Al Jazeera was eager to promote the debunked lie that Rick Santorum compared same-sex marriage to bestiality:

He has argued against same-sex marriage arguing that could open the door to other unacceptable relations, equating homosexuality with bestiality or pedophilia.

Simply reading or listening to Santorum’s quote would prevent anyone from making so grand a logical leap:

“Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality–”

Now, does it sound to YOU as though Santorum was categorizing homosexual-male-sex as “man on dog”? Negative. To anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, it is clear Santorum was actually cautioning that he is not equating gay marriage with other prohibited-marriage categories such as “man on child” (individuals marrying minors) and “man on dog” (individuals marrying animals).  Regardless of one’s views on gay marriage, or Santorum’s own, he did not, in any way, slam male-on-male sex as “man on dog.”  It seems those who actively read that visual picture into Santorum’s comments need to get their heads out of the gutter and, ironically, stop revealing their own homophobia in even making the connection.

At that point, Santorum was interrupted by the interviewer who apparently joked that he/she was not expecting to hear a U.S. Senator use the term “man on dog.”

(more…)

Why am I not surprised.  Once again the Main Stream Media (MSM) exposes its lack of journalistic integrity in ignoring news that doesn’t fit its liberal narrative, when all but one of Chicago’s MSM snubbed a well publicized press conference with over 40 African-American religious and political leaders who gathered “… to decry the misrepresentation of King’s legacy and the noble civil rights cause” as being equivalent to the efforts by the Left and homosexual activists to legalize same-sex marriage.

The impetus for the gathering was the recent passage by the Illinois General Assembly in a veto session—the equivalent of a lame-duck—of the “Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.”

Illinois Family Institute publicized the press conference to Chicago’s major media outlets NBC, ABC, Fox Chicago, WGN, Univision, WBBM, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Daily Herald, and the Southtown Star.  David E. Smith, IFI Executive Director, stated, “Sadly, the only major secular news outlet in Chicago that covered this important event was WBBM radio and television (CBS). While Univision and WGN News attended the press conference, apparently the producers decided it didn’t fit their messaging on the issue of so-called ‘gay rights.’”  To their credit IFI had their own camera rolling during the event, a portion of which you can view here:

Just think how widespread the coverage would have been had these African-Americans gathered to show their support for the bill.  I dare say it would have been wall to wall.

Proposition 8 in California contains this simple statement, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

A single judge in California reversed the vote of seven million people. Certainly, this issue will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where another single Justice, Anthony Kennedy will probably decide whether to let the vote of the people stand, or whether he will be the person to define marriage for the future in America.

The media is celebrating this victory. Do not doubt me. Newsrooms held parties yesterday and the joy is evident on their “impartial” faces during every report on this issue.

They see this as an issue that begins and ends with gay marriage. To them, this is all about gay marriage and only about gay marriage. CNN goes to a gay bar in Hollywood to get reaction. The graphics and headlines say this is an issue of “same-sex marriage.” I must correct their narrow vision here. This is an issue of defining marriage, and there is a major difference. If this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court and will define marriage in America (which it will), then where’s the live shot from Colorado City? I hear all the time this issue is just about two people who love each other. I will ask, who chose the number two? Why just two? (more…)

The debate over same-sex marriage has cooled in many parts of the country. People have turned their attention to the healthcare bill and the new possibility of being blown up by guys with explosives strapped to their underpants.

In reality, however, the same-sex marriage fight is now being joined in earnest. Opponents of California’s Proposition 8, which provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in California, have sued in federal court. The plaintiffs—Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarillo—allege that defining marriage as a monogamous union of opposite-sex couples violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14^th Amendment.

The case is currently at trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but it is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision regarding Prop. 8’s constitutionality likely will, for all intents and purposes, permanently determine whether states can limit marriage to its traditional meaning. Of course, it is theoretically possible to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage in the U.S., but practically speaking it’s almost impossible. (more…)