In the pantheon of moronic and creepy Senators, few hold so exultant a place as Rick Santorum. His interview on FoxNews (unfair, imbalanced, we decide) over the weekend was remarkable in its expression of both fear and stupidity. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link.
But poor Andy -- a gay Catholic Republican, tough to beat for self-loathing potential -- is right. Santorum is aiming his hatred not just at gay marriage, but at all marriage that doesn't issue children:
"Why? Because -- principally because of children. I mean, it's -- it is the reason for marriage. It's not to affirm the love of two people. I mean, that's not what marriage is about. I mean, if that were the case, then lots of different people and lots of different combinations could be, quote, "married."
"Marriage is not about affirming somebody's love for somebody else. It's about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society."
Tom the Dancing Bug highlights the beauty of going back to more traditional marriage customs.
The Santorum interview gets even better:
"HUME: But I'm still not clear where you -- I mean, short of marriage, there are these civil unions that confer some of the rights and privileges. It's not called marriage. It isn't recognized as marriage by the state. Obviously, it wouldn't be by -- necessarily by any church. What is your view of that?
"SANTORUM: Well, I don't -- [this is the stupid part that I referred to earlier] I'm not that familiar with civil union laws. I mean, is it just for homosexual couples, or is it for heterosexual couples? [my italics] I mean, if you are going to allow civil unions for homosexual couples, I guess you could have some lesser degree of commitment for ...
"HUME: Well, what do you think of that?
"SANTORUM: I guess, my feeling is, I would step back and say that if there are laws that the states want to pass having to do with certain benefits or things like that, that's one thing. But civil union sounds too much to me like marriage and confuses the issues.
"And part of the other issue here is, what kind of message are we sending to our children and to society about the importance of the marriage relationship?
"And I think when you get into things like civil union, you tend to muddle the picture.
"SANTORUM: We already have the family under assault in America. I mean, there's articles written saying, you know, 'Why are people so against gay marriage? I mean, you've got divorce rates that are high, you've got, you know, all these other things that are, sort of, tearing the family apart. You know, what's wrong with just, you know, further tearing it apart?'
"And I would argue that anything that detracts from the uniqueness and sanctity of that relationship is not going to be a positive thing for our society"
The family is under assault in America? Heh? By whom or what? Our whole society these days is geared towards family and catering to children. There's nothing really wrong with that, but we are quietly stepping past the "it's for the children" mentality into an area that makes it okay to disenfranchise and discriminate against people who don't choose to have, or can't have, the little buggers.
In the workplace it's all but codified that if you don't have kids, you simply will not be permitted the perks your parenting co-worker is permitted. Maternity leave means someone has to pick up the slack. Take the afternoon off to take the dog to the vet? Frowned upon, at best. Take the afternoon off to watch your six year old stumble around on a soccer field. "Absolutely, Bill, your family is the most important thing."
And it goes further. Having kids means you've joined the club. The childless are not welcome. Every business gathering networking session necessarily means listening to someone prattle on about little Cody or Brandon (one is never sure what gender contemporary kids' names refer to), performing some remarkable feat. This is followed by a pause, and then a, "So, you got any kids?" When one responds in the negative, you can see: 1.) A pitying look that signifies, "What's wrong with you or your spouse?" Then, 2.) the glazing over of the eyes. Followed by 3.) darting eye movement looking for someone more likely to be a member of the club.
But I digress.
Santorum, in the interview, then goes on to cry crocodile tears over the nasty Democrats and their anti-papist discrimination:
"Yes. What's outrageous is the line of questioning that's been conducted in the Senate Judiciary Committee about people's, quote, 'deeply held beliefs.' There are questions and comments made that if you have deeply held beliefs, particularly about moral issues, that you can't be impartial. Which leads me to the conclusion that you have shallowly held beliefs, if you really don't believe in anything, that's OK, but if you have deeply held beliefs, that somehow or another because of those deeply held beliefs you can't be impartial.
"What does that mean? That means someone who is a deeply faithful Catholic, and believes as the Catholic Church, in Bill Pryor's case, and that's where he gets his feeling on abortion...
"HUME: Yes, but that doesn't apply to all Catholics?
"SANTORUM: But it does apply to Catholics who subscribe to what the teachings of the Church are. And so, if you have a Catholic who subscribes to the Catholic teaching, you're saying that some faithful Catholic cannot apply and cannot be a member of the court because of his deep held religious beliefs, that he projects, because that's his belief structure, into his job."
In another, not so long-ago age, Santorum would be accused of being an agent of the Pope. And it seems that shoe would fit him pretty well.
Josh Marshall has some interesting views on the new anti-Catholic trend in the Democratic Party.
Marshall also has an interesting post on the Iraqi nuclear scientist who dug up the equipment from his flower garden. Seems the CIA is holding him hostage in Kuwait since he's sticking to the story that the program to develop an Iraqi nuclear weapon had been defunct for more than a decade.
As Marshall concludes, we're not incentivizing too well other former Baath-party scientists who might have information on what's been going on in that country for the past 12 years.
But, of course, finding the truth is not a real high priority for the administration or their minions in the CIA.
Truth be damned. Missile defense can't work -- and the planners in the Pentagon know it! Think that will stop this hugely expensive, unworkable program?
But if you have any Chihuahuas of Mass Destruction (CMD), I can tell you how to intercept them.
But poor Andy -- a gay Catholic Republican, tough to beat for self-loathing potential -- is right. Santorum is aiming his hatred not just at gay marriage, but at all marriage that doesn't issue children:
"Why? Because -- principally because of children. I mean, it's -- it is the reason for marriage. It's not to affirm the love of two people. I mean, that's not what marriage is about. I mean, if that were the case, then lots of different people and lots of different combinations could be, quote, "married."
"Marriage is not about affirming somebody's love for somebody else. It's about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society."
Tom the Dancing Bug highlights the beauty of going back to more traditional marriage customs.
The Santorum interview gets even better:
"HUME: But I'm still not clear where you -- I mean, short of marriage, there are these civil unions that confer some of the rights and privileges. It's not called marriage. It isn't recognized as marriage by the state. Obviously, it wouldn't be by -- necessarily by any church. What is your view of that?
"SANTORUM: Well, I don't -- [this is the stupid part that I referred to earlier] I'm not that familiar with civil union laws. I mean, is it just for homosexual couples, or is it for heterosexual couples? [my italics] I mean, if you are going to allow civil unions for homosexual couples, I guess you could have some lesser degree of commitment for ...
"HUME: Well, what do you think of that?
"SANTORUM: I guess, my feeling is, I would step back and say that if there are laws that the states want to pass having to do with certain benefits or things like that, that's one thing. But civil union sounds too much to me like marriage and confuses the issues.
"And part of the other issue here is, what kind of message are we sending to our children and to society about the importance of the marriage relationship?
"And I think when you get into things like civil union, you tend to muddle the picture.
"SANTORUM: We already have the family under assault in America. I mean, there's articles written saying, you know, 'Why are people so against gay marriage? I mean, you've got divorce rates that are high, you've got, you know, all these other things that are, sort of, tearing the family apart. You know, what's wrong with just, you know, further tearing it apart?'
"And I would argue that anything that detracts from the uniqueness and sanctity of that relationship is not going to be a positive thing for our society"
The family is under assault in America? Heh? By whom or what? Our whole society these days is geared towards family and catering to children. There's nothing really wrong with that, but we are quietly stepping past the "it's for the children" mentality into an area that makes it okay to disenfranchise and discriminate against people who don't choose to have, or can't have, the little buggers.
In the workplace it's all but codified that if you don't have kids, you simply will not be permitted the perks your parenting co-worker is permitted. Maternity leave means someone has to pick up the slack. Take the afternoon off to take the dog to the vet? Frowned upon, at best. Take the afternoon off to watch your six year old stumble around on a soccer field. "Absolutely, Bill, your family is the most important thing."
And it goes further. Having kids means you've joined the club. The childless are not welcome. Every business gathering networking session necessarily means listening to someone prattle on about little Cody or Brandon (one is never sure what gender contemporary kids' names refer to), performing some remarkable feat. This is followed by a pause, and then a, "So, you got any kids?" When one responds in the negative, you can see: 1.) A pitying look that signifies, "What's wrong with you or your spouse?" Then, 2.) the glazing over of the eyes. Followed by 3.) darting eye movement looking for someone more likely to be a member of the club.
But I digress.
Santorum, in the interview, then goes on to cry crocodile tears over the nasty Democrats and their anti-papist discrimination:
"Yes. What's outrageous is the line of questioning that's been conducted in the Senate Judiciary Committee about people's, quote, 'deeply held beliefs.' There are questions and comments made that if you have deeply held beliefs, particularly about moral issues, that you can't be impartial. Which leads me to the conclusion that you have shallowly held beliefs, if you really don't believe in anything, that's OK, but if you have deeply held beliefs, that somehow or another because of those deeply held beliefs you can't be impartial.
"What does that mean? That means someone who is a deeply faithful Catholic, and believes as the Catholic Church, in Bill Pryor's case, and that's where he gets his feeling on abortion...
"HUME: Yes, but that doesn't apply to all Catholics?
"SANTORUM: But it does apply to Catholics who subscribe to what the teachings of the Church are. And so, if you have a Catholic who subscribes to the Catholic teaching, you're saying that some faithful Catholic cannot apply and cannot be a member of the court because of his deep held religious beliefs, that he projects, because that's his belief structure, into his job."
In another, not so long-ago age, Santorum would be accused of being an agent of the Pope. And it seems that shoe would fit him pretty well.
Josh Marshall has some interesting views on the new anti-Catholic trend in the Democratic Party.
Marshall also has an interesting post on the Iraqi nuclear scientist who dug up the equipment from his flower garden. Seems the CIA is holding him hostage in Kuwait since he's sticking to the story that the program to develop an Iraqi nuclear weapon had been defunct for more than a decade.
As Marshall concludes, we're not incentivizing too well other former Baath-party scientists who might have information on what's been going on in that country for the past 12 years.
But, of course, finding the truth is not a real high priority for the administration or their minions in the CIA.
Truth be damned. Missile defense can't work -- and the planners in the Pentagon know it! Think that will stop this hugely expensive, unworkable program?
But if you have any Chihuahuas of Mass Destruction (CMD), I can tell you how to intercept them.
posted by John at 3:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home