Rick Santorum, Mulling 2012, Warms To Gay Marriage?
“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.”
Rick Santorum now:
“I have no problem from a public policy point of view with homosexuality.”
Whoa! Stop the presses! Did Rick Santorum just come out in support of homosexuality and gay marriage?
Well, to quote fellow wildcat conservative John Boehner, “Hell no!”
Santorum, who lost his 2006 U.S. Senate election by 59% to 41%, “the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since 1980,” has made a name for himself as an extremely right-wing politician. He has made friends — and enemies — from his very public statements and voting record on gays, gay marriage, and gay rights, “intelligent design,” Hurricane Katrina, immigration, the Catholic Church’s pedophile priest problem, Iraq’s WMDs, and many other social and political issues.
Rick Santorum is profiled in a CBS News story today:
Santorum, a Fox News contributor, raised more than $700,000 through his Political Action Committee in the second half of 2009, with most of that money going to direct mail solicitations designed to build a conservative base of support and national profile. He has already traveled to key early primary states, and in a January letter to supporters stated flatly that he is “actively considering the 2012 race.”
The author of “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” Santorum might seem an odd candidate for the current moment. He’s remembered far more for his commitment to social issues than the concerns about the country’s fiscal problems animating the Tea Party movement.
But somewhat under-the-radar, Santorum has kept his profile up among conservatives via op-eds and a Friday guest-hosting gig on Bill Bennett’s radio show. He now “sees an opening for someone who can unite the various primary factions — economic libertarians, party establishment types and cultural conservatives,” according to CBS News Chief Political Consultant Marc Ambinder.
Santorum will likely seek to position himself as “a true-blue, reliable social conservative who proved his conservatism in the Senate,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report. “He can argue he won in Pennsylvania, which is not normally predisposed to support conservatives, so that proves his abilities.”
And,
“In the Senate, Rick Santorum called banning gay marriage ‘the ultimate homeland security issue,’ essentially arguing that the existence of gay couples and gay families represented a threat to the safety and security of the nation,” said [Dan] Savage.
So, the question is, has former Senator Rick Santorum warmed to gay marriage and civil rights for the LGBTQ community, or, is he just saying what he thinks he needs to to move his campaign forward?
Don’t forget, just last year, Santorum shilled for Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage. In an email to supporters, Santorum wrote,
“Dear Friend of Marriage,
My friend, I’ve never come to you with a more urgent message: we must
act TODAY to protect marriage.
An out-of-control supreme court has forced same-sex marriage on Iowa
and an out-of-touch legislature has done the same in Vermont. States like
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Maine are in the fight of their
lives to uphold marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Understand this: these fights are about much more than these states
alone. There is a concerted effort to use passage of same-sex marriage in
these states to force it on every other state in the union. How? Through the
repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act!
With one stroke of the pen, President Obama could sign into law a bill
that allows judges in one state to impose gay marriage on 47 other states.
Yes, powerful leaders in the White House and Congress are taking aim at the one federal law that protects
marriage and other values we hold sacred.
But fortunately, the National Organization for Marriage has already prepared a DOMA Defense Fund to
mobilize the American people and tell Congress: “Enough, Don’t Mess with Marriage!â€
Will you join me, Dr. James Dobson, and thousands of other people of faith who support the National
Organization for Marriage? Together, we can stop those who would repeal the Defense of Marriage
Act. Your gift of $35, $100, or even $500 today would help organize grassroots support for DOMA in
all 50 states! Use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation today!“
Here’s my simple response.
The chances of someone making that dramatic a switch, and in such a short amount of time, without some “divine intervention,” are slim to none. If he’s “seen the light,” he gave no indication of that. No, “I’m gay.” No, “I found out my brother is gay.” No, “I have a gay son.”
So, either back then he was saying hateful, despicable things about gays, just for political kicks and giggles, or, he is now.
Either way, does anyone like that deserve your vote?
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
