DOMA | Gay Marriage | Jon Stewart | News | Rick Santorum

Watch: Jon Stewart Takes On Rick Santorum's Confusing Anti-Gay Politics


Jon Stewart spent some time on last night's 'Daily Show' discussing Rick Santorum's tenacious, ridiculous arguments against gay marriage, like the presidential candidate's odd comment, “[Changing the definition of marriage] like saying this glass of water is a glass of beer," as well as Santorum's use of that "napkin versus paper towel" analogy.

The comedian also brilliantly notes how President Obama claims he won't defend DOMA, yet his administration is happy to back DOMA's lesser-known qualities, like the fact that binational married gay couples can be separated via deportation.

Watch Stewart's send-up, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. This is utterly superficial, but I never noticed that Santorum has such a gut. I always thought he was rather thin.

    Posted by: Paul R | Aug 18, 2011 10:58:12 AM

  2. Good grief..there's a Rick Santorum campaign ad on this site? That's money well spent...

    Posted by: Jason | Aug 18, 2011 12:28:43 PM

  3. Andy,

    I know you dont control this but there is a Rick Santorum Ad on your site. Surely this is some kind of mistake, no?

    Posted by: Kenneth | Aug 18, 2011 12:48:51 PM

  4. Please take that ad down (not like anybody who visits this site would contribute anyway, but still...!).

    Posted by: Jack M | Aug 18, 2011 12:53:16 PM

  5. I don't know how internet ads work, but if the fact that Santorum's ad is appearing here means that it's not showing up on some other site where people might actually take him seriously, then so much the better. I'm all for having him waste his campaign dollars targeting the wrong audience.

    Posted by: Matt in PDX | Aug 18, 2011 1:10:36 PM

  6. @jason and jack: Yesterday there was an ad on here to donate to Michele Bachmann's campaign. WTH?!

    Posted by: Michael R | Aug 18, 2011 1:15:01 PM

  7. I'm not sure if I've missed something here. My understanding is that we can't say necessarily that the feds are "happy" to enforce DOMA, but just that they have no choice but to enforce it because it is presently the law.
    Obama does not want to go to court to argue in favor of parts of it that are clearly unconstitutional. That doesn't mean that he has officially RULED it unconstitutional (only the Supreme Court can do that); he simply is not going to make an argument that he believes is incorrect.
    What right-wing commentators have been saying for months is that Obama is not enforcing the DOMA law. That looks like a lie to me. Not enforcing an unjust law is very different from just not going to court to defend it.

    This reminds me of a job I had in which I was required to maintain a rule that I felt was useless. I argued at a staff meeting that I would like to see the rule changed, but I was told by higher-ups that the rule stays.
    Since the rule had not been changed (yet) in spite of my own strongly-stated objections, I continued to do work according to the rules we had. It was pretty frustrating to have a member of the public say she planned to complain about ME because I would not ignore this stupid rule. She didn't seem to understand that it wasn't me who made, or even agreed with, that rule.

    Likewise, it isn't Obama's or the INS's job to rule on what is constitutional. All he or they can do is make the case against DOMA and, if it comes up for re-vote, try to persuade the present House and Congress to get rid of it and/or let the Supreme Court rule on whether it was ever Constitutionally permissible in the first place.

    Posted by: GregV | Aug 18, 2011 1:29:56 PM

  8. Stewart appeared to be bright enough to understand the difference between defending and enforcing DOMA. Guess he's not.

    And that clip from ABC News is ENTIRELY incorrect.

    Posted by: BobN | Aug 18, 2011 1:41:31 PM

  9. Just click on his campaign ad -- Andy gets money when people click on it, Rick will have to pay for it and it depletes his advertising budget. Oh well :)

    Posted by: Jon Scott | Aug 18, 2011 1:52:43 PM

  10. Gays are supposed to be the Paper Towels in this Bizarro-World analogy, right? It makes a certain amount of sense since many gays ARE the Quicker Picker-Uppers! ;-)

    Maybe if Santorum got someone to "squeeze his Charmin" every once in a while he wouldn't be so damn cranky all the time!

    Posted by: Codswallop | Aug 18, 2011 1:53:57 PM

  11. I think these ads are done through google and show up because this blog page is dedicated to Santorum and so "google thinks" we are interested in the candidate and therefore would want to donate.

    Posted by: ChrisMe | Aug 18, 2011 1:55:30 PM

  12. DOMA has already been ruled unconstitutional. Any court can rule on constitutionality, but most of the time their rulings have limited impact. In this case the DoJ is not appealing the ruling. Santorum's rhetoric is an emotional appeal to older religiously conservative voters that have been his base for years. MB tracks younger and has Tea Party support, so bye-bye Rick.

    Posted by: anon | Aug 18, 2011 2:00:09 PM

  13. I was motivated enough to comment on that damn Rick Santorum ad on this site. I was laughing out loud. Oh the irony!

    Posted by: Joe | Aug 18, 2011 2:07:16 PM

  14. Previously I used napkins to clean up santorum from my sheets, but now I use paper towels.

    Posted by: EO | Aug 18, 2011 2:29:14 PM

  15. I am an old fashioned Christian, wives are chattle.

    Posted by: Gus | Aug 18, 2011 2:38:43 PM

  16. @Codswallop: no joke, during one particular randy month I had back in university, my friends nicknamed me Bounty for a while! ;^P

    Posted by: Derek Pearce | Aug 18, 2011 4:02:17 PM

  17. I wish that when reporters and the public talk with these idiots, they'd ask, "I understand you're trying to protect marriage, so what have you done to fight alcoholism and domestic violence?"

    Posted by: David R. | Aug 18, 2011 4:15:24 PM

  18. If I hear one more "journalist" refer to heterosexual, non-polygynous marriage wherein the spouses may be of different races and the wife is not property owned by her husband as "traditional" marriage, I'm going to vomit.

    Posted by: JOE 2 | Aug 18, 2011 10:32:56 PM

  19. Stewart got me to literally laugh out time I swear 5 times. why don't more people watch him?!

    @BOBN: I don't think it's clear that Stewart was genuinely confused about enforce v. defend...he's a comedian and was just pointing out a valid angle of it, yeah?

    Posted by: just_a_guy | Aug 19, 2011 1:01:07 AM

  20. Stewart is brilliant- and very manly, I might add. I'd do him.

    Posted by: Rob | Aug 19, 2011 6:49:56 AM

  21. @Gergy:

    THANK YOU! It seems like there are a lot of people out there who are (rightfully) angry taking it out on the branch of government that can make no real permanent, official change in this area. I'm not an Obamapologist, but rather, I direct my anger where it is legally relevant, at Harry Reid, John Boehner, and the other spineless congresspeople who are too timid to be a part of real history. If Congress were, for some crazy reason, pass legislation tomorrow reversing DOMA, don't people think Obama would sign it? I sure do. But he can't sign something that hasn't been written. We're all just too used to a Bush/Cheney regime of Executive power-grabbing that we forget a president can only use his position as a bully pulpit when it comes to civil rights issues.

    Posted by: L'Herbs | Aug 20, 2011 7:48:44 PM

Post a comment


« «NOM Spent Over $700,000 In Anti-Gay Minnesota Fight« «