Connect with us

Rick Santorum’s Wife: Rick “Loves” Gays.

Published

on

Karen Santorum, wife of 23 years to GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, at a campaign Q&A in South Carolina yesterday told a woman who has a gay son that her husband, “does not hate anyone,” and claimed he “loves” gay people. The mother, who says she is a long-time Santorum supporter and asked for ways to help he defend Santorum and her support of him, also claimed that her son does not support same-sex marriage, even though he is gay.

READ: Rick Santorum, The New President Of Jesus

“My youngest son is gay. I debated for the longest time how to handle my support of you, because what he’s been hearing is, ‘Oh, Rick Santorum hates gays.’ I still have that sense of guilt, because his friends react to what they hear. Help me. How do I deal with that?”

Karen Santorum, whose own past is far different that what she claims today, attacked the LGBT community and gay activists and allies, stating,

“I think it’s very sad [what] the gay activists have done out there,” she replied. “They vilify him, and it’s so wrong. Rick does not hate anyone. He loves them. What he has simply said is [gay] marriage shouldn’t happen. But as far as hating — it’s very unfortunate that that has happened. A lot of it is backyard bullying.”

The former Senator added in his defense, “I think the problem is that some see that public policy difference as a personal assault,” masking his hatred for gays and equality as he often does, as a “public policy” issue, rather and an issue that truly is a life-and-death issue.

Two important notes: The forum was co-sponsored by the very conservative, very anti-gay CafeMom. If you’re a Mom, and a lesbian or a supporter, you might want to have a chat with them.

More importantly, Santorum says that gay marriage denies children their birthright, to know and love their mom and dad. Same-sex marriage does not prohibit that, rather, same-sex marriage offers loving homes to children who don’t have one. In most cases, gay and lesbian couples adopt. They adopt kids whose parents didn’t want them or weren’t able to raise them. Denying them a loving home is beyond abhorrent.

Rick Santorum would rather children not have parents than have gay parents. How monstrous is that?

Karen Santorum, as you can hear in this video, says that a lot of gay people “can’t even provide one example” of why they think Rick Santorum hates gays.

So, for those gay Americans and our supporters who think Rick Santorum hates gay people, but don’t have “even one example,” I give you five examples. Please, print them out, carry them in your wallet, take a photo of this an post it on your Facebook, hare it on Twitter and Google+, keep it in your iPhone, email or mail it to all your friends. Let’s make sure everyone in America knows…

What Rick Santorum Has Said That Proves He Hates Gay People:

1. Gay sex “undermines the fabric of society.”

2. Gay couples who adopt are trying to “defy nature” and are not doing anything “to the benefit of society or to the child” by adopting and raising children. “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.”

3. Loving same-sex marriages are invalid, not as good or valuable as straight marriages: “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?”

4 . “Same-sex marriage and the right to privacy “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.”

5. On gays being allowed to live normal, equal, healthy lives: “ I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.”

Bonus, in case you’re not yet convinced:

On the Catholic Church’s international pedophile priests scandal, in which, for decades, priests have sexually assaulted, molested, and raped young boys and girls: “In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

The above examples are taken from: Rick Santorum’s Top Ten Most-Offensive Anti-Gay Comments

Remember: Rick Santorum doesn’t hate gay people. Rick Santorum loves gay people. To death.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=vsSBsfD4hA4%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

Hat-tip: The Advocate

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

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.

News

‘Looking to Throw in the Towel?’: Trump Mocked as Administration Again Switches Priorities

Published

on

President Donald Trump is drawing mockery after telling a CBS News reporter that his war in Iran is “very complete, pretty much,” as the administration’s military priorities continue to shift rapidly.

In the early hours of the war, Trump had strongly suggested it was about regime change, only to have his defense secretary days later specifically state it was not.

On Monday, apparently around the time he had a telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump said Iran has “no navy, no communications, they’ve got no Air Force.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made similar remarks earlier on Monday.

“The goals of this mission are clear, and it’s important to continue to remind the American people of why it is that the greatest military in history of the world has engaged in this operation,” he told reporters. “It is to destroy the ability of this regime to launch missiles, both by destroying their missiles and their launchers. Destroy the factories that make these missiles, and destroy their Navy.”

Days earlier, Trump had called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.”

Professor of Strategic Studies Phillips P. O’Brien responded to Rubio’s remarks, saying: “If this is actually the new set of strategic goals, the Trump administration is admitting that they have strategically failed and this has been a disaster.”

Specifically referencing Trump’s remarks to CBS News, Professor O’Brien added, “So is this Trump looking to throw in the towel?”

Foreign policy analyst Jimmy Rushton observed, “No mention of removing the regime. No mention of destroying the Iranian nuclear programme. No mention of destroying Iran’s ability to project power via proxy forces. The administration’s war aims are constantly changing.”

Similarly, political scientist Ian Bremmer noted, “declaring victory and ending war with iran much easier with these goals. not mentioned: -regime change -uranium enrichment/stockpiling -attack drones.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Once Again Directly Contradicts Pentagon Chief on Key Element of Iran War

Published

on

President Donald Trump told CBS News on Monday that his war in Iran could be almost over — just after the Pentagon tweeted, “We have Only Just Begun to Fight.”

“In a phone interview, President Trump told me the war could be over soon,” reported CBS’s Weijia Jiang on Monday afternoon, less than one hour after the social media post. “I think the war is very complete, pretty much. They have no navy, no communications, they’ve got no Air Force.”

Trump added that the U.S. is “very far” ahead of his initial 4-5 week estimated time frame,” Jiang added.

The Commander-in-Chief’s prediction also came just days after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that this is “just the beginning” of the war in Iran, as The Washington Post’s John Hudson reported.

Earlier on Monday, the Pentagon posted another Iran tweet: “This is just the beginning—we will not be deterred until the mission is over.”

READ MORE: ‘Blatant Racism’: House Republican’s Remarks Spark Backlash

One week ago, after President Trump specifically alluded to the war in Iran being about regime change, Secretary Hegseth declared it was not.

“Trump repeatedly emphasized regime change was a goal — and possibly even the goal,” CNN reported.

“America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force,” Trump said to the Iranian opposition in the early hours of the war. “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”

“When we are finished, take over your government,” Trump added. “It will be yours to take.”

Barely days later, Hegseth told reporters, “This is not a so-called regime change war.”

READ MORE: ‘Good Luck in the Midterms’: Anti-Trump Conservatives Smell Weakness in the President

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Tell Me It’s Satire’: WaPo Roasted for Op-Ed Linking Lattes to Destruction of Society

Published

on

Some Washington Post readers are mocking the paper and its op-ed that suggests a link between Starbucks’ lattes, and loneliness and the destruction of society.

The op-ed’s author, professor of politics Jakub Grygiel, writes that the “atomization of society begins with your morning coffee.”

He immediately points out that 46 percent of Americans have had a specialty coffee drink in the past day, and “54 percent of U.S. adults feel isolated and half of them feel bereft of companionship ‘often or some of the time,’ according to the American Psychological Association.”

Grygiel then says that ordering a latte your way is wasting everyone else’s time, which, he surmises, makes you feel lonely.

“As specialty coffee consumption has surged (84 percent since 2011), so has the loneliness epidemic. Just a correlation? Consider what your coffee order reveals,” he suggests.

READ MORE: ‘Blatant Racism’: House Republican’s Remarks Spark Backlash

“The salted caramel mocha latte, the iced brown sugar soy milk shaken espresso, the white chocolate macadamia cream cold brew are the triumph of hyper-individualization over communal norms,” he writes. “When you order a dirty spiced chai with oat milk, you are not only wasting the time of other customers in line but also are signaling that your personal appetites demand an elaborate, customized response. You are asserting your primacy, unique in the complexity of your desires, and stand apart from your nation’s simple rituals. No wonder you’re alone.”

Grygiel makes no mention of the fact that a significant portion of Starbucks’ business model is based on customized coffee drinks.

Some readers slammed Grygiel, with several questioning whether his work was satire.

“This is satire, people. This has to be satire. I know it’s satire. Please tell me it’s satire,” wrote one reader.

Others tried to bring the conversation back to politics, which is the author’s stock in trade.

“The atomization of society begins with you taking about coffee and not the Trump administrations efforts to destabilize our democracy,” chastised another.

READ MORE: ‘Good Luck in the Midterms’: Anti-Trump Conservatives Smell Weakness in the President

“I think the largest problem with American society is all the fascists, but that is just my opinion,” suggested a reader.

“I don’t know,” said another reader. “I think the American obsession with assault rifles and the fact that the number of guns in private hands in America far exceeds the population may be a bigger threat to our society. But that’s just me. I can’t remember the last time a salted caramel mocha latte killed someone.”

Others blasted the paper.

“Here’s some more compelling evidence that we’re confronting the end of days: WaPo is running this fluff piece while Trump is hard at work starting WWIII,” warned a reader.

And while some declared they “agree with every word,” others lamented the “absolute swill coming out of the WaPo opinion section these days.”

“This might be the thing that finally prompts me to cancel my WaPo subscription,” wrote an apparent subscriber.

READ MORE: White House Confirms Trump’s Shift That Pushes SAVE Act Further Right

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.