Santorum is being defined very quickly as the anti-gay candidate

[MikeWaters]

Andrew Sullivan
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....his-thing.html

He does not believe that you have the right to adult, consensual sex in your own bedroom, if the government decides it's bad for society as a whole. That includes masturbation and contraception on exactly the same grounds as homosexual acts. All of them are sodomy and subject to government regulation. Santorum can say he is just referring to the role of the courts, not backing substantive legislation to criminalize private adult consensual sex. But it's clear he believes that such sex is a serious threat to civilization, and only prudential grounds should restrain the government's decision to enforce that morality.

Recall that Santorum is contemptuous of the whole idea of the pursuit of happiness, if it isn't regulated by Catholic natural law. He is opposed, in his own words, to "this whole idea of personal autonomy," not to mention "the idea that people should be left alone."

Santorum's slogan is "Faith, Family, Freedom." But it is more accurately described as Faith Family and Freedom That Doesn't Violate The Tenets of Faith and Family as defined by Santorum. This is what the Tea Party comes down to in the end: opposition to the whole idea of freedom or being left alone by the government. I'd be laughing if I weren't crying.

And the NY Times:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-gay-marriage/

One student started the conversation by asking Mr. Santorum — a fervent opponent of same-sex marriage — why he did not think that equality required allowing members of the same gender to marry.

Instead of offering a quick answer and moving on to another subject, Mr. Santorum began a Socratic lecture about changing the laws on marriage, repeatedly asking the students questions.

“Don’t you have to make the positive argument why the law should be changed?” he asked several of them.

As the students pressed him on the morality of letting gay men and lesbians marry, Mr. Santorum engaged them even further.

First, he compared changing marriage laws to building a bridge. You have to have a reason to build the bridge, he said. He then said that many of the things that same-sex marriage advocates want — like the ability to visit loved ones in hospitals — can be accomplish through contract law.

“Can that right be legally done right now through contract?” he asked. “Yes it can.”

But the testiest part of the exchange came when an audience member suggested that gay people should be allowed to marry because they have a right to happiness.

In response, Mr. Santorum asked whether she thought that more than two people should be allowed to marry, apparently trying to suggest that the questioner was advocating an extreme position.

“If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” he asked.

That angered the audience, which booed his answer.

Again, how ironic is it that the opponent of Mormon Mitt Romney is the anti-gay bigot who in the biggest moment of his life is talking about polygamy?

We, ladies and gentlemen, are living in bizzaro-land.