Santorum's Editorial in USA Today 7/10/03

PhilsPhan

Member
Jul 10, 2003
45
0
0
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-07-09-opcom_x.htm


Americans must preserve institution of marriage
By Rick Santorum
The majority of Supreme Court justices may not be willing to admit it, but everyone else seems eager to acknowledge that the greatest near-term consequence of the Lawrence v. Texas anti-sodomy ruling could be the legalization of homosexual marriage.
Although the court's majority opinion attempts to distance the ruling from the marriage debate, the dissenting justices say, "Do not believe it." Major Web sites such as America Online's home page, as well as newspapers and TV commentators, have signaled that the decision puts the gay-marriage debate in high gear. The Washington Post's front page trumpeted, "A debate on marriage, and more, now looms." And Newsweek's July 7 cover asks: "Is Gay Marriage Next?"

Before, the right to privacy in sexual matters was limited primarily to married couples. Now the court in its sweeping decision expanded constitutional privacy protection to consensual acts of sodomy, striking down anti-sodomy laws in Texas and 12 other states.

The court's majority opinion telegraphed unmistakably its position on the question of homosexual marriage. It listed "personal decisions relating to marriage" among the areas in which homosexuals "may seek autonomy," just as heterosexuals may.

The dissenting justices, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, noted: "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned."

After the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., expressed concern over the court's encroaching upon Americans' right to protect the family and joined the majority of Americans in backing a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. I also would support a constitutional amendment to affirm traditional marriage.

In fact, I believe that Congress has an obligation to take action to defend the legal status of marriage before the Supreme Court or individual state supreme courts take away the public's ability to act.

Every civilization since the beginning of man has recognized the need for marriage. This country and healthy societies around the world give marriage special legal protection for a vital reason ¡ª it is the institution that ensures the society's future through the upbringing of children. Furthermore, it's just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

There is an ocean of empirical data showing that the union between a man and a woman has unique benefits for children and society. Moreover, traditional family breakdown is the single biggest social problem in America today. In study after study, family breakdown is linked to an increase in violent crime, youth crime, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency and child poverty.

Marriage has already been weakened. The out-of-wedlock childbirth rate is at a historically high level, while the divorce rate remains unacceptably high. Legalization of gay marriage would further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society. Do we need to confuse future generations of Americans even more about the role and importance of an institution that is so critical to the stability of our country?

The last thing we should do is destroy the special legal status of marriage. But galvanized by the Supreme Court victory, proponents of removing that status are out in force. Ruth Harlow, lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Texas case, said, "The ruling makes it much harder for society to continue banning gay marriages."

That is where we are today, thanks to the Texas ruling. But the majority of Americans will have the final say in the battle to preserve the institution of marriage.

I hope elected leaders will rally behind the effort to defend the legal status of marriage from a non-elected group of justices, and I urge you to join those elected leaders in this vital case.

Rick Santorum is a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
Furthermore, it's just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Maybe to an intolerant closeminded bastard such as Santorum.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
That's a pretty good argument if he's arguing against everyone in America all of a sudden turning gay and wanting a gay marriage because it may be considered legal now.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
Furthermore, it's just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Maybe to an intolerant closeminded bastard such as Santorum.
And...oh...about 70~80% of the American people.
 

gistech1978

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2002
5,047
0
0
you should read savage love on the onion to find out Santorum now means.
i wont repeat it here, but its funny.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally wrote by: Rick Santorum

Furthermore, it's just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

50 years ago it was common sense that marrige was the union of a man and women of the same race.
60 years ago it was common sense that we should intern people of asian decent.
150 years ago it was common sense that white people should own black people.
300 years ago it was common sense for the people of Salem to kill any woman who acted funny for being a witch.
2,000 years ago it was common sense to kill a man claiming to be the son of god.

Santorum's a dumbass and so is anyone who agrees with him.
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Furthermore, it's just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Maybe to an intolerant closeminded bastard such as Santorum.
And...oh...about 70~80% of the American people.

Yes that is true.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I still don't understand the preoccupation with homosexuals. I've lived with multiple homosexuals in my lifetime and their sex life isn't even marginally interesting. Granted, that doesn't prove anything b/c I'm not particularly interested in my parents' or grandparents' sex lives, either.

Now if I ever have the opportunity to live with some lesbians . . . I might be a little interested . . . just a little . . .