After declaring that the repeal of DADT constituted special treatment for homosexuals and further constituted the harmful introduction of sex into the military, Santorum goes on to say that he would not discharge any of the servicemembers who come out prior to his reinstating the policy.

There may be tens of thousands of servicemembers who come out between now and the hypothetical moment in 2013 when a President Santorum could reinstate the policy. These servicemembers will continue to serve for years and in some cases, decades. If Santorum actually believed that the repeal of DADT harmed the military, undermined recruitment, retention, readiness and unit cohesion, how could he plausibly say that it is OK to keep thousands of open homosexuals on duty?

Great piece, but I have a correction (one that strengthens your case). Santorum’s verbatim comment was:

The fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we’re going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege uh to uh to to uh in removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…

Usually “uh” isn’t part of the transcript because its a vocal filler. In this case it is relevant and telling.

Santorum was trying to state what the special privilege was… but couldn’t come up with an example (or one socially presentable). So he quickly shifted to just say that removing DADT was a special privilege (inherently somehow I suppose).

(For those looking for agility, this is an example.)

And no one has called him on it. And you are spot on that to call equal treatment a special privilege is idiocy.

However, I do want to offer some shading on your final comment. I think that those who think like Santorum would not put “getting laid, or their romantic interests, or their spouses, or their family life” together as one concept.

They don’t see gay and straight as the divider, rather they see sin (religious conformity) as the divide.

So they would put “straight soldiers getting laid” or even “married soldiers discussing their sex life” in the same category as homosexual anything. When he says “sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue” he really means that sex should not be an allowed topic of discussion. By anyone.

It is prudish, puritanical and authoritarian. It is conformity control. It is the opposite of what any freedom loving person supports. But it isn’t hypocritical or inconsistent.

But your final conclusion is correct. Homosexuality makes Santorum reactionary. It short-circuits his brain.

With regard to the Atheists or Homophobes in foxholes,I was alluding more to the four soldiers that died in that Afgan ambush. I felt sure that of the four of them that not a one of them was at that time concerned about the lifestyle choice of the other three.

With regard to their last moments being with or with out a god, we’ll never know. Can’t say what anyone else might do in that situation and you can’t really be 100% on what you might do in your last moments of life.

As for his statement in response to that question, that’s one of the most incoherent things I’ve heard out of the Republicans yet, even allowing for Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Like most rabid anti-gay activists, he’s obsessed with sex and doesn’t think very clearly to start with.

But you got the “idiot” part right.

“But the Framers never intended (blah-blah-blah)”: that’s their [Scalia&Co] standard rejoinder. It’s BS, of course, but we still have to anticipate/defeat it.”

The 14th Amendment came along WELL after the Framers, because “But the Framers never intended…” was basically the standard response to “All Men Are Created Equal.” Then you STILL had the New Deal which introduced Labor Laws to prevent companies from preying on their workers, the De-Segregation of the Military in ’47, the Civil Rights Act, the James Byrd/Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, etc. HELL, even DADT itself was originally an improvement.

How many times do these kind of people have to see it in black and white, that prejudice is right, before they get it through their heads??

God, you have to have laws on everything for some people, I swear. It’s like warning labels on everything, makes you wonder what’s wrong with people.

I’d say that I’d bet money that when picking on Gays becomes socially unacceptable (it’s fast getting there) they’ll find some other group to pick on…but these are the people who seem hell bent on repealing the entire 20th century and while they’re at it trying to assign everyone who isn’t Christian, rich, straight, and white to being 2nd Class citizens anyway. It’s not going to work in the long run, but I bet when the dust has settled they’ll still find someone to hate…and/or to blame for their failures.

First he reduces gayness to sex. Then he somehow thinks sex doesn’t happen in the military. The straight service members aren’t going to like that one bit

The default public policy, according to the Constitution, is equal treatment under the law. Period.

“But the Framers never intended (blah-blah-blah)”: that’s their [Scalia&Co] standard rejoinder. It’s BS, of course, but we still have to anticipate/defeat it.

And those silly comments about no atheists in foxholes. Well, I wasn’t in a foxhole but I was on a military post in Sinope, Turkey, 90 miles across the Black Sea from the nearest Soviet bomber base during the Cuban Missile Crisis and I was not by myself as we all went about doing our jobs. And we weren’t doing laps around any beads or babbling incantations for help from a sky fairy.