Santorum thinks straights will stop having sex if gays can get married

I’m telling you, Rick Santorum is a big gay.  It’s the only explanation for why the man would be convinced that straight people are going to stop having sex, or something, if Adam and Steve are permitted to marry.

Though I do have to say that the award for true hatefulness goes to Republican former presidential candidate Alan Keyes who compared gay marriage to picking ones nose and eating it.  (Though it is interesting that Alan Keyes is apparently familiar with how both taste.)

But in Keyes’ defense, it’s kind of a sad time to be a homophobe (let alone, a Republican).  Much of America has moved beyond the whole gay-bashing thing.  And even Republicans are admitting that their kids are gay, and it’s okay.

Another consequence of the advance in gay rights is that Republicans and their allies in the religious right, are finally being forced to answer hard questions like “how will some gay couple marrying truly affect your marriage?”

The gay-haters going before the Supreme Court a few weeks ago, to oppose gay marriage, couldn’t come up with a good reason.  The best argument they could come up with wasn’t “here’s how gay marriage harms,” but rather to turn it around and ask civil rights advocates to prove how gay marriage “helps” foster traditional marriage.

Huh?  I didn’t realize Rick Santorum needed my help with his marriage.

Check out this snippet from the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 oral arguments, via NPR:

“At bottom,” [anti-gay lawyer] Cooper said, “same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated,” and it is reasonable to believe that over time, the institution of marriage itself would be harmed if marriage were redefined as a “genderless institution.”

Justice Elena Kagan followed up, asking what exactly is the “harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples? How does this cause and effect work?”

That’s not the right question to ask, Cooper responded. “The correct question is whether or not redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage?”

That’s an absurd statement. (We’re not going to integrate the schools until you tell us how it’s going to help white students learn more.) If you’re going to ban something, the onus is on you to prove that the ban is needed, that it furthers a legitimate interest.  The very fact that the religious right can’t come up with a good reason to ban gays from marrying is pretty damning in and of itself.

Of course, GOP Justice Scalia then had to get into the action, as he always does, when his fellow Republicans are having a hard time making their case:

Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in to underline the point. “They’re arguing for a nationwide rule, which applies to states other than California, that every state must allow marriage by same-sex couples,” he said. Some states may believe same-sex marriage somehow harms traditional marriage, “but it is certainly true that there’s no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.”

Scalia got his argument from George Will.  The GOP borg decided that the message it was going to use, since it couldn’t come up with a “harm” from permitting gays to marry, was now a concern that no one knows what will happen should the gays start marrying like bunnies.  Oh the horror.  And until gays can prove what will happen should they marry, no one should let them marry.

Get it?  I won’t let you back this cake until you can prove to me that it’s delicious.  Which is hard to do if you can’t bake it in the first place.  What they’re basically admitting is that they have no evidence backing up their claim that prejudice is warranted, so now they’re trying to switch the burden to those they’re oppressing.

Of course, we have had gay marriages in America now for going on nine years and the sky has not fallen, children have not magically turned gay, and none of the harms that the religious right kept crowing about have come to past.

The same thing happened in the year and a half since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed.  None of the things the religious right and the Republican party warned us about ever came to pass.  So maybe it’s time we stopped listening to them all together.


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown (1989); and worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, and as a stringer for the Economist. Frequent TV pundit: O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline & Reliable Sources. Bio, .

Share This Post

  • Sweetie

    And no one bothered to mention that to Kagan?

  • Butch1

    Santorum truly has mental issues to be so fixated on us like he is. He has got to be a latent homosexual with huge problems with it. He needs help and needs to work this out with a professional person. ( not that idiot who will cradle him in his arms to “cure” him of his problems ) but a real professional to help him work out his latent homosexual problems with homophobia. He would do us all such a big favor if he did this. ;-)

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Yep.

  • TheOriginalLiz

    It the ones who stop having sex are the ones who produce offspring like Santorum, we can only hope they will.

  • lynchie

    Now we are mixing the gene pool

  • http://poodyheads.wordpress.com/ Papa Bear

    Repent before the Lord? How come you have to beat him to the punch? And what’s he got to be repentful about anyway?

  • Sweetie

    MA has the lowest divorce rate, right? It’s also the first state to legalize.

  • Sweetie

    David Vitter. All he has to do is don a diaper.

  • bill moore

    man’s an idiot

  • emjayay

    I remember those. The GTO was a Tempest with a big-car engine.

  • cole3244

    ditto!

  • lynchie

    Of course it is Iowa and they be pumping it back in

  • emjayay

    Also, diapers and whores are OK, particularly if you repent before the Lord.

  • emjayay

    No they won’t. They haven’t so far in any of the legalized states. It’s just bluster. Unless you mean fagbashing, which they have already been doing forever.

  • emjayay

    Or as Lakoff might say, classic authoritarian type.

  • emjayay

    Well, there are reasons to step into churches. Like architecture, and music.

  • emjayay

    OK, now you’ve done it.

  • emjayay

    Bake this cake. Bake.

  • http://twitter.com/BillFromDover Bill from Dover

    Is that what they call what they do?

  • http://twitter.com/Scytherius Jonas Grumby

    Let me personally assure the Grand Moron … Hell no.

  • Zorba

    Rather than condemn them, he said at one time that they were a “basic homosexual relationship.” Not pedophilia, not child sexual abuse. IOW, he was blaming the boys, as well as the priests.
    This is the same Rick Santorum who put “man on dog” sex in the same category as homosexual sex. He also put bigamy and adultery in the same category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum's_views_on_homosexuality
    The man is obsessed with sex, and other people’s sex lives. He is more than a bigot. He is deeply, deeply disturbed. IMHO.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    The RCC is the oldest and most virulent corporation in Western History. Its insidious success is perfectly explained by brainwashing. Even now after all the exposes, serial child abuse and rape is still ongoing and the Church has the gall to ask the laity to send in money to offset the cost of legalisms. The Church is evil and corrupt to the core, still gliding into the future without much effective justice to stop it.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    It could be that lil’ Ricky had some encounters with Father Finger Puppet and has kept it a secret all these years.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Well done!

  • georgeolds

    I’m sorry, but you cannot use the words “Rick Santorum” and “thinks” in the same sentence and expect to be believed.
    ;{O)

  • GoBlue

    Rick was hospitalized in Iowa (of course he has business in Iowa) for gastrointestinal illness and dehydration. In laymen’s language, he had a killer case of diarrhea. Gee, for ONCE in his life Rick can honestly say that he was not full of it.

  • lynchie

    You’re right. He can’t ever admit the church is wrong and that the brainwashing he received through his religious teachings is biased and bigoted. I have never heard a single word from him condemning the rape of young boys by the catholic priests. He is certainly a person with no moral compass of his own and believes the continued hate and condemnation of the gay community is justified by his own personal hatred for himself.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    This planet needs fewer people anyway. We’re already well beyond long-term carrying capacity.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    We already have proof in both directions: The existence of same-sex marriages — both before and after legal recognition — has not done any demonstrable harm whatsoever. Gays and lesbians have been getting married for decades now, and for the last ten years have had increasing legal recognition in some states and more than a few countries internationally.

    No harm. None.

    And on the contrary, there’s plenty of proof — scientifically and systematically documented — that allowing gays and lesbians to have legal recognition for the marriages they were having privately solemnized for all those years and decades anyway provides a great deal of good, including more stable families for raising kids, general societal support, and in the U.S. some 1100+ rights and privileges.

    No gay or lesbian marriage has ever harmed a straight one. Denying marriage equality rights isn’t going to make some gay or lesbian person scratch their head and say, “Hmm… I find the opposite sex repulsive, but I guess there’s no choice if I want to be with anyone, so I guess I might as well marry one. Eww.”

    Anyway, thinking about the way Santorum’s obsession with homosexuality — but only the male kind, oddly enough (or perhaps not), I’ve developed a new theory on the psychology of homophobia, which Li’l Ricky seems to have in abundance. No, not the latent gayness; that’s been pretty well documented, and I’m sure if that particular experiment were conducted on Rick, where arousal is tested while he was ‘forced’ to watch gay male porn, his readings would be through the roof. The theory is that for at least some of the most virulently anti-gay like Santorum, he’s internalized the personal belief that the main thing keeping people (like himself) from being gay is religious, legal and societal animus. That if the animus is removed and there’s equality, gays and lesbians won’t resist the urges of their sexual orientation — like he’s had to.

    Perhaps young 14-year-old Ricky had naughty feelings for some attractive senior boy in high school. And being the good little Catholic boy he was raised to be, he fell back on the theology of his upbringing, which is that people need the threat of punishment in order to be good. He didn’t want to be gay. Hence he needs for gay people to be hated and for there to be real-world negative consequences to being gay, otherwise he could imagine choosing otherwise. And that’s not to be allowed. In other words, if there’s no social or legal downside to being gay, his entire psychosexual edifice starts to crumble.

    And this is what is projected onto the outside world: We all must suffer, because Ricky cannot otherwise resist his own urges.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    I don’t even want to imagine that.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Exactly, Santorum’s very existence makes a good case for abortion.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    The reason why Republicans and cracked-pot conservatives insist that ‘gay’ is a choice is for the basic understanding that if a fetus is ‘gay’ they would have to support abortion.

  • cole3244

    if straights not having sex will eliminate neanderthals like santorum from being conceived then i am for marriage equality even more than i was before.

  • http://poodyheads.wordpress.com/ Papa Bear

    I think we should start a petition to make straights stop marrying until we get those results back. Maybe even break up the ones that are legal now (like Prop 8 did)?

    I’m straight and happily married, but I’d sign that petition. What my wife and I have has nothing to do with being recognized by the authorities…

  • http://poodyheads.wordpress.com/ Papa Bear

    Well, given that Republicans define “straight” as whatever they do, and given that so many of them get caught tap dancing in pay toilets, I feel pretty sure that if there was no longer any social “penalty” for having man on man sex, they’d leave their wives in a heartbeat!

    So, yeah, straight (GOP) “couples” will stop having sex…at least with each other…
    ;-)

  • FLL

    Your wife may have broadened her horizons. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Houndentenor

    It’s just like after Loving when the court allowed interracial marriage and then same-race couples stopped getting married. Remember that? Oh yeah, it didn’t happen.

    Scalia is a racist, sexist, homophobic douchebag. I hear his only friend on the court is Ginsberg. Doesn’t she seem like the kind of person who in kindergarten would have been nice to the kid no one else would talk to?

  • grandpamike1

    Probably a necrophiliac as well.

  • Badgerite

    I think a better answer to that is that it will affect the community ( your life) but in a positive way. They argue that the institution of marriage should be bolstered because it is good for people. It forms the first unit of relationship and perhaps the first teaching environment of society ( if there are children involved) and therefore is important to the community. And this is true. But if it is, in and of itself, good for people, then it is good for all people and therefore good for society whether the marriage be same-sex or opposite-sex. What they are saying is that a rather substantial and reasonably decent minority of the population should be deprived of these important building blocks in their own lives. And that the overall community, of which they are a part, should be deprived of what they can contribute as stable, happy,families ( with or without children). And I think this is very wrong headed and very indefensible. That discriminatory practices have existed for thousands of years is hardly an argument for their existence in the future. Is it? Most of the rights we cherish and frequently take for granted are, after all, recent additions to the human experience. More or less. It is up to each generation to make the words of the Constitution truthful and substantive in relation to the society it underpins. And every generation has attempted to rise to that challenge. This generation is no different.

  • FLL

    Well put. Religion, particularly the fundamentalist variety, is the poison eating away at this country like a cancer, although less so in recent years. I was raised in a family that went to Catholic Mass perhaps twice a year, and I haven’t set foot in a church since I was twelve. There is reason enough to be wary of Kagan and her family background of blow-off Catholics or uptight Methodists or whatever… No, wait… She’s Jewish. Yay! From this New York Times article about her family background:

    “She was a creature of Manhattan’s liberal, intellectual Upper West Side — a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family’s rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky (or perhaps prescient) enough at 17 to pose for her high school yearbook in a judge’s robe with a gavel and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court justice.”

  • lynchie

    Agree

  • lynchie

    Marriage equality involves so much religious overtones that it is hard to say where anyone stands. Religion seems to trump common sense and decency. But that is the key question in this issue “how will this effect your life or marriage”. The answer is NOT at all.

  • FLL

    You’re right. I could only conclude that her question indicates a pro-equality position if I could read her mind, which I can’t do. The only conclusion that I can reasonably make is that Kagan won’t simply accept Cooper’s assertion that marriage equality harms opposite-sex couples just because he says it does. She is regarding his assertion critically and demanding some convincing support for it. In that context, the pro-equality side has reason for optimism regarding Kagan because in all the years that this discussion has been knocking around, the anti-equality side has yet to come up with what you call “a viable answer” to Kagan’s question, so it would be surprising if Cooper could pull that rabbit out of his hat at this late date. The only thing the anti-equality side has going for it is the whining and moaning that Antonin Scalia is indulging in. I’m not trying to read anyone’s mind here, but I think that, based on the arguments so far, the worries of a few years ago about Kagan being an unreliable vote were needless. But that’s just my guess.

  • http://www.facebook.com/monoceros.forth Monoceros Forth

    I hope your first paragraph is right. If anything is going to save us, it’s the perennial inability of the pro-discrimination lawyers to come up with arguments in court that don’t sound totally pathetic. Outside the courthouse they can appeal openly to religious bigotry but inside they have to try to hide that.

  • nicho
  • nicho

    And until gays can prove what will happen should they marry, no one should let them marry.

    LOL — my mother never learned to swim because her mother refused to let her go near the water until she learned to swim. True story. This is the same thing. And how come we let straight people marry without any scientific studies?

  • Drew2u

    I thought if they wanted to stop gay people having sex, the natural answer was to let gay people get married!
    Anyone waiting for the first lesbian comedian to say, “Take my wife, please!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/monoceros.forth Monoceros Forth

    I’m sorry, am I missing something? Is “advancing thr interests of marriage” a duty of the state now?

  • http://voenixrising.com/ Mark Alexander

    Lil’ Ricky is projecting again…

  • candide08

    It would be great if Samtorum and his ilk stopped having sex.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bj.lincoln Bj Lincoln

    Because the defense could not come up with anything plus time and the repeal of DADT has already proven there is no harm, SCOTUS can only come to one conclusion. Equal marriage.
    Look at all the countries thinking about and have passed equal marriage in the last month.
    We also look like hypocrites telling others how to treat their LGBT people but still deny protections and civil marriage to our own.
    The violence in France is in the spot light and we do have people who have declared as well as signed that Pledge stating they would break the law if we all become equal. They are so desperate they will resort to violence.
    I am afraid it will get worse before it gets better but it is NOT us making this look bad.

  • lynchie

    Could be there are other issues

  • lynchie

    Her question does not indicate pro equality. It is a question and if a viable answer had been offered she might have vote against.

  • lynchie

    Sorry. A frightening thought. These comments above from a man who brought a dead baby home and slept in bed with it.

  • avahome

    Maybe teen pregnancy will go away….or does that just pertain to the married. Oh wait, we all know married men are monogamous and don’t diddle with their daughters, etc.

  • Sally

    If Ricky is so worried about not having sex, he might want to tell his party that banning contraception will STOP intelligent women from having sex. Of course, Ricky and his party are still free to rape and pillage and then sit back and wait for all those new GOP voters to appear.

  • FLL

    Justice Elena Kagan followed up, asking what exactly is the “harm to the
    institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples? How does this cause
    and effect work?”

    Touche, Elena Kagan. I remember that a few years back, commenters on some blogs were worried about whether Kagan would be pro-equality. Her ability to use critical thinking seems to be fine so far.

  • John D’oh

    Worked for my marriage. Since the gay came around, I ain’t getting any.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001426939279 Carl Kerstann

    Yes Ricky, I’ve just been waiting for gay marriage to become legal so I can stop having sex or maybe even become gay myself. You better watch your own a$$ Rick, you never know where it’s going to lead you.

  • ProtoMario

    Simply a case of Tempest in a teapot

  • kingstonbears

    Gee, thanks lynchie. Now I have that image burned into the back of my retinas for the rest of the day. Yikes!! LOL

  • lynchie

    That’s ok for you Rickie Boy, who would want to have sex with you?

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS