect to that activity. Now you’re talking about changing the laws of the country. and it could have a profound impact on society, on faith, on education. Once people realize that, they say, you know what, we respect people’s life to live the life they want to lead but don’t change how with that definition.
That "people can live the life they want to live but they have no right to mess with marriage" junk is the same stuff organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research peddles.
And it's a lie that reduces lgbt lives to that of sexual activity. Furthermore, these groups do not feel that lgbts can live the life we want to live, seeing how they interfere with our right to be free from discrimination and to raise children.
Funny I should mention that last part. Santorum has opinions about lgbts raising children:
Long story short - Santorum said that it is "common sense" that we should not "defy nature" just because "a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society."
It gets more interesting. In an interview earlier this year with Glenn Beck, Santorum responded to charges from former Congressman Alan Simpson that he makes cruel comments about lgbts by reiterating that "gay sex" should be outlawed:
Santorum - There were no “cruel, cruel” remarks. All I can ponder is that Alan Simpson is talking about a comment that I made, which I paraphrased, almost word for word, but paraphrased a Supreme Court justice in a case called Lawrence v. Texas, before that case came out, which had to do with, as you know, a Supreme Court case on the issue of sodomy, and I said that if you have -- if the Supreme Court changes the legal standard to say that sexual -- consensual sexual activity is now a constitutional right, then we open up the gates for all sorts of consensual activity.
. . . It’s not homophobic. It’s a legal argument, and it’s a correct legal argument. In fact, that’s exactly what’s happening. We went from Lawrence v. Texas to now a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and they’re going into a constitutional right to polyamorous relationships. This is the slippery slope that we’re heading down, and I stand by it.
No matter how he tries to justify it, if Santorum had his way, lgbts would be unable to marry, adopt children, or be free from criminal prosecution under trumped up "morals" charges.
The sad reality is that if Santorum had said these things about any other group - i.e. Latinos, those of the Jewish faith, African-Americans - he would be rode out on a rail.
BUT since his comments were directed to lgbts, the usual appropriate levels of shock and derision that come when folks make prejudiced and insensitive comments don't apply here.
Why is that? Or better yet, that fact that it is this way is a sad indictment on this country.
No person who has been as vindictive as Santorum has to lgbts deserves to be treated as a serious presidential contender.
And no one who supports his mess should be considered as victims when the subjects of their ire responds to being disrespected (albeit in reasonable manners).
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santorum
ReplyDelete"The sad reality is that if Santorum had said these things about any other group - i.e. Latinos, those of the Jewish faith, African-Americans - he would be rode out on a rail."
ReplyDeleteI agree that his homophobic comments are reprehensible. But that is no reason to play Oppression Olympics. Politicians continue to this day to use racial language to get votes. Ranting about "illegals", "real americans" or "birth certificates" for example.
Perhaps but you can't deny that anti-gay animus is easier to hide than anti-Semitism and racism.
ReplyDelete