Santorum: Legacy Of Anti-Gay Remarks Ends In 'Frothy' Online Gross-Out

Santorum

First Posted: 01/14/12 04:30 AM ET Updated: 01/14/12 10:40 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Rick Santorum faces a tough battle in the next Republican primary — to stop the Mitt Romney juggernaut, he must unite South Carolina's evangelicals, social conservatives and Tea Party activists, all while competing against rivals with far fatter wallets.

Daunting? Sure, but it's nothing compared to what's known as Santorum's "Google problem."

Anyone searching "Santorum" online will find not a Wikipedia entry on the life and times of the presidential hopeful, nor a link to his campaign website. Instead, the first hit is a raunchy dictionary definition of a byproduct of anal sex.

Clicking on it opens up a website, "Spreading Santorum," that features rants and ridicule — much of it stomach-turningly scatalogical — regarding all things Santorum.

It's not exactly the type of online presence sought by a surging social conservative in one of the most captivating, and widely watched, primary races in generations.

But nine years ago, Santorum, a Pennsylvania senator at the time, offended the wrong person when he made anti-gay remarks in a controversial interview with The Associated Press.

"I have a problem with homosexual acts," Santorum said, adding that he believed the U.S. Constitution does not protect the privacy of adults conducting in consensual sexual relations.

The sex lives of homosexuals, he added, should be regulated in the same way as child molesters and polygamists.

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever, to my knowledge, included homosexuality," Santorum continued.

"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

Dan Savage, the syndicated gay sex columnist, was outraged to hear Santorum liken gay sex to bestiality. A reader suggested he hold a contest to redefine Santorum's surname.

The winning entry? A definition — hilarious to some, heave-inducing for others, but undeniably hard for anyone to ignore — that includes the word "frothy."

SpreadingSantorum.com was born, following Santorum's political career with regular updates, posts and snarky commentary. Since Santorum came within a few votes of winning the recent Iowa caucuses, the site has been in overdrive.

In September, Santorum demanded Google intervene, but was rebuffed by the Internet giant, much like other politicians and celebrities who have made similar requests. Google prefers to allow its algorithms to do their work, essentially meaning a Web page stays at the top of search results if it's the most popular and other websites link to it.

Google only intervenes if a site is found to be inciting violence or is otherwise breaking the law.

Santorum was indignant, and has threatened to sue.

"I suspect if something was up there like that about, say, Joe Biden, they would get rid of it," he said.

"To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle. I suspect that's not true."

Savage has offered to take down the website if Santorum donates $5 million to a gay rights group that advocates same-sex marriage. That hasn't happened.

It's a true conundrum for Santorum. The more he complains about the site, the more the media reports on his complaints, which in turn results in more people clicking on Spreading Santorum to see what all the fuss is about. That means the site maintains its dominance over other Santorum Web pages.

And "Google problem" is a bit of a misnomer — Santorum has the same problem on other major search engines like Bing and Yahoo Search.

With the former senator hogging headlines recently, so too is Spreading Santorum — so much so that Savage devoted this week's Savage Love, his internationally syndicated column, to his enduring and reinvigorated anti-Santorum crusade.

One reader, JIW, wrote to thank him. Savage was humble.

"If it weren't for my creative, kinky, and hilarious readers, JIW, an otherwise distressing news cycle — a ranting, raving, washed-up religious bigot tied for first place in the Iowa caucuses?!? — would not have been leavened by such unintentionally hilarious headlines as 'Santorum Surges from Behind,' 'Santorum Runs Hard,' and 'Romney Squeezes Out Santorum.'"

Another reader was less kind.

"Dan Savage is one sick, pathetic excuse for a human being," wrote someone with the handle Savage Isn't Completely Kind — or SICK, for short.

Savage pointed out, correctly, that Santorum was jeered last week in New Hampshire when he insisted that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamous marriage.

"The same argument was made against legalizing interracial marriage," Savage wrote.

"Here we are, 44 years after the Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, and Tiger Woods can marry only one busted Olive Garden hostess at a time."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA POLITICS

WASHINGTON - Rick Santorum faces a tough battle in the next Republican primary — to stop the Mitt Romney juggernaut, he must unite South Carolina's evangelicals, social conservatives and Tea Party a...
WASHINGTON - Rick Santorum faces a tough battle in the next Republican primary — to stop the Mitt Romney juggernaut, he must unite South Carolina's evangelicals, social conservatives and Tea Party a...
Filed by Lauren Strapagiel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:16 PM on 01/14/2012
Sanctorum brings it on himself. If he'd just stop lying about gay people (and cease and desist with the 'ban all contraception' crapola, etc.), some of the 'controversy' would go away.

for someone who want 'smaller government', he wants it to be so small it will fit in women's uteri and gay men's bedrooms.

He also is so dim that he doesn't even realize that "sodomy" is practised (and hopefully enjoyed) by far many more heterosexuals than homosexuals. To him, it's "things we shouldn't do".

Theocrat.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deebastet
05:18 PM on 01/14/2012
Can not wait for Santorum to lose in SC. Then he can go home and practice whatever it is he does in his bedroom.
11:16 PM on 01/14/2012
That's just the problem. He ISN'T getting any.
04:17 PM on 01/14/2012
Did HuffPo suddenly discover this? I, too, regularly google Santorum just to keep his name front and center. I especially like the adjectives and phrases applied to this doofus: "surging", "coming from behind", etc.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
kareemachan
watashi ha tororu ga oroka da to omoi masu。
03:09 PM on 01/14/2012
In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon."

So much for rickie's grasp of facts....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:16 PM on 01/14/2012
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever, to my knowledge, included homosexuality,"

Canada has gay marriage. Try again.
11:18 PM on 01/14/2012
And South Africa! And Spain. And Belgium. And the Netherlands. And - get ready - some parts of the U. S. of A. (And 7 other countries.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Brewer II
Proud LGBT member and Liberal
02:13 PM on 01/14/2012
I would say Santorum is full of Santorum, however he is anything but smooth so minus the lube
darksideofthespoon
what we think we become
12:19 PM on 01/14/2012
I google Santorum at least once a day. I suggest anyone who thinks that homosexual individuals should recieve the same basic human rights that the rest of us heterosexual people do the same.

I can marry the person who comments below me as long as they're the opposite sex (and they say yes!), but I wouldn't be able to marry my same sex spouse who I've been with for years?!?! How sickening. (I'm not even gay! I'm pregnant and have a husband! You don't even have to be gay to see the horror in how LGBT communities are treated!! How about Santorum stays out of my bedroom and stays in his own and I won't bother him. Fair? Fair.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leanne McKenzie
You can't make this sh*t up.
12:17 PM on 01/14/2012
The only problem I have with this articles is the line "... Santorum, a Pennsylvania senator at the time, offended the wrong person.."

He did not offend one person or no matter what Dan Savage suggested, it would have gone no where. Santorum, who is full of it, offended all gay people, all family and friends of gay people and those who support equal rights for all.

In doing so, he showed a clear lack of respect for a portion of society.

The Santorum family feels that Dan Savage is mean, while gay and lesbians all over the US lose their homes, or can't be with loved ones when they die because they don't have the equal legal right to marry.

Comparing the two - we can see which is meaner.

I love Dan Savage for pushing back against the bully and giving everyone the ability to do so.
darksideofthespoon
what we think we become
12:25 PM on 01/14/2012
My favorite was when Santorum pleaded to take the site down, stating that his "google problem" was hurting his family members... as if LGBT people don't have families that are hurt by his words? I don't see any republicans hanging themselves over Santorum's "google" problem, but when he compares homosexual marriage to incest, bestiality and all that other sh**t it's totally fine? How about the massive hike in LGBT suicide rates? That doesn't hurt families?

I also seem to remember that his wife was engaged to an abortion doctor before she married Santorum.

Interesting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leanne McKenzie
You can't make this sh*t up.
01:31 PM on 01/14/2012
Santorum is fighting against all abortion, and has stated that the mother's health reasons were fake...

BUT...

his wife had a partial birth abortion when the fetus she was carrying died and was killing her.

But that was special circumstances.
HIS wife. not yours or someone else's.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
09:18 AM on 01/14/2012
"... Here we are, 44 years after the Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, and Tiger Woods can marry only one busted Olive Garden hostess at a time."

OK, I don't care who you are (or who you sleep with) --- that's funny! This article was worth it for that line alone ...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
morven
07:55 PM on 01/14/2012
May I ask what you are implying?

Just want to be sure before I comment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
08:32 PM on 01/14/2012
What do you think I "implied"?
11:21 PM on 01/14/2012
Rocky wasn't "implying" - he was QUOTING. RTDT.