Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Elephant in the Room: McCain must change views on social issues (Rick Santorum)
Philly.com ^ | 3/13/08 | Rick Santorum

Posted on 03/13/2008 11:19:50 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: sheana

Not inspired by McCain?

How inspired are you by the anti-American marxist radical and the criminal megalomaniac?

Time to push for a good Veep and hold our noses. There is no other responsible choice in wartime.


61 posted on 03/13/2008 2:05:55 PM PDT by Burr5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“I thought that Reagan was in favor of limited Federal Govt”

Reagan created the federal drinking age.


62 posted on 03/13/2008 2:12:38 PM PDT by Bull Market (I will not vote for John McCain. Hillary's my girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

though i pretty much agree with the sentiments here i would give Ricky S more credibility had he gotten himself reelected


63 posted on 03/13/2008 2:14:24 PM PDT by DM1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donna

I believe the guy who admits to being a communist over the guy that pretends to be a capitalist.


64 posted on 03/13/2008 2:18:17 PM PDT by Bull Market (I will not vote for John McCain. Hillary's my girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FFranco

“(as happened with the Shiavo case)”

That’s a good example of everyone rushing to the feds when they had absolutely zero business being involved.

That is why we are a growing socialist country even with Republicans in power.


65 posted on 03/13/2008 2:21:24 PM PDT by Bull Market (I will not vote for John McCain. Hillary's my girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
If you're going to defend homosexual marriage, at least try be honest about it and spare everyone the bogus federalism misdirection.

BUMP!

66 posted on 03/13/2008 2:32:16 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Bull Market
'Houston, we have a problem': Strobe Talbott and George Soros are pleased with all the candidates
67 posted on 03/13/2008 2:35:54 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: All

I am really rather surprised there seems to be such ignorance of the US Constitution on here, of all places.

Aticle IV, Section 1:Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Someone has said if MA recognizes homosexual marriage, TX would not have to do the same.

Bull.

Just as TX honors a marriage of a man and a woman performed in MA, so, too, would it be required, by the Constitution, to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in MA, regardless of what TX’s voters may approve or disapprove. Btw, would you like to leave this issue in the hands of some of our fine Federal judges? Thus it IS a federal matter and we might well need a marriage amendment to the Constitution; though I hate seeing the Constitution used in this manner.


68 posted on 03/13/2008 2:39:08 PM PDT by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

It is 100% a federal issue due to Full Faith and credit.

We now have immigration law being dragged into the homosexual based marriage issue. The 1996 DMA prohibits immigration from homosexual marriages outside the USA. HOWEVER the state of NY has now JUDICIALLY forced the state to recognize canadian homosexual marriages.

It all flows via Full Faith and Credit to the rest of the nations.

Federally recognized marriage also affects inheritance taxes, income tax, property rights, child rearing issues, immigration visas, and on and on.

Keep in mind we USED to have a voluntary no recording system of marriage but that was fraught with fraud and misrepresentation.


69 posted on 03/13/2008 2:44:16 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

Oh, dishonest, well, excuse me. Then by all means, carry on your discussion which is based on unConstitutional laws. Keep the unConstitutional train rolling. In fact, you should argue every left wing proposition based on their definition of the facts. That seems to have worked out so well in the past.


70 posted on 03/13/2008 2:50:53 PM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
Now that’s what I call whistling in the dark. McCain the RINO doesn’t represent me. Nor will he ever.

How is Rick Santorum NOT a RINO? After all he supported uber-abortionist Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. I think he is very hypocritical writing this about McCain.

71 posted on 03/13/2008 3:09:27 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Therefore, the federalism canard in defense of homosexual marriage (which was the crux of the post I was responding to) is entirely bogus and thoroughly dishonest.

BTW, this is the strategy that gave us a federal abortion law. Good luck!

72 posted on 03/13/2008 3:11:31 PM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

You’re not getting it...

Marriage is a federal issue because the states are obliged to recognize each others’ marriages. The alternative is that you would have to resubmit for a marriage license every time you crossed state lines... and then you’d have multiple marriage licenses, creating all sorts of legal contests over jurisdiction in the event of separation.


73 posted on 03/13/2008 3:15:34 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Burr5

which is which? hard to tell with three democrats running...


74 posted on 03/13/2008 3:34:38 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“I thought that Reagan was in favor of limited Federal Govt yet some want unlimited Federal Govt in the name of Reagan when it comes to promoting certain social policies.”

It’s only other peoples social policies that aren’t worthy of Federalizing.

I believe issues not enumerated in the Constitution should be handled by the States. I know that’s archaic but....

I won’t say the A word as it will start a sh#t storm.


75 posted on 03/13/2008 4:28:00 PM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (We have become an oligarchy not a Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dangus
No you wouldn't. Texas for example could recognize some, none or all other states marriage licenses. If you move to Texas, and they don't recognize your license, you could, get a Texas license, do nothing or not move to Texas. Or we could act like free adults and ask why we need permission from the government to get married?

I'm sorry if the Constitution is not as convenient as you would like, but it is worth it. You, me and everyone here are slowly trading freedom for convenience and one day we will all be slaves because of it.

76 posted on 03/13/2008 4:34:54 PM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: montag813

True enough. Santorum’s support of RINO Specter is most certainly what cost him the election. You wonder what these guys must be thinking.


77 posted on 03/13/2008 5:43:17 PM PDT by Noumenon (The only thing that prevents liberals from loading us all into cattle cars is the power to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Barak Hussein Obama is the radical , Hillary is the criminal.

McCain is the biggest disappointment of my life as a Rebublican. But go check out Obama’s pastor’s (Jeremiah Wright) comments on Youtube. Search his name and “2003”. There’s a “goddamn America” post there. Osama Hussein was in his flock voluntarily for 20 yrs. Now Wright is working for the campaign.

And remember the revulsion you felt about our president from 1993 to 2001?

Only one thing to do. Hope he picks Romney or Thompson.


78 posted on 03/13/2008 6:00:03 PM PDT by Burr5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas

Just out of curiosity, it is your contention that every time a married couple in the United States re-locates, they should have to be re-married? Or should no marriages be recognized by the government for any reason, ever?


79 posted on 03/13/2008 6:17:20 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
Santorum’s support of RINO Specter is most certainly what cost him the election.

Pat Toomey didn't cost Santorum the election. Pennsylvania isn't nearly conservative enough for that to have made even a little bit of difference, let alone to account for the 19-point drubbing that he received.

Rick Santorum lost for two reasons:

1) Iraq. Approval for the war in PA was polling under 30% in November, 2006. The Democrats (who won everywhere, mind you) had declared the war lost. The media breathlessly proclaimed it a hopeless "sectarian civil war". Santorum didn't back down, didn't flinch. He supported the war clearly and forcefully until the very end, and he paid a big political price for it.
2) Bob Casey. Pro-life son of a great, beloved pro-life Governor. People in PA love familiarity. And pro-lifers who didn't like the war were given an easy alternative to Santorum.

You can even throw in the fact that Ed Rendell was hugely popular, and Lynn Swann turned out to be a non-existent challenger. It's not like the base -- whatever base still exists in PA -- was motived in Pennsylvania. It was a perfect storm for the Democrats. Santorum never had a chance.

80 posted on 03/13/2008 7:04:39 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson