stats for wordpress
<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


Rick Santorum: I Was Right About That Polygamy Slippery Slope

by David Badash on December 16, 2013

in News

Post image for Rick Santorum: I Was Right About That Polygamy Slippery Slope

Failed GOP politician (and now failed movie studio executive) Rick Santorum is really in need of a win right now. So the former Pennsylvania Republican Senator offered himself a (false) little pick-me-up this morning via Twitter.

For at least a decade, Santorum has been “warning” that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.

LOOK: Rick Santorum’s Top Ten Most-Offensive Anti-Gay Comments

“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,” Santorum claimed in 2003. “You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

Even just last year in New Hampshire, Santorum was drumming up the anti-polygamy, anti gay marriage fear-mongering: “So, everybody has the right to be happy?…So, if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?

The two, same-sex marriage and polygamy, actually have nothing to do with each other, because they’re regulated by entirely different law concepts.

LOOK: Polygamy And Marriage Equality — Are They The Same Fight?

But Santorum needed an easy out, so he tweeted this:

The link goes to the news about a federal judge de-criminalizing a portion of Utah’s ban on polygamy, which we reported on Friday. Ironically, it is a ruling that actually advances religious liberty, but for some reason that fact escaped Santorum’s usual theocratic tendencies.

Rick Santorum. A simple mind examining a complex issue.

 

Hat tip: Joe.My.God.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 4 comments }

Brian Stroup December 16, 2013 at 3:14 pm

I'm just going to plagiarize my own comment from the other polygamy post because I can:

"If opponents of marriage equality believe that doctrine of "religious freedom" allows churches to create their own rules on marriage, thereby denying marriage rites to same-sex couples, then they must accept that some churches will also want to exercise that freedom in other ways. This is a slippery slope of their own creation."

Huntercgo December 16, 2013 at 6:19 pm

" Ironically, it is a ruling that actually advances religious liberty, but for some reason that fact escaped Santorum’s usual theocratic tendencies."

That's because it's not his religion.

Allan_D December 17, 2013 at 4:13 am

Pardon me, but polygamy is nohing to do with us gays. If you want to see where it comes from,. you need to look in the Bible – Solomon with his 300 wives (and 700 concubines) may have been an extreme case, but it appears he was not atypical for his time and place.

Indeed, I am unsure I have ever heard of any quotation from the Bible where it says monogamy is the only path, though it seems to be the common practise amongst jews when Jesus lived.

There again, most of the people we hear about in the Bible were members of the elite, but most of those in the Gospels were not, and that may have made a difference.

Oh, and why does everyone – including the writers on this site – always assume that plural marriages will always be polygamy. Why not consider polyandery? Or would that be a step too far for anyone tosuggest (in Utah, or elsewhere)?

PS. Editted *twice) to get rid of the grammatical errors. Sorry. AS

Erihu December 17, 2013 at 9:32 am

Yeah….that would be true, Rick….if only it were true. Given that same sex marriage is STILL illegal in Utah, HOW could it possibly be the "slope"? The one has nothing to do with the other. You're full of it.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post:

<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>