Bil Browning

Santorum: NY Is Destroying American Families

Filed By Bil Browning | July 31, 2011 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: gay marriage, marriage equality, New York, Rick Santorum, same-sex marriage

More jackassery from GOP presidential-wannabe Rick Santorum... Box Turtle Bulletin brings us video of the far right nut job's speech to Colorado's Western Summit where Santorum denied denigrating gays and lesbians and expressed his disdain for the Constitution's Tenth Amendment.

Santorum's comments are a barely veiled attack on Texas Governor Rick Perry who recently said New York's decision to legalize same-sex marriage was "their business, and that's fine with me." The Tenth Amendment ensures that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

Transcript of the speech after the break.

I think it was the year of my election, in the Atlantic Monthly there was a profile on Tim Gill and what he had accomplished here in Colorado, the Colorado Plan. And in the first paragraph of that article, he said, "Our plan is to make sure there is never another Rick Santorum elected to a national office." My opponent spoke at the Human Rights Campaign. My opponent was a pro-life Democrat, son of Bob Casey, one of the great social conservative leaders, maybe last social conservative leader of the Democratic Party. And he had wrapped himself in his father, but he embraced the gay and lesbian community like no other candidate had. He went out and spoke and did fundraisers, estimates... millions, and certainly millions in direct contribution, and I believe over ten million in indirect contributions starting, in my race, eighteen months. Why?

Because I had the temerity to stand up in 2003 before any of this started to roll. Before Lawrence versus Texas was even decided, and I fired across the bow of the United States Supreme Court and said, "Supreme Court you can decide this case the right way and say the sodomy statute is voilate [sic] of equal protection and everything will be fine. But if you say there is a constitutional right to consensual sexual activity, Katie bar the door."

And that's what they did. And when I said that, I compared... I said... I didn't compare anything... I said if the Supreme Court gives the right of individuals.. the constitutional right to consensual sexual activity, then you have the right to incest, you have the right to all sorts... polygamy, you name it. You have the right to anything if it's consent.

When I said that, the gay community went ballistic and they came after me. Mainstream media called for me to resign because I was comparing homosexuality with incest and other things. No I wasn't. I was saying if the standard was consent, then how do you rationally draw the line? You can't. And they aren't. And subsequent to that, the Massachusetts decisions and others came down, and I stood for marriage. I was the one, with Wayne Allard, Marilyn Muscgrave, two great warriors here in Colorado (applause) who stood... and we forced a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

But ladies and gentlemen, we have this issue before us again today, and it's within our party. And we need to talk about it. There's some in our party who say, well if New York wants to pass same-sex marriage, that's fine with me. Some who say, well I'm not going to get involved in what states do. It's their business. Abraham Lincoln said it best: we do not have the right to do wrong. (applause) States do not have the right to destroy the American family. It is your business. It is not and should not... It is not fine with me that New York has destroyed marriage. It is not fine with me that New York is setting the template that will cause great division in this country. There is not fifty definitions of marriage.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


And when I said that, I compared... I said... I didn't compare anything... I said if the Supreme Court gives the right of individuals.. the constitutional right to consensual sexual activity, then you have the right to incest, you have the right to all sorts... polygamy, you name it. You have the right to anything if it's consent.

Yes, a consent model works because incest doesn't involve consent, since one party is generally considered too young to give consent, stupid fuckwit. May he forever and always carry the burden of his google problem.

Don't tell anyone ... but I occasionally hear stories about homosexual activity between fathers and their adult sons ... and the only thing I have to say about it is, "Can I watch?"

"There is not fifty definitions of marriage."

Can you believe this guy is a lawyer, a lawyer with an actual "yes, I can practice law" license?

Besides not being able to get plurality to agree between his subject and verb, this guy apparently does not know law. There are fifty states, fifty separate law-making mechanisms for passing rules (laws) for their particular jurisdiction ... and thus, there are fifty different definitions of marriage in America! With or without same-sex marriage, this is already the situation that we have!

A simple example: In some states, first cousins can marry, in some states they can't. Of course, we can see what massive divisions in the American fabric these differences from state to state are causing!

I'd call this guy an asshole ... but I have too much respect for assholes.

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | July 31, 2011 6:45 PM

"Of course, we can see what massive divisions in the American fabric these differences from state to state are causing."

There is a bit of a difference when it comes to banning same-sex marriage: I'm not aware that any state that prohibits first cousin marriage within its territory also prohibits recognition of first cousin marriage that was entered into in a state which does recognize it. Obviously not so concerning same-sex marriage, mostly because the Federal Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constituion recognizes (without needing DOMA) a "strong public policy" exception. No state has such a declared "public policy" against first cousin marriages, but certainly many do concerning the same-sex variety.

Fine point well taken, Don, and thank you -- but nothing you add lessens the falsehood or stupidity of claiming that there are "not fifty definitions of marriage" -- and I stand by my point that Santorum, for a lawyer, is being really sloppy here. There are fifty states, and they can each formulate marriage independently of the others if they so choose.

OTOH, you might accuse me of being sloppy, because my example did not entirely fit my main point -- and on that I stand corrected. However, my main point still holds. Now, bye, I'm outta here!

Wolfgang E. B. Wolfgang E. B. | August 1, 2011 7:20 AM

Santorum said, "I said if the Supreme Court gives the right of individuals.. the constitutional right to consensual sexual activity, then you have the right to incest, you have the right to all sorts... polygamy, you name it. You have the right to anything if it's consent."

This is a straw man argument, (of course--seeing as how these f**ktards don't have a legitimate argument to begin with and thus have to resort to dishonesty). Consent is not the sole criteria for legal sexual activity. The law requires that the people involved be of legal age and unrelated (DNA-wise).

And polygamy is supported by the bible. I leave that to the Christofascists to sort out.

I don't need the Supreme court to "give me the right" to consensual sexual activity. It's already mine. I was born with this right. The Supreme court can tell me what I may not do in this particular country, based upon the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. It is society as a whole who decides what is acceptable sexual behavior amongst its members, and the term "acceptable" has changed many times throughout history.

The majority of our nation now supports gay marriage (and sexual activity) so the laws must change to reflect the NEW will of the people.

Deal with it Santorum. It's called Democracy. If you don't like it, go live in Iran.

Speaking as a former constituent of that man, I must say that I cheered and jumped up and down when we voted him out.

Last I knew, I was a member of an American family, Mr. Santorum. And my money, earned in PA, the state you once represented, will be happily spent this fall in New York, getting married, so that my family has some legal recognition.

Doesn't seem like destruction to me, not at all.