Rick Santorum, you may recall, discussed same-sex marriage with this:

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

And the Lawrence decision, you know, the one that said it wasn't OK to arrest us because we don't choose to be celibate, was described with this:

Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does

And let's not forget when he compared Senate Democrats to Hitler in 2005 for threatening to filibuster judicial nominees (which, ironically, the Republicans did just today on the Webb Amendment. If they hadn't threatened, it would have passed with 54 votes):

I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judged. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942, "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine." This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused.

And yet he still feels that he's in a position to say that MoveOn.org went too far.

Of course, we know what this is: a tool to distract us from one huge, glaring elephant in the room: the fact that they said they'd have results for the "surge" by September, and that those results would be that a space had been created for conflict to be resolved over the summer. Well, that's just the elephant in the room, there's the herd just outside, that an invasion of Iraq would stabilize and democratize the Middle East in a matter of months, starting in early 2003. Those haven't happened, so why not distract people a little?

It got even more maddening on Hannity & Colmes when Sean said, in response to Harold Ford's attempts to talk about the war:

I don't want to get off-track here because this is too important an issue.

"Off-track", of course, meaning talking about reality instead of this momentary distraction.

What makes this situation infuriating is that the Senate has now acted to censure a body not for the speech that they used (which would already be ridiculous), but to silence them for the content of that speech. They haven't censured anyone who's cast aspersions on anyone else's motives.

And that's scary. And the fact that 22 Senate Democrats voted with the Republicans makes this whole thing seem hopeless. How do you change 73% of the Senate? Is it that big of a percentage of the people around me who don't believe that the Senate should be discussing substantive issues? And where are these people who don't think that we should be able to speak about these substantive issues without having a Senate resolution passed condemning it?

It's ridiculous, really, the state that we've let ourselves get to when it comes to free speech. You can say this terribly offensive thing and still be one of the most powerful people in the country, say that silly thing and you're the spawn of the devil in the eyes of the Senate. And, no matter what happens, Rick Santorum will try to teach you a lesson about civil discourse.

I smell sitcom!