Skip to main content

Another one for the “Shit You Can’t Make Up” file.  In an interview with Rick “Frothy Mix” Santorum, Don Lemon asked him if he has any gay friends.  Santorum replied that yes, of course he has gay friends.  So not only is he totally not a homophobe now, but he’s palling around with gay people in his spare time.  Isn’t that what they all say?

Don Lemon: Do you have any gay friends?
Santorum: Yeah, in fact, I have had gay people work with me.

Don Lemon: You know, people say, “I have black friends.”
Santorum: In fact, I was with a gay friend of mine just yesterday. So yeah, I do. And they respect that I have differences of opinion on that, I talk about these things in front of them, and we have conversations about it. They differ from me, but they know I love them because they’re my friends.

I don’t think anybody actually believes Santorum has any out and proud gay friends.  Nor do I think anybody needs a review of Santorum’s vile, vicious anti-gay record.  But, given these comments, I have to go there.  Maybe one of Santorum’s “gay friends” is reading.

From April 2003:

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…If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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.

From May 2008:

Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other?  I love my children.  I love my friends, I love my brother.  Heck, I even love my mother-in-law.  Should we call these relationships marriage, too?

From December 2010:

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was not about men and women serving in the military.  Men and women who are gays and lesbians can serve in the military right now.  That’s not the issue.  The issue is…the secularization of our society.  It’s a larger issue about the left trying to put the government in control of this country, trying to remove faith, trying to remove any people of faith and religion out of the public square, trying to transform what America is all about.  And this is just one more step in the process.

From January 2011:

Interviewer: Two men or two women marrying each other – is that a violation of the natural law?
Santorum: I believe it is.

Interviewer: Should the state sanction that?
Santorum: Well, no.

Interviewer: If the state takes a child and sticks it into a same-sex couple and allows that same-sex couple to adopt that child, is the state violating the rights of that child?
Santorum: I would say that the state is doing a disservice to that child, but what I can say is that the state is not doing a service to the child and to society by not putting that child in a home where there is a mother and a father.

Interviewer: A disservice to society or to the child?
Santorum: Both.  This is common sense.  This is nature.  And what we’re trying to do is defy nature because a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society, and I just don’t think that’s to the benefit of society or to the child.

From April 2011:

[Gays and lesbians] have the right to be able to – employment. I don't know what you mean by rights. What I'm talking about are privileges. Privileges of marriage, privileges of government benefits is a different thing than basic rights to live their lives as they well should and can as free Americans.

From May 2011:

Can you have good stock, solid family with a single parent? Yes you can…if you were getting on an airplane and you had a choice between two of them and one airplane would get you there 95 percent of the time and the other plane would get you there 85 percent of the time. What plane would you take?

[...]

A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.

From June 2011:

John King: Would a President Santorum push for a constitutional amendment as President Bush once proposed banning same-sex marriage?
Santorum: I support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.  I think that marriage should be a consistent thing across the country.  Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  It’s essential for the family, it’s essential for the stability of our culture to make sure that children are given the best hope, which is a mom and a dad.  And if we lower our sights for those children, we’re robbing children the potential of having a mom and a dad by changing the standard of what society believes in.

So…about that “gay friend” Rick Santorum was hanging out with a couple days ago.  Does his name begin with “Chris” and end with “Barron”?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And I hope they call him (5+ / 0-)

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:29:28 PM PDT

  •  He has friends who are black AND gay (4+ / 0-)

    When he was a Senator, he stood by his long-time aide Robert Traynham when he was outed.

  •  Show me his "gay friends"... (5+ / 0-)

    and I'll show you someone with real self-esteem issues.

  •  Just like racists saying... I have lots... (3+ / 0-)

    of black friends, see?  ... so I'm not a racist.  I have as much chance of being the GOP nominee for president as that loser does.

    "The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference." 3/28/11

    by BarackStarObama on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:33:09 PM PDT

  •  You're a better man than I am... (6+ / 0-)

    ...for being able to focus on Senator Man-on-Dog long enough to compile this diary.  Thanks for the Chris Barron link at the end. I hadn't seen the depths of enabling he's sunk to, but I can't say I'm all that surprised.

  •  It's a lie. Santorum has no friends at all. n/t (11+ / 0-)

    It's better to curse the darkness than light a candle. --Whoever invented blogs, c.1996

    by Rich in PA on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:37:16 PM PDT

  •  I think I would like to hear from those (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chrislove

    "gay friends"  and why would any self respecting person work for a guy who has said such hateful things.  I give you a few examples from the frothy man.

    Rick Santorum Says Gay People Not Entitled to the 'Privilege' of Adopting Children

    "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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,"

    "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,"

    “If you are a group, and this has got nothing to do with your orientation,” said Cardenas, “of straight couples, and you advocate gay marriage, that’s not within the scope of what we believe the three legs of the stool of the movement are.”

    “Let me first define what we are not talking about. I believe if two adults of the same sex want to have a relationship that is their business. But when they ask society to give that relationship special recognition and privileges, then we should be able to have a rational debate about whether that is good public policy.”

    Rick Santorum (R-PA) hinted that he would push for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage if he were elected president, arguing that gay or lesbian relationships could destabilize the culture, rob children “of the potential of having a mom and a dad,” and undermine religious liberties:

    “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”

    On teaching history of gay Americans: “I certainly would not approve of [a bill moving through the California legislature compels the state to add gay history to the state education curriculum], but there’s a logical consequence to the courts injecting themselves in creating rights and people attaching their legislative ideas to those rights that in some respects could logically flow from that. So I’m not surprised.”

    Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

    by J Edward on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:39:04 PM PDT

  •  Marriage is a privilege? (10+ / 0-)

    Perhaps I can refresh Mr. Santorum on the contents of a decision issued by SCOTUS on this day in 1967

    The decision in Loving v Virginia, was unanimous.  Remember that.

    From the concluding paragraph, before the convictions of the Lovings were reversed reads as follows:

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

    Allow me to repeat:  Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

    Perhaps Mr. Santorum will argue that the decision did not include the idea of same sex marriage because of the mention of existence and survival.  That still does not deal way the beginning that marriage is a basic and fundamental right, not a privilege.

    Oh, and for what it's worth, any sane reading of the Constitution would find the Defense of Marriage Act patently unconstitutional, on precisely the same grounds used by the Warren Court -  the Lovings were legally married before they returned to Virginia, and under Full Faith and Credit that marriage has to be recognized.  You cannot change a constitutional provision by statute.  On that point allow me to quote John Marshall from the Marbury case:  

    The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

    That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

    This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

    The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

    Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

    If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

    "what the best and wisest parent wants for his child is what we should want for all the children of the community" - John Dewey

    by teacherken on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:42:27 PM PDT

    •  Don't confuse them with facts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, Gooserock, Chrislove

      But pay attention to their evolving language.  Marriage is a privilege, not a right - they say.  Now, I'm hearing more and more that voting is a privilege.  (This is in response to new voter photo ID requirements, etc.)  Never mind the Civil War and a couple of constitutional amendments.  In the right wing world, only the privileged have rights.  That means straight, white, preferably male, and wealthy.

  •  No self-respecting gay person (5+ / 0-)

    is friends with Rick "Man-on-Dog" "Frothy Mix" Santorum.

    Any non-self-loathing gay person who pretends to be his friend is just practicing "keep your enemies closer."

  •  Why would gay people have HIM as a friend? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gizmo59, Remediator

    Why would ANY carbon-based life form have him as a friend?

    261.A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience. -Ferengi Rules of Acquisition

    by MaikeH on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 07:17:20 PM PDT

  •  His Former Chief of Staff... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gizmo59, petral, Chrislove, gramofsam1

    ...  Robert  Traynham was gay AND black. So I guess that's fits his "I have a gay friend" and "I have a black friend" talking point.

  •  It's hard to decide if Rick Santorum (0+ / 0-)

    really believes that same-sex attraction is unnatural.  It's a dangerously clueless and uninformed attitude.  It could be true in Santorum's case for all I know, and if it is, it's kind of pathetic as well as unacceptable.  

    My real guess is that he spews the hateful and discriminatory comments about LGBTQs because he knows it stimulates his far-Right donor base and wins him little merit badges from the "social issues" crowd.

    If this is the case, I think it's more than fair to accuse him of attempting to advance himself politically on the dignity of others and at the expense of their right to the same rights of citizenship that Rick Santorum has.  

  •  Someone needs to ask Santorum (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chrislove

    if a gay man jumped on his back, would he beat him off? I think he would be absolutely stymied by that one.

    I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

    by doc2 on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:27:56 PM PDT

  •  Not out and proud but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chrislove

    many of his republican caucus mates are gay.

  •  I guess this has nothing to with religion? (0+ / 0-)

    Santorum isn't playing to the "religious right" is he?

    So can we either get the religious right to be either less religious or to change their religious convictions enough to say, "gay is okay?"

    Or should we work to diminish the influence of religion overall in our society.

    IMO the later course offers the greatest hope because the secular nations of the world are way ahead on gay rights. So that seems to suggest that less religion there is more gay rights there are.

    God is the problem, not the solution.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 10:15:06 PM PDT

  •  I still don't get why this asshole... (0+ / 0-)

    ...even gets interviewed while Fred Karger (or whatever) is just completely ignored. You'd think the media would like trot out some fresh meat rather than this rancid leftover whose views are exactly what they were his last campaign. Seriously, it's not new, it's neither relevant or informative, and he's really just too ugly for Americans to vote for.

  •  At least he is honest about his hatred, and the (0+ / 0-)

    essentially bigoted view that Gays do not deserve the same things in life as Heterosexuals. These men and women w/ such intrinsically prejudiced views largely understand the extent of the damage they inflict. That's what makes this all the more painful for those of us in the Gay community. In many cases, as w/ Santorum, it is outright hatred that is fully conscious and understood by the bigot. It is not ignorance of the basics of human sexuality, but a pure hatred for someone different from themselves.

  •  "I don't know what you mean by rights"-- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, Chrislove

    that's Santorum in a nutshell.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site