You are here: Home » News » Analysis » As The Campaign Turns- Rick Santorum And The Marriage Vow

As The Campaign Turns- Rick Santorum And The Marriage Vow

11 July 2011
by Bridgette P. LaVictoire

The FAMiLY Leader’s “Marriage Vow” is another one of those petty little things meant to bind the hands of elected officials in order to try and get them behind someone else’s agenda. In this case, the bitter homophobes of Iowa. Of course, as part of that marriage vow, they also included this wonderful gem:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

So, of course, who rushes to sign this without actually reading it? Well, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Bachmann has her own problems right now as it appears that the Stepford Candidate has no real control over her own life, and her husband has been peddling snake oil remedies for homosexuality for years now. Santorum also has his own problems with homosexuality including his once famous statement about “man on dog” sex.

So, of course, how best to appear like a serious candidate? Well, run around and sign pledges. Don’t bother to read them, though. That isn’t important. Well, now they have a bigger problem. They now have said that Blacks were better off when they were property. David Duke just called, he’s conceding the White Supremacist vote!

Bob Vander Plaats, the bitter old man who hates that his state allows marriage between two dudes, said in a statement “The Family Leader views this pledge as an important component needed to inform constituents about the personal stand that each presidential candidate takes regarding marriage. We believe that the candidates’ positions on core values, such as marriage, correlate directly to his/her moral stances on energy issues, sound budgeting policies, national defense, and economic policies.”

Of course, he could just tell his followers to Google Santorum…oh wait, maybe he doesn’t want that after all. Poor Kira Knightley.

Over at the Huffington Post, they wrote:

Yeah, you know there weren’t as many American jobs going overseas in 1860. And the price of gas was something just about everyone could live with, too. Nevertheless, while I understand the point the Family Leader wants to make about marriage, it seems to be many, many bridges too far to include this passage. As Adam Serwer succinctly put it: “A good rule of thumb for empathizing with black Americans is avoiding suggestions that we were better off as property.”

The FAMiLY Leader (my guess is they, like Bachmann, believe women are suppose to be subservient and fertile so that their husbands can have lots of sons), quickly removed that passage from the pledge, but, you know, the internet doesn’t allow for those mistakes to be made any more. At the bottom is the pledge in its entirety.

Of course, the marriage vow may be problematic to implement since the Supreme Court has ruled about pornography rather a lot, and most prosecutors don’t want to go after it because it tends to be a problem for their careers unless they are going after child pornography.

With regards to this, Santorum stated to CNN’s Candy Crowley “When I first read it, I was taken aback by it. I can’t argue that I wasn’t, but I understand why they’re saying it, because it does undermine people’s respect for the institution, respect for the people governing this country. If you can’t be faithful to the people that you’re closest to, then how can we count on you to be faithful to those of us who you represent?”

Of course, given that Santorum now supports slavery as being better for Blacks than freedom, he may have some more explaining to do. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who is also running for the nomination, believes the pledge gives his party a bad name:

“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the ‘public’s pocket book’.”

“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.”

Here is the video followed by the pledge in full:

Family Leader Pledge