2012 Election | Gay Marriage | News | Rick Santorum

Santorum Tells Gay Man He Doesn't Deserve 'Privilege' of Marriage: VIDEO


At a campaign stop in Fulton, Missouri today, a gay man asked Rick Santorum, "Who are you to tell me that I don't have the same rights as anyone else in this country?"

Santorum told the man that he's entitled "like any other person to equal treatment under the law" but not "special treatment" and that marriage is "for the purposes of having children and continuing...civilization," Think Progress LGBT reports.

"It is an intrinsic good…And as a result of that, we extend a privilege. We extend certain privileges to people who do that because we want to encourage that behavior..."


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Since marriage is only in procreation then women that can't get pregnant should never be married? Impotent men? Older couples? How hilariously stupid. Thanks Rick!

    Posted by: JD | Feb 3, 2012 6:17:36 PM

  2. This just proves that Frothy is every bit as intelligent as we've always suspected him to be.

    Posted by: Daniel Berry, NYC | Feb 3, 2012 6:17:42 PM

  3. I was going to bring up JD's point. When ever someone brings up old people getting married I always rant about how it's an abomination before God.
    Why doesn't anyone ask Señor Frothy why he's against old people marriage?

    Posted by: NoSleep4Sam | Feb 3, 2012 6:24:33 PM

  4. What a despicable human being he is.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 3, 2012 6:26:52 PM

  5. Same old tired arguments from the same old bigots. In the Prop 8 trial, the defendants tried to cite this same reasoning. Judge Walker told them that he had the pleasure, just before the start of the trial, of officiating at the wedding of two people who were both in their 80s. He asked the defense if they should have been prohibited from getting married. That put a damper on the "procreation" claptrap during the trial.

    Posted by: RWG | Feb 3, 2012 6:34:06 PM

  6. They dismiss questions about the logical inconsistencies that JD brings up, but then they bristle at being labeled "bigots" or otherwise prejudiced. What exactly should we conclude? They want to deny us "special rights," but have no problem providing certain kinds of straight relationships those "special rights." What is the rationale for the double standard?

    Every time I bring this up, the silence is deafening, and telling.

    Posted by: Jason 2 | Feb 3, 2012 6:36:19 PM

  7. Rather than an elderly couple, the most effective example I've found with right-wingers is an injured soldier returning from Iraq/Afghanistan. If that 20-year-old veteran is unable to have children because of what a roadside bomb did to him, would they argue that he have to remain single for the rest of his life? Of course not.

    Posted by: Blake | Feb 3, 2012 6:41:15 PM

  8. FIscal conservatism without a side order of homophobia? Not at this restaurant....

    Posted by: Vint | Feb 3, 2012 6:41:55 PM

  9. It's OK Rick. I don't think you deserve the privilege of being President, either.

    Posted by: Craig | Feb 3, 2012 6:50:40 PM

  10. Frothy opens his mouth and gives witness to his incredible ignorance and hate-not the qualities that the magic man in his imaginary heaven favors.

    Posted by: nick | Feb 3, 2012 6:50:59 PM

  11. Why can't people like Santorum grasp the fact that there is a population explosion in this world?
    The healthiest societies of the world have the lowest birth rates and those which are constantly suffering are the one that produce the most babies.

    The best thing people could do to maintain any hope that the planet will be livable in 200 years would be for everyone to have two children or fewer until eventually the fish are replenished, the forests come back and there is enough space in the most habitable areas for everyone to live there.

    Besides that, what does this idea that people who don't make babies are less valuable say about the countless child-free people who have made valuable contributions to this world, including Jesus?

    It's an insult to the Savior of the religion he claims to follow to say that child-free individuals and couples are worth less to humanity.

    Posted by: Gregv | Feb 3, 2012 6:54:21 PM

  12. GREGV, Frothy Mix and his ilk don't care one bit about what this planet will look like in 200 years, because haven't you heard? Their magic sky fairy is going to send Jeebus down to rid the planet of all evildoers and turn it back into a paradise.

    Excuse me now while I go throw up.

    Posted by: Alexander | Feb 3, 2012 6:59:10 PM

  13. Life is uncertain, but one thing we can be sure of is that long before Rick Santorum becomes President of anything, this gentleman who asked the question, will be able to marry.

    Posted by: feo | Feb 3, 2012 7:16:03 PM

  14. Still frothy after all these years.

    Posted by: Hoss | Feb 3, 2012 7:17:27 PM

  15. At least he is still relatively young. He is going to live long enough to know he was on the wrong side of history. His picture will hang next to the picture of the nasty white man spitting on a young black girl from the fifties. He will know that history will remember him as a hateful, bigoted, religious zealot.

    Posted by: MikeBoston | Feb 3, 2012 7:27:00 PM

  16. He actually explains himself well. I don't agree - but he's not as crazy sounding as others.

    Posted by: Alan | Feb 3, 2012 7:27:34 PM

  17. The operative term is "sounding."

    He spouts bigotry in measured tones the better to give the impression that he's being "reasonable."

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 3, 2012 7:31:56 PM

  18. People like Frothy never seem to consider infertile couples and the elderly in their procreation arguments, but it always appears in comments afterwards... WHY does no one ever seem to confront these idiots about it when they have him face to face?

    Posted by: Bravo | Feb 3, 2012 7:34:51 PM

  19. Does he not understand that the Constitution protects "privileges"?

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Posted by: Tom | Feb 3, 2012 7:39:59 PM

  20. Oh for f-ing sake. Bigots forever grasping at straws.

    Posted by: Damien | Feb 3, 2012 7:55:34 PM

  21. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying." -David Boies

    Posted by: Cody | Feb 3, 2012 8:01:01 PM

  22. And yet... there are people who believe, fervently, that this man is exactly what the country needs. People who insist that the bible be taken literally, that the earth is flat and that early man kept dinosaurs as house pets. How can you maintain such stupefying ignorance at the beginning of the 21st Century? The only answer I can come up with is that it's willful. And make no mistake, they desperately want to make their beliefs mandatory for everyone in the US.

    Now, one would suppose that a somewhat intelligent and reasonably cognitive wingnut would take a look at the Korman train wreck... Ari Fleischer was the adviser behind that one... and the JC Penny slap-down,to mention only the most recent, and maybe, just maybe, begin to dimly recognize that their sun is rapidly setting. But I'm afraid they'll be around to the bitter dying end, hold up in caves, existing on Wonder Bread and Velveeta cheese sandwiches with lots of mayo, and... wait for it... drinking Hawaiian Punch.

    Oh, the humanity!

    Posted by: Tim Tondreault | Feb 3, 2012 8:11:31 PM


    Posted by: h | Feb 3, 2012 8:12:52 PM

  24. Geez, I hate the guy!

    Posted by: OS2Guy | Feb 3, 2012 8:13:23 PM

  25. Just not a fan; period!

    Posted by: RB | Feb 3, 2012 8:23:02 PM

  26. 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #1057« «