Mother of Gay Son Asks Santorum & His Wife How to Handle Her ‘Sense of Guilt’ Over Supporting Him
- Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:37pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. (AP)
On Monday, Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum and his wife, Karen, listened to some statements and then received a tough question from a supporter in South Carolina whose son is gay.
Considering Santorum’s stance against same-sex marriage (he’s opposed), the woman expressed the internal conflict she has between her support for Santorum and the perception that the gay community has of the former senator.
“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,’” she explained, after telling the couple that her son is gay. “Interesting enough, [my son and I] had a short conversation and he said ‘well actually, I don’t have any problems with his stance on gay marriage, because I don’t believe in gay marriage.’”
The woman went on to say, though, that she has a “sense of guilt” because her son’s friends “react to what they hear.” She seemed to be struggling with her support in light of the way it made her look in the eyes of her son and his friends.
“How do I deal with that?,” she asked.
Karen seemed prepared and ready to answer the question, as she delved right in to both defend her husband’s record. She began her response by claiming that it’s “very sad” what gay activists have done to tarnish her husband’s image.
“They’ve vilified him,” Karen said. “Rick does not hate anyone. He loves them. What he has simply said is marriage shouldn’t happen.”
Then, Rick jumped in and attempted to make his opinions clearer on the matter, while flatly denying that his views constitute a personal attack on the gay community.
“There’s all sorts of other relationships that people have, and they are valuable relationships — whether they are amorous relationships or friendship relationships or familial relationships — they’re all important, they all have value they allshould be affirmed,” he said. “But that does not mean that we should change the laws to order — to create an atmosphere where children and families are not being promoted.”
Watch this interaction, below:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 707 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 559 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 376 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 376 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 292 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (253)
guido.cavalcanti
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:40pmI finally agree with Santorum on something, by definition marriage requires one man and one woman, otherwise it’s something else. However, I don’t think we need the federal govt to pass an amendment telling us that. How about we let our churches define what marriage is, and if we don’t like that definition we can always find one where we do like the definition.
And Santorum, we really don’t need you and your intrusive Homeland Security cronies in our bedrooms either. I’m one of those libertarians who like my individuality and doing my own thing without, especially in my house without you breathing over my neck.
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:49pmI’m glad to see that Karen Santorum is so verbal during the campaign. She can answer questions about her ex-boyfriend that she lived with as he prepared to open the first abortion clinic in town.
Karen Santorum Living with Abortion Doctor Before Rick
http://inyourfaceradio.net/karen-santorum-living-with-abortion-doctor-before-rick/
Report: Karen Santorum’s Ex-Boyfriend Was An Abortion Provider
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-karen-santorums-ex-boyfriend-was-an-abortion-provider/
Report Post »jrmhrpr78
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:54pmThere is still the issue of tax breaks for marriage. I like the quote you put here. Why the heck should it matter to you what someone else does in their bedroom? Why the heck should it matter to me whether or not someone wants to call their union marriage or other? I don’t see why the gay thing makes so many people want to hate. I don’t think the gays should be pushing their sexuality on straight people either. Its a private thing, leave it that way. Live and let live. Follow the golden rule. Mind your own business. Keep the government out of our lives. Vote Ron Paul.
Report Post »Luke611
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:02pmVechorik
People evolve through education. Education enables a man or woman to develop opinions and position themselves to commit to action based on the specific intellectual stimuli they embrace. Education over years will allow one different perspectives which again will challenge one’s past positions, thus we all wish we could be twenty years younger and know what we know now.
Report Post »Surely, you are not going to condemn someone from an action or comment from 20 years before?
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:04pm.
If the Democrats really believed in Gay Marriage and Abortion, there would not be so many of them.
You Racist, Hypocrite Democrats need to start practicing what you preach…….
Report Post »greensteam
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:28pmVechorik thank the lord that you were always right and was never on the wrong side of an issue. myself, i look back and reallize where i went wrong in the passed alot. and therefore i can move forward. if i thought i was always right then i would never improve myself as a person. we are so lucky that you have no improvements to make. but, dare i say that i dont believe mrs santorum believes today that abortion is okay. in fact, i would go all the way out on a limb by saying, i think today she thinks its wrong.
Report Post »Ken2
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:30pmA license or contract should be issued to give legal weight to any willing couple, setting out the rights and responsibilties currently associated with civil “marriage”. Marriage is a rite of the church. As such, the government should have NO role in determining what constitutes a marriage. A legally sanctioned couple could, if they wish, have their relationsip sanctified by God in the setting of their choosing.
Report Post »This is such a simple thing. Marriage is a contract between people and God. He gave us freewill. Keep the government out of it!
B_rad
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:47pmI agree with most of your post, Guido, but why is it the government’s business to tell anyone who they can be married to? I have yet to see a persuasive secular argument against allowing gays to form a loving, lifelong union and to expect the same benefits from that union as a staight couple who are married. I don’t care if they call it marriage, civil unions, or raspberry cream soda, so long as we are all treated equally under the law. If TWO people of consenting age wish to dedicate their lives to one another, who is harmed?
Report Post »I agree with Rick on many things, but I don’t agree with his statement that all relationships should be affirmed. Shacking up with a person outside of marriage is far more detrimental to marriage, family and children than allowing gay unions to benefit in the same way as a heterosexual marriage. Women indescriminantly creating children with no father is far more harmful to children and society than gay unions.
To all of you here who disparage gays and call it mental illness, you will never understand. As someone who tried to fight who I was attracted to most of my life, I can tell you that you are off base. As far as the increased promescuity and other problems associated with much of the gay community, wouldn’t encouraging monagamous commitment be a far more effective solution than continuing to ostricize them? Gays have been around forever, and ain’t going away no matter how much you berate. Forcing people to self hate and hide won’t help an
RazorsEdge
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:50pmThat would be fine if we didn’t have activist judges telling states that gay marriage is mandated. Only way to restrain this is by constitutional amendment.
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:57pmRick Santorum is anything but a conservative. Just consider his record, which includes:
*** Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;
Report Post »*** Voting to DOUBLE the federal Department of Education;
*** Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
*** Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson – creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;
*** Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter later became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;
*** Voting for gun control;
*** Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;
*** Voting to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea;
*** Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest provider of abortion – and hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.
Jaycen
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:41pm@SpankDaMonkey
That’s a great point. Children grow up more confident and capable when they grow up with a mother and a father. Those people don’t even have to be biological, so long as boys see men treat women with respect, and girls see men treat women with respect. Each sex learns the proper types of relationships by having the life experience of a mother and father in their home.
Is it possible to grow up fine without both a mother and a father? Obviously. People do it all the time. The issue is that the child doesn’t have to struggle as hard, and has a much higher chance of success at an earlier stage in life if they’re raised in a normal family. Normal is a man and wife becoming mates for life. Yep, no matter how you slice it, that’s normal. That‘s what’s dragged our existance forward for millenia as human beings.
So, if homosexuals want to have private lives with each other, this is America and they can certainly do that. They can be gay till their eyes explode, but don‘t tell me it’s normal, or that it should be on constant display, or we should encourage our society to neuter itself by encouraging children to be homosexual in their behaviors.
We certainly shouldn’t be passing legislation relating to homosexuals. They should be allowed to be gay with each other, and they should not be formally recognized by the State. Just as marriage between men and women should be handled by the Church.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:44pm@recoveringneocon
Hey, Ron Paul fan. Instead of tearing one man down, why don‘t you tell us how you’d cast your vote and why? Give us a solution instead of tearing down someone else’s ideas. At least Santorum is trying to offer an alternative.
Report Post »right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:50pmI understand you’re general point; however, the government must provide the definition of marriage due to a wide range of legal benefits that apply to a “married” person
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:22amB_Rad said: “If TWO people of consenting age wish to dedicate their lives to one another, who is harmed?“ The emphasis is clearly placed on the number ”two.” Why? Is that a matter of a tradition that you are comfortable with? Is it a religious limitation? Could you present “a persuasive secular argument against allowing” polygamy? Or polyandry? While we are looking at these sorts of things, how about siblings? Oh, and what is “consenting age”? Should it be the age at which a woman can consent to an abortion? What’s that? 14 or so?
Report Post »marion
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 1:02amVECHORIC, is she still with the boyfriend?????
It doesn’t matter unless you are some kind of Saul Alynski jerk looking to change the subject. If it were that important, she wouldn’t be married to Rick.
Back on topic, I do agree with Rick on this one to a point. There is the defense of marriage act which does state one man and one woman is marriage, all relationships are important, but two men does not make marriage, and two women does not make marriage. I am not preventing these couples from being together, and anything can be drawn up to legally allow these couples to do whatever is necessary to accomplish communal assistance, but it is a legal bond, not marriage, so find your own name to make it a stronger personal bond if you need cloture, marriage is already taken and has a definition and doesn’t need to be changed, altered, stapled, folded, bent, twisted, or added to in any way.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 1:29amJaycen, I agree wholeheartedly with your points about children being best off with a mother and a father. I do not support adoption of infants to gay parents over straight parents. Children are best served when they are raised by the dynamic of the counter positions of the male and the female. No doubt. I am equally against single people creating children deliberately without an intact mother and father family. However, when a child is otherwise relegated to the care of the state for whatever terrible circumstances, I believe for them to be rescued by either a gay couple or a single person is a blessing.
Report Post »As far as any commited couple not being recognized by the state, why? If it is objectionable for the state to grant special consideration for a gay couple, as in tax breaks, why is it acceptable to grant those considerations to a straight couple? Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? While our laws are certainly based on Judeo-Christian values, the law is secular and is not in place to impose one’s set of values on another. At the core of law is the precept that each person is free to be and behave as they wish, so long as they do not infringe upon another’s rights to do the same. I refer to the above quote from Jefferson.
B_rad
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 1:52amChuck, marriage is the union of two equals. Allowing more than two to “marry” is defeating the purpose of the arrangement. If more than two, how many? Could not an entire town decide to marry each other? If not, what is the appropriate number? It only makes sense to limit it to two seperate but equal partners becoming one. Your point does lend itself to the argument that the state really has no business telling anyone who they can associate with and in what way, but to recognize marriage or the joining of two people into one entity for the purpose of law, it makes sense for the state to do.The purpose of law is to protect people from others who may do them harm. Laws that designate age restrictions are there to protect those who don’t have the ability to protect themselves. I believe most states require an person be at least 18 to marry, or enter into any legal contract, without the consent of a parent. That seems perfectly reasonable and there is no reason for that to change. Laws that allow a child of 14 to abort without parental knowledge are abhorant. A child of 14 certainly doesn’t have the well of knowledge or experience to make a decision like that on their own, likewise entering a legal contract, such as marriage. As to siblings, it again makes sense for the law to discourage siblings mating for obvious biological reasons. Though gays would not procreate, they shouldn’t be granted special exception. Equal protection under the law.
Report Post »ThatsJustCrazyTalk
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 2:58am@RecoveringNeoCon-
You’re falling out of line little lemming. Just go with “Paulbot666,“ ”RonPaul76,“ or ”Truther101.”
Ron Paul got ferociously booed last night with his misguided take on Foreign Policy. One of you bots needs to remind him of what he said in the past when he blamed America for 9/11 instead of trying to act like he would’ve chased OBL. Nobody falls for it. Paulbots are NOT Conservatives. You’re far left on Social Conservative and Foreign Policy issues. Even ObamaTheIllegalAmigo is closer to a Conservative than Paul on those issues.
Report Post »Docroxall
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 3:05amMarriage is a sacrament of the church. To allow the government to administrate it, violates my first amendment rights. Government, GET OUT OF MARRIAGE. That being said, if gays wish to enter into civil contracts, like what the government calls marriage, so that when their relationships fail, they lose their personal property…I say let them…just don’t violate MY right to religious freedom in the process.
Report Post »Better Dead Than Red
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 6:08amif you hate gay people so much, blame straight people. They’re the ones who keep having gay babies.
Report Post »ohiochili
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 7:29amVechorik, you are my hero…finally, someone who never, ever did anything stupid in their life.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 7:55am@guido… Ditto on the Thomas Jefferson quote.
Plus, it is time to get government COMPLETELY out of marriage!
Report Post »Let the churches handle marriage. The covenant is made in heaven, anyways, not in a filing cabinet in the basement of some courthouse.
Alvin691
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 8:10am@Vechorik Thank goodness Karen got away from that evil person. Sometimes we enter into relations with people that appear to be one way, and the we see the entire person for what they are. Thanks goodness Rick and Karen found each other. They belong together.
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 8:11am@Recover. You list Santorum as a ‘Career Politician’, but refer to Ron Paul as a ‘Congressman’. Paul as been in Congress for 20+ years, who‘s the real ’Career Politician’
Report Post »LookTowardsTheLight
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 8:58am@guido.cavalcanti
You are also one of those libertarians that’s going to get me or someone I care about killed.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:19amWell then you must be against Gay Marriage because it would indeed pick your pocket. By allowing marital tax breaks AND TAX BENEFITS as in claiming a spouse, and and pick your pockets bY creating a whole new divorce court and tax payer judical systems cost.
Report Post »Gay marriage picks your pocket so you must be against it,,,,,,RIGHT
John 3:16
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:21amIt’s not what Karen did twenty years ago that natter now: I want to know karen’s views on abortion were for the last say 5-10 years. Who she lived with years ago matters NOT!!! Troll
Report Post »toto
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:21amThe thing that bothers me most about liberals is their belief that they can take any fact or word and say it means whatever they say it means. It’s gotten ridiculous. Life begins at conception, biologically. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Climate change is the very definition of weather. The earth is sometimes hotter, sometimes colder depending on the era. When people wake up and realize changing the definitions of things to include things that don’t belong is done to make it easier to accept the unacceptable.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:25amAnd Obama is that bastard son of and anti-American atheist communist and wife beating anti-American kenyan communist . OBAMA LIVED WITH AN ATHEIST,ANTI-AMERICAN COMMUNIST HIS FOR OVER 20 YEARS…=When that ended he spent the next 20 in Rev. Wright’s black racist entitlement theology church,hung out with know terrorist,socialist,communist and radical idealogs. WHAT’S YOUR POINT
Report Post »Vindex.Dogood
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:59amBeck and the Blaze has taken a page from the Obama media. Remember all the Obama halo pictures? http://photobucket.com/images/obama%20halo/ Look how the Blase portrays their candidate so angelically. Compare that to the Ron Paul pictures on the site. This is deceptive journalism using subliminal messages to sway their audience.
Santorum is no saint and is certainly not a Christian. He and his wife were invested as Knight and Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta in a ceremony at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York on November 12, 2004. Have you read the oath that he took as at Knights of Malta.
“I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, or State, named Protestant or Liberals, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates, or officers. I do further declare that the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same.”
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_malta02.htm
Where is this story Blaze? Do you really want this man to be president?
Report Post »Pearsontech
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:32am@Jaycen sorry I am afraid that to actually put down your ideas and positions rather than just bashing someone’s position would actually require work and thought. And I am afraid you are asking way too much of ole recoveringneocon.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:41amYes, I think a person’s past definitely influences the type of person they become. Psychology proves that point daily.
“Italian Relatives Tell Magazine That Santorum‘s Grandfather and Uncles Were ’Red Communists’”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/italian-relatives-tell-magazine-that-santorums-grandfather-and-uncles-were-red-communists/
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:43am@ B_Rad
You say that “marriage is the union of two equals.“ That statement is an example of ”ipse dixit” — or “it is so because I say it is so.“ Why do those in the marriage have to be ”equals” — should a billionaire be prohibited from marrying a auper? Or a super genius prohibited from marrying Meghan McCain? Or a super heavyweight wrestler from marrying a dwarf? Maybe you mean “legal” equals — then that limitation is pretty much automatically met. But then you also have the mystical “two” limitation. You bring up some practical benefits to that numerical limitation, but you also state that “Allowing more than two to “marry” is defeating the purpose of the arrangement.” I wonder if you see the irony in that statement. The purpose of marriage is to provide a legal framework for rearing children (in my estimation). If one man has 3 wives, then all 3 of those women’s children can gain the legal benefits of marriage. How is the purpose of marriage (rearing children) met by the union of two men?
If more than two, how many? Could not an entire town decide to marry each other? If not, what is the appropriate number?
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:47am“Italian Relatives Tell Magazine That Santorum‘s Grandfather and Uncles Were ’Red Communists’”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/italian-relatives-tell-magazine-that-santorums-grandfather-and-uncles-were-red-communists/
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:54amJaycen
ThatsJustCrazyTalk
Pearsontech
1st PAUL’S PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY
* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.
* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.
* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.
* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.
As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.
Report Post »Which one word yo
recoveringneocon
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:56amJaycen
ThatsJustCrazyTalk
Pearsontech
2nd Ron Paul on the Economy
Report Post »As President, Ron Paul will lead the way out of this crisis by:
* Vetoing any unbalanced budget Congress sends to his desk.
* Refusing to further raise the debt ceiling so politicians can no longer spend recklessly.
* Fighting to fully audit (and then end) the Federal Reserve System, which has enabled the over 95% reduction of what our dollar can buy and continues to create money out of thin air to finance future debt.
* Legalizing sound money, so the government is forced to get serious about the dollar’s value.
* Ending the corporate stranglehold on the White House.
* Driving down gas prices by allowing offshore drilling, abolishing highway motor fuel taxes, increasing the mileage reimbursement rates, and offering tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles.
* Eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference.
* Opposing all unfunded mandates and unnecessary regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs.
HippoNips
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:57amFirst of all, Jefferson would tell you the government can pass anything they like within the confines of the Constitution
Secondly, you sound like a friggin Mormon, ….a group with it’s own attack on one man one woman marriage
Report Post »Thats why the nutjob Glenn Beck wants the “government out of marriage”
recoveringneocon
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:59amJaycen
ThatsJustCrazyTalk
Pearsontech
3rd Lets talk about Energy.
Report Post »As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:
* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.
* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.
* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.
recoveringneocon
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:00pmJaycen
ThatsJustCrazyTalk
Pearsontech
4th Ron Paul on SPENDING:
Report Post »Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year
of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet
departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and
Education), abolishing the Transportation Security
Administration and returning responsibility for security
to private property owners, abolishing corporate
subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and
returning most other spending to 2006 levels.
recoveringneocon
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:04pmJaycen
ThatsJustCrazyTalk
Pearsontech
5th PAUL ON ENTITLEMENTS:
Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.
This should be enough to start with.
Report Post »escape_from_socialism
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:06pmSANTORUM, you can put the most beautiful lipstick, say the nicest patriotic words, but inside you still same stinky big government lizard. You have nothing to back your conservatism.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:11pmChuck, I mean two people of equal ability to consent to the legalities of any contract. Put another way, two people that understand the implications of that contract. Next, if marriage is designed strictly for procreation, why would a sterile man or sterile woman, whether by a defect or age, be permitted to marry? Or, for that matter, two people with no intention of having children? You asked for a pursuasive secular argument against polygamy, and by your own admition, I have met that burden.
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:25pmtherealconservative
Ricky Santorum has only been a Lawyer, Politician and Lobbyist
For the short time he was a Lawyer his big case was Representing the World Wrestling Federation , Santorum argued that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was not an actual sport, rather, entertainment. Funny Ha, fighting for the use of Steroids. lol
At age 32 he went into Politics and stayed there until he got thrown out, by the people of PA. Then what did he do? LOBBYIST.
On the other hand, when Ron Paul was not busy being a Politician, he was sloughing off becoming a Doctor of Medicine getting his degree from Duke University’s School of Medicine, then doing his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, after that he served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force and then in the United States Air National Guard. In his spare time he became a obstetrics and gynecology, and then began his own private practice delivering over 4000 babies
Hope this Clears things up for you.
Report Post »Hoosieratarian
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:27pmMarriage shouldn’t even be a campaign issue. If there were not tax implications it wouldn’t be. So here’s an idea, lets get rid of the marriage tax implications, you should be able to leave your money to whoever you want tax free.
Now wasn’t that easy! What’s the next issue?
Report Post »Vindex.Dogood
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 1:05pmIs anyone else seeing their comments removed? I just posted a comment with links to evidence of how Santorum is a fake conservative. The post was showing in the comments section. I even tested the links from the post. I refreshed to view new comments after mine and found that my comment was REMOVED! I respect many of the posters on this site and enjoy reading comments but the bias on this site and of Beck has become ridiculous. I’m done with the Blaze and Beck! Maybe I’ll see you guys in the comments on cnsnews.com. God bless.
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 1:19pmThis is the STATE OF PARENTING in America in 2012: asking a politician for parenting advice.
What has happened to us?
Report Post »Independant in Oklahoma
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 2:31pmIn response to the other responses.. :)….. Okay……what’s wrong with gay marriage, as long as they love each other and want to care for each other? On that note.. what’s wrong with the marriage of a brother and sister, or a father and his daughter, as long as they love each other and want to care for each other? I’m really not the judge of the world and have no desire to police the world through “self” righteousness. I go with what feels right for me, and those senarios just feel creepy to me, and I‘m pretty sure that just because you don’t want me to think like this, you can’t control what I think or how I feel about it.
Report Post »GodWillPrevail
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 2:43pmCherry picked quote by atheist nobelieves.com
Sorry but our country is Christian Judea. If you remove those values from the constitution there is no basis for laws period. There is no better basis for laws than this.
Like it or not this is a God believing country if you want to live in an Atheist believing country move. Atheism is a religion your belief that there is no God is based on faith just as mine that there is a God as you can not prove there is no God neither can I prove there is one. But our founders based all law on the Bible. Separation of Church and State is a one way street the Government is separated from making laws affecting any church and not allowed to create a church. Churches are restricted now in violation of the Constitution. Meanwhile the Atheist religion is being imposed as the State Religion.
Marriage is one man one woman because the Bible and all history says that. End of discussion.
Jefferson believed in a creator. He was NOT an atheist.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 3:41pmIt’s a very simple answer to the woman…”stop feeling guilty about your son’s psychological condition. The country has much greater and more immediate problems that need responsible , competent leadership in the white house to navigate and address. Social issues for a group that comprises less than 1% of the population should not be a concern for you in this election. Our debt is higher than our GDP right now. We have reached critical mass. Vote to save the country, not to pander to homosexual sensibilities”.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 3:53pm@ B_rad
Report Post »You state that I “asked for a pursuasive secular argument against polygamy, and by [my] own admition, [you] have met that burden.” No, not exactly. I only recognized that numerosity of spouses without ANY limit can be a problem. You seek to justify our society’s prohibition on incestuous marriages by (correctly) stating “As to siblings, it again makes sense for the law to discourage siblings mating for obvious biological reasons.” Yes, indeed: OBVIOUS BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE IMPORTANT. Put in the context of homosexual unions, obvious biological considerations (the lack of procreative prospect) are decisive. You off-handedly dismiss the procreative aspect of marriage with the statement: “Next, if marriage is designed strictly for procreation, why would a sterile man or sterile woman, whether by a defect or age, be permitted to marry? Or, for that matter, two people with no intention of having children?” First of all — couples thought to have been “sterile” still have children. Even more frequently, couples who don’t intend to have children still get pregnant. Returning to the marriage of siblings, what if they were both declared “sterile”? Or asserted that they do not intend to have children? As long as they are the magic, B_rad-approved, number of “2”, then it’s O.K. by you, right?
AvengerK
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 4:01pmThis is why I liked Gingrich’s response to a homosexual advocate plant recently. He didn’t pander, he didn’t sugarcoat..he just said “go vote for Obama”. The next GOP candidate that gets hit like this should tell the assailant the truth…”Make no mistake this country is in serious trouble. We have a dangerous debt problem and Barack Obama keeps doubling down on it. I don‘t care if less than one percent of the population doesn’t like my position on homosexual marriage, there are bigger more important things we must deal with immediately. Your vote this year is to save the U.S. from an economic nightmare. If social issues are important to you, you need to reassess your voting criteria..or vote for Obama”…”Next Question?”.
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 5:49pm@Recover. As usual being a Paul supporter you duck the question. So I’ll help you out, the ‘Career Politician’ that has spent more in Congress shining a seat with his a$$ is Ron Paul.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 6:49pmtherealconservative
You really should do a little thinking before you start typing. I will type very slowly, so you can keep up. Paul is 23 years rickys senior , that means he is 23 year older then ricky. So ricky was a Politician for 46% of his adult life. That’s not counting being a intern for other politicians or his time as lobbyist smooching with politicians. Dr. Paul has spent 39% of his adult life as a congressman and in between that Served his Country in the Military, Became a Dr. of Medicine, an OB-GYN, OBG (that’s a baby doctor) , Opened His own Practice and delivered over 4000 babies.
Ricky
Lawyer / Career Politician / Lobbyist
Vs
Medical Doctor / Veteran / OB/GYN, OBG/ small business owner / Congressman
Now I hope I type this slow enough for you? I think this is all cleared up now.
Oh! Silly me almost forgot. The only reason santorum is still not a Politician is that the good People of Pennsylvania threw his sorry but out.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:05pmChuck, there are many reasons for marriage that don’t involve children at all. Would you deny marriage to two 60 year olds who wish to form a loving covenant and care for one another? A married mom and dad are by far the best thing for children, and I don’t advocate anyone, gay or straight, intentionally creating children without an intact, married mother and father to care for them.
Report Post »As to siblings and other incestuous relationships, one of the main purposes to marriage is to create a familial bond where there previously wasn’t one. Since siblings are already family, marriage is not necessary to form that bond, with the included protections under the law. You’re falling all over yourself to trip me into a “slippery sloap” trap, trying to get me to waiver on the number of people who can marry so you can use that as a reason to assert that allowing gay unions necessarily means we must allow polygamy, or any definition of marriage. It won’t work. You cannot pass a law that prevents consenting adults from behaving any given way with each other. Since you cannot preclude the behavior, giving any couple equal protection under the law of a marriage contract is simply treating everyone equally. Any couple can get about 99% of the benefits of a marriage contract through other legal arrangements, but why does the state get to tell any adult free person who they are permitted to marry?
Chuck Stein
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 1:50am@ B_rad. No, I’m not “trying to get [you] to waiver on the number of people who can marry so [I] can use that as a reason to assert that allowing gay unions necessarily means we must allow polygamy, or any definition of marriage.“ You can be as adamant about your ”couple” bias as much as you want to be. I’m just showing the logical inconsistencies that attend such a bias when polygamy, polyandry, etc. are examined side-by-side with “gay” “marriage.” You assert that I’m falling over myself in my effort to apply logic to the matter. Very well. I note, however, that you have again produced your own “purpose” of marriage (this time to avoid the incest comparison) in stating that “one of the main purposes to marriage is to create a familial bond where there previously wasn’t one.” Soooo . . . . first cousins shouldn’t be married, now? It’s legal in about a third of the states. Why are you so discriminatory against first cousins who want to marry? They were BORN THAT WAY, you know.
Report Post »Pearsontech
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 8:28am@recoveringneocon nice finally. And I truly due applaud you. Now lets take a look at this shall we. The only one I will talk about is foreign policy because lets face it most conservatives here I think agree with most everything Paul says in regards to economy and other things. its the foreign policy that is the sticking point. Oh and that crazy stuff about legalizing drugs and prostitution but lets focus on this for a sec. Only including points that I don’t 100% agree with
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means… (not sure what you mean by constitutional means in this case)
* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts… (yes except to ignore the threat from within from our own would be completely foolish)
* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged…(mostly agree but would be a mistake to completely remove this power from the pres)
* Revitalize the military for the 21st century… (Depends on what you mean by waste and by who’s standards you are talking about. would have to see specifics before I would agree fully)
* Prevent the TSA… (mostly agree but again to completely ignore the threat within is stupid. TSA is going about it all wrong but still)
However while this is all well and good there are many other comments that Paul has said that fall outside this list. You just picked the least controversial ones I like Paul for a lot of things but will never v
Report Post »Susanna
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:38pmI‘m getting really disgusted and distressed over GBTV’s customer no-service. The volume sucks and the videos cut off. I love Glenn but can’t continue to subscribe to this.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:51pmI cancelled mine about 2 months ago. You’ll get a nice letter asking why you cancelled. You can write back to them and never to hear from them again.
Report Post »Brents Torts
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:02pmI’ve had zero problems with the web site. Maybe you should consider updating your computer to one not made in the 90′s.
Report Post »Beckaj
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:55pmTry Roku. It’s great.
Report Post »DRSAVAGE24
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:56pmI never even got a letter when I canceled. I had the same technical issues, but really I just got tired of the sanctimonious Glenn Beck preaching to us about being good to each other. It’s a nice thought, but really I think he’s preaching to the choir there. And when he says truth has no agenda, he’s full of crap. Glenn Beck’s objective news website has a clear agenda to portray Rick Santorum favorably and Ron Paul negatively. Hopefully the free market runs this charlatan out of business.
I like Rick Santorum, except his monetary policy is dangerous (like that, Paul folks?). Rick Santorum‘s monetary policy is a greater threat to our national security than Ron Paul’s foreign policy. The sad thing is, Glenn has to know this fact, yet he still tears down Ron Paul at every opportunity and props up Santorum even though Santorum will do NOTHING about the Federal Reserve and the currency manipulation that is going on right here in this country.
Report Post »ZengaPA65
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:31amHe’s a shill for the establishment Doc.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 9:19amGuess Beck didn’t watch Fox this night:
Fox News panel unanimously agree: GOP can‘t win in 2012 without Ron Paul’s support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P4TwYmQ1oA
Report Post »GodWillPrevail
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 2:49pmAmen.
They really need to switch to a Streaming Service that works. NexDef is a nightmare. It even deletes your cookies. They said I should just delete my cookies. Right mess up every site so their might work. Give me a break. I thought my kids were deleting my cookies turns out the kid was GBTV.
Report Post »Collbuzz
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:35pmOh! The POOR gays and lesbians, so misunderstood and vilified. To bad! Keep your degenerate crap to yourselves. Don’t beg us to call you “normal” and make us and our children (in school) have to participate. Noone cares you’re gay. Really.
Report Post »Faith1029
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:43pm“There’s all sorts of other relationships that people have, and they are valuable relationships — whether they are amorous relationships or friendship relationships or familial relationships — they’re all important, they all have value they all should be affirmed,” he said.
I don’t get why Rick said, “they should all be affirmed”. Why would he want to affirm homosexual relationships? That doesn’t sound at all conservative to me.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:35pmI call BS. This woman is SUCH a plant. PLEASE. The Democrats will HAMMER AND HAMMER AND HAMMER on these SOCILA issues becasue they can’t WIN on policy issues. Richk feels the same way as MANY candidates whenit comes to gays, including some DEMOCRATS. It’s just the OJ syndrome at work. “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” .. over and over and over.. it worked with Bachmann and her hubby! The left is so good at this crap! RICK IS NOT A HATER.
Report Post »pmjr-jones
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:31pmthis is a subconscious fix/!
Report Post »BigHorn Remedy
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:02amYou are right, of course. Can you imagine some dingbat standing in front of Santorum. “Gee Mr Santorum, my daughter is a fat pig and she wont work. All she does is have kids with different men, and gee whiz, you want to cut off benefits to big fat sluts, so gee whiz, I don’t know if I can vote for you without feeling guilty. After all, it is not her fault. She was born a big fat slut.”
What is the difference?
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 9:36amNo kidding she’s a plant. If she wants an answer to that question she needs to ask a priest or a shrink. Who wants the answers to life’s questions from a politician? OK, Democrats…so obviously a plant.
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:23am@gonzo
My thoughts exactly!!!
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 3:45pmInstead of feigning sympathy for the plant you meet her head on. You tell her, “Our debt is greater than our GDP, we are in a lot of trouble and Obama’s digging a bigger hole. You vote to save the country, not to pander to homosexual sensibilities…ANYONE BUT OBAMA!”.
Report Post »stage9
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:25pmWhen will we love homosexuals enough to insist that we not enable them to continue in behavior that is self-destructive?
The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society published a study called “Private Lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians.”
The study is said to be the largest of its kind to date, which included surveying 5,500 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals on their lifestyles and mental health. Of those sampled, 63% were male; 35% were female; 100 were transgendered and 18 were intersexed individuals.
The report found that 33% of the respondents reported having been in an abusive relationship with a same-sex partner. This included verbal or physical abuse. The abusive relationships were higher for women than for men, but was highest for transgendered males.
Drug use was higher than among the general population. Marijuana, esctasy, speed and crystal were the drugs most often used.
Forty percent of the males reported having pubic lice; one in five reported gonorrhea and more than one in ten men reported other STDs. Eight percent of the males were HIV positive. Females also contracted genital warts, chlamydia, herpes, candidiasis, urinary tract infections, vaginitis, PID and triochomonas.
The report also found high rates of depression and suicidal ideation. Of those surveyed, 15.7% “indicated suicidal ideation (thoughts) in the two weeks prior to completing the survey.
Why do we continue to ENABLE
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:35pmPolitical correctness.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:40pmYou mention that drug use was higher than in the general population. To a person wise in the ways of spin that carries a clear implication that a lot of the other statistics aren’t any higher than in the general population, and that you, or whoever fed you this, is trying to cast the illusion of making a point where there is none by exploiting the fact that they are higher than the naive might have expected that they would be for the general population.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 9:21amSome mis-guided people think Ron Paul will legalize drugs. First off, the president doesn’t have that power. Secondly, that’s WRONG:
Re: drugs, porn, prostitution
Report Post »The Republican National Committee pulled a dirty trick on Paul. According to the Times, Paul was running for Congress against fellow Republican Greg Laughlin, whom he eventually defeated in a runoff. During the campaign, an Austin marketing company called people and asked respondents who favored Paul if they would still support him knowing that he was in favor of legalizing drugs, pornography and prostitution. The real truth, the Times noted, was this: “Dr. Paul said he only favored repeal of Federal laws on drugs, pornography and prostitution, leaving states to prohibit them.”
Raisingmy3boysright
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:11pmWHY do people think Christians HATE gays? Christians do not hate gays we love them just like everyone else. We are SAD for them because they are committing a sin and according to the Bible ( THE LAW OF GOD) they will not have an everlasting life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Leviticus 18:22 is pretty specific. I have known several homosexual people in my life and I am sad that I may never see them again in Heaven.
Report Post »stage9
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:45pmBecause people LOVE to enable bad behavior. It’s the same with family members of drug addicts. Some feel that if they give in to their drug addicted that the child won’t act out, that somehow the child will see the parent as someone they can trust and eventually confide in enough to help rid themselves of their addiction. But an addiction is an addiction for a reason. An addiction is something that controls its host and is NOT so easily abandoned. It requires treatment.
Homosexuality is an addiction to a mentality that is self-destructive in every way. It’s not something you want your child aspiring to — a future of depression, suicide, promiscuity, disease, substance abuse, and domestic violence. (something that occurs no matter HOW accepting society is to homosexuality — see Europe)
Society, rather than hoping to see homosexuals cured, has sought instead to encourage their continued self-destructive behavior. Like an enabling manipulated parent who believes they’re helping their addicted child, we are unknowingly encouraging homosexuals along to an early grave.
We need to stop enabling them and stop allowing them to manipulate us, and insist they seek treatment before it’s too late. That is the right thing to do.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:45pmI don’t hate homophobic religious zealots. I pity them. Does that make you feel good? Does my pity toward you give you a warm comforting feeling, or do you consider it arrogant and insulting?
Report Post »JediKnight
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:06pmYour misunderstanding of the word “homophobic” is irritating. Nothing more. Phobia means “fear of”. Myself and many other Christians do not fear them. So to call us “homophobic” is wrong. It is used to demonize us and our beliefs.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:25amI know what homophobic means and I stand by it. People who exhibit an irrational refusal to accept homosexuality as normal are all afraid of something about it whether they are aware of what they fear or not.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:43am@ Chet Hempstead
Report Post »Like the word “gay”, the word “homophobia” has been, well . . . perverted. The hijacking of the word “gay” by homosexuals is well understood. A few decades ago, “homophobia” was a fear or hatred of HUMANITY, not the natural discomfort with a profoundly UNnatural personality disorder.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 1:41amNo, fear of people was always anthropophobia. The prefix ”****-” in homosexual and homophobic is the Greek prefix meaning same, not the Latin meaning man.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:38amSame reason people think Christians hate Muslims.
Report Post »BigHorn Remedy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:10pmThis totally cracks me up. It is unreal how Republicans continue to fall for this kind of bull-pucky! When will they ever learn? Who cares if the guy is a homosexual? It is not illegal for her son to engage in as much homosexual sodomy as his heart desires? Whythen must we all approve? if my neighbor insist on gambling away his money instead of paying rent, why must I approve? Some folks insist on drinking all the time. They can sit in their houses and drink all day long, every day ’till they die. Why must I approve?
This woman should be directing her questions at her deviant son, not Santorum. She could ask her son: “Why do you insist on being a sexual deviant? Why do you insist that everyone applaud your actions? Why do you pour out your perversions upon everyone else? Why can’t you keep your sex life private?”
No, let‘s ask Santorum about her sons’ sexual weirdness. The hell with the economy, let’s worry about the poor little perverts in the USA. Good Grief. If you are a homosexual – then be one. Just leave me the hell alone. How about that?
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:19pmBecause the liberals don’t care about homosexuality, they just want to control what everyone other than themselves does or thinks.
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:19pm@bighorn remedy—I do believe sodomy is illegal.
Report Post »givemelibertyorgivemedeath
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:23pmWow. Well said. Left me speechless!
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:24pmWhat is Santorum’s plan for the economy? All he talks about is Gays and Muslims.
Report Post »StraightEdge3
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:35pmExcellent! I really don’t care .. don’t agree.. but don’t care either.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:46pmbikerr
Report Post »No, it isn’t, and hasn’t been for years.
toto
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:37amAgree with you completely but the forced acceptance has a lot to do with money as well. They want access to tax dollars.
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:10pmHe also should have said “Don’t believe all you hear from the main stream media”
Report Post »fullblownjackass
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:09pmSantorum or Romney for 2012, Newt and Perry need to do us all a favor and get out now.
Report Post »http://voices.yahoo.com/newt-gingrich-conservative-futurist-10844011.html
momrules
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:08pmI reserve the right to stand for my beliefs regardless of what others think. The mom in this report should do the same.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, period.
I do not judge the homosexual, they will eventually be judged, as will I, by God.
The militant homosexual like the militant atheist makes me so angry I could spit as they tend to judge everyone else that does not meet and agree with their demands. This is what they are doing to Rick Santorum.
Report Post »VoteRightDammit
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:05pmTough question ?????????????/
SERIOUSLY ????????????????
You LOVE the boy but do NOT “support” his desire to destroy himself.
Geesh.
Report Post »aconstitutionalistlivesinbrooklyn
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:04pmI agree with Rick Santorum’s position, and appreciate the way he is articulating it. If this is the best that the left has on him, he’s going to slaughter them in the Fall. That is, if he gets the nomination.
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:01pmThe economy is falling apart, unemployment is still up, Iran is about to get the bomb, Obama is growing the government at an alarming rate, and yet people are asking the candidates boo-hoo questions on what to do about gay marriage.
Report Post »thewatcher93
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:14pmWhen you dress up an election as something that is the “most important election” ever and everything is on the table, it doesn’t surprise me a question like this would be asked.
Report Post »stage9
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:20pmThe condition facing our country today can be summed up as a failure to recognize our own moral depravity. And the condition of your pocket book isn’t the only issue facing our nation. When will people like you get that? We elect candidates based on our view of things. We have a President in the White House who reflects our nation’s deteriorating values, and before we raise a protest to the fact that we didn’t vote for him, we need to stop and consider that it’s the GOP who is putting forth a candidate who has nearly the same voting record as Obama on social issues and very few so-called “Conservatives” raise so much as an eyebrow.
Let’s not kid ourselves, our nation is a moral toilet and until we address that problem, you can kiss the future of America goodbye.
“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Get the foundations of morality wrong, and everything else on top crumbles…including your pocket book.
Report Post »aconstitutionalistlivesinbrooklyn
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:25pmThat’s what you call a Rick Santorum special. Its an attempt to marginalize him.
Report Post »Roaran
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:57pmUsing the federal government to define what marriage is or what it can be, then giving out benefits to ‘encourage’ said behavior.
This is in effect what U.S. policy would be once the federal government is allowed to define marriage.
If you think this is a good idea, and authorize this action, there can be no reason why government can then define: What food should you be eating? What lifestyle is best? What is moral? Which religion is better?
I think Homosexuality is absurd as it only satisfies one base desire and contradicts both logic and morals.
But that doesn’t mean I think going on a crusade of progressive/socialist/communist policies against human beings who choose or feel they’ve been forced to live a homosexual lifestyle. As long as they do not bother me or my family, what right do I have to dictate what someone else should or shouldn’t do?
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:07pmGovernments devolve into agencies promoting losers and punishing the successful, which is why they all eventually die.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:53pmStart taking… Self Responsibility!
Report Post »piper60
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:53pmGod does not hate gays. He hates the sin, NOT the sinner.
Report Post »me85
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:04pm@PIPER60
Report Post »Amen
VoteRightDammit
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:07pmWell …………………
He is getting to the point of hating the gay ACTIVISTS ………
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:08pmYour God does not hate.
Report Post »mrawfull
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:52pmGovernment should stay out of the bedroom. The bedroom should stay out of politics.
Report Post »Chappy123
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:07pmVery well said!!!!
The views of what happens in the bedroom should NOT have anything to do with who would make a good President.
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:13pmThe bedroom should be just that “in the bedroom”,not in your face .on tv,in public,in the schools,you get the idea!
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:39pmWhat if the government is already out of the bedroom yet they’re pushing for redefining marriage?
Report Post »Buchanan16
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:49pmWaiting for the Paulbots throw it into overdrive because The Blaze isn’t reporting enough “good” on the great Dr. Paul (dear God help us all) and rather reporting on Santorum. oh boo hoo, you guys really need to get out of the trance and really wake up. Instead of being a bigot and posting lame youtube links and other no name websites about Paul how about you research another candidate. But wait, who am I talking to? Oh yeah that‘s right a mindless Paulbot drone that’s been thrown into overdrive.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:07pmJust for that, I’m applying to the TSA so I can grope yo Momma.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:09pmThis posting defines mindless.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:17pmNow that we’ve allowed the government to be in the marriage business, what other personal liberties are we going to hand over so that others can vote on those individual rights?
Report Post »We’re headed for some bad things, my friends.
recoveringneocon
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:20pmPat Buchanan says that Ron Paul is authentic
Report Post »http://www.goddiscussion.com/88823/pat-buchanan-says-that-ron-paul-is-authentic/
Pearsontech
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 8:32am@recoveringneocon Yeah so….
Report Post »Ohio Guy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:49pmNo hate involved. Now glitter bombing, that is hate. Interupting church services with chants and pro gay leaflets thrown about, that is hate. Wrongfuly accusing people who disagree with you of being a homophobe, that is hate.
Report Post »ChuckJ
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:47pmTreat him as Christ told us. Don’t judge, show him love and lead him to Christ’s word. And pray he comes closer to the Father. If we all did this we would leave more of our sin behind us.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:57pmDo all of that, and don’t promote, protect, or legitimize aberrant behavior. They can be loved without legitimacy.
Report Post »Republic
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:47pmI’m confused. The headline implies that Sanrorum hates gays, but the article says otherwise. Headline grabbing BS???
Report Post »B-Neil
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:46pmYou don’t support him. He has no problem throwing his perversion into your face. You should have no problem condemning his actions. It’s time we started looking them in the eye and telling them what they are; PERVERTS. CARRY ON McDUFF p.s. family is no safe haven for perversion
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:45pmYeah. I love how gays INSTANTLY accuse a person of HATING them when we simply don’t agree with gay marriage. It gets old.
From a Christian perspective, the knee jerk reaction just proves the truth.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:43pmYeah, but gays do not understand it is not a personal attack on them.
Report Post »Blackop
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:49pmOh, those pesky gays! They keep taking a big **** in the god-fearing way of life.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:57pmAh, speaking of gay! How ya doin, blackop? Take any big ones up the you-know-what lately?
Love ya man…
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:39pmSatan or em and Suc dusky
Report Post »dumbgrunt33
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:53pmWhat does this MEAN….????!!!!???
Report Post »Ohio Guy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:57pmLoser is trying to link Santorum (Satan or em) and Jerry Sandusky (Suc dusky). Epic fail!
Report Post »pmjr-jones
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:36pmsubconscious fix
Report Post »