ThinkProgress filed this report from Des Moines, Iowa.

Unabashed social conservative former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is quick to condemn homosexuality or abortion, but asked by ThinkProgress at Monday’s Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition presidential forum if Newt Gingrich had credibility to lead on “social” issues given his extramarital affairs and multiple marriages, Santorum refused to pass judgment on the former Speaker. “You have to talk to the Speaker about his issues,” he said, in an effort to dismiss the question:

VOLSKY: Do you think it’s a problem for somebody to be running for President and talking about family issues but having that kind of background?

SANTORUM: Look, I think people should be able to articulate the positions they feel are best for society and with the understanding that we all fall short of what we think is the best sometimes, so. I don’t want people who because they’ve felt they had a fault in their life feel you can’t stand up and say, this is what’s optimal, this is what’s best.

VOLSKY: But do you really feel he has credibility on those issues?

SANTORUM: I think that’s for people of Iowa and other places to decide, but I think it’s important that we all understand that just because you fall short of the mark doesn’t mean you shouldn’t stand and say this is what’s best. And even though I may not have lived up to it, this is what’s best, this is what’s good for society and I think that’s the case on a lot of fronts.

Watch it:

Santorum is far less generous to those with whom he disagrees, including President Bill Clinton. Asked whether he thought Clinton was morally fit to stay in office following his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Santorum — who voted to convict Clinton — told the Dallas Morning News in February of 1998, “I would say no, he’s not.”

“I think it’s a sign of decadence and decay. Which is a threat to the fabric of this country,” Santorum was quoted as saying in the Washington Post in January 1998.

ThinkProgress intern Kevin Donohoe contributed research to this post.

ThinkProgress filed this report from Pella, Iowa.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) became flustered yesterday afternoon when pressed on his position on the government’s role in regulating marriage during an appearance at a “Presidential Symposium” sponsored by the Family Leader — an anti-gay group working to repeal a 2009 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Paul mostly stuck to his signature issues of abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning the United States back to the gold standard in his 25 minute “lecture” but also mentioned the importance of the family and his support for the Defense of Marriage Act. Paul even chastised President Obama for failing to defend the law, arguing that the Act preserved the rights of local government and peoples to uphold certain community standards.

But during a press availability following the event, Paul said that the Iowa Supreme Court has a Constitutional right to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, leading his aide to intervene and remind him that he also supported the Family Leader’s successful campaign to recall the judges who issued the ruling:

REPORTER: The state court’s ability to legalize [same-sex marriage] you’re okay with that?

PAUL: Oh yea, sure, every state should have a right, the same way when…

[Aide attempts to correct Paul, saying he supports the recall of judges.]

REPORTER: So you support the ruling, you also support…

PAUL: I support the state of Iowa to get rid of the judges and to write laws dealing with marriage, not the federal government. DOMA I believe was undermining that right so Iowa has the right to determine what they want in marriage.

Watch it:

On Friday, Paul told Iowa Radio, “We just don’t need the government defining marriage. Society should do that. And if you have a certain society that has respect for traditional marriage, that’s what would happen.” During a Presidential debate in 2007, Paul argued, “My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved.“ “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want,” he added.