When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue. Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets. There's no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.Mcgurn is trying to be dense or misleading or both. Take your pick. (Mcgurn has been a speechwriter for Rupert Murdoch and was Chief Speechwriter for President George W. Bush). Obama was talking about semantics. Santorum wants to control people's sex lives. Santorum is against birth control, women's access to abortion (even in instances of rape), and gay rights. It is within the context of Santorum's sexview in general that people interpret Santorum's statements. And actually, a lot of people for gay rights thought Obama didn't need to be going into right field - though they knew he wasn't anywhere near as obnoxious as Santorum with his desire to deny people's right to privacy.
"In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003, and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual."Santorum is dense enough to think that when the law allows consensual sex between adults that all sex - consensual or not is allowed. This is somehow logical to him. Logic and religion don't generally mix - but in Santorum's case his idea's are so far from logical it boggles the mind. Which is what makes Mcgurn trying to put a logical spin on them is so annoying. (Of course - one can only figure that the corporations want Santorum as their puppet - so Mcgurn, as their spokesperson, will say anything).
IMO, The Wall Street Journal should be boycotted. Not only does it advocate obnoxious right wing viewpoints such as Santorum's (framed by the likes of Mcgurn), the WSJ has also included pro-torture editorials and editorials which try to convince dense people that global warming is a hoax.The problem is that some of what the WSJ does is very good. It can be considered a reliable source of news. But then they mix in their editorials and the part of the WSJ that is reliable gives credibility to their propaganda and right-wing nonsense. In that way - they can be more dangerous than FOX, which can be ridiculous all the way around (though FOX, too, probably gets people who go there for the news who leave being more ignorant than when they started out - what with FOX's opinion/'news').