Santorum cites Declaration of Independece to deny gays marriage ‘privileges’
Rick Santorum shows his “Barton school of dominionist pseudohistory” education here. Citing the Declaration rather than our Constitution is a typical dominionist ploy. Notice the semantic play too: for white christian heterosexuals marriage is a right to NOM, but for gays of any stripe by Rick’s definition it’s a “privilege” like a driver’s license, which means it can be revoked. How would Rick feel if the state revoked his marriage privilege?
Gay marriage and contraception foe Rick Santorum was booed again Friday for proclaiming that gay relationships are not worthy of marriage rights. He quoted the Declaration of Independence’s use of “Nature’s God” to justify his argument that marriage benefits are a privilege which only heterosexual couples deserve:
”Marriage is a privilege. It is not a right. It is privilege given by society, held up by society for purposes that it provides some societal good — and I would make the argument, some extraordinary societal good.
”It’s not an inalienable right. If it was an inalienable right, then you can imagine all the different types of marriages that would have happen. And of course, marriage is an essential good. Because it provides something unique in society. It provides and reflects nature and Nature’s God, words from the Declaration of Independence — which is man and woman coming together to form a bond and have children and continue society in a way that gives children their birthright, which is their mother and their father.
”And society holds up this institution to encourage what is best for that child and what is best for society. So, it’s not discrimination not to grant privileges. It’s discrimination to deny rights. I don’t want to deny rights to any one. Everyone has a right to live their life. It doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to certain privileges that society gives for benefits that society obtains from those relationships.”
Santorum’s mixing and matching of historical documents and religious beliefs is nothing new from the former politician who regularly implores his audiences to agree with his obsessive ponderings about homosexuality, polygamy, incest, and man-on-dog sex.