Sensible Erection | GOP Candidates Sign Anti-Gay Pledge That Includes Special Anti-Gay Police

Sunday, 18 December 2011

GOP Candidates Sign Anti-Gay Pledge That Includes Special Anti-Gay Police

quote [ In the pledge, candidates promise to pursue a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage and to create a presidential commission to investigate "reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened" for opposing same-sex marriage. ]

Because homophobes are so discriminated against, people who are in favor of gay rights need to be specially investigated and kept track of!

The pledge has now been signed by Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.

I, _______, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.

Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.

Three, defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.

Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of American who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if need.

Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/12/15/389935/gingrich-signs-noms-anti-gay-marriage-pledge/

[politics] [by the circus@4:24amGMT] [+10 WTF]

Comments

schatten00777 said @ 4:45am GMT on 18th Dec
I don't understand the pro-bigotry, anti-federal-government-but-only-when-it-suits-us slant of the GOP at all.

j4bb3rw0xx0r said @ 4:54am GMT on 18th Dec
I think it's rather simple. Who votes in the largest numbers? Older people (i.e. more socially conservative) and the stereotypical 'red-blooded American' (i.e. anti-intellectual and homophobic). And as we all know, the Founding Fathers (tm) never intended for anything to change.

sacrelicious said @ 5:42am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:2]
it is a strategy to achieve dominance in the congress.

problem is, it already did that, then had it's diminishing returns phase, currently is in it's last gasp phase, and is about to enter the eating itself alive phase. for example, all scientific poling points to a slim majority of the American public being either accepting or supportive of homosexuality, followed closely by those who are merely indifferent, and then the smaller portion who are actually anti-gay, and continuing to trend in that direction. so clearly the GOP isn't reading the polls, but rather sticking with what has worked for them before.

which is good news. the gay issue will be their Waterloo.

happiest_sadist said @ 6:55am GMT on 18th Dec
Bend over, I'll give you a scientific poling.

crom said @ 7:26am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:3]
Put this hood on. You're the control group.

cb361 said @ 10:39am GMT on 18th Dec
Bend over. This will be your Waterloo.

happiest_sadist said @ 8:10am GMT on 19th Dec
Able was I, ere I saw Elba.

f00m@nB@r said @ 6:24am GMT on 18th Dec
They're Fascists. Do the math.

cb361 said @ 12:26pm GMT on 18th Dec
Pandering to bigotry just to shore up your own political position, or actually believing the bigotry. I'm not sure which is worse, but either is damning.

Omegaphobic said @ 5:02am GMT on 19th Dec
Voldemort is readying his Death Eaters.

granitewitch said @ 4:53am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:2 Insightful]
Anyone find a second source for this? If this is true, the GOP has all but handed Obama the White House on a gold platter.

granitewitch said @ 5:01am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Informative]
I did manage to find this: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/08/04/gop-presidential-hopefuls-sign-anti-gay-marriage-pledge/

It's dated last summer, but still pretty damning.

dangerm00se said @ 11:27pm GMT on 18th Dec
indefinite detention, no strings attached bail-outs, faux-keynesianism strawman 'stimulus', ramping up the war on drugs

why would the GOP want anyone else?

afrasr said @ 5:07am GMT on 18th Dec
Wow..... sounds like the rule of the saints all over again.

Fuck everything about this. :\

"Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of American who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if need."

This scares the piss out of me.... sounds suspiciously like a religious police force..

mechanical contrivance said @ 5:10am GMT on 18th Dec
They have that in Saudi Arabia and it works fine for them. What's the problem?

metternich said @ 5:14am GMT on 18th Dec
Was it not so long ago that there was a huge deal about supreme court judges not being appointed based on issues like this? I mean, yes, it probably happens that judges have an overall political leaning that matches that of the president, but I thought it was either illegal or at the very least super unethical in the eyes of both parties to ask how they would vote on certain cases.

Can anyone speak to this?

zarathustra said @ 9:51am GMT on 18th Dec
According to the Model Code of Judicail Conduct a judge must disqualify himself if The judge, while a judge or judicial candidate, has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a certain way in a controversy.

This is why judges tend to stone wall in confirmation hearings. The reason they opposition asks questions is to disqualify the judge from particular cases if he answers.

sacrelicious said @ 5:31am GMT on 18th Dec
sure, sign a pledge codifying attitudes that are increasingly contrary to popular opinion. let me know how that works out for ya.

aliron said @ 5:32am GMT on 18th Dec
Reminds me of that South Park ep about "that nigger guy."

conception said @ 5:39am GMT on 18th Dec
If true, this is my favorite-

Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.

The original meaning of the constitution? So, remove all voting rights except to men with property and black count as 3/4ths a person again. Also, "inset rights" into the Constitution? It's like they never got to the 9th amendment.

BlutStein1984 said @ 5:41am GMT on 18th Dec
Notice that Ron Paul didn't sign this pledge. The rest all offer lips service about personal freedom and following the Constitution, and only Paul practices what he preaches.

Ankylosaur said @ 5:53am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Underrated]
Paul is a "states rights" advocate so his refusal to sign a document that has the Federal gov telling the states what to do says nothing about his stance on personal freedom. If a state voted to do everything on this list, would he be ok with it?

structured_spirits said @ 6:25am GMT on 18th Dec
I think the fact that he didn't sign the pledge means he doesn't intend to do those things. If other people in the government want to pursue those objectives and run for office on those merits, should they not be allowed to do so, and how it's that Paul's responsibility?

f00m@nB@r said @ 7:33am GMT on 18th Dec
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/05/16-ron-paul-quotes-that-prove-he-is-not-a-liberal/

CapnSilver said @ 7:59am GMT on 18th Dec
But, Ron Paul is about freedom!

Freedom to die alone the gutter, but that is still a kind of freedom

structured_spirits said @ 8:11am GMT on 18th Dec
I guess it all depends on what you mean when you say liberal when you consider whether it's appropriate for a liberal to vote for Ron Paul. He is certainly a "libertarian" in the sense that he wants a weak central government with all the advantages and drawbacks that comes with it. That's definitely at odds with what we mean traditionally when we say a democratic left "liberal," who in fact in not liberal at all in the sense that they subscribe to a very fixed set of positions on issues with little room for compromise. Basically they and republican are very similar in that they have very fixed positions on issues, the only difference being what those positions are exactly. I would suggest that a tipping point has come where those definitions are no longer very useful and that holding on to rigid values is counterproductive. I see a lot of advantages in drastically reducing the power and influence of the government, for allowing variability within the government on a range of issues. Whether democrat of republican, for a very long time now there has been a push towards an increasingly authoritarian fascist government heading by an increasingly powerful head of state. I believe most of the problems I've seen in politics, economic, foreign relations, as well as social issues seem to be coming from the increasing ability of a few individuals to impose their will on citizens and even people in other countries. I can't even begin to address issues specifically or I'd have to write a book. Surely though it becomes increasingly apparent that as you give one group more power to impose their values even if you agree with what those values are, you also run the increased risk of allowing others to impose values that you do not agree with on your own life. I think a good part of the problem is that the US has simply become too large population-wise to be governed effectively. We speak different languages and have increasingly divergent cultures. I think that while I do not agree with many of Paul's specific beliefs, his general principle to allow more state level autonomy would have a beneficial balancing effect on what has become an over-authoritarian central government. That by allowing different parts of the country to go in different directions, there can be more experimentation with more successful and well-adjusted policies supplanting others. In any case we absolutely have to stop imposing our will on the rest of the world as well as end this patriot act with it's secret laws that prevent the people from holding their own government accountable, until those things are fixed, I do not think other policy positions will matter much.

CapnSilver said @ 8:48am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Insightful]
The kind of fascist government that strictly enforces paragraph breaks?

foobar said @ 10:18am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:2 Funny]
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this textwall!

arctan said @ 1:07am GMT on 19th Dec [Score:1 Insightful]
Basically they and republican are very similar in that they have very fixed positions on issues, the only difference being what those positions are exactly.

Wow. Yes. I and my opponents are very similar in that we both believe things. The difference is just in what exactly the things we believe are.

For cripes' sake, this is stupid.

I would suggest that a tipping point has come where those definitions are no longer very useful and that holding on to rigid values is counterproductive. I see a lot of advantages in drastically reducing the power and influence of the government, for allowing variability within the government on a range of issues.

Indeed. Why should we rigidly commit ourselves to "Fuck the poor" vs. "Don't fuck the poor" when we could instead just do nothing and allow a huge spectrum of variation in ways the poor get fucked exist peacefully?

theolypse said @ 2:06am GMT on 19th Dec
I think he's an acidhead. It tends to promote this kind of slushy thinking.

structured_spirits said @ 9:14pm GMT on 19th Dec
I merely defined what I understood the word liberal to mean in a political context, as opposed to the literal meaning, which would be someone who is open to a wide range of stances on an issue. It's important to define such terms so that when we speak to each other we don't babble.

You imply with the statement "Why should we rigidly commit ourselves to "Fuck the poor" vs. "Don't fuck the poor" that one party represent absolute good and the other absolute evil. I would suggest that this opinion is not based in reality and prevents a true discussion on political issues in much the same manner as teaparties and republicans who insist that democrats are working for the devil because they;re in favor of abortion, again an opinion not based in reality.

My point, to rephrase, is that democrats and republicans have more platform issues in common that separate, it's just that we always focus on the differences. I further believe an more fruitful approach to dealing with the problem is to try different policies and different places and by experimentation in stead of rhetoric determine the most fit. I think an outsider candidate like Ron Paul would be more likely to allow such a system to flourish instead of using the federal government and the office of the president as a hammer to crush it at every turn.

f00m@nB@r said @ 6:40am GMT on 18th Dec
Oh, yeah. If a state decides that it would go back to counting African Americans as only 3-fifths a person, he would go along with it.

willrogers said @ 8:10am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Underrated]
Ron Paul is NOT in favor of personal freedom, he's in favor of states' rights:

Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he stated his opposition to what he called ridiculous sodomy laws, but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Ron Paul said:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.[201]

CapnSilver said @ 8:52am GMT on 18th Dec
So, just as long as the totalitarian government is Ohio or Florida, not the Union, he's cool with it?

willrogers said @ 10:35am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Insightful]
Exactly.

Ron Paul is in favor of numerous policies that would let states and individual citizens discriminate against groups of people, which is why he is opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Lawrence v. Texas decision.

He claims that he personally would not discriminate against anyone ("unless they force their lifestyles on others" is how he puts his position on gay marriage), but he's perfectly fine letting other people discriminate based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and pretty much any other demographic quality.

foobar said @ 7:29pm GMT on 18th Dec
Especially fleet footedness.

anagramophone said @ 6:47pm GMT on 18th Dec
RONPAULRONPAULRONPAUL

GordonGuano said @ 5:58am GMT on 18th Dec
So, other than Google bombing Santorum's name into frothy history, has there been any kind of violent anti-hetero backlash, ever? Deliverance doesn't count, being fiction.

structured_spirits said @ 6:29am GMT on 18th Dec
Tranny Manning did a pretty good job of fucking with the government in my opinion. I doubt the military actually learned anything about the bad things that can results from harassing gays with intelligence classifications and stupid don't ask don't tell policy however. I hope there's thousands more just like him.

structured_spirits said @ 6:40am GMT on 18th Dec
Also Dan Savage is a really lousy poster boy for the gay rights movement and I hope he goes away eventually. I think the Santorum google bombing was perhaps at best a funny practical joke, that then got out of hand. The fact that google hasn't fixed the search results after such an extended period, after fixing so many other results reflects badly on google and makes Savage look like an obnoxious bully, which he is.

foobar said @ 7:30am GMT on 18th Dec
If someone googles santorum, odds are they're finding out what they want to know as it is. Why would Google change that?

structured_spirits said @ 7:40am GMT on 18th Dec
Well I guess it depends on whether you consider this to be a google bomb where the service has been tricked into returning the wrong results or if you really believe that people are using the word santorum to refer to a mixture of semen and poo in normal conversation not related to the politician. If you think it's the first case, which I think is the more honest conclusion, then it's appropriate that google should fix the results as they have in the past for other google bombs.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:50am GMT on 18th Dec
That's how I use that word.

tickaz said @ 11:10am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Informative]
I gargle santorum on a daily basis

kylemcBitch said @ 3:15pm GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Underrated]
In all honesty I knew about santorum being a frothy mixture of lube and feces before I knew about Santorm, a frothy mixture of crazy and fetus worshiping.

granitewitch said @ 3:43pm GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Underrated]
I disagree with you. If you read Savage's column on a regular basis, he's pretty far from being a bully- he can be very supportive and helpful. But in the case of Santorum we have a public figure who made some extremely offensive statements on the record regarding gays, so Savage decided to mock him in response. The result took on a life of its own and went in a direction that I doubt Savage ever intended- but it brought a lot of publicity, so he's continued to play along with it.

Savage is typically articulate, thoughtful and intelligent. I have nothing but respect for the guy.

structured_spirits said @ 8:32pm GMT on 18th Dec
I think this article touches on some of the issues. Additionally, as this article points out he's had those protesters arrested and charged and brings security to events to protect himself from the community he claims to represent. In my opinion he's like an Anderson Cooper to the gay rights movement. His pandering upped-class white guy attitudes to the challenges faced by sexual minorities doesn't sit well with people who aren't as privileged as he is. His "it gets better" campaign in particular rubs me the wrong way, peddling a belief that's simply not true for a large portion of the community. He missed a great opportunity to do a real campaign, something along the lines of "lets make sure it gets better" maybe. Anyway, ultimately the guy's just a sex-columnist and I don't really have any problem with him on that level, but he shouldn't be held up as a model civil rights activist.

foobar said @ 10:26pm GMT on 18th Dec
It's targeted at high school students. That phrase applies to everyone. High School is a terrible place.

backSLIDER said @ 6:18am GMT on 19th Dec
I didn't have a bad time in highschool. I've never really understood the idea of it being the best or worst time of ones life. Even at the time I knew that there was so much changing and going on that every moment was a crazy ride that wasn't indicitive of how life was always going to be and shouldn't be considerd as such. There was a lot of family stuff going on that made me think that there were other crazy life things that were harder hitting.

crom said @ 7:25pm GMT on 19th Dec
I always have plenty to eat. I've never really understood the idea that people are starving.

structured_spirits said @ 9:19pm GMT on 19th Dec
That's because it's a myth, for many people high school is not, by a long shot, the worst time of their life. It may be so for a handful of lucky people who weren't abused as young children or who don't go on to face real hardship in their adult life. The point is that privileged people like Savage don't really know much about life outside of their own little bubbles, and that the line he's peddling is a lie.

f00m@nB@r said @ 6:23am GMT on 18th Dec
Well, we know whose side erich_wiess is on.

Mad March Harris said @ 6:31am GMT on 18th Dec
So....go Huntsman?

structured_spirits said @ 7:09am GMT on 18th Dec
Things like this do seem like some kind of intelligence test. I'd love to see some kind of "job interview" for president where all the candidates go on television and have to answer one of those scantron multiple choice tests. Say 100 questions ranging from basic math maybe a little algebra to basic US statistics like what is the population of the US, what's the GDP, steel production, daily oil consumption, maybe some US history and a few ethics questions, like "you find an anonymous note stating the vice president is stealing toliet paper, do you a) etc etc, maybe even a psychological section about strongly agreeing/disagreeing with statements like "waterboarding is torture." Basically the same kind of test a high school student would take for a factory position, only tailored for being president. Then display the results live. I wonder how some of them would do.

bruceski said @ 8:24am GMT on 18th Dec
How about we give them the Replicant test?

structured_spirits said @ 8:42am GMT on 18th Dec
I don't remember the novel well, but wouldn't sociopaths also sometimes fail? If so I don't think there would be much point to testing them, on account of they're politicians after all. But in all seriousness, I'd like to know if there's anyone on the panel who couldn't do algebra or know roughly how many people live in the country. Or how about a citizenship test? Make all the candidates take the same test immigrants take and see how they do.

Supreme_Coconut said @ 7:32am GMT on 19th Dec
We could ask them what's the capital of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

willrogers said @ 8:06am GMT on 18th Dec
From the OP:

The board then asked again if someone can choose to be heterosexual. "Look, people choose to be celibate," Gingrich said. "People choose many things in life. You know there is a bias in favor of non-celibacy. It’s part of how the species re-creates. And yet there is a substantial amount of people who choose celibacy as a religious vocation or for other reasons."

Kind of like all those sex molester priests in Gingrich's Catholicism?

structured_spirits said @ 8:28am GMT on 18th Dec
See this is a great opportunity to turn the table on the homophobes by arguing that sexuality is a choice. Gingrich makes that argument that homosexuality is immoral whereas heterosexuality is moral because reproduction is a necessary beneficial societal function. I would turn that right around on him, and would point out then that celibacy is by definition also immoral, because it does not allow for reproduction. I would at that point call him out on whether he would be willing to ban the practice of any religion that allows celibacy of it's followers, such as Catholicism. If he is unwilling to include celibates and homosexuals in the same immoral group, then clearly he it's because he has an irrational dislike of homosexuals not supported by rigorous ethical principles. His only other option would be to claim celebates make other useful contributions to society in lieu of procreation. Of course that argument is just as valid for homosexuals, so his argument would be irrational again.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:35am GMT on 18th Dec
Infertile people are immoral.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:49am GMT on 18th Dec
Menopause is the tool of the devil

structured_spirits said @ 9:08am GMT on 18th Dec
According to their policies, I'm not sure infertile people should be allowed to marry.

willrogers said @ 10:32am GMT on 18th Dec
The more important point is that reproduction is not inherent to or implied by marriage, which means it's bullshit for homophobes to argue that gays don't deserve marriage rights because gay couples can't sexually reproduce together.

If reproduction was implied by marriage, then we wouldn't let the infertile or elderly get married and we probably wouldn't let otherwise fertile people, but who are unwilling to have children, get married.

the circus said @ 3:49pm GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Interesting]
I've actually used the following to get through to an acquaintance who was not accepting of homosexuals. I started with the basic concept that attraction is not a choice, and that she couldn't choose to be attracted to females instead of males.

Accepting that, I asked her who hermaphrodites get to marry. I then told her about androgen insensitivity syndrome and asked her if someone who has all the physical appearances of a female shouldn't be allowed to marry a male because technically she is also a male.

After establishing that her concerns really just boiled down to appearance, I moved on to ask since there are numerous conditions resulting in physical gender being indeterminate, if someone could also be born with mental characteristics of the other gender (meaning sexual attraction). And then I asked what the compassionate thing to do in all these situations would be, and she was able to agree that it would be to just let a person marry who they want.

mechanical contrivance said @ 6:11pm GMT on 18th Dec
What was the reason she gave for why people shouldn't be allowed to marry who they want?

dreamingzephyr said @ 6:17pm GMT on 18th Dec [Score:2 Insightful]
That's interesting and all, but I've always felt like the queer community is hamstringing itself by clinging to "it's not a choice" as their life raft for equality. It comes just shy of saying "it may be horrible, but we can't help it!" It also sells short the plasticity of the mind. I probably could have gone my whole life believing I was straight if I followed culture's lead and never really investigated bisexuality. Hell, I'm more straight or more lesbo on a day-to-day basis. If I consider my sexuality a choice, do I lose my right to it?

"It's not a choice" is a useful tool against the religious, because it allows people to come to agree with you without changing their belief that same-sex relationships are sinful. That is a short-sighted tactic that will only prolong our struggle to see a day where being gay or being straight or being pansexual is just another boring feature of your personality.

I wasn't born loving music. I wasn't born loving to read. I wasn't born loving video games. I'm not going to try to excuse my love of women.

granitewitch said @ 6:24pm GMT on 18th Dec
Most of us don't have that flexibility. I've been hardwired as a hetero- males are not sexually attractive to me at all. Why shouldn't the opposite be true?

Being gay isn't a case of "it may be horrible, but we can't help it." There is nothing inherently bad about homosexuality- it's actually pretty common among animals. The only choice that gays have is whether or not to be sexual beings.

I suppose one could condition themselves to find something erotic that wasn't initially, but that really does sound horrible.

dreamingzephyr said @ 8:16pm GMT on 18th Dec
You seem to have missed the thrust of my point.

Ankylosaur said @ 10:26pm GMT on 18th Dec
Perhaps if he bent over?

foobar said @ 10:43pm GMT on 18th Dec
Did you choose to be attracted to both sexes?

As a heterosexual I could go through life without ever sleeping with a redhead, but that doesn't mean I've chosen to be attracted to them if I do.

_{_{_{And of course regarding your love of women, pix or it didn't happen.}}}

dreamingzephyr said @ 11:58pm GMT on 18th Dec
Culture raises us to view certain things certain ways. People raised in one culture may be completely titillated by an ankle or a woman without a veil, while someone from a nudist family or an indigenous tribe may find nothing sexual about complete nakedness.

We're trained from birth to view the opposite gender as potential sexual partners and the same gender as likely rivals. Fairy tales, cartoons, movies, books, even toys: they all reenforce such views. I was uncomfortable with same-sex romance long after I had begun being secretly queer in my sex life. Every association I had ever had about emotional intimacy told me it was to be between a man and a woman, even though I had many fewer qualms with who I was physical with. I made the choice to tear down those walls, and I couldn't be happier with the results.

But maybe it's less a "choice" than it is a "possibility." I believe the ubiquitous bell curve that human behavior tends to fall into would fit nicely on the Kinsey scale in a societal vacuum, but I guess I'm a little biased.

The point I want to stress, though, is that whether or not one was "born this way" shouldn't even be what the LGBT community focuses on. The more important argument is why the Hell it even matters who someone chooses as their romantic partner. "Born this way" is a crutch that is only going to hold us back in the long run. Love is love.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:24am GMT on 18th Dec
You know in 50 years there's gonna be movies about this shy and we're all gonna look like homophobic assholes and my grandkids will hate me for it.

CapnSilver said @ 8:50am GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Insightful]
I think they'll hate you regardless

sanepride said @ 2:48pm GMT on 18th Dec [Score:1 Funny]
Erich? Penners? Could you explain this please?

mechanical contrivance said @ 6:08pm GMT on 18th Dec
I figured they were trying to gain the support of homophobes.

sanepride said @ 7:10pm GMT on 18th Dec
aka the GOP base.

todde said @ 2:53pm GMT on 18th Dec
If one of the dark horse candidates wins the headlines will write themselves:

Santorum all over the gays!
Do you want Santorum in your bed?
Santorum down in the mouth over reports of ATM
Santorum erupts on sodomy reports

anagramophone said @ 7:03pm GMT on 18th Dec [Score:2 Funny]

granitewitch said @ 3:46pm GMT on 18th Dec [Score:-5 WTF]

kylemcBitch said @ 4:49pm GMT on 18th Dec
Autoplay + Annoying = downmod.

bbqkink said @ 10:42pm GMT on 18th Dec [Score:2]
Ok but this isn't the scariest thing Newt( LeRoy is his real name) said this week.

Not only is he a bigot he thinks HIS powers exceed that of all of the other branches of government .

Gingrich: I’ll ‘ignore’ any Supreme Court ruling I disagree with

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is doubling down from Thursday’s Fox News debate on his vow to abolish federal courts if he disagreed with their decision.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/17/gingrich-ill-ignore-any-supreme-court-ruling-i-disagree-with/

buckaroo50 said @ 4:12pm GMT on 19th Dec
I thought that was his middle name, and McPherson was his real name.

bbqkink said @ 10:30pm GMT on 19th Dec
born Newton Leroy McPherson
Ok how does that make him Newt Gingrich ??

Naruki said @ 12:27am GMT on 20th Dec
Mitt Romney took this a bit further. He actually crashed a gay couple's date to ask for votes! Now that is class.