iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Same-Sex Marriage Follows Rick Santorum Around New Hampshire


First Posted: 01/06/2012 4:23 pm Updated: 01/07/2012 4:02 pm

DUBLIN, N.H. -- Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum hosted a town hall meeting at the Dublin School on Friday afternoon, once again having to field questions about his far-right positions on social issues from students.

The first question posed to Santorum focused on same-sex marriage and the rights of LGBT individuals. The issue has been the main topic during Santorum's talks with students, including at the College Convention in Concord, N.H. on Thursday when Santorum compared marriage equality to polygamy.

"It's not an inalienable right," Santorum said about marriage on Friday. "It's a privilege that is given to society, by society, for a reason. Because there is an intrinsic benefit to society to hold up men and women to come together, to be encouraged to be married, to get privileges and honor in society."

The good to society, he argued, was "giving every child in America their birthright, which is being raised by their own mother and father. So we want to encourage what is the best for children."

Two other students attempted to ask Santorum about LGBT rights, but he told them he had already addressed the issue.

Mario Flores, the chair of the music department at the Dublin School, showed up wearing a handwritten sign around his neck that read, "A gay man in the pursuit of happiness." He said he wanted Santorum to rethink his position on LGBT issues.

"I think the Dublin School is a wonderful place that is all about tolerance and courage and truth," he told The Huffington Post. "I'm obviously out. They're more than okay with it. I live here on campus with my partner as well. We believe in diversity, we believe in tolerance, and that's the kind of country that my mother brought me from El Salvador to...live my life happily in."

After the event, when questioned by reporters about whether he is sick of being asked about same-sex marriage, Santorum replied, "I mean, there are always people who ask that question. I do my best to answer it as directly as possible. It's not like I haven't answered it a few times. My guess is I'll answer it a few more."

A reporter then said that Santorum seemed irritated by the repeated questions.

"Why do you say that? I'm not irritated," Santorum said. "I don't understand why people say I'm irritated. Look at my demeanor. I'm not irritated. I just answered the question."

Alison Poirier, a senior at the school, asked Santorum about women's reproductive rights, a topic that has not come up as frequently at his public events.

"I read that you're opposed to birth control and abortion," she said. "So what's going to happen when you take away abortion and birth control, and you have a bunch of pregnant girls, and they're not fit to take care of them? Are they going to put them all up for adoption, and only let straight couples adopt them? What's going to happen when someone gets raped at like, 14, and gets pregnant? Because I've been sexually harassed -- and that's not really a fun option. I don't want to have a baby anytime soon. I'm not married, I'm not responsible enough for a kid."

"You've been reading things that don't reflect my position now or ever on the issue of contraception," Santorum replied.

He said that he and his wife do not use "artificial contraception" because it is against the teachings of the Roman Catholic faith.

"That is my moral judgment, but it is not one that I feel that should be, or will be, imposed on anyone. So I would not vote -- and I've said this repeatedly, although this doesn't seem to make it into the left-wing blogs -- I have said repeatedly I would not vote for banning contraception," he added. "That is an individual decision. Contraception can and should be made available. ... Understand that just because you say something you believe is morally wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal or there should be any kind of laws about it. And I don't believe there should be any laws about it."

However, Santorum has said in the past he believes that same-sex marriage, abortion, gay adoption and gays serving openly in the military are things he is morally opposed to -- and things he does want outlawed. He has also said that if elected president, he would actively talk about "the dangers of contraception."

Santorum also addressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a law that criminalized the use of contraceptives by married couples.

"So with respect to contraception, I thought the Griswold decision was wrong -- I don't care if it was about contraception or anything else. It was just creating a right that didn't exist," he said, decrying the use of "judicial activism." "So did the state of Connecticut...have the right to pass this bill? Yes, they have the right. They shouldn't do it. I wouldn't vote for it."

After the town hall, Poirier said she was disappointed Santorum didn't address the second half of her question on abortion. She said she did quite a bit of research on the former senator's position before the event Friday.

"Everything he said online, he said he was against it," she said, "but today he said he was not against it. So I'm really confused by that."

Poirier said she does not plan on voting for Santorum, saying he was "a little too conservative" for her.

While Santorum's social conservatism earned him a significant amount of attention in Iowa -- where he finished in second place just eight points behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- town hall attendee Cynthia Niederhelman from Hancock, N.H., who said she was a "moderate" voter, said his positions were likely to be received differently in this state.

"I think we think more independently. I'm always afraid with a pro-lifer that they don't take individuals and individual circumstances into consideration," she said. "I'm not necessarily for or against gay marriage. I feel that everybody has legal rights...so I have to hear more of that from him. I want things on an individual basis -- choosing something that's good for a lot of people, but taking individuals into consideration."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,556
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (44 total)
04:08 PM on 07/26/2012
His Rick did not get to Pride this year http://contrepeter.ie/?p=374
photo
rlrose328
You keep believing, I'll keep evolving
06:10 PM on 01/19/2012
This man and his way of thinking are very dangerous for our country. I truly hope that people see that. He is definitely in favor of using his religion when making decisions about laws and such. That is wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christopher Erwin Hogan
11:49 AM on 01/12/2012
The problem with people like Rick Santorum is not that they believe something (Homosexulity is unnatural), it's that they manufacture bogus arguments and junk "science" to try and prove it. I can chose to believe the earth is flat if I want to, but I will not be able to get a job at NASA, and for good reason. So when people ask Mr Santorum why he doesn't support the rights of gay Americans, he should say, "Because my religious beliefs tell me that homosexuality is against God's will," and let people decide whether or not to support a candidate who believes in such a god. Unfortunately for Rick, his beliefs are on a collision course with known facts:

1. Gay people exibit no significant pathology based on sexual orientation.
2. Gay parents do just as well raising their children as straight parents.
3. Gay people contribute positively to society in the same proportion as straight people.
4. Sexual orientation is a trait, not a choice.
5. Many gay people are just as religious or moral as many straight people.

I believe a god who would still condemn millions of people anyway, regardless of these facts is unworthy of worship.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rickhfx
What if my gay lifestyle isn't gay enough?
06:14 PM on 01/10/2012
http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-05-mormon-marie-osmond-supports-gay-marriage#.TwzFYzHOWf4

Marie-osmond-supports-gay-marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KAYLEE BURRIS
54 ,FLA ,LOVING LIFE ,TRANS, LALL
04:46 PM on 01/09/2012
I thank creation,i dont have to rely on him.for guidelines to live a life
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Intelligenti Pauca
Be Seeing You
01:16 PM on 01/09/2012
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

Here's a fact. NOWHERE in the Constitution is marriage defined as being solely between a man & a woman. More specifically, the Constitution contains no definition of marriage at all.

By trying to make a law defining marriage as being solely between a man & a woman, DOMA is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, passed 70 years or so after the original Constituti­on, contains the "equal protection­" clause, and it says that States cannot deny their citizens the equal protection of the laws. The intent of that was to stop States from imposing unreasonable legal restrictio­ns on the freed slaves after the Civil War.

The equal protection concept became so popular in legal circles that the Supreme Court decided that it should be read into the Fifth Amendment, even though it isn't actually written there. Therefore, when the Fifth Amendment says that the government can't take away its citizens' life, liberty or property without due process of law, it also includes the idea that it cannot deny them the equal protection of the law.

This is why DOMA is unconstitutional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KAYLEE BURRIS
54 ,FLA ,LOVING LIFE ,TRANS, LALL
04:44 PM on 01/09/2012
f&f WTG
02:40 PM on 01/08/2012
is Rick running for secretary of SEX, get a new topic
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason Hankins
Gay, Liberal, Socialist, Atheist, and proud!
11:09 AM on 01/08/2012
Santorum: "Religion is a privalege given for society by society" me:"I'm part of society and i never said you could get married." Santorum:"you arent all of society" Me:"you aren't either." ;)
photo
FormerlyTCnSRQ
A Man On The Run..... No Escape Ahead
08:35 AM on 01/08/2012
keep demonizing gays Rick....even the GOP won't continue to support you if you keep up on that record
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:17 AM on 01/08/2012
But a lot of the GOP will support him for it. That's what truly sad. So much hate in the world. These people care so much about what consenting adults do in the bedroom, but could care less about starving, poor families or inferior education opportunities. Yeah, they'll give the issues lip service, but they NEVER do anything about them (except make the problems worse by cutting budgets, then saying "oh, we should eliminate these programs because they're not being funded anyway"). And those on the far right eat that s**t up as if it's a Hershey's Kiss.
photo
FormerlyTCnSRQ
A Man On The Run..... No Escape Ahead
03:41 PM on 01/08/2012
the redneck Republicans are the only ones supporting Santorum....Rick was and is a lightweight who is mesmerized by gays and sodomy laws.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
04:36 AM on 01/08/2012
As for same-sex marriage, the Declaration of Independence declares the "pursuit of Happiness" as an unalienable right - so that's one strike against Santorum.

Amendment 14, section 1 guarantees all people equal protection under the law - strike two. How are you doing, Edith Windsor?

There is no valid argument against same-sex marriage.

1) The religious argument does not apply to secular law. As there are churches willing to marry gays, freedom of religion also negates it.

2) The reproductive argument does not apply because (a) reproduction has never been a prerequisite for marriage (b) SS couples can adopt.

3) The state interest in marriage is to support the family unit. The exact composition of that family unit is not as important as the social and economic stability it represents. This support is in the form of thousands of laws that address thousands of problems related to protecting the family. Same-sex couples need these protections just as much as traditional couples.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mikeygr
10:21 AM on 01/08/2012
F&F
01:55 AM on 01/08/2012
I want to ask Rick Santorum what he would allow if someone is trans-gendered. Would he allow transgendered people to marry men or women? What would Santorum's authority be based on? How would he define who is a "man" and who is a "woman." And what about two transgendered people marrying? Where does Santorum draw the line? Transgendered Americans should have their rights, based on their preference, not on Santorum's sanctimoniousness.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SameBoat
Retired cop, educator
02:46 AM on 01/08/2012
I agree with most of what you say. The only problem I have with your post is the word "preference." It is not a preference, but an orientation, much like being gay. I doubt that you meant it that way--I just want to clarify the point, if I may. Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
simon Bar
You Have To Let That Raga Drop...!
10:00 AM on 01/09/2012
This question and topic would spin his head, yet 1000's deal with this birth issue.
the vatican has no code for this subject.
05:47 PM on 01/09/2012
@sameboat -- I agree with you. And the preference, I should have been more clear, is of course the preference to want to become a married person.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KAYLEE BURRIS
54 ,FLA ,LOVING LIFE ,TRANS, LALL
04:47 PM on 01/09/2012
good question,i would love to know that one myself F&F
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
01:29 AM on 01/08/2012
Santorum seems to believe that no powers whatsoever are reserved to the people. I disagree. Baring functional problems with a specific product, the state of Connecticut has no business interfering between a married couple. Reproductive choices are as intimate and personal as it gets. If such choices do not qualify as reserved to the people, then nothing can so qualify. Such a situation would make a mockery of liberty.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SameBoat
Retired cop, educator
02:47 AM on 01/08/2012
Exactly. Well said!
01:23 AM on 01/08/2012
Freedom FROM religion, Rick.
01:22 AM on 01/08/2012
Leave your religious beliefs to your CHURCH, not the government.

Some of the founding fathers may have believed in GOD, but they also did not want to commingle the Government with that belief.
01:20 AM on 01/08/2012
Santorum talks as if gay marriage has not been legalized anywhere around the world.

And we can see that society there has not crumbled as he predicts will happen if allowed.

Once again, simple fear mongering.