Monday, July 13, 2015

Santorum Wants Constitutional Amendment to Circumvent SCOTUS Ruling on Marriage Equality...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Mister self righteous himself calling for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a women. Courting the evangelical religious right vote will play well to a minority of the voting public and may even get him a place on the stage.

Good luck with the amendment thing Frothy. {Chuckling Out Loud}


Bloomberg Politics - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Monday he wants a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman in all 50 states, less than three weeks after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

“I believe we need a national standard for marriage. I don't think we can have a standard from one state to another on what marriage is,” Santorum told reporters at a breakfast in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, adding that he wants “to define marriage the way it was defined for 4,000 years of human history.”

The remarks put Santorum to the right of rivals such as Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who are pushing a different kind of constitutional amendment that would allow states to decide whether to allow or ban same-sex marriage, rather than an amendment that would set a national standard.

“I think that's a mistake,” Santorum said of their positions. “I argued that 10 years ago when others wanted to do that 10 years ago. You can't have a hodgepodge of marriage...it just creates too much confusion out there on a variety of different levels.”

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator who won the 2012 Iowa caucuses and finished the primary as runner-up to nominee Mitt Romney, is competing with a crowded field of 2016 candidates and has so far struggled to gain traction. His decision to take the most far-reaching position on same-sex marriage, which a majority of Americans now support, could help him court evangelical Christian voters.

Via: Memeorandum

5 comments:

  1. It's the right approach: since the Constitution does not support the way he wants things to be, change the Constitution. But... the right approach to accomplish a bad goal. I would not support this amendment, this change. I prefer the Constitution to be just the way it is on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Any new amendment such as what Santorum would propose, wouldn't remotely square with the existing 14th Amendment. It's a pipe dream to rile his anti-liberty base.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would have to replace the 14th amendment, right?

      And that would make a new danger, of course. There are many who want that gutted, also.

      Delete
    2. The Libertarian idea of Liberty rubs me the wrong way. It's Liberty for a couple consisting of two people of the same sex to marry, but it's also Liberty for that couple to be discriminated against by a business that does not want to serve them (because the business owner or employee has the Liberty to do with their labor as they wish... or something). I don't agree with their idea that discrimination is Liberty (so long as it isn't the State that is doing the discriminating... I guess). Nope. I do not agree, no matter how they frame their argument. Churches marrying gay couples is another matter (they do not have to now, nor should they ever be forced to). But a business licensed by The People and open to the public? They absolutely should not be allowed to discriminate.

      Santorum's amendment idea will go nowhere. The only thing it's good for is to get him some votes in the primary before he drops out. The nominee will be Jeb! or Wanker (who apparently is the Koch plutocrats' man).

      Delete
  3. Eh, Santorum is just playing to his niche. Maybe he'll get a show on FOX out of it this time.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.