Pay attention to this:
“People are looking for someone who doesn’t read off a teleprompter; that actually tells you what they believe, and can do so with some consistency.”
“They’re looking for someone authentic that they can trust, who has a clear idea of where to take this country,” he said. “And while they may not agree with everything I believe in, I think they feel like they have someone that they can trust, who’s actually going to [do] what they say they’re going to do.”
And where does he want to take the country?
Here:
“Waves of death, starting with the passengers on commercial airplanes falling out of the sky, explosions in manufacturing facilities, and patients on life support; followed by the chronically sick, such as patients on dialysis machines or lifesaving medications; and then the victims of ruthless violence, disease, and starvation,” said Santorum, basing his predictions on a novel called “One Second After.” “All told, the novel suggests 90 percent of Americans won’t survive a year.”
“In short,” Santorum wrote, “doomsday.”
And here:
Santorum predicted that the government would soon crack down even on people who spoke out against same-sex marriage.
“Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches,” he wrote.
And don't
forget this:
Birth control, even within marriage, violates his beliefs as a Roman Catholic. Last year Santorum told the Christian blog Caffeinated Thoughts that as president he would warn the nation about "the dangers of contraception" and the permissive culture it encourages. "Many of Christian faith have said, `Well, that's OK. Contraception is OK,'" he said. "It's not OK. It's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. ... If it's not for purposes of procreation, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women."
Or this:
We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. [...]
Whether its sensuality of vanity of the famous in America, they are peacocks on display and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable. The corruption of culture, the corruption of manners, the corruption of decency is now on display whether it’s the NBA or whether it’s a rock concert or whether it’s on a movie set.
This:
At a time when overt expressions of religiosity are increasingly a part of politics, Santorum is, with the exception of President Bush, the nation's pre-eminent faith-based politician -- a devout Catholic so valued by religious conservatives of all faiths that Time magazine recently included him on its list of America's ''25 Most Influential Evangelicals.'' Santorum told me that the recognition surprised him, but it also clearly pleased him. ''What that tells you,'' he said, ''is that I'm out front on a lot of issues that matter to people of faith.''
And here:
''How is it possible, I wonder, to believe in the existence of God yet refuse to express outrage when his moral code is flouted?'' he asked that day. ''To have faith in God, but to reject moral absolutes? How is it possible that there exists so little space in the public square for expressions of faith and the standards that follow from belief in a transcendent God?''
And here:
Marriage -- defined as the union between one man and one woman -- falls into the fragile category. Santorum supports a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, which he equates to ''messing with the basic family unit.'' He says he does not believe that a right to privacy -- the basis of court decisions legalizing abortion and overturning sodomy laws -- can truly be found in the Constitution, and he says he fears that the same legal reasoning could be employed to legalize gay marriage. Returning in 2003 to the Heritage Foundation to speak on ''The Necessity of Marriage,'' he said: ''The notion of a right to privacy is not about the common good, but about 'me.' Starting during the sexual revolution with contraception, it quickly evolved to abortion, and now it has found its way into today's marriage debate.''
And he's been terrorizing LGBTs for the entirety of his career:
When I asked him if he viewed gay marriage as a threat to his own marriage, he answered quickly. ''Yes, absolutely,'' he said. ''It threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.''
He really, really has. He stops just short of saying "faggot" and threatening us with violence. Only because he desperately wants his message out there. This is how much he wants to take
down LGBTs:
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. 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. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
He undeniably wants to terrorize LGBT people. He wants to see us criminalized. He admits this. This is not a dog whistle. This is him admitting it. This is him telling us. This is him telling his followers what he believes and this is them receiving that message. This is him speaking to a national audience on a national stage. This is him scaring people like myself. This is me losing sleep over more casualties in our culture war that some people are trying to resurrect, even after James Dobson and others declared it officially dead in 2009. That the same people will never actually take part in this war makes me sick. They want to bring it back and tell us to fight it out. This is people trying to bring it back just to play political games. This is people who aren't thinking about what will hurt us because they just want to prolong an election for humor.
This man believes what he is saying. He is not joking. Take him seriously. And start pointing out that while he is authentic, he's a fucking authentic terrorist. He's the David Duke of anti-LGBT sentiment. He can get people to like him by seeming polite but inside he wants to hurt us. He's honest, but what he's honest about should scare everyone. I know people besides myself have to see this. It can't be just me.