Chris Matthews | Glenn Beck | News | Republican Party | Rick Santorum

Watch: Rick Santorum Defends 2003 'Man on Dog' Remarks About Same-Sex Marriage


This evening on Hardball, Chris Matthews noted that presidential hopeful Rick "frothy mix" Santorum appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show today and defended his 2003 statement comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

Said Santorum to Beck: "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 can't buy it."


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. No surprise Rick won South Carolina red-neck straw poll on the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War.

    Posted by: Philo | Apr 14, 2011 6:41:33 PM

  2. To be fair, he has a point. It's just that there is nothing wrong with any relationship between consenting, non-related adults. The government should stay out of defining relationships.

    The problem with recognizing polyamorous relationships is a legal one. All laws are already written with two people in mind. But it's impossible to account for all possible constellations with more than two are involved. Polygamy only works in a legal sense, but it's inherently patriarchal and unequal.

    Posted by: Steve | Apr 14, 2011 6:44:51 PM

  3. Well, you know how straight people are. The men are all rapists, and how many times have we seen the straight women on girls gone wild, or in a wet T-shirt contest at spring break?

    This clown is just another one of those wife swappers.

    Posted by: Steve Pardue | Apr 14, 2011 6:54:29 PM

  4. Santorum isn't a safe for work word to be using in the headline of a post. Geez.

    Posted by: Randy | Apr 14, 2011 7:13:46 PM

  5. everything that comes out of his mouth is a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter.

    Posted by: Trey | Apr 14, 2011 7:15:36 PM

  6. He and Kobe Bryant need to learn to shut up and stop creating defenses when there are none.

    Who exactly is pursuing constitutional rights for polyamorous relationships? Oh, that's right. No one.

    Posted by: Paul R | Apr 14, 2011 7:22:18 PM

  7. By linking his comments to Lawrence v. Texas Santorum is arguing that decriminalizing homosexuality is the beginning of the end for marriage. Therefore, in Santorum's view, gay and lesbian people should be locked up in jail for existing in order to protect his sex life. Pathetic with a capital "Pa."

    Posted by: CPT_Doom | Apr 14, 2011 8:26:23 PM

  8. You'd think he'd rather forget that whole episode.

    Posted by: Tone | Apr 14, 2011 8:51:52 PM

  9. polyamorous relationships?!?! Like they the Bible? How many wives did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have anyway?

    And as far as "dog and man" being a "correct" legal argument, the term he's ignoring is 'consent.' You could argue bigamy on consent grounds, but animals can't give legal consent.

    He knows that as well as we do--he's pandering.

    Posted by: dizzy spins | Apr 14, 2011 9:01:21 PM

  10. Just because "slippery slope" canon of argument could "correctly" defend ANYTHING from slavery to rape does NOT make it "correct" in ANY honest sense.

    In context here, his polygamy thing is stupid, too: No one is asking for plural marriage except the Mormons (who fund Prop 8 and NOM) and plural marriage is unconstitutional because it oppresses women and undermines the state.

    Response, santorum guy?

    Posted by: just_a_guy | Apr 14, 2011 9:57:10 PM

  11. What are some of the current notions of masculinity in the eyes of the heterosexual today? I was asking the African Studies guys the same thing, so I thought I'd ask here in the douchey cracker thread. Nothing any of them says about themselves seems to encompass any functional world view these days, and I'm starting to worry. I ask because I figure if I know "What is masculinity, in effect, what is a man?" then I can get on to understanding what his (my) rights are and getting some of those rights for myself. I know, that's so gay, right? Anywho, thanks in advance.

    Posted by: SeriouslySick | Apr 14, 2011 10:23:55 PM

  12. The simple legal argument is this: civil marriage exists because providing protections for couples helps society by increasing stability. Polyamorous relationships, though moral if all parties are treated equally, are not as stable as couples, so don't benefit society in the same ways.

    Posted by: David R. | Apr 14, 2011 11:35:48 PM

  13. Alan Simpson is the only real Republican stepping up .. the rest seem to be homophobic cowards and liars

    Posted by: deanybeany | Apr 14, 2011 11:58:38 PM

  14. Great. Not only do we have Rick trolling for clients for his new legal firm Taitz, Santorum, & Rove; but now we've got trolls calling out 'cracker' and 'that's so gay'.


    Posted by: Go Galt. Please. | Apr 15, 2011 7:39:34 AM

  15. This will sound draconian from a female, but I used to be against polygamy because I felt it oppressed females, but...the gay marriage debate changed my mind in a positive way.

    If marriage is for the purpose of legal and financial security then why not allow these 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wives have that, too? They are putting out, they're having kids--shouldn't they deserve legal security? Shouldn't their children?

    If marriage is only a romantic state then why have the government involved at all? Just solve the issue by removing tax benefits for married couples. Then everything is equal.

    If they change marriage laws, I'm starting to think remove the word "marriage" make everyone get a civil union and make it just "between consenting adults".

    Posted by: Rin | Apr 15, 2011 7:42:11 AM

  16. Well, there goes the Mormon vote. He's done it now. Guess he won't be running on Mitt Romney's ticket as Veep.

    Posted by: Things are different in Utah | Apr 15, 2011 8:52:20 AM

  17. Look, when you use rhetorical parallels to equate man-on-man love with man-on-dog, then your equation looks like this:
    man and man = man and dog. You're essentially calling a gay man a dog, and animal, a beast. The term "Naziism" gets used all too often these days, but de-humanizing people by making them out to be less than human is exactly what the Nazis did, and exactly what they used to exterminate people. And this is EXACTLY what Santorum is doing --at least the de-humanization part. This is just outrageous. In an earlier Post, "STEVE" says, "to be fair, he has a point". No he doesn't have a point at all. And Santorum's "explanation" that it's a "legal argument" is just a meaningless phrase intended to obfuscate and back-pedal from the plain meaning of what he said. This man is toxic in the extreme.

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Apr 15, 2011 9:00:37 AM

  18. David R.: Really? Let's see your research on that. I would have thought just the opposite.

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Apr 15, 2011 9:07:26 AM

  19. STEVE, (by dear boy), do you REALLY believe that when he equated man-on-man with man-on-dog sex, that he was making a "legal argument"?!? You REALLY believe that?? Wow.

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Apr 15, 2011 9:10:05 AM

  20. Listening to Santorum's logic is a slippery slope coated in a frothy mix of lube and excrement.

    Posted by: wimsy | Apr 15, 2011 11:09:31 AM

  21. @GO GALT. PLEASE--Sweet handle, the perfect jab at the true libtards, libertarians. Anyway, untroll yourself, it's liberating!

    Posted by: SeriouslySick | Apr 15, 2011 1:45:03 PM

  22. Santorum's absolute obsession about gay sex is unnatural, especially for a supposedly straight, christian family man.

    Posted by: Rich | Dec 27, 2011 2:57:29 AM

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #871« «