2012 Election | Gay Marriage | News | Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum Booed Again for Statements on Same-Sex Marriage: VIDEO

Risantorum

For the second time in two days, Rick Santorum has been publicly booed in New Hampshire after defending his bigoted views about marriage.

Said Santorum: "It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges. It’s discrimination to deny rights...Everyone has a right to live their life, that doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits that society obtains from those relationships.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. That is exactly what discrimination is, you c*nt. Iowa was a fluke and this morons about to go down.

    Posted by: Jerry | Jan 6, 2012 12:33:19 PM


  2. I said Boo-urns!

    Posted by: Michael in Toronto | Jan 6, 2012 12:35:34 PM


  3. This guy is amazing! Why don't we all just become good hypocritical Catholics like him. Stop telling me what marriage is you idiot!

    Posted by: Frank | Jan 6, 2012 12:36:44 PM


  4. Clearly, this is going to get good. Keep it up, Rick. Just keep talking.

    Posted by: Michael in Toronto | Jan 6, 2012 12:36:44 PM


  5. Oh come on; like 2 people booed... not news!! But anywho, Frothy wants to justify this as a privilege, eh? What a cute little veil.

    Posted by: Stephen | Jan 6, 2012 12:37:03 PM


  6. Love it. I love you, responsible people of New Hampshire. Boo him right the f*ck out of the state.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Jan 6, 2012 12:46:15 PM


  7. Little Kiwi hurry up over here and say things. After you flattened Mary yesterday I went to bed laughing. When you blow your top it's like watching Kiluaha.

    Posted by: uffda | Jan 6, 2012 12:51:36 PM


  8. Mary thinks that allowing gay couples to marry "makes a new law"

    Mary doesn't consider it an extension of a previously-existing law.

    Her comparison is to say "what if we allow ten year olds to vote because voting already exists?"

    Mary ignores that extending voting rights to women was also an extension of a previously-existing law.

    Mary, thus, is exactly what all anti-Equality people are: fools who pick up soundbites that resonate in the echo-chambers that are their intellectually-feeble plebeian minds. they have baseless and indefensible excuses for everything, and intelligent and justifiable reasons for NOTHING.

    werk!

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 6, 2012 1:01:00 PM


  9. Why isn't Romney, who has essentially the same position on same-sex marriage, getting booed? And why isn't he being demonized by this blog as much as Santorum? Yes, I will grant Santorum seems more emotionally committed to the issue, but both Santorum and Romney have the same destructive positions.

    As a reminder, Romney and Santorum signed the SAME NOM PLEDGE.

    Posted by: Matt | Jan 6, 2012 1:02:29 PM


  10. "It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges. It’s discrimination to deny rights..."

    WTF????

    I guess it gets down to this:

    Is marriage a right or is it a privilege?

    And even THAT is splitting hairs.

    Posted by: johnny | Jan 6, 2012 1:08:01 PM


  11. Romney, who is worth around 200 million dollars, also opposes the "death tax" because he realizes that 110 million dollars just isn't enough to be divided as inheritance amongst his brood of mormon offspring, none of whom are gay. ;-)

    right.

    90 million dollars of his going to taxes? that's not fair! that would mean his kids only get TENS of millions when he dies!

    *eye roll*

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 6, 2012 1:09:36 PM


  12. @Matt, I'm booing Mitten's just as much as I'm booing Rickey, and I'm all the way over in Spain.

    Posted by: oliver | Jan 6, 2012 1:12:04 PM


  13. Just wait until Lil Ricky learns about Lady Gaga's intentions to "Marry The Night," his head will explode! Who could have predicted someone wanting to marry an intangible? What a slippery slope.

    Posted by: B | Jan 6, 2012 1:36:07 PM


  14. @ KIWI...not to exhault you too much...but how do you get it right all the time? I have yet to see a post of yours that I don't fully agree with and wish I had said myself.
    Question...what are we going to do about santorum? I have lots of ideas but don't want to end up serving time. Any suggestions that are legal...but barely...would work for me.

    Posted by: Paul B. | Jan 6, 2012 1:38:33 PM


  15. Just exactly how do the benefits that accrue to married couples (stability, increased intimacy, greater satisfaction, better health), which in turn benefit society (happy citizens making for a happier, more productive society; happier children) NOT apply to same-sex couples? Conversely, how does denying "privilege" benefit society?

    F**K YOU, Frothy.

    Excuse me whilst I go burn my sweater vests.

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 6, 2012 1:52:32 PM


  16. He's the Eddie Haskell of politics.

    Posted by: birds of a feather? | Jan 6, 2012 2:11:39 PM


  17. OK great, thanks Kiwi. My day is perking along now and I shall follow your storm clouds over Mittens.

    Posted by: uffda | Jan 6, 2012 2:22:20 PM


  18. Hey Paul B. - Why do you think anything should be done about Mr. "Surged from [a] Behind"???

    We are all caught up in the moment watching the never ending news cycle play this out with pundits left and right making predictions, etc.

    Seriously, do you really think any of these folks have a heartbeat's chance in hell? McCain WAS scary in 2008...until he went CRAZY...and brought the chief loon down from Alaska. And that is when the Grand Ol' Party became the Goofy Ol' Party. And since they have been vying for top Goof for the past 8 months, they have had to out crazy each other all along the way. Since the Dems are not involved in their infighting, it's just a giant echo chamber right now.

    Wait until they find their Chief Loon for 2012...and then go up against reason. Perhaps then will be a good time to develop some strategy...but until then, sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch the show. It's entertaining as hell....

    Oh, and in between mouthfuls of popcorn, spend some time working for projects that help to counteract the stigmatization that this political race is causing for our younger (and even older) brothers and sisters. We can't shut up their hateful rhetoric, but we can drown it out!

    Posted by: Jay | Jan 6, 2012 2:25:16 PM


  19. Only two booed... was it andy and anthony? lol

    Not news worthy.

    Posted by: Jose S | Jan 6, 2012 2:26:19 PM


  20. @Jay...I know you're right...and popcorn is really what I should be thinking of when watching these fools but sometimes my skin gets crawly and I can't scratch. Those moments make me nutty and I look for something to do about it.
    You're suggestion is well taken. I know in my heart that they can't go anywhere with this "hate agenda" but it's hard to watch.
    I'll get my knitting out...in this mood I should have a whole sweater done by tonight.

    Posted by: Paul B. | Jan 6, 2012 2:47:44 PM


  21. What's with the vests he keeps wearing? AND have you noticed, that every time the GAY subject comes up, his eyes blink a lot. I wonder why?

    Posted by: FunMe | Jan 6, 2012 3:21:06 PM


  22. What about that medical procedure his wife had - which DID save her life, but also terminated her pregnancy? I'm so tired of this hypocritical pandering. This ass hat is dangerous to all people, because once he takes our rights away, he will go after yours... Are you prepared for that?

    Posted by: Pdxblueys | Jan 6, 2012 3:55:31 PM


  23. Kiwi, it may be a question of the wording. How about this: "marriage equality" is changing the law in order to extend marital rights to couples who didn't previously have them. But however you word it we have something now in 6 U.S. states that we didn't have as recently as early 2003 -legal marriage between people of the same gender.

    And what is your point about people who opposed giving women voting rights? Am I supposed to be responsible for what people in the 1920's thought? I wasn't even alive then. Obviously, SOME social experiments DO work out.....but some don't. Womenn voting worked out well, no-fault divorce didn't. The sexual revolution itself was a mixed bag, depending on how you define a good life. In other words, social change may end up being progress....or it may be a long trip to hell and back which ends up being paid for not by those who advocated it, but those who came after them.

    I don't see why you think you scored some point here.

    Posted by: Mary | Jan 6, 2012 4:05:19 PM


  24. I'm still waiting for those who keep crying "social experiment" to provide any evidence what-so-ever that gays being allowed to marry could have any effect on straight marriages, period. Gays will still be gay if they are allowed to marry or not, as straights will still be straight. No one magically changes sexual orientation for any reason, and no straight person is going to decide they'd rather become gay just because.

    Also, I have yet to hear a single straight person claim they don't want to get married because the gay couple they don't know on the other side of town did. Hell, most people don't decide to get married or not based on what someone else did. And if a married couple actual decided to divorce because gays could marry (and I have never seen evidence this has happened)then that says more about how little they genuinely wanted to married in the first place.

    Seriously, instead of just screaming "you could destroy civilization!!" why not provide a detailed theory on what could happen, and why it would. And try to make the points rational. People don't just look at their neighbors and say, "oh well, it was a good run, but I guess we have to divorce." Insulting people's intelligence with shear stupidity is never a good way to win an argument.

    Posted by: LiamB | Jan 6, 2012 4:33:59 PM


  25. "Why isn't Romney, who has essentially the same position on same-sex marriage, getting booed?"

    Romney's position on marriage equality should also be booed (and, since he will be the nominee unless something drastic happens, his position is the more important), but Santorum has made bashing gay families the centerpiece of his campaign, and, when he's been asked questions about marriage equality, his arguments are so weak and irrational, that it would be nearly impossible for sane people not to boo him. Furthermore, Santorum has taken it one step further. Not only would he prevent marriage equality in the future, he would seek to barge into states that have passed marriage equality and invalidate the legal marriages of same-sex couples. That's extreme (not to mention, unconstitutional) stuff and should be called out as such. (If he tried it in my state, he might get tarred and feathered.)

    Mary, you need to come up with a better argument. Opposing equality because of paranoia over some social change doesn't cut it. Civil rights progress comes with social change. That is the point. And there is zero evidence that including same-sex couples in civil marriage would bring about any change whatsoever, aside from positive change to those families who are now better protected and to young gay people who will understand that they need not be discriminated against solely because of their sexuality. Support for equality has only increased as more places enact it (however much the anti-gay dinosaurs pretend otherwise); the odds that that protecting gay couples and families will have disastrous or even negative consequences are preposterously slim. Anyone making such a claim needs to elaborate--how would this possibly adversely affect you? (Good luck with that!) If you want to be anti-gay on a gay site, you need to up your game, or else you seem as out of your league as Frothy.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 6, 2012 5:18:17 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «'How to Survive a Plague' Chronicles Battle to Find Life-Saving Drugs During AIDS Crisis: VIDEO« «