Rick Santorum is living in another era, on another planet perhaps. The presidential candidate has made it very clear he is uncomfortable in an America that allows homosexuality, allows women to properly serve in the military and gives women control of their bodies. 

I will not let a man who bears a passing resemblance and displays an equivalent IQ to Gomer Pyle from “The Andy Griffith Show” dictate views on social issues.

Wake up, Gomer. This is not 1950. It is 2012 and things have changed. 

Santorum’s campaign has seen a big push lately due to his opinions on social issues, rather than the economy, and because he is not Mitt Romney. Social issues will do a good job of whipping up base support, but the economy remains the focus point of citizens. That is not me just saying that, numerous GOP strategists told NBC News’ First Read the same thing. 

But Santorum’s strength does not lie in talking about the economy. He made a name for himself in the Senate for his ultra-conservative “family values.” Santorum is trying to bring that into his presidential campaign, but the average U.S. citizen is not amused. The Pew Research Center released a survey conducted from Feb. 8 to Feb. 12 that found President Barack Obama holds a 10 percentage point lead over Santorum.

A big part of Santorum’s campaign has focused on gay marriage. You can go back to August 2011, when Santorum made his great “napkin-paper towel” analogy to explain why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. His basic argument was that marriage is between a man and a woman, and anything else is not actually marriage. Just like a napkin is not a paper towel, they are separate entities.

I use napkins and paper towels interchangeably, as do most people I know, so I miss the point of Santorum’s analogy. I guess that makes me a bisexual by Santorum’s logic. 

I continue to be baffled by the arguments against equal rights for homosexuals. Sixty years ago you could have gotten away with denying marriage to certain people. It was not until Loving v. Virginia (1967) that race-based restrictions on marriage were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

There are few differences between denying race-based restrictions and sexual orientation-based restrictions on marriage. You are still denying a basic human right on the basis of one unchangeable characteristic.

But this is not allowed in Gomer’s world. Oh no. What would poor little Opie think if he found out two men can marry each other? Poor Aunt Bee would probably faint from shock.

No, homosexuals cannot marry. Why? Because God’s law forbids it. Santorum made it very clear on Nov. 19, 2011 at a presidential forum in Iowa that “we must abide by” God’s law. Or, at least his version  of God’s law. I do not think Santorum has Allah or Jehovah in mind.

We cannot do anything that rejects God’s law, which is why Santorum has been very vocal about women moving closer to frontline combat and Obama’s contraception plan. Both cases involve government leaders forcing their value judgments upon the nation. That is why Santorum has promised to keep marriage between a man and a woman, overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and Roe v. Wade (1973) and prevent Obama’s contraception plan. Because no single person’s values should become national law — except for Santorum’s.

Oh, Gomer. Your views are so quaint and antiquated. You probably think you are being chivalrous in wanting to keep women out of combat, but you come off as prudish and out of touch. A woman trained in the use of firearms and tactics has as much right to defend her country as a well-trained man — or the thousands of men who do not sign up for military service.

The country has changed, Santorum. The mistakes of the past continue to be slowly repaired. You might call it pushing a liberal agenda, I call it natural progress.