Rick Santorum Wants To Nullify Gay Marriages

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July.

 

Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president.

 

Once the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit same-gender marriages, "their marriage would be invalid," the former Pennsylvania senator said Dec. 30 in an NBC News interview.

 

"We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."

 

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/02/BA3Q1N9EV9.DTL#ixzz1oBHXp72x

 

For the love of God.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

THIS IS NOT A THEOCRACY YOU STUPID OVERZEALOUS MOTHER FUCKER

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Hey Rick, you know that Constitution you want to amend? Try reading Amendment #1. Freedom. Of. Religion.

[CARDINAL 205]

I personally am against the notion of same-sex marriage, but this is a bit ridiculous. It should be a state issue, and that the people in each state have the right to vote on this issue (or any other issue of equal significance to society at large) through a referendum. I don't believe that the court system should be involved in this type of issue, that it should based on popular sovereignty (meaning the people have the ultimate and supreme authority in these types of fundamental decisions). I think that would solve a lot of the problems surrounding this issue, and then people can focus on more pressing and dangerous issues such as the level of federal debt, fixing the strutural flaws in the economic system, and other issues of that magnitude!!!

Edited March 8, 2012 by Cardingo

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I personally am against the notion of same-sex marriage,

 

 

Why?

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Religion has no place in politics. One of the many reasons the people who founded this country came here was freedom of religious oppression. That means it wouldn't really be fair to have a law passed based on religious beliefs. I'm not gay, but the fact is that gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone. It's time for the government to get their paws off our rights. Same goes for vice crimes.

[Thanatos 2,847]

As soon as Mr. Santorum can give a completely non-religious argument against gay marriages, then I'll give him a listen. Regardless of personal beliefs, you don't take your religious beliefs and try to implement them in the country by using the government. That is exactly the reason why America was founded in the first place.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Thanatos 2,847]

I personally am against the notion of same-sex marriage, but this is a bit ridiculous. it should be a state issue, and that the people in each state have the right to vote on this through a referendum. I don't believe that the court system should be involved in this type of issue, that it should based on popular sovereignty (meaning the people have the ultimate and supreme authority in these types of fundamental decisions). I think that would solve a lot of the problems surrounding this issue, and then people can focus on more pressing and dangerous issues such as the level of federal debt, fixing the strutural flaws in the economic system, and other issues of that magnitude!!!

 

No. You don't get to decide who gets what rights based on a popular vote. Come on, man. We're not a democracy, we're a republic based on the Constitution. The Constitution exists, partly, to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Santorum also said this:

"Just because public opinion says something doesn't mean it's right," he said in the NBC interview. "I'm sure there were times in areas of this country when people said blacks were less than human."

 

Does he not see the irony in this statement at all?

Edited March 5, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

 

Santorum also said this:

 

 

Does he not see the irony in this statement at all?

 

No. The dude is seriously an idiot.

 

[WindyCitySports 407]

“This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do…that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

 

“My general feeling is that we have a free market and a free market that works; but, like any freedom, there has to be regulation…"

 

-Rick "The Prick" Santorum

 

It is beyond me how so many Tea Partiers can support this man. Here he is, saying flat out that the states shouldn't have the right to decide on this issue, yet one of the top Tea Party slogans is "State's Rights." And that's not even touching his liberal economic policies.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Not a slight to JD for posting the article but honestly, who the fuck cares? There are so many bigger issues on the table here.

 

My opinion on the issue though is that we're a country with a system of laws based on ethics, not morality. You can't legislate good vs. bad imo but you can legislate and regulate what is right and wrong. It's an unethical position to force ones morals onto someone else. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage you can't constitutionally prevent somebody from practicing their religion unless you make a law establishing a state religion which coincidentally is also found in the same first right in the bill of rights.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Not a slight to JD for posting the article but honestly, who the fuck cares? There are so many bigger issues on the table here.

 

My opinion on the issue though is that we're a country with a system of laws based on ethics, not morality. You can't legislate good vs. bad imo but you can legislate and regulate what is right and wrong. It's an unethical position to force ones morals onto someone else. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage you can't constitutionally prevent somebody from practicing their religion unless you make a law establishing a state religion which coincidentally is also found in the same first right in the bill of rights.

 

Are you serious?

 

The man said if he assumed office he would DISSOLVE ALL GAY MARRIAGES.

 

How is that NOT a big issue?

 

This is potentially one of the biggest slights to the US Constitution in our history. And he is BRAGGING ABOUT IT. What a complete violation of personal liberties.

 

I'd also like you to know that you aren't getting negged because you made fun of me posting this. You are getting negged because your response is just unthinkable.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Are you serious?

 

The man said if he assumed office he would DISSOLVE ALL GAY MARRIAGES.

 

Just fyi, that's not exactly what he said.

 

He said, if there was a Constitutional Amendment put into place that said marriage was just between a man and a woman, then any gay marriages that took place would have to be dissolved retroactively. He, as the President, wouldn't actually have the power to dissolve any marriage.

 

Since there's about as much chance of that Constitutional Amendment passing as there is of Barack Obama and Rick Santorum getting married themselves, this is just more political grandstanding by a politician who believes he can win more votes with this type of extremist view, (which is troubling), than by a more moderate view.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Just fyi, that's not exactly what he said.

 

He said, if there was a Constitutional Amendment put into place that said marriage was just between a man and a woman, then any gay marriages that took place would have to be dissolved retroactively. He, as the President, wouldn't actually have the power to dissolve any marriage.

 

Since there's about as much chance of that Constitutional Amendment passing as there is of Barack Obama and Rick Santorum getting married themselves, this is just more political grandstanding by a politician who believes he can win more votes with this type of extremist view, (which is troubling), than by a more moderate view.

 

That's fair skepticism. But I am still deeply troubled by Santorum's frame of mind regarding the issue. Whether it comes to pass or not, that is not somebody I want leading my country.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Are you serious?

 

The man said if he assumed office he would DISSOLVE ALL GAY MARRIAGES.

 

How is that NOT a big issue?

 

This is potentially one of the biggest slights to the US Constitution in our history. And he is BRAGGING ABOUT IT. What a complete violation of personal liberties.

 

I'd also like you to know that you aren't getting negged because you made fun of me posting this. You are getting negged because your response is just unthinkable.

I don't know anyone who takes Santorum seriously. It's kinda been a given that Romney is going to win the Republican nomination. I think most people see than Santorum is a nut.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I don't know anyone who takes Santorum seriously. It's kinda been a given that Romney is going to win the Republican nomination. I think most people see than Santorum is a nut.

 

The one thing necessary for a nutcase to win? For normal people not to take them seriously. Santorum is a serious threat.

 

Believe me, in the circles I hang out around, most of the people I know down here in Kentucky will vote for Santorum over Romney or Obama. They can't stand Obama's liberal policies, (you know, all the ones they've been told are liberal by the talking heads in the media), and they can't stand the fact that Romney is a Mormon, but apparently voting for a Catholic is completely okay by them. (No offense meant to any Catholics, but if you heard their reasoning for not voting for "one of them Mormons", it would work just as well against anyone of another Protestant denomination, much less a Catholic.)

 

Do not EVER underestimate the stupidity of the masses.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Not a slight to JD for posting the article but honestly, who the fuck cares? There are so many bigger issues on the table here.

 

My opinion on the issue though is that we're a country with a system of laws based on ethics, not morality. You can't legislate good vs. bad imo but you can legislate and regulate what is right and wrong. It's an unethical position to force ones morals onto someone else. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage you can't constitutionally prevent somebody from practicing their religion unless you make a law establishing a state religion which coincidentally is also found in the same first right in the bill of rights.

Gay marriage is the hottest issue out there right now other than abortion (which is a always the hottest issue). Also, banning gay marriage is not letting someone practice their religion...

[Thanatos 2,847]

Also, banning gay marriage is not letting someone practice their religion...

 

Wait, what?

[oochymp 2,393]

The one thing necessary for a nutcase to win? For normal people not to take them seriously. Santorum is a serious threat.

I disagree, he might win the primary based on the extreme vote since the extreme view accounts for at least half of the primary voters, but there's no way a nutcase would win the general election, all it takes to mobilize the moderates against a nutcase is for that nutcase to win their party's nomination

[WindyCitySports 407]

Wait, what?

This statement doesn't really make sense, but I took it to mean that advocating for gay rights was infringing upon people's religion:

 

"It's an unethical position to force ones morals onto someone else. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage you can't constitutionally prevent somebody from practicing their religion unless you make a law establishing a state religion which coincidentally is also found in the same first right in the bill of rights."

 

-Sean Brock

Edited March 7, 2012 by WindyCitySports

[Thanatos 2,847]

This statement doesn't really make sense, but I took it to mean that advocating for gay rights was infringing upon people's religion:

 

Even if that was true, the reverse is not taking away someone's religion. It has nothing to do with religion. There is no religion that says you must be gay that I'm aware of. It's about treating people the same, and giving them the same freedoms as others.

 

I agree with your overall point, I'm just saying your argument that taking away gay marriage is infringing upon someone's religion doesn't work, unless I'm just not seeing something.

[CARDINAL 205]

Religion has no place in politics. One of the many reasons the people who founded this country came here was freedom of religious oppression. That means it wouldn't really be fair to have a law passed based on religious beliefs. I'm not gay, but the fact is that gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone. It's time for the government to get their paws off our rights. Same goes for vice crimes.

 

Sarge, I agree with your fundamental point of the separation of reilgion and politics. I disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul stands for, but I like the fact that on his website he says that he's a religious person but just doesn't want to manipulate it for political purposes or gain. I think he is the most ethical person in the republican field because when he speaks you know he's saying what he believes, and then he explaining why specifically he believes that particular stance and what would happen if you implement that stance into public policy or law.

 

In regards to "vice crimes" (prostitution, smoking marijuana, etc.) I agree that most of them should be decriminalized but they should still have both state and federral laws that criminalize the activities around those vice crimes. For example, I was reading this a while back that in France they have made prostitution legal, but it's illegal to use say public company funds to pay for prostitution or for people to employee prostitutes because there always pimps in disguise that are more likely than not abusing the women who practice that profession. I think that's a pretty balanced solution to this particular problem. They need to have both state laws regarding this, but also federal laws surrounding this if the women were to cross state borders and are involved in the illegal business side of prostitution, or if they cross international borders coming from another country. It's like the marijuana debate, where people say it should be legalized but still taxed and regulated so criminal activity doesn't manifest itself and find a niche in that particular activity!

 

What do ya'll think of my idea surrounding prostitution as an example involving "vice crimes"?

[CARDINAL 205]

No. You don't get to decide who gets what rights based on a popular vote. Come on, man. We're not a democracy, we're a republic based on the Constitution. The Constitution exists, partly, to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Santorum also said this:

 

 

Does he not see the irony in this statement at all?

 

Thanatos, more missing my point. Popular Sovereinty implies that the people have the "sovereignty" (the supreme and independent authority to make decisions either for yourself or the state or government making decisions over a geographic area) to choose what type of government they want. When the court system makes a decision such as legalizing same-sex marriage it's using the doctrine know as "living tree doctrine", which basicly says that constitutions are a "living document" and evolve or "grow" (like a tree, hence the name) over time based on contemporary circumstances. All I'm saying is that since it doesn't specifically deal with marriage specfically in the US constition that it should be decided by either the general voting public in a referendum with a simple question that says either you agree or disagree with legalizing same-sex marriage, or either by a 2/3 majority in the state legislature.

 

Also, a democracy and a republic are the same thing basicly. A democracy is where people choose the type of government they want, where a republic is where people choose the type of government they want interms of who's in office but it's just different in terms of how the internal political dealings work. It's the same as say a parliamentary democracy just that it's procedural workings are the same, but the substantive view of people having the ability to choose and vote in free and fair elections for who they want is still the same. It's just basicly how you carry out the fundamental principles of what a democracy stands for, in the way you create your election system and stuff like that.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Thanatos, more missing my point. Popular Sovereinty implies that the people have the "sovereignty" (the supreme and independent authority to make decisions either for yourself or the state or government making decisions over a geographic area) to choose what type of government they want. When the court system makes a decision such as legalizing same-sex marriage it's using the doctrine know as "living tree doctrine", which basicly says that constitutions are a "living document" and evolve or "grow" (like a tree, hence the name) over time based on contemporary circumstances. All I'm saying is that since it doesn't specifically deal with marriage specfically in the US constition that it should be decided by either the general voting public in a referendum with a simple question that says either you agree or disagree with legalizing same-sex marriage, or either by a 2/3 majority in the state legislature.

 

Also, a democracy and a republic are the same thing basicly. A democracy is where people choose the type of government they want, where a republic is where people choose the type of government they want interms of who's in office but it's just different in terms of how the internal political dealings work. It's the same as say a parliamentary democracy just that it's procedural workings are the same, but the substantive view of people having the ability to choose and vote in free and fair elections for who they want is still the same. It's just basicly how you carry out the fundamental principles of what a democracy stands for, in the way you create your election system and stuff like that.

 

You need to go look up the definition of democracy and republic if you think they're the same. A pure democracy is mob rule.

 

Allowing gays to marry doesn't mean you think the Constitution is a living document, not at all. Why do you have the right to take away someone else's right to marry who they want? It's none of your business.

Not even if everyone in the US says you do.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If being able to marry who you love isn't part of the pursuit of happiness, I don't know what is.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Thanatos19

[CARDINAL 205]

You need to go look up the definition of democracy and republic if you think they're the same. A pure democracy is mob rule.

 

Allowing gays to marry doesn't mean you think the Constitution is a living document, not at all. Why do you have the right to take away someone else's right to marry who they want? It's none of your business.

Not even if everyone in the US says you do.

 

 

If being able to marry who you love isn't part of the pursuit of happiness, I don't know what is.

 

Dude, what your describing as "pure democracy" is basicly anarchy where it's just complete chaos and lawlessness with no central authority or government to maintain some form of social order and stability.