At first blush, I don't know why this guy's panties are in a twist. I thought conservatives were all in favor of States Rights. A State Supreme Court made a decision concerning a state law. Shouldn't that end the dilemma for Rick?
But before we start to deconstruct Lil Ricky, let's set down some facts about the California Supreme Court. There are seven members of the court and only one, Moreno, was appointed by a Democrat. That means all the rest were appointed by Republicans - Republican Pete Wilson appointed George, Chin and Werdegar, Duekmejian appointed Baxter and Kennard, and Schwarzenegger appointed Korrigan.
Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!Here's the decision, by the way. I'm not a lawyer, but I think (THINK) this is an important sentence from early in that decision:
Those were just a few of the terms hurled my way in 2003 when I said that the Supreme Court's Texas sodomy decision opened the door to the redefinition of marriage.
When I wasn't ducking the epithets, I was being laughed at, mocked, and given the crazy-uncle-at-the-holidays treatment by the media. Or I was being told I should resign from my leadership post by some Senate colleagues.
Five years later, do I regret sounding the alarm about marriage? No.
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.Another state supreme court deciding another state law. Another time Mr States' Rights Conservative disliked it. Interesting, if you recall that back then, when asked:
[I]f somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?Rick answered:
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.So according to Lil Ricky, allowing sodomy, even in private among consenting adults, should not be permitted because it's antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. "Traditional" being the most important word there, I should think. He's not arguing in favor of merely healthy stable families. If so, he'd be in favor (or at least silent) about the California decision - for surely there are healthy stable marriages with two men or two women. No Rick's looking to make sure it's a traditional family that's supported here.
Traditional - as long as he's the one who gets to define the term.
Anyway, I thought conservatives valued individual freedom and fairness? Apparently not, if Rick's mode of conservatism is any indication.
Next he showers us with his golden knowledge of Constitutional law:
The latest distressing news came last week in California. The state Supreme Court there ruled, 4-3, that same-sex couples can marry."Checks and Balances" apparently don't hold much sway with Rick Santorum. If it was the "overwhemling will of the people" to double the taxes of atheists (in order, of course, to discourage such disgusting non-belief among the citizens of this "Christian nation") would that alone make it Constitutional?
In doing so, four judges rejected a statute that passed in a referendum with 61 percent of the vote that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
It's merely the latest in a string of court decisions that have overturned the overwhelming will of the people.
I'm not a lawyer and I know that answer. Apparently Rick Santorum doesn't.
Next Rick crunches some numbers:
Look at Norway. It began allowing same-sex marriage in the 1990s. In just the last decade, its heterosexual-marriage rates have nose-dived and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children. Too bad for those kids who probably won't have a dad around, but we can't let the welfare of children stand in the way of social affirmation, can we?But are those numbers accurate? Let's take a look at the numbers from Norway:
Altogether 50 per cent of all children are now born out of wedlock, compared with just over 3 per cent in the 1950s. The greatest increase was registered in the 1970s and 1980s, but this has now evened out. The vast majority of these births are to parents who live together, while 9 per cent are born to single mothers. However, in the case of the first child, 52 per cent are born to parents who live together and 13 per cent to single mothers. When the second child comes along, the parents are more likely to be married.They even have a chart to look at:
Percentage of children born outside marriage
First thing, 50% is not exactly 80%. Apparently Rick Santorum doesn't know that. Second thing, the increase took place in the 70s and 80s. Apparently, Rick Santorum doesn't know that, either. And third thing, to the Norwegians "out of wedlock" includes those couples actually living together. According to them, only 9% of those born are born to single mothers. Apparently Rick Santorum doesn't know that either.
Tell me again why he's writing a column in Philadelphia?
Apparently he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.