A Second Look At Rick Santorum’s Man-On-Dog Comments

Remember Dan Quayle’s Murphy Brown fight? You may not because he was mocked for it at the time, but today it hits a little too close to home. Here’s what he said,

Bearing babies irresponsibly is simply wrong. Failing to support children one has fathered is wrong. We must be unequivocal about this. It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.

This was laughed off at the time. One problem: Quayle was right. Having children out of wedlock, despite the fact that it’s horrible for the child and often drives the mother into poverty is just another lifestyle choice. In fact, even suggesting that it’s a bad idea, despite the fact that everyone knows that it is, produces howls of outrage. It’s easy to understand why. Single mothers and for that matter, single fathers, have it hard enough as it is without feeling like they’re being attacked. Of course, Quayle wasn’t attacking them; he was pointing out that TV shows like Murphy Brown were helping to legitimize the idea, which was bad for society.

Again, Quayle was right and his critics were wrong.

The reason I bring that up is because Rick Santorum’s notorious “man-on-dog” may turn out to be just as prescient. Remember what Santorum said way back in 2003 (Emphasis mine)?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold – Griswold was the contraceptive case – and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you – this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. 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. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality –

AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.

Since Santorum made those comments, some states have legalized gay marriage, the President of the United States has come out in favor of it, and amongst adults it’s roughly a 50/50 proposition (although it doesn’t fare so well amongst likely voters or in a comparison between the number of states that have banned gay marriage Vs. states where it’s legal.)

What in the world brought that to mind? A couple of articles that came out in the last couple of days. The first was an article talking up pedophilia in Gawker.

Van Gjiseghem says what he and his colleagues mean by sexual orientation is a person’s inborn and unalterable sexual preference, irrespective of whether that preference is harmful to others or not.

…Imagine a world in which admitting your attraction to busty women or tall men led to alienation, jail time, or your murder.

…The old adage is that the true mark of a society is how it treats the weakest in its ranks. Blacks, women, Latinos, gays and lesbians, and others are still in no way on wholly equal footing in America. But they’re also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to children. One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he’d embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophile.

Then, there are these comments in favor of incest from the director of The Notebook.

“I have no experience with incest…You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want,” he said.

“Who gives a sh-t if people judge you? I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids — who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage — love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

Liberals laughed at Santorum and ripped him for those comments which may have even helped cost him his Senate seat. One problem: Like Quayle, Rick Santorum is turning out to be right.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend