Santorum on States’ Rights

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 on this post.
  1. danielrudolph:

    Straight marriage is what brought us the ball and chain metaphors.

  2. anandine:

    In a sense, marriage is like slavery, in a good way of course. It’s just not limited to same-sex marriage.

  3. Randomfactor:

    Ambrose Bierce defined marriage as a union of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all: two.

  4. Tualha:

    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.

  5. Captain Mike:

    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.

  6. eric:

    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.

  7. John Hinkle:

    …states do not have the right to legalize moral wrongs.

    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 voice bigot again?

  8. Chiroptera:

    I thought the point was supposed to be that governments aren’t supposed to illegalize things just because someone thinks they’re moral wrongs?

  9. scienceavenger:

    …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.

  10. flatlander100:

    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?

  11. joethemayor:

    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.

  12. juice:

    Just pointing out that “moral wrong” can mean anything you want it to, ie taxation of personal income is a moral wrong.

  13. Gordon:

    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.

  14. d.c.wilson:

    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.

  15. MikeMa:

    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.

  16. fatollie:

    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.

  17. Childermass:

    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?

  18. plutosdad:

    I just learned that Lincoln was against prohibition. Assuming the attribution is correct, down in the comments here is a quote:

    Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.

    Lincoln, 18 Dec. 1840

    There are also some sources cited in that comment thread supporting a high rate of cannabis use in the 19th century.

Leave a comment

You must be