Santorum Calls For A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriage

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) put some daylight between himself and other 2016 contenders who are calling for a constitutional amendment to scale back the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. Unlike Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) -- who are calling for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to decide whether they would like to ban gay marriage -- Santorum is calling for an amendment that would prohibit gay marriage nationwide.

"I believe we need a national standard for marriage. I don't think we can have a standard from one state to another on what marriage is," Santorum told reporters at breakfast event Monday in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

When he was in the Senate, Santorum campaigned for a 2004 proposed amendment that would have limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. That bill failed to get the two-thirds support required to advance out of Congress. Santorum called a measure that would allow states to decide a "mistake."

"I argued that 10 years ago when others wanted to do that 10 years go. You can’t have a hodge-podge of marriage," Santorum said. "One of the reasons the court decided the way they decided is because they recognized you couldn't have different marriage laws in different states. It just causes -- it just creates too much confusion out there."

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rick-santorum-marriage-amendment

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Except, Mr. Frothy, there are no longer different standards for marriage.

Same-gender marriage is the law everywhere now. So what's your argument really based on, besides religiously-motivated bigotry?

[randys1]

26. With all due respect, you are presenting a mature, adult question to a person who thinks like

a 9 yr old child.

When he was 9 and heard about two men kissing, he said "ew"

He has not evolved or matured from that point.

Seriously

[erronis]

34. Anyone want to take a bet that Scotty has some dark secrets?

It seems to be the norm among politicians. Rail against something that consumes you inside.

Just imagine how liberated and accepting he would be if he owned up? That would totally change the whole clown dynamic! It might even force the dems to counter with their own pecadillos.

[cstanleytech]

35. Doesnt matter if he does or doesnt, he is still an asshole either way. nt

[PoliticAverse]

2. Chance of that happening: near 0. n/t

[Liberalagogo]

3. Useless red meat for his base of one...

And even she wasn't sure she'd vote for the asshat.

"Too much confusion". Maybe for the easily confused sad little one-digit IQs as yourself, Frothy.

[DetlefK]

4. But a hodge-podge of abortion-laws is okay?

It's all about states rights... until some states do something you don't like.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

14. A walking penis bathed in his own Santorum.

[Botany]

5. Ah, Rick the equal protection clause of 14th amendment already has that covered and ...

.... it was what the SCOTUS used to make gay marraige the law of the land.

Equal Protection: An Overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.

[RKP5637]

6. The confusion is in his confused head! n/t

[Vinca]

7. Well maybe Frothy has found himself a new hobby.

He can occupy himself for the rest of his life trying to get enough votes to amend the Constitution and it will never happen. The clown car will miss him.

[Orrex]

8. Is he trying to sell a book deal?

[PoliticAverse]

10. Speaking engagements, book deal, fox news gig, whatever. n/t

[blm]

12. heheh

.

[niyad]

9. frothy, would you please just swallow yourself and go away.

[Paladin]

11. You and what army, frothy? (nt)

[Renew Deal]

13. We have a national standard for marriage

That was settled by the Supreme Court.

[jberryhill]

27. Actually, no we don't

First cousins can't get married in all states, neither can people of various ages. Those marriage requirements are all over the map.

Here's the map for first cousins:

[Renew Deal]

28. I thought he meant in regards to sexuality.

[jberryhill]

29. He was probably thinking that, but his statement is more ignorant than expected

"I believe we need a national standard for marriage. I don't think we can have a standard from one state to another on what marriage is."

What I find outstanding there is that state requirements for residence, consanguinity, formalities and age, remain wildly different among the states.

[Renew Deal]

30. Yes, it's pretty wild what the differences are.

It got me thinking about it a little bit. First cousin marriage would be fully legal if there was a need for it.

[jberryhill]

31. The thing is....

Those states which do not allow first cousin marriages will still recognize marriages from other states.

[Renew Deal]

33. Good point

[cstanleytech]

36. No, we have a 14th amendment ruling from the court we dont have any ruling on

what a "standard" marriage is because the court doesnt define it as its not the courts job to define what is and is not a marriage.
The legislature can of course try and define it but they cannot do so in any way that violates the constitution which gay marriage bans did.

[SamKnause]

15. I don't care what you think

or want you creepy creepy person !!!!!

[Hekate]

16. He lost. Santorum can go pound sand.

[trusty elf]

17. How about a constitutional amendment to ban Rick Santorum?

[closeupready]

32. That would require condoms, wouldn't it?

[LynneSin]

18. How about a constitutional amendment that bans people who lose their senate re-election race

by greater than 15 points from EVER RUNNING FOR ANY OFFICE EVER AGAIN.

His own state (which he was not a resisdent of for at least a decade) gave him a boot with the people overwhelmingly voting for Bob Casey Jr (19 points Casey won by). And Casey didn't even have the benefit of a President running that election cycle to help boost his numbers. That's how badly Pennsylvanians wanted Rick Santorum gone.

If Pennsylvania didn't want Santorum why would the rest of this country want this village idiot?

[dbackjon]

19. We have a national standard, asshole

Your bigotry lost. Deal with it.

[Helen Borg]

20. He's worried about "man on dog" sex, apparently...

[restorefreedom]

21. can someone please bring him a newspaper?

they look like this

[L0oniX]

22. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum&defid=942955

[EEO]

23. That is so 2002.

[still_one]

24. I call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban rick santorum

[timdog44]

25. One vote here.

[LiberalElite]

37. I think we need a national standard for people running for office -

and Santorum doesn't stand a chance of making the grade. Nor does anyone else in the Repug clown car.