PoliticsRSS: News Maker

Beneficial absence of Santorum

Published on February 24, 2012 by: in: Politics

During one of the meetings with electors, Rick Santorum bumped into a person who didn’t hide the homosexual orientation and was asked by that person about reasons for which he rejects the possibility of entering into marriage by lesbians and gays.

photo: DonkeyHotey

photo: DonkeyHotey

On one hand I liked the reaction of this extreme right-winger but on the other hand I didn’t. I liked it because Santorum wasn’t fibbing and didn’t do the PR by mincing his words in political manner or brushing the situation off with a cheap joke. With a simple text, straight into the face of a person who belongs to the social group which he didn’t like, he laid out his anti-gay convictions. He was not fudging, saying something like ‘it’s not like this’, or ‘it’s mainly about emphasising the value of a traditional family’ or ‘don’t take this to your heart, please’. Such was the pathetic behaviour of Roman Giertych, when during one of the election campaigns in Poland, being still a leader of a homophobic LPR (The League of Polish Families) which was fighting for votes, he was put in similar situation by my acquaintance who is homosexual. Santorum, however, has the so called balls, so heedless of the bad impression, that a politician will made when saying to the citizen ‘no, you can’t’, he gave testimony.

On the other hand, obviously because of the fundamental reasons, I didn’t like Santorum’s attitude. It’s hard for me to muster even the smallest amount of liking for such reactionary homophobes of his kind. Santorum’s argumentation against the legal recognition of single-sex relationships, which is already in effect in some of the states of America, is commonly known and trivial. In fact, Santorum rejects the legal recognition of these relationships because they “do not bring any benefit for the society.”

It would be worth asking what he meant. Probably he, as a father of seven children, was talking about offspring and one, being a liberal, can equally predictably ask if this means that heterosexual childless relationships are, according to his opinion, also useless.  One can indicate the fact that the institution, in which people find personal happiness, stabilise their life and settle down, “brings benefit for the society” after all, and suggesting that it’s different is not based on any hard facts and social investigations, but only on phantoms of the political-religious fanatics. But one can also reply for Santorum’s taunt a bit less conventionally.

Let’s get down to me. I’m in a heterosexual matrimony, what is more, a church one. I have two children and want to have more. One could say that even from the point of view of the authority – Santorum, my relationship “brings benefit for the society.” Except that, looking at this aspect of my relationship from my and my wife’s and children’s perspective, I don’t care if the society has or hasn’t got any benefits from it. But why?! Because it’s my private life and it’s all about my relatives’ and my private happiness and “benefits”. Not about happiness of the society (which nota bene, as ideologically close to the conservative Santorum Prime Minister Thatcher stated, simply does not exist). Moreover, me and my wife make an attempt to bring up our sons as liberals who will be able to detect, ridicule and challenge using factual argumentation any chauvinisms. They will also, by their own votes during elections and, maybe, by taking part in a public debate, contribute to the fact that in the Polish patch people of Santorum’s views and kind will be kept well away from the possibility of taking political decisions which discriminate the citizens. So help ME God. And what now Mr. Santorum, do you still think that my relationship “brings benefit for the society”?

The one thing that is certain concerning all this dwelling about the “benefits for the society.” Rick Santorum’s or similar people’s presidency “would not bring benefit for the society.” Looking at the results of primary elections, Americans seem to understand it perfectly well.

Translation: Joanna Brodowska

Share Article

  • RSSRSS Feed

Post Comment

Tags: , , ,

avatar

About Piotr Beniuszys

Piotr Beniuszys holds Master’s degree in sociology and political science; his views are to the right in economic issues, to the left in ethical and moral issues – i.e. liberal in both cases; the final chairman of Unia Wolności in Gdańsk, a former member of Democratic Party – demokraci.pl.

Original Liberte.pl
Fredrich Naumann Foundation For The Freedom
Copyright © 2017 Liberte!, Fundacja Industrial