Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy

Yeah, because Nazi Germany was a 'leftist' state. Oh boy, your genius humbles me.

 

Tell that to the thousands of boys and girls preyed upon by Catholic clergy. But, in your world, molesting and raping children is an example of morality and there's nothing wrong with it. Because they're Catholics.

 

Socialist in name only. Do not forget this.

 

In the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court declares the prohibition of same-gender marriage a violation of the equal protection clause of the Massachusetts State Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodridge_v._Department_of_Public_Health

The Federal District Court in the case of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services ruled that DOMA violated the 10th Amendment and the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services

Of note the Obama adminstration, including the Attorney General's office, determined that the evidence that DOMA violated the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment was so compelling that it dropped the appeal. The Republicans in Congress decided to continue the appeal but the conservative law firm representing them, upon review of the evidence and the District Court's decision has also dropped the case.

In California the State Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of same-gender marriages imposed by Prop 22 violated the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases

The 9th District Court ruled that California Prop 8, which revised the State Constitution to surpass the equal protection clause in the State Constitution, was a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. That decision has been sustained by a three judge panel of the 9th District Court of Appeals.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/court-overturns-prop-8-california-says-state-t-181451250.html

 

Leave superstition out of politics and keep it in the home or church. If, by some nightmare miracle, Santorum becomes president, then a man who claims to be guided by a 'god' is going to be making decisions based on his faith. If, by extension, those decisions affect non-religious Americans then he is absolutely dictating.

 

In the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court declares the prohibition of same-gender marriage a violation of the equal protection clause of the Massachusetts State Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodridge_v._Department_of_Public_Health

The Federal District Court in the case of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services ruled that DOMA violated the 10th Amendment and the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services

Of note the Obama adminstration, including the Attorney General's office, determined that the evidence that DOMA violated the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment was so compelling that it dropped the appeal. The Republicans in Congress decided to continue the appeal but the conservative law firm representing them, upon review of the evidence and the District Court's decision has also dropped the case.

In California the State Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of same-gender marriages imposed by Prop 22 violated the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases

The 9th District Court ruled that California Prop 8, which revised the State Constitution to surpass the equal protection clause in the State Constitution, was a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. That decision has been sustained by a three judge panel of the 9th District Court of Appeals.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/court-overturns-prop-8-california-says-state-t-181451250.html

All of the recent court decisions on same-gender marriage are striking down the laws that prohibit it as being unconstitutional. The impose invidious discrimination that serves no purpose except to lesson the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians as Judge Stephen wrote in the 9th District Court of Appeals decision. These laws are clearly unconstitutional and that is becoming more evident with every recent court decision. It is time to end the invidious discrimination which serves no purpose other than degrading people and denying them benefits they are entitled to under the laws of the United States and the US Constitution.

 

Your point?

 

And once again you demonstrate not only your own ignorance of our Constitution.

But the overall basic ignorance most liberals possess when it comes to understanding what is in our Constitution, and why it's in there.

Mr. Santorum is dead on, absolutely correct.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.

As the left is so fond of pretending.


The Constitution does not prohibit religious expression by the people within the State. It does not prohibit the use of government property for religious expression either.

IE: Manger on the lawn of town hall. National Prayer day, Ten Commandments in a courthouse.

It does however prohibit the creation of a state religion. Which is a far different thing, than a manger on the town hall lawn, or National prayer day/opening Congress with a prayer, or the ten commandments on the wall of a judges courtroom.

In none of those are you forced to believe or practice any religion at all.

Which is what state religion is.

 

It prohibits passing laws based on religious beliefs. That is fact. The constitution is a living document and cannot be taken word for word.

 

Which is also an overreach by the Supreme court, into an area of law it has no Constitutional authority to address in the first place.

As the issue is what the individual State will recognize internally as a marriage.

And there is nothing which address's that in the Federal Constitution, nor anything in there which gives the Federal Courts any authority on the matter whatsoever....

Again just because some liberal lies and claims it's in there, that doesn't make it so.

Even IF that liberal wears black robes and pretends to be a upholding the law.

 

You didnt respond to this:

I don't give a hoot about Santorums personal beliefs but what is with these people that think they have the right to force their personal beliefs on others ?

These people that are either not intelligent enough or too jaded to distinguish the difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others do not understand their Job description well enough to be able to vote in the House or Senate .. nevermind be put into the the Presidential chair.

The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Christs message "do unto others", "do not Judge others" .... how tough is that ?

Santorum can barely get a sentence out without referencing his Christianity yet when it come to the application of one of the most simple rules he fails.

Does he need to return to Sunday school or something ?

What if Gay folks were the majority and started telling Rick that he could not enjoy the same state benefits and priveledges as most other folks because he was not Gay.

Or .. if there was some Gay leader that wanted pack the court with Gay Judges to impose "Gay Law" over enumerated protections in the constitution.

If Rick would not like these things done to him .. then perhaps he should not be doing it to others and calling himself a Christian every second breath.

 

The actual limitation on government as expressed in the First Amendment is:

The imposition of the religious definition of marriage as established by the "Christian" religion is the establishment of religion by the government.

Additionally, in Article VI the US Constitution states:

All federal laws and all state laws, including state constitutions, must comply with all provisions of the US Constitution and, based upon the evidence presented in numerous courts, the prohibitions against same-gender marriage violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as well as DOMA, a federal law that prohibits federal recognition of same-gender marriages, violates the 5th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution.

Clearly Rick Santorum does not believe in the US Constitution as he opposes same-gender marriage based solely upon his religious convictions. He's even signed a pledge to that effect where he will support a constitutional amendment that would negate the protection of individual Rights and state's Rights contained in the 5th, 10th and 14th Amendments as well as supporting the appointment of theocratic judges to impose Biblical law over Constitutional law in the United States.

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

 

The prohibition of same-gender marriage under the law violates the 5th, 10th, and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and this has been firmly established by numerous court cases were evidence of these violations of the Constitution have been more than adequitely documented. The prohibition of same-gender marriage is invidious discrimination that serves no purpose in violation of the US Constitution.

 

Thats because its made up BS.

 

What absurdity. Thats what you people want it to mean. Prohibition of murder doesnt become unconstitutional if its based upon religious beliefs that murder is sinful

 

Do you have any court precedent supporting such an assertion, or is it a theory you dreamed up on your own. From 1776 to the 21s century, EVERY state had such a definition.

 

Actually what most States realized in 1971 when Baker v Nelson became an issue was that they had no prohibitions against same-gender marriage incorporated into their marriage laws. In fact that was the very issue behind the lawsuit in Baker v Nelson as Minnesota did not prohibit same-gender marriage. This lead to a rash of States creating laws and changing their State Constitutions to specifically prohibit same-gender marriage and by about 1981 one-half of all States had made these legal changes prohibiting same-gender marriage.

The Court in the Baker v Nelson lawsuit made the correct decision because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of "injury" that would be resolved by allowing same-gender marriage. Had Baker and Nelson shown, for example, that they were raising a child and were being denied benefits related to the child the Court's decision would have been different and they would have been allowed to marry at the time. They didn't provide that evidence or argument in Court so the Court made the correct call at the time.

Since Baker v Nelson there has been documented evidence of benefits and privileges being denied to same-gender couples that are denied the legal institution of marriage. It has also been shown that the federal government is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by excluding legally married same-gender couples from federal benefits based upon marriage.

Courts only rule on the evidence and arguments presented in court. Baker v Nelson has been superceded because new evidence and arguments have overcome the Court's decision in that case.

 

Thats right .. I forgot, any information that does not fit in with your beliefs is automatically relegated to the BS bin.

 

Precisely the OPPOSITE. Baker v Nelson held that the word "marriage" limited the institution to opposite sex couples.

 

No, I mean you literally made it up. The pledge contains no such reference and if it did you would have simply copy and pasted it here. DIG DEEP for some remaining shred of integrity.

 

Considering the statement you are referring to was from another poster .. I definately did not make it up

 

Unbelievable this thread is still going on as the thread premise is based on a lie. Nowhere has Santorum claimed he wants our nation to become a Christian theocracy. It's just a blatant lie.

 

Whether you made it up or you merely quoted what was made up for you, its still, made up BS, soooo not sure of your point.

 

What is BS is thinking that Santorum is not in favor of forcing his religious beliefs on others.

http://secular.org/files/2012scapresidentialcandidatescorecard.pdf

In the above quote Santorum is quite clear that he will do everything in his power to force his personal religious beliefs on others .. including stacking the judicial system.

 

Once again this is fundamentally false. Justice Peterson rule that the tradition of the State, not the law, limited marriage to opposite-gender couples. Ironically many "conservatives" condemn "legislation from the bench" but that is exactly what Judge Peterson did in Baker v Nelson. The law did not prohibit same-gender marriage but tradition did.

The judge did note that the plaintiffs did not present any evidence of discrimination that caused them harm by the tradition of opposite-gender marriage at the time the case was heard. As the judge correctly noted there was no evidence of harm to the plaintiffs and therefore no justification for changing the tradition which limited marriage to opposite-gender couples. The plaintiffs failed to establish harm that could be resolved by the inclusion of same-gender marriage which was not prohibited under the law.

Since 1971 we have had numberous cases where "harm to the plaintiffs" has been established. In short new evidence has been presented where discrimination is clearly evident which violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that was not presented in Baker v Nelson. The only means of providing relief from the violation of the equal protection clause, as established by subsequent cases, is to allow same-gender marriage.

Those that oppose same-gender marriage today are, by analogy, very much like the Church when it refused to accept the evidence that the Earth orbited the sun. New evidence was presented that the Earth orbited the sun but they merely stuck their heads in the sand and refused to believe it. Similiar to these same religious bigots that eventually had to accept that the Earth orbited the sun those that oppose same-gender marriage are going to have eventually accept that the Rights of the Individual were violated by denying same-gender marriage.

We've seen the same thing related to the prohibitions against inter-racial marriage where today virtually everyone accepts that the prohibition of inter-racial violated the equal protection clause after the Supreme Court made the ruling in Loving v Virginia that prohibiting inter-racial marriage violated the 14th Amendment. Yes, there are still some bigoted racists that deny it but for the most part society accepts it. History shows that most bigoted beliefs are eventually overcome by the facts and those that deny that the equal protection clause is being violated by the prohibitions of same-gender marriage today will, for the most part, eventually have to overcome their bigotry and face the facts.

We've also seen that related to the repeal of DADT in the US military. Some swore up and down that it would completely destroy the US military and yet there have been virtually no problems related to the repeal of DADT that was in response to the Court declaring it unconstitutional.

Ten or twenty years down the road same-gender marriage is going to be universal in the United States and, after people find out nothing really changed except the elimination of discrimination under the law, virtually everyone will accept it and wonder why anyone was stupid enough to oppose it today.