Santorum says gay marriage signing not last word

Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | 02/13/12 | Staff

[writer33]

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum says Washington state's new gay marriage law is not the final word in the debate.

Santorum said Monday that he is encouraging opponents of same-sex marriage to continue to fight. He held a private meeting in Olympia with a group of gay marriage opponents who are now exploring a referendum to block the new law.

[Mariner]

"getting rid of abortion through constitutional amendment"

What does POTUS have to do with that?

And homo marriage will remain a 10th Amendment issue until/unless there's a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it.

[Mariner]

"Because he can't actually do the things you claim he can. Further, many people don't think Santorum has even the slightest chance to beat Obama. If we nominate Santorum, we are going to be running on social issues in a campaign that just screams to be about how badly Hussein has mishandled the economy. Santorum is a social issue champion, but if we are talking about whether birth control is a good or bad thing for women through this campaign (not just whether the gov't should pay for it), we are going to lose and lose badly. Most women like their birth control, and they aren't going to vote for someone who comes across as a stick in the mud wanting to lecture them on his believe that birth control is bad. We are voting for a President, not a priest. "

Welcome to the outsiders club.

It's time to realize that now matter how many keystrokes are expended, the Social Conservatives are going to have their candidate this time. They are a large plurality of the GOP primary electorate and in this split field they have chosen Santorum.

That's a base of between 30 and 40%.

We'll see how it works out. Maybe they're right and maybe they're wrong. But it's looking like we'll know in less than a year how Santorum will hold up to the ads that NO GOP candidate would ever run.

Of course that won't stop the MSM, democrats and their filthy rich SuperPacs from running them.

It doesn't even matter if they are true or complete in context. It doesn't even matter if they are conclusively proven untrue.

What matters, as you stated above, is what the debate is going to be about.

And I believe if we nominate Santorum the GOP will lose and lose big. It will hurt down ticket as well with 1/2 the GOP caucus running FROM Rick Santorum publicly.

[Mariner]

"I don’t need no damn govt to validate the sacrament of marriage."

Amen.

And no religious institution or private employer should be required to recognize or accommodate it either.

After that I got to believe our Constitution allows the states to define what marriage means in their state...even if homos are able to get "married"...or polygamists.

I don't see any state crossing the bestiality threshold...but you never know. If they do it's time to re-examine the constitution.

[Longbow1969]

Agree with most of your post. I'd only disagree that I am not quite sure Santorum has locked it up yet. I think if it really looks like he could be nominated, you'll see a lot of people realizing we are about to nominate someone who doesn't have even the slightest chance of winning a general election. Just today some of the conservative blogs are running the videos of Santorum arguing against contraception (not banning it, just being personally opposed). It may be enough to force people to blink. But, to what end? That's the problem. Romney is simply so despised by most of the base, that large percentages would rather nominate someone they know, in their hearts, can't win than nominate Mitt. It's why I have been supporting Newt - and I am not even sure Gingrich has much of a chance. With Newt I at least see the opportunity for a hail mary win, someone who can so change the dynamic that we can pull off something big. With Santorum, I simply know he will lose and accomplish nothing other than maybe satisfy social conservatives that we at least let their guy try.

What matters, as you stated above, is what the debate is going to be about.

Yup, that's the problem. There is no way for Santorum to prevent his nomination being turned into a social values referendum - precisely because that is almost entirely what Santorum is known for. Every video of him explaining his opposition to contraception will be all over the TV. Every discussion he's every had about women at home versus the workplace will be endlessly analyzed by the media. People just need to face the facts, women want their contraception and the vast majority of Catholics even ignore their own church's teaching on the matter. Rick Santorum discussing the evils of birth control is about the biggest sure fire loser of an issue I can think of. And didn't we already learn on lesson with Dan Quayle and the Murphy Brown thing? Unfortunately, whether he wanted to or not, Santorum would end up talking about that stuff and it will kill us.

And I believe if we nominate Santorum the GOP will lose and lose big. It will hurt down ticket as well with 1/2 the GOP caucus running FROM Rick Santorum publicly.

Yup, that is the way I see it. Santorum would lose by at least 10 - perhaps as bad as 60/40. We'd lose the House and the Dems would keep the Senate. That might even be fine if it was the beginning of a true movement, but Rick simply isn't the kind of charismatic leader who could do much after a crushing defeat. He'd lose, and unfortunately, the lesson would simply be that social values candidates can't win.

[Clint N. Suhks]

As you know the lesser APA says there is no Sodomite gene.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

[Gene Eric]

It would require a giant leap of faith to divorce the govt of its marriage ‘responsibilities’, but I doubt Conservatives would have the stomach for it.

[steve86]

I hope today isn’t the first and last day he gives any thought to this terrible news from Olympia. If he follows up I’ll be really impressed.

[scripter]

I hope they discover a muted gay gene...

I've heard that before and understand it. At this point scientists don't think they'll ever find a gay gene, and that includes scientists who are gay themselves. Environment is key and all credible scientists know environment is a major factor.

[scripter]

Indeed. BTW, I've updated my profile with some recent studies and information. Once I summarize all the scientific data I'll post another 'categorical index' as its own thread. Time is the problem.

[Mariner]

"It would require a giant leap of faith to divorce the govt of its marriage ‘responsibilities’, but I doubt Conservatives would have the stomach for it."

Women would oppose it in large numbers for the first decade or two. They prefer STATE sanctioned marriage and, of course, they want to be special:)

[anglian]

Perfect timing. You’d almost think Obama may have purposefully gone after these issues in order to drive up Santorum’s visibility.
The reason? Maybe Obama doesn’t want his opponents emphasizing other things.

[American Constitutionalist]

" Marriage is a function of religion. "

** Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion **

So you are against Conservatives and Christians who oppose Gay Rights and Gay marriage ? is that correct ?

So you endorse Gay Marriage then ? right ?


Sorry to tell you, marriage as defined as a man and a woman was in place and part of society even before any forum of government ever existed including our own US Constitution.

[American Constitutionalist]

"I don’t need no damn govt to validate the sacrament of marriage."

But government with the help of the homosexual agenda and liberals are taking something away that has always existed.
So you oppose government validating the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman, but ? do you oppose government forcing us to except gay marriage and gay rights ?

[American Constitutionalist]

"I don’t need no damn govt to validate the sacrament of marriage."

But government with the help of the homosexual agenda and liberals are taking something away that has always existed.
So you oppose government validating the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman, but ? do you oppose government forcing us to accept gay marriage and gay rights ?

[American Constitutionalist]

So you have no problem of government forcing us to accept gay marriage and gay rights ? isn’t that what you saying here ? yes or no ?

[Gene Eric]

Your deduction sucks.

[American Constitutionalist]

We will let the conservatives decide.

[Gene Eric]

It’s really difficult to understand where the Hell you’re coming from.

I quote the 1st sentence of the 1st Amendment supporting the premise that govt is not the adjudicator of marriage, and you give me some idiotic crap. WTF is your problem?

[American Constitutionalist]

Were I come from ?
The institution of marriage ( between a man and woman that is ) was in place even before our country was founded, and marriage has always been part of our human experience since the beginning of creation, so how can you say that it is something that you won't want to government to force upon us ? marriage was before government, so government needs to take a back seat to the institution of marriage.
So those who do not want to government to enforce the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman have no problem with the government forcing us to accept gay marriage ? tell me ? is that right or wrong ? yes or no ?
Is it right for the government to force us to accept something that we oppose and is against our long held values ?

[Gene Eric]

And while all you 'conservatives' are deciding the validity of my remarks, think back to the day you got married. Did you experience the statist's nirvana in front of a govt judge, or did you honor your spouse-to-be there before God? You think about that, smartass. You can't have it both ways:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof