Box Turtle Bulletin

Pawlenty, Santorum join FRC’s and NOM’s Iowa Bus Tour

The “Values Voters Bus Tour,” sponsored by the Family “Research” Council’s lobbying arm, the National Organization for Marriage, and the Susan B. Anthony List, kicked off yesterday in Des Moines, Iowa, with the goal of hitting several Iowa communities ahead of Saturday’s GOP presidential Straw Poll. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was on hand for the tour’s start, which was greeted by a sparse crowd that appears to have been outnumbered by reporters:

The bus made five more stops before the day was done yesterday. This morning, the bus tour resumed with a breakfast in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum met the bus.

Mitt Romney declares anti-gay litmus test for judicial appointments

NOTE: The header, which originally said “Mitt Romney declares anti-gay litmus test for Supreme Court nominees”, was revised for accuracy.

The National Organization for Marriage is bragging that Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney have signed their pledge:

I, ______________, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.

Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.

Three, defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.

Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.

Most of this is just a declaration of personal anti-gay animus and is neither a pledge of intent or likelihood.

There is almost no chance at all that two-thirds of each house of Congress would vote for a Federal Marriage Amendment and that likelihood decreases significantly with each passing year. By the time that the 2013-2017 Presidential term begins, it doesn’t matter what a President might “support”, it isn’t going to happen.

Also by that time, it is likely that the constitutionality of DOMA3 will have progressed out of the initial federal court hearings and on to appeal. And having declined to defend the law, the Justice Department cannot decide to step in and resume authority once a new Attorney General is in the office. At most, the Attorney General could file an amicus brief, which any of these nominees could do on their own today.

As for establishing a presidential commission to look at how gays are harassing and threatening homophobes, that would be political suicide. Not only would it appear to oh, just about anyone, as homophobic and an abuse of power, but it would be embarrassing to NOM when the commission released its report. The boycott of El Coyote may sound like a “threat” to NOM’s target audience, but “the gays didn’t eat there after the owner gave to Prop 8” is going to sound like a statement of the obvious to the rest of the country.

Equally stupid would be an effort on the part of the federal government to interfere with the District’s Human Rights Act so as to exclude gay people. That is the only mechanism by which legislation could “return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote” on limiting any of the District’s provisions based on sexual orientation. Only two Senators and 37 members of the House were willing to sign on to an amicus brief arguing that the Human Rights Act didn’t cover gay marriage. Even fewer would sign on to legislation to amend the “The Human Rights Act” specifically to exclude gay people from coverage.

Now none of this is to say that Michele Bachman and Rick Santorum would not try to do all of the above. They live in a bubble in which the things that they say actually make sense and where people admire them and their values. But both are wackadoodles with no chance of winning the Presidency.

Mitt Romney, however, is a credible candidate. And he should have thought a bit more before signing onto this pledge. Because he just made a declaration that has potential to negatively impact his campaign.

No, it was not the wacky appeal to ancestor-worship that has our “Founding Fathers” writing the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Palinist history is about symbolism, not fact, so this is not much of a liability to Romney at this stage.

Nor is it unusual for Republican nominees to declare their support for a commitment to constraint and to oppose those who “legislate from the bench.”

But this pledge goes way beyond such language. And by signing, Mitt Romney took the unusual step of declaring that his judicial nominees must reject the idea that the US Constitution protects the marriage rights of gay people. Mitt Romney announced that he has a litmus test.

In practice, litmus tests for judicial nominees are complicated.

An administration makes judicial appointments that it believes share its ideology. But the nominees themselves are bound by professional ethics from declaring their position on matters that are expected to appear before them. And most aren’t much favorable of the notion that your whim is to be followed rather than their consideration of the facts, weight of precedent, or argument of the litigants.

But regardless of whether or not litmus test questioning occurs in private, declaring a litmus test for judicial nominees, especially this early in a political campaign, is not wise. And at some point, a reporter is going to ask Romney the unanswerable question, “Considering Ted Olson’s legal stature and established conservative credentials, would his support for same-sex marriage disqualify him from an appointment to the federal bench?”

Rick Santorum: “States Do Not Have The Right To Destroy The American Family”

Katie bar the door.

No one can accuse former Pennsylvania Senator and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum of “tenther” tenancies. On Friday, evening Santorum spoke at the Western Summit outside of Denver and delivered this attack on Texas Governor Rick Perry, who had earlier cited the Tenth Amendment and said that New York’s granting of marriage equality to same-sex couples was “their business, and that’s fine with me.”

Santorum lashed out at that remark, and in the process tried to deny that he had ever compared gay relationships to sex with dogs or your sister.

I think it was the year of my election, in the Atlantic Monthly there was a profile on Tim Gill and what he had accomplished here in Colorado, the Colorado Plan. And in the first paragraph of that article, he said, “Our plan is to make sure there is never another Rick Santorum elected to a national office.” My opponent spoke at the Human Rights Campaign. My opponent was a pro-life Democrat, son of Bob Casey, one of the great social conservative leaders, maybe last social conservative leader of the Democratic Party. And he had wrapped himself in his father, but he embraced the gay and lesbian community like no other candidate had. He went out and spoke and did fundraisers, estimates… millions, and certainly millions in direct contribution, and I believe over ten million in indirect contributions starting, in my race, eighteen months. Why?

Because I had the temerity to stand up in 2003 before any of this started to roll. Before Lawrence versus Texas was even decided, and I fired across the bow of the United States Supreme Court and said, “Supreme Court you can decide this case the right way and say the sodomy statute is voilate [sic] of equal protection and everything will be fine. But if you say there is a constitutional right to consensual sexual activity, Katie bar the door.”

And that’s what they did. And when I said that, I compared… I said… I didn’t compare anything… I said if the Supreme Court gives the right of individuals.. the constitutional right to consensual sexual activity, then you have the right to incest, you have the right to all sorts… polygamy, you name it. You have the right to anything if it’s consent.

When I said that, the gay community went ballistic and they came after me. Mainstream media called for me to resign because I was comparing homosexuality with incest and other things. No I wasn’t. I was saying if the standard was consent, then how do you rationally draw the line? You can’t. And they aren’t. And subsequent to that, the Massachusetts decisions and others came down, and I stood for marriage. I was the one, with Wayne Allard, Marilyn Muscgrave, two great warriors here in Colorado (applause) who stood… and we forced a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

But ladies and gentlemen, we have this issue before us again today, and it’s within our party. And we need to talk about it. There’s some in our party who say, well if New York wants to pass same-sex marriage, that’s fine with me. Some who say, well I’m not going to get involved in what states do. It’s their business. Abraham Lincoln said it best: we do not have the right to do wrong. (applause) States do not have the right to destroy the American family. It is your business. It is not and should not… It is not fine with me that New York has destroyed marriage. It is not fine with me that New York is setting the template that will cause great division in this country. There is not fifty definitions of marriage.

And in the process, he denied that he ever compared gay relationships with incest and bestiality. In his clarification, he said that he didn’t make a comparison, but just said that they met the same standard. As if that were a big difference. Also, as if that were true. What he actually said in 2003 was this:

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

It looks like a duck to me.

Gov. Perry, who had to backtrack somewhat from his earlier support of New York’s Tenth Amendment right to enact marriage equality, also gave a keynote address at the Western Conservative Summit. Speaking after Santurom’s address, Perry sought once again to burnish his social conservative credentials, saying, “The traditional definition of marriage suits Texas and this Governor just fine.” But, he added, “Washington needs a refresher course on the Tenth Amendment.”

Perry, who is expected to announce his own presidential bid soon, today reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment which would rescind the Tenth Amendment when it comes to marriage. “Yes, sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment,” he told reporters. “And that’s about as sharp a point as I could put on it.”

The Daily Agenda for Friday, July 29

TODAY’S AGENDA (OURS):
Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Belfast, Northern Ireland; Braunschweig, Germany; Frankfurt, Germany; Harrisburg, PA; Norwich, UK; Nottingham, UK; Pittsburgh, PA (Black Pride); Raleigh/Durham, NC (Black Pride); Vancouver, BC.

Also This Weekend: Diverse/Cité, Montréal, QC; Up Your Alley, San Francisco, CA.

TODAY’S AGENDA (THEIRS):
Western Conservative Summit: Denver CO. Presidential candidates Sen. Rick Santorum, Godfather Pizza magnate Herman Cain, and potential GOP presidential candidate and Texas governor Rick Perry are slated to speak at the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University in Lakewood, Colorado as part of a weekend-long Western Conservative Summit. Santorum and Perry share keynote speaking duties this evening at 5:45 MDT. They will be streaming it live here.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Tim Gunn: 1953. He was on the faculty of Parson The New School for Design, and he served as the fashion design chair until 2007 before moving to Liz Claiborne to work as their chief creative officer. But you know him from the Bravo reality series Project Runway, which just started its ninth season this past week. He is an animal rights spokesperson, having opposed the use of fur in fashion. He also made an “It Gets Better” video, motivated by his own suicide attempt when he was seventeen. Those good works aside, he really stepped in it this past week when he criticized Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s fashion sense. “Why must she dress that way?” he asked. “I think she’s confused about her gender. All these big, baggy menswear-tailored pantsuits. No, I’m really serious. She wears pantsuits that are really unflattering.” Really? I don’t remember anyone slamming Lawrence Eagleberger’s baggy suits.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. PLEASE, don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

Why it’s never smart for a politician to whine about how badly he’s treated

If you don’t want people to say mean things about you, don’t go into politics (or blogging). And when they do (and they will) it is never smart to whine about the mean mean meanies who are so mean to you. Not only will you gain no sympathy or new support, but then everyone will be repeating all those mean things and chuckling.

But former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. And he had been the subject of a cruel (but well deserved) prank for a very long time.

After Santorum’s vile statement in 2003 in which he discussed his support for anti-gay sodomy laws in terms of bestiality and incest, Dan Savage decided to have a little fun. He held a contest for a new definition for “santorum” and the winner was:

The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

A Spreading Santorum webpage was set up for tracking the extent to which the new definition could be detected in culture and it was clever enough that it drew web traffic placing it as the first listing when “santorum” was googled. And so there it sat as the first result through the rest of Rick Santorum’s term as Senator and his failed reelection bid.

But with his presidential campaign, there was a pretty good chance that eventually “Rick Santorum for President” along with news articles about the campaign would have gotten the traffic necessary to push the aging joke off of the front page. And it likely would have, were it not for the actions of two people.

First, Savage encouraged his readers to go back and select the link to keep it active in the Google search matrices. Enough responded to keep Savage’s santorum link in place ahead of the candidate’s page. In fact, the campaign site was fourth, after a Wikipedia article and another site’s reference to Savage’s definition.

But the real boost to Spreading Santorum came from none other than Rick Santorum himself. On July 18 he went on a radio show to complain about the way he was being mistreated by Savage and in addition to some recent comments also noted the website. And then someone with a whole lot of hero worship and no political sense must have advised the next move: Santorum sent out a fund raising letter with the following sentence:

Remember this is not the first time Savage has attacked us on our stance of supporting American values. Savage and his perverted sense of humor is the reason why my children cannot Google their father’s name.

And when this letter was published on Politico on July 20, which turned into articles in the media, just what do you suppose that people did? Obviously they set out to find out why you couldn’t google “Santorum”.

But July 22, the presidential campaign link had dropped to eighth place behind:

The campaign site has now moved back up into sixth place. But Savage is goading Rick Santorum, threatening to make his first name into a vulgar word as well. I guess now we’ll have to wait and see if Sen. Santorum is so very incredibly stupid that he bites at the bait.

Nobody Pays Attention To Preambles Anyway

When the Iowa-based Family Leader began asking GOP presidential candidates to sign its anti-gay “Marriage Vow,” it originally contained this statement in the pledge’s preamble:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

Never mind the abject ignorance of that statement — slave marriages weren’t legally recognized in the south and families were routinely split up and sold, making the likelihood of actually being raised by a mother and a father rather shaky — that part of the preamble was criticized by the left and right alike for its suggestion that African-American children were better off under slavery. Late Saturday night, Family Leader bowed to criticism and quietly removed that statement from its preamble. But by then, Rep. Michele Bachmann had already raced to put her signature on the document, only to be followed a very short time later in a photo finish by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Bachmann’s campaign has been fending off criticisms for signing the racially-offensive document ever since.

A Bachmann spokeswoman said earlier Saturday that reports the congresswoman had signed a vow that contained the slavery language was wrong, noting it was not in the “vow” portion.

“She signed the ‘candidate vow,’ ” campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said, and distanced Bachmann from the preamble language, saying, “In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible.”

Totally understandable when you think about it. I bet almost none of our founding fathers like John Quincy Adams paid much attention to the Preamble to the Constitution before they signed it either.

Santorum Signs Iowa Anti-Gay Pledge

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has become the second GOP presidential candidate to sign Iowa’s Family Leader ant-gay pledge, after Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmanm. Which  means you can now officially call Santorum a number two.

GOP Presidential Candidates Debate Marriage, DADT

Last night, seven candidates for the GOP presidential nomination appeared in a debate in New Hampshire, home to the nation’s first primay. Participating were Godfather Pizza magnate Herman Cain, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. And of course, LGBT issues came up in the debate.

Only Herman Cain and Ron Paul opposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban marriage equality in the states.

Herman Cain said that he didn’t support repealing DADT, but he didn’t want the distractions that it would take to put it back into effect. Pawlenty says that he would seek the advice of “combatant commanders.” This wiggle room leaves open the likelihood that he would re-instate DADT. Ron Paul appeared to say the would keep it in place. He talked about punishing behavior, without specifying whether a consensual relationship between two people of the same gender would be punishable. Romney dodged the question altogether, saying that DADT should not have been repealed “until this conflict is over.” Gingrich answered by building a case for its reinstatement, an indication that he would work to restore the discriminatory policy. Bachmann said she “would keep the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.” When asked to clarify, she indicated that she would reinstate the policy after sufficiently cloaking it with “advice” from the military. Santorum took a lot of words to more or less repeat what Ron Paul said, but given the context of Santorum’s overall policies and attitudes toward gay people, I don’t think his eagerness to reimpose the policy would be much in doubt.

Not one candidate spoke about gay people as though they were taxpayers, patriots, or fellow citizens.

Teen pop-stars matter

I don’t pay much attention to Miley Cyrus. I’m not a 15 year old girl, I am suspicious when children of celebrities get cast in television shows, and I’ve seen way too many child stars implode. But, so far at least, Cyrus (now 18) seems to be transitioning well from her Hannah Montana role to a solo artist, has not got down Lindsay Lohan Lane, and may well be able to face adulthood with a sense of perspective.

And, okay I’ll admit it, Party in the USA is infectious.

Yet still, Cyrus is not on the short-list of people I’d select to fight for my equality. For one thing, her audience can’t vote.

But Cyrus can do one thing that even the most seasoned politico cannot achieve. She can influence where the parents of little girls spend their money. And she’s not hesitant to do so.

Last week, Urban Outfitters had a little public image problem over some jewelry that they sold which was similar to that of a small independent jeweler. Miley Cyrus used it to raise a different issue (Vancouver Sun)

Cyrus Tweeted, “Love that everybody is hating on Urban Outfitters.” She added, “Not only do they steal from artists but every time you give them money you help finance a campaign against gay equality. #SHADYASHELL”

Hashtags aside, Cyrus also pointed out, “IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE NEXT THING U KNOW PEOPLE WILL BE MARRYING GOLD FISH” – Rick Santorum UO contributed $13,000 to this mans campaign”

You and I may not care what Miley Cyrus thinks. The voters in your state may not care what Miley Cyrus thinks. But retailers of clothing very much care what Miley Cyrus thinks, especially when she’s tweeting to a million kids that could be their customers.

And Cyrus’ tweet is indicative of something larger that we are just beginning to see.

For decades we have relied on the decency of corporate executives, the economic advantage of a diversity, the loyalty of gay shoppers, and (in rare cases with limited success) on boycotts of the most egregious offenders.

But now, corporations are discovering the cost of being associated in any way with anti-gay causes or politicians. Target discovered this past year that contributing to a politician whose economic policies they prefer can lose you customers if he also has anti-gay social policies. And earlier this year the CEO of Urban Outfitters admitted how his boss’ association with Santorum is problematic. (Philly.com)

“You all probably know, till the day he dies Dick Hayne’s going to be famous for giving Rick Santorum some money 15 years ago,” said Senk, who has often described Hayne as a mentor and was referring to his well-known political leanings. “Dick Hayne’s a Republican, OK?”

“I’m the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 1000 company, and I supported Bob Casey, who dethroned Santorum,” Senk continued. “So, obviously, Dick and I don’t agree, politically. Now, Dick has moderated over the years, and I probably have moderated over the years, because we have learned from each other…”

And as time goes on, as the kids who are Cyrus’s audience become a larger part of the market, more and more companies are going to find themselves trying to explain why they supported politicians who treated gay people as inferior. No longer will support for or against equality be a matter of little concern for kids who have grown up seeing gay folk as maybe a little different but no lesser than themselves.

And as we approach the 2012 election cycle, you can be certain that many a corporate executive will consider the ramifications of writing a check. And more than a few will decide that they don’t want Miley Cyrus, or anyone else, linking their name with someone best known for their anti-gay statements and positions.

Is it too much to hope that Miley Cyrus just doomed Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign?

Santorum Says “No Truce” To Gay Issues

From last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina:

Rights v. Privileges

A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.

– Former US Senator Rick Santorum speaking about adoption

Those who seek to institutionalize inequality based on their own biases like to say, “that’s not a right, that’s a privilege.” And implied in this statement (often accompanied by a smirk) is the notion that some people deserve preferential treatment and others deserve lesser treatment and that privileges can be doled out or restricted by whim.

You just aren’t good enough, you see. These are privileges for other people, those deemed worthy.

But besides being juvenile, this response displays a fundamental ignorance of the US Constitution. The clause under which discrimination is addressed is not worded in the way that they assume:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section One

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]

You see, Senator Frothy Mix, whether adoption is a right of citizens or a privilege of citizenship, it still is protected from arbitrary applicaion. Oh, and by the way, you really are a pompous ass.

(hat tip JMG)

Santorum Never Googled Langston Hughes

Former Sen. Rick “Man on dog” Santorum yesterday hosted a town hall meeting where he unveiled his 2012 Presidentical campaign slogan, “Fighting to make America America again.” Turns out, the pithy phrase didn’t come from Santorum’s creative genius. It’s from a pro-union, pro-racial justice, and pro-immigrant poem by that famous Harlem Renaissance gay poet Langston Hughes. The poem, “Let America Be America Again,” goes, in part, like this:

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!

[…] Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home–
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay–
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.

O, let America be America again–
The land that never has been yet–
And yet must be–the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine–the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME–
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath–
America will be!

When informed of the phrase’s origin, Santorum told a reporter from ThinkProgress, “well, I’m not too sure that’s my campaign slogan, I think it’s on a web site.” I can understand how he may not have been too clear about it. I hear Santorum is afraid of the Google.

Far Right gathers for Value Voters weekend

Earlier this month we discussed the wackadoodle extravaganza which was the Taking America Back convention. But this weekend, that seminar’s cousin the 2010 Value Voters Summit is meeting for roughly the same purpose: rallying the troops to impose their religious beliefs on non-believers by use of governmental force. And while Taking America Back consisted primarily of the delusional, the excitable, and the social misfits, the Family Research Council’s Value Voters Summit draws “respectable” activists and recognizable politicians.

But make no mistake, the agenda of the Voter Voters Summit is no less radical or unAmerican than that of its low-rent cousin. And no small part of their obsession is on the extent to which gay people should be disallowed from participating in society.

The plenary session presentations consist of:

* We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future
* ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Panel
* We the People: The Tea Party’s Place in American Politics
* Parental Choice Education: Beyond One-Size-Fits-All Schools
* Hollywood Panel

Although only one of the five plenary discussions focuses solely on gay issues, it is without question that much of the other sessions will also be dedicated to “opposing the homosexual agenda”. That is, after all, the number one complaint that social conservatives have with the schools and Hollywood. And for those who really want to spend their weekend on nothing but “evil sodomites”, they can attend Saturday’s 3:30 breakout session entitled The falsehood of the inevitability of same-sex “marriage”.

The entire event will be filled with speeches and presentations by familiar names in the anti-gay movement. But unlike Taking America Back, most of these have social grace and appearance of sanity. With one notable exception: the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer will be speaking tomorrow morning and is likely to spout things that are so irrational as to confuse even that sympathetic audience.

These conferences are useful; they help us separate political opponents from those who truly are devoted enemies of our lives, freedoms and liberties. Many conservative Republicans hold positions that are unfavorable to us, but do so more from ignorance or distorted principle than out of zealous animus. But those who participate at these conferences do so because the believe that they are authorized by God to destroy our cause and our lives.

This year, perhaps even more than most, participation at the Value Voters Summit is a clear indication of animus towards the gay community. And by going there this year, politicians are making a visible statement that they are not just in disagreement with some of our cause but rather that they see us as a threat and an enemy and that they will do whatever they can to harm us.

Most of these names will not surprise us:

Governor Mike Huckabee
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.)
Governor Mitt Romney
Senator Rick Santorum
Christine O’Donnell
Newt Gingrich
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Va.)
Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) (via video)
Representative Gregg Harper (R-Miss.)

Santorum: Don’t Trust The Generals

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” supporters have often defended their support by saying they were only following the advice of top military leaders. Now that military leaders are coming out in favor of repealing the ban on gay servicemenbers serving openly, former Sen. Rick Santorum says we shouldn’t trust the generals:

Addressing how the military leadership, led by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, could now favor a repeal of the law, Santorum raised the specter of brainwashing.

“Political correctness is reigning in the military right now,” he said. “”Some people say: [Do] whatever the generals say [on DADT]. I’m not too sure that we haven’t so indoctrinated the officer corps in this country that they can actually see straight to make the right decision.”

The line went over well with the CPAC crowd.

Really? Somehow I missed that on GayPatriot’s and GOProud’s Twitter stream. But Bruce Carroll does defend Rick “Man-On-Dog” Santorum as being “not homophobic.” Right. Because you’d have to be brainwashed to believe otherwise.

Rick Santorum Wants to Protect Box Turtles

He also wants to to protect the spotted owl and snails. But not gay people.

Michelangelo Signorile has been airing several interviews from the GOP convention lately, and this one of former Senator Rick Santorum is priceless. Here we have Santorum arguing against same-sex marriage:

I use the example of the environmental impact statement. You know, we have an ecology, we have an environment that is impacted by changes in the environment. We have a moral ecology in this country just like we have a physical ecology in this country. We have a set of values and traditions that define who we are as a society and have an impact throughout society. When I want to change the environment, I have to go out and prove that by building this structure or changing this place, that I’m not going to affect the ecology of the area, that I’m not going to adversely impact the box turtle, or the spotted owl, or the snail.

What would Santorum include in his environmental impact statement? He wants to misuse studies to claim that gays sexually abuse children at higher rates, and that gay relationships experience more domestic violence — even though the scientific evidence shows the exact opposite.

It’s a shame how those who claim the moral high ground hold the truth in such low regard.