Rick Santorum Megathread: A Frothy Mixture of Opinions

[Soccersian]

"Separate but equal?" Okay, Jim Crow. Sexual orientation is not the same as slavery. We're done here.

[Revolutopia]

"Separate but equal?" Okay, Jim Crow. Sexual orientation is not the same as slavery. We're done here.

Separate but equal is not equal nor constitutional, nor is it anymore right deny some one the right to marry whom they chose because of sexual orientation then it is because of race.

[Soccersian]

I'm not defending every policy or quote Santorum has ever said at the pulpit (see what I did there?), however I consider him the second-best candidate in the GOP field right now.

But does that make him a good candidate, or does that just imply the whole Gop-field is pathetic ?

No, that makes him an average candidate in a pathetic field. The one candidate I was truly excited for was Governor Rick Perry given his incredible economic success as governor of Texas, however the spotlight was too bright and couldn't remember his talking points. After that, we've got an average field featuring an isolationist, a guy who cheated on his ex-wives, a social candidate, and the GOP's version of John Kerry. That'll never hold up over the long haul.

[Farnhamia]

"Separate but equal?" Okay, Jim Crow. Sexual orientation is not the same as slavery. We're done here.

I am a citizen of the United States of America, as I assume you are. You can go to the county courthouse with the love of your life, pay the ten or twenty or thirty dollars for a marriage license, and be married. In 42 states, I cannot do that, and no state has to recognize the marriages performed in those eight states that would allow me to marry the person I love. Explain how that is fair.

[Soccersian]

"Separate but equal?" Okay, Jim Crow. Sexual orientation is not the same as slavery. We're done here.

Separate but equal is not equal nor constitutional, nor is it anymore right deny some one the right to marry whom they chose because of sexual orientation then it is because of race.

The Jim Crow laws were repealed, sweetheart. And where under the COTUS, or history for that matter, does it say that sexual orientation is the same as slavery?

[Soccersian]

"Separate but equal?" Okay, Jim Crow. Sexual orientation is not the same as slavery. We're done here.

I am a citizen of the United States of America, as I assume you are. You can go to the county courthouse with the love of your life, pay the ten or twenty or thirty dollars for a marriage license, and be married. In 42 states, I cannot do that, and no state has to recognize the marriages performed in those eight states that would allow me to marry the person I love. Explain how that is fair.

I have two solutions:
1. Move.
2. Get your 10k signatures to get your issue on the state ballot, campaign for it, and if it's passed by a majority vote, it'll become law once verified by the State Supreme Court.

[Revolutopia]

Separate but equal is not equal nor constitutional, nor is it anymore right deny some one the right to marry whom they chose because of sexual orientation then it is because of race.

The Jim Crow laws were repealed, sweetheart. And where under the COTUS, or history for that matter, does it say that sexual orientation is the same as slavery?

First of all, I am a dude so I am not your sweetheart. Secondly, who is comparing sexual orientation to slavery besides yourself. I am referring to marriage in the same degree of segregation, aka where the courts ruled separate is not equal. Therefore, just granting Civil Unions in not good enough and full spread same sex marriage should be recognized in the similar measure of how interracial marriage is protected.

[Revolutopia]

I am a citizen of the United States of America, as I assume you are. You can go to the county courthouse with the love of your life, pay the ten or twenty or thirty dollars for a marriage license, and be married. In 42 states, I cannot do that, and no state has to recognize the marriages performed in those eight states that would allow me to marry the person I love. Explain how that is fair.

I have two solutions:
1. Move.
2. Get your 10k signatures to get your issue on the state ballot, campaign for it, and if it's passed by a majority vote, it'll become law once verified by the State Supreme Court.

Civil Rights and Protections should never be up to a majority vote.

[Soccersian]

Another cute attempt, but you're still on talking points and not talking process quite yet. We're getting there though, so I'll give you a C+ for improved effort. You're still bringing up the Jim Crow SCOTUS precedent, but you're not quite connecting the dots that the Jim Crow, or the "separate but equal," laws were about slavery, not sexuality.

[Soccersian]

I have two solutions:
1. Move.
2. Get your 10k signatures to get your issue on the state ballot, campaign for it, and if it's passed by a majority vote, it'll become law once verified by the State Supreme Court.

Civil Rights and Protections should never be up to a majority vote.

Should it be left up to a group of nine men in black robes behind closed doors in a smoke-filled room? Or how about one anonymous guy on a blog?

[Calenhardon]

I am a citizen of the United States of America, as I assume you are. You can go to the county courthouse with the love of your life, pay the ten or twenty or thirty dollars for a marriage license, and be married. In 42 states, I cannot do that, and no state has to recognize the marriages performed in those eight states that would allow me to marry the person I love. Explain how that is fair.

I have two solutions:
1. Move.
2. Get your 10k signatures to get your issue on the state ballot, campaign for it, and if it's passed by a majority vote, it'll become law once verified by the State Supreme Court.

1. Equal rights should not be dependent on geography.
2. Equal rights should not be dependent on a majority vote.

Your solutions
1. Suck.
2. Assault basic principles of American government.

[Soccersian]

I have two solutions:
1. Move.
2. Get your 10k signatures to get your issue on the state ballot, campaign for it, and if it's passed by a majority vote, it'll become law once verified by the State Supreme Court.

1. Equal rights should not be dependent on geography.
2. Equal rights should not be dependent on a majority vote.

Your solutions
1. Suck.
2. Assault basic principles of American government.

So abondon the principles we founded the country upon? Rule of law, majority rule, democracy? Or how about we just throw out Constitutional process for the sake of a few?

[Revolutopia]

Another cute attempt, but you're still on talking points and not talking process quite yet. We're getting there though, so I'll give you a C+ for improved effort. You're still bringing up the Jim Crow SCOTUS precedent, but you're not quite connecting the dots that the Jim Crow, or the "separate but equal," laws were about slavery, not sexuality.

Brown v. Board of Education, the case ruling segregation unconstitutional, was in 1954 almost 90 years after the end of slavery. So I give you a F- for substance, but A+ for trolling. Moreover, they didn't have to specifically rule on sexuality in how they directly argued that Separate but "Equal" is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause. Therefore, false claims of civil unions being an equal alternative to marriage is unconstitutional.

[Revolutopia]

1. Equal rights should not be dependent on geography.
2. Equal rights should not be dependent on a majority vote.

Your solutions
1. Suck.
2. Assault basic principles of American government.

So abondon the principles we founded the country upon? Rule of law, majority rule, democracy? Or how about we just throw out Constitutional process for the sake of a few?

We were founded on the protection of minority rights, and the Constitution guarantees equal protection thus it is your stance that throws away the constitution.

[Soccersian]

Hahaha, I caught you drones in one giant convoluted mess. "Separate but equal" was Plessy v. Ferguson, not the Jim Crow laws...

Oh, God. Liberals are too much fun. Always focused on a response, never on the content of a retort. Oh I love the blogosphere.

[Revolutopia]

Hahaha, I caught you drones in one giant convoluted mess. "Separate but equal" was Plessy v. Ferguson, not the Jim Crow laws...

Oh, God. Liberals are too much fun. Always focused on a response, never on the content of a retort. Oh I love the blogosphere.

Saying you were the only one repeatedly referring to Jim Crow, while the everyone else was referring to the principle itself the only fail is on your part.

[Calenhardon]

1. Equal rights should not be dependent on geography.
2. Equal rights should not be dependent on a majority vote.

Your solutions
1. Suck.
2. Assault basic principles of American government.

So abondon the principles we founded the country upon? Rule of law, majority rule, democracy? Or how about we just throw out Constitutional process for the sake of a few?

The United States was not, in any sense, founded on majority rule. Majority of propertied white men perhaps. Actually, the idea of democracy scared the living hell out of many of the founders. And the Constitution requires that states give full faith and credit to acts of other states, a provision which DOMA flagrantly violates.

Hahaha, I caught you drones in one giant convoluted mess. "Separate but equal" was Plessy v. Ferguson, not the Jim Crow laws...

Oh, God. Liberals are too much fun. Always focused on a response, never on the content of a retort. Oh I love the blogosphere.

Whats amusing is your inability to formulate an effective argument, ignorance of basic US history, and obvious disdain for the basic principles of the document you claim to defend.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm not defending every policy or quote Santorum has ever said at the pulpit (see what I did there?),

No.

however I consider him the second-best candidate in the GOP field right now. Mind you, the three guys I wanted to run didn't end up running and this field is the weakest since the 1970s. I'm simply stating that as a Catholic who understands doctrine, I understand MOST of where his personal viewpoints come from.

That said, if we're going to talk about the gay marriage issue, the primary concern here is the word "marriage." Civil unions, if established through the proper channels (state-wide election after the minimum amount of signatures to get it on said ballot are attained), and proper procedure followed (Tenth Amendment, COTUS), then there is nothing a president could do about it given the law of the land.

Gay marriage is nothing more then a distraction. They don't have any reasonable answers for the economy and unemployment so let's yabber on about the gays.

[The Black Forrest]

"Separate but equal?" Okay, Jim Crow. Sexual orientation is not the same as slavery. We're done here.

[The Black Forrest]

But does that make him a good candidate, or does that just imply the whole Gop-field is pathetic ?

No, that makes him an average candidate in a pathetic field. The one candidate I was truly excited for was Governor Rick Perry given his incredible economic success as governor of Texas, however the spotlight was too bright and couldn't remember his talking points. After that, we've got an average field featuring an isolationist, a guy who cheated on his ex-wives, a social candidate, and the GOP's version of John Kerry. That'll never hold up over the long haul.

Really? Oil money creating minimum wage jobs is nothing to brag about.

Perry makes the shrub look brilliant.

[The Black Forrest]

I am a citizen of the United States of America, as I assume you are. You can go to the county courthouse with the love of your life, pay the ten or twenty or thirty dollars for a marriage license, and be married. In 42 states, I cannot do that, and no state has to recognize the marriages performed in those eight states that would allow me to marry the person I love. Explain how that is fair.

I have two solutions:
1. Move.
2. Get your 10k signatures to get your issue on the state ballot, campaign for it, and if it's passed by a majority vote, it'll become law once verified by the State Supreme Court.

Nahh since it involves the 50 states. Make it federal.

[The Black Forrest]

Another cute attempt, but you're still on talking points and not talking process quite yet. We're getting there though, so I'll give you a C+ for improved effort. You're still bringing up the Jim Crow SCOTUS precedent, but you're not quite connecting the dots that the Jim Crow, or the "separate but equal," laws were about slavery, not sexuality.

And what exactly is your point?

[Revolutopia]

"Separate but equal?" Okay, Jim Crow. Sexual orientation is not the same as slavery. We're done here.

Ignore it, he thinks he is being clever. Just read his last post.

[The Black Forrest]

Ignore it, he thinks he is being clever. Just read his last post.

Oh I know. When ever I see "Derp you liberals" comments; I don't take the person seriously.

[Alien Space Bats]

I see the majority of these posts as hateful towards a former Senator who left on great terms (minus an election that was more of an indictment on President Bush than anything else) and is an advocate of family and faith first. What is wrong with this train of thought? Since when did caring for your family over your neighbor and praising God become a thing of the past?

There's nothing wrong with being devoted to one's faith and family. There is nothing wrong with holding deep-seated religious beliefs.

The problem comes when you decide that your Church needs to be in charge of our nation's politics. If I wanted to live in fucking Iran, I would move there.

Rick Santorum and his supporters represent a clear and present danger to freedom. That alone makes him my enemy.

First of all, where in the Constitution does it say that there is a separation of church and state?

Right there in the 1st Amendment, where the Federal government is forbidden from "respecting an establishment of religion" - IOW, placing any one faith or religion ahead of any other, or no faith at all.

And I'll go with Clarence Thomas on the way in which the 14th Amendment extends that rule to the States, through the so-called Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Second of all, the definition of marriage implies pro-creation. Two penises in a monogamous cannot procreate.

My wife and I can't have children. Who in the fuck are you to come along and say we can't be married?!?

Another cute attempt, but you're still on talking points and not talking process quite yet. We're getting there though, so I'll give you a C+ for improved effort. You're still bringing up the Jim Crow SCOTUS precedent, but you're not quite connecting the dots that the Jim Crow, or the "separate but equal," laws were about slavery, not sexuality.

Slavery was abolished in 1868; Jim Crow and "separate but equal" were still in place almost 100 years later.

I know because I grew up in the 60's and saw what happened down South. Did you?