Rick Santorum Gets Booed After Back-and-Forth on Same-Sex Marriage at New Hampshire College Event

[mr and mrs 187]

via ABC news:

Rick Santorum Gets Booed After Back-and-Forth on Same-Sex Marriage at New Hampshire College Event

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.”

At that point, several members of the audience started trying to engage the candidate.

Santorum said, “We’re not shouting out here,” before asking the students to raise their hands.

He called on a woman who asked, “How about the idea that all men are created equal, rights to happiness and liberty?

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.

“Not what she’s asking!,” another student yelled.

Santorum answered, “Wait, wait, I’m asking her. You said everyone has their right to their own happiness.”

The crowd clapped as Santorum got prickly and said, “I’m happy to engage … but we have to have a civil discussion or we will move on to the next question. My question to you is: People should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy?”

The student answered that they should 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?”

The student told the candidate, “It’s morally right for two men to have the same rights as a man and woman.”

Santorum again compared same-sex marriage to polygamy, clearly annoyed at the continued back and forth.

“What about three men?” he asked.

The student angrily answered, “That’s not what we are talking about!”

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?”

“That’s not what I’m talking about,” the student answered. “I’m talking about the basic right that you have with another woman.”

He then told the crowd that he wanted to “have a discussion about what that means … that marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.”

“I believe we’re made that way. God made men and woman to keep civilization and provide the best environment to raise children,” Santorum said. “I have no problem if people want to have relationships, but marriage provides a good to society. It’s unique because it is the union that causes children to be raised.”

Santorum added that “every child in America deserves” to know their mother and father.

“We deny children that birthright, then I think we are harming kids and society and not promoting what’s best,” Santorum added, before moving on to the next question.

When he wrapped up, several questions later, the crowd loudly booed him.

[bigdog 376]

The elections are getting dicey.

[james&olya 1,121]

Unless Santorum is a better person than I suspect, he is never going to be able to get past what some members of the gay community did to him personally. (Google 'santorum') If he were able to find a way to mature in his views on gay rights and show a bit of humility for his past intolerance, he would probably reap enormous political benefit. Fortunately for Obama and the democrats, his religion probably will prevent that!

[SMR 368]

Unless Santorum is a better person than I suspect, he is never going to be able to get past what some members of the gay community did to him personally. (Google 'santorum') If he were able to find a way to mature in his views on gay rights and show a bit of humility for his past intolerance, he would probably reap enormous political benefit. Fortunately for Obama and the democrats, his religion probably will prevent that!

All the same, his logic is solid. If the right to happiness means you can do whatever you want so long as no one gets hurt, then 3 men in a marriage should be legal. So should one man and two women. So should four men, two women, and a horse (provided you can prove the horse isn't getting hurt).

In this exchange, it's clearly the student that fails to engage or talk about the issue logically. Simply repeating, "That's not what we're talking about," isn't discussing the issue. And it is what they're talking about: the definition of marriage.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Looking at candidate Santorum, there's one question you need to ask yourself: Do you support the American Taliban?

If you do, he's your man. If you don't, he's not.

[slim 1,530]

RP, FTW!

Part of the problem with gay marriage is marriage in general. Why is it the government's business who you choose to be religiously connected to? When we gave spouses (or next of kin) legal rights by default we interjected government into religious institutions and practices. What we need to do is take the government out of it.

[웃 910]

RP, FTW!

Part of the problem with gay marriage is marriage in general. Why is it the government's business who you choose to be religiously connected to? When we gave spouses (or next of kin) legal rights by default we interjected government into religious institutions and practices. What we need to do is take the government out of it.

Why even waste your time and breath on saying anything about RP. The guy never stood a chance.

He got third place in his own state in 2008.

[^_^ 5,021]

Why even waste your time and breath on saying anything about RP. The guy never stood a chance.

No, but certain aspects of his core message do deserve a wider audience. He's worth talking about, even if he'll never be President.

[bigdog 376]

It is a process of elimination, I hope.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The more I read on this Santorum fellow, the more I like this views.

[slim 1,530]

Why even waste your time and breath on saying anything about RP. The guy never stood a chance.

He got third place in his own state in 2008.

Obama won in 2008. What's your point?

The more I read on this Santorum fellow, the more I like this views.

You do like big government and socialism. He'd be a good choice for you.

[^_^ 5,021]

The more I read on this Santorum fellow, the more I like this views.

I'm not surprised. Stridently anti-homosexual, big proponent of industrial revival with generous government backing, he seems tailor made for you.

[mr and mrs 187]

Why is it the government's business who you choose to be religiously connected to?

i have no religious connection to my husband. we are both atheist and we entered into a social contract that afforded us certain rights. also i ADORE him.

the definition of marriage has evolved. and will continue to do so no matter how vehemently DOMA supporters protest that that is not the case.

its a societal norm, to be committed to ONE person and live in wedded bliss.

santorum didnt say anything surprising as he is a vociferous oppnent of same-sex marriage. i think what was most interesting is that he even engaged in the discussion. i respect that he stepped outside of the saftey of smiling and ignoring a tough issue.

[^_^ 5,021]

santorum didnt say anything surprising as he is a vociferous oppnent of same-sex marriage. i think what was most interesting is that he even engaged in the discussion. i respect that he stepped outside of the saftey of smiling and ignoring a tough issue.

He loves talking about the gheys. Almost too much.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i think what was most interesting is that he even engaged in the discussion.

But he didn't discuss the issue at hand. Instead of addressing same sex marriage, he rather wanted to talk about polygamy. Exclusively so. He has essentially shown that he has no real argument against same sex marriage - aside from a biblical argument. A true American Taliban soldier.