Connect with us

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

Published

on

Ultra-homophobe Rick Santorum, who just this morning announced he is officially seeking the Republican nomination for president, has spent a good portion of his political life opposing equality the LGBT community. Here are ten (actually, eleven — we found an extra one) of Rick Santorum’s most-offensive, disgusting statements on gays and lesbians:

 

  • “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.” (2003)

    •  

  • “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.”  (2003)

    •  

  • “I guess because you stand for traditional marriage and you believe that, you know, that people should, we should have a society that affirms one man and one woman as marriage, that makes you someone who’s a hater, someone that doesn’t, doesn’t like people. I disagree with people, by the way, who are gay and straight who believe in changing the marriage laws. But it’s a public policy discussion, and this is the, this is really the problem that we see on the left which is the personalization of politics. I mean, we have a policy disagreement, and, and which I am very passionate about. I admit that. Because I do believe the family, integrity of the family is important for the future of our country. But that does not mean that, that I don’t like people or I hate people or that there’s something wrong. The only thing that’s wrong is their opinion.” (2011)

    •  

  • “But what I can say is that the state is not doing a service to the child and to society by not putting that child in a home where there is a mother and a father. This is common sense. This is nature. And what we’re trying to do is defy nature because a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society. And I just don’t think that’s to the benefit of society or to the child.”  (2011)

    •  

  • “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?” (2008)

    •  

  • “I’m worried when many people will stand up and say, ‘well whatever the Generals want.’ I’m not too sure that we haven’t indoctrinated the Officer Corps in this country that they can actually see straight to make the right decisions.” (On repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell)  (2011)

    •  

  • On gay adoption: “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.” (2011)

    •  

  • “I certainly would not approve of [a bill moving through the California legislature compels the state to add gay history to the state education curriculum], but there’s a logical consequence to the courts injecting themselves in creating rights and people attaching their legislative ideas to those rights that in some respects could logically flow from that. So I’m not surprised.” (On teaching LGBT history in schools) (2011)

    •  

  • “I would argue, this right to privacy … 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.” (2003)

    •  

  • “ 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.” (2003)

    •  

  • “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.” (On the Catholic Church’s international pedophile priests scandal, in which, for decades, priests have sexually assaulted, molested, and raped young boys and girls.) (2003)

The good folks at Think Progress have published a wider list of “Rick Santorum’s 12 Most Offensive Statements,” including on race and Islam.

Related Topics:
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

‘Complicity With Authoritarian’: Booker Goes Ballistic on Democrats—‘Too Much on the Line’

Published

17 hours ago

on

July 29, 2025

By

U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) delivered a searing critique of some of his fellow Democrats, accusing them of being “complicit with an authoritarian”—a clear reference to President Donald Trump. He also chastised a range of American institutions for “bending the knee” and “paying tribute.” He warned that if Democrats fail to unite and confront Trump and his administration’s agenda, they “deserve to lose.” But, he added, if they stand together and speak out with conviction, they can prevail.

“The heated exchange arose after Booker objected to a motion from Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat from Nevada, to swiftly pass a package of bills related to law enforcement,” CBS News reported. “Booker said he wanted to make a change to the bloc of measures to ensure resources are distributed equally among law enforcement agencies in response to the Justice Department’s changes to grant programs and cancellation of awards.”

Booker, standing on the Senate floor, at times almost appearing to shout, did not hold back.

READ MORE: ‘Our People’: Hawley Says Tariff Rebates for ‘Trump Blue-Collar Voters’—Not ‘Biden Voters’

“This to me is the problem with Democrats in America right now, is we’re willing to be complicit to Donald Trump, to let this pass through when we have all the leverage right now there is, to say, ‘if you’re as passionate about police as we are, then pass bills out of this body that will help the police officers in Washington, that will help the police officers in Illinois, that will help the police officers in New Jersey,'” he said, as CBS reported. “Don’t be complicit to the president of the United States.”

“The Democratic Party needs a wake-up call,” Booker declared in his rare rebuke, before shifting his focus to institutions that, in recent months, have capitulated to President Trump.

“I see law firms bending a knee to this president, not caring about the larger principles that those free speech rights, that you can take on any client—why are you bending the knee?” he demanded.

READ MORE: Loyalty Litmus Test? Trump Allies Quietly Prep SCOTUS Short List

“I see universities! They should be bastions of free speech, bending at the knee to this president. I see businesses taking late night talk show hosts off the air because they dare to insult a president. I see people who want mergers, suddenly think that they have to pay tribute to this president,” he observed.

“And what are the very people here elected to defend the Constitution of the United States, saying? ‘Oh, well, today, let’s look the other way and pass some resources that won’t go to Connecticut, that won’t go to Illinois, that won’t go to New York, that will go to the states he likes,'” Booker said, chastising his fellow blue state lawmakers.

“That is complicity with an authoritarian leader who is trashing our Constitution,” he charged.

“It’s time for Democrats to have a backbone. It’s time for us to fight. It’s time for us to draw lines.”

“And when it comes to the safety of my state, being denied these grants, that’s why I’m standing here. Don’t question my integrity,” he warned. “Don’t question my motives. I’m standing for Jersey! I am standing for my police officers. I’m standing for the Constitution, and I’m standing for what’s right.”

“And dear God, if you want to come at me that way, you’re gonna have to take it up with me, because there’s too much on the line right now in America,” Booker declared ominously.

“As people’s due process rights and freedom of the speech rights and secret police are running around this country, picking people up off the streets, who have a legal right to be here. There’s too much going on in this country.”

“When are we gonna stand together for principles that I just heard that were agreed with? When are we gonna stand together? If we don’t stand as Democrats, we deserve to lose. But if we stand united, if we stand strong, if we stand with other people, if we tell with a chorus of conviction that America, what this president is doing is wrong, if we stand up and speak that way, dear God, we will win.”

Senator Booker’s remarks elicited a wide variety of praise, as seen below, as well as criticism.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Ex-Pence Chief Scorches Tariff Rebates—Likens Them to Soviet-Style Central Planning

Continue Reading

News

‘Our People’: Hawley Says Tariff Rebates for ‘Trump Blue-Collar Voters’—Not ‘Biden Voters’

Published

20 hours ago

on

July 29, 2025

By

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) says the legislation he is filing to send $600 tariff rebate checks to Americans are not for “Biden voters,” but for “Trump blue-collar voters.”

“Well, you wouldn’t give it to everybody, you’d give it to the working people,” Senator Hawley told far-right podcaster Steve Bannon on Tuesday (video below). “You’d give it to our people.”

“I mean, you know, the rich people don’t need it, and but what I mean by that is all those Democrat donors of Wall Street, all these hedge fund guys who all hate the tariffs, by the way.”

Hawley said, “we’re on track to raise over $150 billion from tariff revenues this year alone, this calendar year alone.”

He did not mention that most of the tariff money is paid by U.S. consumers and U.S. companies.

“My view is, we ought to give a portion to that back to our working class blue collar voters who powered the Trump revolution, who got this president into office multiple times, and who are the backbone of this nation.”

READ MORE: Loyalty Litmus Test? Trump Allies Quietly Prep SCOTUS Short List

“Biden has crushed these people,” Hawley alleged. “What a legacy for Donald Trump to say, ‘I’m gonna take a portion of this massive money’ that he’s raising on these tariffs, and return it to the people who run this country and are gonna build our future.”

Hawley then got down to some specifics.

“It’d be $600 for every adult and child, so if you’ve got a big family, you’re gonna get more,” he said, calling his plan “fantastic.”

“And you’d phase it out for income, you know? So again, the wealthy—you start making six figures, you get into the big six figures—you’d phase the thing out.”

“So this is not going to the hedge fund managers or all the Biden voters. This is not going to the Wall Street king pins. So they don’t need any of it.”

READ MORE: Ex-Pence Chief Scorches Tariff Rebates—Likens Them to Soviet-Style Central Planning

“This is going to the Trump blue collar voters, the people who Joe Biden crushed, the people who didn’t get a raise under Joe Biden for four long years, the people who cannot afford their gas, because Joe Biden shut down our energy, who can’t afford their groceries, because Joe Biden drove up the price of everything,” Hawley claimed, despite prices on many items being higher under President Trump.

“And it is a message from us to them, from Trump to these folks that he is here to deliver for them.”

Senator Hawley is facing blowback from critics who say the $600 checks should not be issued, but rather, should be used to pay down America’s debt, which Republicans including President Trump just increased by about $3.4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Adios’ to GOP House Control if Trump Can’t Fix Issue That Got Him Elected: CNN Analyst

 

Continue Reading

News

Loyalty Litmus Test? Trump Allies Quietly Prep SCOTUS Short List

Published

21 hours ago

on

July 29, 2025

By

Multiple allies close to President Donald Trump are preparing short lists of potential Supreme Court nominees should any of the nine justices retire or pass away. This time, the Trump administration is hoping to ensure none of the self-inflicted errors or challenges it faced during his first term arise again.

Justice Clarence Thomas, widely regarded as the most far-right member of the Court, is 77. Justice Samuel Alito, another staunch conservative, is 75. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor is 71. And Chief Justice John Roberts—who has arguably expanded presidential power more than any other figure in modern judicial history—is 70, and facing mounting scrutiny.

While none are approaching the age of early 20th-century Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired at 90, it’s likely that at least one may opt to hang up his or her robe within the next three and a half years.

According to a TIME magazine exclusive, several conservative and right-wing allies have the ear of the Trump administration, even if it is not actively preparing for a vacancy.

READ MORE: Ex-Pence Chief Scorches Tariff Rebates—Likens Them to Soviet-Style Central Planning

The current guidelines for the next Trump Supreme Court nominee appear to favor a jurist in the mold of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, or the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But according to Benjamin Wittes, the editor of Lawfare, loyalty may rule the day.

“I assume the competition here would be to have shown greatest loyalty to Trump,” Wittes told TIME. “I think one would worry that this person would be guided by loyalty rather than guided by something like principle.”

TIME says one of the leading names on the short lists is Washington, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed by Trump to replace now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in 2019. Rao clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, and if nominated and confirmed would become the first Asian American justice on the Court. At 52, she would be among the youngest. (Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett, the youngest on the Court, is 53. Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson is 54.)

Justice Thomas secretly lobbied to get Rao confirmed after she was nominated, The Washington Post reported in 2019.

READ MORE: ‘Adios’ to GOP House Control if Trump Can’t Fix Issue That Got Him Elected: CNN Analyst

A former Professor of Law, Rao served in the first Trump administration as well as in the Bush 43 administration.

During her confirmation hearing, Rao refused to say if she believed same-sex relationships are a sin.

As an appeals court judge, Rao has written, in a dissenting opinion, that “allegations of illegal conduct against the president cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment.”

Another “front runner,” TIME reported, is Fifth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Andrew Oldham, another Trump appointee. Oldham clerked for Justice Alito, served in the Bush 43 administration’s Office of Legal Counsel, and served as general counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Mentioned as having been previously suggested for the short lists is Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who infamously delayed and ultimately dismissed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of President Trump in the Espionage Act and classified materials case.

READ MORE: Ghislaine Maxwell Files SCOTUS Appeal as Trump Again Leaves Door Open to Possible Pardon

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.