I am decidedly pro-choice and fundamentally pro-gay marriage, but after reading the laughably clumsy September 5, interview by Patricia Sheridan in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette I am now resigned to the fact that I will be voting for Rick Santorum. At least he actually understands that kids really do need fathers when at all possible.
Yes I do agree with “Rick the Prick.” It does take a family to raise a child and it takes a community to help that family thrive sufficiently to raise that child. Divorce law in America now, however, effectively destroys community support for families — all families, both gay and straight. A particularly painful example of this is that family court judges influenced by victim politics are smugly pleased when they take our soldiers’ children and income from them while they are at war overseas fighting to protect those very children. As a social liberal, which I am, it actually hurts me a bit even to admit I am voting for Rick Santorum, but mean as he is regarding his bizarre antipathy to gay marriage, he alone is the candidate most likely to help fathers raise their children.
Oddly enough a most horrid article in the purportedly conservative Pittsburgh Tribune Review on September 6,”Mean girls” by Kellie B. Gormly, actually quotes a famously stupid Orefield, Pa. psychologist, Dr. Herbert Mandell, who blames the malice of girls on “emotionally absent or abusive fathers.” Mandell conveniently overlooks the reality of our “yippee. divorce is great” culture. The reality is that child-custody decisions ushered in by Hillary/Boxer/Pelosi Democrats have created an America where the majority of girls are not actually allowed to see their fathers more than a few days a month.
The destructive notion that American children are best raised by communities of social workers in conjunction with single mothers is the shibboleth of the Democratic Party. Santorum sanely rejects that. Go Rick!
So that’s it. I’m voting for Rick Santorum and then taking a stiff drink and hoping my closest kindest friends will someday talk to me again. Or I may just lie and say I didn’t really vote for Santorum. But I am a dad, and as I see it Rick Santorum is the only guy looking out for my kids. Because sure as hell, NOW and the NARAL liars aren’t.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
Vote for him. Go ahead. Vote twice, if you can get away with it.
He's still going to lose in 2006.
2 - carmine
If the Dems come up with someone better I'd vote for that candidate. Kids without dads have lousy lives in innumerable ways. The Dems seem to profit off of this. Rick Santorum actually speaks up regularly on behalf of fathers' fair access to their own children. I've written Casey, but all I get is... SILENCE.
3 - mike
Your blurb states that you are a straight Log Cabin Republican. That's an oxymoron. Which, incidentally, isn't all that surprising, considering...
4 - kittygogo
Everytime I see this guy's name or hear it, it reminds me of vomitorium. Coincidence?
5 - rucky
I don't think I want to hear parenting advice from a guy who brings a stillborn baby home to show the kids.
6 - Dave Nalle
Rucky, did he really do that? Got a source?
Dave
7 - John A. Conley
I think I speak for a lot of liberals I know when I say, Huh?
8 - carmine
Well team it is true, politics in America is religion now, or maybe even a gender. I guess that makes me bi-political neither Republican nor Democrat and I have a mixed marriage too. Libertarian, Republican and the kid converted to Democrat.
9 - Jason
I understand your frustration with many democrats, but I don't believe its fair to characterize even a majority of them as people who would be happy to have American children "raised by communities of social workers in conjunction with single mothers". I know many democrats, but not a single one of them seems to have this view of raising children.
Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, had it right on the money with the idea that it takes a Village to raise a child. If you think that teachers, friends, daycare providers, etc... don't influence a child's development, in an active sort of way, then you must have blinders on. The community doesn't just "support the family", it also plays a part in the development of our children.
10 - DJRadiohead
If you think that teachers, friends, daycare providers, etc... don't influence a child's development, in an active sort of way, then you must have blinders on.
It takes a village or we use a village? Children need to be raised to be able to join the village but I am not convinced we need to let the village do so much of the raising.
Of course these village representatives have a profound influence on children. Children spend so much time with them. Quantity and quality time have to be part of the equation.
11 - Silas Kain
Here's a Whopper for you. On May 26, 2005 Burger King Corporation Political Action Committee donated $5,000 to the Santorum Campaign. Goodbye, Burger King, hello Wendy's.
12 - DJRadiohead
Goodbye, Burger King, hello Wendy's
Good for you, Silas. That is the way democracy is supposed to work.
13 - Natalie Davis
I understand wanting to support fathers' rights. Sorry, I don't understand sticking a knife into those who don't fit Santorum's view as people deserving of equality to make one political point.
Re: Santorum and his stillborn child
It's true. If you doubt that the Washington Post has any journalistic credibility at all, you won't believe it, but for those with an open mind, check out this story, in which the right-winger talked about the issue of Gabriel Michael Santorum's stillbirth.
"Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass. ...
He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could 'absorb and understand that they had a brother,' Santorum says. 'We wanted them to see that he was real,' not an abstraction, he says. Not a 'fetus,' either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- 'a 20-week-old fetus' -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read '20-week-old baby.'"
For the record, as much as I loathe Santorum's political views and his obvious despising of GLBT people, and while I personally think traveling around and having kids take photos with a dead fetus is gross and questionable, I feel very sad about the pain he and his family endured.
14 - carmine
N.D., This sort of attack is exactly why Democrats are in trouble. You, as most who embrace victim politics, have attempted to elevate ad hominem meaness to the level or reasonable argument. Of course most of the victim Deaniac/Teddy crowd don't actually know what an ad hominem argument is so I'll explain. It is attacking the person rather than the person's arguments. Yes Rick's policies will help dads and no he certainly does not hate "GLBT people." Read the interview quoted and you can get a good sense of his arguments. His arguments rejecting Gay Marriage are wrong, certainly, but they are reasonable, as was his decision to introduce his children to their dead premature sibling.
15 - Dave Nalle
I thought N. D.'s comments on Santorum and the fetus were both informative and touching. She clearly gets it beyond just the possible ideological point. I'd never do the same thing, but I do find it touching and a little horrific.
Dave
16 - Silas Kain
Reading about how the Santorums dealt with their loss was touching. I'd never attack his parental skills because, frankly, in my eyes how his family deals with grief is a personal thing that has no business in the political forum. However, when he says that the legalization of gay marriage threatens his marriage I have a problem. His marriage is his business. I don't want to know what goes on in his bedroom. The mere fantasy of it makes me intellectually flacid.
17 - Natalie Davis
Dr. Carmine, you have lost all credibility with me. I have attacked no one. And I have talked with Santorum on a number of occasions -- his feelings for GLBT people and me are quite clear to me, hence the use of the word "obvious." He is opposed to equality under law for me and for other GLBT people; that counts as hatred in my book. Anyone who wants someone else to suffer is guilty of hatred. I disagree with you. I disagree with Dubya Bush. Do I want either of you to suffer? Do I want either of you to be unequal under law? Absolutely not.
18 - Dave Nalle
Your book has too many pages with hatred written on them, ND. Those who are looking for a moderate solution to the gay marriage issue and who want to make progress by small steps rather than leaps and bounds may not be on the right page, but they aren't necessarily deserving of hate.
dave
19 - Al Barger
No, Dave, you're wrong. No, you're not "wrong." You're evil. No, you're EVIL.
We must re-define the historical meaning and understanding of marriage NOW, by any means necessary, by legislature or by court, because I have declared it to be a civil rights issue. There'll be no extended debate. It has been decided.
Of course, all who oppose the established Truth, or wish to slow-walk it or make compromise measures of "civil unions" are guilty of hatred, and will lose all my respect.
So you want to agree with me now, or are you an evil fascist hater, a monster who should be shunned by society?
20 - Kohl
I think you are mistaken sir on your issue of children needing a father. For a large portion of my life it has been just my mom and my younger brothers. Whether it be from a divorce or the Marine Corps constantly sending my 'step father' away we've barely had this father figure in our lives. All four of us have turned out as seemingly 'normal' and strong as one can be in this strange country of ours.
This is also true for your comment on a child needing a strong community to help them thrive. As a military brat, I can safely say that there is no community unless you force it onto yourself and others. Why? We're all too busy leading lives to get together for town meetings and pot lucks.
21 - Natalie Davis
Mr. Nalle, you have no idea what is in my book. Presume as you will, of course.
There is no moderate solution on this issue: There is either equality or inequality. You may not agree with how I see things, but surely you can understand that from my vantage point, someone who wishes to deny me equality under law certainly does not love me.
22 - Nick
I am sorry, but how can anyone consider Rick Santorum to be anything other than homophobic?
What else is a man who equates gay marriage with the promotion of bestiality? Santorum is a peddler of the politics of hate, and should have no part of any responsible government or legislative body. If you choose to vote for him, remember that your vote will be taken as affirming his whole agenda.
23 - RJ
No, Dave, you're wrong. No, you're not "wrong." You're evil. No, you're EVIL.
We must re-define the historical meaning and understanding of marriage NOW, by any means necessary, by legislature or by court, because I have declared it to be a civil rights issue. There'll be no extended debate. It has been decided.
Of course, all who oppose the established Truth, or wish to slow-walk it or make compromise measures of "civil unions" are guilty of hatred, and will lose all my respect.
So you want to agree with me now, or are you an evil fascist hater, a monster who should be shunned by society?
That's pretty much what it comes down to, with the Left-wing fringe...
24 - RJ
"What else is a man who equates gay marriage with the promotion of bestiality?"
Out-of-context, and you know it...
25 - Al Barger
Miss Natalie's comment 21 reflects such a perfectly childish kind of moral blackmail, "If you loved me, you'd give me this." Even the little children that I associate with know better than this kind of foolishness.
Then when he doesn't give you just exactly what you demand, the next response should be perhaps, "I hate you Daddy. Hate you, hate you, hate you!"