Rick Santorum wants to determine what your values should be, and if you’re not heterosexual, he doesn’t care to see America make laws that would be more inclusive of you, and afford you full civil rights as a citizen.
Why? Well, because Santorum thinks that the gay lifestyle doesn’t reflect Judeo-Christian values, and he thinks that the values of all Americans should be reflected in laws which are based only on that religious foundation. Allowing you to marry...well, that would “destabilize the American family”.
In other words, Santorum put forth a crock of complete and utter shit to defend his bias against gay people:
“People should have the right to live the life they want to lead. But that doesn't mean that we have to adopt as matters of public policy, policies that change the basic value structure of our country to accommodate that lifestyle, if you will.
And, so, I've always said, you know, look, I've had people who actually worked for me who were gays, and they did their job like anybody else, and we were able to work together and we did work together. So, it's not a problem.
I'm against discrimination for people who should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. If they can, and do their job, they should. But that doesn't mean that we should change the laws of this country......to destabilize the American family, to change the way we look at religious liberty in this country, to accommodate a different value structure.
It's not about them, it's about values. It's about what America's basic moral American values should be that would be reflected in the laws.
And so, I've taken the position that the moral values reflected in the laws should be the moral values that built this country, which is the Judeo-Christian values, and that the laws should try as much as possible to comport with the higher law and also should comport with what reason would dictate. And what reason dictates is that children need mothers and fathers. … Some say well, through technology, same-sex couples can have children. Well they can, through either adoption, or artificial insemination…but they don’t get the mother and a father.”
Watch:
From a December 6, 2011 talk he gave to a crowd in Spencer Iowa, during the Republican primaries - election 2012.
For the first time ever, a Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans supports same-sex marriage.
In the poll, conducted earlier this month, Gallup found 53 percent of Americans saying that marriages between same-sex couples should be considered valid and come with the same rights as heterosexual marriages, while 45 percent said same-sex marriages should not.
Just a year ago, those numbers were reversed in a Gallup Poll on the same topic. According to that poll, 44% of respondents supported same-sex marriage, and 53% opposed it. This is really good news, in part because it is an indication that people are actually thinking about this issue, and changing their minds.
Two other recent polls have indicated strong support for gay marriage.
The Gallup poll is just the latest to find that the legalization of gay marriage is supported by a majority of Americans. In a shift from its previous polls, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released in April found 51 percent of Americans in support of gay marriage and 47 percent opposed to it. And, in March, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found 52 percent of Americans supporting gay marriage, also a majority opinion for the first time.
Yesterday, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Jack Markell signed legislation which makes civil unions legal in Delaware, becoming the eighth state to legalize civil unions.
Yesterday morning there were 43 states that did not have a legal classification for same-sex relationships -- marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. By yesterday afternoon, that number dropped to 42 when Delaware's Democratic Governor Jack Markell signed into law the country's latest civil union legislation.
Five years ago, if there were five Supreme Court justices who believed that marriage equality should be the law of the land, they’d still probably have shied away from saying so for fear of issuing a desperately unpopular decision on a hot-button subject. Today, not so much. And with the Obama administration now saying that DOMA should be subjected to “heightened scrutiny” it would seem to follow that all forms of marriage inequity also deserve said heightened scrutiny. Consequently, I think we may actually wind up having nationwide marriage equality sooner than people think as long as Justice Kennedy continues to be sympathetic to gay equity claims.
More Bachmann craziness in a flashback to 2004 -- then state Sen. Michele Bachmann [R-MN] talking about same-sex marriage on the radio show1 "Prophetic Views Behind The News”, 2004:
This is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.
On that same day and show, Bachmann goes on to comment about her [then] upcoming rally against same-sex marriage [the rally was held at the Minnesota state capitol in March 2004]:
It will be an awesome day. We are going to be beseeching the Lord.
1Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004. source
At an Iowa event on Wednesday [which is a whole other ‘interesting’ story], Rep. Steve King [R-IA] told a reporter for the Iowa Independent what he thought would happen if conservatives don't restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
I think that if we can’t defend marriage, that it becomes very hard to defend life. Marriage is the crucible by which we pour all of our values and pass them on to our children, and that is how the culture is renewed each time. So, if we lose marriage — for instance, if our children are raised in warehouses, so to speak. There have been civilizations that have tried to do that. The Spartans did that. They took the children away and taught them to be warriors. It’s a good way to defend a country, but not much of a way to run a civilization.
So, I’m afraid if that happened — if we lose the marriage, we lose the home, we lose the nuclear family then we can’t teach our values. We won’t be able to teach our faith. We won’t be able to teach life. We won’t be able to teach our Constitutional values either. That’s why I’m afraid it’s going to be very, very difficult to defend life.
In a tremendous victory for equality this afternoon, Proposition 8 was struck down by a California judge, who called it “unconstitutional”.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]
This case will likely end up in front of our dear, dear SCOTUS, and while the Roberts Court is not known for it’s tolerance. I’m going to remain optimistic for my friends in the LGBT community. FTW!
Recent Comments