Santorum: 'I would overturn' any Supreme Court ruling same-sex marriage legal

This kind of thinking proves that Sanctimonious doesn't understand the role of the courts, particularly SCOTUS., nor the role of the president.

And we need judges who respect the people's voice.

The Court should not respect the people's voice, but rather rule on the issues of law.

He has no business running for any office because he doesn't understand the most basic principles of American government.

The purpose of the Courts is to protect the rights of the minority. You can't have a "vote " that allows the majority to take rights away from the minority.

Happily BLUE in Ohio. . . . You took the words right out of my mouth. Sadly, iIt seems that Santorum doesn't know how our governmental system works. How on Earth can anyone consider this person even remotely considered qualified to run for the POTUS?!?!?

Regarding the understanding of HOW our government is organized and works, there really should be a minimal standard of understanding placed on anyone to meet who wishes to run for an elected governmental position, especially for POTUS. It seems that Santorum doesn't even meet a minimal standard. And yet, he's allowed to run. How dangerous is that?!?!???

ICU Nurse,

Sanctimonious is not only ignorant of the principles of government, he's also downright CRAZY! As if that isn't scary enough, other crazies are actually voting for him. Now THAT'S even more disturbing.

Of course if Saint Torium wins the GNOP nod, an Obama victory will be easier, but it is truly disturbing that anyone would consider Sanctimonious even remotely capable of serving.

And we need judges who respect the people's voice.

No we don't. There is nothing sacred about the people's voice. As often as not, the people are selfish and stupid. We need judges who can set aside their own ideology and respect the Constitution and the law.

No one should be allowed to run for President until they can pass a test in basic civics, foreign policy and common law. Seriously. When we let any idiot run, and give them a platform...they just encourage the other idiots and embarrass the country.

And we need judges who respect the people's voice. Let the people decide with respect to what the constitution says, if in fact they would go through a constitutional amendment process."

Saint Orum just demonstrated his complete ignorance as to the whole purpose of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

-- Rick: The Constitution is designed to protect the rights of everyone from everyone, ie: protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

It is the job of our judicial system to interpret the Constitution, and see that everyone's rights are protected.... not just the majority's.

The majority does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of a minority, or vice versa.

The people's voice does not apply to someone's rights.

Did Little Ricky even pass his Constitution test back in high school? I suppose he prefers regular tyranny over "judicial tyranny," so he could impose it if he were elected. In imagining the inside of his head, I see a block of plastic foam, with the words "gay is wrong" scratched onto it with a cheap crayon. Nothing else happening in there. (Except maybe the fear that he'll have to come out someday; his obsession is classic downlow denial, or the fascination of those subconsciously attracted to what they claim to despise.)

The Presidency is NOT for a personal Social Issues agenda.

Religious ideology rears its ugly head in our politics again. The separation of church and state is not a right according to the righteous red right, it is their duty to make America to surcome to THEIR idea of how the majority of the people have to live by their rules. If you thinkabout what this JO just said, screw the rules of the land, and I, because of the way I feel think I have the right to tell you to go to hell, and stick your laws where they don't mean a dam thing. Elections are in November, please remember thing like this and get of your pants and vote.

Wonder if Barack knows he can overturn Citizens United?

Sick Rick the sex pervert states he thinks judicial tyranny is a serious issue????

How about "Santorum" tyranny against women and American citizen's that do not fit into his narrow minded agenda?????

Rick-go back to bed and obsess about other peoples sex lives.

Stay away from the real Americans that believe in freedom from sicko's like you.

Another thread asked Could Santorum Actually Beat Romney? And Would the Obama Campaign be Ready?

The answers are yes and yes.

All Obama has to do is point out what Sanitarium says.

Santorum's a true believer. He didn't drink the Kool-Aid, he mixed it.

He believers everything coming out of his mouth comes directly from God's brain. Even Perry and Bachmann eventually realized they had faulty connections.

Just keep running your mouth, Santorum.

Santorum et al make lousy choices, primarily because of their worship of wealth and big business. But I'd doubt that everyone tows a perfect party line. For me, not bowing to this sort of thing would be at least one bright spot if one of them somehow would win.

The right never respect the separation of powers. They constantly go off on activist judges. They ignored subpoenas under bush.

Heck Bush ignored the supreme court who stated teh clean air act COMPELLED the epa to do something about global warming, unless it could provide a scientifically backed reason for not doing so.

www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/washington/04climate.html?hp

gingrich said he would ignore the courts.

bush totally ignored congressional subpoenas.

The right dont believe in america, not the one we got set up.

Though by a slim margin, at present, the majority of the Nation favors equal treatment for the LGBT community.

true. and that margin as time goes on will only get wider.

eventually people like Santorum will be nothing more than a subset of society that we in the future will be ashamed of as ignorant pests ... not unlike Westboro is now.

You'll notice Santorum didn't even mention overturning Citizens United when he was talking about "respecting the citizens voice". These fascists have only one goal, and that's absolute control and power. They and their henchmen on the Supreme Ct. have already sold our elections to their corporate funders, and now they've duped dumbasses into voting to give up their right to a voice in the workplace, standards that protect our air and water from industry pollution, and the right of women to control their own bodies.

Voting in the presidential election this year is more important than it has ever been in most of our lifetimes. Obama 2012.

If a religious ideologue like Butt Froth ever got into office the end results would be disastrous along the lines of what Hitler did to the Jews! I don't say this just to inflame, it wouldn't take too much to turn things that way. A few like minded people in the military and in state governments across the land and it could actually happen. Just look at the way this mans eyes get glazed over when he gets all holy during his speeches, he truly believes the nonsense he spews which makes him all the more dangerous!

...along the lines of what Hitler did to the Jews!

Seriously, you're going to equate a refusal to allow two men to get "married", with the murder of millions of people?

Davey,

I think Sharkey was talking about taking rights and freedoms away from citizens, such as Muslims, gays, Negroes, women,etc.

Redder

No the purpose of the courts is not to protect the minorities. It is to protect the letter and intent of the law in an equal manner for everyone (weather in practices it is true is questionable, give judges have a hard time removing their liberal/conservative robes when sitting on the bench). Also to avoid where Juntas of dictators or Monarchies or in some parts, religious law could protect the letter of the law on equal footing for all. MIND YOU I SAY EQUAL.

As to this president wannabecomments what he may want and what he may get are two different things. He truly must have illutions of grandeur if he thinks he can pull that off

Hawk,

I respectfully disagree. If the majority votes to take rights away from a segment of the population the court will throw out that law as unconstitutional.

Majority does not always rule.

Religious law can NEVER supercede secular law in a democracy.

eventually people like Santorum will be nothing more than a subset of society that we in the future will be ashamed of as ignorant pests ... not unlike Westboro is now.

They come up every 10 years or so... the Moral Majority rehashed. So far we've been fortunate as a nation to squish their major bids for power.

But don't get cocky, they have been insidiously working over the years to get into all sorts of offices. This has been their strategy since their last failure to grab seats in the public eye. They have been snatching up small government posts throughout the country, relatively unnoticed, and infecting our school boards. This whole parasitic attachment to the Tea Party is just one result.

No the purpose of the courts is not to protect the minorities.

I was referring to the Bill of Rights, and indeed it was designed with the concept of protecting all people from 'majority rule' in regard to a person's rights and liberties. The framers understood first hand what it meant to live as a religious minority at the jurisprudence of another religious majority.

Davey - what I am talking about is a religious zealot getting into office and the consequences that can occur as a result. They are very real as history has shown time and time again what happens when people of this type are able to get into position of power.

If you listened to CPAC speechs and comments and were not scared for our country you obviously want the republicans' to win.

Don't let 2010 happen in 2012 by not voting. These people with their religious and neo-nazi idea's have infiltrated all layers of our government and want to elect one of these guys as our president and get a majority in our congress.

Jesus who would have thought I'd sound like my father talking about the John Birch Society in the 50's oops it is the John Birch Society (Koch brothers father one of the founders).

Redder

I believe we are saying the same thing just in a different manner, because as you well stated. I just say it in a different manner , The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any attempt by anyone majority or minority to take away any rights under the Constitution, would be in fact a question of the letter and intent of the law under the Constitution.

Shuklack

Point well takeninto

#1.19 No Davy, he's talking about the rise of fascism in this country, the duping of low IQ citizens into believing that their rights are under seige, spreading hate and fear of modernization, telling economically miserable people that educated people and education are their enemies, (and are the reason for their condition). And the funding and organization of a "citizens" movement by rich corporations who will benefit financially by convincing these people to hand over their God given Constitutional rights. Like their hard won right to a say in the workplace, or their right to standards that control how much pollution industry can dump in the water and air. Gay marriage is a wedge issue, a bogeyman to unite those who think that the cover of "religion" makes it ok to deny some American's their constitutional rights. That's why it's so important to vote in November, and to fight for separation of church and state. Our Constitutional rights and freedom of religion are too important to hand them over to a bunch of power grubbing right wingers.

Sure you would Rick, and you and your fellow thief GOP would also get busy shredding the Cheney/Bush documents, and old white male cronyism and fearmongering to keep the wobbly-kneed masses afraid to head into the 21st century. If Americans really knew all the details of what the last group did, they may not see the whitehouse again. They are extremely desperate and seem willing to pander to any group to get back in power.

Apparently Santorum doesn't have a clue who has the last say about the Constitution. Nor the separation of powers.

And we need judges who respect the people’s voice.

Not that law is adjudicated by public referendum but just a few "people's" choices that Santorum ignores:

58% of Catholics and 55% of the general population support contraception coverage in their insurance.

53% of the population support gay marriage.

63% of the population and 68% of those making $1 Million or more per year, support higher taxes on those making $250K or more per year.

52% of all voter are in favor of the Health Care Reform as signed by Obama.

So, while we as a nation are a nation of laws, laws that protect the minority as well as the majority and have nothing to do with a consensus, it is clear that even if we did govern by mob rule, Santorum is not part of the majority on almost every issue.

This guy is so clueless!!!

Judicial Tyranny coming out of the guy who supports the NDAA, he voted for the Patriot ACT, he supports SOPA, and thinks government should know whats going on in your bedroom.

Why is it that the media never asks these people when they claim to be freedom loving constitutionalist's why they always vote against it and why they want to control what goes on in everyone's bedroom.

Ayatollah Santorum literally hates freedom

It really doesn't matter what an individual "feels" about another's race, religion, creed, or sexuality. That is why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that is modeled after around the world. The Founding Fathers realized that the biggest threat to the Republic were Zealots. The very people that are thumping their chests and waving flags, are the very same enemies of freedom and choice that the Founding Fathers most worried about. The Church and the King, were trying to impose its will on the Colonists, and they wanted true autonomy, just as the people want now. The true lovers of freedom, do not want to impose their will on others, but let them have choice in their own affairs, unmolested by the Church or State--Santorium types still don't get it, let us not go back to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.

Anyway since when does a president get to overturn a Supreme court ruling just cause they don't like it?

They don't.

Rick is another GOP nut. Most of America knows this.

In the THEOCRACY the GOP imagines Santorum would be supreme leader!

The GOP = The TALIBAN!!!!!!!

...our constitution was architected in great part by the Federalist Papers authors (Madison, Hamilton...).

Federalist Paper #47 describes the need for separation of powers. This Paper specifically excludes the type of involvement Santorum, and the other GOP opportunists, from "overturning" Staris Decisis decisions.

The Federalist Papers should be required reading for anyone seeking office at the Federal Level. We can all be assured Obama has read ALL of the Federalist Papers, I doubt if Santorum, Romney or Gingrich have - but they should.

Rick is another GOP nut. Most of America knows this.

Absolutely true, he has no idea what powers the President does or does not have, but then again those who support him do not either. The blind leading the blind.

Tell him to pick Bozo as a running mate - then we could have a brain-dead IDIOT CLOWN running with a DEAD CLOWN. He's TOAST, anyway - of course, one can never overestimate the the desire of RETHUGs to muddy the waters...

Didn't this election used to be about the economy?

I am not a hater of homosexuals. But on religous grounds I support Santorum’s brave approach here though. Same sex unions legalise the union of people of the same sex. By granting legal status. This normalises what in my opinion is sinful. It is also unacceptable to most adherents of Christianity, Judaism and Islam because it uses the force of law to justify what scripture has clearly labelled a sin: i.e., homosexual physical activity. By normalizing the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals, centuries of established tradition have been overturned. The people of America have to protect society from this immorality. Because in time it will destroy the family as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for sexual freedom.

Well Glo, while you may consider me as such, I don't it's automatically ignorant, uneducated, hateful, fearful, etc, just because someone draws the line on liberalism. People are obviously going to behave as they want to behave. The part I object to, is when they want to justify and legitimize their behavior by fouling a long respected standard. Proponents want to ridicule the slippery slope idea, but once the gate is opened, how can there be any logical and legitimate resistance to succeeding corruption? Wouldn't it be a rights violation to deny the six people down the street, the right to all get married as a group? Lumping homosexual marriage in with workers' rights, environmental abuses, religious extremism and other such things is merely an attempt to gain traction by coattailing.

I would never vote for Santorum or any of the others, because their economic greed and selfishness may well cause the nation to collapse. But if they do win, their stance on this issue will be a good and legitimate one.

While I disagree with your religious opinion, it is your right to have it, just as it is Santorum's. However, it is not your right, or that of any other religious zealot to impose your belief system on all. To do so is no different than the Taliban, Shariah law or any number of extreme theocracies located around the world. In short, your opinions on these issues are irrelevant constitutionally. What religion you practice or what you believe to be sin is fine for you, just keep it where it belongs, as with all faith based thinking, in your own home. We are a constitutional Republic, as such there isn't one mention of biblical law or the bible it's self in our constitution, for good reason, it is irrelevant.

With all do respect Reverend. God made all of his creatures...and loves then ALL. I repectfully say you are wrong and homosexuals will NOT destroy the family institution.

People like Kim Khardiasian, Larry King, and a whole host of other people who have been married multiple times, or those who abuse their kids, or prey on children..are doing a pretty good job of destroying the family institution all on there own.

waukone - why should ANYONE be upset with the rantings of a bunch of blathering idiots? Their line-up was a JOKE - who can profess to be more bigoted than the NEXT one.

However, it is not your right, or that of any other religious zealot to impose your belief system on all.

And so the same must apply to the homosexuals, that want to change centuries of what is considered to be a legal union between a man and a woman. Perhaps it might be that it's the homosexuals that should keep their activities indoors and private. I did say I do not hate the gay's. I can not accept the legalization of something which is not a holy union.

Davy, why do you think it's liberalism to want to protect our civil and Consitutional rights? All of the battles the now right wing GOP has waged are for American rights that, what, coincidentally? benefit the corporations who are funding the groups that want to steal them? The Nazi's did it the same way, convincing citizens that unions (to much power to rally the people to stand up for their rights), religious and ethnic minorities, gays etc, were a threat to their country.

The people of America have to protect society from this immorality. Because in time it will destroy the family as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for sexual freedom.

The only families destroyed by the LBGT's are the ones that was murdered or harassed into committing suicide for being different by religious people who think of them as less than human and of course all the in the closet evangelicals that get caught cheating on their wives with other men. I don't blame that on gays that want to get married though.

The divorce rate is like 65% at this point letting gays marry will do nothing but improve the number to make marriage look like a worthy investment.

I'm glad your so focused on the homosexuals though, I never noticed you on all of the other things the Bible condemns but isn't illegal.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Eating shellfish hasn't ruined the family.

Thankfully, its illegal for parents to stone their disobedient children to death.

God Hates Polyester!!!!

My 50/50 polyester blend shirts have destroyed America!

I could go on but I don't think their is a need to.

...there isn't one mention of biblical law or the bible it's self in our constitution, for good reason, it is irrelevant.

This is the reason religion in general is the lightning rod of the homosexual community. If the "irrelevant" Bible did proclaim homosexuality to be a fine and wonderful thing, that same community would trumpet it from the rooftops.

Glo? We have separate but equal bathrooms and showers for males and females. If there is to be true equality between sexes, how can we continue with this separation?

The only families destroyed by the LBGT's are the ones that was murdered or harassed into committing suicide for being different by religious people who think of them as less than human

My point is this. Accepting same sex unions, normalizes them by making them legal. This destroys family life and debases normal heterosexual marriage. As I have said, I am not a hater of gay people, but will never accept their unions as legal. What Santorum is saying is in my opinion right. IMO homosexuals should keep their private business just that.

sorry rev - I can be just as fuc king sinful as I wish - UNLESS this has become one of the backward islamic nations, I'm SAFE.

SINFUL does NOT equal "UNLAWFUL" (sometimes they COINCIDE, but not too often. I sure don't HAVE a "sabbath day" to remember; lusting after anything isn't UNLAWFUL; and I'll be as god-damned blasphemous as I god damned well PLEASE (blasphemy is ONLY applicable to "believers - not to the rest who DON'T believe).

"Legality" of same sex unions isn't YOUR call - YOU don't need to "oficiate" at the, YOU don't need to APPROVE them, YOU just need to STFU and keep you bigotry to YOURSELF (unless you have a dog in this particular fight, HOW can YOU be affected?)

Davy, sharing a bathroom doesn't constitute equality between the sexes and you know it. Equal pay for equal work is one measure (which the GOP were opposed to), as well as the Equal Rights Amendment (giving women the same rights as men enjoy as citizens) which the GOP successfully defeated. Now they want to again kill and maim desparate middle class and poor women who seek abortions by sending them back to illegal abortion butchers. Rich women have had access to a safe abortion since the turn of the 20th century and always will have. American women and families should be trusted to make personal decisions, and the government shouldn't have a say. You never answered my question. Protecting civil and Constitutional rights should be something every citizen favors.

While I will state my feelings and the constitutional position of the gay marriage issue without the rancor expressed by the previous post, I do not disagree with it's tenor. Your belief is irrelevant to this issue. As is your position on sin or the bible, neither of which have anything to do with secular law. If you choose to ignore the Constitution and it's legal amendments, then maybe it is you that should find another place to live, not those that only wish to be accepted as citizens of a country they already pay taxes too, and in many cases have laid their lives on the line for, speaking of which are you a veteran, if not I will digress, STFU, you don't have the standing to call our veterans anything other than patriotic citizens. Your vile attempt to demonize those that are not addicted to religion serves only a small portion of the population and is selfish, evil and hurtful to all real Americans.

The Reverend Dr. Wilbur J. Harbour

Perhaps it might be that it's the homosexuals that should keep their activities indoors and private.

Normally, I would not go to this extreme, but in this case, I will target you. Your argument is focused on consenting adults. In the law, consenting adults are immune from prosecution. People fornicate all the time, not against the law, unless it is Sharia. We do not want Sharia Law, or anything akin to it. Yes, I do find some behaviors disgusting and would not participate in them, but it is none of my business what people do in their own homes.

I will put this Millstone around your neck, the next time you hear of a young boy killing himself because he cannot see a future that he can live in and be himself, you will have his blood on your hands...Pilot--wash all you want, it won't come off--

Accepting same sex unions, normalizes them by making them legal.

Rev. Harbour, I respectfully disagree with you. As a friend of mine said of her Facebook page, "Blame heterosexual couples, they're the ones who keep having gay babies."

And we need judges who respect the people’s voice.

Judges respect the laws. You want respect of the people voice talk to your Congress folks.

Reverend, I say this to you; if the LGBT community is denied the basic human rights afforded to all other Americans then why should they have to pay taxes to the government who denies them those rights? I say God made these people just the way he made you except He made them and they stayed the way He made them. He did not give you the right to judge them, you picked that up all by yourself. Accept, don't accept, I don't care what you think but marriage between same sex couples does nothing to debase heterosexual marriage. What about all the hetero wife beaters, cheaters, etc. Do you consider them a step above the LGBT community?

And back to the subject of what Santorum thinks, if you let the will of the "people" over-rule what the courts have to say, where do you suppose the civil rights movement would be? How about women voting? None of that came about by a popular vote.

Welll ricky,you don't even need to worry about it. You won't even be derrr nominee.

Go find yourself a new rock and rule the roost there.

I say God made these people just the way he made you except He made them and they stayed the way He made them. He did not give you the right to judge them, you picked that up all by yourself.

Unless, of course the Rev. is insinuating that God made a mistake. Surely not.

itstoolate, I'll bet the good reverend doesn't believe God makes mistakes but if God made a mistake it was with the reverend.

Davy, sharing a bathroom doesn't constitute equality between the sexes and you know it.

The thing that I know, is that some people decide based on their own behavior or opinions when equality is equality, and when it isn't. If you're really for Constitutional rights, how can you not support polygamy? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, how can it be okay to tell him he can't marry two of 'em? I simply want this sort of thing to be done with a civil union, the language of which can be identical except for the specification "one man, and one woman" for marriage. If these arrangements can't be considered equal, I don't see how separate m and f rest rooms ever can be.

Gosh, canary, I guess you sure told him, huh! BTW, would you support a man who wanted to marry his ewe, or are you one of those bigoted bestophobes?

Disturbedlibrarian #1.56

I say God made these people just the way he made you...

This is not true. If god wanted them to be anything other than hetero-sexual, He would have not given them all the reproductive organs they would need to pro-create because they would not need them. Our bodies have organs that serve a purpose during our lives, whereas reproductive organs are only for the purpose to pro-create and not only for pleasure enhancement. For example, our noses are to protect our body and smell for dangerous food illnesses and not for snorting illegal drugs. Using your body in a way that is consistent with God's purposes is the only non-sinful method to avoid upsetting Him.

Furthermore, the LGBT use bodily organs in ways that are inconsistent with God's intended purposes for those organs.

Plus, the LGBT community encourages people to get sex changes, thus undoing what God intended.

Un-Do-It, I have read your post several times and I am still very perplexed. whereas reproductive organs are only for the purpose to pro-create and not only for pleasure enhancement.

If they are only for the purpose of pro-creation than what about those who can not for one reason or another pro-create? Was that a mistake of Gods? I am also a bit confused as to how exactly you heard about God's intended purpose for those organs. Also, what about the "not only for pleasure enhancement? Did God say it had to be one or the other, or is there some pecking order that must be followed. I am a bit confused.

And so the same must apply to the homosexuals, that want to change centuries of what is considered to be a legal union between a man and a woman

An argument from tradition is a defined logical fallacy... simply because something has been tradition for X number of years, does not make it valid.

What your religion says is a sin is also irrelevant in this country's laws. IT PLAYS NO ROLE. I know it can be hard for the ultra-religious to accept the fact that they aren't the center of the universe, but I'm sorry, you're not. You are sharing this country with people of all sorts of faiths and beliefs and nonbeliefs, and each one of those people have (or are supposed to have) the same rights as anyone else..

Your assertion that homosexuality will destroy families is completely absurd and unsubstantiated.

I am a bit confused.

Well, look at it this way: Your body has the necessary elimination functions, but you are taught what is acceptable and what isn't, in regards to these activities.

Regarding pleasure, in addition to sex there are other (man-made) things that have the capability of providing it. I think you know that unlimited and improper use of all these things is not good, right?

itstoolate, I couldn't have said it better. The thought went through my mind but I decided to ignore the post. I have come to the conclusion that water-tight minds like these can't be reasoned with. Let them go on with their mis-guided beliefs and when or maybe if they get to heaven they discover that God is either a female or has no gender at all and loves and approves of us all.

@ Reverend Dr. Wilbur J. Harbour:

This normalises what in my opinion is sinful.

And it's only your opinion, and everyone else has an opinion that is equally valid.

This destroys family life and debases normal heterosexual marriage.

Heterosexual marriages fail 50% of the time; THAT destroys family life and debases heterosexual marriage.

I am not a hater of gay people, but will never accept their unions as legal.

You don't have the option to deny the legality of their unions. That is determined by law.

homosexuals that should keep their activities indoors and private.

As should heterosexuals...well all people should keep their sexual activities private, but I don't know that they have to keep these activities indoors.

I can not accept the legalization of something which is not a holy union.

Legal and holy are two different things. No one is asking you to sanctify their union; as citizens of this nation, they deserve equality under the law.

When I am president of the United States, I will sign an executive order giving me the power to do anything I want. Then I shall sign another executive order naming aquamarine as the official "Coolest Color in the Spectrum".

Soph,

From the same source

Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich.

Republicans...so...I don't care what they think. :)

And so the same must apply to the homosexuals, that want to change centuries of what is considered to be a legal union between a man and a woman. Perhaps it might be that it's the homosexuals that should keep their activities indoors and private. I did say I do not hate the gay's. I can not accept the legalization of something which is not a holy union.

The difference is...when you want to impose your views by making gay marriage illegal, you restrict the rights and directly (and negatively) impact the personal lives and freedoms of other people.

Making gay marriage legal might annoy you...but it doesn't impact your personal life, your personal freedoms or your rights in any way.

You are free to hold your beliefs...you are not free to harm others because of your beliefs.

Mr Santorum - I'd like to respectfully request that you re-read (or just read) the Constitution of the United States of America.

The President does not have the authority to unilaterally "overturn" US Supreme Court decisions simply because he/she may not personally agree with those decisions.

If you're going to run for an office, any office, you should at least know what that office can and cannot do.

Right?

This is not true. If god wanted them to be anything other than hetero-sexual, He would have not given them all the reproductive organs they would need to pro-create because they would not need them.

So...what's god's story on the appendix? Or...are you just....you know....wrong?

Our bodies have organs that serve a purpose during our lives, whereas reproductive organs are only for the purpose to pro-create and not only for pleasure enhancement.

Hmm. I have no intention of doing any more reproducing...so does that mean I should lop off the extra bits now? What about people who just don't want to reproduce? No sex for them? People who are infertile? Oh...and gays can and do reproduce when they choose...so you aren't making any kind of point here.

For example, our noses are to protect our body and smell for dangerous food illnesses and not for snorting illegal drugs.

How do you snort illegal drugs? No...don't answer that.

Using your body in a way that is consistent with God's purposes is the only non-sinful method to avoid upsetting Him.

What if you don't care if he's upset? What if any deity that sick and twisted and hateful and so on....wasn't what most people wanted to believe in? What if you wanted a President that believed in...oh....reality or common sense....or....equality....so that he could represent the whole country, not just the ones with weird religious beliefs?

Furthermore, the LGBT use bodily organs in ways that are inconsistent with God's intended purposes for those organs.

If you wear poly/cotton blends then you are dressing in ways that are inconsistent with god's intended purposes for those fabrics. If you don't leave the house and stay outside when you're menstruating, you are behaving in ways inconsistent with god's intended purposes. If you do any work on the sabbath or allow disobedient children to live or refuse to murder an adultering neighbor or eat shellfish...you are inconsistent with what that god wants for you. Do you see the trend here? Stupid, ridiculous, outrageous, and insupportable "commands" that make no sense at all...and that you ignore. This is just one more of them.

Plus, the LGBT community encourages people to get sex changes, thus undoing what God intended.

Oh brother. GID is treatable. Stupidity...not so much.

The challenge of unwanted pregnancies has always been with the human race, including the era of our Founding Fathers, who in their wisdom said NOTHING about it in the Constitution that prevents public funds from being used for contraception or pregnancy termination or prenatal healthcare, ...but the FFs DID say that the Church was SEPARATE from the State, ...that was the quid pro quo agreement for giving the Church its TAX-FREE STATUS.

So can the Bible thumping, Santorum, or start paying your fair share of taxes as a closet PAC!

The number of indignant responses on this post seems to indicate to me, an uneasiness with the behavior that participants feel compelled to defend.

Don't give up your day job, Davy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Santorum made some truly foolish comments...telling us he knows virtually nothing about basic civics....and he thinks he can be President....just because he's religious. Too many GOP hopefuls think the job requires a preacher, not an educated, articulate, balanced and primarily intelligent leader. This twit seems to think his own brand of religion trumps all of our laws, our Constitution and our personal rights and freedoms. He's very wrong.

If the guy hoping to run the country isn't smart enough to pass 8th grade social studies....he's not qualified for the job.

This guy just seems incapable of taking it in, that the President of the United States has bigger fish to fry than worrying about what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms.

Now, do I "approve" of homosexuality? Over the years, it's occurred to me that maybe it just doesn't matter whether I approve or not---right after it occurred to me that if these conservatives are really and truly serious about getting government out of citizens' private lives, they can start by leaving consenting adults to have whatever kind of sex they want.

As a Christian, my only trepidation in this is that gays not try to force the church to marry them---the Bible doesn't allow for it, and as near as I can tell, there's no room to maneuver on this. That said---if Adam and Steve are above the age of 21 and want to be together, they deserve a way to make it legal, and have all the protections I have with my wife. I wish 'em well, and if one or both were friends of mine, I'd gladly go to their ceremony. Perhaps I'm typing off both sides of the keyboard here; I'm a work in progress on this one.

IMO, there's a faction in this country that just can't function properly in life unless they have someone to look down on. How can America truly be "the land of the free" with folks like this in charge?

IMO, Rick Santorum has an unhealthy and hypocritical interest in the sex lives of other people. I welcome correction if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that he talks more about this culture-war nonsense than he does about the economy, the deficit or any other REAL issue that a President ought to spend his time on. As "Rome" burns, this "Nero" would be peeking in windows, looking for gay sex goin' on?

If I'm right...what's up with that?

Rick Santorum reminds me of a villan from a Law and Order: SVU episode.

MARK MY WORD: Before it is all over, some sex scandal involving Rick Santorum will surface. There will be audio tapes, embarassing photos, and at least 6 people who come out of the woodwork claiming "it happened to them too". Rick Santorum's wife will stand at his side as he tearfully apologizes on TV and then she will divorse his butt, taking half of the family estate with her. Santorum will continue to be a regular comentator on Fox News and will appear in an upcoming season of Dancing with the Stars where he will lose in the second round. Then he will fade into the obscure realm of a F-list celebrity...

That scenario works for me Will.

Baron Brian - very well stated in 1.78. Santorum and the far right are using the only tool they have left now, hatred. They are so ingrained into what they interpret their Bible to say that to imagine life any other way is unthinkable to them. Why for instance would you attack women's rights in this country? Because they think less of women, pure and simple. My wife and I were discussing this earlier today. People like Santorum actually believe that a woman was created from a man's rib to be his companion, not his equal but subservient to man.

Just look at what Romney's potential running mate has passed in VA. The party of smaller government, get govt out of our lives has just passed a bill in VA which will force women to be raped by a blunt object if they want to have an abortion. That is what it is pure and simple, the force-able rape of a woman, and these people want to make this the law of the land!

I don't care what party you are from if you don't see anything wrong with this then I submit YOU are lost!

Mike,

Their behavior is excused because they are gods ANOINTED!!!!!!

Sadly those involved in this take over of the right wing in the USA today, The Family, etc, tell their followers just that and they buy it wholeheartedly. Sound familiar! Say Heil!

It's the same for the religious fundamentalists and the Bible. They cherry pick the parts they like, and ignore the parts they don't.

There's a movement in my state to overturn the Constitution. Most of the people I've met who support a theocracy would fair pretty badly if they were to be judged by theocratists unbridled by Constitutional protections. In fact, a lot of them would be jailed or "put down" as unfit to live among strict fundamentalists.

There's a movement in my state to overturn the Constitution.

Good luck with that. And I'll bet that movement is not unanimous.

Just like the taliban!

And if it weren't for the fact that "Muslim" excites almost as much foaming at the mouth in the TBP camp as "abortion," they might even see the irony of how the TBP and the Taliban parallel each other ideologically.

What Ricky is proposing is the institution of Sharia Santorum Law.

Christo-fascist much?

As well it should!

:-)

Gloria for President

I think that was Louis XIV... but hey... a king is a king is a king... LOL

He does realize he can't overturn a ruling by the SCOTUS right?

No, he apparently doesn't. But, it's okay because nobody that would vote for him knows either, so it sounds good to them. Hate-based initiatives don't need to be founded on truth.

It was a empty red meat statement but with the Tea party who knows????????????

So Rick is providing new sound bites for a campaigning against him in the general. He is:

• Against Abortion
• Against Gay Marriage
• Against Gay's in the Military
• Against Contraception
• Against Women on Front-line duty in the Military

Waging war on women and the LGBT community seem that none of those are majority positions. He will be seen as the Social Troglodyte that he has been selling himself as to win the "severely conservative" vote, and will loose the rest of the electorate.

Yes, but he is pro:

• Aprons
• Den Mothers
• Church Ladies
• Bake Sales
• Bare footedness
• And... the rhythm method

He's also quite fond of old re-runs of Father Knows Best

and that's not what democrats want?

oh my god you people scare me with your ignorance somtimes.

Who wants to get into your bedroom - republicans

Who wants to take away control of a woman's body - republicans

Who wants to give the rich breaks the regular folks can't have - republicans

Who thinks a corporation who can't be executed for a crime is a person - republicans.

I'll take my chances with the democrates they are to disorganized to agree on the lock step republican agenda for long. At least science an education have some chance.

chump

dems scare you "sometimes"...

you teapublicans scare me with your ignorance "all the time"!

Why do I just see the T(oilet) P(aperers) as an outstretched arm and an accompanying comment of "SEIG HEIL!!" ??

He didn't find away around a law he didn't like, the law is still is valid. Only after it was found unconstitutional, by a court, did they stop defending. This is a big difference from not enforcing them.

He would also "seek" a way to make us all live by his Catholic standards, he would "seek" a way to keep women bare foot and at home and "seek" a way to theocracy.

There is no seeking. Constitutional amendment is one of the few ways SCOTUS can be "overturned". Just like repeling stuff.. all talk, never will happen and what are they replacing it with?

It is unfortunate that the good moral, decent christian majority of the country have been so tolerant and have held their silence for so long.

"Decent christian majority" Show me there's a majority of US citizens who feel as you do.

Santorum won in three U.S. states primary despite his lack of media and TV coverage. He was outspent by almost 10 Million dollars by his nearest opponent and who has the organization and the experience and exposure and who actually won those states before.

I believe even Santorum's opponent, christian staff may have voted for Santorum this time around.

I believe Santorum has awakened the sleeping giant that is people who don't want this country ruled by the Taliban.

Interesting they used the "muslims" to take away rights only to find that it is "christians - religious right" that wants to take away their rights.

MV

I didn't see the /s tag.

Santorum won in three U.S. states primary despite his lack of media and TV coverage.

He won in olorado because we had a serious snowstorm on the day of the caucaususes, and only the hardcore "faithful" showed up for them. Even the local GOP chairpeople are reminding Republicans that the Colorado vote is non-binding.

So don't count your chickens., And besides, remember how well Herman Cain was doing until...

a select few who feels that the majority of the people owes them

Owes them what; their rights? How silly of them.

And yes, I did notice that you ignored the part where I challenged you to show that a majority of Amnericans feel the same as Santorum as you claimed.

Because you can't show that.

You are correct, he is in the minority on every issue. See 1.30, this thread. These are the most recent poll numbers on a number of social issues that Rick is on the wrong side of.

IF you think about it, as a political tactic, it would be worth it for Dems to do the RETHUG caucuses and vote for santorum (of course, there would be the Putney Swope effect that would need to be avoided) and by nominating the greatest idiot still remaining in the race, make it a walk-in by the Dems (no SANE person would vote for santorum - Pennsylvania showed that a FEW YEARS AGO)

Marcel @12.2 - Santorum has not won ANY primary yet. A caucus is not the same as a primary vote. In the primary states he was 4th in NH and 3rd in SC and FL. MO's primary really doesn't count since their vote isn't until later.

As far as media and TV exposure, he started campaigning back in the spring of 2011 in IA and made around 450 campaign appearances. The national media may not have been paying attention, but he was in IA's news way too much. I was sick of him back in May.

For the record, IA's republican caucus is in error about 50% the time, as opposed to the democratic caucus which usually chooses the person who eventually becomes the candidate.



Actually MV, if you knew your Constitution as well as you claim to know your Bible, the Founding Fathers gave Americans UNLIMITED rights! Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rule of law only applies to uniformly agreed-upon restrictions of those rights (e.g. reasonable gun controls, the separation of church and state, the caution of 'no standing armies') which are carefully and judiciously applied after long and careful review, not spouted from an American Taliban pulpit by some phony Righteous de Pedophilus tithe-taxer, who's only out for the quick Super-PAC buck. Go out, American Taliban! Go back to your Old Testament Land, you unrepentant tax dodgers!

SEvered head in a jar,

The latest poll in Michigan which is Romney hometown, his father being a former governor shows that Santorum is leading. One more justification to the fact that the christians are now starting to wake up and will not tolerate anymore slide in the former moral upbringing of the country by some who insists on no holds barred individual rights regardless of consequences.

I am not a fan of Santorum but against Obama I will pick Santorum.

So you are for the Taliban winning as long as they beat Obama, very patriotic of you, not.

He learned that from Rick Perry!

where did rick the prick learn it first? - he was a D student at Texas A&M. At least Perry was smart enough to QUIT!

Perry just makes it up as he goes. He wasn't smart enough to quit, it was his ego getting smashed that made him turn tail and go home.

Perry just makes it up as he goes.

Beg to differ... he's doing as he's told...

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2011/08/04/287851/perry-alec-universities-businesses/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57888.html

Bob McDonnell, Rick Perry at latest Koch brothers summit

You have a point there. He was pretty heart broken with the religious fundamentalist did not back him after they told him he was their "sky pilot."

but santorum is a brainless fuc king LAWYER. He missed that day they discussed "Separation of Powers"

out

Try watching a three stooges movie

or a Mack Sennet Keystone Kops routine

Is he still around?

potatoe potatoy potatio potato! ah that's IT I think I've got it

And Joe Biden can not count higher than three. "I have three letters for you - JOBS"

And Joe Biden can not count higher than three. "I have three letters for you - JOBS"

Is that it? Is that all you got? Did you just wander over from the MSNBC boards? lol

Aha! you just registered, that explains it.....sniff..sniff...DNFTT...

in theory, he could pack the court to get his way.

so, technically, its possible.

and that sliver of hope is enough for his base.

There's just one fallacy with your statement redphish. Da Saint ain't running for POTUS, he's trying mighty hard to usurp God and assume that position.

HOW DARE ANYONE RUN FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR NATION THAT DOESN'T EMBRACE, APPRECIATE AND REPRESENT ALL OF OUR DIVERSITY. HOW DARE ANYONE VOTE FOR A MAN WHO WILL PICK AND CHOOSE WHO WILL BE ACCEPTED AS AMERICAN.

Pundit? Preacher? Politician? Nope!!!!!!!!! Nope!!!!!!!!! Nope!!!!!!!!!! Da Saint is just an evil, hate-filled proselytizing putz.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

she won't listen anyway...

yeah - for a supposed lawyer he is rather BRAINLESS - did he go to Rectal Roberts University and Knight School, too?

There is no way to "overturn" A SCOTUS decision unless you replace the SCOTUS justices that you don't like.

Well, you can pass a law or a Constitutional Amendment that overturns a Court decision. Furthermore, if the Courts decision was Un-Constitutional, then was the the Courts decision ever legal?

Well, you can pass a law or a Constitutional Amendment that overturns a Court decision. Furthermore, if the Courts decision was Un-Constitutional, then was the the Courts decision ever legal?

I suppose they could attempt a Constitutional Amendment - I don't think it would be ratified (that's the right word, right? I'm kind of brain fried right now from an exam.)

Also, SCOTUS interprets the Constitution - so, their interpretations aren't "unConstitutional" even if you disagree with their findings.

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. They're gonna propose a Constitutional Amendment saying exactly what?

The SCOTUS says what's constitutional or not - but Congress is gonna pass a law saying the SCOTUS decision is unconstitutional?

As it stands the church has absolutely NO role in the contraceptive process whatsoever...it's all handled by the insurance company. You mean to tell me the states are going to vote on or against something that is a completely fabricated issue for political purposes?

Is this part of the tea party JOBS plan?

The GOP cannot focus on issues, if they do, they will lose every time. They do not have anything of substance to say. Instead they push the buttons of the religious right, they ignore any positive economic movement and they make sure everyone is aware that the current President is not a real american, or that he fell from space or whatever hair brained idea pops out their ass on any given day.

The GOP cannot focus on issues, if they do, they will lose every time.

Like in 2010 when they focused on health care and the economic issues in our country.

No that was jobs, jobs, jobs. Or as I like to put it, lies, lies, lies.

Like in 2010 when they focused on health care and the economic issues in our country. And ever since they have been in a position to do anything about those issues, they have done what? Person-hood, voter suppression, gay marriage and now birth control. Yes please, lets talk about the issues, so the American people can see just what issues they are talking about this time, and how that plays against what they said they were going to Washington to do.

There has not been one debate by the GOP where issues were the topic, unless you concider whether the little fat once has issues with women, or whether Santorum (http://spreadingsantorum.com/) has issues with his sexuality, or whether Perry had issues with memory loss or Romney has issues with taxes. Yes, lets talk about issues, ones that real American people have, not just what the GOP thinks they should be.