Rick Santorum’s round of verbal fisticuffs Thursday with college
students in New Hampshire again proves that he won’t shift his
socially conservative views to match the state he’s running in.
That mark of virtue will cost him votes Tuesday.
It’s no surprise that Santorum has faced a barrage of
criticism in the Granite State for his support for traditional
marriage. New Hampshire is one of three states that have legalized
same-sex marriage by legislative vote rather than judicial
intervention. The Republican primary electorate’s libertarian
instincts is significantly different from that of Iowa and South
Carolina, where evangelical Christians carry more clout.
Even so, Santorum didn’t hold any punches last week when
he
engaged in a back-and-forth with students over same-sex
marriage and polygamy. His adversaries in the crowd contended that
Americans’ right to pursue happiness means that government must
recognize same-sex unions. Santorum took that line of reasoning a
step further: If happiness is the basis of state-recognized
marriage, what’s the practical difference between homosexual
marriage and polygamy?
It’s a legitimate point that gets to a core issue of the
marriage debate: What constitutes marriage from a societal
standpoint? Supporters of traditional marriage often point to
factors beyond love, such as procreation. Love is obviously a
critical part of any good marriage, but from a societal standpoint,
it’s secondary. One of the primary reasons for the state to
recognize marriages in the first place is that heterosexual
marriage produces children. Even in situations where a couple can’t
procreate — or choose to not do so — the biological mechanics are
there for the perpetuation of the human race.
Because supporters of same-sex marriage can’t make that
same claim, they resort to basing the core fundamental of marriage
on love. Fine. But what if a polygamist loves his partners? What if
he is in a committed, long-term relationship with them? If
homosexuals’ right to pursue happiness is infringed by government’s
refusal to recognize their unions, then polygamists’ right to
happiness also is abridged.
The trouble for liberals is that the idea of polygamy
gives them pause. They feel comfortable with same-sex marriage, but
polygamy is a bridge too far. That could very well change in a few
decades. Years ago, the idea of same-sex marriage was foreign even
to many on the left. For now, though, they don’t like the concept,
or at least don’t like the political unpopularity of it.
The frustration over Santorum’s point — and the
frustration was obvious, as the college student struggled to answer
— doesn’t change its legitimacy: If legal recognition for same-sex
relationships is required, the same standard must apply to polygamy
in order to maintain a coherent line of reasoning.
That said, it’s a nuanced point that most people won’t
take the time to understand. And leftists’ narrative — denouncing
Santorum for comparing homosexuals to polygamists — obviously will
play better with the media, and with many voters in New
Hampshire.
Despite his socially conservative views, a CBS News Poll
puts Santorum in the top-three tier of candidates, a few
percentage points behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Santorum’s
current standing of 14 percent is a huge jump since mid-September,
when he polled at only 1 percent.
The RealClearPolitics polling average
puts Santorum in second place, though barely. Romney will win
New Hampshire, but second and third place showings Tuesday will go
a long way in deciding whether Santorum will be the Mike Huckabee
of 2012 — a socially conservative Republican who surprises in
Iowa, then fades in New Hampshire and South Carolina — or a
different force altogether.
Regardless of the results, it’s refreshing to see a
national Republican candidate stick to his guns on positions he
cares deeply about, even if they aren’t as popular with primary
voters in New England.
