Aaron Blake at Washington Post's The Fix blog:
If you didn’t know better, you’d think Rick Santorum enjoys being grilled by protesters.
In fact, he probably does. And he should.
The former Pennsylvania senator has been inundated at his New Hampshire events with questions from unsympathetic voices in recent days, pressing him mostly on gay rights but also on issues like the separation of church and state...
...The questions are generally posed by members of a coterie of young political activists who stake out Santorum’s appearances early in hopes of catching him off-guard with questions on social issues.
It hasn’t worked yet. And in fact, one could argue that this is exactly what Santorum wants.
By debating social issues with what are often not-so-versed young antagonists, Santorum is creating oodles of YouTube clips and conflicts that the media loves to cover. And that footage can probably only help him in a Republican presidential contest.
It’s essentially Chris Christie light (so to speak). Santorum invites the jousting because he knows he can handle it and come out on top – at least in the eyes of the socially conservative voters he relies upon.
7 Comments
Most of these young college kids preaching free love are holdovers from the culture revolutions of the 1960s who want to turn America into France. Don't let these foolish idiots, who can't even answer Sen. Santorum's questions, have any impact on who you vote for.
The Media look for 'motive' in anything... By finding a motive (such as Santorum "enjoys it") they can focus on a personal matter, and evade the political arguments. But, could it be that Santorum enjoys it because he has the ultimate rational explanations for his position, ready, at hand? NObama also 'enjoys' telling young people what to believe. Where's the Media personalizing NObama's rhetoric?
The happiness of a couple is also the ideological basis for DIVORCE, and specially no-fault divorce (except it turns out to be not the happiness of the same couple.)
Santorum is correct in that law is passed by rational discourse in the Legislatures, not sympathy, and every side of an issue is listened to, in law theory.
The inaudible question from the student was reduced to: People should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy (as long as they don't harm other people), because 'all men are created equal', and have a right to be happy.
To believe the argument as a basis for marriage between any two persons (minors too?) is to believe that it is a logical basis for the annulment of that same marriage, or all marriages (DIVORCE).
Therefore, the idea that same-sex civil marriage does not HURT opposite-sex civil marriage is logically shown to be unruly, even without considering the children that are born to a civil marriage or to any partnership (dual or polygamy).
The same concept (wisdom) applies - marriage regulation carries responsibilities, and therefore cannot possibly be simply for the happiness of the couple (their romantic love). For simple romantic relationships, WITH NO responsibilities, except those decided by the couple, we already have a legal category = friendships (and they come and go, freely). Friendships can break up, and the government imposes no regulation. One is just out of luck. It has no great Public Interest to do so, contrary to opposite-sex civil marriage.
The same emotional arguments of the same-sex civil marriage advocates, are possible arguments for DIVORCE. It doesn't 'hurt' (pain) other marriages? Logically, it does. If the ideas are adopted by the government, it totally destroys the ideological foundation of civil marriage.
I for one am glad the country is moving to equal legal rights for gays and lesbians. It's the right thing to do, like abolishing second-class citizenship for blacks, or prohibiting inter-racial marriage.
The inaudible question from the student was reduced to: People should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy (as long as they don't harm other people), because 'all men are created equal', and have a right to be happy.
What these ill informed activists fail to understand and fail to educate themselves on is the reason why government is involved in marriage in the first place. We do not get marriage licenses and the 1100+ federal benefits to make us happy and love whomever we want. That is not the governmental purpose of marriage.
The license and the benefits that go with it was specifically created to engourage responsible procreation. There is a societal interest in bringing men and women together to bring about the future offspring. Thus the incentives to procreate.
THIS IS WHY THESE BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE TO MARRIED PEOPLE AND NOT SINGLE PEOPLE.
It is a grave injustice to the people who are single to give these benefits and licneses to same sex couples. If marriage is no only about love and being happy then justice is only served by no marriage licneses or benefits so that the people who are single are treated fairly.
Ever notice how the so called marriage equality advocates have no problem with the inequallity that exists between single people and married people.
Yep, John N.: You've developed your comparison very well now (single people's rights). I agree.
The description of the encounter Santorum had with a young person during one of his speeches was HILARIOUS. I can only imagine the enjoyment Santorum derives from being confronted by young simpletons who think they know everything.
These young people usually aren’t exposed to a diversity of opinion and thought. They’ve been spoon-fed shallow liberal talking points from professors and pop culture. So, they confidently go in to Santorum’s speeches expecting to demolish him and only end up frustrated and embarrassed (sort of like many of the SSMers who come on this page).
I have great hope that marriage will be preserved. We are bound to win once the nonsensical nature of the case for SSM is exposed to people of all ages