Listen, I have no doubt that many people support that issue for less than noble reasons. But there is a legitimate interest in the state fostering things that bring us together as a nation, and nothing does that more than a common language. So, in this particular case (ie, Santorum) you need to give me a lot more than some mumbo-jumbo about code words to convince me the guys is a racist. OTOH, the code word theory does offer the convenience of smearing someone without the hassle of giving any tanigible proof. Which is what I think is being done here.
There are plenty or reasons to dis Santorum, but a trumped-up charge of racism isn’t one of them. At least not without more proof than I’ve seen offered in this thread.
Here’s more information about the Pennsylvania Green Old Party, and the work that went into collecting the signatures. Apparently they not only funded the effort but they did the work as well.
As a resident of PA, this tidbit definitely caught my eye:
That’s a hell of a day, travelling to all those counties and collecting signatures. Not impossible, but certainly eyebrow raising.
Just for those unfamiliar with Pennsylvania’s inner political divisions, Washington and Beaver Counties are out near Pittsburgh, Fayette and Juniata are very central and Schuykill is near Philadelphia. That’s a hell of a signature-collecting tour…
Correcting myself…Fayette is adjacent to Washington County, south of Pittsburgh. [url=http://county-map.digital-topo-maps.com/pennsylvania.shtml] is a map of PA counties…
That’s a fair point, but Santorum is a bigot. I don’t think there’s any serious disagreement on that score, right? He’s one of the most shameless homophobes in Congress, and considering who else is in Congress, that’s quite a feat. As such, I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to question his motives in other causes, particularly ones that are composed in large part (although certainly not exclusively, or even mostly) by racists. A lot of racists do support English-only laws, and Santorum certainly has the moral character of a racist. It’s nothing at all like proof, but I think it’s a reasonable inference, considering the nature of the man in question.
Nothin’ racist about hating queers, unless you only hate black queers. I suppose a man of his moral rectumtude might actually *approve * of Christian queers, if that were not a contradiction in terms.
Yes, he’s one of the most anti-gay Senators in Congress. I don’t think eveyrone who is against SSM is a bigot, but if Santorum supports legislation against even civil unions, or if he supports legislation making homosexual acts illegal, then I wouldn’t hesitate to call him a bigot. I’m not sure how you conclude that he has “the moral character of a racist” or how that differs from being a racist, though. That sounds like yet another way of calling him a racist without producing any evidence.
It wasn’t even remotely clear that that is what she meant. In fact, it’s not clear how that would make him a bigot either. It might make him rather stupid about how the law works, but it wouldn’t make him a bigot.
What I meant to say is that someone who hates homosexuals is just as bad as someone who hates blacks. It’s not evidence that he hates blacks, it’s just that he posseses the same moral defect. We know Santorum is a bigot. We know that he uses prejudice and ignorance in making his policy decisions when it comes to homosexuals. This is at least circumstantial evidence that he might use prejudice and ignorance in making policy decisions about immigrants. It’s not proof, by any means, but it is at least reason to view his position on those issues with suspicion.
I don’t know that he hates homosexuals. He seems to me like a religious fanatic whose views on homosexuality are informed completely by his religion. He probably thinks God will literally punish this country if we endorse “the gay lifestyle”. Is that bigotry? I dunno. When I think of bigotry in the realm of politics, I think of someone like Ann Coulter. Does he endorse measures such as banning gays from teaching in schools? That would probably rise to the level of bigotry, IMO. But liike I said earlier in this thread, his religiosity creeps me out, and I don’t think guys like that should be making our laws. So perhaps it is “of no consequence”, whether we agree on the finer points.
Santorum advocates policies that promote traditional marriage, therefore
he* must* *have *used ignorance and prejudice to come to his position, therefore
he must have a moral defect, which is akin to one some people might have who support English as an Official Language, therefore
we know he is a bigot, therefore
we know he might use prejudice and ignorance in making policy decisions about immigrants, therefore
it is reasonable to view his postition on “those issues” with suspicion, therfore
he is a bigot.
…and so on.
Nice job, Miller. But you left out the parts about how Santorum must probably be a member of the KKK and wants to kill all Black babies and how he’s probably in cahoots with fellow gay-hating homophobe bigot Fred Phelps. Oh yeah, and how he wants to shoot all illegal immigrants on sight.
No. Santorum promotes a constitutional amendment to exclude homosexuals from marrying solely because they are homosexuals, therefore he is a bigot. He bases this on his religious beliefs, something that we are not supposed to use to base our laws on, therefore he is not an effective lawmaker.
Well, I know it’s rather a cliche, but really, intolerance against any group based on hate or religion is, by definition, bigotry. I don’t have to “hurl” it, it’s fairly self evident.