CBS Highlights 'Very Conservative' Santorum's Views on Gays, Abortion & Contraception
On Friday's CBS Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley tagged Rick Santorum as the "very conservative Pennsylvania Senator" as he introduced a full report on the GOP presidential candidate's views on gay rights, abortion, and contraception, with correspondent Dean Reynolds warning that the GOP candidate's views on social issues that helped him in Iowa "have energized his opponents here in New Hampshire."
After noting a recent poll shows Santorum "coming on strong" in the Granite State since his near win in the Iowa caucuses, Pelley, applied the "very conservative" label to the Pennsylvania Republican:
The very conservative former Pennsylvania Senator is getting a lot of attention, and Dean Reynolds is chasing his campaign in New Hampshire.
Reynolds forthrightly noted that it is not Santorum who usually brings up his views on gay rights, as critics often show up at events and ask questions on the subject to which he responds. Reynolds:
That's Senator Santorum behind me on the podium now, and he's been talking up economic solutions here in New Hampshire. But over the last couple of days, virtually everywhere he goes he's getting questions about his social agenda and opposition to gay marriage. (...) The Senator rarely volunteers his views on homosexuality at campaign stops, but the crowds he addresses here regularly raise the subject.
After clips of Santorum interacting with audience members interested in his views on gay rights, the CBS correspondent recounted the Pennsylvania Republicans's opposition to abortion and contraception without elaborating on what Santorum's views are on how the law should treat these areas.
Santorum also opposes abortion, including in cases of rape. And he's spoken of the dangers of contraception or birth control as, quote, "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
After asserting that "sometimes it gets heated" when he interacts with people who disgree with him, and after showing more clips of these interactions, Reynolds warned that Santorum's views on social issues could hurt him in New Hampshire:
Now, it may just be that he's in a different state. But it looks like the positions that helped Santorum win over evangelicals in Iowa have energized his opponents here in New Hampshire.
Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Friday, January 6, CBS Evening News:
SCOTT PELLEY: The GOP candidates face New Hampshire voters next Tuesday, and here's a look at today's new poll there. Mitt Romney way ahead, but Rick Santorum is coming on strong after his unexpected virtual tie with Romney this week in Iowa. Santorum is at 11 percent now, but look at this: He had just three percent this past Monday, January 2. The very conservative former Pennsylvania Senator is getting a lot of attention, and Dean Reynolds is chasing his campaign in New Hampshire. Dean?
DEAN REYNOLDS: Scott, that's Senator Santorum behind me on the podium now, and he's been talking up economic solutions here in New Hampshire. But over the last couple of days, virtually everywhere he goes he's getting questions about his social agenda and opposition to gay marriage.
FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): Thank you so much.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: Thank you, nice meeting you.
REYNOLDS: The Senator rarely volunteers his views on homosexuality at campaign stops, but the crowds he addresses here regularly raise the subject.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: You say that gay men shouldn't be able to be married, have, adopt kids, and be allowed to serve in the military.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: I have a question, too, and it's about gay people.
REYNOLDS: Today, in Keene, New Hampshire, a question was asked on whether gay people should be allowed to marry.
SANTORUM: It's discrimination to deny rights. I don't want to deny any rights to anyone. Everyone has a right to live their life. That doesn't mean that they're entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits that society obtains from those, from those relationships.
REYNOLDS: For the record, Santorum believes marriage should be between a man and a woman only.
SANTORUM: Why? Because I believe we are made that way.
REYNOLDS: Santorum also opposes abortion, including in cases of rape. And he's spoken of the dangers of contraception or birth control as, quote, "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." Those who raise the issues are mostly the young, and sometimes it gets heated.
SANTORUM ON STAGE: So anyone can marry anybody else?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes.
SANTORUM: Okay, so anybody can marry anybody else? So anybody can marry several people?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No.
SANTORUM: Oh, wait a minute, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop being dicordant, or we're not going to do this.
REYNOLDS: Now, it may just be that he's in a different state. But it looks like the positions that helped Santorum win over evangelicals in Iowa have energized his opponents here in New Hampshire.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
PELLEY - RON BURGUNDY MINUS THE 'STACHE
Submitted by Sgthulka on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:37am.
Sitting in the Dan Rather chair must affect people in a certain way.
In a relatively short amount of time, Pelley has molded his on-air persona into the same pompous assery that Rather did.
And I would bet that this
Submitted by billb on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:44am.
And I would bet that this topic is uppermost in the minds of those who's unemployment is about to expire and be foreclosed upon!
Ho hum
Submitted by Restless Legs on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:23am.
When was the last time the MSM talked about a Dem's "very liberal views" on abortion or gays or contraception - or ANY topic for that matter? Yes, it's a rhetorical question.
I teach a college broadcast journalism class, and I tell my students to avoid labels like "very conservative" or "very liberal" or "extreme" or whatever. It's because such labels automatically imply a bias on the reporter's part. It's one thing to quote somebody who used those labels or to have those labels come up in a sound bite. It's quite different when the reporter editorializes with the use of such labels.
How could ANYONE with Gay friends support Santorum?
Submitted by PolishBear on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:32am.
Ever since Massachusetts becames the first state in the nation to allow Gay couples to legally marry, hundreds of thousands of Gay couples across the United States have either gotten married or registered their civil unions or domestic partnerships. These are law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans who have made a solemn pledge to one another before family and friends.
But now along comes Rick Santorum and HIS pledge to forcibly DIVORCE those hundreds of thousands of couples. Santorum has made it abundantly clear that under HIS administration there will only be one law governing marriage in the United States, and that law will NOT apply to Gay couples. Santorum has unapologetically insisted that he wants all those legal marriages and civil unions and domestic partnerships to be declared null and void.
The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.
While Rick Santorum may prefer to focus on the economy as we get closer to November, anyone who loves and supports their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers needs to take a hard look at the theocratic road Santorum intends to take us down.
I CAN & IT'S EASY
Submitted by Conservator on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:12pm.
My family includes a number of gays and atheists as well. In addition, living in New York means you encounter many gays in your daily life. I'm happy and proud to call many gays my friends. My daughter's best friend is gay and I refer to him as my adopted son. However, while I support civil unions that afford the same rights to gay couples, I remain vehemently opposed to Gay Marriage.
Why is normally the question I receive when I state my beliefs. And the answer is rather simple in our society where the federal courts remain a bastion of liberal activism.
If the U.S. passed an amendment to make gay marriage legal, my concern is the courts would soon rule that religious organizations, regardless of faith, would be forced to preform gay marriages in their churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. albeit it's against their beliefs. - that's un-American IMO. If someone can prove my concern is wrong, I would be happy to reassess my opinion.
DEAR CONSERVATOR:
Submitted by PolishBear on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:20pm.
You write: "If the U.S. passed an amendment to make gay marriage legal, my concern is the courts would soon rule that religious organizations, regardless of faith, would be forced to preform gay marriages in their churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. albeit it's against their beliefs. - that's un-American IMO. If someone can prove my concern is wrong, I would be happy to reassess my opinion."
Here's why your concern is wrong: Jewish couples and Muslim couples and Atheist couples are allowed to marry, but have churches ever been "forced" to perform marriages for those couples? Of course not. Nothing is going to change once Gay couples are allowed to marry. And anyway, there ARE plenty of Gay-friendly denominations ready and willing to provide wedding and other services to Gay couples.
Dear PolishBear:
Submitted by Conservator on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:04pm.
Are you sure? Look at what has already occurred regarding Catholic adoption services in Massachusetts. It has been banned because the Church won’t accept gay couples for adoption. Below is a short article on the ABC debate that I recommend:
Republican candidates decry "war on religion"
"...After a long exchange between ABC debate moderator George Stephanopoulos and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney regarding the regulation of birth control, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was prompted to chide "media bias."
Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he thinks the Constitution allows a state to ban birth control, but Gingrich said, "You don't hear the opposite question asked."
"Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done?" he said. "Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won't give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?..."
In our litigious nation, I guarantee if a Constitutional Amendment or a new bill is passed by Congress and signed by the President to make gay marriage legal, the result would be a decision decided by the courts - again that's my only concern.
DEAR CONSERVATOR:
Submitted by PolishBear on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:21pm.
What you fail to mention is that Catholic Charities of Boston, which operated the adoption service, was being funded by the State of Massachusetts to the tune of $1 million per year.
Here's some perspective on the issue. Catholic Charities of Boston actually USED TO place children with Gay couples. But when Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to allow Gay couples to legally marry, the Catholic Church spitefully decided to end the practice.
Of course the Catholic Church has every right to run their affairs as they see fit. I normally wouldn't care if they decided not to place kids with adoptive Gay couples .... or Atheist or Jewish couples for that matter. Problem was, Catholic Charities of Boston was being getting a million bucks per year in taxpayer money. The State of Massachusetts gave them a choice: Either stop discriminating againist legally married Gay couples, or give up your public funding. Catholic Charities chose the latter. Fine by me. You want to feed at the public trough, you'd better be prepared to play by the rules.
As I taxpayer, I refuse to allow MY tax dollars to be used to fund organizations that discriminate against me, any more than you would want YOUR tax dollars going to organizations that discriminated against Christians.
Lil Bear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:27pm.
Be careful. Boston Catholic Charities was not funded with taxpayer money. They were reimbursed for services rendered. Several states hire Catholic Charities to do home studies and adoption studies to present to the courts for private as well as state sponsored adoptions. So be careful how you distort information.
DEAR CAJUN2:
Submitted by PolishBear on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:50pm.
"Reimbursed for services provided"??? That's an interesting way of spinning things. Why not just say FUNDED? And even if you want to say "reimbursed," the money is still ultimately coming from the pockets of the taxpayers.
Would you want YOUR tax dollars going to organizations that discriminated against YOU?
DEAR CAJUN2:
Submitted by PolishBear on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 3:07pm.
Suppose I said, "Planned Parenthood is not funded with taxpayer money. They are reimbursed for services provided."
Shall I assume you'd be OK with that?
Swing and Miss lil bear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 6:53pm.
Payment for services rendered is one thing. Moving money around like PP does is another. They take medicare and medicaid funds and use that money to fund abortions. Grants are also conferred to PP that is not given to religious organizations. This is one reason PP is a so called "non profit" organization. Catholic Charities does not provide "medical" care at any of its centers. They do have medical facilities in some communities but they provide only medical services and must follow federal and state regulations like any other medical provider. PP has found a way to be called a "non profit" without the label of "medical facility which allows them to avoid health inspectors.
Catholic foundations that provide medical services do not discriminate against any group of people. They simply refuse to perform abortions as one of their "procedures". They can do this because they do not have a monopoly on abortion available centers. So they are denying no one a service that is available elsewhere.
You seem eager to re hash an issue discussed at length on another thread. Some of the data and links should provide information to clarify some of your misunderstandings
Do not be offended. The issue of medicaid, medicare, non profit medical providers, abortion, and religious based organizations, are only small parts of a very complex bureaucratic system. The regulations are so complex that the government has about 250 different agencies to oversee these programs. Each agency has thousands of pages of rules and guidelines by which they operate as well as guidelines for the operation of such organizations such as PP and Catholic Charities.
If the Catholic Church, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:32pm.
"Of course has every right to run their affairs as they see fit"; then saying, " --the Catholic Church spitefully decided to end the practice", sounds a tad hypocritical.
MD
PolishBear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:15pm.
Questions....Bush was POTUS for 8 years. Tell me one thing he did that changed gay rights or gay marriage in this country? How did he change policy on abortion?
Obama is pro gay anything. Tell me what he has done for gays in his 3 years as POTUS? Other than tax payer money to pay for abortion, what has his policies changed regarding abortion?
See the CIC has rarely made policy or regulatory changes solely on social issues. They leave that to the Supreme Court and the Congress.
What you should be worried about is an Attorney General that is the most corrupt in our history, showing special favors for a select few, and a POTUS that totally disregards the constitution. He is slowly taking away individual rights. That loss of liberty will include gays..
Its the media that has focused on GOP candidates stand on social issues. In all of these debates, they are rarely asked questions about solutions for the economy. That would imply something is wrong with the economy and we cant have that can we?
Say hello to mamabear for me
You forgot to capitalize Gay, Ms. Cajun.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:23pm.
;)
funny SoL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:13pm.
Only one "g" word deserves to be capitalized. gay ain't it.
cajun2 is sick of liberals
I don't find such a pledge
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:05pm.
and the NOM pledge doesn't say that Ms. Ellie Light
Good catch Quasi*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:20pm.
It seems the lil bear may be a sto' bought troll spouting the same lib talking points at different sites It appears that Soros pays well cause there sure has been an increase in their actions lately.