One of the most entertaining and unlikely political feuds since Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell is reaching a fever pitch, and it involves a Republican presidential candidate and a gay sex columnist.
In 2003, one of the most conservative ideologues in the history of the republic, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who tries mightily to cultivate the persona of world's most virtuous choirboy, said he didn't believe in a right to privacy regarding sexual acts between adults. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
When the Associated Press asked, "So if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?" Santorum replied, "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."
So Santorum denounced homosexuality by comparing it to bestiality, then said that he doesn't mean to pick on gay people. He just doesn't believe they deserve any rights. It's classic talking out of both sides of one's mouth, a technique brought to its zenith by Mitt Romney, who said, "We shouldn't discriminate against people based upon their sexual preference or orientation. At the same time, I believe that marriage should be reserved for a relationship between one man and one woman." That's like me saying, "I don't approve of slavery, but Odetta is just like a member of the family."
Santorum also blamed the epidemic of Catholic priests' molesting children on "political and cultural liberalism" and denounces gay people every chance he gets -- but he really loves them, get it?
Sex advice columnist, author and activist Dan Savage wasn't having any of it and, ever the practical joker, decided to have some fun with Santorum, asking his readers to come up with a definition of the Senator's name. The hilarious yet disgusting end result was "Santorum: The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." To this day, to Santorum's inconvenience, that definition is the top entry when one Googles "Santorum."
Santorum, naturally, was not pleased and accused Savage of trying to destroy him. Savage responded:
And you have to love how Santorum is out there mewling about being the victim here and about civility-- this from the man who compared people in stable, loving same-sex relationships to dog fuckers and kiddie rapists, this from a man who would make gay and straight sodomy illegal, ban gay marriage and any other protections for same-sex couples, and prevent loving same-sex couples from adopting children who need homes. This from a man who would literally destroy my family if it were within in his power to do so. And the "Savage Love" gang? All we did was make a dirty joke at his expense. There has been no effort to strip Rick Santorum of his civil rights, no moves to nullify his marriage, no one has suggested that his children be taken out of his home, no one is trying to prevent him from having more children. No one has compared Rick Santorum to a dog fucker or a pedophile. Compared to Rick Santorum, my readers and I have been models of decorum and restraint.
And don't think you're fooling us, Rick. Now that you're running for president -- eight years after we redefined 'santorum' -- you're whining to attract a little attention to your campaign and because your advisors think that maybe you'll get a little traction playing the pansy-assed victim card, à la Sarah Palin, and rake in a few bucks. Oh, look at that mean gay dude -- one of the guys I want to oppress -- he's picking on meeeeeeeeee.
On last week's Real Time With Bill Maher, Savage joked about a desire to sexually violate Santorum. Audience erupted in laughter, conservative outrage followed. Santorum appeared on right-wing radio host Steve Malzberg's show to denounce Savage:
It's just that. It's filth. It's, you know, this man has, has gone out there and tried to destroy my integrity. I mean, you've heard the whole issue of the Google issue. That's Dan Savage. You know, it's, it's the lowest, you know, debasement of public discourse. It's, it's offensive beyond, you know, anything that any public figure or anybody in America should tolerate, and the mainstream media laughs about it. They, they, they kid about it. They write about it. They say, 'Oh, Santorum's got a Google problem.'
Then Santorum again plays the victim card about how this kind of speech would never be tolerated if a conservative had said it against a liberal (conveniently ignoring the well documented hate speech of Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and so on). However, Savage has just made snarky jokes at Santorum's expense. Santorum, unable to take said jokes, has turned it into a battle for the soul of America. You don't hear Barack Obama whining every time someone calls him a vile name, which they do.
Yes, what Savage says about Santorum is tacky and pushes the bounds of good taste. Yes, it's probably not advisable to make jokes about violent hate sex with someone. Yes, Savage is probably trying to destroy Santorum's integrity. But Santorum and his ilk are indeed trying to destroy Savage's family, as well as the families of gay people everywhere. If it were up to Santorum, gays could not only not legalize their unions or adopt, they would be arrested and jailed should they have sex with who they wanted.
And Savage's accomplishments can go up against Santorum's any day. Savage created the hugely successful It Gets Better viral video campaign aimed at stopping gay teens from killing themselves, since it seemed like no one else was doing anything about it. It may have actually saved lives that might have been ended had they taken to the heart the rhetoric of someone like Santorum. If Santorum has actually saved any lives, I'm not aware of it.
What Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and others in the religious right just can't seem to get is that an increasingly larger portion of the populace -- ordinary tax paying Americans -- do not share their precious "values," yet remain decent, hard-working and yes, God-fearing folks. In a way that should make the Tea Party proud, they are not waiting for the government or the church to redefine family. They have already redefined it, and they want and deserve equality. And when Santorum and Bachmann and others try dredging up the tired old antigay propaganda to rally their divisive conservative base and yet say they can represent all Americans, they shouldn't be surprised when someone calls them on the carpet.
And nothing is more entertaining that a battle between a moral prude and someone who isn't afraid to tell a good dirty joke.
Follow Jim David on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ComicJimDavid
Sam Brower: Is 'Sister Wives' Hiding The Disturbing Truth About Polygamy?
Rick Santorum Whines About Dan Savage for Pocket Change | Slog
Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem | Mother Jones
With His Campaign Lagging, Rick Santorum Turns Once Again To Dan ...
-Cyberbully victums are juveniles
Savage bullies Santorum because Santorum is a bully.
Bullying a bully is OK in my books, and most people's books for that matter.
And being as Savage hasn't said a word about what Santorum does, he is not. If Savage said that Santorum performs the acts that create santorum then he might be liable. Either watch some Peoples Court on tv or go to school and take a few law classes.
W/over 70% of the US population they're hardly the victims of systematic discrimination.
My theory is that religion is on a world wide decline. The less power they wield and the fewer their numbers are the more they will fight to hang on.
100yrs ago the concept of “judeo-christian” affinity would have been anathema. Jews were looked at as strange at best and with outright prejudice/hatred by many.
Yet, now these groups work together for shared values. I predict that 50yrs from now we'll be hearing judeo-christo-islamic or simply abrahamic as a reference for this grouping of religions.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Spiritualism is growing:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113533/americans-believe-religion-losing-clout.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109108/Belief-God-Far-Lower-Western-US.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/12/southern-baptists-fewest-baptisms-since-1950s-losing-members_n_875472.html
Islam growing at a slower pace. Fewer young people:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth
Southern Baptist study http://www.lifeway.com/article/170781/
The louder and more vitriolic these faith representatives become the more decent people will turn away rather than follow.
We need more dead-on , specific definitions like this to describe some of the slime in government that is turning this country ass-backwards.
Maybe this slight personal embarrassment will cause him to think twice about the actual harm he is causing (or trying to cause) to people.
(I know I am deluding myself, but it is nice to dream.)
**************
This is an MO for the anti-gay faction.
When gays bash back, they are appalled and offended, which is ludicrous considering the spirit-diminishing and degrading things they routinely spew about gays.
The things they say are NOT valid "differing opinions." They are hateful attacks and that is all, and they should be called out on as such.
People that invest this much energy in preventing equal rights for gays always seem to.
There has to be a underlying reason for this kind of intolerance, hatred, killings and division of your fellow citizens who are just trying to get on with their lives and be happy, fulfilled members of society.
Why not utilize that negative, hateful energy by turning into a positive and do something about poverty, decent education, child abuse, hunger and the many varied problems facing society/mankind today which would surely make the world a better place for everyone?
But does this matter to Santorum? Anything to keep his name relevant, I guess. That's his only business these days.