The student news site of Diablo Valley College.

The Inquirer

The student news site of Diablo Valley College.

The Inquirer

The student news site of Diablo Valley College.

The Inquirer

Bon voyage, jackass

Call this a victory for basic human decency and kindess.

On April 10, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum announced that he was suspending his campaign for presidency. According, Santorum cited a “weekend reflection with his family, prompted in part by a hospital stay for his youngest daughter,” as his reason for quitting.

Santorum’s resignation removes my fear that one of the most powerful countries in the world will be led by an insensitive homophobe whose views are not as conservative as much as they are regressive.

Listing off Santorum’s offensive views is easier than listing off the cast of “Friends.” The next several sentencesare all from a Telegraph UK article from January about Santorum campaigning in New Hampshire.

Santorum pledged to amend the US constitution to make gay marriage permanently illegal.

He told a supporter of gay marriage at a campaign stop that legalizing gay marriage could lead to legitimizing pedophilia or bestiality.

At another stop, he said that a child whose father was in prison was better off than a child who was raised by lesbians. He said that same-sex couples would “rob children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true.”

Holy hell, Rick. I’m not even sure where to begin except to note that the quote at the end sounds like Darth Vader.

First off, a kid whose father is in prison would come from a broken home which is pretty bad. According to a report from the Quaker United Nations Office, “The effect of a father’s imprisonment on a child’s mother or other carers will often have a further impact upon the child. The potential emotional stress, parenting strain, work-family conflict, financial hardship and social stigma faced by the mother or other carers can result in poverty, fragile parenting, declining family health and the onset of changes in children’s behaviour.”


I’m pretty sure that I would rather have more kids being raised by lesbian couples (given that they’re not abusive) over kids with absent fathers on account of the fact that a lesbian couple wouldn’t be indicative of a broken home. Not only that but two moms are always better than one.

On Santorum’s belief that gay marriage will legitimize “man-on-dog” or “man-on-child” marriage, it is true that the campaign to legalize polygamy would get a bit of legitimacy from gay marriage’s legalization. According to a Washington Times article written by Valerie Richardson, “If marriage is redefined to include two people of the same sex, the argument goes, then it can be redefined to include more than two people.” I can accept that Santorum would find that idea abhorrent.

However, Santorum instead committed a classic slippery slope fallacy. Just because Adam and Steve can get married does not mean that Adam and Rover or Adam and Little Stevie will have their relationships legitimized. That’s totally inaccurate and paranoid.

I’m thankful that Santorum’s campaign is over simply so that his pogrom against gay people isn’t given as much publicity.

Rick Santorum, gay people aren’t the problem, people who think like you are the problem. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true.

Leave a Comment
About the Contributor
John Kesler
John Kesler, Opinion editor
Opinion editor, spring 2012. Staff member, fall 2011.

Comments (0)

By commenting, you give The Inquirer permission to quote, reprint or edit your words. Comments should be brief, have a positive or constructive tone, and stay on topic. If the commenter wants to bring something to The Inquirer’s attention, it should be relevant to the DVC community. Posts can politely disagree with The Inquirer or other commenters. Comments should not use abusive, threatening, offensive or vulgar language. They should not be personal attacks or celebrations of other people’s tragedies. They should not overtly or covertly contain commercial advertising. And they should not disrupt the forum. Editors may warn commenters or delete comments that violate this policy. Repeated violations may lead to a commenter being blocked. Public comments should not be anonymous or come from obviously fictitious accounts. To privately or anonymously bring something to the editors’ attention, contact them.
All The Inquirer Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Activate Search
Bon voyage, jackass