Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 85467

Social conservatives are lauding Rick Santorum’s “surge” to third place in the Iowa polls, but his new forthrightness about his positions may backfire. In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Santorum explained that not only would he support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he supports invalidating all currently legal same-sex unions:

SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law…

TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

Rick Santorum , Think Progress 76 Comments [1/4/2012 4:40:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 70
Submitted By: Elliott
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
jsonitsac

He's right we do need a single law throughout the country. Equality.

1/4/2012 4:54:26 AM

Tempus

It's good to know that, with all the other problems facing this nation, you're focused like a laser on fixing the one that isn't really a problem: amending the constitution in order to disenfranchise homosexuals. Really.

1/4/2012 4:59:44 AM

Percy Q. Shunn


1/4/2012 5:24:13 AM



Yes, less government unless its about those damn faggots.

1/4/2012 5:26:32 AM

RiJayden

As usual, Santorum is full of "himself" again. Gods, I wish they'd stop saying he's "surging". It sounds *so* gross!

1/4/2012 5:34:55 AM

Raised by Horses

In short: "So long, general election!"

I swear, when it comes to this election's crop of GOP candidates, I feel like I stepped into a circus, and a clown car pulled up and released its passangers onto the stage, spouting lame campaign slogans and hackneyed talking points.

I can't be the only one, can I?

1/4/2012 5:46:13 AM

Serph-no-Okami

Yes, marriage has to be one thing for everyone, man and woman equally, so long as there is consent.

1/4/2012 5:46:42 AM

D Laurier

Marriage;
The legal binding of two consenting adults as a family unit.

I know I'm excluding polygamist familys, but that can be addressed by a later administration.

1/4/2012 5:51:42 AM

Canadiest

Oddly enough:
He just came out yesterday to say he thinks states should be allowed to seperately decide if they can ban contraceptive products.
And of course everyone in the Gop running thinks states should be in control of creation teaching in schools or not.

Please pay attention to who you're voting in and their agendas, please remember what's occured in the states where you've already voted in holy-rollers. There's conservative values and there's bat-shit insane beliefs and the two don't have to co-exist.

There was a time where conservatives didn't walk the fundie line at all, called them extremists and not to be taken seriously, spoke of how their religious agendas were threats to individual freedoms. Not any more.


1/4/2012 6:12:40 AM



Further unequivocal proof that Frothy Mixture is a douchbag of the highest proportion.

1/4/2012 6:24:49 AM

whatever

He obviously wants a second US Civil War.

1/4/2012 6:48:24 AM



What is it with all the new year gay quotes? Do fundies spend christmas thinking of gay sex?

1/4/2012 6:57:22 AM

Doubting Thomas

There's also something known as the grandfather clause. If something occurred when it was legal, it's still valid even if later it is made illegal.

But just the idea of making current legal marriages invalid should make Mr. Frothy's presidential candidacy invalid. So much for being the party of individual freedom.

1/4/2012 7:07:54 AM

Swede

In Sweden marriage is one thing for everybody: two adults intending to spend their lives together.

There is another way, Ricky; stop discriminating against people who find themselves attracted to people of the same gender! They have hard enough lives as it is.

1/4/2012 7:18:46 AM

Jeff Weskamp

@Canadiest

The problem is, the folks who would have been considered the right-wing's outlying fringe 30 years ago are now the right-wing's central base. That's why all the Republican presidential candidates have been racing as far as they can to the right.

1/4/2012 7:43:38 AM

Horsefeathers

"SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law…"

Care to explain how including same sex couples in the current existing marriage laws creates "50 different marriage laws"--or even two marriage laws?

"SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid."

In your wet dreams, buddy.

"I think if the constitution says 'marriage is this,' then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution…"

I'm no Constitutional scholar but I'm pretty sure that marriage, of all things, is just a wee little bit beyond the scope of concern for the Constitution, jackass.

"I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it."

There is. We've been doing it for several years now in various states.

Do try to keep up.

1/4/2012 7:59:47 AM

Xotan

Essentially removing the protection of the law from one particular categorty of citizen is reminiscent of what happened to the Jews in Germany. Santorum has ambitions to be a Nazi? It begs the question: what next?

What about states that already have gaymarriage on their statute books? Would they be happy with retrospective legislation, or would they want out of a union of states that allow retrospection and the exclusion of a category of citizens?

It's interesting that the Nazis in 1930s/40s Germany singled out not only the Jews but other minority groupings too. So, after Santorum has finished with gays, who does he go after next?

Knife's edge stuff this, Ricky. You fascism is showing strong.

1/4/2012 8:09:43 AM

dionysus

The Constitution is meant to GIVE rights to citizens, not take them away. It was stupid enough when they tried to use the Constitution to outlaw alcohol without repeating the same stupidity again. Oh, and BTW, frothy, just like with prohibition, future amendments can be used to repeal yours.

1/4/2012 8:12:19 AM

Brendan Rizzo

Yes Santorum, we all know that you hate the gays and that that's your only platform. Guess what? You're not getting elected. Most of the country hates you. When Obama wins reelection in a landslide, I hope that you and the other Republicans think about that and realize something about yourselves.

1/4/2012 8:53:37 AM

sandchigger

The POTUS has exactly zero power to amend the constitution. I wonder if ole Ricky here knows that.

For those playing at home, there are two ways to propose an amendment:

1. Both houses of congress (the House and the Senate) approve by a two-thirds majority a joint resolution to amend the constitution. This is then sent to the states to ratify.

2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national constitutional convention to propose amendments (this has never, ever been done).

Furthermore there are two ways to ratify any amendments proposed in the aforementioned two scenarios:

1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures vote to approve the amendment.

2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve the amendment (this was done once, to approve the 21st amendment which repealed Prohibition).

Nowhere in that list does the POTUS have any say in the matters because the executive branch of government does not make laws.

1/4/2012 8:55:53 AM

JSS

Well I guess this is to be expected from... wait. What's that... A frothy mix of...

Ugggggggggew! Santorum. You really are disgusting.

Oh, and a fascist.

1/4/2012 8:56:30 AM

Noneofyourbusiness

@Horsefeathers

He means if states could determine whether gay people can get married or not, there would be multiple marriage laws in the country.

1/4/2012 8:56:49 AM

Anon-e-moose

(P)RICK RANTSORBUM: "Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,”

Ahem:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Click 'Edit', then click 'Find', and type the word 'Marriage' and click 'Next'.

I don't need to 'think' to determine whether or not the US Constitution says 'marriage is this' in it. I know it doesn't, and I'm British.

It says so much about a country, when a sizeable proportion of it's own citizens clearly haven't even read the very document that is the basis of the country they dare claim to be a citizen of, least of all run for it's highest office. And when people outside that country know more about said document than those citizens within such.

Which is why I can't thank my teachers enough. Certainly when we studied the US Constitution as part of History class (re. history of the USA).

So you'd 'support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; supports invalidating all currently legal same-sex unions' eh, (P)rick Rantsorbum?

You haven't even read your own Constitution. Not just your argument, but your candidacy, nay, your right to live in the US, is invalid.

'Think'. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you...!

...oh wait. X3

@Canadiest

"Oddly enough:
He just came out yesterday to say he thinks states should be allowed to seperately decide if they can ban contraceptive products."

Odd indeed. And they dare accuse Mitt Romney of 'flip-flopping' when it comes to policy?

Oh, the double-standards. Oh, the hypocrisy. Oh, the SHAME!

1/4/2012 8:57:40 AM

Stonespiral

I thought marriage laws were a State right and that there are already fifty different marriage laws in this country. Is he saying he wants to take away a State right and lean towards 'bigger' government? Or am I correct that all he's doing is screaming as loud as possible to get the attention of the most mentally twisted voters he can get?

1/4/2012 9:04:50 AM

Osiris

Rick Santorum: He actually makes Ron Paul look electable.

1/4/2012 9:21:05 AM
1 2 3 4