"Less than a week after becoming the 170th member of Congress to affirm that his office does not discriminate in its employment practices based on 'sexual orientation or gender identity and expression,' U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., on Wednesday rescinded his signature on the diversity statement," gay.com reports.
Santorum's signature came after a meeting between the senator and GenderPAC volunteers, who got Santorum to pose for a picture with them (and just what must he have been thinking!). A copy of the senator's statement was faxed to GenderPAC on Aug. 1, and the signature was confirmed the next morning by Santorum's openly gay communications director, Robert Traynham.
But the next day, Santorum faxed GenderPAC a new statement that read in part, "To be clear, my office has not adopted the proposed 'diversity statement' nor the agenda of your organization. ... My name should no longer be reported as having adopted the 'diversity statement.' "
What happened? All too predictable criticism from Santorum's Christian right base, such as this missive from the Agape Press blog:
What does Rick Santorum have to gain by placing his John Hancock on this statement? ... why would Santorum sign a propaganda pledge that bestows legitimacy to a cause Santorum has long fought? Why bolster your opponents at a time when you have them on the ropes? Why let the enemy impose his will on you?
Thus even this obviously disingenuous political feint toward the center gets quashed by the Republican theocratic right.
20 Comments for “Strange (and Brief) Bedfellows.”
posted by Randy R. on
If this is an example of the quality of Ricky’s political advice, then his defeat should be easy and total.
But I would really like to know what his openly gay communications director thinks about all this flip flopping. Is he against discrimination, or in favor of it?
posted by John on
Yeah. What would his openly gay communication director think? His job is on the line after all. The senator presumably would fire his communications director at the misnamed American Family Association’s request.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What happened?
According to a statement by Santorum?s communications director, Robert Traynham, issued yesterday, the statement was signed by an aide on Santorum?s behalf under the misapprehension that it was ?consistent with our office manual.”
Who knows that Trayham thinks of any of this — he doesn’t seem to have any trouble putting out Santorum’s usual dreck on gays and lesbians, so I don’t suppose that this incident cost him any sleep.
posted by Jorge on
Why is his communications director’s sexual orientation relevant? Not all gays think alike, and not all gays should dislike or disagree with Santorum–unless all people should dislike him, period. Or is it okay for gays to be expected to march in lockstep on some issues and politicians and not others?
Anyway, I think this shows Santorum to be either desperate, or extremelly naive. I’ve always considered him naive.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Why is his communications director’s sexual orientation relevant?
Because Santorum and the right wing of the Republican party has made it relevant. They cannot condemn gays and actively move to abridge their constitutional rights on one hand, and then complain of “untoward focus on the sexual orientation” of one of their chief lieutenants on the other.
is it okay for gays to be expected to march in lockstep on some issues and politicians and not others
It’s “okay” for gay people of whatever political persuasion to adopt whatever political stance they desire — just as it’s “okay” for others to criticize that stance or contrast it with prior positions taken by the same individual(s).
this shows Santorum to be either desperate, or extremelly naive. I’ve always considered him naive.
He’s certainly desperate, if his campaign activities are to be believed. I wouldn’t accuse him of being naive — he strikes me as more a deadly mixture of ignorant and arrogant about his ignorance. Naivit
posted by Keith on
It took a bit of digging, but I finally got a clear story.
An aide signed off in Ricky’s name in good faith. Santorum does in fact have a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Good for him, and good for his communications director.)
Later on, when the actually read the GenderPAC statement, they realized that it included a promise not to discriminate on “gender expression” as well. (Oops.)
They were simply being honest. It does not seem that the retraction had anything to do with a phone call from God or Doctor Dobson. (same differnce?)
As for GLBT, the Junior Senator will embrace GLB as long as they toe the Party Line. But, pity be a “T” of any stripe, or a queen who is nellier than Ricky himself.
posted by Timothy on
“Or is it okay for gays to be expected to march in lockstep on some issues..”
Yes, it is ok for gays to be expected to agree on some things. For example, ALL gay people should agree that they are NOT like “man on dog”. All gays should agree that being gay is not equivalent to bestiality or incest.
Yes, it is fair to demand those simple things from all gay people.
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
Or is it okay for gays to be expected to march in lockstep on some issues
Beyond okay…it should be expected. On issues like non-discimation based on sexual orientation. I would not expect a G/L person of any political stripe to maintain that it is okay to fire someone, evict, harass, etc… based solely on their sexual orientation.
On other issues (fiscal responsibility, national defense, “general welfare,” etc…) sexual orientation has little to no bearing and I wouldn’t expect a consensus amongst G/L people.
posted by Bobby on
” On issues like non-discimation based on sexual orientation. I would not expect a G/L person of any political stripe to maintain that it is okay to fire someone, evict, harass, etc… based solely on their sexual orientation.”
—Depends, the advertising industry is very friendly towards gays, but if a gay man was annoying, bitchy, had a poor attitude, he could get fired and it would be totally justify.
Where I work I love the gay IT guy. But there was another gay employee I completely despised, and I sure was glad when he quit his job for a higher paying job. Gays that treat me bad are worse than homophobes.
posted by Jorge on
You do realize, NL, that if you were to ask the right wing Republicans (or at least Santorum), they would not see their actions as condemning gays or trying to restrict their constitutional rights.
Ignorant and arrogant about his ignorance is a good description. I do not think that is not the same as using homosexuality as a club to bash those one disagrees with.
I agree with most of the rest of your post.
Yes, it is ok for gays to be expected to agree on some things. For example, ALL gay people should agree that they are NOT like “man on dog”. All gays should agree that being gay is not equivalent to bestiality or incest.
With respect, I have to disagree, because that will call on some gays to reject their faith, which they might have sincere conflicts about and are not ready to reject. The decision to reject certain ideas and beliefs that may be causing one harm belongs to the individual alone, who is best qualified to determine the place and time to affirm where he or she stands, and what that affirmation will be.
Being able to affirm who we are and where we stand is just as important with respect to each other as it is with respect to those religious rightists and heterosexuals who want to lock us into one belief or behavior system. That personal independence comes at the expense of group unity, even on things that are of interest to us as a whole. I believe if there can be even one situation where conformity is demanded, there will be others, and our freedom will be jeapordized.
posted by David on
Thanks for the very helpful background info, Keith.
However, it is most interesting to note that the Good Senator\\’s statement quite noticeably fails to make the distinction you had to dig up. This is another example of how successfully so many Republicans are able to have it both ways when it comes to gay issues — on the one hand not discriminating themselves (and, in Santorum\\’s case, actually having an openly gay, high level staffer), while, on the other hand, leaving credulous Christianists with the impression that their anti-gay credentials are up-to-date.
posted by Pete on
Jorge, respectfully, anyone who does not believe they deserver full and equal civil rights in our society due to their religious or ethical guilt over a sexual orientation they were naturally born with can quietly take a seat in the back of the bus and stay out of the debate.
“That personal independence comes at the expense of group unity, even on things that are of interest to us as a whole. I believe if there can be even one situation where conformity is demanded, there will be others, and our freedom will be jeapordized”
Jorge, you’re right, we shouldn’t try for consensus of purpose or organization at all. The organizational requirements of demanding civil rights is just too compromising to individual freedoms.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
if you were to ask the right wing Republicans (or at least Santorum), they would not see their actions as condemning gays or trying to restrict their constitutional rights
Oh sure. Of course, most of them don’t understand the Constitution in the slightest, especially the equal protection clause and the concept that the Constitution puts limits on the power of government over the lives of other citizens.
Generally, conservatives and liberals alike only like certain parts of the Constitution — the bits which would facilitate their agendas. Pull out something from the Constitution which they don’t like (equal protection clause for social conservatives, second amendment for gun-control liberals) and suddenly their knowledge of the document and its history gets quite murky indeed.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Oh sure. Of course, most of them don’t understand the Constitution in the slightest, especially the equal protection clause and the concept that the Constitution puts limits on the power of government over the lives of other citizens.””””
A friend of mine once said, in relation to another issue, that the problem people have is that most of them seem to think of the law as a legalized lynch mob.
On a similar note, many people are in the mindset that, if they can’t get rid of something they don’t like themselves, then they have to turn to the government to do it.
People seem to severely misunderstand the role of government and law; they think it simply exists to carry out their own personal will. They have no conception that the power of the law, the military, the state, all of it, needs to be restrained and can’t be allowed to run rampant over everything.
posted by Randy on
Agreed! Reminds me of Mark Twain who said something to the effect that: Nothing need reforming so much as my neighbors morals.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Agreed! Reminds me of Mark Twain who said something to the effect that: Nothing need reforming so much as my neighbors morals.””””
That reminds me of an article in Foreign Policy magazine recently, about religion and politics across the world. One of the lines in it read something to the effect of; “more and more people are finding a political voice, and they want to use it to talk about god.”
The first thing I thought was; “No they don’t. They want to talk about how angry they are that their neighbor doesn’t beleive in the same god as them.”
posted by Br. Katan of Reasoned Discussion on
Bobby:
Depends, the advertising industry is very friendly towards gays, but if a gay man was annoying, bitchy, had a poor attitude, he could get fired and it would be totally justify
To my mind, he’d not being fired for being gay…he’d be fired for poor performance, disrupting the workplace, etc. Unrelated to being gay. On the employee side, being gay (or racial minority or female or whatever) isn’t a free pass to be a boor or poor performer.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
People seem to severely misunderstand the role of government and law; they think it simply exists to carry out their own personal will. They have no conception that the power of the law, the military, the state, all of it, needs to be restrained and can’t be allowed to run rampant over everything.
And you’ve summed up in a nutshell why I am a libertarian! 🙂
posted by kittynboi on
I myself am not a libertarian. Nothing in our current broken political spectrum fits me.
Of course, I see politics and what defines a political position very differently than many people do.
I don’t have an underlying philosophy I try to unite my positions around, except reality.
My stances are based on what I can best determine is in line with the facts. To me, many people have it backwards; people try to build a political ideology or movement AROUND some philosophy or central idea, which I think leads to erroneous thinking, as it can lead to making the issues and the facts and truth try and fit your own philosophy, rather than adhering to them as you should.
The most basic example is trying to build a political philosophy around religion; when you run in to inconveinient realities, what do you do? Modify your political philosophy or try to force reality to fit your non reality based position?
If someone wants to know where I stand politically, they should not ask if I’m conservative or liberal, since I consider myself neither. They should ask me about specific issue and topics.
I’mm extremely pro gay rights and gay marraige.
Im fanatically pro free speech, to the point of opposing ratings systems for entertainment; I think the public square should be a complete free for all in this regard.
I am very dedicated to seperation of church and state.
I’m generally agnostic about the issues of the middle east and Israel. I have more sympathy for Israel because they have a superior society to everything else over there.
I oppose an absolute free market and communism, because I don’t think either “works”, at least in the sense that term is often used. Obviously, both would “work” as a system, but when people ask if a political system works, they mean if it works to the benefit of society as a whole, and I currently see NO political system that works particularly well in this aspect. Some are better than others.
I favor gays serving in the military, and I think military servicce should be mor encouraged for people of all walks of life. I think there’s a legitimate interest in keeping the military diverse in as many aspects as possible, because I think creating an overly politicized military, as we are heading in the direction of right now, is a very bad thing. The military should be apolitical, and not part of the GOP. The idea of diversifying and depoliticizing the military is the ONLY argument I can think of in favor of a draft.
I generally favor consumerism. Sure, there are legitimate worries over environemental impact, but I think consumerism plays an important part in pacifying religious people. Enough consumerism, used properly, can keep them from becoming murderous fundamentalists. I say that the reason xian fundies in the U.S. are not violent like muslim fundies in the middle east has nothing to do with christianity itself, and more to do with American quality of living that makes people less eager to go blow things up.
I am in favor of nuclear power, solar power, wind power, fusion power, and researching things like zero point and harnessing artificial singularities. I hate luddism and I don’t think humans are “meant”, for lack for a better term, to live in the country or in small towns. I look forward to the day when all our cities are vast, self contained arcologies, looking like a mix between the Earth cities on Star Trek and L.A. as its depicted in Blade Runner.
I favor mass transit, bikes, and walking over cars, and hope for car free cities one day.
I am oppose to the death penalty and the drug war. I think the most compelling arguments against the death penalty are that a government supposedly of and for the people should not have the power to kill it’s own people, and it surprises me that so called conservatives, who claim to favor small government, advocate such a HUGE expanse of government power as state sponsored execution.
I could go on and on. I don’t know if I fit anywhere on the political spectrum, but maybe that gives you an idea of what, if anything, I am.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
when people ask if a political system works, they mean if it works to the benefit of society as a whole
The problem is that political systems aren’t supposed to “work for society” — individuals are supposed to work for themselves within a political system that doesn’t harm their efforts to better themselves and their families by taking their hard-earned money and redistributing it to individuals who believe that “society” owes them something simply for existing.