Today on Blogcritics
Home » Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Kids, Pro-Rick Santorum

Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Kids, Pro-Rick Santorum

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

Powered by

About carmine

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Vote for him. Go ahead. Vote twice, if you can get away with it.

    He’s still going to lose in 2006.

  • 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.

  • mike

    Your blurb states that you are a straight Log Cabin Republican. That’s an oxymoron. Which, incidentally, isn’t all that surprising, considering…

  • kittygogo

    Everytime I see this guy’s name or hear it, it reminds me of vomitorium. Coincidence?

  • rucky

    I don’t think I want to hear parenting advice from a guy who brings a stillborn baby home to show the kids.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Rucky, did he really do that? Got a source?

    Dave

  • http://viewfromalefty.blogspot.com John A. Conley

    I think I speak for a lot of liberals I know when I say, Huh?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.djradiohead.com 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.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • http://www.djradiohead.com DJRadiohead

    Goodbye, Burger King, hello Wendy’s
    Good for you, Silas. That is the way democracy is supposed to work.

  • http://gratefuldread.net/ 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net/ 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate 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?

  • 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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com 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…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “What else is a man who equates gay marriage with the promotion of bestiality?”

    Out-of-context, and you know it…

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate 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!”

  • Nick

    RJ, not at all. Remember how the thread began. Or is context irrelevant to you? Next time, construct a coherent argument, please… If this is asking too much, I am sure we can organize a small therapy group for your tormented mind….

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    What Santorum actually said:

    “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”

    What he was saying is that civilization has always assumed marriage to be between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a man and a child, or a man and an animal.

    Of course, he is incorrect on this. Societies have often supported polygamous marriages, as well as marriages between a young adult and a child.

    But his point wasn’t to equate two gay men or two gay women with some sick bastard who fucks canines. His point was that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and that any attempt to alter this, regardless of how, is not something he supports.

    Of course, the Left has taken this quote out of context in order to attack him. Typical…

  • Nick

    RJ, so you would be happy to have your sexual preference compared to having sex with a dog? Or perhaps you think a comparison to incest is more appropriate? http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.gays/

    Note that there were Republicans who condemned Santorum’s remarks. Or are they also left-wing conspirators?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Well, I thought by posting his actual quote, you would realize he wasn’t “comparing” these things at all.

    But I guess you still don’t get it.

    Oh, well…

  • Nick

    RJ, how is that massive beam in your hot little eye? Please do try and be just a touch more original… and reading the quotes thoughtfully would help. Or have you decided that the Log Cabin Republicans are just a leftwing cabal? They seem to read Santorum as basically a paid-up bigot.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Wow…shocking! Gay people don’t like it when a politician strongly opposes gay marriage!

    Unbelievable!

  • Nick

    RJ, ah yes, those liberal pinko Republican gays? Or were you thinking of another group of conspirators?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Have you ever heard of the strawman fallacy, Nick?

    I don’t believe I ever mentioned a conspiracy afoot.

    Please, try to stay within the realm of reality.

    Thanks.

  • Nick

    RJ, to be precise, the “straw man” you mention is not a fallacy, but a rhetorical technique used in argument. As for reality, been waiting for you to get there for some time now… Keep on paddling towards that little island…

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    That “pinko” word just gets funnier each time you cool, tough guys on the site use it.

    That is all.

  • RogerMDillion

    It’s going to be a long wait

  • Nick

    Hey Bob, you ol’ smoothie you! I use pinko because it seems short (if not sweet) and poor RJ is pretty much running on empty. Have to keep him around for a few more rounds, just to keep the crowd amused! But glad you think I’m cool and tough – the compliment is gladly returned!

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    I hear ya, Nick. But using it makes the conservatives white guys on this site ecstatic — that’s one of their favorite phrases to use because they’re all Johnny Rambos behind their keyboard.

    Especially General Al Barger.

    That is all.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    You gay-rights folks shouldn’t worry too much. Santorum is finished. Casey Jr. will be the next Senator from PA.

    That being said, Santorum has gotten a lot of bad press thanks to people who take his statements out of context, and twisted them to mean something else.

    Congrats.

  • Nick

    RJ, your tender, gentle concern delights us all, but no-one here loses any sleep over Cuddle Bear Ricky. After all, he just ain’t .. well.. sexy. Anyway, have fun oiling your biceps and getting your spit-curl in place for your next round of strutting and preening!

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    RJ, what do you have against gay rights folks? Or gay rights, for that matter?

    They’re not going to take your “get a bigger penis” websites away :)

    Just kidding, buddy. My question above was serious, though.

    That is all.

  • Nick

    Bob, I guess you have silenced the opposition with one majestic post! Hats off to you, sir!

  • red state

    I’m so sick of hearing you left wingers whine about gay rights. It’s not gay rights it’s gay special rights.

    I could care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of thier own home however every time you turn on the TV it’s always gay this gay that. The media portrays being gay as somehow being better than being straight. It’s trendy to be gay because gay people are more stylish, gay people are more sensitive, gay people are more enlightened……what a load of horseshit

    You want to be gay? Fine be gay. Just shut the fuck up and stop reminding us your gay every five seconds. Straight people don’t define themselves by thier sexuality and feel the need to remind people of it every five seconds so why do gays have to.

    And as for gay marriage most americans don’t want it legalized. sorry but thats the truth. gay marriage ban amendments have been voted on by the public in 17 states and approved in all 17 states including some very liberal states such as Hawaii and Oregon

  • Jason

    Dear Red State:

    You must be kidding. How are gay people asking for special rights just to be able to marry the person they love?

    And as for making a big deal out of their sexuality. It is NOT gay people that have made a big deal out of their sexuality, but those people who oppose gay people every step of the way. Imagine just for a minute if you were a gay person, and you turned on the TV and everything you saw had to do with being straight (from romance and courtship to marriage). I could turn the TV on right now and go to 20 different channels on not see ONE gay person, or hear one person talk about being gay. The problem is that people who don’t understand gay people or who are afraid of them, may see homosexuality mentioned once or twice on TV and then start yelling about how its all over the place. I’m sorry Red State, but its not all over the place, and no one makes a big deal out of it until far-right conservatives start saying that gay people aren’t eligible for the same rights as straight people. Being gay is more than just having sex – it’s also about romance, and sharing your life with someone, and hoping you’re able to talk about that important other person without the fear of recrimination from others.

    It only seems that when gay people stand up and start fighting for things, that people seem to get scared, and start lamenting about how everything’s gay now – it’s not. Many states have passed laws not even permitting law abiding, tax-paying, hard-working gay people to have a few of the benefits of domestic partnership, much less those of marriage.

    And many states have passed laws outlawing marriage between same-sex couples often because many in the religious right have catered to people’s fear of the unknown, by spreading lies about gay people and the community – which is incredibly sad

  • James Carmine

    Red State, Blue State et al.
    Let me start with the simple statement that Love of one’s children is an absolute good. Whatever can help us cement our love for our children is therefore instrumentally good as well. We currently live in a divorce culture that hurts our children. Democrats typically embrace that divorce culture which has horrible consequences for our children. However, gay marriage, by definition, is opposed to the divorce culture. Therefore, gay marriages with the possibility of adopting children into lifelong loving homes is instrumentally good. I would rather my child raised by a loving gay couple than by a “victim” single mother and that despicable entourage of social workers, psychologists, and the other social sycophants endorsed by the Hillarites and the Teddygogues.
    Jim Carmine

  • Jason

    Jim,

    Thank you for that comment. I couldn’t agree more. However, even though I do disagree with you that democrats embrace divorce more than other groups, I do agree that marriage should be something that is revered. I cannot endorse marriages though that are frought with bad-will, that are highly dysfunctional, and that create an atmosphere of abuse and neglect. Marriage, for marriage’s sake alone is not a good thing either – for us OR for our kids.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Good points, red state.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    How about this:

    Amend the US Constitution to define “marriage” as a union between ONE adult male and ONE adult woman.

    Also stipulate that gay couples have the right to enter into “civil unions” that are the equivalent to “marriages” in every way except for the word “marriage.”

    This is something I think most moderates would agree upon.

    Marriage remains between a man and a woman. But gays will get to enjoy all the rights and benefits that a marriage entails.

    Sounds like a good idea, right?

    But the problem is that the Left will oppose it as somehow being “seperate-but-equal,” and the Right will oppose it as giving in to a small, but very outspoken, minority of sexual degenerates.

    So, while the majority of people in the “mushy middle” might embrace such a Constitutional Amendment, the fringes on both sides of the political spectrum would oppose it.

  • Jason

    RJ –

    I think you’re right on the money. I consider myself to be just a little left of center, and I agree that Civil Unions are the way to go – especially with so much hostility on both sides of the fence. I still think moderates should push this. I am a gay man myself, but am far from being a leftie. I am aware that it will take a compromise from both sides to put this issue to rest. Thank you!

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Why do you need the stupid Constitutional amendment? Why sully our laws with a codification of heterosexism? The majority (both in Washington and in the public) is AGAINST a Constitutional amendment and all the time and expense it would incur. Moreover, the level of anti-gay sentiment that would be a result of a campaign for the amendment would be deletrious to acceptance of gay people itself.

    Why not just offer gay people full, equivalent rights now if you’re so worried about marriage? Maybe then they’d stop pushing for the term “marriage” to be applied to their unions. The problem is that backwards thinkers like “Red State” are so homophobic that they don’t even want gays to enjoy full partnership benefits. So that’ll never fly either — no Christian Coalition conservative is going to accept gays being allowed to adopt, share insurance, and enjoy the other benefits of marriage because of some ill-conceived “compromise deal” to have an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution that would take years to ratify. On the other side, no gay activist is going to accept a discriminatory amendment to the Constitution and the legal precedent that would entail based on some unenforceable promise of full benefits that could be easily run rough-shod over by bigoted local or state politicians who so chose based on the “primacy” of the new Constitutional amendment.

    Adding the word “special” doesn’t mean anything or do anything except get you reactionary, fearful white guys all riled up. That’s the weakest pejorative term ever created by dumb politicians.

    Ooooh, those fancy boys think they’re SO special! Oooooh, those minorities without homes think they’re SO special because they have Jesse Jackson going around and throwing blackness in our face. Why can’t everyone just be normal and stop being so flamboyantly gay and colored? Stop being so special!

    That is all.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    RJ, you didn’t answer my question:

    What’s your problem with gay rights or gay rights people, other than that you’re RJ and have to have a knee-jerk reaction to everything?

    I’m really curious to know here.

    That is all.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Civil unions? Absolutely NOT. I’ve reversed my stance on them. I want to revolutionize the marriage concept with Covenant Partnerships. And I want these partnerships to have such stringent guidelines that it is difficult to break them. Let’s steal the idea from all those wonderful straight couples who are in covenant marriages. If the ‘majority’ doesn’t want ‘gay marriages’ so be it. A covenant partnership should be recognized as a partnership between two individuals, regardless of gender, and the rights of the individuals shall be equal to those of couples who are involved in conventional marriage. Let the straights have their marriage. Most of them end up in divorce anyway.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Marriage is dissolving because heterosexuals are unable to manage their own interpersonal relationships, not because of gay people. What’s going to happen? Gay people getting married is going to disgust you so much you’re no longer going to show affection toward your wife? A gay man’s going to break up your happy home because of your latent homoerotic attractions?

    Oh please.

    Divorce rates are almost 65% now and in big cities, it’s over 70% of new marriages.

    Marriage is an archaic legal concept that is being torn asunder by the culture, and it has nothing to do with gay people. If you REALLY want to ban or discriminate against anything to save marriage, ban chick flicks, romance films, Friends, and anything else that creates lofty, individualistic expectations of love and romance that create constant disappoinment with the real and often mundane challenges of everyday life. Hell, ban alcohol, office flirting, massage parlors, Internet dating and all the other things scummy husbands use as an excuse to cheat on their wives.

    There’s no logic to this fear of gay marriage, especially if you’re willing to give gays everything but the “title” of marriage.

    RJ, you’re not even religious, are you?
    You seem like a Godless man to me, which is a compliment coming from a fellow heathen.

    That is all.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Same sex couples are more in line with Jesus Christ’s basic message than fundamentalist heterosexual couples.

    Isn’t that so ridiculous? I made that statement on purpose just to cause fundamentalist Christian heterosexuals to pop a blood vessel and come to this thread. Evil, I am, young Luke.

    Now that I have your attention, let’s get to the heart of the matter. BABs says: Marriage is dissolving because heterosexuals are unable to manage their own interpersonal relationships, not because of gay people. This seems so true. We’ve developed a society where the dissolution of marriage has become commonplace. That’s the sin in my eyes. There should be laws in place saying that if a person divorces they should not be allowed to remarry for a period of time. We need to nurture the concept of marriage, regardless of the individual dynamics. I’ve got strong family values — I believe in the power of families and that they are the backbone of this great Republic. It’s just that I believe that which constitutes a family sometimes is not completely dependent on biology.

    Marriage is an archaic legal concept that is being torn asunder by the culture, and it has nothing to do with gay people. I agree. The culture is tearing apart the whole marriage philosophy and it has nothing to do with gays whatsoever. I don’t agree, though, that it’s an archaic legal concept. There has to be some kind of legal mechanism for a couple to be bound to each other for a whole variety of reasons. Love is love. When two people truly love each other and want to spend their lives together, it really doesn’t matter about gender. It’s about those two individuals and the preservation of their wills, desires and rights.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “RJ, you’re not even religious, are you?
    You seem like a Godless man to me, which is a compliment coming from a fellow heathen.”

    Logic makes me agnostic. :)

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Why couldn’t we all be Vulcans?

  • Vincent C

    Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and voting for Rick Santorum? That is …. odd.

    While I agree w/ Santorum that it does take parents to raise a child, I firmly believe that it does not matter whether the parents are straight or gay. Love is what matters, not gender. Santorum’s vocal, forceful opposition to gay marriage and even civil unions is not pro-family.

    I would urge you to vote for Bob Casey Jr. He is anti-choice but I might actually send him some money seeing as how he is the better alternative.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Rick Santorum sucks, m’kay? I have tried to a little bit defend him once using South Park, but he needs to go. Jonathan Rauch convinced me.

  • Christy Baraff

    Dr. Carmine I’m disappointed in you. I didn’t think you would be a one-issue sort of person. That doesn’t make you any better than the ultraconservative fundamentalist Christians that you are so quick to criticize in class. And, here I was thinking that you made a lot of sense. Silly me.

  • stu

    Interesting to us outside PA that the vicious attackers of Santorum see as their champion the namesake of the last democrat to be vocally anti-abortion.

    If Casey wins (and I doubt he will) how long will you tolerate him?

  • Bennett

    Bob – Comment #50 was well written.

    Thanks for that.

  • Jessica Cale

    alowe it please i have a friend that is gay so please think about what i have said….
    thanks
    Jessica Cale

  • Jessica Cale

    please alow you need to think of thouse gays out there that want to git married but they cant so think about others not just yourself

  • Stewart

    My 20 year old daughter is a lesbian. She lives with me and her older brother, by mutual choice. That being said, I believe that homosexual activity is sinful and homosexual “marriage” should be banned.

    PS: Abortion is murder. Senator Santorum is a good man, and tiring him with the ephitet “Rick the Prick” is indicative of a hateful, small-minded bigot.

  • http://stoppseudoscience.blogspot.com carmine

    Stewart,
    I agree with you regarding Santorum, and I did vote for him. The “Rick the Prick” line was merely to make the point that even if you do not like Santorum on every point you should still vote for him. Even if you hated him, you should have voted for him. I hoped saying such a commonly said crude thing might convince some who might not like him on all the issues to vote for him nevertheless. He is still one of the best politicians out there, and I am sure we will see more of him. There just aren’t that many men of real integrity in the world, his stance on abortion and gay marriage are irrelevant when it comes to the bigger picture.

%d bloggers like this: