that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.
The pundits are plummeting
Perry for signing legislation to allow immigrants to pay in state tuition to
get a college education in the state where they live. But let's take a look at
Santorum's take on the military. The MSM media is remaining quite on his discriminating bigoted statement.
SANTORUM: Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the
military. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision
within
the military that we are going to recognize a group of
people and give them a special privilege to — to — and removing “don’t
ask/don’t tell” I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And
the military’s job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.
This set my "Hair on
Fire" does he think because a person same sex preference precludes them
from being a patriotic American that wants to serve their country? Tell the hundreds of thousands of men and
women who serve our country that they shouldn't have married and had children.
Now we know why Santorum has never served in the military. Does Santorum think
that if you are anything but "straight" you can't do your job, what
about the gays in Congress, in Journalism, Television Commentators, Finance,
Entertainment, Banking, Manufacturing, Sports and all other types of employment?
Should they be removed from their chosen professions?
Santorum needs an inoculation of
reality. The mightiest armies in the world conquered countries with homosexuals
in their armies, i.e. Roman, Attila and today, 25 countries allow gays to openly serve in their armed
forces, including the U.S.'s closest neighbor, Canada. The British military
began allowing gays to serve in 2000; members of the Ministry of Defense told
The New York Times in 2007 that there had been no reported incidents of
harassment, discord, blackmail or bullying, nor any erosion of unit cohesion or
military effectiveness.
If one of Santorum's seven children happens to prefer a same sex
partner, will he lock them in the attic and make them change their last name? I
shudder to think that this narrow minded bigot could be the Commander in Chief
of United States Military.NO SEX IN MILITARY
SANTORUM: Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to — and removing “don’t ask/don’t tell” I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military’s job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.
The gay conservative group GOProud quickly
demanded an apology from Santorum. “Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our
brave men and women in uniform,” the statement said, “and he owes Stephen Hill
…an immediate apology. That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum
has never done — put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of
life. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry
that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service.”
Santorum's inane remark wasn't the end of it.
(Santorum, in a follow
up interview today, did thank the soldier, and claimed he did not hear the
booing, but alas he could not turn back time. The truth was out there.)
Jonathan Weisman at The Wall Street Journal’s Washington
Wire was quick to note the
pattern, which is certainly being used by opponents of the G.O.P.
Jazz Shaw at Hot Air agrees that, policy aside, moments
like this one have repercussions
for Republicans beyond the lecterns. They turn into red meat for the
Democratic wolves:
Hey, look! Republicans are booing an active duty
soldier and cheering for the elimination of unemployment insurance!
You don’t need to be Karl Rove to figure out this might
not be a winning visual image.
Andrew Sullivan, who aside from being a blogger and
editor of renown is openly gay, did fire off a quick tirade during the debate,
but stewed overnight and returned Friday with an
extended, angry meditation:
As I went to bed last night, the scattered boos for an
American soldier in the field at any debate began to sink in. And Santorum’s
despicable lie in response — that repealing DADT somehow means license of gay
sexual misconduct in the armed services — was intended to reduce that soldier,
his life and work, to Santorum’s obsession: the intrinsic evil of gay sex.
Again, this is usual. Gays are used to being reduced to sexual acts rather than
being seen as full human beings, like straight people, with sexuality sure, but
a whole lot of other things as well.
But somehow the fact that these indignities were heaped
on a man risking his life to serve this country, a man ballsy enough to make
that video, a man in the uniform of the United States … well, it tells me a
couple of things. It tells me that these Republicans don’t actually deep down
care for the troops, if that means gay troops. Their constant posturing
military patriotism has its limits.
The shocking silence on the stage — the fact that no one
challenged this outrage — also tells me that this kind of slur is not regarded
as a big deal. …
And then I think of all those gay servicemembers who
have died for this country, or been wounded in battle, or been on tours year
after year … and the fury builds.
At Politico, Roger Simon imagined how the audience might
be called to
account for its response: “The crowd, knowing it was several thousand miles
away from him, felt courageous enough to boo. It’s a shame that the curtains
did not part, revealing the soldier standing on the stage. Did I mention this
guy had biceps he could cracked walnuts with? The boo-birds would have
whimpered once or twice and then stampeded for the exits.”
Walter Shapiro at The New Republic suggested that
Santorum not only went awry, but could also use to brush
up on his military history: “…Santorum was unyielding in his demand for
heterosexuality in the military. The former Pennsylvania senator did not even
thank the solider for his service in a war zone. But Santorum did insist, ‘Any
type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.’ Needless to
say, that comment displayed a naiveté about the lives of soldiers since the
days of Achilles and Hector at the gates of Troy.”
A few others found the “no sex in the military” line to
be absurd. At The New Yorker, Amy
Davidson wrote:
“Sexual activity has absolutely no place in the
military”? That will be a surprise to the men and women, of every orientation,
who love, marry, and become parents while serving. We have an all-volunteer
military whose health relies on its strong ties to civilian life — not a praetorian
guard of eunuchs. Does Santorum think that “the military” is a collection of
battle scenes in an action movie? Surely not; his father worked for the
Veterans Administration, and so he must know better. He also ought to know that
there is no “special privilege” here, just the possibility of serving without
the special obligation of lying, and the same knowledge other soldiers have
that the person they love most might be able to be handed a folded flag if they
die. Or is the word “gay” so strong for Santorum that it blotted out the word
“soldier”?
James Joyner at Outside the Beltway followed
suit: “Rick Santorum once again proved what a weird human being he is.
Aside from the Mike Dukakis-like tone deafness of his response to the question
being humanized rather than theoretical, the notion that ‘Any type of sexual
activity has no place in the military’ is simply bizarre.”
At Opinion L.A. the Los Angeles Times opinion staff points
out the damage this sort of rhetoric does for social conservatives:
That a Republican endorsed “don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t
surprising. But there was something especially crass about Santorum’s reply.
His remark that “any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the
military” completely misses the point and continues his bizarre refocusing of
the gay-rights debate on sex.
And he doesn’t know how profoundly insulting it is to
gays and lesbians to call requiring the military to afford them basic respect a
“social experiment.” (Besides, which is the more dubious social experiment:
sexually cleansing our armed forces, or having them reflect society’s
inexorable march toward fully accepting gay men and women?)
Worst, watching Santorum and other Republicans stand
stoically while a handful of debate-goers shout their disgust with a homosexual
soldier leaves the impression that the GOP candidates have more outwardly
embraced anti-gay prejudice to win over conservative voters. This kind of
behavior makes it difficult to take social conservatives at their word when
they insist that their opposition to, say, same-sex marriage is rooted respect
for a longstanding institution instead of prejudice.
William Kristol summed up the general G.O.P. sentiment
with the headline of The Weekly Standard’s special editorial following the
debate: “Yikes.”
Kristol does not single out Santorum, but rather channels the despair of the
party faithful about the field of candidates:
