Here's why Santorum is an ex-Senator

Here's another post that almost slipped through the cracks last week that I couldn't let go without writing about. Former-U.S. Senator-turned-political-columnist Rick Santorum just can't let the gay marriage thing go. I mean, will this guy ever get it? As Attytood noted last week, it's little wonder that this guy is an ex-Senator (I've said it before, and it bears repeating - it never gets old running the picture of conceited Rick conceding on election night in 2006). Anyway, someone living in a cave can monitor the political winds better than this guy.

Last week, in his Philadelphia Inquirer column, this is what Santorum had to say about California's impending recognition of gay marriages:

Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!

Those were just a few of the terms hurled my way in 2003 when I said that the Supreme Court's Texas sodomy decision opened the door to the redefinition of marriage.

When I wasn't ducking the epithets, I was being laughed at, mocked, and given the crazy-uncle-at-the-holidays treatment by the media. Or I was being told I should resign from my leadership post by some Senate colleagues.

Five years later, do I regret sounding the alarm about marriage? No.

I'm just saddened that time has proved right those of us who worried about the future of marriage as the union of husband and wife, deeply rooted not only in our traditions, our faiths, but in the facts of human nature: as Pope Benedict said, "The cradle of life and love," connecting mothers and fathers to their children.

(Cue epithets: Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!)

The latest distressing news came last week in California. The state Supreme Court there ruled, 4-3, that same-sex couples can marry.

In doing so, four judges rejected a statute that passed in a referendum with 61 percent of the vote that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

It's merely the latest in a string of court decisions that have overturned the overwhelming will of the people.

OK, if you're not inclined to hurl epithets, you might ask: Don't we have more to worry about than some court redefining marriage? After all, gas prices are soaring, health-care costs are rising, and our nation is at war. Why should we care what a few activist judges in California say?

Let's put aside the tired argument that the people should have a say in the laws of their government. That is so 18th-century white-male drivel. Thank goodness we have unaccountable judicial elites to make decisions for us bigots.

It's hard to know where to begin, here. First, I have to confess that it never gets old reading Ricky feeling sorry for himself. All sorts of epithets should have been thrown your way back in '03, Senator homophobe. Don't get me wrong - I'm not hateful like he is. He has a family and many young kids, and by all public accounts is a family man and a good father and husband. Good for him. (Really.) But, where I part company with Santorum in a hurry is when he feels the need to push his beliefs on everyone else, and as was the case in '03, on all Pennsylvanians and the Senate, too.

Next, Ricky talks about the "overwhelming will" of the people, and how they are opposed to civil unions. Well, let's talk about those numbers for a minute. As Kos points out, there are some pretty damning statistics that support gay marriage:

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them? (Same question asked every survey throughout the years.) See the chart at right for the results.

It seems like the trend toward favoring civil unions and/or gay marriage is on the march, and has been for decades now, despite the bleak forecast of gloom and doom by Santorum. What's more, age in California is directly proportional to approval of gay marriage - the older are less in favor, while younger respondents are much, much more in favor (see below). So again, it doesn't take George Gallup to predict which way the trend will likely continue in the foreseeable future.

Santorum also decries what the new California Supreme Court ruling will do to organizations that do business with the state:

The California court just declared that those of us who see marriage as the union of husband and wife are the legal equivalent of racists. And openly racist groups and individuals can be denied government benefits because of their views, including professional licenses (attorney, physicians, psychiatrists, marriage counselors), accredited schools, and tax-exempt status for charities.

In Massachusetts, the first same-sex-marriage state, Catholic Charities, one of the state's largest adoption agencies, was forced out of business because it refused to arrange adoptions for same-sex couples. In New Jersey, a Methodist group lost part of its state real estate tax exemption because it refused to permit civil-union ceremonies on church-owned property.

People discriminating against gays, or in his words, "the legal equivalent of racists"? GOOD. Because they are. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was forced out of business because it refused to arrange adoptions for same-sex couples? Boo Hoo.

I hope I live to see the day where gays are mandated by the federal government to be treated on par with race as it relates to getting tax breaks and preferential treatment, be it taxes or any other benefit, including federal contracts.

How sweet would it be for Halliburton to lose one of its no-bid contracts because it wouldn't hire Dick Cheney's daughter? Pass me a slice of irony with pepperoni, please.

Keep pumping out that propaganda, Ricky. Before long, I'm sure the Inquirer, a once-great newspaper, will be run further into the ground by GOP hack activist Brian Tierney for hiring the likes of you.

No wonder I don't subscribe anymore. Any paper that feels Santorum is worthy of a columnist slot isn't worth my 75 cents every day.

Plus, who an forget the senator's insanely asinine comment leading up the the 2006 election about Democrats who were trying to take over the U.S. Senate and House: that their election would be a "disaster for the future of the world."

A year and a half later, I'm still thankful that Pennsylvanians saw fit to bounce his ass out of the Senate.