Santorum Samples Vol. 4

Santorum Samples are passages from Rick Santorum’s It Takes a Family. They are deliberately taken out of context in an attempt to show that Mr. Santorum is a rational human being. Because we all know that when viewed in context, Rick Santorum is a jackass. Find more samples here or just click on the tab above.

From p. 37:

“Irving Kristol once wrote that the most subversive question that can be posed to civilization is: why not? Thanks to the decision of four activist judges in Massachusetts, that is a question we now must face as Americans. In order to answer the question of “Why not?” with respect to same-sex marriage, we have to come to a fuller understanding of what marriage is. Is it simply about publicly honoring a romantic attachment? That’s what the highest court in Ontario, Canada, believes. Just in time for the June wedding season of 2003 that court wrote, as it ruled in favor of same-sex marriages:

Marriage is, without dispute, one of the most significant forms of personal relationship…. Through the institution of marriage, individuals can publicly express their love and commitment to each other. Through this institution, society publicly recognized expressions of love and commitment between individuals, granting them respect and legitimacy as a couple.*

Marriage in this view means nothing more to society, to what we are as a people, and to our future, than making people feel accepted. The state’s interest in promoting and stamping approval upon a marriage starts and stops with tolerance, and therefore it is meaningless.”

Lessons learned:

1. Here’s the game show that is playing in Rick Santorum’s head:

Welcome to Who Defines Marriage?!, the game show where one lucky winner gets to define marriage for the rest of the country! Let’s meet our contestants. Hailing from lovely Everywhere, USA, is Society! Society is reasonably conflicted over this, but no matter – the part of it that opposes same-sex marriage will be dead soon! Next up, we have the Courts! With a flair for the dramatic and a style that is both comfortable and classy, the Courts usually consider their best trait to be the ability to grant equality to all. And last but not least, we have Rick Santorum! Rick believes he deserves to define marriage because, hey, what he thinks is good for (his) God is damn well good for everyone else – whether they like it or not! … And the winner is Rick Santorum!

2. Tolerance makes things meaningless. Sooooo…. Fuck you to all the non-white, non-straight, non-Christian non-male people out there. Society’s tolerance of you is ruining Rick Santorum’s meaning.

3. Blame Canada!



*Also, us here at …And Read All Over would like to send a warm Fuck yeah! to the highest court in Ontario.

Mr. and Mr. President

Finland’s presidential election is on January 22 and one of the candidates is homosexual. But here’s the kicker: sexual orientation has not been an issue. The other candidates haven’t brought it up, the media hasn’t brought it up, and the people haven’t been clamoring to bring it up. But why?

Is it because Finland is an amoral socialist wasteland that obviously doesn’t care what it’s teaching its children? Or is it because the media, the presidential candidates, and the people of Finland have decided that mentioning a candidate’s sexual orientation is at best pointless and at worse detrimental to society? If you answered “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second, you’re living in the past. If you answered “no” then “yes,” welcome to the future.

There’s no need to tell which one of the candidates is homosexual, but you can be pretty sure it’s not the guy from this party.

Twumping Bachmann

Michele, we need to talk. I’ve been hearing these crazy things about you. I mean really crazy things. At first, I said to myself everything’s cool because these crazy things match your crazy eyes. It’s what makes them sparkle.

But there’s something bigger at stake here.

The fact is, Michele, you’ve been ignoring me. How many times does a normal Joe like me need to tell a Member of Congress to tweet their Congress member? I thought that’s what Congress members Members of Congress were good for. I also thought we were off to a good start. I followed you, you followed me, things were looking up. But where have we followed each other to?

It’s the 11th hour now and you still haven’t thrown the Hail Mary. I’m afraid I’ve lost faith in you. I’m going to have to Twump™ you. It sounds cute, but in this day and age, being Twitter dumped is like being really dumped. Like for real for real.

I wish you the best of luck in your craziness and your gay conversions. Here’s hoping your program will work on your husband. I know there are lots of gay men out there just waiting to embrace Marcus Bachmann.

[Update – Jan. 4, 2011] See what happens when you don’t tweet your Congress member, Michele?

Application for Writer Position at the Center for Marriage Policy [Updated]

Dear Mr. Usher,

I really like what you’ve done with your article (Why Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, 11/2011). In my mind, it’s perfect satire. I mean feminist lesbian conspiracies – where did you come up with that? It’s marvelous. And that’s not to mention the Constitutional Amendments that you threw in there (Seriously, I bet nobody checked if they were relevant).

But I must say that I feel like people still aren’t getting the point. Consider this article, in which the writer took you very seriously. It’s preposterous, I know, but there it is.

And that brings me to what I feel I can add. The Center for Marriage Policy is on the brink of being the best farce in the land – it just needs that extra push over the edge and into the abyss of reality. I am that extra push.

Allow me to demonstrate. I believe that all kids should play with legos, since legos teach them that homosexuality is wrong. Think about it. You build a lego home by placing the nub of one lego into the hole of another. You can’t build a sturdy lego home by poking two nubs together. It’s the same way with homosexuality. You can’t build a sturdy home without putting a man’s nub into a woman’s hole. That’s the way God intended it.

Or, have you ever rubbed the hole sides of two lego pieces together? That’s basically just like lesbianism. And it’s subverting America. Whenever I see my kids do that, I smack them. Also the way God intended it.

See? I just made that up right here on the spot! You see what I mean? I can be the force that ensures no one takes you seriously anymore. I mean heterosexual legos? It’s like feminist lesbian conspiracies but better. Also, since legos come in different colors, it could serve as a great example against interracial marriages if you wanted to go there.

The lego idea is a freebie – just know that there is plenty more where that came from. If you’re looking to really hit it big, get in touch. I think you and I would be great together (no homo). All I need is the opportunity to prove it to you.

Keep fighting the straight fight.


Joe McVeigh

[UPDATE – Dec. 31, 2011] Here’s what Mr. Usher had to say to my application (via email; click to embiggen):

“Sorry but I’m not impressed by critical theory ridicule methods.  It is you that is out of touch with facts and reality.

This is your last email to me.  I have a filter on you now.”

Oh no! There’s a filter on me now! Get it off, get it off! David, I was just trying to help.

Wait a minute. If I’m out of touch with facts and reality, that means David’s article was serious. But… that means he believes… but how could anyone… *head explodes*

Taliban to Keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Be Gay Policy for Militants

In completely unsurprising news out of Afghanistan today, the Taliban has reiterated its Don’t Ask, Don’t Be Gay policy for it’s militants. According to the policy, letting openly gay men serve is “just not their thing.”

In a statement issued to …And Read All Over, one of the Taliban’s prominent leaders on the group’s DADG policy, Rickwar al-Santorumqi, was quoted as saying:

Yeah, I — I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the Taliban. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the Taliban that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to — and removing “Don’t ask, Don’t be gay” I think tries to inject social policy into the Taliban. And the Taliban’s job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.
We need to give the Taliban, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform. And I believe this undermines that ability.

In keeping the policy, the Taliban has left intact the strong similarities it has with some American states, social groups, and political parties, where homosexuality is still very much illegal and grounds for torment and abuse. These similarities have traditionally been downplayed by both Taliban militants and American homophobes.

Santorum Samples Vol. 3

Santorum Samples (previously Santorum Bites) are passages from Rick Santorum’s It Takes a Family. They are deliberately taken out of context in an attempt to show that Mr. Santorum is a rational human being. Because we all know that when viewed in context, Rick Santorum is a jackass. Find more samples here.

From pages 236-237:

What I feared the Court would do in Lawrence in striking down the Texas sodomy statute is finally and completely eliminate marriage as a privileged institution in our laws and simply expand the zone of privacy in sexual conduct to all consenting adults. That is exactly what they did: marriage has now completely lost its special place in the law. The Court said in effect that marriage has not only outlived its legal usefulness, it said it is discriminatory to treat people differently based on such an outdated social construct. Therefore, over the past generation, it has decided to change the zone of sexual “privacy” from one man and one woman in marriage to consenting adults, period. So, to paraphrase my own quote above: if consent is the only standard to have your sexual behavior protected by the Constitution, then how can the Court prohibit any consensual sexual behavior among two, three, or more people? The answer is logically, judicially, that you cannot – for other than arbitrary reasons. That is why there have already been several cases filed by polygamists seeking similar constitutional protection on the basis of Lawrence.

Lessons learned:
1. So, gay sex between consenting adults isn’t like polygamy, any sex between consenting adults is – unless those consenting adults are a married man and woman. But of course!
2. Somewhere, two or more people unmarried but consenting adults are having non-traditional sex. There should be a law against that.
3. Coming soon to bookstores: Rick Santorum’s Guide to Who You Can Have Sex With and the Legal Way You Can Have Sex With Them.
4. It’s impossible that anyone in the history of ever has had a worse sex life than Rick Santorum’s wife. Fucking impossible.
5. Also – buttsecks! Bonus!

Another Important Voice Weighs in on Gay Marriage

Right on the heels of David Tyre’s anarchy predictions, another prominent voice has come out against same-sex marriage. This time it’s my dog, Mr. Bo Jangles, who has expressed concern over the legalization of gay marriage.

Mr. Jangles has been known to voice his opinion in the past, usually when he’s hungry, when he really has pee, or when there’s a pile of shit on the sidewalk that he wants to stick his nose in. But in a rare instance of speaking out on public policy issues, Mr. Jangles told of his apprehensions about what same-sex marriage could mean for other dogs around the country.

“Imagine if I had been raised by two men,” he seemed to say with those puppy dog eyes. “I would probably still be the fearless home protector that you rely on, but would I be able to snuggle with you as good as I can now? Would my licks to your face be as soft and full of devotion as they are now? I don’t believe so because those are the kind of things only a female master can teach.”

Proceeding down the same logical path, Mr. Jangles likened the social and legal approval of same-sex marriage to the anarchy that comes when thunder strikes or when the garage door closes.

But Jangles isn’t the only one making his sound heard in McVeigh Manor. Mr. Jangles’s opposition to gay marriage, which was backed by the National Orgasm for Marriage, comes on the heels of my cat Mittens’s support for the same-sex marriage law passing through the chambers of my house.

“Why the hell would I give a shit what you worthless humans do?” Mittens glared. “Yeah, I’m for it. I’m for any laws that offer Emperor Mittens a chance at more food. Got it, dummy? Now, get off the couch. All this meaningless talk of human concerns has nearly bored me to death. I need a nap.”

The coming out, so to speak, of Mittens was shocking since she has always been either too uninterested or too asleep to engage anyone in any kind of social interaction. But last week her energy in declaring her stance reminded me of the time I tied a piece of string to the back of the chair.

No word yet on where my fish stands on this issue. Or my imaginary iguana.

Stay tuned to hear what these important voices have to say.

Related posts:

Removing the Middleman from the Gay Marriage Debate

Removing the Middleman from the Gay Marriage Debate

I’m hearing a lot about gay marriage. There are debates going on throughout the nation. From stately Minnesota to free-wheelin’ California to… Iowa? Seriously? OK.

Anyways, everyone seems to be worried about whether or not the gays will be allowed to marry. But I think everyone is missing a very big point here. This debate isn’t about whether marriage is defined as being solely between a man and a woman (and according to one faaaaaabulous source, it isn’t). The gay marriage debate is really about whether or not marriage is defined as being solely between one penis and one vagina.

People always want to throw around words like “man” and “woman,” but when you get right down to it, these are just the middlemen and women in this debate. I say we cut them out and put all our cards on the table. Are we able to agree that marriage can be between not only a penis and a vagina, but also between one penis and another penis, or even one vagina and another vagina? Because that is the real question.

I’ve even thought of a helpful way for confused people to tackle this question in their minds by using their hands. Ready?

First, hold up both of your index fingers. Next, pretend that they are penises. Then poke the tips of them together. Now, does this game feel more or less natural than if you looped one index finger in the thumb to make an imaginary vagina? Forget that this hand symbol is a reference to homosexuality in some countries. Stay focused. Does the pretend penis poking make you feel uncomfortable enough to make it constitutionally illegal? How about if they were real penises instead of pretend penises – would that make it all better?

What I’m trying to do here is remove the middle man. We all know that both men and women are capable of love, compassion, fidelity, and sometimes a desire to spend their lives growing old with another person. We also know that both men and women both have heads, shoulders, knees, and toes (knees and toes). So what does that leave? Penises and vaginas.

So while this gay marriage debate has never been about whether or not two reasonable, consenting adult males, who both have heads, shoulders, knees, and toes (knees and toes), could get married, why not just cut the shit? The debate has been about whether or not two reasonable, consenting adult males or females, who both happen to be connected to penises or vaginas, respectively, can get married.

I’m going to go ahead and say that it’s definitely OK for two penises to get married, just because we know there’s a place to put the rings.