login  |  create an account

You May Also Like:

Share This Article

Well, the circus that is the Iowa caucuses is over and Mitt Romney is on top as the Republicans (which, with the exception of Fred Karger, are not known for their common sense on women’s/queer/youth issues). However, he won by only 8 votes, and as a Pennsylvanian, I would be remiss if I did not bring up the second place winner, ex-Senator and conservatroll Rick Santorum, who managed to represent Pennsylvania in the US Senate from 1995-2006, even though he actually lived in Virginia.

He first won election in 1994, a year when an R next to one’s name meant success. He also was able to squeeze through in 2000, and spent his first eight years being a low-key conservative voice in the Senate. Then of course, in April 2003, he decided to let his troll flag fly and made these stupid comments:

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

Now, this quote has been done to death (and we all know Dan Savage’s little google prank, but its too disgusting to mention here). After that, he has managed to say so many hateful things about reproductive freedom and queer issues that in 2006, he lost his re-election time to Bob Casey, who, although he is anti-choice, has been a supporter of the important queer issues.

So, I present to you, the best Santorum quotes you never heard of (and some you might have):

From CNS News:

"The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘We’re going to decide who are people and who are not people.’"

Oh, so now you are trying to say that just because Obama is black, he should be anti-choice, and brings up the slavery argument. This is so exploitative, its not even funny. African-Americans, like any other group, have many diverse opinions about different matters. According to Santorum’s line of thinking, I am an Italian-American from South Philadelphia, so was Frank Rizzo, Philadelphia’s mayor during the 1970s, who became famous for racially polarizing the city, being an apologist for police abuse, and famously stated that he would make Atilla The Hun look like a faggot. Therefore, by Santorum’s logic, I should be pro-police and cheer whenever some POC anarchist compound gets bombed, just because I share an ethnicity with this former mayor.

From Addicting Info:

“Suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is a part of life. And it’s not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life … There are all different ways to suffer. One way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter and there’s another way to suffer which is lack of dignity and hope and there’s all sorts of ways that people suffer and it’s not just tangible, it’s also intangible and we have to consider both.”

I do believe that there are many great stories of people triumphing over adversity. But Mr. Santorum, the world is not that simple; I, myself, as a transgender woman, have dealt with lack of shelter, in fact, I had to move out of the general area which you currently claim to live in order to find shelter (and I should not have to throw away my gender self-determination to do so). And I’ve had to deal with food insecurity myself. The last thing I want to see is people trying to shove the Bible down my throat when I am sailing those rough waters.

From LGBTQ Nation:

“You’re robbing children of something that they need, they deserve, they have a right to. They have a right to be know and be loved by their dad or their mom…Even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children’s lives."

Santorum, in a speech to the Dublin School in New Hampshire, somehow believes that an imprisoned father is somehow better than an unincarcerated parent of the same gender as their other parent. So, what if a child grows up in a "traditional" nuclear family, and the father sexually abuses the child, and then goes to prison for it. Then, in an unrelated turn of events, the child’s mom then comes out as a lesbian and enters a partnership with a woman, who becomes a parent to this child. By Rick Sandusk-torum’s logic, its better that the woman be alone raising her child and both of them forced to visit the father in prison/acknowledge him as a parent rather than having two loving parents (both not incarcerated) who are of the same gender helping to raise the child.

From his book It Takes A Family, Conservatism And The Common Good via Santorum Exposed:

"The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong."

So, what should single mothers do, Mr. Santorum? Should they have to go on welfare? Let’s face it, its always best to have two parents in the house, but not only does giving these women a hand up result in at least some of them contributing to the economy, but it saves money. This is what conservatism is about, but I guess Santorum does not realize that he is continuing the cycle of welfare dependency.

From same as above:

“Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more “professionally” gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment…Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders.”

Because dog forbid, women actually are empowered and some extra income is coming in. Ya know, there is also a slight bit of transphobia in this comment, as many trans women end up out of work, and there is often a view of trans women as being less than women, thus, they deserve to be part of the economy less than cisgender women.

From the New York Daily News:

"The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion,"

OK, wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason why Social Security is having issues right now is because the 1% only pays Social Security on the first $102,000 of income. It has nothing to do with abortions, and anybody who says otherwise is just plain lying. This is another example of the 99% being pitched against one another, so that they won’t organize against the 1% and the public remains enthralled with its bread and circuses, even as the ability to afford it continuously dwindles.

From The New Republic: (on priest abuse scandals):

“Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Hmmm, the Catholic church tends to be a very top down organization which is run by some man in a country that’s about the size of Temple University’s campus. This means that even in the most liberal places, the church is not going to be anything other than anti-choice and anti-queer. It was a Boston archbishop, Sean O’Malley, who stated that pro-choice elected officials should not receive communion. And besides, as we have seen just recently with the watered down gender identity bill, Boston really isn’t as liberal as most people say.

In conclusion, as long as one has wealth and power, they can say anything they want. Although this is not the end-all-be-all of troll-ish things Santorum has said, these are quite possibly the most outrageous, and I shudder at the thought of him having this much power

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis