Democracy Has Prevailed.

May 22, 2008

Lil Ricky (Santorum) is STILL Writing?

Via Thinkprogress, I found Rick Santorum's latest column. It should be no surprise to anyone that he's decided to vent his spleen about the California Supreme Court's recent decision regarding gay marriage.

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?

Apparently not.

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.

Rick begins:
Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!

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.

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:
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.

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.

"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?

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.


Anonymous said...

John K. says: Is there a right to marriage in the Constitution? Can someone point out that section? Hey, let gays get married. More work for the divorce lawyers.

Anonymous said...

There was a reason James Madison was opposed to writing the Bill of Rights, namely that he feared such an enumeration of civil liberties would serve as a limitation of those civil liberties.

The right only offers "slippery slope" arguments, decrying the moral decline and harkening for the good ol' days of traditional values. Of course, there really were no "good ol' days," unless you mean the times when child labor was accepted or slavery still existed, women couldn't vote or most people didn't have indoor plumbing...yes, the good ol' days.

What has not been shown is exactly how allowing two adults of the same sex to marry is an affront to the civic institution of marriage; not the religious. A church can deny to marry whom every they want as far as I'm concerned, but it is immoral and unethical for our government to not recognize equal marital status of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.

If marriage is the province of God then it is a matter best resolved by the churches themselves, not the government.

As for marriages performed by the government, it is again not in accordance with the principles of our government to deny certain among our citizens that which is granted to their peers on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Perhaps the reason 50% of marriages fail is not because of homosexuals but because people our raised with the expectation that marriage is what they should do, instead of what they should want to do. If two adults are committed to each other and wish to sanctify that relationship in formality, I do not see what concern it is to the government or even the most orthodox Christian.

Anonymous said...

Now McCain is running away from those right-wing Jesus-mongers almost as fast as he is running away from The Monkey Man. LOL ROFL LMAO LOL.

John or C.H. or whoever agrees with McCain and Hagee that the Catholic Church is The Great Whore and that God sent Hitler to help the Jews kill Palestinians. ROFL ROFL ROFL LMAO

Anonymous said...

"Tell me again why he's writing a column in Philadelphia?"

Because he can't be having sex with dogs ALL the time! LMAO ROFL

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Never did agree with Hagee. Think McCain is the next President but do not listen to or have any dealings with Hagee. Looks like you are the monkey. LOL

Anonymous said...

Does Major Andre think the Pope is a pimp, or just McCain? ROFL LMAO LOL LOL LOL LOL

cathcatz said...

i'm still waiting for sanctorum's airport-bathroom-stall moment in the spotlight. this guy doth protest just a bit much.

Anonymous said...

When Santorum does that kind of stuff, he wears a fake mustache and calls himself Major Andre. ROFL ROFLSM LMAO LMAOSM LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Anonymous said...

Concerned Political Junkie reader says:
It appears that Anonymous 8:16, 8:18, 9:07, & 9:54 is the same guy that did the "look @ my pee pee" foolishness. Please stop polluting this blog with this crap. If you have a real opinion then state it. Your obsession with John K. only makes you look pathetic. This forum deserves thoughtful dialogue and not grade school pettiness.
It's about John McCain not John K.

Anonymous said...

OK, John, or C.H., or Anonymous, or Major Andre, or Concerned, I'll let you spout your delusions alone.

Just stop using so many names. LMAO LMAOSM ROFL ROFLSM

Anonymous said...

Anon, now you know how Agamemnon felt about Achilles.

Dayvoe said...

There is something called the "law of diminished returns." I am not sure where it comes from or how it was originally applied, but it looms large when it comes to humor.

Repeating a joke too often only diminishes it's funny.

So as with those old "look at my pee-pee" postings, this is probably something for our anonymous friend to think about with his/her new "Major Andre" comments.

I appreciate what he/she is doing, though. A long long time ago John K showed us all his ignorance of American history by using the story of Major Andre to "prove" that those of us who disagreed with dubya regarding torture were wrong.

Unfortunately, John K got the whole story of Major Andre wrong (there was a trial and he was executed as a spy).

Pointing that out to John K is a good thing. Pointing it out constantly - not so much.

As they say brevity is the soul of wit.

Ol' Froth said...

John K. asks: Is there a right to marriage in the Constitution?

Why no, there isn't, and that's the point. The Federal Constitution is silent on it, so its a matter left to the states, and California's top court held that a law creating seperate legal status for hetero and gay couples is a violation of California law.

As pointed out, wingnuts are all about states' rights, until a state exercises a right they DON'T agree with, be it gay marriage, decriminalization of marihuana possession and use, or refusing to return escaped slaves to their masters.

Anonymous said...

There needn't be an explicit "right to privacy" in the Constitution for it to be constitutionally protected. Anyone capable of reading the 9th and 10th Amendments should know that.

As for marriage, I'd like to see the State get out of the business altogether. There should laws pertaining to contractual unions for the sake of insurance, inheritance, etc., but marriage should be a private affair mediated by religious institutions, if at all.

CB Phillips said...

What I find amazing is just the pure mendacity it takes for Santorum to pen this column, using that Norway example. And you see it time and time again. Lying is perfectly acceptable to the right, as long as they think it is furthering their warped agenda.

And this comes back to my "message" rant the other day. Whether it's "unconditional" meetings with evil-doers or explaining how to use a freakin' condom, so many on the right always talk about "what kind of message does that send?"

Yet, time and again, you see people like former Sen. Man-on-Dog blatantly lie, taking statistics and turning them on their heads to make a point, and it's deemed to be appropriate behavior.

And, yet, they still are given space writing for major newspapers, all for the alleged sake of "balance."

Anonymous said...

John K. says: The problem with this Calif ruling is I don't care. I don't care who Degeneris is hanging with. And that pisses off the left more than anything else. This whole marriage in Calif thing only makes more money for divorce lawyers. I am sure they will also blame that on Bush.

Anonymous said...

Fill has said:And this comes back to my "message" rant the other day. Whether it's "unconditional" meetings with evil-doers or explaining how to use a freakin' condom, so many on the right always talk about "what kind of message does that send?"

Fill makes so much sence it makes me shivver. Look at the numbers on STD's among highschool kids. I wouldn't want my teens to choose anything but celabacy. That's a horrible thought. The lying hipocracy of the Christian Political right has created the most hideous life for our kids.

Anonymous said...

Does Ricky still "live" in Penn Hills? Because that's where I am now and I'd love to TP his traditional trees in his traditional front yard because he's such a traditional asswipe and he needs all the help he can get.

C.H. said...

Some issues...

"John or C.H. or whoever agrees with McCain and Hagee that the Catholic Church is The Great Whore"

Funny..FYI, I am a Catholic

I should also take the time to offer my personal theory on John K and some of the other random comments that appear here, since this nonsense that John and I are somehow the same person seems to be gaining traction.

Personally, I think that John K is an split-personality of Schmuck Shitrock, someone he can use to debate with himself.

Just a guess, but anything's possible, right?

Anonymous said...

c.h. said

I think that John K is an split-personality of Schmuck Shitrock, someone he can use to debate with himself.

I totally agree C.H. I've posted this theory before and I believe that Mr. Shitrock/John K. is a poor soul that seeks attention.

Anonymous said...

Why can Senator Santorum not be respected at LEAST for trying to do something good? No one can argue that he DESIRES the GOOD, even if we do not all agree on what that "good" is.

But please, let's at least acknowledge his good intentions of wanting strong marriages and stable families. Nothing wrong with that, you know?

Anonymous said...

l.k. Santorum is in deep need of opening his closet. He's exhibiting every symptom of repressed desire. Who has a right to tell anyone else who to love? The Christian marriages I see are full of hypocracy or dissolved. Keep politics out of my bedroom thanks.