I am writing to thank you. I remember reading your definition of “santorum”—”the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”—when it first appeared. I remember thinking it was a cute way to make fun of a dickhead politician. I never thought it would go this far. But after Iowa, Rick Santorum is in the spotlight again. And so is that frothy mixture. And that’s fucking awesome.
Jeff In Wisconsin
Don’t thank me, JIW. Thank Rick Santorum for making his bigotry crystal clear in a 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Santorum equated consensual gay sex with child rape and dog fucking, he stated that birth control should be illegal, he argued that states should be able to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people—gay and straight—for private, consensual sex acts.
Thank the Savage Love reader who, after reading that interview, urged me to invite my readers to submit new definitions for Santorum’s last name. And thank the Savage Love readers who—in their wisdom—selected “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex” from a crowded field of equally repulsive candidates.
I did my part: I counted the ballots, I created a website (www.spreadingsantorum.com) that eight years later remains the number one return when you google “Santorum.” But, again, if it weren’t for my creative, kinky, and hilarious readers, JIW, an otherwise distressing news cycle—a ranting, raving, washed-up religious bigot tied for first place in the Iowa caucuses?!?—would not have been leavened by such unintentionally hilarious headlines as “Santorum Surges from Behind,” “Santorum Runs Hard,” and “Romney Squeezes Out Santorum.”
Dan Savage is one sick, pathetic excuse for a human being. Truly a sad piece of sh*t. Especially trying to “insert himself”—pun intended—into the GOP presidential race.
Savage Isn’t Completely Kind
We redefined “santorum” back in 2003, SICK, long before Santorum was running for president. So it would be more accurate to say that the GOP presidential race has inserted itself into me, not the other way around. And, gosh, I hope there isn’t any santorum on the GOP presidential race when it pulls out of me—that would be so embarrassing!
Also embarrassing: Elise Foley’s gushing profile of Elizabeth Santorum, Rick’s adult daughter, that appeared on the Huffington Post before the Iowa caucuses.
“It is tough [being] a young surrogate for a candidate/father clinging to an older worldview,” Foley writes. “Her father’s stance on same-sex marriage and gay rights, in particular, has caused some friction from non-supporters. ‘It’s a policy thing,’ [Elizabeth Santorum] said of gay marriage… Opposed to same-sex marriage herself, Elizabeth said she has gay friends who support her father’s candidacy based on his economic and family platforms.”
Yeah, it’s tough out there for a ‘phobe—and it’s getting tougher all the time. Rick Santorum was nearly booed off a stage in New Hampshire last week after he insisted that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamous marriage. (The same argument was made against legalizing interracial marriage—and here we are, 44 years after the Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, and Tiger Woods can marry only one busted Olive Garden hostess at a time.)
You know what else is tough? Gay widowers losing their homes after the deaths of their spouses because they don’t qualify for the same Social Security benefits as all other married couples. Also tough: seeing your wife deported because the federal government doesn’t recognize your marriage.
But, hey, Elizabeth Santorum isn’t a bigot—she can’t be! She has gay friends! And her gay friends support her dad!
Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his having equated consensual gay sex to child rape and dog fucking? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his opposition to gay marriage and any other legal framework—civil unions, domestic partnerships—that might provide legal protections for same-sex couples? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his promises to write anti-gay bigotry into the US Constitution, forcibly divorce all legally married same-sex couples in the United States, reinstate DADT, and ban adoptions by same-sex couples?
Who are these faggots?
To Ms. Foley and all the other political reporters out there: When someone like Elizabeth Santorum tells you that she has gay friends and her gay friends support her dad based on his “family platforms”—gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have families—your subject is making an astonishing claim. Your immediate response should be a demand for the names and phone numbers of these gay friends. Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you’re a journalist, not a stenographer. You’ll either catch the homophobe in a very revealing lie—what does it tell us about this moment in the struggle for LBGT equality that even bigots like Rick and Elizabeth Santorum perceive a political risk in being perceived as homophobic?—or land a fascinating interview with a crazy-ass faggot.
I’ve been a loyal reader for half my life. Today, a friend and I got into a debate about you. My friend says your campaign to redefine “santorum” flies in the face of your anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign. Would you please address this issue?
Google Problems
First, GP, the campaign is over: Santorum has been redefined.
Second, taking the piss out of a middle-aged bigot who has repeatedly and viciously attacked a tiny minority for personal and political gain—a man surrounded by people who support him personally, politically, and financially—is not the moral equivalent of beating the shit out of a vulnerable and isolated 13-year-old queer kid in rural Texas who is a member of the tiny minority that this powerful bigot has repeatedly and viciously attacked.
Third, circling back to Elizabeth Santorum’s blowjob on HuffPo: “[Elizabeth] is aware of her father’s so-called ‘Google problem,’ part of a campaign by columnist Dan Savage… ‘That just makes me sad. It’s disappointing that people can be that mean,’ she said.”
I’m sorry for giving you a sad, Elizabeth. You know what gave me a sad? Reading about Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond. The women, together 18 years, were vacationing in Florida in 2007 with three of their four children when Pond suffered an aneurysm. Langbehn and the children were barred from Pond’s room when they arrived at the hospital. A social worker informed Langbehn—who was distraught—that she wouldn’t be able to see her wife because they were in an “anti-gay city and state.”
Lisa Pond was not a “policy thing,” Elizabeth. She was a human being. And her wife and children were prevented from saying good-bye to her because people who agree with you and your father—people who doubtless felt empowered to act on their bigotry thanks to high-profile bigots like you and your father—persecuted them as Pond lay dying.
By being so mean as to oppose legal protections for gay and lesbian families, Elizabeth, you and your father are trying to make sure that other families headed by same-sex couples will suffer as Langbehn, Pond, and their children were made to suffer.
It is disappointing how mean some people can be, Elizabeth, it really is.
Time to follow through on your threat to redefine “rick,” Dan.
Matt Via Twitter
Already done: To “rick” is to remove something with your tongue—the “r” from “remove,” the “ick” from “lick”—which makes “rick santorum” the most disgusting two-word sentence in the English language after “vote Republican.”
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
@fakedansavage on Twitter
So, I understand that this isn’t a good rhetorical move to use with right-wing hate filled f*ckwads, but why exactly are we supposed to take it as so obvious that legal polygamy is bad that both sides use its badness as the premise of their argument? (“He is so evil he compared gay marriage to polygamy”, vs “If you allow gay marriage then what’s next, polygamy?”)
I honestly don’t get it. I have tried, but I literally can’t think of a single ethical argument against legal polygamy, though surely there would be pragmatic hurdles, as with anything new.
I do the one at a time thing myself, except for a handful of one-shot threesomes and some standard-fare stints dating more than one person when none were serious. But my neighbors are an all-male very stable threesome and they have one of the healthiest and most supportive relationships in my friend group. My kid hangs out with them a fair amount and came to the conclusion on his own that there is not only nothing ethically wrong with multiple partners, but nothing weird about it in practice either.
Even Savagers who happily participate in threads about polyamory seem to find it obvious that it’s insulting to suggest a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamous marriage. And Dan seems to do the same above, at least by implication. I think I am in favor of such a slippery slope! If someone had argued back in the miscegenation days, “If we allow interracial marriage, what’s next, same-sex marriage?” they would have actually turned out to be prophetic, right? What is the difference?
Don’t tell the right wing f*ckwads I said so though 😉
@38 – My opinion about why people freak and condemn when they think about homosexuality, specifically males, is some visceral fear that they will be overpowered and have unpleasant-to-them sex acts performed upon their bodies. Men know the violent capabilities of their own gender against women, so it follows that male heterosexuals would worry for themselves.
Women don’t think that way, because, certainly, you are right, I thought from the first time I understood what a lesbian is: hmm, fine, more men for me. I also thought: gay men, how sad for me! until I realized how fabulous most gay men can be and what a wondrous addition to the population they are.
@23 Thanks AK. I was assuming that the “it” in “It’s not like man-on-dog” meant “sex between two men” but you’re saying that the “it” meant “marriage.”
After Pounding in New Hampshire, Santorum Slides in Polls.
Killer take-no-prisoners column, Dan, and it really, really all needed to be said. Thanks.
@54,
Santorum slides in polls, and gets a pounding behind Gingrich in NH (Perry ends up on bottom).
Maybe somebody should make up a rude and degrading definition based on the name of Dan Savage’s son and promote this on the Internet. Then he would understand his evil and hurting ways.
Anybody who says someone “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” should command nobody’s respect.
I have read that one reason against polygamy is that richer men would hoard women, leaving poor men without. Poor men without women/sex are more prone to violence, etc.
No polygamy = less societal violence.
That’s the reasoning I have heard.
Naked Chilli: Keep on fappin’!
People PLEASE!
Calling out a bully like Rick Santorum is NOT bullying, it is standing up for yourself and all the other people Rick would like to legislate into oblivion…..double bonus points if it’s done as mockery because the Rethugs HATE being mocked.
When Rick Santorum or Rick Perry are found dead, tied to a fence post after being beaten to death or beaten up while walking down the street minding their own business, or raped and then denied healthcare by evil gays and women, THEN we’ll talk.
It’s one thing to have consenting–truly consenting–adults involved in polygamous marriages. It is quite anohter, however, how polygamy has been traditionally practiced–as a patriarchal institution that women, and sometimes young girls, are forced into. So, yes, there are ethical reasons against, say polygamy as practiced by Mormons or other religious zealots.
WTF does Dan mean by “tiny minority”?? Does he now suddenly believe there are very few LGBTQ folks on the planet? Tiny my ass!
I have never subscribed to the unreasonable theory that we only make up 10% of the population. How can any source, from Kinsey on, be relied on for accuracy when it comes to personal info many gay people are still reluctant to be honest about?
People PLEASE!
Calling out a bully like Rick Santorum is NOT bullying, it is standing up for yourself and all the other people Rick would like to legislate into oblivion…..double bonus points if it’s done as mockery because the Rethugs HATE being mocked.
When Rick Santorum or Rick Perry are found dead, tied to a fence post after being beaten to death or beaten up while walking down the street minding their own business, or raped and then denied healthcare by evil gays and women, THEN we’ll talk.
We should work harder on the phrase “rick santorum” because currently googling that phrase doesn’t give spreadingsantorum.com for the first result. And it doesn’t explain that “rick” is a verb even.
Rick (v) To remove a substance with one’s tongue.
“Eww, I’m dribbling everywhere, could you rick this santorum, honey?”
There were so many sites exploiting santorum’s name I spent last week on the floor laughing. Examples :
http://gawker.com/5872978/every-funny-he…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/0…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattcherette/25-…
But my favorite remains “Santorum surges from behind dislodging Romney”. Can we keep the obvious meaning for Romney too?
Another great and subtle jape on the Columbia Journalism Review’s blog article “Santorum Goes After Social Security” (emphasis mine):
@51, it’s because, in their eyes, polygamy means less cunt to go around and some men might end up without a cunt to abuse and control. Note how the guys bringing this up are often so fortunate as to have one secretly despairing woman who can scarcely tolerate them and only stick around because of a misguided sense of duty — the likely losers when the two-by-two life-pairing nonsense is no longer enforced at gunpoint.
Speaking of nonconsensual enforcement of cultural norms, here’s a nice article suggesting that ab-only sex ed encourages bullying, which the culture warriors, being bullies themselves, are just bully about:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/20…
@51 “Even Savagers who happily participate in threads about polyamory seem to find it obvious that it’s insulting to suggest a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamous marriage.”
It’s not insulting. But poly marriage is a whole different kettle of fish, for precisely the pragmatic reasons to which you refer: SS benefits, health care benefits, child custody issues in case of divorce… If you only imagine a three-way marriage, those issues seem manageable, but suppose A marries B, C, D, and E, where B is also married to F; C is also married to G & H; and wild D is married to P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V. (Also, V hates G with a passion, so they’re definitely not married. F and A are sisters, so they’re definitely not married…) Okay, now who gets to share A’s health benefits? If B dies intestate, how do you divide B’s assets? And if B has a kid with D, who gets custody after B dies?
@61: Yes obviously. And there are grotesque ethical problems with how one-man one-woman marriage has been implemented, especially in various subcultures. I don’t see the difference. Indeed surely it would be easier to prevent such abuses if the ‘marriages’ weren’t subterranean and illegal, where, for instance, women are even more terrified to report abuse than usual because they fear their whole community will be destroyed if they are exposed. Not that I think legalization is ever going to make those subcultures ok – the point is they will make them somewhat better or leave them as they are, not make them worse.
But mostly the implicit form of your argument just seems deeply wrong. there are deeply perverted, abusive relationships and subcultures of all sorts. It is important to know about that and try to help. I see none of that as having any bearing whatsoever on whether there is something intrinsically sketchy about a particular arrangement of partnered-up bodies or whether we should legalize their union. The polygamous partnerships in my social circle have no more relationship to LDC craziness than do any of my other friends’ partnerships.
“Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you’re a journalist, not a stenographer.”
THANK YOU.
I look forward to a definitive list of justifications for name-calling and bullying. A lot of the people I disagree with really have it coming.
@66 you used the word “intestate”. I love you; please marry me. (Note: I am already married to T, who is brothers with L and M. Will that be a problem?)
I have nothing else to say that hasn’t been said less simplistically or more elegantly by someone else: it’s all being driven by fear and repression.
“Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you’re a journalist, not a stenographer.”
THANK YOU.
Thank you, again, Dan!
What amazes me is that if the Republicans could get over their obession with religion (serious, why does that even come into politics) and focused on just their economic/legislative beliefs, they would probably be courting homosexuals. At least those gays who want to get married. Who better to get angry at people popping out welfare babies than couples who have to go through a whole long process to get a child? Come on Republicans. Stop worrying about what some guy in the desert wrote 3,000 years ago.
Great definition of santorum–but would be even better with the addition of “ejaculate” or “semen.”
“Romney Squeezes Out Santorum”! LOVE IT!
Great definition of santorum–but how about adding “ejaculate” or “semen” to it.
Sorry–didn’t mean to add it twice (74 and 76)
Kudos Dan, and thank you for taking down one of the many douchebags out there. An America under Santorum would be unimaginable. I am not an American, I am Canadian and we have our own brand of “Santora” (plural for Santorum). Our legal gay-marriage and even abortion is under attack from our newly elected right-wing(nut) government. I am also an accountant and am proud to call a great number of gay couples both good friends and clients.
What I have witnessed over my 30plus years of practice both before and after the recognition of gay marriage can only be aptly described as night and day. No more can a family ravage with total impunity the possessions of a surviving partner, no more can a child be taken from a surviving parent by the family of the deceased. No more will one person in a family be granted extended health care, while another will not. No more will a surviving spouse be left destitute because the pension plan did not recognise their marriage.
No more will a same-sex couple have to execute agreement after agreement in order to protect themselves and their children from multiple civil intrusions because their union was not recognised.
One last point: I prepare income taxes for both Canada and the US. Here in Canada, one spouse can stay at home and raise the children. The couple receive a significant income tax deduction for this arrangement. This is not the case in the US. The 1040 will not recognise same sex family units -for that matter, common law relationships are not granted the same priviledges under law as married relationships. Common law has been recognised throughout the British commonwealth for many decades.
Mr. Savage:
This is an excellent and moving article. I’ve seen you quite a few times on various TV venues, but this is my first time seeing your writings. I was so moved by the hardship of the Langbehn-Pond family that I cried. Generally, due to my cynicism, it’s difficult for writers to touch my heart so deeply. I hope that somehow Elizabeth Santorum had the opportunity to read this, too.
The biggest problem with santorum is that, now that the namesake former senator is back in the news, I keep flashing to his busted face every time after I have anal sex. That is the horrible unintended consequence of this otherwise excellent definition.
What I don’t get is how *anyone* can be that repressed, that stupid, that misguided, that pigheaded, that falsely-confident…
I TOTALLY Believe that Rick Santorum is gay and he hates himself for it (Lord knows why).
Redirecting his self-hate into trying to “save the world” by becoming a politician..
Seriously: WHAT A FUCKING DOUCHEBAG SANTORUM IS!
It’s all so *sad*. Some will never know and never get it.. Santorum is among those people.
Who cares who’s gay and who’s not anymore?
Fuck, it’s 2012 already: there’s gay marriage now in several states, a lame show like ‘Glee’ is more of a hit than it should be, and fuckers like Rick Santorum are comparing being gay to something evil?
Look in the mirror, you dickhead! Eh, not to worry: Santorum’s run will be done within a month/two months’ tops.
The more bits people drag out about Santorum, the quicker his shit will tumble and he can hopefully return to semi-obscurity where he belongs (There, in therapy and in a bathhouse. Not necessarily in that order 😉 lol…).
@38- It’s the ‘ick’ factor and nothing more. Folks hear ‘gay’=’buttsex’=’santorum’. Hence, less revulsion thinking of lesbian sex.
I counter with- “think about your parents or children having sex”. Funny to watch their expression change when thinking of an icky form of ‘godly’ straight sex.
EricaP @66.
I agree, it is complicated. And honestly I am not some big crusader for it. But I think the tone on both sides is a moralizing one, not just a matter of getting a headache contemplating the policy complexities. I’m happy for people to decide that multiple marriage is just too complicated to deal with in the short or medium run. I’m not happy for same-sex couples to martial the rhetoric of “we are basically normal, not like those poly freaks, how dare you compare us”. Notice @51’s immediate rush to talking about creepy LDS misogynist cult stuff when I brought the topic up.
My personal stance on all this is probably closest to that of the great Jimmy McMillan of the Rent is Too Damn High Party: “If you want to marry a shoe, I’ll marry you”. But I will leave my case for inanimate object unions to another time 😉
I’m happy to report that I’d never heard of the man before I’d heard of the word. It has been, and always will be, Dan’s definition I think of first when I hear that word.
Also, what’s so bad about polygamy? As long as its between consenting adults why should we care?
@83, I think there’s a good case to be made for ending civil marriage all together. (Religious people could obviously still have whatever ceremonies they want, as could people marrying their shoes 🙂
People would have to figure out other ways to indicate legally where want their stuff to go when they die, who they want to raise children with, who they want making decisions if they get ill, etc. But it’s totally doable, and might get around the problems I raised @66. Like you said, “in the short or medium run,” we’re probably not ready yet. But long term, maybe.
Rick Santorum is obviously a deranged individuals. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind thinks about dog orgies? I don’t think I spent even one minute thinking about it until I wrote this post. I’ve got three dogs at home, two of them humpers, and still have never thought of them as anything more than friends.
Hey Dan,
Why did I have to go online to read this today instead of finding you in the SFWeekly as usual? Where you aware of this? I hope this is dome sort of deadline problem and nit editorial fuckwittage on the part of what I thought were the slightly less conservative owners of what was formerly a very conservatively owned free weekly in a big market that ran your column regularly with no problems.
Cheers,
DeBoner
@83(philgirl, & EricaP), I tend to agree with you (philgrl) on polygamy: there is no reason to consider it “freaky” when compared to same-sex marriage, and activists who do so are either trying to play on the ‘we’re normal like you, look we even are disgusted by the same things’ key, or then are actually (unfairly) disgusted by polygamy, most probably without having thought it through.
As EricaP points out, most of the problems with polygamy are practical ones for which some practical solution can be found, if one is willing to think carefully about it.
Running the risk of seeming too radical even for SLOG, I would even maintain that, in principle, the same can be said even for bestiality or sex with children (and the corresponding types of marriage). The task would be more complicated yet, and the redefinitions more radical (and there would be the question of asking who would benefit from it: if too few people, is it worth the trouble?), but I think it probably is doable. But that’s of course a different question.
@83(philgirl, & also EricaP@85), I entirely agree with you (philgirl): there is indeed no reason why anyone should need to imply that polygamy is “obviously more freaky” than same-sex marriage; logically speaking, it is not, and yet people do, since many comparisons and judgments, both by pro and con debaters, are not justified with practical considerations like EricaP’s, but with appeals to ‘what is obvious.’ On the part of same-sex advocates, I think this is part of the desire to play the ‘we’re not that different from you’ card (‘look, we’re even disgusted by the same things, like polygamy’).
Hopefully polygamy will indeed be the next topic to be talked about and considered, after same-sex marriage becomes mainstream. The practical difficulties that EricaP mention are considerable, but — I agree — probably solvable if one is willing to think enough about them.
Running the risk of sounding too radical even for SLOG, I’ll even maintain that the same could be said about the other boogiemen, sex with animals and with children (and perhaps even the corresponding forms of marriage): the difficulties, again much more considerable, could probably also be solved (though here I might think it would be better to abolish marriage altogether rather than trying to solve them). I’d also throw in incestous marriage as an easier case to solve.
Damn double posting! Sorry everybody.
Ms Erica – Well stated about multiple marriages – it would be like the Plantagenets unlimited, and the Family Division would end up ten times larger than any other portion of the court. Then again, the growth in demand for lawyers and judges might be just what the current economy needs…
@38, I’ve often thought about this question. I think it is the “eeew” factor (i.e., basically social stereotypes and their influences), plus the fear that straights themselves might turn homosexual if homosexuals are allowed to exist (i.e., the old fear of a ‘homo-virus’ that would inexorably gayify us all). Some analyses I’ve read suggest that gender roles are so strongly built into us (mostly by society) that a simple lack of sexual interest in people of the same sex ends up reinforced to an actual disgust, repulsion, even horror so that the traditional roles are more strongly kept apart: men like women, women like men, and if we don’t keep it this way then the gender boudaries (and with them the whole fabric of society) collapses. I don’t like this very much because it sounds conspiratorial, which is usually the wrong way to analyze historical processes, but it does seem to be true that homophobia tends to correlate (with exceptions, of course) with belief in more sharply defined gender roles. The more your ideology claims that these gender roles are very important to society, the more a challenge to them (like homosexuality) would seem to be a dangerous threat.
@85 EricaP, I’ve been reading your comments for quite a while now, and I find this concept absolutely fascinating. I can’t wait until society is open-minded enough to explore this idea!
@38, plus, looking back on my own (fortunately short) homophobic phase in pre-adolescence, I think there is actually some fear that gay people were all ‘perverted’ in the evil mustache-twirling villain kind of way. Because gays were presented as ‘bad’, I thought of them as bad in all senses of the word, including fearing that they would have no respect for what I wanted or didn’t want and would simply rape me if ever given the opportunity to do so. Basically what many mainstream people think of kinksters (or ‘pervs’) in general: that they are so obsessed with their own form of sexuality that they’re ready to jump and force other people to submit to their desires if they ever had the chance. (Think of all those claims about ‘what would happen in the shower’ if gays were allowed to serve openly in the military.)
It took some time, and was at first surprising, to think that someone could be at the same time gay and not obsessed by his gayness, gay and not willing to jump and rape other people. I know, it is not at all logical to think so; but if you started out with this image in your head, it does take some time to get rid of it.
@93 Thanks! There will be push back from the traditionalists, of course, so if you want to achieve that society, think about how to support positive change in your own social circle (supporting consensual but untraditional relationships of many kinds)…
Mr Ank – As for multiple simultaneous marriage, it’s not a question of thought; it’s a question of dedication of resources. Satisfying a sufficiently large portion of the group such a change would serve would likely require a planet with no military, if not more.
And it’s all well and good for you to make your pronouncements from a civilized country, but over here, wait and see. If I were inclined to gamble, I’d bet on a HUGE rollback, and would likely not rule out government-enforced dissolutions in addition to same-sex couples permanently and irrevocably being barred from marriage. Much more doable. Sorry to sound bitter. I am.
As for your more radical questions, I suppose there could possibly be solutions for at least some of them, but it would likely just be Mary Crawford playing speculation (winning the hand only to find that it didn’t repay what she’d given to secure it) on a larger scale.
On a separate but related note (about sanctimonious anal effluence creators)
In case you were wondering why RANDALL TERRY is running as a Democratic party presidential candidate:
It is because political ads can’t be censored, even during the super bowl. Brilliant in a ass juice kind of way.
Ms Erica – Of course the case for ending civil marriage can be made. But, if I were betting, I’d back theocracy first, though perhaps in a post-theocratic period…
@51 I see no ethical reason not to allow plural marriage in whatever configuration people want. I do however see some serious logistical problems to it but that is separate from how people pro and anti gay marriage often portray it (meaning if we had plural marriage legal then we would need to completely rework how marriage laws work and that would be a big job). It’s definitely something that bugs me, I see it as no less ethical than any marriage between consenting adults.
Bravo, Dan! I read stuff like that HuffPo piece and just sputter with rage; you find powerful words to express it.