The difference between Obama's stance on marriage equality and that of Santorum's

Andrew Sullivan sums it up quite well, and spares no one:

Yes, I think Obama is patently disingenuous in his "evolving" bullshit on marriage equality. I think it's fair game to pummel him for it, from right or left (and both have). But there is no equivalence here at all. None.

All Obama has ever said is that he is concerned with the word "marriage" but still favors state and federal civil unions that contain every single right that civil marriage contains, the repeal of DOMA, and has refused to defend DOMA's constitutionality in court. Santorum, in contrast, wants to amend the federal constitution to nullify all civil unions, domestic partnerships, and civil marriages for gays recognized in any state law. He would single out a minority within this country for discrimination in the federal constitution itself! He would tear bi-national couples apart and remove children from their parents. Does McGurn really not see that this is a distinction with a huge difference?

Santorum believes also that all non-procreative marital sex is sinful and certainly has no constitutional protection under some penumbra called "privacy." This means he also in principle believes the government has the right to criminalize masturbation, even if, on prudential grounds, he wouldn't back enforcing it. He opposes all contraception and has compared gay relationships with "man-on-dog" bestiality. He has defined himself, unlike Obama, as a candidate motivated primarily by social issues throughout his career. He is the most radical of the religious fanatics yet to emerge from the Republican base. Quit pretending otherwise.

Amen! -- Joe