Santorum Booed in New Hampshire While Discussing Gay Marriage

[powergirl]

A crowd of mostly college-aged students at a New Hampshire town hall booed Rick Santorum when he compared gay marriage to polygamy. Santorum spoke at the College Convention 2012, a forum organized by New England College, which apparently drew a politically diverse crowd. BuzzFeed's Zeke Miller transcribes the exchange between the student and Santorum:

"How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love --"

Santorum cut her off and said "What about three men ... If you think it's ok for two, you have to differentiate with me why it's not OK for three."

The New York Times reports that people booed specifically when Santorum said "If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” And some in the crowd booed again at the conclusion of the session. This is of course not the first time Santorum has caused conflict with his "slippery slope"ish arguments. It also reminds us of Mitt Romney's very tense Q&A with the audience at a New Hampshire event Wednesday, where an Occupy Boston representative and a Chinese-American woman both asked Romney semi-hostile questions. With the Iowa caucuses over, it's "no more Mr. nice midwestern crowd" and a bit more "live free or die" we suppose.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/santorum-booed-new-hampshire-while-discussing-gay-marriage/47056/

[Ohio Joe]

1. Tell me Rick... Why not a man and two women?

Or a woman and two men? I mean if a man and a woman are ok, why not be able to add another?

Can you differentiate that for me Rick?

Asshole.

[NorthCarolina]

48. I don't think that is a part of his fantasy...

I think, based on his comments, it is 3, maybe 4 or 5 GUYS that causes him mental anguish...probably in the "yearning" department.

[cottage10]

2. Maybe Santorum is taking a wack at Mitt since Mitt's Granddad was a polygamist?n/t

[justiceischeap]

3. No doubt he was taking a whack at Romney

but his whack was more of a whiff.

[roguevalley]

46. someone needs to ask him if it is normal for a heterosexual man to talk about

other men's junk 24/7 for 30 years? Name one other thing he's noted for. If you know someone who can ask him that have them do it. I would love to see him squirm.

[powergirl]

49. Agree with Roguevalley - Santorum is waaaayyyyy to worried about homosexual sex

He just can't stop talking about it. Someone is battling their own demons, perhaps? Could it be . . .



[IMG][/IMG]

[justiceischeap]

4. kick (eom)

[RoccoR5955]

5. I don't think Santorum could handle New Englanders.

He's got a slippery slope of his own hypocrisy.
Santorum will get vetted, and sink to the bottom, where the other RepubliCON clowns went. The only reason he came in second in Iowa, was because many idiotic undecideds didn't know a damn thing about him, and they don't like RomBorg. Once they find out, he'll sink like a stone, down to the bottom of the pile.

[ejpoeta]

6. here is the problem I have with these arguments...

they are based on one person's religious beliefs. Is it right to legislate a person's religious beliefs? They have no argument other than they think it's wrong. And they think it's wrong because their religious beliefs say so. That is not a reason. We do not legislate religious beliefs because we are not only representing people like santorum. We are representing everyone... and that includes people who do not believe in the bible or what the christian right believes. There is nothing forcing these people to enter into a gay marriage. They are trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Please tell me how this is any different than the Taliban going around forcing THEIR beliefs on everyone in Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever? I mean sure no on is throwing acid on girls going to school here but they are trying to impose their religious ideas on the rest of us. The state nor the federal government should not be legislating religious beliefs. We are all free to believe or not believe privately. Period.

[MrMickeysMom]

21. The state nor the federal government should be legislating religious beliefs...

And Rick doesn't know the difference between them.

This was the biggest moment of his life, and sure as rain, showing his true colors will pave his way to the door.

I hope it hits him in the ass on the way out once and for all. I'm sick to death of these people getting into government.

[quaker bill]

32. Why does government license marriage?

Why does it require a permit? If you look back far enough, there were considerably more regulations about who could be married to whom and who could officiate (sign the forms).

Coming from England, only those ordained by the Church of England could officiate. Early on in the Colonies, several had "established religions" where only those ordained in the official "established" church could officiate at a wedding. Even today in most places the state is looking for someone officially recognized or ordained to officiate. Since most Quakers on the east and west coasts don't "ordain" anyone an exception is made where we can use a committee. So I, as the Clerk of my Meeting would sign in the blank for "minister", though, in fact I am an ecologist.

Back in the day, the state did this to raise money. Ministers would only marry contributing members of the congregation, the tithe was a tax, a portion of which went to government, and the license required a fee.

About the only things handled by current licensing is proof that the parties are of age to consent and of mixed gender. Being under age of consent is already handled as statutory rape. So the only remaining purpose for licensing is to assure mixed gender.

My suggestion woud be to get the state entirely out of the business and allow consenting adults to form whatever relationships suit them.

[meaculpa2011]

36. Marriage is a private contract

between consenting adults. I don't recognize the authority of the state to approve or disapprove of any marriage.

BTW: Next summer makes 40 years (Yeah, with same woman) and would have been so with or without the sanction of the state.

[ejpoeta]

37. you don't need the state for a marriage. I was with my husband ten years before we got married.

WE got married because there are things that come with a marriage license. Protections that if we were not married we wouldn't have. We are seen as the spouse so we can make medical decisions on behalf of the other. Family could make it very difficult without the marriage. I think of my dad and his girlfriend who were not married. When my dad died we could have made things very difficult for his girlfriend. I was very glad that no one did.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. States started issuing marriage licenses in the 1930's, or thereabouts for most states to prevent

interracial marriage.


I don't think we had marriage licenses at all in the 1800's.

[Ship of Fools]

34. I agree ... like your post, but

don't forget abortion provider assassinations, clinic bombings, bullying, tied to a fence
and left to die, etc! It does happen, for sure ...

[Aerows]

38. There is no difference

Fundamental Christianity has more than a passing resemblance to Fundamental Islam. Both want to impose their religious beliefs on you. The funny thing is, I'm still waiting to hear what flavor of Christianity they want. Do they want Pentecostal, which dictates that women must wear skirts and can't cut their hair, do they want Baptists who believe dancing is wrong, or do they want Catholic which thinks dancing is okay? Or how about Presbyterians, Lutherans and Episcopalian Christian churches who not only don't believe monogamous homosexual relationships are wrong, but also allow their pastors to be openly gay?

When you talk about "Christianity", they all don't agree. We could revert to being a "Christian" nation, and still guarantee 100% of the population would have their religious beliefs offended in some way. That's why we have separation of Church and State.

In any case, Santorum is a major hypocrite. It's fine for HIS wife to have a second trimester abortion if HER life is threatened, but if it's YOUR life that is threatened or the life of a woman YOU care about, it's not okay. He's one of those that wants to tell you how to live, but doesn't want anyone telling him how to live. That's a recipe for idiotic leadership.

[JoePhilly]

7. Maybe Rick was talking about Newt!!!

That one man and 3 women, so far!!

[tclambert]

8. Rick, "It's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart."

Ulysses Everett McGill in O Brother, Where Art Thou?

And apparently, it's a fool that looks for logic in the brain of a Republican. Or looks for a brain in the head of a Republican.

[brooklynite]

9. My question...(which I'll ask this weekend in NH if I get a chance) is...

"I've been happily married for over 25 years. How has extending the same rights and responsibilities of marriage to same sex couples here in New Hampshire for the past two years threatened my marriage in any way?"

[Aerows]

39. If a heterosexual marriage is threatened by a homosexual marriage...

...that heterosexual marriage was doomed in the first place!

[William769]

10. Recommended.

[polmaven]

11. Well, Rick...

I'm afraid I am one of those strongly religious Christians to whom you are going have to "justify" how not allowing two men or two women being married is going to somehow protect the marriage of the one man and one woman next door.

That whole argument of "protecting traditional marriage" just stumps me......Is there some kind of evil aura that sweeps across the air and prevents a "traditional" couple from continuing to love each orher?

Help me out here, Mr. Santorum.....do ya think that is why Newton Leroy was forced into his two divorces? Why have you been able to avoid that virus? Is it all those blah people standing outlook and taking the fall for you, maybe?

I really am perplexed...HELP ME RICK!!!!

[Quantess]

12. Dear Rick Santorum: Nobody fucking asked you, creep!

Mind your own goddamned business! Get your nose out of my crotch!

I really loathe people like him. He has a whole lot of nerve, thinking he can tell other people what kind of sex they can have. Who the fuck asked you, asshole?!

[wordpix]

14. "get your nose out of my crotch!"---and hey, Rick, that goes for my reproductive rights, too!

Get the message, you "get gov. out of our lives" repugs?

[mr_liberal]

13. Gay marriage is controversial

and still opposed by a lot of people.

I don't know why they don't stick to attacking him on birth control and sodomy laws.

[Bjorn Against]

16. The only people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic bigots

Those bigots need to be called out no matter how controversial it may be to do so. Every single person who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot for the same reason that every single person who opposes interracial marriage is a racist, it may not be popular to say that but it is the absolute truth.

[Aerows]

40. And speaking of inter-racial marriage

If they render one legal marriage invalid, they can just as easily render another one invalid. People need to really think beyond the ends of their noses to what will happen if you give people like Santorum an inch - they will take a mile. It's pretty clear he isn't fond of people that aren't white and Christian. Do you think he'd hesitate for one second to try to start enforcing racial purity? I don't.

[Bohunk68]

29. Gay marriage is controversial?

I guess you're one of those who want us GLBT to STFU because the election might be lost if the discussion affects GLBT persons. Heard this argument before. Glad to hear you're starting it up so early, NOT.

[Quantess]

35. Welcome to DU!

From my take, gay marriage used to be controversial. But when people just stop and think about it for a minute or 2, they accept the idea of gay marriage more and more.

I'm a hetero woman, but I'm deeply offended at Santorum for being a crotch sniffer who can't mind his own business. Nobody fucking asked him! I can't stand people who want to peep into peoples bedrooms and be the referee. I want that goddamned creep Santorum to stay away from my crotch.

Anyway, cheers to a bright future for gay marriage.

[Bohunk68]

52. Thanks for the welcome

You're the first to welcome me here. I've lurked for many a year. Just recently decided to post, sometimes it gets pretty vicious here, but what the hell, no different than being at some gay bars.

[Aerows]

41. If gay marriage is controversial

and opposed by people, then they are bigots. People were once opposed to interracial marriage, too. Are we going to decide to throw their civil rights out of the window, too, just because those marriages are "controversial"?

Santorum is a hypocrite of the highest order. His wife had a second trimester abortion to save her life, but he would deny that right to other women. I say attack him on all fronts, including his hypocrisy, and yes, on his ridiculous stance on gay marriage.

MOST people in the under-50 age group are FOR gay marriage. It's just the old farts and fundamental Christians that are against it, and that is mostly because they want to revert our country back to some time that never was.

[JackBeck]

51. Polling would suggest that you are completely wrong.

[IMG][/IMG]

[EC]

15. I just wish one person would answer him back when he starts that

bull with the strawmen. How about telling him he's being stupid? How about telling him his values are not the law and shouldn't be?

[paulissa]

17. Guillain Barre Syndrome

Visit This Site
http://www.guillainbarresyndromeinfo.org

[Quantess]

19. I'll bet Frothy the Santorum doesn't care about people with guillaine barre syndrome

if they don't have insurance, or if they're "blah people".

But no, I'm not clicking on that.

[WillParkinson]

27. Probably not a bad thing...

Guillain-Barre syndrome
Landry-Guillain-Barre syndrome; Acute idiopathic polyneuritis; Infectious polyneuritis; Acute inflammatory polyneuropathy; Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

Last reviewed: June 15, 2010.

Guillain-Barre syndrome is a serious disorder that occurs when the body's defense (immune) system mistakenly attacks part of the nervous system. This leads to nerve inflammation that causes muscle weakness.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors

Guillain-Barre syndrome is an autoimmune disorder (the body's immune system attacks itself). Exactly what triggers Guillain-Barre syndrome is unknown. The syndrome may occur at any age, but is most common in people of both sexes between ages 30 and 50.

It often follows a minor infection, such as a lung infection or gastrointestinal infection. Most of the time, signs of the original infection have disappeared before the symptoms of Guillain-Barre begin.

The swine flu vaccination in 1976 may have caused rare cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome. However, the swine flu and the regular flu vaccines used today have not resulted in more cases of the illness.

Guillain-Barre syndrome damages parts of nerves. This nerve damage causes tingling, muscle weakness, and paralysis. Guillain-Barre syndrome most often affects the nerve's covering (myelin sheath). Such damage is called demyelination, and it causes nerve signals to move more slowly. Damage to other parts of the nerve can cause the nerve to stop working altogether.

---

I have no idea what this has to do with the post, though. This is courtesy of U.S. National Library of Medicine - The World's Largest Medical Library.

[MrScorpio]

20. I mean… REALLY! What the fuck is this man's problem?

And why is the Republican Party backing this ass?

[liberalhistorian]

25. Indeed, especially considering that he lost

his PA senate seat by EIGHTEEN PERCENT in 2006. For an incumbent, that is a HUGE margin of loss. Apparently, neither he nor the repubs learned anything from it. He was a really sore loser about it, too, unbelievably ungracious and vindictive. Not that that should be any kind of a surprise.

[Aerows]

42. His face is so slanted

When people lie, they tend to quirk one side of their face. Look at Dick Cheney. He's got that same slanted face, and you KNOW that S.O.B. lies like a rug. Santorum is probably just like him.

[Quantess]

50. LOL. Sounds like the start of a raunchy Santorum joke.

[mia]

22. Santorum continues to protest too much.

In a June 2011 interview, Santorum said, "There are foul people out there who do horrible things. It's unfortunate some people thought it would be a big joke to make fun of my name. That comes with the territory." In September 2011 he asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. In response, Google said that the company does not remove content from search results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

http://spreadingsantorum.com/

[usrname]

23. An interesting post from Huff Post

The Hensel Twins (google them) are conjoined twins, but are legally considered as two separate people even though they share a singular body below the necks. One is already engaged to be married. Suppose she does get married, wouldn't that necessitate being in a polygamous relationship? And if the other also gets married, then there definitely will be two husbands and the twins living under one roof (actually, they can live in any arrangement they want: each husband could be living in separate coasts for all I care, and the twins live somewhere else).

Bottom line: if they live under one roof, then it would have to be considered a polygamous relationship in a legal sense. Both husbands must have to agree to mutual medical/health/survivorship agreements. Both husbands must contribute to the raising of any children involved, regardless of who provided the sperm, or should just the biological father be required?

This is an interesting legal puzzle and certainly defeats the black-and-white world that Santorum lives in. I wonder how he could resolve his stance.

Lastly, it's vividly clear that the problem for Santorum with regards to polygamy is the sex. He's so effin' juvenile snickering about what three people might do sexually. People can and do get married with no intention to have sexual relations. Sex and marriage have very little connection in modern times. There are many married couples that don't even live in the same time zone (not necessarily by choice, mind you).

[OhioBlue]

24. but what is the right answer to his and others' response?

Mine would be that marriage in the USA is a legal contract between two consenting adults and that it is not right to discriminate based on religion, race or sex.

Traditional marriage can have many definitions, many times it has not even required them to be of legal adult age... or even consenting in some circumstances.

Accepted legal marriage to me is between two consenting adults.

What is it to him? to others? why the slippery slope and what is our point blank response to shoot it down?

We can call him and others homophobes and assign other names or values to them.. but let's just shoot it down.

Marriage in the USA is a legal contract between two consenting adults. It is unconstitutional and wrong to discriminate on the accepted legal contract based on race, religion, sex, etc.

I would welcome any comments... I have come up against this slippery slope argument before and it does puzzle me.

[great white snark]

33. Human Rights Campaign is a great resource for strengthening your argument.

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/answers-to-questions-about-marriage-equality

Although after reading your response I don't think you need the help.

[RainDog]

26. he was also booed for expressing opposition to cannabis law reform n/t

[cecilfirefox]

28. I think establishment Republicans, and their people in power-

Really underestimate just how they have completely LOST this generation on this issue.

[justiceischeap]

30. Exactly! Even young repubs are like, "What's the big deal?"

The panel on MSNBC during the caucus said the majority of young repubs were liberal on social issues (including marriage equality) but conservative when it comes to the fiscal stuff (except the evangelical youngen's which aren't the majority).

Marriage equality is actually supported by 53% of the American population (despite what one of the comments upthread proclaim), so it's another case of the minority trying to decide what they feel is best for the majority.

[unionworks]

31. It was just a matter of time

...till this scumbag made another "man on dog" commment... thank you, Concord!

[phillyjim]

43. Santorum's question is one we should consider

I am entirely in favor of gay marriage. However, I think that Santorum raises a perfectly legitimate question that cultural liberals (including myself) will eventually have to answer. Santorum probably believes that by asking “Why shouldn’t three men be allowed to get married?” he has offered a reduction to absurdity against gay marriage. In this, I think he is mistaken. At the same time, the question is legitimate and it is important. Discarding the traditional restrictions on marriage (i.e., one man, one woman) forces us to ask what sorts of restrictions on marriage remain justified and why. And we should also keep in mind that many of those who have advocated gay marriage have gone beyond utilitarian arguments that claim that happiness or welfare would be increased by making gay marriage legal. They have claimed that gay men and lesbians have a basic right to marry. It is fair to ask, then, why three men or one woman and two men do not have the same basic right. Trying to answer questions like these can help us to clarify our views on the foundations of rights. We might be surprised to discover that our views imply that three men or three women do or should have such a right. Santorum’s question should not be dismissed as silly or irrelevant. It should be thoughtfully answered. Eventually it may become an active political question.

[justiceischeap]

45. The slippery slope fallacy

Here is my answer to your proposition... in what states or countries that have marriage equality are they now battling proponents of polygamy, incestuous marriages, 'man on dog' marriages? None. The problem with the slippery slope is two-fold: one, it's a cop out. It's a way of alarming people out of talking about the issue at hand. Which is often, the only reason people are against marriage equality if because of their personal, religious beliefs. The second problem is those that bring up the 'slippery slope' are hoping and assuming the person they are talking to is too dumb to realize there is a difference between a committed relationship between 2 people who happen to be the same gender. In using the 'slippery slope' argument and demanding we pay attention to it is saying that somehow gay relationships are so radically different from straight relationships that we are going to open a floodgate of perversion.

The slippery slope fallacy can Kiss. My. Lesbian. Ass!

Welcome to DU!

[phillyjim]

53. Santorum's comments raise important questions

The point I really wanted to make is that Santorum’s question (“Why shouldn’t three men be allowed to get married?”) is important and should not be dismissed as silly. It is important because it requires us to think about our own position on moral rights and related issues. Perhaps we should open up marriage to a larger set of arrangements (three men, three women, etc.). At first glance, I don’t see why we shouldn’t. But if at some point we want to draw a line, we have to think carefully about the rationale for doing so – especially if we are making a rights-based argument. Once we have claimed that marriage is a basic human right, it is no easy thing to justify a restriction on it. (The same thing is true for the right to free speech. For libertarians it is true for the right to property.) We need to go back to basic questions about moral rights. What exactly is the rationale for basic human rights in general? Of the right to marry in particular? What restrictions are justifiable? These are all questions that we need to answer if we are to have a coherent liberal philosophy that expresses more than what we like or dislike at a particular point in time.

[justiceischeap]

54. He doesn't bring up valid questions at all

According to the bible (which Santorum bases all his opinions he wants to force on other people on), polygamy was, not only legal but encouraged as was having concubines. The bible also says it's okay to have sex with blood relatives and that marrying 11-13 yr old girls was common place. As society evolved, public opinion said those things are wrong -- basically because we started populating the world and men didn't need to have multiple places to "spill his seed." Society now has a better understanding of homosexuality and that we aren't what they thought we once were, deviants out to bang anything that moves. We want the same things straight people do, so society has changed their opinion that allowing marriage equality is a good thing.

If society later decides that polygamy isn't a bad thing (again), then society will make that decision but trying to compare a loving relationship of two people to the slippery slope fallacy is just another way to argue that homosexuality is bad and homosexuals don't deserve to be treated equally. Personally, I think polyamorous relationships aren't always a bad thing, as long as all involved want to be involved; it isn't for me but if all adults are consenting, then far be it for me tell them how to structure their relationships. But there really is no comparison between 2 people wanting to get married and polygamy. They are 2 entirely different things and as a lesbian, I'm tired of being compared to polygamists, pedophiles and folks who are into bestiality just to argue that I don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Edited to add:

Also, sexual orientation is the direction of a persons emotional and physical desire, toward people of the opposite sex, same sex, or both sexes. Whereas, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and incest are all examples of sexual behavior. There, as we know it now, are only 2 known sexual orientations--hetero and homo-sexual. Right now, we don't have any laws granting privilege based on sexual behavior but we DO have laws granting privilege based on sexual orientation (but only for heterosexual orientation). So, really, the argument about polygamy is apples and oranges.

[sarcasmo]

47. Kick!