No, not like that. Yikes, get your minds out of the butt-butter gutter, would you? I’m talking about Ricky-boy’s fifth place finish in New Hampshire yesterday — just behind Newt Gingrich. (And believe me: nobody wants to be just behind Newt Gingrich, least of all Rick Santorum.)
It’s a tough, uhh, pill to swallow after a virtual first place tie in Iowa last week, and even tougher when you factor in how Romney, a Mormon, also earned 45 percent of the Catholic vote, while Santorum, a Catholic, earned a mere eight percent.
So there’s that.
There’s also this: a video of Santorum getting booed during a Q&A session in New Hampshire last week after a convoluted tête-à-tête about marriage rights:
His personal beliefs aside, I actually think Santorum conducts himself rather well during the affair, remaining reasonable and open to discussion despite the pointed nature of the questions. On top of which, his interrogator — who had already been munching on word salad up until that point — totally pussies out when Rick responds with the “totally wacky” counterexample of, (basically), “Hey, if two men should be allowed to marry, then why not three men, if being happy and not hurting anyone are the main criteria for marriage?” (Totally wacky, right??) Anyway, the reason I mention the video is not because, against all odds, Santorum isn’t wearing a sweater vest in it, but because it’s basically yet another long-winded example of his (and many other people’s) easily encapsulated view that marriage is an inviolable biblical construct between a man and a woman, end of story.
Or, to put it another, catchier way:
There are two major problems with this vaguely clever bon mot, however:
1) Most inviolable biblical constructs were violated long ago. Behold, a fantastic infographic from r/atheism Redditor and brilliant pseudonym selector, jesusonadinosaur:
Why don’t you ever hear anyone defending these thousand-year-old traditions! Rapists deserve a new toaster too, don’t they?
2) While I guarantee that I’m not the first person to bother pointing this out, it’s worth reiterating that, even if you only tote such rhyming signage as an approximate illustration (rather than a literal indication) of your interpretation of Genesis, by explicitly advertising such views vis-a-vis the first man and woman on earth, you are simultaneously implicitly supporting incest. Don’t look at me like that: it’s a simple fact that, if Adam and Eve really were the first and only people around at the time, then their children would have had to have a ton of hot brother-on-sister sex in order to populate the planet. But hey, I’m not here to judge. If you want to embrace incest over homosexuality, go right ahead. Hell, you’d certainly be in good company, since God himself obviously subscribes to the adage that, “If you can’t keep it in the pants, keep it in the family.” He could have avoided the whole debacle if he’d just kept breathing life into clay after creating Adam, but I guess he thought it was more important to take a day off instead. Remind you of any other powerful bodies…Congress???