Little Ricky does his man-on-dog bark in op-ed on same-sex marriage

Oh Boy, I get to go first!!!!!

Bigot! Hate Monger! Homophobe!

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:04:42 PM CDT

Yep.

Mr. Frothy Residue is sadly mistaken if he thinks he can preempt anything, or make the cries less true by yelling them himself first. It just saves us time for more important things than dinosaurs.

Why does Rick Santorum hate American citizens? How did someone so driven to ignore the simple concept of consensual behavior ever get a law degree or get elected to office?

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:36:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oops

That was a reply to Storm.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:29:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He forgot...

Jackass! Moron! LOSER!

---

by: johnbinpt @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:50:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The preemptive use of epithets does not negate their truth...

Santorum is, in fact, a bigot, hate-monger, and a homophobe; can I also throw in 'Anti American'.  Because, if you oppose equality for all, you don't believe in our Constitution; nor, it follows -- America.

---

by: Storm @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:14:01 PM CDT

Ricky "Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!" Santorum

is far worse than any of MY crazy uncles, and owes all uncles an apology!!

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:26:55 PM CDT

Uh... Mr. Bigot, Mr. Hate-monger, Mr. Homophobe...

So it's been five years since you "sounded the alarm," but the homo agenda has gone forward anyway.  What evidence do you have showing that heterosexual marriage has suffered since 2003?

The only "harm" you've even predicted (and it hasn't come to pass) is that you'll no longer be able to spread irrational propaganda against your fellow citizens using taxpayer money.  And you know what?  As a matter of fact, you probably shouldn't be allowed to do that.

But what does it have to do with heterosexual marriage?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:29:29 PM CDT

Show me the data

Yes - where, exactly, is the harm?

---

by: KC @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:06:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Take away

tax exemption from EVERY SINGLE politically meddling  church in the country.
Maybe then they'll shut up!

---

by: hank @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:36:12 PM CDT

Luuuuuuu-cy, I'm hom(ophobe)!

OK... let's take him apart, point by point.

-----
"Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches, and church-related organizations will lose government contracts and even their tax-exempt status."
-----

Sorry, Rick.  The simple fact that a legal marriage may not be refused does not compel a church to recognize that marriage religiously.  Even in 2008, some hard-line Catholic churches refuse to recognize or perform marriages where either party has previously been divorced -- but you don't see them losing their tax exemptions for this.  And how the recognition of a right to marriage could possibly function to take away the free-speech rights of those who oppose that marriage... is completely beyond me.  You're starting to sound like the boy who cried wolf.

-----
"The California court just declared that those of us who see marriage as the union of husband and wife are the legal equivalent of racists. And openly racist groups and individuals can be denied government benefits because of their views, including professional licenses (attorney, physicians, psychiatrists, marriage counselors), accredited schools, and tax-exempt status for charities."
-----

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky.  You're mischaracterizing the ruling.  (Though characterization is precisely the stuff of which law and politics are made, nevertheless there's a limit to just HOW far you can credibly stretch something).  Yes, the ruling was like many that have been handed down in race-discrimination cases (in that it was predicated on the same general legal ground, namely, equal protection doctrine).  However, this is not the same as ruling homophobia "equivalent to" racism as a point of law.

What's more, even if this were the actual point of law made by the case, I don't see what the problem would be.  Even though homophobia may be prohibited as the basis for certain laws, government decisions, or benefits, that doesn't remove one's right to speak homophobic viewpoints... just as one may still freely speak racist viewpoints even though racial discrimination is illegal.  You have a right to speak your piece -- but what you don't have, never have had, never will have, and never SHOULD have is a right to stop the rest of us from calling you crazy for being a racist or homophobe.  You have the right to speak... not the right to be agreed with.

And as for the government-benefits angle, licensures, accreditations, and tax exemptions are not and have never been entitlements (matters of right).  Rather, they are matters of privilege -- discretionary decisions which may have attached to them any conditions which are otherwise constitutionally permissible.  And it's for a good reason that these decisions are discretionary -- because they may serve valid state interests.  If a profession is regulated, it's regulated for a reason.

For instance, the need to regulate the medical profession on grounds of public health is a very clear one (you don't want an amateur poking around under your hood).  This leads to a certain degree of scarcity of medical professionals -- which, in its turn, leads to another valid state interest: given the limited number of people qualified to engage in this important profession, we must ensure that these practitioners will make the full quality of their services available to all.

In other words, there are only so many doctors around; we can't take a risk on handing out a valuable medical license to someone who will refuse treatment to African-Americans, Asians, gays, or any such identifiable personal category.  (Similarly, given the adversarial nature of our legal system -- in which the attorney must function to zealously represent the interests of any client s/he takes on -- we must ensure that we do not license as an attorney anyone with prejudices that might impede his or her ability to provide competent representation).

Keep in mind, I did qualify the statement that conditions may be imposed upon a privilege -- there is a legal animal called the "unconstitutional conditions doctrine" -- and I think this would still provide a window for someone to qualify as an attorney or psychotherapist even if s/he were anti-gay on religious grounds.  But this is only because the right to freedom of religion is itself constitutionally protected; the individual in question would likely have to prove the sincerity of his or her religious beliefs as such in order to demonstrate that this right has been impacted.  If a state were to condition, say, membership to the bar upon not holding homophobic beliefs (which I don't think any state is likely to do), someone challenging a refusal on this ground would have to demonstrate that his right to religious freedom was itself impacted by this refusal.

In other words, the state has every right to condition licensure decisions so long as the conditions themselves are not unconstitutional (say, violations of equal protection, or of other substantive rights) -- it just becomes the job of the challenger to demonstrate that such a right is impermissibly impacted.  Given the explicit textual protection for the free exercise of religion, I don't think Santorum and his ilk have anything to worry about when it comes to the refusal of a professional license due to homophobia, IF that would even happen in the first place.

I'm not trying to stick up for Santorum's "right to be a homophobe", so much as to demonstrate his cynical tactic.  His government-benefits worry is entirely an unjustified one -- what he and his ilk are really attempting to do is ride the marriage issue in on the coattails of the free-exercise issue.  They know that most Americans, even a number of fairly conservative ones, don't (in their heart of hearts) support anti-gay bigotry... so they have to camouflage their loser position against gay marriage in the much more respectable clothing of the freedom of religion issue (which most Americans DO support).  But that's all it is -- surface clothing -- there's no free exercise issue whatsoever in saying that the government must treat GLBTQ Americans as equals.

---

by: CubPaws2008 @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:57:39 PM CDT

interesting part of CNN story today

In a story about men getting alimony (which is derisively referred to as "manimony"), the following point about the history of marriage was made [emphasis added]:

For most of the history of marriage, money changed hands before the ceremony, often in the form of dowries. But as divorce started to become more common in the 1900s, so did post-separation monetary agreements.

"Traditionally, marriage was a financial arrangement. Joining hands in marriage meant joining bank accounts, and bank accounts were largely in the hands of men," says Roderick Phillips, a professor of history at Carleton University in Ottawa, and author of "Untying the Knot: A Short History of Divorce."

"The trend in the 20th century has been to allow women to recover what they had before the marriage and to compensate them for anything they sacrificed during the marriage," says Phillips.

But then, Ricky still gets an allowance from his retired parents and let's his wife work outside the home when it suits him  

---

by: ol cranky @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 19:13:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

his "predictions" included public 3-ways with animals

in all these doom-and-gloom forecasts for "religious" beliefs, i'd love for him to offer up an example of how anti-discrimination laws against blacks have supressed white supremicist groups.

and please--churches getting government contracts is outrageous in the first place.  

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:59:34 PM CDT

He's right

It happens every day, only we're too jaded and seduced to see it:

"Dogs and cats, living together."
"Mass Hysteria."

Ricky should star in the remake with this song:

When there's something queer--in your neighborhood.

Whoya gonna call?

Fag buster!

Can't you see little Ricky in overalls with complicated machinery strapped to his back. . . .

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:03:56 PM CDT

HOOT Fag Buster!

But what's gonna come out the end of his 'machinery'?? Huh?  Lotsa Lube.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:35:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nope jackalope said it.

Below... Mr. Frothy Residue... oh yeah that's right thats the new deifintion of santorum.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:38:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't see it

but I'm 100% sure RICKY (Bigot! Hatemonger! Homophobe!)can!!!  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 18:00:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's hard to believe

but Icky Ricky is actually getting crazier.  Remember, this is the guy who forced his children to hold the miscarried corpse of what he called their "brother."  You'd think he'd be content with his niche in the Sick Bastard Hall of Fame.  

And there are persistent rumors that he's planning to run for governor of PA in 2010, when Rendell's term ends.  Just imagine what's in store for us then.  You think this rant is nutsy?  You think making his kids hold a dead fetus is whacked out?  As Al Jolson once said, you ain't seen nothin' yet/

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:16:00 PM CDT

Are they still printing that santorum ?

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

---

by: tiponeill @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:38:13 PM CDT

Why are some cults tax exempt...

Simply because they've been around for a long time?

I worship my family...we should also be tax exempt, right?

Tax 'em like the pyramid schemes they are.  

Indict every Catholic Archdioses under the RICO statute for covering up child molestation in the furtherance of an organized criminal enterprise.


Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:56:28 PM CDT

The FRC isn't any better.

I LOLed actually when I saw this quote from Tom McClusky.  It's like a mantra with these guys.  
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...
As for Santorum, he's a whore for The Discovery Institute  on and off, depending on how much he wants non-fundie votes apparently.  All in all, he's a piece of work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Egads, this guy is like The Peter, only a former senator so people listen to him.  
Oh yeah, and Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!

My America includes LGBT families.

---

by: Mena @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 18:00:52 PM CDT

I wonder why...

Well, Little Ricky, here's an explanation for you.

It is EXACTLY like being a racist. You ARE very prejudiced against gay people, you are willing to say nearly ANYTHING about gay people, no matter how vicious or untrue, and you advocate differential and biased treatment of gay people as a result of that prejudice, . The only difference is that now, for most people, being a racist is not socially acceptable. Being a homophobic bigot is acceptable in the circles you hang around in.

---

by: Ben in Oakland @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 18:01:40 PM CDT

He is such a lying weasel!

As part of his opinion piece, Santorum also dropped this little gem:

Look at Norway. It began allowing same-sex marriage in the 1990s. In just the last decade, its heterosexual-marriage rates have nose-dived and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children. Too bad for those kids who probably won't have a dad around, but we can't let the welfare of children stand in the way of social affirmation, can we?

It is these outrageous "facts" thrown into the public debate that are going to poison the Amendment battles this November.

I think he has a point about the California Court equating homophobia with racism.  In California, by law now, sexual orientation is equal to race, sex, and religion as a "suspect classes" due "strict scrutiny."  This goes much further than the Massachusetts Court went in its decision.  In legalese, that means that homophobia = racism and sexism.  Personally. I think that is off the chart fantastic.

As far as calling for an end for tax exemption of the churches because I disagree with them?  Not for one second!  No and again NO!  Why?  Because I want Planned Parenthood and HRC (ugh) and The TaskForce and all the LGBT Community Centers and all the LGBT organizations across the USA to retain their 501 (c) 3 tax exempt status.  If we get to be tax exempt, then so can the churches.  That's the way I see things.  I know, I know ... someone needs the wood (grin)

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

---

by: Dagon @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 19:03:17 PM CDT

If I'm not mistaken

his figures are questionable.

For example....it is actually more common in Norway for individuals not to marry. Instead they enter into common law type arrangements. So technically he is right, except that these children have two parents, they just don't officially get "married" in a church and use the word marriage.  

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 22:15:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When the Founding Fathers

decided that churches were to be free of paying taxes, they had in mind, quite literally, the  little red church meeting house in the town square.  They did not mean the multi-billion dollar stock and real estate portfolios of the Catholic Church and the other major denominations.  These institutions are, first and foremost, profit-making concerns.   Secondly, they are political lobbying machines (with an aim toward protecting and increasing their market advantages).  Only third--and it's a very poor third--are they engaged in religious and charitable work.  They earn their money like any other investment firm playing the markets, and there is no sane justification for letting them go tax-free.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sicky Slicky Ricky

He's not only whacky, he can't think straight, if you pardon the expression.  Here's what he said recently (by way of Think Porgress)

But what about love? That's the question a student asked this winter when I spoke at Georgetown University.

Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too? Marriage is and always has been more than the acknowledgment of the love between two people.

This is such arrant nonsense, so badly reasoned, if he'd been a student in a freshman class of mine he would get an F.

Nobody is saying same-sex couples can't love each other, but plenty of people are saying they can't get the same rights opposite-sex couples have at every level.

Of course marriage is more than love. Duh. Do any of the relationships he describes involve sex, spending a life together, shared finances and property?  Comparing them is specious in the extreme.

If he really thinks like this, he's dumber than I had imagined.  If he's just slinging bullshit, then he thinks we're as empty-headed as he is.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 19:15:25 PM CDT

Well

I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law.

-sicktorum

Do any of the relationships he describes involve sex, spending a life together, shared finances and property?

- Lev Raphael

Well he is a "socially conservative republican," so it is absolutely possible that one or more of these relationships he describes involves sex, shared finances and property. I would also add prostitutes, pages and random men in restrooms to his list.

(as for spending a life together...only if it is politically advantageous for the couple.)  

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 22:29:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]