Friday | April 25, 2003
Deep inside Santorum's noggin'
There's something that has been really bugging me about the Santorum scandal: In the now-famous interview, Santorum says:
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.Tell me, what kind of person walks around talking about "man on dog" sex? I can confidently say that the thought never enters my mind unbidden. Yet Santorum, in the course of a conversation with a reporter, casually mentions bestiality. The AP reporter was naturally taken aback:
I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.I would be freaked out if anyone started talking to me about "man on dog" sex. It's not normal. For a Senator to bring the topic up to a reporter is, well, beyond belief.
So Republicans -- this is your number three guy in the Senate. Aren't you even the least bit embarrassed? And if the "man on dog" thing doesn't get you, then what about this?
He and his wife, Karen, have seven children - including, as Santorum puts it, "the one in Heaven." Their fourth baby, Gabriel Michael, died in 1996, two hours after an emergency delivery in Karen Santorum's 20th week of pregnancy. The couple took Gabriel's body home to let their three other young children see and hold the baby before burying him, according to Karen Santorum's book of the ordeal, "Letters to Gabriel."Having suffered the ordeal of a miscarriage last year, I can't begin to imagine the horrors of losing a baby hours after birth. But passing around the baby's corpse to his other children?
I'll take Clinton's cigar over this disgusting shit any day of the week.
Update: I've been criticized in the comments from some about my comments regarding Santorum's grieving process. Somehow this is supposed to be hypocritical -- attack Santorum's bigotry, but then exhibit the same regarding Santorum's own (creepy) choices.
There are differences, however. I didn't say the Supreme Court or the legislature should resstrict his right to carry along his dead fetus. Heck, the thought didn't even cross my mind. He can do just about whatever he wants as he grieves for his lost progeny, so long as he doesn't hurt anyone else or infringe on my rights (and in this case, he didn't).
See, THAT'S liberalism. I can think he's a freak for subjecting his other children to such horrors, but it's his own private decision to make.
Santorum would rather make those decisions for us.Posted April 25, 2003 12:45 AM | Comments (180)