ShareThis Page

Gay-marriage support sitcom's fault

| Saturday, Oct. 26, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
ONE LAST EMBRACE FOR 'WILL & GRACE' — 'The Finale' — Pictured: (l-r) Eric McCormack as Will Truman, Debra Messing as Grace Adler
Jamaican Reggae singer Bob Marley performs on stage during a concert in Bourget, Paris, on July 3, 1980. (AP Photo/Str)

If not for a sitcom canceled seven years ago, there wouldn't be nearly the support that exists today for gay marriage.

That peculiar version of history was offered recently by former U.S. senator of Pennsylvania and presumptive 2016 GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. The Huffington Post reported that Santorum, speaking at the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference, blamed the long-forgotten NBC comedy “Will & Grace” for changing gay-marriage attitudes.

The show, which ran from 1998 to 2006, dealt with the relationship between a homosexual attorney and his female best friend.

“When it came to the issues of changing the definition of marriage, there was no change — none! Zero! For 30 years,” Santorum said. “And then a television show came on the air called ‘Will & Grace' — and look at it from that point on.”

Given that insane logic, and the current popularity of AMC's “The Walking Dead,” we suppose zombies will have the right to vote within a decade.

PHONE'S RING SETS WRONG TONE FOR DEFENSE LAWYER. Pittsburgh defense attorney Paul Gettleman probably isn't making many law-enforcement friends with his choice of cellphone ringtone.

You might recall that Gettleman represented one of two suspects charged last year in the shooting that paralyzed Clairton police Officer James Kuzak Jr. of Rostraver. Of the two suspects, one was acquitted of all charges; the other was convicted of lesser charges.

On Wednesday, Gettleman was in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Phillip Ignelzi's courtroom when his cellphone went off. His ringtone?

Bob Marley's “I Shot The Sheriff.”

UNNECESSARY EXPENSE. We hope Bill Peduto is more responsible with Pittsburgh's finances than he has been lately with his campaign war chest.

The prohibitive favorite in next week's mayoral election is opposed by a Republican candidate who sold his house and left the country, plus an 80-year-old former food chemist running as an independent.

Yet PoliticsPA reported that Peduto's team spent more than $85,000 on campaign commercials last week. Seems like kind of a waste of money, as Peduto still will win the election comfortably even if he spends this last week of the campaign hopping along Grant Street in a bunny suit.

LONG ROAD. Recently filed campaign expense reports indicate that John Hugya, former chief of staff for the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha, has a long financial road ahead if he hopes to capture the 2014 Democrat nomination for the 12th Congressional District seat held by Republican Keith Rothfus.

Hugya, 78, a retired Marine colonel from Somerset County, stated that from July 1 through Sept. 30, his campaign garnered just $225 in contributions, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Hugya's chief competitor for the Democrat nomination, Erin McClelland of Lower Burrell, reported cash on hand of $71,978.

Rothfus, the first-term incumbent from Sewickley, Allegheny County, reported a war chest of $750,650. He defeated Rep. Mark Critz, D-Johnstown, in 2012.

— compiled by Tribune Total Media staff

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.