Here’s a spokesman for Rick Santorum explaining his position on states’ rights and marriage equality:
“Senator Santorum is certainly an advocate for states’ rights, but he believes as Abraham Lincoln – that states do not have the right to legalize moral wrongs.
Because same-sex marriage is just like slavery.
18 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
danielrudolph
September 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Straight marriage is what brought us the ball and chain metaphors.
anandine
September 29, 2011 at 1:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In a sense, marriage is like slavery, in a good way of course. It’s just not limited to same-sex marriage.
Randomfactor
September 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ambrose Bierce defined marriage as a union of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all: two.
Tualha
September 29, 2011 at 2:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Really, it should be Obama comparing himself to Lincoln. They both scared the crap out of the right, and both times the imagined President was much more of a threat than the real one.
Captain Mike
September 29, 2011 at 2:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you think about it, gay marriage is just like slavery. Gay marriage relies entirely on the sale and ownership of other human beings. Wait a second…that’s not gay marriage. What the hell am I thinking of? Oh yeah…slavery. Never mind.
eric
September 29, 2011 at 2:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ah yes, the Honorable Senator from Pennsylvania talking about how the States should not have the right to legalize moral wrongs.
Now, I’m all for legalizing such moral wrongs. I’m just against hypocrites.
John Hinkle
September 29, 2011 at 3:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Bible says anything about same-sex marriage. I see there are plenty of apologetics out there, but I’m not seeing anything Biblical about SSM.
So Rick, where does this SSM = moral wrong come from? Are you listening to your inside
voicebigot again?Chiroptera
September 29, 2011 at 3:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought the point was supposed to be that governments aren’t supposed to illegalize things just because someone thinks they’re moral wrongs?
scienceavenger
September 29, 2011 at 3:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…states do not have the right to legalize moral wrongs.
Yes, yes they do, so says the first amendment. Go back to school Ricky boy.
flatlander100
September 29, 2011 at 3:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t think the term “states rights” appears anywhere in the Constitution, does it? By the same logic the Right applies to “separation of church and state” — that precise term is not int he Constitution so neither is the concept — States Rights is “not in the Constitution.”
Right?
joethemayor
September 29, 2011 at 5:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Except, of course, that Lincoln’s position on a state’s right to allow slavery was ever-evolving. In fact, up until the exigencies of the Civil War led him to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln repeatedly stated that he (and the federal government) had no Constitutional authority to end slavery in the states. I would suggest that the Frothy Mixture read The Fiery Trial, Eric Foner’s Pulitzer-winning history of Lincoln’s views on slavery.
juice
September 29, 2011 at 6:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Just pointing out that “moral wrong” can mean anything you want it to, ie taxation of personal income is a moral wrong.
Gordon
September 29, 2011 at 6:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I had to read that 3 times before I realised it was *not* a statement in favou of gay marriage and against DOMA. Well, not *intended* as a defense of gay marriage.
I agree, the States should not legalise things that are morally wrong, like bigotry, or the death penalty.
d.c.wilson
September 29, 2011 at 7:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, in other words, states have the right to set their own policy, so long as it is a policy that Rick Santorum approves of.
MikeMa
September 29, 2011 at 7:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rick has more than the google lookup of his name. He is a theocratic ass out to make America look just like him. How revolting.
fatollie
September 30, 2011 at 12:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And the Emancipation Proclamation did not affect Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, or Missouri. Maryland didn’t abolish slavery until late 1864. Delaware never did — it was the 13th amendment that freed the slaves in Delaware. At the start of the Civil War, there were still a few slaves in New Jersey. If not freed in some other manner, they were also not affected by the Emancipation Proclamation.
So, history does not support the assertion that Lincoln believed the states did not have the authority to legalize the moral wrong of slavery.
Childermass
September 30, 2011 at 8:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gay-marriage is a moral wrong and thus does not count as states rights while Jim-Crow laws do count as states rights as enforcing non-equal rights is not a moral wrong — indeed race mixing is socialism.
Right?
plutosdad
September 30, 2011 at 8:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I just learned that Lincoln was against prohibition. Assuming the attribution is correct, down in the comments here is a quote:
There are also some sources cited in that comment thread supporting a high rate of cannabis use in the 19th century.