Rick Santorum is campaigning in New Hampshire, one of the few states that does not discriminate against gays in marriage and the site of the first Republican primary. I don’t think he’s going to do well there, but then who knew he was going to do well in Iowa. Of course, while Iowa also does not discriminate against gays in marriage, many of its citizens would prefer to turn the clock back. That gives Santorum and all the vile things he says a little power there. That probably won’t be the case in New Hampshire, and it certainly was not the case in front of a bunch of college students in Concord:
Rick Santorum was booed after a lengthy back-and-forth with several students in Concord, N.H., on the issue of same-sex marriage, which is legal in New Hampshire.
As Santorum addressed a group of college students, one asked him how same-sex marriage affects him personally and why not have legal same-sex marriage as long as it’s not religious in nature.
Santorum answered that for “230 years marriage has been between one man and woman. So if you want to change the law…you have to make the positive argument about why.”
This actually is sort of correct. In order for change to happen, those in favor of said change need to say why it should happen. However, the game has been rigged. People like Santorum never made their positive argument for marriage 230 years ago. They didn’t even give a second thought to gays and so marriage was assumed to be between one man and one woman. The onus is actually on him.
And what are his arguments? Appeals to tradition and inapt comparisons. The former is just an extension of the rigged game and is thus logically invalid; it isn’t a positive argument at all. The latter is why “Santorum” has the frothy definition it does.
But to Frothy’s credit, he stuck by his guns and tried to make the students justify their positions:
Santorum responded, “Are we saying that everyone should have the right to marry?”
Several members of the crowd loudly yelled, “Yes!”
At that point, the former senator from Pennsylvania compared same-sex marriage to polygamy.
“So anyone can marry can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?” Santorum asked.
I’m a little disappointed in the response. Students shouted back that they weren’t discussing polygamy. That is true and Frothy was creating a red herring, but I’m perfectly happy responding to his question: Yes, it is okay for a number of people to get married to each other at the same time. The only issue anyone can draw about that is how taxes would work out. New codes and laws would need to be created, and I’m not sure how that would or should go. But on the moral question, there is no doubt: there is nothing wrong with polygamy.
Frothy then got a little weird:
The student answered that [people] should [be allowed to do what makes them happy] as long as no one was harming anyone else. Santorum countered, raising his voice and asking, “Who decides if they are harming other people? Is there an objective standard?”
Wasn’t it Frothy who told people they needed to make positive arguments in order to defend their positions? If it is his contention that people are harmed by gay marriage, then he needs to say why. I have yet to see a remotely convincing argument for that position. Ever.
Santorum continued, but threatened to end the discussion, telling the crowd, “I’m going to give people one more chance and then we are going to move on. I’m going to ask the question again. If three people happen to get married based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?”
“That’s irrelevant,” the student responded. “My personal opinion is, ‘Yeah go for it,’ but what I’m asking [is] for you [to] justify your belief and your high morals about all men created equal-”
At that point, Santorum cut off the student and, for the third time, asked, “What about three men?“
Emphasis added.
Politicians tend to be pretty good when it comes to rhetoric. They certainly misstep, but they’re still better than the average Joe when it comes to this stuff. That includes Frothy. Except in this case. Using good rhetoric means, in part, appealing to one’s audience. If he was speaking to a bunch of sexually immature, sexually insecure Evangelicals, then sure, mention the idea of three men having sex. That would gross them out. “Icky!”, they would think. But saying that in front of a bunch of pro-equality college students is going to fall flat. In fact, it just made him look even worse.
When he wrapped up, several questions later, the crowd loudly booed him.
I think Frothy still has some learning to do. Maybe he should look to his biggest opponent. After all, I’m sure Romney wouldn’t have had a problem saying whatever would have please the crowd.
Filed under: Politics and Social, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: Concord, Frothy, gay marriage, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, Republicans, Rick Santorum |
For the Sake of Science 
There are a number of reasons why polygamy shouldn’t be allowed that aren’t relayed to taxes. For example, imagine if 20 people were allowed to marry and then commit a criminal conspiracy in which they were allowed to invoke the marital privilege against testifying against a spouse. Intestate succession is another area of law that would be strongly affected by peeolygamist marriage. Of course neither of these problems apply to gay marriage, so its a red getting as you deftly pointed out. Tl;dr, Santorum is a twat.
Wow, Rick Santorum really handled this one poorly by asking the crowd a rhetorical question like “should anyone be allowed to marry” and he seemed surprised that they all said yes.
I don’t see the problem with three dudes getting married. Justin has a good point that spousal benefits are designed for two-person partnerships, but the simple solution is that we would have to change a lot of those rules in preparation. For example, if a city clerk had five spouses, it would bust the budget to give all off them publicly-sponsored health benefits. Unlike gay marriage, polygamy would fundamentally change marriage, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do it.
Santorum has no idea how to handle his biggest opponent because his biggest opponent is the Constitution.
I obviously did not think out the details of how polygamy would alter so many things. It would seem impractical to implement it at any level.
I just want to toss my two cents in that dropping government involvement in and favoritism of marriages would eliminate pretty much any issues with polygamy.
And I think he might take 3rd behind Romney and Paul, respectively.
The Republicans would be smart to nominate Huntsman. He shares more in common with reasonable people than the party would like, but he would have the best shot at beating Obama.
He is also a tool bag.
He speaks Mandarin. He’s probably a communist.
At least by Republican standards.
I doubt he is a communist, but he is a tool bag.
As are all politicians. Some are just better at it than others.