Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy

What I've stated is that Washington, Adams and Hancock as well as the other founders of the United States would oppose the violation of the protections of individual Rights enumerated in the US Constitution. That is a very solid statement that I believe is beyond dispute.

Rick Santorum has come out openly endorsing the violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment based upon his religious beliefs related to marriage. As noted it isn't the "marriage laws" per se that create unequal treatment under the law for same-gender couples but instead the thousands of other laws tied to the legal institution of marriage that create the denial of equal protection under the law. That is also a fact that is beyond dispute.

As long as these thousands of laws that create discrimination exist then same-gender couples have a right to the legal institution of marriage to secure the benefits provided under the law related to that legal institution.

 

We can read what you said.

And it has been disputed and you havent offered even a shred of evidence to indicate otherwise.

 

I have searched the law passed when Washington and Adams were president as well as looking for any statement by Hancock that would support a belief that they would have endorsed special benefits being afforded to married couples and found none. The absence of any laws affording any benefits supports the position that they did not support such laws.

If any law that they supported that provided benefits to married couples can be provided then I would have to re-assess my position but no examples have been provided. Show me any law that they sponsored or was even passed when they were alive that they supported that provided any privileges or benefits to individuals based upon marriage.

I do believe that they would oppose any violation of an enumerated protection of an inalienable Right in the US Constitution. While the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment did not exist during their lifetime I believe that they would have supported it. I don't think there is any real doubt about that.

 

I provided two.

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person... Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

James Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, 1792

As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

 

This is a great argument that supports same-gender marriage.

They combine their financial assets and liabilities "as one person" and most federal benefits related to the legal institution of "marriage" address this condition of "merged financial assets" inherent in marriage.

Joint tax filing status, joint bankruptcy protection, inheritance, and Social Security benefits for a "spouse" all relate to the legal partnership of a couple established by marriage where the financial assets and liabilities of the couple are afforded special consideration under federal law. These have absolutely nothing to do with "procreation" or "rearing of a child" but are solely financial benefits of forming a family where the financial assets and liabilities of the couple are merged.

It is the denial of the federal benefits related to the merged financial assets and liabilities of the couple when same-gender couples are denied this legal status of "one person" under the marriage laws that creates the violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Even legally married same-gender couples were being denied this status of "one person" by the federal government under DOMA and the federal government cannot discriminate against legally married couples under the 14th Amendment.

 

Who cares what Washington, Adams, and Hancock would think?

They're dead.

 

The reason the Founding Fathers agreed on the separation of church and state so easily was that there were a lot of different churches but almost everyone was a Christian. I don't think they would have agreed with the more extreme interpretation the courts have put on the issue in recent decades (i:e, no Christmas creches on public property).

I believe it is that issue Santorum is addressing. He is saying the pendulum has swung too far for no good reason and he would like to see a little more toleration of religion, in moderate amounts, in public affairs. That doesn't add up to a Christian theocracy.

 

The United States was founded upon the ideal that the protection of the inalienable (unalienable) Rights of the People was the primary reason for government (see my signature) and what Washington, Adams and Hancock believed is certainly relevant today unless we choose to abandon that ideal. Individuals such as Rick Santorum have clearly abandoned the ideal upon which America was founded when they support the violation of the inalienable Right of ALL People to equal protection under the law which is no enumerated by the 14th Amendment.

The title of this thread is highly accurate because Santorum (Romney and Gingrich) endorse an American theocracy which would violate the inalienable Rights of the People. The founders of America rejected Theocracy as they were very much aware of the tyranny that it represents and Santorum (Romney and Gingrich) advocate tyranny by government based upon religious beliefs. They are unAmerican in doing so and should not be supported by any American that believes in the ideals upon which America was founded.

 

don't believe that, if that was the case this would not of been rejected, many of the founders were Deistic rather then Christian

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

""Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." "

 

Ahem "Never Left",
The concept of separation of church and state is actually from one Thomas Jefferson. Read his letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention.

source: http://www.beliefnet.com/resourceli...omas_Jefferson_to_the_Danbury_Baptists_1.html

 

You can't even tell what a "Christian theocracy" would entail.

And the 14th Amendment should not apply to anything beyond the narrow range of issues it was originally intended to apply to (rights of former slaves).

And I agree with the above poster. If you're going to go by the founding fathers beliefs, in all likelihood, they took it as a "given" that most Americans would remain "Christians" and thus it wasn't necessary to put anything in particular in the constitution about it.

 

FALSE - They insisted on the separation of church and state because they knew about the tyranny of religion whether it was Christianity or other world religions at the time. Islam also existed and they were well aware of the tyranny of Islam as well as the tyranny of Christianity. That is why the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion by government in the United States and that includes the codification into law of religious beliefs that violate the inalienable Rights of the People.

Santorum, Romney and Gingrich all advocate the violation of the inalienable Right of Equal Protection under the Law as enumerated in the 14th Amendment. The advocate tyranny by government based upon their religious beliefs and Santorum has openly admitted that his opposition to same-gender marriage is based solely upon religious beliefs. The prohibitions against same-gender marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause as well as the Republican Party Platform which condemn discrimination based upon sex [gender] and also condemns religious intolerance which is reflected by Santorum, Romney and Gingrich.

 

Nooooo, you people simply claim again and again and again that they endorse such a theocracy. I havent seen any evidence yet. And "American" isnt a religion.

 

What isinthe Constitution, through thr First amendment is the firm and clear understanding that NO religion of ANY kind or flavor should ever be recognized as a "national" religion, and that our citizens righs are to be protected FROM religions (any kind of religion) just as much as religious beliefs areprotected from the State.

Spinning these very clear constitutional rights is ridiculous, unproductive and shows total disrespectforour founders' work and for our constitution!

 

There is NOTHING anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that says word one about

"protecting people from religion".

 

I guess this "troublesome" Amendment to the Constitution for the United States means nothing:

quote]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]


Yet, these are the same types of people who love to accuse we Muslims of disregarding rights and wanting to impose our way of life upon others. No doubt that there are some who claim themselves to be Muslim/Mushinun who have such motivation but those of us who are actually Mushinun/Muslims know that such behavior is not in keeping with what Islam is all about.

 

Certainly ALL wouldnt even entertain the concept that somehow marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is a violation of those principles. ABSURD for the other posters to even suggest otherwise.

 

I guess that the First Amendment does not protect the people from the imposition of religion upon them? Come off of it. I do not know how clearly language has to be in order for you to grasp the concept of "not imposing religion upon others via government, ie, those in government.

 

Most muslims view the Islamic Caliphate that ruled for 1300 years of Islams 1380 year history, is what Islam is all about, and not something that was in contradiction to that doctrine.

 

Sure it does. Our laws against murder and stealing, prohibited by the bible, ISNT an imposition of religion.

 

State and local governments can impose restrictions on marriage but the federal cannot. It is in the "lettering" of the Constitution for the United States. State and local Constitutions have more leniency than the Federal Constitution.

In reading both Amendments (9th and 10th), the people and the States have more power than the federal government.

 

Those laws may be based on the Laws of Allah but they are still not an endorsement of religion over the lives of the people. The laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc are meant as guidelines for restrictive behaviors that enduce societal cohesiveness.

Actually, the Laws of Allah are for societal cohesion but that is another discussion.

 

Well he can kiss the Presidency Good-by!

C-Yea Ricky

 

As I stated Dixon,
Most know not what Islam is all about. Some have used it as those before them, a means to attain power over others. What I am telling you as a matter of actual fact is that those who do know not what is Islam.

 

Tell that to the loons who think santorum wants a theocracy