At the same time that Rick Santorum's 19-year-old daughter Elizabeth emerged on the campaign trail talking about "gay friends" who support her father, Santorum's former Senate communications director, a gay man named Robert Traynham, popped up on "Hardball" defending Santorum. All this while Santorum continues to get booed and jeered at campaign appearances all over New Hampshire for his stance on marriage equality.
More interesting is how Traynham, now a political analyst with a show on the Comcast Network in DC, seems to have previously purged his former boss from his past, perhaps seeing him as radioactive to a career in media. Pittsburgh blogger Sue Kerr had written a blog post just a week ago (before Traynham surfaced in the media) titled, "What Ever Happened to the Gay Guy Who Worked for Santorum?" in which she noted that Traynham has gone on to an illustrious career but doesn't mention anywhere in his bio on his website that he worked for Santorum:
He was Santorum's PR Director/Communications Director while Santorum was in the Senate. He was an openly gay, African-American man who worked for Rick Santorum. Then he got a fancy job in the D.C. (imagine) and is now teaching at George Mason, hosting a political talk show, making appearances on NPR and other swell stuff. Money will do that. Make you swallow your soul. If you check out his website, Robert doesn't mention Santorum.
Traynham in fact only says in his bio that he worked for a "member of the US Senate." It seems odd that Traynham would cover up his past for several years, only to come out now -- unless perhaps Santorum or his campaign reached out just when they need to soften the candidate's image, no matter how ridiculous an effort that may be.
Traynham claimed to Chris Matthews in a jaw-dropping interview that, while Santorum disagrees with him on the issue of marriage -- for religious reasons -- he has "never ever, heard him say anything" against gay sex, and that he would "never work for him" if he did.
You'd have to be deluded on a level we've not previously seen in American politics to actually believe Santorum has nothing against gay sex considering that Santorum in 2003 lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision striking down sodomy laws. Santorum said at the time: "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...Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." He also added that he doesn't approve of acts "outside of traditional heterosexual relationships."
That doesn't exactly sound like someone who is okay with gay sex.
Traynham defended Santorum in the past -- long before he scrubbed him from his resume -- when he was first revealed to be gay back in 2005, after Mike Rogers of Blogactive called him and asked the question:
After receiving tips from readers of his Web log, BlogActive, Michael Rogers called Traynham and asked him if he is "out to the senator." In a tape Rogers provided to Advocate.com, Traynham responded, "I am." Asked whether the senator's constituents know he's openly gay, Traynham said, "I'm not sure that's really relevant."
Santorum defended Traynham, releasing a statement at the time: "Not only is Mr. Traynham an exemplary staffer, but he is also a trusted friend and confidant to me and my family. Mr. Traynham is a valued member of my staff, and I regret that this effort on behalf of people who oppose me has made him a target of bigotry in their eyes. It is entirely unacceptable that my staff's personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent's campaign."
Why Traynham, as a gay man, was ever working for Rick Santorum is of course a question we ask all the time about gay conservatives who publicly support the very politicians who would strip them of their rights. Santorum attempted to turn Traynham into a victim in the way that Dick Cheney claimed his lesbian daughter Mary was under attack for supporting an administration that pushed a federal marriage amendment. Traynham now seems to be returning the favor, going public even though he's previously tried to hide any association with Santorum. But he and the campaign must be smoking something pretty powerful if they think people are going to buy it.
Follow Michelangelo Signorile on Twitter: www.twitter.com/msignorile
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
Matt Bieber: Rick Santorum Now Claims He Never Compared Homosexuality with Bestiality
Michael Cole-Schwartz: A Vice President Santorum?
Marriage is a socially created institution. In its most widely accepted construct, it is considered as being a committed relationship between a man and a woman. This construct was largely determined by religious and cultural beliefs.
The origins of the institution of marriage can be seen in its proponents and various political candidates asserting its "sanctity' -meaning it is holy or sacred. The determination of what is holy and sacred is made within each one's individual faith and religious institution.
The United States has no national religion and is to give no religious belief precedent over another. There are many religious/cultural ceremonies that the practitioners of religious faith participate in but the U.S. government does not recognize them. Despite various faiths and cultures performing ceremonies marking one's transition to adulthood, the national standard for adulthood has been set at 18 years of age. If the federal government does not recognize most religious ceremonies why does it recognize the religious ceremony of marriage? It shouldn't.
It is time for the United States of America to make its national standard civil unions. Unions into which any two consenting adults can enter into a legally recognized committed relationship. Civil ceremony should become the only federally recognized union and afforded all the rights and benefits presently afforded "marriage". Religious practitioners can additionally hold ceremonies within their own faith to make their marriage sacred and holy.
The alternative, that he's willing to persecute his "friends" above and beyond what's necessary to get a few votes, is much worse.
That is, until their nefarious deeds were made public, when they scurried like roaches when the lights are turned on.
American Republicans were involved in the creation of the bill in Uganda that would have killed gays -- but they backed away when they were caught red handed.
Your claim that attempts to take away the rights of any group has been met with "strong dissent within the Republican party" is inaccurate and refuted by facts.
Santorum has declared that he wants a Constitutional amendment that would deny gays equal rights and would then revoke rights already granted to gays. Where is the Republican Party's dissent on that? Absent.
Thus, the Republican Party once again supports denying gays equal rights.
And your entire claim rings hollow yet again in another way.
Your Republican Speaker of the House -- John Boehner -- authorized the use of $150 million of taxpayer money to support and defend DOMA -- a bill that is nothing more than institutionalized discrimination and elimination of equal rights for gays.
Thus, your entire posting is an epic fail.
It's not a question of "if", it's just a question of "when" (my guess would be before 2050).
Ten years ago a lot of people believed that it would be impossible for an african american to become president.
Obama proved that belief to be false and confirmed that we strive to progress past old bigotries towards a multi-cultural reality which has always been the foundation of this country.
I look forward to the day when your orientation has no bearing on your ability to lead this country.
How can a Black Gay man continue to support Rick Santorum for POTUS when everything he says is Anti Gay/LGBT?
I'm certain both communities have negative descriptions for him.
Jesus would have to change his heart and soul, and the demons that inhabit Santorum cannot be cast out, if Rick likes the dark places he inhabits.
He is possibly one of the worst human beings to ever vie for the highest office in the land, in the sense that he virtually hates, huge numbers of people who hypothetically would be his constituents.
As I Catholic my wife and I lit a candle for him today, and said a prayer, in the hopes that he will shed his hatred for his fellow man.
He should never be considered as Presidential material.......ever.
He should not be the nominee of the Tea Party for President of the United States in 2012.
Well on the right we have seen deluded people since at least 2002!
right!