Rick Santorum #fundie

Rick Santorum #fundie thinkprogress.org

Social conservatives are lauding Rick Santorum’s “surge” to third place in the Iowa polls, but his new forthrightness about his positions may backfire. In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Santorum explained that not only would he support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he supports invalidating all currently legal same-sex unions:

SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law—

TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution— I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

76 comments

old comment by Canadiest

Oddly enough:
He just came out yesterday to say he thinks states should be allowed to seperately decide if they can ban contraceptive products.
And of course everyone in the Gop running thinks states should be in control of creation teaching in schools or not.

Please pay attention to who you're voting in and their agendas, please remember what's occured in the states where you've already voted in holy-rollers. There's conservative values and there's bat-shit insane beliefs and the two don't have to co-exist.

There was a time where conservatives didn't walk the fundie line at all, called them extremists and not to be taken seriously, spoke of how their religious agendas were threats to individual freedoms. Not any more.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law"

Care to explain how including same sex couples in the current existing marriage laws creates "50 different marriage laws"--or even two marriage laws?

"SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid."

In your wet dreams, buddy.

"I think if the constitution says 'marriage is this,' then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution"

I'm no Constitutional scholar but I'm pretty sure that marriage, of all things, is just a wee little bit beyond the scope of concern for the Constitution, jackass.

"I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it."

There is. We've been doing it for several years now in various states.

Do try to keep up.

old comment by Xotan

Essentially removing the protection of the law from one particular categorty of citizen is reminiscent of what happened to the Jews in Germany. Santorum has ambitions to be a Nazi? It begs the question: what next?

What about states that already have gaymarriage on their statute books? Would they be happy with retrospective legislation, or would they want out of a union of states that allow retrospection and the exclusion of a category of citizens?

It's interesting that the Nazis in 1930s/40s Germany singled out not only the Jews but other minority groupings too. So, after Santorum has finished with gays, who does he go after next?

Knife's edge stuff this, Ricky. You fascism is showing strong.

old comment by sandchigger

The POTUS has exactly zero power to amend the constitution. I wonder if ole Ricky here knows that.

For those playing at home, there are two ways to propose an amendment:

1. Both houses of congress (the House and the Senate) approve by a two-thirds majority a joint resolution to amend the constitution. This is then sent to the states to ratify.

2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national constitutional convention to propose amendments (this has never, ever been done).

Furthermore there are two ways to ratify any amendments proposed in the aforementioned two scenarios:

1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures vote to approve the amendment.

2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve the amendment (this was done once, to approve the 21st amendment which repealed Prohibition).

Nowhere in that list does the POTUS have any say in the matters because the executive branch of government does not make laws.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

(P)RICK RANTSORBUM: "Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,”

Ahem:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Click 'Edit', then click 'Find', and type the word 'Marriage' and click 'Next'.

I don't need to 'think' to determine whether or not the US Constitution says 'marriage is this' in it. I know it doesn't, and I'm British.

It says so much about a country, when a sizeable proportion of it's own citizens clearly haven't even read the very document that is the basis of the country they dare claim to be a citizen of, least of all run for it's highest office. And when people outside that country know more about said document than those citizens within such.

Which is why I can't thank my teachers enough. Certainly when we studied the US Constitution as part of History class (re. history of the USA).

So you'd 'support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; supports invalidating all currently legal same-sex unions' eh, (P)rick Rantsorbum?

You haven't even read your own Constitution. Not just your argument, but your candidacy, nay, your right to live in the US, is invalid.

'Think'. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you...!

...oh wait. X3

@Canadiest

"Oddly enough:
He just came out yesterday to say he thinks states should be allowed to seperately decide if they can ban contraceptive products."

Odd indeed. And they dare accuse Mitt Romney of 'flip-flopping' when it comes to policy?

Oh, the double-standards. Oh, the hypocrisy. Oh, the SHAME!

old comment by = POPE =

"I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it."

Hey, stupid little conservatoad, I bet the dipshits that tried this one wished they could think ... of another way too:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

We all know how well that worked out - those of us that weren't playing with our winkie in History class.

old comment by John

Santorum explained that not only would he support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he supports invalidating all currently legal same-sex unions

Who gives a crap what US Constitution amendment Santorum would support? An amendment can't even be proposed unless two thirds of both houses of Congress or two thirds of the state legislatures call a constitutional convention. Then the proposed amendment has to be ratified by the legislatures of 38 of the 50 states. The President has absolutely zero say in amending the US Constitution. He can't propose it, it can't veto it and he has only the same one vote as the rest of the US citizens for congress people or state legislators.

I'm always amazed at how people choose elected representatives based on things the candidates have no control over.

old comment by Neith

Unbelieveable. In the video embedded on that page, he even admits that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is a special privilege.

Also:
Question: "Do you think marriage should be a state issue?"

Santorum: "No, I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. You can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law, and you can't go to one state and be married, and another state and not be married, because then you move to that state and what do you, how do you, do you get divorced if you separate?"

I actually agree with these words, but not with his beliefs as to what should define a marriage. Marriage should be defined as being between consenting adults, regardless of gender, and it should be recognized in every state.

old comment by Skyknight

1363369: I think it's that as far as authoritarians and their ilk are concerned, justice isn't its own purpose, or meant primarily to summon peace and/or happiness. Rather, it's supposed to summon glory and utopia--glory and utopia first and foremost to their own sect/tribe/order/etc. (It doesn't help that with all the keening against homosexuals, socialists, etc., their prayers tend to run along the lines of "Oh God, I am grateful that you made me righteous, unlike the tax collectors"...)

Basically, although they probably don't use these terms in their internal logic, justice and fairness fall short of the mark; only unconditional approbation and impunity strike it. Justice, science, and so on are only regarded as valid so far as they summon utopia; existence has no other valid purpose, to them.

Rick Santorum #fundie thinkprogress.org

76 comments

Confused?