By now, unless you live in a cavem you have probably heard that Rick Santorum was intentionally misquoted, and in a manner that is quite appalling (although not perhaps as apalling as Santorum’s views on homosexuality).
Here is the quote as it first appeared:
“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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.”
Now here is the actual quote:
“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.”
Despite what some might want to think- that is a big difference, and it was absolutely irresponsible for the AP to report the quote in the first manner. If you think I am exxagerating how awful this addition was, try these sentences I am making up on for size and tell me if you see a difference:
“I don’t like many people.”
Compare that to:
“I don’t like many (black) people.”
or “I don’t like many (gay) people.”
Big difference. Regardless, though, Santorum is not off the hook. He clearly has some Cro Magnon views on sexuality (as discussed by Sullivan and Scalzi) and some frighteningly paternalistic viewpoints regarding the role of government and individual liberty.
Sometimes I think these guys are actively trying to get me to vote for Democrats.
*** UPDATE ***
The Diabloggers have a great entry on the Santorum affair even though they call me stupid for initially not noticing the inserted (gay) in my first post). Oh well- they were right, I was stupid.
Phil
I’m not sure if it’s as irresponsible as it would seem to be at face value; Santorum was, after all, discussing the issues the Supreme Court is considering, and they are specific to gay sex, since heterosexual sodomy was not banned under the Texas law.
In either case, Santorum’s quote is actually WORSE if you take the word “gay” out. Since we can take it as given that he thinks all those things at the bottom of the slippery slope are bad, bad things, it follows that he DOESN’T want the Court to recognize a right to consensual sex in the home for ANYONE. Scary, scary, thought.
BTW: http://www.spielberg-fan.com/archives/000572.html
John Cole
No- without the word gay, he was just making what appears to be a legal argument. With the word gay inserted, it devolves into gay baiting and bigotry.
He is still an idiot.
Mark Aveyard
Stupid was the wrong word to use. My apologies.
Maybe “reactive” or something. I don’t know. I’ve read your stuff, I know you’re not usually that lazy in checking sources.
It sucks that we have to be so distrustful of what we read in a headline or lead paragraph.
John Cole
No. Stupid was the right word. Don’t apologize for being right.