• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rick Santorum says supreme court's gay marriage decision not 'final word'

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'm not sure Mr. Santorum understands how this works.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/31/rick-santorum-gay-marriage-supreme-court

The Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said on Sunday the supreme court would not “have the final word” on same-sex marriage in the US, saying that instead it would be “important for Congress and the president, frankly, to push back when the supreme court gets it wrong”. After the supreme court struck down the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) in June 2013, same-sex marriage has become legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia. The country’s highest court is due to decide the issue for good in a judgment expected to come down in June. Nonetheless Santorum, a self-proclaimed “blue collar conservative” who polled strongly with evangelical voters in the 2012 primaries and was appearing on NBC, said: “I think it’s important to understand that the supreme court doesn’t have the final word. It has its word. Its word has validity. But it’s important for Congress and the president, frankly, to push back when the supreme court gets it wrong.”

Santorum was asked if he agreed with the former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, another Christian conservative and declared candidate for the 2016 GOP nomination, that on this issue the supreme court could be overruled by the states. “I don’t advocate civil disobedience,” he said. “I do advocate the role of an informed citizen to try to overturn when a court makes a mistake and gets an issue wrong. “I think the supreme court has as an equal branch of government the ability to overrule Congress and the president; they do it all the time,” the former US senator from Pennsylvania added. “But I also feel it’s the role of the Congress and the president to push back. It’s important that they be understood to be equal branches of government.” Santorum outlined a situation, from his own experience in the Senate, in which legislation ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court could be altered and passed again, causing the court to reverse its opinion. Asked if he would fight the supreme court in such a manner if it legalised same-sex marriage, he referred to the ruling which safeguards abortion rights in the US when he said: “Of course I’d fight it. Roe vs Wade was decided 30-something years ago [in fact 1973, 42 years ago] and I continue to fight it because the court got it wrong. “And I think if the court decides this case in error I will continue to fight, as I have on the issue of life. That’s the role of a citizenry. We’re not bound by what nine people say in perpetuity.”
Click to expand...
 
frothy-rick-santorum.jpg
 
Santorum is quickly ensuring he *only* represents the demographic of our society that is quickly dying off.
 
joG said:
An Ammendment would do it. But the better way is to abolish state interference in marriage and family. I suspect the Supreme Court would not stand in the way.
Click to expand...
That will never happen.

Government involvement in marriage has been around since the Pilgrims first landed here, and it's not about to go away.
 
Paperview said:
That will never happen.

Government involvement in marriage has been around since the Pilgrims first landed here, and it's not about to go away.
Click to expand...

When circumstances change and old instruments become redundant, expensive and fail? Well you keep them around for nostalgia till you trash zhem.
 
joG said:
When circumstances change and old instruments become redundant, expensive and fail? Well you keep them around for nostalgia till you trash zhem.
Click to expand...

Oh get off it. the only reason cons now want to "get gooberment out of marriage" is because: The Gheys.

That's the only "circumstances" that changed.
\
People still regard the 1400 rights and privileges of marriage as being a lot more than "nostalgic."
 
Paperview said:
Oh get off it. the only reason cons now want to "get gooberment out of marriage" is because: The Gheys.

That's the only "circumstances" that changed.
\
People still regard the 1400 rights and privileges of marriage as being a lot more than "nostalgic."
Click to expand...

That may be true for some. But as it is, we have changed a number of factors in society that have led to a breakdown of the sociological instrument as a means of guaranteeing reproduction. As it is extremely expensive as instruments go we need to cut the costs and use them more efficiently. This is not yet as pressing here as in Europe or Japan, but it is becoming so. What makes it difficult is the amount of motherhood and apple pie is connected with it and the amount of subsidies have been stitched onto its coat flaps. But that doesn't make the instrument better. It only makes it worse and more difficult to get rid of. It's like kicking a bad habit like opium.
 
joG said:
That may be true for some. But as it is, we have changed a number of factors in society that have led to a breakdown of the sociological instrument as a means of guaranteeing reproduction. As it is extremely expensive as instruments go we need to cut the costs and use them more efficiently. This is not yet as pressing here as in Europe or Japan, but it is becoming so. What makes it difficult is the amount of motherhood and apple pie is connected with it and the amount of subsidies have been stitched onto its coat flaps. But that doesn't make the instrument better. It only makes it worse and more difficult to get rid of. It's like kicking a bad habit like opium.
Click to expand...

Magniloquent nonsense.
 
Anomalism said:
I'm not sure Mr. Santorum understands how this works.

Rick Santorum says supreme court gay marriage decision is not the 'final word' | US news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

as a full backer of the constitution,he is wrong.

the constitution permits equality under law under the 14th,and cannot exclude anyone without due reason.hating gays is not due reason to deprive them of equal protection of the law.


further scotus granted itself judicial review to interperate the constitution,but if even that is thrown aside,scotus always had the power to rule on whether laws themselves were constitutional,like doma.as laws are under the constitution in which scotus was granted.
 
WTH is *this* supposed to mean:

“I don’t advocate civil disobedience,” he said. “I do advocate the role of an informed citizen to try to overturn when a court makes a mistake and gets an issue wrong."

+++

BTW - my state has a new Republican governor that also recently announced he doesn't have to listen the State Supreme Court when he believes they are 'wrong'!

Must be something in the water.
 
You folks are funny. You think its absolutely appropriate to continue to fight the good fight...as long as it is the cause YOU agree with. For example...gay marriage has been illegal since the country was formed. Did people just accept that or did they continue to fight it? And IF the SCOTUS rules gay marriage is constitutionally mandated then suddenly you expect the other side to just do what you refused to do? You want them to just quit? (well...of COURSE you do. Once it goes your way THEN its settled) :lamo

This is kinda what the argument looks like. Same with the abortion argument.



Santorum is of course CORRECT...absolutely. The SCOTUS has a ROLE...but that role is NOT God and Gospel. The SCOTUS interprets law. So if the vast majority of states that have been forced not by their citizens but by a handful of judges decide that it is time to pass a Constitutional amendment then they absolutely have that right to pursue it. Will it pass? Who knows. But there is a process.

Those that are claiming Santorum is wrong are themselves 'wrong', but really...they are just partisan ideologues being snarky.
 
Of course bigots will try to fight back when laws / SCOTUS rulings recognize equality for people they hate -- it doesn't usually work out too well for them, if history is any guide.
 
VanceMack said:
You folks are funny.
Click to expand...
And you are outright hilarious.

You think its absolutely appropriate to continue to fight the good fight...as long as it is the cause YOU agree with.
Click to expand...
No, it is because it is the right thing to do.

For example...gay marriage has been illegal since the country was formed.
Click to expand...
And slavery was legal. Does that mean it should have remained so?

Did people just accept that or did they continue to fight it? And IF the SCOTUS rules gay marriage is constitutionally mandated then suddenly you expect the other side to just do what you refused to do? You want them to just quit?
Click to expand...
What is it exactly that slave holders did and with what success?

This is kinda what the argument looks like.
Click to expand...
See now why your post is hilarious?

Same with the abortion argument.
Click to expand...
Yea, you got that wrong too. At least you are consistent.
 
VanceMack said:
You folks are funny. You think its absolutely appropriate to continue to fight the good fight...as long as it is the cause YOU agree with. For example...gay marriage has been illegal since the country was formed. Did people just accept that or did they continue to fight it? And IF the SCOTUS rules gay marriage is constitutionally mandated then suddenly you expect the other side to just do what you refused to do? You want them to just quit? (well...of COURSE you do. Once it goes your way THEN its settled) :lamo

This is kinda what the argument looks like. Same with the abortion argument.



Santorum is of course CORRECT...absolutely. The SCOTUS has a ROLE...but that role is NOT God and Gospel. The SCOTUS interprets law. So if the vast majority of states that have been forced not by their citizens but by a handful of judges decide that it is time to pass a Constitutional amendment then they absolutely have that right to pursue it. Will it pass? Who knows. But there is a process.

Those that are claiming Santorum is wrong are themselves 'wrong', but really...they are just partisan ideologues being snarky.
Click to expand...



Santorum is a halfwitted boob. :shrug:
 
prometeus said:
And you are outright hilarious.

No, it is because it is the right thing to do.

And slavery was legal. Does that mean it should have remained so?

What is it exactly that slave holders did and with what success?

See now why your post is hilarious?

Yea, you got that wrong too. At least you are consistent.
Click to expand...
Baby, I'm a ****ing laugh riot.

All of those things you discussed imply change. Now...I know you believe acceptance of homoesxuality and gay marriage is right and a positive evolution. Others disagree. And those that disagree will have every right to continue to fight against it.

BTW...you will note I used the word 'they'. I wont be fighting it. I am personally opposed to gay marriage (consider it just like Obamas prior to him shilling for campaign cash in 2012) but am really looking forward to the SCOTUS decision and think they should have taken it on a decade ago. I disagree with abortion (I kind of have an Obama-like stance on THAT as well) but dont think it should be overturned either. So...see how ****ing stupid your own prejudice and bias is?
 
joG said:
An Ammendment would do it. But the better way is to abolish state interference in marriage and family. I suspect the Supreme Court would not stand in the way.
Click to expand...

Neither is going to legitimately happen. There wasn't support for an Amendment 10 years ago, and support for same sex marriage has at least doubled since then and continues to rise, while opposition continues to dwindle. And most people do not really want to do away with marriage being legally recognized. Even the bill in Louisiana (?) that changed marriage licenses to marriage contracts does not actually do away with marriage. It is a stupid attempt to try to circumvent the likely outcome of the same sex marriage case the SCOTUS is hearing now.
 
joG said:
When circumstances change and old instruments become redundant, expensive and fail? Well you keep them around for nostalgia till you trash zhem.
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't expensive though, especially not if a person realistically looks at how much it would cost to not have marriage legally recognized, either from the government's standpoint or the standpoint of most individual couples. Both benefit from having marriage legally recognized, even financially.
 
joG said:
That may be true for some. But as it is, we have changed a number of factors in society that have led to a breakdown of the sociological instrument as a means of guaranteeing reproduction. As it is extremely expensive as instruments go we need to cut the costs and use them more efficiently. This is not yet as pressing here as in Europe or Japan, but it is becoming so. What makes it difficult is the amount of motherhood and apple pie is connected with it and the amount of subsidies have been stitched onto its coat flaps. But that doesn't make the instrument better. It only makes it worse and more difficult to get rid of. It's like kicking a bad habit like opium.
Click to expand...

It's true for many. Most people in the US are or want to be married, legally.
 
The gay marriage issue has reached SCOTUS, gay marriage bans have been defeated over and over in different courts, DOMA is dead, DADT is dead, but somehow the anti-SSM side will gather up enough support for a constitutional amendment banning marriage. Oy vey. Talk about listening to too much Bon Jovi and hanging on to a prayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom