NOM clearly in Santorum's tank. So let's look at how NOM's chair supported Rick in '03…
Back in April of 2003, when then-U.S.-Senator Rick Santorum made his unbelievably crude comments about gays and "man on dog" sex, National Organization For Marriage Chair John Eastman's first instinct was to take to the Claremont Institute's blog and defend Santorum. In fact, he defended him with words written by far, far, faaaaaar right extremist Scott Lively, with the added suggestion that Santorum's GOP colleagues should step up and defend the instantly-infamous, deeply offensive quip:
As for the content of the Lively piece that Mr. Eastman pushed to his readers? Well, as one would expect, it was a deeply anti-gay missive in which Lively gave advice like this:
"[C]ontest the hidden false assumption underlying most pro-"gay" arguments that homosexuality is immutable. We have a strong case on this point since 1) proponents of the "gays are born that way" justification for normalizing homosexuality bear the burden of proof, 2) proof is absolutely necessary due to the severity of social change which is contemplated by their demands, 3) proponents cannot prove that homosexuality is immutable (Indeed, ex-homosexuals can prove that it is not.), 3) if homosexuality is not immutable, then logically it must be acquired (children being the most likely to acquire the condition because of their vulnerability to social conditioning), and 4) society must err on the side of caution, actively discouraging the normalization of homosexuality in order to protect children and others from the possibility of acquiring a homosexual condition with its attendant health risks." (*You can read Lively's still-active words, in full, right here.)
This is what NOM's Chair -- Maggie Gallagher's chosen replacement -- thinks is a "common-sense suggestion"? Really? And does he still?
Although personally, I do think we should take the NOM Chair's lead and ask Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and New Gingrich at either of the two debates scheduled for this weekend if they'd like to provide "coherent defense" of Rick's "man on dog" comparisons. Get them all on record and let the cards fall where they may. Or bark, as it were.
comments powered by Disqus