Comments on: Rick Santorum: “States Do Not Have The Right To Destroy The American Family”

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 05:00:00 +0000

“Abraham Lincoln said it best: we do not have the right to do wrong.”

Yes, but when Lincoln said his famous quote, “to others” was implied. Santorum’s version would suggest that one does not have the right to do, in one’s own space and impacting no one else, the right to do what Santorum deems wrong.

By saying that New York State does not have the right to its own marriage laws – even if we presume them to be wrong – Santorum calls for EXTREME centralized government and absolutist control. In other words, the exact opposite of “smaller government, local control”

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:35:50 +0000

The FMA simply will not pass. It will not get a 2/3 vote in Congress and it certainly will not get 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

By: iDavid

iDavid — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:24:23 +0000

I have to agree w Cowboy. Santorum is a waste of skin.
But he is right about one thing, “states don’t have the right to destroy the American family”, But they do have a right to strengthen it.

By: Amicus

Amicus — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:17:58 +0000

“You don’t have a right to do wrong.”

Well, that might generally be true, but it’s the beauty of our system that we don’t define “wrong” by religious sect.

For instance, the Conservative Jewish group in America (not the Orthodox) have the stated public opinion that homosexuality is “wrong”-ish, but that homosexuals should not be denied the civil right to married.

And, in general, we don’t demand of every citizen (or deny at law) “the good”. Instead, we also make laws using reason and with an eye toward asking ourselves, “What if we are wrong about this?”

“There is no rational way to draw the line.”

Of course, that is just false.

You can choose to draw the line, informed by what we think is genetic (or immutable), subject to rational inspection.

In short, it’s not at all plain that society gives up its right either to ‘police the culture’ or, more aptly, to decide how it wants to organize on these matters, simply by allowing a small fraction of society, 2% perhaps, to marry because of an abiding attraction to the same sex and a desire to live their life that way.

What is fueling the perception of a right to “anything goes” is the persistent refusal of the Right to acknowledge that they made a mistake on “the gay” and to get out from under it, before their dire prognostications become a self-fulfilling prophecy…

By: Laura

Laura — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:53:48 +0000

Santorum conveniently forgets that homosexuals have families too. But no matter, the more he talks the less likely he’ll be nominated for anything.

There isn’t a single person running on the republican side that can be taken seriously. This is the best that they can do?

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:22:49 +0000

I really appreciate the transcripts that you include of what was said in the video.

By: elaygee

elaygee — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 12:36:59 +0000

I agree with Cowboy. It’s vaguely entertaining but I have a better chance of getting the Republican nomination than Santorum does.

By: Kelly H

Kelly H — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:00:20 +0000

“It’s not, you know, man on child …”
*Bzzzt* Wrong! Plenty of traditions have allowed the marriage of children, usually girl-children to men, though sometimes also girl-children to boy-children, even going by the culture’s own definition of adulthood.

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 09:19:59 +0000

Are there really people in New York who feel that their family has been destroyed by the legislation of marriage equality? What an extraordinary fellow is this Santorum, or perhaps a more suitable adjective would be egregious.

By: cowboy

cowboy — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:48:47 +0000

Are we wasting time with discussing the foibles of some people who have no real chance in making the RNC nomination. I cannot see the RNC giving their nod to Palin, Bachman or Santorum. They’re too polarizing and most of the savvy Republicans know they would lose the 2012 election if any of these 3 were pitted against the incumbent President.

Should we concentrate who we think will be the possible candidates or are we just enjoying poking fun or being entertained by a circus of clowns.

It’s time to move on.