Rick Santorum got some push-back from university students in New Hampshire who did not like his stance on gay marriage. They even resorted to booing him as he left the stage, and you can watch the whole thing above.
Here is what I appreciate about Santorum in this setting. New Hampshire is not Iowa, and he knows it. Santorum knows that his social conservative views are not going to play as well with this crowd as they did with the crowds in Iowa.
Faced with this situation, most politicians would dissemble or avoid the topic. Santorum did not do that. He faced the issue head-on and attempted to persuade and to have a rational conversation about the moral issues at stake in the gay marriage debate. I think he showed far more respect to the students than they showed him.
Santorum’s candidacy is on the line in New Hampshire. That he did not pander nor shrink back from controversy just days before he is asking these people to vote for him is courageous. There are not many politicians who would do what Santorum did here.
I agree with you that Santorum was very brave. Although he and Romney have both signed pledges to call for a marriage amendment to the Constitution, somehow I don’t think we’ll hear Romney effectively arguing against gay marriage in NH. I think Santorum did an excellent job of handling this crowd and “moderating” a discussion instead of merely lecturing. It could have been much worse, I think. I did notice that there were many students applauding, in apparent agreement with Santorum. I imagine it’s not easy being a student in NH who holds a traditional view of marriage these days. The MSM will surely edit this clip and take the polygamy aspect out of context (as they did with his prior comments about bestiality) but Santorum is absolutely correct in asking the question about where you draw the line and from where you derive your morality.
Paula – the best way to make sure that your comments comparing gay marriage to bestiality and/or polygamy is to not make them, because they’re both weak arguments anyway.
I’ve said elsewhere that regardless of what you think of Santorum, you have to give him mad props for running the best campaign in Iowa, and he got the results there that he deserved. It’ll be a short lived victory, but he’ll always be able to tell his grandkids that he won the Iowa caucus.
“Paula – the best way to make sure that your comments comparing gay marriage to bestiality and/or polygamy is to not make them, because they’re both weak arguments anyway.”
Could you elaborate?
My respect for Santorum just increased 100 times.
The analogy to bestiality and polygamy, and also the “Man-boy” (pedophilia – NAMBLA) movement makes the same arguments – these are very valid.
Mormon groups who are practicing polygamy are starting to come out more and more on TV, news shows, reality shows, and make their case on the same reasoning for polygamy.
Santorum is right and he did an excellent job. There was also lots of applause – But the title of the mainstream media didn’t seem to point that out.
Michael Brown’s book –
In an interview with James White on the Dividing Line at http://www.aomin.org (I am not taking the time to get the exact show, but one can find it if they search) – M. Brown even told about some troubled souls that have actually gone to doctors to have their limbs removed – they argued that it did not fit their body and it was their own personal decision and happiness.
That is demonic, Satanic, and mental illness.
Homosexuality is a mental illness; and “I don’t belong in this body” – trans-genders, etc.
I like his stance. “Marriage really means whtever you want it to mean.”
He must be a devout Catholic when it comes to marriage and abortion. And I’m blessed he is.
When ever I argue about homosexual marriage, I simply go to the dictionary and look for the definitions of Marriage, Husband, Wife, Man, Woman, Male, Female, etc. There’s not any possibility that there is such a thing as “gay” marriage, in the sense that gay means homosexual.
I can actually say I have a gay marriage with my wonderful wife, when the word gay’s original meaning means: (merry – cheerful – jolly – joyful – blithe – mirthful)
Have a great weekend and Lord’s day Denny, and all!
Joan of Arkansas
His candidacy is not “on the line” in New Hampshire. Things won’t shake out until after South Carolina and Florida. New Hampshire is a tiny aberration.
Rick Santorum is a good and honest man. It is an indictment that the nation will reject him.
A good man who was listed as the single most corrupt senator in the senate in 2005 and 2006. A good man who helped Jack Abramoff with all of his seedy dealings. It is an indictment that people don’t do any digging before they start cheering on candidates. (and for the last time, I didn’t vote for Obama in ’08 and won’t in ’12 either)
Paul is right about the sketchiness of Santorum.
Ron Paul was man enough to call him out and yet Paul got the heat from Republicans by being called a liar when he in fact was right.
Very impressed with Santorum here, though I wouldn’t go so far as to concede that “Every relationship benefits society in some way.” Well, actually, no, it doesn’t, and we see evidence of that in the very issue he’s discussing. I realize he wanted to differentiate between a relationship on the one hand and a legally recognized relationship on the other, but I frankly don’t see any reason why we can’t and shouldn’t condemn both when the relationship is disgusting and defies God’s original plan.
He makes the point about not changing a law without justification for why the new position should be held. He makes a valid point, but that justification is here as of this summer as 50% of Americans support marriage between same sex couples. So the population is telling their representatives that they want a change in the legal social structure.
But I don’t think that forcing churches to marry people against their religious beliefs should be done. So I would considering the idea of having separate religious and legal marriage. Legal marriage would define how people are taxed and other considerations, and churches could still provide the sacred marriage as they see fit. It would also have the benefit of not forcing church leaders to serve as agents of the government, which is really odd when you think about it.
Marriage as defined in American society has not been the standard throughout history. It has included tribal affirmation, polygamy, a sacred affirmation, a legal contract with the government, etc. Some people such as Eunuchs were forced to not marry (or at least being incapable of consummation). So this is our society trying to understand what its social structure is.
We now know another school to not send our children to.