Comments

  1. JD says

    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!

  2. NoSleep4Sam says

    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?

  3. RWG says

    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.

  4. Jason 2 says

    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.

  5. Blake says

    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.

  6. Gregv says

    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.

  7. says

    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.

  8. feo says

    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.

  9. MikeBoston says

    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.

  10. Bravo says

    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?

  11. Tom says

    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.
    ***

  12. Cody says

    “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

  13. says

    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!

  14. Glen says

    Simple – remove all special protection under the law for married people (a wife cannot testify against a husband and vice versa), Decision making power for an incapacitated spouse and so on. Tax incentives for married couples should also be removed – no one should be allowed to file jointly. If your legal status changes – it is not just for making babies.

  15. says

    Even most Republicans agree that Newt is far too crazy to have a chance of winning the Presidency.
    Mitt looks like he’ll get the nomination. However, any number of things could knock him out of the race. Those unreleased tax returns may have bombshells hidden within. Nobody is in love with him anyway & his campaign could easily stall for lack of interest.
    My point is, Rick Santorum could very well ignite the imagination of the GOP. If lots & lots of money heads his way, he may end up the nominee. After that, anything could happen in American politics.
    Beware!

  16. JerzeeMike says

    @BLAKE-I LOVE that argument!!! You’re a genius! I’d love to hear him argue that one down. BTW, this village idiot will NEVER be POTUS because he’s socially retarded. Can you imagine this toolbag representing the US to the world leaders? We’d lose even more credibility than we already have.

  17. Caliban says

    Considering how badly Santorum is doing, is it REALLY necessary to report on every homophobic turd that plops out of this fool’s mouth? If he were important enough to warrant it, it would take a full-time staff to keep up with every regressive, offensive, and stupid thing he says about health care, gays, women, rape, abortion, etc. etc. Even the shoe-maker’s elves couldn’t keep with his verbal diarrhea.

    Or how about just putting a single like at the top of the page that says “Santorum said something really stupid and hateful today!” Then all you have to do is plug in that day’s inevitable offering and we’re not faced day after day with the offensive claptrap of a man who has about as much influence as my dead aunt Fanny.

    As for his claim that marriage is “really” about children, that doesn’t hold water anyway. At all. Some gay couples DO have children for one thing, biological and adopted. And studies show that most gay couples are d**n good parents, probably because they had to work to get them- they don’t view them just as an unfortunate side-effect of sex. There’s no fertility test to get a marriage license. If someone doesn’t want kids they’re not forbidden to marry. No one breaks up weddings because the bride is past child-bearing age. And the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is such a fundamental RIGHT that even people on Death Row can marry (and these are people who can’t even VOTE anymore) though in most cases they will never even be able to “consummate” the union so children are impossible, which pretty much puts the kibosh on marriage being about children

    In other words, if anyone is making things up here it’s Rick Santorum. He’s a footnote, barely worthy of a place in the dustbin of history.

  18. BABH says

    A privilege, not a right? That’s funny, I was under the impression that the Supreme Court reaffirmed 45 years ago that marriage is one of “the basic civil rights of man” protected by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

    But then, unlike Santorum, IANAL.

  19. Mary says

    Jonny, you raised very good points. I’ve been trying to figure out for several months why Santorum is not doing better among conservative Republican primary voters. Unlike Romney, he doesn’t have a flip-flopping record and a history of being socially liberal. Unlike Gingrich, he isn’t scandal-ridden and abrasive. About the only argument against him is that he’s not especially exciting. But then few people ever claim that Romney is exciting – only that he’s the “inevitable nominee.” If Santorum ends up the nominee it seems it will be by the process of elimination.

    (Oh, God. I just realized the joke in that last statement “Santorum by elimination”….yes, that’s how we end up with Santorum politically and “santorum” physically. Some jokes just write themselves!

  20. Mary says

    A suggestion. Why doesn’t Dan Savage take down the “Spreading Santorum” website? Now that there really IS a possibility that RS could wind up the nominee isn’t this a wise thing to do? If the Republican base ends up rallying around RS that ugly website can be used to enable social conservatives to drum up sympathy for him. Dan Savage could write a statement saying that when he created the website he didn’t think RS would become a serious contender for president. He could also say Gabriel Santorum, the baby that Rick and his wife lost, and Bella Santorum, their ill daughter didn’t exist yet. He could say that out of respect for these two children he won’t smear the Santorum name anymore.

    I don’t expect this to happen but its what I’d advise Dan Savage to do if I was on his side politically.

  21. Macmantoo says

    Does that mean when him and his wife can no longer have children he has to get a divorce? Any bets on that happening? So another words my brother and sister-in-law who could never have children shouldn’t be married-after 30yrs. What a jackass.

  22. Seriously?Y says

    Frothy Mix, swirling, swirling, as the toilet of public life removes him from our midst.

    Bye, bye Frothy Mix! Enjoy your time in the sewers.

    (Next headline he’ll be in: Former Congressman caught in public sex sting

  23. Bklynguy says

    Santorum would probably argue that even infertile heterosexual couples should be given the privilege to marry because their commitment to care for each other through long years of aging and illness provides a measurable benefit to society, whereas allowing two people of the same sex to marry… Wait.

  24. Matt26 says

    These people are lying to themselves. You can see it in RS’s eyes, he tries to explain it and knows he is wrong!
    Good thing is we don’t need his permission. His campaign is over so go away already!

  25. says

    From the United States Constitution

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….”

    He is wrong from the very start of the argument; never mind the blatant bigotry.

  26. Roman Bolliger says

    Once again Frothy is demonstrating his turdlevel intelligence to the whole world. Of course he definitely doesn’t deserve the privilege of being a presidential candidate. And the United States of America definitely doesn’t deserve the shame of having a President like this moron.

  27. Robert in NYC says

    What exactly is so special about marriage I wonder? I always get very annoyed when people don’t go after these asshats regarding the procreation nonsense that not all heterosexuals are capable or choose not to for obvious reasons. In the catholic cult for example, if a straight couple wanted a religious marriage and one of them told the priest they didn’t want to have children, the priest would refuse to marry them, yet will marry a couple if they are infertile or beyond child bearing years. It’s an absurd and lame argument Santorum uses, but then he’s not too bright. I also wish people would ask him and others of his ilk for any evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage harms his or anybody else’s.

  28. says

    Whats the next step in Santorum’s agenda in satisfying the procreation obligations essential for the “privilege” of being married? Shall a marriage be validated by one child, perhaps twelve. To borrow from Rachel Maddow shall the small limited conservative government for which Republicans opine decree a minimum number of offspring be produced before a marriage is valid?

  29. Rob Zeleniak says

    Santorum insists on superimposing his religious template on the national discourse regarding marriage. If you substituted another minority, racial or ethnic group for the word gay in each of Santorum’s narrow-minded remarks, there would be an outcry of untold proportions. Though fewer people believe it remains acceptable to denigrate gays, there are still those who think it’s reasonable. Santorum leads the pack of those unsophisticated homophobes with Mitt Romney close behind. Claiming otherwise is simply hypocrisy in the extreme. Anyone who has a goal of using a system of religious principles to systematically oppress another individual’s civil rights is fundamentally flawed.

  30. tomchicago says

    We…we…we…so, who is this “we”? Silly me, I almost forgot about this back-seat wanna-be in the clown car whose drivers thrive on creating we/them distinctions.

  31. Ted says

    What I hear is “It is an intrinsic good.” It’s always about the same thing: The deificiation of heterosexuals, or the demonization of gay people. Here Santorum chooses the former, elevating heterosexuality to a sacrament.

  32. gfunkdave says

    Actually, Rick, the Supreme Court held that marriage is a “basic civil right of man” in 1967’s case, Loving v Virginia.

    So marriage is a right, and you need to show why it’s constitutional to deny a class of people that right.

  33. Brian says

    Publicly confronting intolerant assholes and forcing them to explain their bigotry at a public forum. So much more effective than throwing a “glitter bomb” at somebody and running away.

  34. Rick says

    I don’t really have a problem with what he said, per se. It is actually accurate from an historical and a philosophical perspective. Marriage, in all cultures and throughout time, until fairly recently in the West, was not about “romantic love” between two people and “sanctifying” it–indeed, in most cultures, the whole concept of “romantic love” is non-existent–but was about creating a stable, secure, healthy environment for the raising of children. And most laws related to marriage were designed to encourage that. He is right about that.

    The problem in the modern West, however, as some have already alluded to, is that a) heterosexuals have turned marriage into a form of “legitimization” of “romantic love” and some of those have no intention of having children, and b) even those that do have children have allowed their own desire for “romantic love” take precedence over their familial responsibilities, which is what has driven up the divorce rate to unacceptable levels.

    And while I don’t think the denigration of marriage by heteros is a good reason for allowing same-sex marriage, it is the reality of the society we live in, so to allow heterosexuals to marry for reasons other than committing to raising a family and not allow homosexuals to is hypocritical and not legitimate.

  35. AJ says

    In other news, water is still wet. Why give this guy a platform here, Andy? Everyone talks about infertility, disability and age. What about people who flat-out have no desire to have kids? Does Santorum want to enforce procreation next?

  36. Rick says

    “What about people who flat-out have no desire to have kids?”

    In my opinion, those people should not get the tax benefits of marriage that people who are raising kids should get. Nor should they be entitled to any other tangible benefit that marriage confers under the law.

    Why should “romantic coupling” be rewarded by the government? What compelling interest does society have in “romantic love”? None, as far as I can see.

    And let’s face it–what this whole same-sex marriage push is about for most gay people is trying to get society to recognize their “romantic” relationships is legitimate…..There are other, better ways to do this than by trying to legalize same-sex marriage, which is why I consider this whole enterprise to be a waste of time and resources, but I still am in favor of marriage equality IF marriage is going to continue to confer benefits on childless male-female couples. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

  37. SCollingsworth says

    So either Frothy Mix pines for the sexual anarchy of the ’70s and wants to live vicariously through us, or he wants to kill us off early. Call me a cynic, but I’m thinking the latter.

  38. mark says

    Santorum’s anti-marriage argument is leakier than the Costa Concordia.

    His primary returns are skimpy too…certainly not enough to keep his candidacy afloat.

  39. TJ says

    Clearly, RICK above has never been in a long-term, romantic relationship (probably no intimate relationship of any kind); no wonder he can’t comprehend the benefit to society that happy, actualized citizens contribute through caring for and supporting someone who in turn cares for and supports in return.

  40. Joseph says

    People have the right to belong to any hateful and bigoted religion they want to. That doesn’t mean they have the privilege of cramming the hateful and bigoted religion down our throats or base the civil laws of our country on the hateful doctrine of their religion. And if marriage was for making babies why do we allow heteros who have no intention of making babies marriage? This man is disgusting beyond all belief and now that he is emerging as the big looser of this campaign hopefully he will retreat back to under the rock where he came from.

  41. mcNnyc says

    Santorum froths that health care for instance is not a right so I guess like marriage it is a privilege.
    So shouldn’t the state, before it grants the privilege of marriage, certify that the couple can engage in intercourse that will result in children?
    Isn’t also then in the interest of “society” that has granted this privilege the that couple continue to certify that the couple continues to have regular sessions of intercourse so that children are produced during the child rearing age of the woman only (of course).

  42. Juan says

    What a sorry excuse for a human being Frothy Mix is. Such blind hatred and bigotry. He doesn’t even see it. Definitely to be pitied more than feared. He and his ilk are on the way out and good riddance. They’ve caused plenty of suffering already.

  43. moony says

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    -Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment, US Constitution [emphasis added]

  44. Ajax28 says

    Some excellent points made in these comments (like the citation to “privileges” in the Fourteenth Amendment). Here’s another point: the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “equal protection of the laws.” It doesn’t matter if the law grants rights, privileges, benefits, or opportunities — there must be equal treatment to all. Santorum’s idiotic distinction between rights and privileges is meaningless.

    That being said, I wonder why anyone asks Santorum these questions. It only provides him the opportunity to repeat his bigoted inanities. The frustrating thing about the Republican debates and these campaign events is that no one has the opportunity to respond and take apart the falseness of Republicans’ homophobic illogic.

  45. gracemary says

    What the heck is Santorum talking about? He is an embarrassment. What a bunch of unorganized thoughts and stupid logic, at the expense of other human beings, who are absolutely not being treated fairly and with dignity.

  46. jack says

    A funny thing happened to Rick on the way to the Republican nomination. His fellow conservative christians chose a serial adulterer and a Mormon over him. Can’t a bible thumping, narrow minded fundamentalist get a break?

  47. Gary Brubaker says

    He is deserving to see one of his own to announce he’s gay or she’s a lesbian, and as his son or daughter falls in love and wants to marry he will come to his own misguided bigotry.

    Something is going on, and I believe that the GOP wants his bigotry as the VP candidate, which would be so doomed. Mormon bigot and the GOP presidential candidate that flips like four Kerry voting records combined.

    People have now seen that this bigotry is not a good example. His strategy might work with the extremist, but everyone else does not buy it.

  48. Mary says

    Exactly, Kiwi. That’s just why Dan Savage should remove the website. If little Gabriel was gay then out of respect for him the Santorum family name shouldn’t be smeared? Unless Savage hates adult homophobes more than he loves gay people who never got a chance to live.

  49. says

    wrong, Mary. “Spreading Santorum” is not, in any way, “smearing” his hame. Rick Santorum’s historic racism, anti-Semitism, and vile anti-gay prejudice smear his name.

    Dan Savage is not the one smearing Santorum’s name. Rick Santorum has just cursed his own family. For generations. He is one of the most gallingly bigoted men ever to disgrace America. Almost as repulsive as that bigot Jesse Helms.

    Removing the website will in no way “clear” the Santorum name. Rick Santorum giving up his crusade against the LGBT Community will clear the family name.

    And nothing else. Ever.

  50. Mary says

    This is just the reaction I thought you’d give, Kiwi. Actually from a pro-gay persepective you do have a point. The Senator’s views themselves, and his promulgating of them ARE linking the Santorum name with something you consider vile – the anti-gay political position. The question is why does one good smear deserve another? If it were just the Senator himself you might have a point. But the name Santorum belongs to a lot of people in the U.S., and I’m sure a percentage of them are very pro-gay – even people who’ve gone to bat for gay people in their personal lives. Most of these “innocent” Santorums aren’t famous or rich. They can’t protect the integrity of their last name from what Dan Savage did to it. Nor can it be argued that what Savage did here is likely to win converts for the pro-gay position. He simply did it to feel better. But I guess this last goal is all that really matters when one is angry.

    If Dan Savage REALLy wanted to be outrageous he would have donated a large sum of money to a center for homeless gay youth and had it renamed the Santorum Center. The message would be that “Santorum” now stands for a place to help homeless gay kids – i.e. Rick Santorum doesn’t “own” his last name. If he gives it a bad meaning (through his politics), someone else can give it a good meaning through a different action. Hard to see anyone objecting to helping homeless kids – even homophobes could see that this would reduce the chance of them ending up in jail or on welfare. It would be a win-win proposition.

  51. Caliban says

    Mary, many of us are not in the LEAST interested in “taking the high road” in response to Santorum’s and others deliberately spreading lies and fear of gay people. In real life that translates into just sitting there and taking it when he compares us to pedophiles and those who screw dogs, sheep, and cows. Thank you, but no.

    It is both unrealistic and arrogant to demand RESPECT from people you have given none to, to take the low road again and again yet hold others to standards far higher than your own.

  52. says

    Mary, you still believe that LGBT couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

    Intellectually speaking, you are decades behind other people in this world. Truly. You simply don’t have the intellectual tools to comprehend reality.

    This is why your asinine response makes no sense whatsoever.

    Dan Savage is not the reason anyone with the last name “Santorum” feels their name has been “smeared” just like it’s not the fault of Anne Frank that people don’t want to have the last name “Hitler”

    You, Mary, are a straight woman who believes LGBT couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry and believes that you know the best route for Equality, despite the fact that you don’t think LGBT couples are deserving of it.

    Thank Goodness you will never have children. You feeble minded non-thinking way of life will die with you in a solitary grave.

  53. Brian says

    Pay no attention to frothy. He’ll be history soon enough.
    Is it any wonder that the members of his own party called a sitting Senator Santorum the dumbest senator they’ve ever met.

  54. Mary says

    Kiwi,the issue isn’t marriage equality, the issue is the fairness of making up a vulgar definition of someone’s last name and popularizing it on the internet. What all of you here seem to be missing is the fact that there is more at stake here than your feelings on the issue.

    I never said your should give up on the fight for full equality. But what Savage did was childish and self-serving. And it does no good for gay people of the future, who will be affected by the fallout from stunts like this. Yes, its true that to make an omelet you have to crack a few eggs, there is risk in any kind of social activism. But smearing people’s names is not a necessity. It’s like crack cocaine. It just feels good. It’s like Rush Limbaugh calling people “feminazis.” If Santorum ends up giving Romney a serious fight for the nomination (and he still has a chance to do this), social conservatives will rally around the Senator. The “spreadingsantorum” website could cause genuine rage among the Republican base and serve as a sympathy card for him. Why would you want to do this? You saw the hissy fit the base threw when the media mentioned Newt Gingrich’s two divorces during the South Carolina debate.

    Can you come up with an argument against my suggestion about creating a homeless shelter for gay youth and calling it “The Santorum Center?” Think of all the people who could be helped by it. By “stealing” the Santorum name, and creating a shelter you’d be killing two birds with one stone. You could then call on homophobes who claim they aren’t “personally anti-gay” to help you. After all, what could their objection be? The ball would then be in their court and they THEY would look bad.

  55. says

    No, what Savage did was call attention to the reality that was this man is doing is the reason that 1 in 4 LGBT Youth attempt suicide.

    Santorum has made a career out of slandering and demonizing the LGBT Community. He deserves this legacy. That his name is now synonymous with the frothy mixture is utterly POETIC.

    Nobody can clear Santorum’s name but himself. He has no intention of doing so, however.

    Your comment, as usual Mary, shows how unintelligent you are.

    There are Queer Youth Shelters named after people who have actually worked to help LGBT youth and the community at large.

    what else would you suggest, Mary? The Adolph Hitler Shelter for abused Jewish Women?

    See how ridiculous that sounds? it’s exactly as stupid as your asinine suggestion.

    you, Mary, are a grade-A moron and I take genuine happiness knowing you’ll never breed.

    you’re so stupid, Mary. When 1 in 4 Santorums start offing themselves we’ll start to care.

  56. says

    and, Mary, I have to roll my eyes at you asking me if i can “come up with an argument” against your incredibly stupid Santorum Centre for homeless queer youth.

    you, you might do well to remember, still justify your anti-Marriage Equality stance with an incredibly unintelligent “argument” that if Gay Couples are allowed to marry then future generations of gay bisexual males will choose male lovers over female ones, as you feel that anti-gay prejudice is needed to “make some bisexuals choose to be straight”

    Dan Savage did not smear Rick Santorum’s name. Rick Santorum smeared his own name.

  57. Mary says

    “what else would you suggest, Mary? The Adolph Hitler Shelter for abused Jewish Women?”

    That would make little sense because the Hitler name is ALREADY hopeless identified with old Adolph’s evil. But assuming that the Hitler name could have been “stolen” early enough, yes, a Hitler Center for abused Jewish women would have made sense as a name. Timing is everying when trying to redefine something.

    “Dan Savage did not smear Rick Santorum’s name. Rick Santorum smeared his own name.”

    Now who’se failing to use logic? Rick Santorum associated his name with anti-gay politics. The person who associated his name with the “frothy mix” was Dan Savage. If you think two wrongs make a right why not just come out and say so?

    “and, Mary, I have to roll my eyes at you asking me if i can “come up with an argument” against your incredibly stupid Santorum Centre for homeless queer youth.”

    Of course. Eye rolling is so much easier than actually coming up with an argument. The closest you came to an argument was that such Centers already exist and are named after people who’ve done right by gays. But surely more Centers are needed. And the issues again is, giving the name “Santorum” a POSITIVE meaning to counteract the negative meaning you think the Senator is giving it now.

    And Kiwi, you really need to work on your anger. Try reading the book of James. He calls the tongue “a restless evil full of deadly poison.” Something tells me he had you in mind.

    Werk (whatever that means!)

  58. says

    Mary, I say this without a hint of humour – you’d do the world a terrific favor if you pulled a Sylvia Plath and got your face intimately acquainted with the inside of your oven.

    No argument can be made against your asinine suggestion. You think that Dan Savage should…..open a homeless youth shelter and name it after Rick Santorum.

    Hilariuos. the “Spite Centre For Neglected Youth”, eh?

    We don’t need to give the name “Santorum” a positive meaning – he’s an utterly vile and hateful man. It’s up to him to give his name, and his life, a positive meaning. Alas, he’s firmly decided to be on the wrong end of history.

    Santorum smeared his own name. Hitler didn’t get “smeared” by angry liberals, he smeared his own name by being a monster. Santorum has done the same thing.

    Of course people like me get angry, we have to deal with plebes like you. Mary, you’re going to die alone and unloved with no children to continue your legacy.
    ..ah…i feel better already. thanks!

  59. rb says

    The institution of marriage has been under assault by 48-hour celebrity marriages, reality shows about bachelors and bachelorettes ‘falling in love’ in a few week’s time, and other stuff that HETEROSEXUAL people do. Homosexuals don’t damage the institution of marriage; straight people do!

  60. jack says

    One of the joys of my life was joining a 700,000 vote majority in the great Commonwealth of Pa who told Rick Santorum that he didn’t deserve to be a senator anymore. Another joy is watching the beat down that bible thumping fundamentalist is getting in the republican primaries.Praise the Lord!

  61. TJ says

    MARY – seriously? Name a a center for homeless gay kids after the currently most prominent proponent of an ideology that leads to their being disowned by their families, which results in homelessness? While I admonish KIWI for his vitriol, I have to say, that is bat shyte of the lowest order.

  62. uffda says

    Whadaya mean TJ – y just yesterday you said he walks on water? But, yes, he slips into pond scum a little too often. He shoots Mary… right in the middle of her forhead
    because when he is good he is very very good
    but when he is bad he is horrid.

    KIWI’s diatribes should be composed only within slaping distance.

  63. TJ says

    The curl in the middle of the forehead. Can’t believe I’m ignoring “Downton Abbey” to respond, UFFDA, but really, I don’t understand your point. I agree with KIWI on many things. And I’ve called him out on more than one occasion. Sometimes, I apply a bit of honey (e.g., walk on water). Don’t know if you read any exchanges I had with RICK once upon a time, but I did actually try to have an intellectual exchange with him. I gave up. I don’t know what your gripe with me is, but I’ll be honest with my gripe about you: You seem a trap awaiting prey. When you say something supportive, I await the smackdown once the bait has been taken.

  64. uffda says

    TJ, I haven’t followed you closely enough. I would like to have noted your efforts with Rick. Don’t mind me. I am generally often supportive and smackdowns are rarely in earnest. Those for KIWI are little more than unsustainable exercise because he’s too shameless to behave…for me it’s fun sans expectation. You’re good for him. No real issue with you at all. You have a sensible, level and much appreciated polite voice. See – no smackdowns.
    You can watch D.Abbey on the internet. I do.

  65. thedavidvbf says

    The man is educated, but he is incredibly ignorant. His view is so narrow because it is informed by his astoundingly narrow interpretation of his religion. If Jesus came back today, this ilk would be the first to cast stones at Him.

  66. TJ says

    UFFDA – I don’t know that I’m “good” for anyone unless they are open enough to be challenged. As I have posted before, ideologues come in all stripes. No matter the stripe, they risk missing the trees for the forest.

    Sure, I could watch D.Abbey online, but I like my period British porn in HD on the big screen, Anglophile that I am (that, more than anything, explains my soon-to-be 25 year relationship with my partner – give me some of the Maggie Smith snark and I’m putty).

    Well then, that’s that. Carry on. And have a good day.

  67. anthony says

    Oh the christian schools and churches dont need LGBT pigs and swines money to run that our missionaries have a lot so just preach to your LGBT pigs not to us and maybe u are also one of them.

    i dont think you are straight you are also disguised one among those 1 % population of USA of dirty pigs and swines LGBT like Ellen which our christian culture and other religious holy groups dont like except the hip hop trash and hollywood trash celebrites who advocate to people to accept LGBT in our society.
    christian culture and other religious holy groups which forms majority of america and the whole world will not tolerate just because it is western world. This country was founded by our christian forefathers not from other illigitemate dirt born on this country. So we have the right in democracy the majority will decide who to vote for and who to boycott to finish thier business and you will see that for JC penny his CEO will soon loose his job for falling sales. And hurting our religious beliefs and degrading our family culture. If you pigs dont accept this then why dont you immigrate to somali pirates they will sink you in the sea and the sins will be washed from america for which our country is getting cursed….

  68. SearchCz says

    There are SO MANY problems with Rick’s response, I had a hard time figuring out where to start with this … but check it out. Boil down his comments, and he is essentially making the case that the definition of marriage must not be “changed” from its current/”historical” form, because … wait for it … in that form, it is an utter failure. LOW marriage rates, HIGH divorce rates, children deprived of their fathers … better not change anything ?

Leave A Reply