{"id":26018,"date":"2012-02-04T14:32:42","date_gmt":"2012-02-04T21:32:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=26018"},"modified":"2012-02-04T14:41:36","modified_gmt":"2012-02-04T21:41:36","slug":"rick-santorum-is-a-dolt-special-privileges-for-me-not-for-thee-edition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/02\/04\/rick-santorum-is-a-dolt-special-privileges-for-me-not-for-thee-edition.html","title":{"rendered":"Rick Santorum is a Dolt (Special Privileges for Me, Not for Thee Edition)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Rick Santorum, Dolt<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Rick, hi. \u00a0I’ve been trying to avoid taking you to task for your doltitude for a while now, hoping you’d slip back into your richly deserved obscurity (since it’s pretty clear at this point that even the GOP primary voters aren’t extreme enough to pick you as their candidate, thank heavens).<\/p>\n

But every now and again you manage to come up with such a doozy that I simply can’t let it go by, for my own sanity and sense of moral obligation. \u00a0As an example, this exchange you had with a gay man in Fulton, Missouri<\/a>, the other day on the subject of gays being able to marry. \u00a0After saying that gays should not be discriminated against under the law, you went on:<\/p>\n

That doesn’t mean you’re entitled to special treatment under the law\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s not “special treatment” to be asked to be treated the same as everyone else (i.e., the straight population). \u00a0Indeed, this is one of the most pernicious reframings of an issue that folks on the Right like you, Rick, have managed to pull off. \u00a0If I saw people lined up for a free TV give-away, but was kicked out of the line because someone didn’t like the color of my shoes, I wouldn’t be asking for special treatment but for the treatment that everyone else is getting.<\/p>\n

As the questioner followed up saying, he noted he was not<\/em> asking for special treatment as a homosexual, but to be treated like everyone else. Your reply was that there were differences between “rights” and “privileges”. \u00a0Some rights, you said, were “given to us by God” — the ones enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. \u00a0Then, you said, there were “rights that the government bestows on you.”<\/p>\n

Which is kind of odd, because I’m not aware of that distinguish existing in US law. \u00a0I wonder, Rick, if you could\u00a0enumerate\u00a0which rights are from God and which are from the Government.<\/p>\n

But rather than that, you went on to note that some things were simply “privileges that government can bestow on people” because they provide some public good. \u00a0That’s why, you note, there’s no “right” to health care, or “right” to food, or “right” to housing because to provide those “rights” would mean the government has to “coerce” money for them from other people. \u00a0Thus, one only has a “right” to “things the government cannot give you,” or a “right” for the government to “protect” those rights, like free speech.<\/p>\n

But as far as privileges<\/em>, constructions of a relationship that is honored in society, like marriage, that’s not a right.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Actually, Rick, there are plenty of folks who disagree with you — including the US Supreme Court that ruled in 1967, Loving v. Virginia<\/a>:<\/em><\/p>\n

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, Rick — do you disagree with Loving v. Virginia? \u00a0That case was about mixed-race marriages, not same-sex marriages, but the principle seems to pertain. SCOTUS didn’t frame mixed-race marriages as a privilege that should be extended because it’s a public good, but because it was a fundamental right.<\/p>\n

Would you propose, Rick, to let the states decide if there’s sufficient public good to be had from mixed-race marriages to allow the goverment to extend that privilege to such people?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s something that has existed since the beginning of human history, men and women coming together, marrying. Every society and civilization in the history of man, Christian and non-, have recognized this institution, as an institution where men and women come together for the purposes of forming a natural relationship as God made it to be.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Have to tell you, Rick, I always love people passing laws based on what “God made things to be.” \u00a0You’d be amazed what sort of zany laws have been passed on that basis. \u00a0Heck, the Virginia State Supreme Court used that as the basis for upholding the original criminal conviction of the Loving marriage:<\/p>\n

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, which obvious “God made it to be” rules should we be following in extending the “privilege” of marriage to various couples, Rick? \u00a0Should folks of different religions be allowed to have that “privilege”?<\/p>\n

And for the purposes of having children and continuing that civilization.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s a hackneyed argument, Rick, but it still holds true: does that mean that people who biologically cannot have children should not be give the “privilege” to marry? \u00a0(I’d ask about people who intend not to have children, but you’ve made it clear that you think birth control \u00a0should be outlawed.)<\/p>\n

It is an intrinsic good [\u2026] And as a result of that, we extend a privilege. We extend certain privileges to people who do that because we want to encourage\u00a0that<\/em>\u00a0behavior.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is really interesting, Rick, and extraordinarily utilitarian. \u00a0So what I gather is that it is up to the government to decide who can and can’t marry<\/em>, and to base that on which marriages are likely to benefit society with some sort of intrinsic good<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Can you imagine, Rick, what would happen is, say, President Obama were to state that principle?<\/p>\n

And why leave this in some very broad, general categories. \u00a0I mean, you know of some marriages that are bad ideas, right, Rick? \u00a0Or that are simply not working? \u00a0Or kids who are being not raised well by the “one mother and one father” you laud? \u00a0Certainly \u00a0it’s imperative that the government pass some laws to address these specific cases better. \u00a0We can have Marriage Panels and Parent Panels, and decide on a case by case basis whether people should obtain the privilege to marry, the privilege to stay married, and the privilege to have children.<\/p>\n

Isn’t that what you’re suggesting, Rick?<\/p>\n

For that matter, if we’re out to only extend privileges that that provide some sort of benefit … then if we, as a society or government, decided that we like Christians more than any others, and that we want to encourage Christians to marry and have kids as the fundamental basis of our Christian nation … would it be okay to deny the “privilege” to marry to Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and atheists, too? \u00a0If not, I’m not quite sure why.<\/p>\n

You then go on to suggest that mothers and daughters have special loving relationships, and that aunts and nephews do, etc., but they aren’t given “special privileges” under the law to get married. Thus …<\/p>\n

[…]\u00a0Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but\u00a0it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I know you’re a pretty sophisticated guy, Rick, with a decent education (BA, MBA, JD). \u00a0I’m pretty sure you’re aware that we classify different types of loving relationships differently, Rick. \u00a0For example (and, as a good Catholic boy, I’m pretty sure you’ve heard of this), the Greeks speak of agape, eros, philia,<\/em> and storge<\/em>. \u00a0Agape<\/em>, for example, is usually used in Christian contexts as unconditional love, as God has for Man, or as we are called upon to have for one another. \u00a0Eros<\/em> is passionate, romantic love, as between (one hopes) folks who are getting married. Philia<\/em> would be affectionate, companiable, loyal love, as within a family or friends. Storge<\/em> is less often used, \u00a0representing filial affection.<\/p>\n

One expects the love, philia<\/em> or storge<\/em>, between mothers and daughters, or between aunts and nephews, is of a different nature than the eros<\/em>\u00a0of consenting adults who are romantically involved and wish to get married. \u00a0And, of course, that’s different from the agape<\/em> we are called upon to have for one another, otherwise we’d all<\/em> be married, right, Rick?<\/p>\n

So it’s not a matter of discrimination. \u00a0It’s a matter of what’s encouraging a behavior between men and women that’s important as the basis of society.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Does that mean we need to also mandate<\/em> marriage? \u00a0Maybe instead of government marriage panels to determine who’s permitted to marry, we need government marriage panels to assign mates to one another, since it’s so important as the basis of society.<\/p>\n

You go on, Rick, to start talking about how “the institution of marriage is under assault” which means that fewer people are marrying, which is a bad thing (which is kind of funny, since you’re looking for ways to keep people from marrying<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Regardless, Rick, thanks much for your keen insight as to what the purpose of marriage is, and why that purpose is so important that it is up to the government to decide who gets the privilege of marriage. \u00a0I \u00a0look forward to hearing you you appoint as the head of your new Federal Marriage Board to begin processing and evaluation of marriage applications after you win the presidency.<\/p>\n

Dolt.<\/p>\n