Santorum wants prima nocta, nobles' right of wedding night sex, back

After his success energizing Republican voters with his attack on contraception, presidential candidate Rick Santorum has reached even deeper into traditional Catholic sexual edicts to add prima nocta, also known as droit du seigneur, the right of nobles to sexual relations with brides on their wedding nights, to his women's issues platform.

To underline his embrace of this tradition, Santorum announced it during a campaign event at Dark AJ's Medieval Dinner Park in Hannibal, Missouri, going as far as to dress in Middle Ages attire himself.

"You know our critics on the loony left often say they can't see how the Christian wing of the Republican Party can co-exist with the free market wing, as if there was some conflict of values between the two," Santorum began.

"But in the ancient tradition of prima nocta, these two wings become one beautiful bird, perfectly illustrating God's hierarchy for all living things, and the economic superior embodying God's love as he fills the inferior."

As Santorum spoke, the prima nocta scenes from movies like Braveheart and Beckett played in the background.

Since America has no formal nobility, Santorum said as president he will fight for a law to adapt the ancient droit du seigneur to become a droit du corporis, or right of the corporation.

The right could be exercised by the CEO, major shareholders, or board members of any corporation over recently married employees or customers indebted to the corporation through mortgages, credit card debt, or other consumer loans.

"What is really exciting is this could provide a new opportunity for the free market," Santorum continued.  "If the CEO or others legally granted the right choose not to exercise it, they could sell that right on a nocta market."

A reporter asked if  CEO's could also take the first night of gay spouses in states where gay marriage is legal.

Santorum thought for several minutes before saying, "I'll have to consult some trusted Vatican scholars before giving a definitive answer, but I can say as a Republican that so long as they do it in the closet, and at least one of them claims publicly to be straight, it's probably ok."

UPDATE: Seth McFarlane used his FAMILY GUY characters to create this educational video on prima nocta for Santorum.

How Democrats can be to the right of the GOP gay issues AND PRO gay marriage

As I listened to the umpteenth story these last seven years on Republican torture it occurred to me that Democrats have a profound advantage on gay issues--we only support VOLUNTARY gay sex.

When the Abu Ghraib story broke, the defenses offered by the right in addition to the "few bad apples" lie was that it was no worse than a fraternity hazing or "Skull & Bones initiation" as Rush Limbaugh said (an inadvertent slip revealing what kind of people populate these 'elite' fraternities).

So I guess these republicans and their apologists think VOLUNTARY gay sex is bad, but COERCING likely heterosexuals to have gay sex at Abu Ghraib and in out of control police stations on "Guiliani time" where I seem to recall a guy in custody being sodomized with a plunger. Bush has fought tooth and nail to keep the power to do these tortures and only this week barred the use of sexual torture (and even then left some wiggle room so he could still authorize it). On a less trumpeted issue, it's not hard to figure out which side of the prison rape issue republicans fall on. Most have no trouble with gay rape of heterosexuals when it's part of punishing someone for selling a dime bag of pot or the like (truly violent offenders or big gangsters aren't in much danger).

The basis of right wing concern about gays is that they will somehow "convert" people to be gay. The vast majority of gays, especially those who want to get married, want to do their gay things only with other gays.

By contrast, if you are a heterosexual and cross the GOP, you could be forced to perform gay sex acts.

There's got to be a way to boil this down to a bumper sticker.

I bring this issue up at all because I know some democratic candidates for president will be tempted co-opt GOP positions on gays like opposing gay marriage and or even civil unions.

This approach could give them a chance to appeal to right wing homophobes without kicking a loyal constituency in the nuts as supposed "centrist" Democrats seem so willing to do.

Would saying Dems only support VOLUNTARY gay sex help with righties?
	NO-- the right would really prefer lynching. anything that emphasizes live and let live is repugnant to them
	NO--righties would not be able to process something they didn't hear from Rush or Fox News. They are the gimp locked in the trunk of the right wing co
	MAYBE--if it got enough airplay and Democrats had the balls to do it (two ginormous and unlikely ifs)
	YES--the fear of being raped would trump the more obtuse threat of being converted by osmosis if gays married.
	I'm George W. Bush, and sodomy is not gay unless I say so. See sodomy is gay sex between two terrist loving Democrats. When you rape a prisoner, yur jes showin' em who's boss.
	other
Free polls from Pollhost.com