Santorum Defends Stance on Same-Sex Marriage: ‘We Honor Those Relationships But We Don’t Call Them Marriage’
- Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:33pm by
Tiffany Gabbay
- Print »
- Email »
In an interview on “Studio B” the day before the Iowa caucuses, Fox News host Shepard Smith challenged Rick Santorum’s position on same-sex marriage. When asked by Smith how long it would be before Santorum “catches up” that “everybody’s okay” (in other words, that everybody, regardless of sexual preference is “OK” to marry), the GOP presidential contender responded, “everybody is entitled to live the life they want” but clarified, “what we’re talking about is changing laws.” According to Santorum, those laws reflect a Judeo-Christian “value structure” that is based on “Biblical truth” and are not subject to altering.
“The question is whether we should change the laws of this country to reflect a different value structure. What we’re talking about here are different values. We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on Biblical truth and truth that can be acclaimed and resolved through reason. And, those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”
He continued, “People are allowed to love a lot of different people and a lot of different, and we honor those relationships, but we don’t call them marriage and we don’t treat them like marriage.”
Santorum concluded by explaining that, “Family is the foundation of our society and marriage is the glue that holds that family together. That’s not being against anybody, that’s being for something.”
Earlier in the segment, when asked to comment on rival Ron Paul’s assertion that he is “too liberal,” Santorum blasted, “being called a liberal from him is almost ridiculous.”
He clarified that most of the time he is criticized for being “too conservative,” not the opposite.
Watch the provocative interview below:
(h/t: Fox News Insider)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 583 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 410 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 367 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 410 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 413 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 367 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 151 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 410 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 (270)
A Conservatarian
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:25pmRon Paul’s assertion that he is “too liberal”
This coming from the guy that supports the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the TSA, raising the debt limit whenever the federal reserve says so, TARP, the bridge to nowhere… the guy is proud of all his earmarks he ever placed into bills and (LMAO) he has the balls to make fun of Mitt Romney for being a failed politician when he got his ass handed to him in a landslide election when Pennsylvanians told him to eat s*it and enjoy it.
Calling him a hypocrit and a jackass is being far too kind :)
Please, someone rebut me and tell me how Santorum is more conservative than Paul, please tell me how he’s more conservative than Obama. Oh wait, all you have is he’s against abortion, wow, so’s Paul, congratulations. Next?
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:42pmNo matter what Santorum is, it doesn’t take away from the fact that Paul is a fruitcake. Bad for foreign policy and bad on social issues. He stinks so bad that he has become a serial loser running for president. And he is doing his best to keep his losing streak going with tons of help from Paulistinians.
Report Post »THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:49pm@irrational=Paulophobe=commonsenseophobe=Constitutionophobe= truthophobe=Freedomophobe.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:57pmTexas Congressman Ron Paul’s interview with Don Imus over the Israeli embargo of the Gaza Strip raises a number of disturbing questions about where this self-proclaimed Republican stands on a number of important questions. Ron Paul, a longtime isolationist, shocked many when he not only admonished Israel’s lawful blockage of the Gaza Strip, but also said that Israel’s action were nothing short of an act of war. When Imus mentioned that Israel was not attempting to stop humanitarian aid in the region, rather weapons being smuggled to the terrorist organization Hamas, Ron Paul released a tirade of unbelievable statements.
Paul legitimated the terrorist organization Hamas and attacked both Israel’s and America’s attempts to restrain terrorist organizations using boycotts and embargos. Specifically, Paul denounced actions taken against known terrorists and enablers in Palestine, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. According to Ron Paul’s thinking, the terrorist organizations and the countries that harbor them have been victims of Israel and America’s inability to continue to reach out in friendly dialogue. Ron Paul told Imus, “America should tell Israel they are on their own.” Paul’s assertion that we should abandon our ally Israel is shocking but it is only the tip of the iceberg of the congressman’s misguided thinking. If we are to question Ron Paul’s anti-Israel stance, should we not also question his overt anti-America stance?
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:01pmPaul legitimated the terrorist organization Hamas and attacked both Israel’s and America’s attempts to restrain terrorist organizations using boycotts and embargos. Specifically, Paul denounced actions taken against known terrorists and enablers in Palestine, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. According to Ron Paul’s thinking, the terrorist organizations and the countries that harbor them have been victims of Israel and America’s inability to continue to reach out in friendly dialogue. Ron Paul told Imus, “America should tell Israel they are on their own.” Paul’s assertion that we should abandon our ally Israel is shocking but it is only the tip of the iceberg of the congressman’s misguided thinking. If we are to question Ron Paul’s anti-Israel stance, should we not also question his overt anti-America stance?
Ron Paul’s interview with Don Imus is riddled with “blame America first” rhetoric. Paul starts like a modern day liberal by minimizing radical Islamic terrorism and placing the terrorists as victims and America as an imperialistic aggressor. The congressman also shows how naive he is regarding the differences between past aggressors of the world and the modern terrorist. Highlighting this point, Ron Paul casually says of Hamas, “Yeah, they’re probably not the best people in the world, but you know, didn’t we talk to the Soviets…?” This disconnect from the realities of terrorism combined with a “blame Israel and America first” is
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:09pmHere is a quip from the news today that might settle things down
Andrea Mitchell: Iowa is just too white and Christian
Al Sharpton: Yes Andrea, I agreed. We much resist this white supremacy takeover of Ohio.
Andrea: Al, I just said Iowa was too white.
Al: Yes, it snowed there.
Andrea: No Al, the people are too white.
Al: Why don’t they go to tanning bibs?
Andrea: Al, do you men Beds?
Al: That’s not what my word thingy said. Andrea, aren’t you kind of white yourself? Why don’t you go to a tanning bib, or at least get a little color in you, I will volunteer, you know, for my race.
Andrea: Al, that’s just icky, besides, I……..what the heck were we talking about? Oh yeah, so why did George Bush get rid of all the black people in Iowa, we this a result of Katrina?
Al: Resist we much, Andy, resist we much.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:15pmPaul is a nutjob that pervert the constiutition as bad as Obama does,
He’s a neo libertarian…His whacko ideas actually attempt to SPOIL the rights agruments by making them into something nutty ,
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:15pmPaul A. Ibbetson is a nut-case and when you “copy and paste” him, it makes you look like one as well.
Report Post »THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:16pm@republicr@p
Report Post »Say it with me SPOOKY, RON PAUL 2012-2020!
Vechorik
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:20pmIowa for Ron Paul!
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:41pmRationalizing Man – “No matter what Santorum is, it doesn’t take away from the fact that Paul is a fruitcake.”
That’s your rebuttal. You accept that your man is a complete neo-con and progressive and his only claim to conservatism is being pro-life. Everything beyond those pertinent facts, are your own problem in dealing with the delivery from Paul. Do you think I like his delivery everytime he speaks? Noooo. Call him a fruitcake, old man, whatever, he’s still the most conservative person to serve in government in a lonnnnng time and your boy Santorum is a fraud.
Do tell me how Santorum supporting the Patriot Act, NDAA, federal interference in defining marriage, the bridge to nowhere, earmarks of every porkulous type,TARP, TSA, Homeland Security, flatly stating we do not have the right to pursue our own happiness… is all conservative…
Report Post »do tell me how Santorum is more conservative than Paul? Where is Santorum’s plan to cut $1 Trillion a year from our budget? Do tell me, what is Santorum’s plan besides “Ron Paul must not be President”. You people seriously want someone who doesn’t even understand what The Pursuit of Happiness means, to be President? A guy that is only running, as he states, to stop Ron Paul. What the hell is he going to do when he’s actually President? Obama 2.0 is what. “Duhhhhh I guess I’ll make a Marriage Law and bomb Iran” would be his first moves. Congratulations Pretenda-republicans, here is your candidate.
A Conservatarian
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:45pmRationalizing Man – I put this on page 2 but you should read it here.
“Santorum then brought up the then-pending U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which challenged a Texas sodomy law, and went on to declare that:
he did not have a problem with homosexuals, but “a problem with homosexual acts”
the right to privacy “doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution”
and that sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which “undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family”
The guy’s version of logic depends on equivocation entirely. He’s a dumbass, that’s not being humorous, I’m being serious. Anyone that thinks the right to privacy doesn’t exist in the constitution, no matter WHAT subject is being discussed is no conservative.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 3:58am@A Conservatarian
It would be nice to have some links to go with your post. Since ‘you people’ aren’t trustworthy at all.
But none the less, Santorum isn’t Paul and that is a strong point for any candidate. Paul’s view of homosexuality is more disturbing to me than what you had to say anyway. Not sure why I‘m even responding to you because I have no respect for Paulistinians at all and don’t care what you think or think you know. So work up some good jabs for me because I don‘t want to argue with ’your kind’ anymore.
“…in this interview, he has gone too far for even his most devoted followers. Here he challenges even God’s right to view homosexuality as sin. As the word is getting out on this Ron Paul interview attacking God’s view on homosexuality in favor of Ron Paul’s own “complex” perverted view, faithful followers of Christ are showing that they have had enough of his contradictions as they walk away from supporting his campaign.”
http://patriotstatesman.com/2011/06/ron-pauls-homosexual-surprise-causes-exodus-of-faithful-followers-of-christ/
At least I have a link AND an audio recording of your ‘prophet’ in his own words.
Report Post »PJL
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:22pmNot a Santorum fan, but I thought that was a got you question by Smith.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 10:03amGay marriage will be the norm in a few years and you’ll all accept it like you have every other social policy you once opposed. you stand for nothing you right wingers as you are balk against change until you don’t. one day you‘ll justify more wars against muslims on the grounds they don’t allow gay marriage. yoy’re so preditable, mallable and gullable. reactionary luddites with no core principles except narrow minded and delutional hiding behind the constitution[which of course can be interpreted to mean anything we want it to me].mallable gulls devoid of principles and values. fodder.
Report Post »EndTheGOPTEA
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:21pmYou don’t sound like you will handle well Obama winning again, Good Luck,, LOL.
PaulBots are fools.
Report Post »woodyl1011fl
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 7:09pmWhen Obama Bolshevik democrat totalitarians come to fit you for your slave contol device you will have voted for what you wanted. Too late for you but there are at least 200 million of us who will not be made slaves by your party. “Darkness at Noon” wil begin on January 2012 if BHO is reelected.
Report Post »mrsalvage2
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:18pmSimply, the Federal Government should have nothng to do with Marriage except to recognize it in the Common Law for as wehn originally established.
By his endorsment of the unnatural, he is by all technical and definited terms a Pervert or Perverter.
Nothing new in light of how he has perverted the Fundamental LAw in his Political activities.
Report Post »EndTheGOPTEA
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:16pmAgain, Not an answer idiot.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:34pmTROLL ALERT : You are not only a Troll who “joined” the Blaze today, but you are a nasty Troll. Be aware Blaze readers. This is an Occupier….
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:16pmWhat does he want federal marriage licenses now? States decision, not the Feds. Say that Rick and you might blend in with the Tea Party background better.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:24pmRight.
Report Post »DirtyDeeds
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:30pmYou are right! The states must choose! The states must start pushing back against the federal government if they do not want to lose more of the freedoms that they have been giving up for us!
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:15amThen explain what‘s going to happen if same sex marriage is recognized in one state but not another and the same sex married people move to a state where it’s not recognized. What do you support doing to the states that don’t recognize same sex marriages from other states?
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:23amIf another state doesn’t recognize a same sex marriage… that same sex couple best not move to said state not recognizing their marriage. That or run a campaign to change the laws, succeed, then move. If they decide to move from state to state and want the laws modified to suit their wants? Well I’m sorry but that sounds a heck of a lot like the argument illegal aliens make when they get to this country.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:30amWhat makes you think that the courts won’t try to force the other states to recognize them against their will? That’s why we have the DOMA.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:33amWhat makes you think that the judges won’t force all 50 states to recognize same sex marriage? That’s why we have the DOMA.
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:33amAny state judge acting like a federal judge to make laws of one state supersede the laws of another obviously don’t understand the Constitution. As far as the DOMA – any federal law made having nothing to do with interstate commerce is unconstitutional; it shouldn’t be law. If the people of a state want to make marriage legal between same sexes, that is their right and the federal government does not have the authority to intervene. Neither does the federal government have the right to intervene with a state that declares marriage only between a man and a woman. Do I think it’s right? Irrelevant. Do I think people in my state should make marriage between only a man and a woman? Yes.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 3:46amWhat makes you think that a federal judge won’t force other states to recognize same sex marriage against their will?
Report Post »FlamingFartSyndrome
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:15pmIm sorry, but marriage brings with it certain property, bank, and health-trust rights that you cant get any other way except for having a marriage license. Santorum could rid him of being asked these questions if he took the stance that marriage should only be recognized by the Church, and that certain marital rights should be given to all people (as he said he believes in) no matter how you find happiness.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:14pmIf you end “Marriage” in the Tax Code and Laws… you will get Government out of everyone’s Personal Business.
If you Tax… Gays at the Highest Rate… they will disappear!
Report Post »FlamingFartSyndrome
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:41pmi think you just saw something for what it really is.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:32amYou also forgot to mention that they want to get married for the social status in that they want homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:50amThere is a marriage penalty imposed by the federal government.
Report Post »z013
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:12pmThat is actually the 1st time I’ve heard an actual politician make a legitimate defense of marriage,
Report Post »everyone else had always made it sound like gobbldy-goop,
Thanks for being clear Rick, and right.
Oh how I pray you make it sir,
He is currently our only chance to save the next 4 years Imo
ModerationIsBest
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:35pmToo bad his defense of marriage was cuckoo
Idiots like him think that in order to be a family you HAVE to have a father and mother, which is inherently bigoted and moronic and not founded on anything legitimate.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:18amModerationisbest – Then tell me how children are created without a mother and a father. You can scream bigot all you want. It doesn’t make it true.
Report Post »countryfirst
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 9:24amModerationisbest- There is a big difference between a Mother and Father, and a Mom and Dad. I believe that is what Mr. Santorum is talking about. In today’s society there are not enough Moms & Dads. No license or permit required to create a life. And if needed walk away and we will pick up the tab.
There is sometimes a complete 180 degree shift in how a man or women will look at a issue, and that is a main building block on the development of a child.
Report Post »groundzero
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:11pmI believe the comment of rick was right on. It is about changing our law as far as the governement lawmakers should be concerned. No more no less. That is like abortion. The government taking my money to support this is against everything I believe in. Don’t take it any further as far as the government is concerned. I don’t want my tax $ going to abortions – it’s that simple. Let those Hollywood and liberals start a Charity and stop taking my money for what I”m against. Our government has become a CHARITY for democrats because they don’t want to put their OWN money out for their causes, so they force me.Have u heard their CRYING STORIES My answer is start a charity and stop taking the money and start asking people for it.
Report Post »THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:32pmIt’s much better for ricky to take your tax payer money and kill innocents in other countries than unborn babies isnt it?…hypocrite.
Report Post »sapper4545
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:07am_not 2 GZ,but TTSMYF, would like to ask how u liken ,TAX DOLLARS 4 preemptive defense of innocents (our country& others) from blatant and boastful defiance of UN resolutions (WMDs) , 2TAX DOLLARS 4 the murder of innocent babies?one is called National Defense ,the other is purely MURDER
Report Post »libertarian_atheist
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:07pmSo everyone is entitled to live the life they want to live, just so long as they don’t expect equal protection under the law.
Thanks a million for clarifying that, Ricky.
Report Post »FlamingFartSyndrome
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:31pmRick could rid himself of these questions if he said that the government has no role in marriage, that only the Church should recognize a married couple, and that the property, bank, and health-trust rights that come with a marital license should be given to all couples regardless of discrimination.
Unfortunately, he wants the government to be more involved in our personal lives. He wants to triumph new State Laws that allow gay couples to be married with a Federal Marriage Amendment that he and Bachman both support and said would pass if were they President.
Does that sound like limited government? It sickens me to see so much hate in the GOP for gays. You turn away so many intelligent young economical conservatives with your “biblical truths” that support nothing but your traditional hatred for people in which you brand as different. Who are you to call yourself a Catholic when you judge so many of those who don’t judge you for something NONE of us have control of.
If you believe in the Constitution, that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then who are you to take that from someone else. Might as well be a redcoat, and in that case get ready to be overrun by the new generation, of freedom loving economical conservatives, who soon will overtake your ancient social platform you call social conservatism, to the TRUE meaning of conservatism, and the true meaning of “limited government”.
Report Post »woemcat
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:07pmwe have MANY restrictions on marriage in the states. in almost all states, a person can’t marry their cousin. so, what’s the deal about restrictions on marriage? oh wait, silly me! the left hates marriage so they want to devalue it as much as they can.
Report Post »LibsFIB
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:02pmYou really don’t have a clue! Do you H0Mo!!! It is abnormal behavior. AIDS to you and your ilk! LibsFIB! RON PAUL 2012!!!!
Report Post »frank
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:58pmThis gay is on drugs. He needs to go to rehab. Are you the one that supposed to go against Obama? That’s why Michelle goes to vacation by herself, so you can have fun with Obama. Go home to your god.
Report Post »LibsFIB
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:57pmHis statement seems like he accepts this vile existence.
Report Post »Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:11pmsort of what I thought
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:25pmNo it doesn’t. Being the soup for brains “constitutionalist” you Paulistinians think you are, you should appreciate that what he said was that people’s relationships are their own business. But marriage is defined as one man and one woman by law and tradition and he would not change that.
So do you even know what the prophet Paul says about homosexuality?
“….in this interview, he has gone too far for even his most devoted followers. Here he challenges even God’s right to view homosexuality as sin. As the word is getting out on this Ron Paul interview attacking God’s view on homosexuality in favor of Ron Paul’s own “complex” perverted view, faithful followers of Christ are showing that they have had enough of his contradictions as they walk away from supporting his campaign. As with all cult followers, once they stop following him, they begin to see all the flaws and contradictions in Ron Paul’s other dogmatic arguments. Some might continue to follow him no matter what, but for faithful Christians, the choice has been made clearer than ever, since Ron Paul believes his own views trump even God’s law of Royal Love.
Here in the “prophet’s” own words
Report Post »http://patriotstatesman.com/2011/06/ron-pauls-homosexual-surprise-causes-exodus-of-faithful-followers-of-christ/
justangry
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:42pmCome on Rationalman, you know those “holier than thou” politicians are the first ones to be tapping their feet in stall of a public restroom. Or something else they’ve preached against when they ran for office. He’s a progressive and all the so-called “social conservatives” who vote for him are progressives as well.
Report Post »THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:45pm@Irrational….
Report Post »Nobody pays attention to you…Your efforts to confuse have failed, You have no credibility, you persuade NO ONE! LOOK….AT….THE…..POLLS…AND…CROWDS..RON PAUL!…RON PAUL!…RON PAUL!!!
ZengaPA65
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:57pmSmith is a polesmoker himself. Anyway, there goes your evangelical support Rick you bonehead.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 8:57amSantorum calls himself a catholic but his anti justice for the palestinians and his war mongering put him at odds with the teachings of Christ and the catholic church. he is infected with the evangelical right “christians” who adapt a primitive tribal narrative that God is a tribal leader concerned with ancient history and fail to recognize that God became man to save our souls-not to demand that european zionists ururp land from people based on a historical biblical narrative. Thou shalt not steal, though shalt not lie and human rights are universal.Santorum should come back to the teachings of the catholic church instead of listening to evangelicals where every man’s interpretation of scripture is as good as another.-the result being these unjust policies and wars in the mid east. Evangelicals stand for nothing except war and unjustice for the sake of a narrative of history. They are the antithesis of christian spirituality [oh and palestinians are also christian and zionism is a secular movement ]At least that libertarian Ron Paul gets foreign policy right. You guys are freaked out that a voice speaks out against the zionist anti muslim/arab propaganda machine. not an easy thing to do -but Ron Paul has managed to speak truth to these evil genocidists controlling policy and the narrative throughout the media/government. very brave,A real american -not an“ erthnic” anxious to please the powers that be and therefore so easily gulled.
Report Post »ssbstspd
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:55pmIf Rick makes it to NY, He has my vote 100 %
This is the type of person that we need for the major changes that need to come.
Report Post »Arminianism
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:49pmShep is a stupid lib… I refuse to have on FNC when he is on as i don’t want to help his ratings.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:54pmYes Shep is, I hate listening to him, if you could purchase him for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he is worth, BIG PROFIT!
Report Post »smallybiggz
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:58pmShep is as queer as a football bat.
Report Post »Arminianism
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:00pmI agree Gary! His arrogance is so annoying. He asks Santorum when he is going to catch up with the rest of American, like he represents what the rest of American thinks. I’ve heard him go on rants about “When are we going to stop giving tax breaks to the rich!” rants as well. I don’t know how he gets 3 hours a day on FNC.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:01pmYep! You are right. I watched this interview and Smith asked the gay marriage questions in a snarky tone of voice. Like a “gottcha” question. I thought Santorum handled it well. Better than the “bob and weave” or dodge strategy Paul uses on such questions and falling back on his “states rights” excuse to not answer the question.
Many Christians who have fallen for Ron Paul’s carefully crafted words, often continue to support him because he loves to quote scripture and founders of our nation. For those with discernment, it is clear that he is constantly selectively quoting The Word of God out of context to try to persuade those who cannot see through his games. When called on his views, he will change the subject to try to make it sound like he is for State’s rights and the constitution and carefully avoids where his radical immoral views lead him.
However, in this interview, he has gone too far for even his most devoted followers. Here he challenges even God’s right to view homosexuality as sin.
http://patriotstatesman.com/2011/06/ron-pauls-homosexual-surprise-causes-exodus-of-faithful-followers-of-christ/
Report Post »MNproud
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:11pmI agree with everything said about that Lib GayMan Shep! I program my dvr’s away from his show each and every day! He SUCKS!!
Report Post »LOJ
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 8:16amYes, Shepherd Smith is Liberal! Homosexual Sodomy, and Gay Lesbianism are Abominations to God, and this country will pay for Sin just like Sodom and Gomorrah. “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly.” 2nd Peter 2:6 The evidence proves that the actual city structures of Sodom and Gomorrah were turned into ash by Fire and Brimstone.
Report Post »jacobstroubles
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:45pmRick will get my vote. America had better wake up to vile filth of homosexual behavior.
Report Post »And for those too ignorant to understand the point…nobody is hating the person, it’s the vile filthy disgusting behavior.
EndTheGOPTEA
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:51pmYou don‘t know what you’re missing.
Report Post »Ivey123
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:57pmI agree. And did he say “honor those relationships” ????? Honor?? Honor?? You mean TOLERATE because they CHOOSE that lifestyle !!!!
Report Post »garyM
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:58pmHomosexuality and sodomy was illegal according to federal law and military law for over two hundred years of our nation’s laws and some crackerhead named Bill Clinton and his democrat heathens took one step toward DADT and Obama/Pelosi and Reid took the other steps. You know that if you know any history or law, either that are you can‘t read and hadn’t studied history!
Report Post »dogdr
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:36pmOver the ages, across the world, marriage has meant many things. To claim marriage is only between a man and woman ignores that in some places marriage can polygamous, arranged, polyandrous, post- mortem, celibate……. Even if you claim that “christian” marriage is defined by “biblical truth” then that complicates things. There were many types of marriage in the bible. One man, one woman marriage was NOT the only acceptable marriage in the bible and I won’t even try to count the other laws, rules, commandments that are in the bible that almost every “christian” has chosen to ignore. Trying to stand on tradition and the bible to define marriage is about as relevant as relying on the bible about slavery, which was just fine in the bible and an accepted tradition in this country for over a hundred years. By “biblical truth” and traditional morals in this country it was wrong to get rid of slavery.
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:52pmWhat about those of us that don’t believe in your re-written book? This is why the dems keep winning…the GOP can’t keep their religion in their own church.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:20amDogdr – Even with the different cultural practices of marriage throughout history, they still never recognized same sex marriage until the politically correct modern era.
Report Post »Sicboy
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:45pmAmen, even the dogs get scraps.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:44pmThere is a few that think they can change over 200 years of precident and constituional law with what they think is right in their own eyes. I’ll have to admit, with Obama/Reid/Pelosi and the rest of the democrats they have almost accomplished that nation destroying mission. This election will decide whether we will self destruct or try and turn the iceburg bound ship around before we sink.
Report Post »No Bama
No Romney
No Paul
modilly
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:08pmNo Santorum, the gun control advocate.
Report Post »bullcrapbuster
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:15pmAnd no Newt
Report Post »LibsFIB
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:44pmTrying to garner the dismal GAY vote. He is really going liberal. Homosexuality is abherrent behavior that used to be discussed in ABNORMAL psychology classes. LibsFIB! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Report Post »22hornet
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:57pmRead before you speak
Report Post »David
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:59pmIf you watched Ron Paul on one of the liberal late night talk shows, when he was asked about the stances of Santorum and Bachman on the gay issues, Paul giggled with the liberal host, agreeing with him (I forget if it was Leno or Letterman), that these “stooges” Santorum and Bachman “hated gays.” I think he agreed with the host that they hated gays and muslims.
So, what makes you think Ron Paul is some how less liberal on the gay issue than Santorum after hearing Paul chuckle with the late night liberal host, agreeing that Bachman and Santorum hate gays, obviously because of their stance against gay marriage, not because they literally hate the people. Ron paul has no balls. he can make fun of conservatives with the liberals for “hating gays,” yet you think he’s actually against gay marriage? You’re a joke you Paul supporters, and hypocrites.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:14pmHow stupid can you be? Oh, thats right, your a Paulistinian.
What is more constitutional than what Santorum said. He basically said people can do what they want in their relationships. But marriage is defined as one man and one woman according to man and God. And he would not change that. What is liberal about that?
So what does Paul say about homosexuality? Listen and find out in his own recorded words at this link. Then tell me who is the most socially conservative.
“……in this interview, he has gone too far for even his most devoted followers. Here he challenges even God’s right to view homosexuality as sin.”
http://patriotstatesman.com/2011/06/ron-pauls-homosexual-surprise-causes-exodus-of-faithful-followers-of-christ/
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:27pmDavid, it was on Leno and he was being humorous, yes an old man’s version of humor.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:28pmRational Man, who is your candidate of choice?
Report Post »I never see you post anything GOOD. It’s always tearing down for you.
So who is it?
Jackie Rogers, Jr.
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:43pmHa! I just fulfilled my New Year resolution of replacing my “ten most recent comments” in one day.
Report Post »Yep, 1,2,3, wait a minute, 6, 7, 8… Damn! This is only nine.
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:41pm100 percent in agreement with Rick S. on this issue.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:41pm@TronintheMorning
Then I suppose you’ll no problem showing me where in the Constitution it authorizes the government to ban same-sex marriage.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:58pm@Mr. Oshawott
“Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any others.”
John Adams.
Therefore, laws must be intact to take up the slack for those who are not “moral and religious people”.
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
Report Post »John Adams
guntotinsquaw
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:15pm@Rational…and those that can’t be converted will have to be eliminated..right?
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:41pmGay marriage is like Unicorn Milk, you can dream about it, but it is still a fantasy
Report Post »