Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

[fuelair]

In your heart, you know he's right.

You left out 3 words at the end there!: wing fascist rectum.

 

[Alareth]

Rick Santorum is not pleased with the 9th Circuit Courts Prop 8 decision. Claims they have overturned 4000 years of human history and consider people like him bigots.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/08/santorum-the-ninth-circuit-thinks-im-a-bigot/

Rick, have you ever stopped to think that the reason large numbers of people consider you to be a bigot is because you are, in fact, a bigot?

 

[tyr_13]

“Marriage is defined and has always been defined as ‘one man and one woman.’ We simply cannot allow 50 different definitions of marriage.”

So is he such a huge idiot that he doesn't know that's not what the Bible, which he claims to be the most important book in his life, says on the subject or is he lying?

 

[daenku32]

Rick Santorum is not pleased with the 9th Circuit Courts Prop 8 decision. Claims they have overturned 4000 years of human history and consider people like him bigots.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/08/santorum-the-ninth-circuit-thinks-im-a-bigot/

Rick, have you ever stopped to think that the reason large numbers of people consider you to be a bigot is because you are, in fact, a bigot?

A real spigot of santorum...

Oh wait, a *bigot*.

 

[johnny karate]

“Marriage is defined and has always been defined as ‘one man and one woman.’ We simply cannot allow 50 different definitions of marriage.”

I just love how bigots pretend the issue is about the pedantic adherence to the definition of a word.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Why can't we allow 50 different definitions of marriage?

I'm not seeing the enumerated power in the Constitution that makes this a federal issue.

 

[noch1Narr]

Does Rick Santorum's religious bigotry have anything to do with the fact that his Latin last name means: 'of the saints'...?

 

[elbe]

Why can't we allow 50 different definitions of marriage?

I'm not seeing the enumerated power in the Constitution that makes this a federal issue.

As long as the full faith and credit clause is upheld I don't see a problem. Of course if the full faith and credit clause is upheld it essentially makes the broadest "definition" the defacto one as anyone can travel to that state at their leisure.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

^^^^^^^^^^Edit: Jerk >:[

Why can't we allow 50 different definitions of marriage?

I'm not seeing the enumerated power in the Constitution that makes this a federal issue.

Article IV, Section I of the United States Constitution

And here for the explicit text:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

 

[AvalonXQ]

As long as the full faith and credit clause is upheld I don't see a problem. Of course if the full faith and credit clause is upheld it essentially makes the broadest "definition" the defacto one as anyone can travel to that state at their leisure.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but FF&C has never actually been held to require one state to accept another state's marriage license in situations contrary to that state's laws.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but FF&C has never actually been held to require one state to accept another state's marriage license in situations contrary to that state's laws.

This is correct, as interracial marriage laws were struck down under the equal protection clause, rather than FF&C. To my knowledge, precedent has not yet been set for applicability of FF&C to marriage.

 

[elbe]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but FF&C has never actually been held to require one state to accept another state's marriage license in situations contrary to that state's laws.

According to the wiki page:

The Supreme Court has not ruled on how or whether these laws are affected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, in August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married in another state. Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, Adar v. Smith.

I see nothing to suggest that marriage is somehow exempt from the clause, just that it hasn't been ruled on yet. There haven't been very many cases in our history where marriage laws differed wildly between states.
What would be interesting, if one knew how to look it up, is how states treat marriages with different marriageable ages between each other.

 

[Chaos]

Does Rick Santorum's religious bigotry have anything to do with the fact that his Latin last name means: 'of the saints'...?

That would be "Sanctorum". "Santorum" means something rather more unsavory, and I´m not talking about Latin.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, fortunately we have DOMA, which makes this a non-issue.

FF&C notwithstanding, I disagree with Santorum that having different definitions of marriage in different states is in any way problematic. It's simply not a federal issue IMO.

 

[elbe]

Well, fortunately we have DOMA, which makes this a non-issue.

Fortunately?

 

[Spindrift]

“Marriage is defined and has always been defined as ‘one man and one woman.’ We simply cannot allow 50 different definitions of marriage.”

So is he such a huge idiot that he doesn't know that's not what the Bible, which he claims to be the most important book in his life, says on the subject or is he lying?

We may not have 50 definitions but there is a lot of variation as to who can get married (by age), to whom (1st cousins?), by whom (who can officiate), how much it costs and the prerequisites (e.g. blood tests).

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I would love it if just once people could talk about Santorum and how they disagree with his ideas without going HA HA GUYS CHECK OUT THIS JOKE THAT DAN SAVAGE MADE LITERALLY YEARS AGO I AM SO FUNNY AND CUTTING EDGE! SANTORUM! LOL! IT'S POOP! POOP!

 

[Spindrift]

I would love it if just once people could talk about Santorum and how they disagree with his ideas without going HA HA GUYS CHECK OUT THIS JOKE THAT DAN SAVAGE MADE LITERALLY YEARS AGO I AM SO FUNNY AND CUTTING EDGE! SANTORUM! LOL! IT'S POOP! POOP!

It's not just poop. It's lubricant as well. Now that's funny!

 

[Upchurch]

I would love it if just once people could talk about Santorum and how they disagree with his ideas without going HA HA GUYS CHECK OUT THIS JOKE THAT DAN SAVAGE MADE LITERALLY YEARS AGO I AM SO FUNNY AND CUTTING EDGE! SANTORUM! LOL! IT'S POOP! POOP!

I'll make you a deal: When Santorum stops being a douchebag to gays and lesbians, I'll gladly work to make that happen. Until that time, Santorum will continue to, rightly, be linked to santorum.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

It's not just poop. It's lubricant as well. Now that's funny!

All I'm saying is that the dead horse has been a fine red mist for some time now, and yet every time anyone even mentions Santorum in any context, inevitably about fifteen people feel the need to make hilarious "subtle" gags about the "secret" meaning of Santorum that's been around literally for years. I have been guilty of this on occasion, and deeply regret it. It's annoying as hell.


/grump

ETA:

I'll make you a deal: When Santorum stops being a douchebag to gays and lesbians, I'll gladly work to make that happen. Until that time, Santorum will continue to, rightly, be linked to santorum.

But that's what I'm saying! Even saying something as simple as this does far more to advance the cause of "hey, that Santorum guy is kind of an intolerant dick" than just saying LOL HE'S POOP SEX LOL