Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: Democratic Underground Latest Breaking NewsRepublican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, well known for his opposition to same-sex marriage, visited Olympia on Monday, the same day Washington made same-sex marriage legal.
“I think it waters down marriage and I don’t think that’s what we need,” Santorum said. “We need to have a national consensus on this, a national debate. I believe we should move forward with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Rick... can you say "tone deaf"?
Since you think the government has the right to intervene in contracts, I presume you believe it should also be illegal to have any contracts between persons of the same sex? And how about that whole government keeping it's hands off our individual liberties thing?
Please let him get the GOP nomination... Oh, please, please let him get the GOP nomination!
#1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:13 AM ESTWait, wait! Isn't this the man who thinks that states should decide whether or not to permit contraception???? But now, they shouldn't legislate about marriage....
"The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have."
Clue phone ringing for you, Rick. Marriage laws have always been the responsibility of the states. Sorry you don't like it when they decide differently than you do, but that's how the darned Constitution thing works.
Please let him get the GOP nomination... Oh, please, please let him get the GOP nomination!
DO NOT EVER SAY THIS!!!! Not even when joking.
Just imagine for a moment if this idiot actually got the nomination and by some incredible twist of fate, won the election. Can you even conceive of such a terrible thing happening to the country? It could be worse than a third Bush term.
The best thing about the two party system is that there is a choice between two possible candidates rather than just one. The worst thing about the two party system is that there are two choices and one could be an absolute idiot and could get elected.
Let us hope that the GOP picks someone that has at least half a brain, just on the off chance that that person gets elected. As a nation, we can't afford ANOTHER mistake of that magnitude.
Ultimately, whether it's a Constitutional Amendment issue or a State's Right issue, Santorum loses. The citizens of the USA do not want to restrict same sex marriage. It loses at the Federal and the State level. All Santorum does is show his hypocrisy, and really, do any of us expect him NOT to be hypocritical?
Dave... If Santorum gets the GOP nomination, the election will lead to the greatest landslide since Nixon beat McGovern by 61% to 37%.
Once the election begins, Santorum wouldn't be able to stop himself from advocating banning contraceptives and pushing his "If it feels good, forget it" agenda.
In a perverse sort of way, I respect Santorum much more than Romney. I'd never vote for either of them, but Santorum is a Boy Scout who never grew up. Romney is just a used car salesman, who will say and do almost anything to make a sale.
The GOP really has no idea who Romney is. I don't think Romney even knows who Romney is.
Santorum just won't be happy until he can get all his beliefs about religion and morals written into the law of the land. He apparently has little if any empathy for the rights of minority groups that don't share his beliefs. All he seems to think that matters are the views of the majority, well last time I checked, this was still a republic and not a democracy with mob rule. Perhaps he needs to do a little brushing up on history and government, that is if there are still some text books that haven't been revised and updated with the religious right's political agenda.
What a nightmare the thought of him or any of them in the White House is.
I still would like to know how this is related to "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" which is the GOP's marching orders since they took over the house at the midterms.
Hey, you don't think they might have been lieing do you?
I think it waters down marriage and I don’t think that’s what we need,” Santorum said. “We need to have a national consensus on this, a national debate.
What a perfect day for that prick Santorum to visit Washington State. It was a very appropriate slap on his face. He and other Republicans from the tea party want to take this country back to the dark ages. -as long as it is convenient and profitable for them-A national debate would only put him on the spot on how stupid he is, just like it put Sarah Palin. Bring it on!
#2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:30 AM ESTFunny thing is it's a national consensus Santorum and his ilk fear. Even now polls show over 50% of Americans support gay marriage that's why Santorum supports the idea of an amendment, it's the only way to prevent marriage equality and thus override the national consensus.
Way to go Washington!
smithichie wrote:
Funny thing is it's a national consensus Santorum and his ilk fear. Even now polls show over 50% of Americans support gay marriage that's why Santorum supports the idea of an amendment,
Attempts at introducing a penis-vagina amendment failed even before public opinion started tipping in support of same-sex marriage.
I honestly don't know what makes Santorum think it would have a chance now.
Why doesn't the government just call all marriages "civil unions"? That way both straight and gay couples are viewed as the same "civil union" by the government, yet religion doesn't feel like it's being pressured by the government to redefine "marriage".
So yeah, gays would not be able to get married, but it wouldn't matter because the term "marriage" would have no meaning outside of the church.
#3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:01 AM ESTSo religion should pressure the US Government to redefine marriage? Every town, city, county, state, should rename its marriage certificates, and marriage registries, and marriage licenses, and every US Citizen should look at his or her spouse and stop calling them spouse and start calling them partner? Leave it the way it is, Sog. Marriage is an institution of the State. A legal marriage requires a government issued permit. It does not require church involvement. If the Churches want to bless the marriages or not, they have that freedom. If they want to conduct the ceremonies or not they have that freedom. If they want to change the labels from weddings to Church Weddings or some other meaningless distinction, let them. But the US government and the American people do not have to change their laws and their preferences to accomodate a religion. (If they did, then we could fight over which religion to accomodate. Some allow gay marriage. Some allow polygamy. Some allow arranged marriages. Some allow 14 year old girls to marry. Some do not recognize divorce. Etc, etc. There's only one US Constitution. There are 1000's of religions and sects.)
No.
All that this would require would be one line in the constitution that says that marriage will henceforth be called civil union. People can and certainly would still call their unions marriages; the change would just be a legal formality. The change would be completely transparent to everyone, except for a few words burried deep in some court documents.
A legal marriage requires a government issued permit. It does not require church involvement. If the Churches want to bless the marriages or not, they have that freedom.
And that would not change, except that instead of "legal marriage" the government would call it a civil union. In my mind, this is the cleanest way to express the separation of church and state anyway. The definition of "marriage" to the government is fundimentally different than the definition to the church, so why should they be called the same thing?
Change the religious institutions not the government. And, btw, a Constitutional Amendment is not a minor thing.
Change the religious institutions not the government.
That would be a clear violation of religious freedom.
And, btw, a Constitutional Amendment is not a minor thing.
Well, obviously. But considering this is only a change in name and not a change in functionality it might actually be feasible to get agreement. Getting 50 states to agree on whether or not the government should outlaw gay marriage is not feasible.
The amendment process requires 2/3 of the house and senate or a constitional convention called by 2/3 of the state. No amendent has every passed through a convention.
Once the amendment is out of the Congress then 3/4 of the states (38 out of 50) must ratified.
You honestly thing ANYONE in Congress would pass ANY amendment for ANY thing these days? Citizens united might have an out side chance... to early to tell.
So any polictician that says they want or promise an anmendment for any is a bald face liar. Period.
I keep asking "is this man for real" every time he opens his neanderthal mouth. Why doesn't he get back on his time machine and go back to the eighteenth century where he belongs. He can take his hypocrisy with him.....and perhaps a boyfriend to ease the pain of his denial.
#4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:00 AM ESTAs a born and raised, and still live here, Washingtonian to Santorum: Sorry you came here to insult our state law. Now get the hell out!
#5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:03 AM ESTIt is sad that Rick... and a few people want to go backwards. They talk about there rights but forget that we all have rights not just a few people.
It is not just gays but women they want to restrict there rights. It is time to except that every one dose not agree with there religious right wing social agenda that restricts the rights of all people who do not agree with them.
Rick...knows that or should NO that he can not do what he wants and is just pandering to a base that should no that they have lost that argument years ago.
#6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:10 AM ESTWhat did i hear the other day.. why are we voting on rights? They are just that rights. Not subject to a vote. A lot of truth in that.
#7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:27 AM ESTWhen Rick hit the campaign trail, he wasn't so hot at first, They weeded out some losers, to get rid of the worst.
He is the best conservative, so lets just go with Rick. He's such a wonderful Catholic, we think he'll do the trick.
They think he'll beat Obama, of that they are very sure. but to support Rick Santorum, one must be very pure.
No sex outside of marriage, or women in combat, and maybe no birth control, or gays, Oh No not that.
So who is left to vote for Rick? Well I'm not really sure. But if you want to fix something, Rick make the Catholics pure.
Prosecute those evil priests and take their rights away. Clean up that mess little Ricky, get rid of that decay!
#8 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:24 AM ESTPrior to the election of JFK, the big knock on his candidacy was that he was a Catholic and that the U.S. would be ruled from Rome. It turned out that was so much bull, but NOW we may actually have the chance to see how that really works. Wouldn't that be interesting.
Would someone please explain to me why Santorum wants to make birth control illegal? I'm not trying to be dumb or derail this thread - but why on earth would anyone want to even try to make it illegal and is he just doing this to appeal to the whack jobs or does he really believe this? I just don't get it and why he would even propose it to begin with?
Also why are some in government so hell bent on eliminating Planned Parenthood and their funding - why not make birth control accessible to all regardless to prevent more abortions?
??????
Tessy, Stephen Colbert gave a good explanation why Catholic dogma is against birth control and according to him it has to do with interfering with God's will. God may have a plan for your child and that condom may upset that plan and apparently while this god is all powerful a bit of rubber is like lead to Superman.
I am a faithful Colbert watcher (and Jon Stewart) so thanks smitchie for the update! I watched this just last night. I loved the guillotine and the banana!
Weren't you on Propeller? Friend request being sent now.
Weren't you on Propeller? Friend request being sent now.
FR accepted. TY
Yeah I'm a refugee from Propeller, same screen name.
Colbert is the best, I don't think anyone in the media has done a better job at showing just how messed up these super pacs are and the way he goes the extra mile to support our troops, not to mention he's just so damn funny.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
