Rick Santorum

Cruz, Carson And Jindal Pledge To End The 'Promotion' Of Gay Marriage In Public Schools

GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Bobby Jindal have joined Rick Santorum in signing the National Organization for Marriage’s presidential candidate pledge.

As we’ve reported, NOM’s pledge goes well beyond just banning same-sex marriage nationwide through a constitutional amendment. It also requires the candidate to vow to “prevent the promotion of a redefined version of marriage in public schools and other government entities” and direct the Justice Department to investigate the supposed harassment of gay marriage opponents.

Curiously, Carson told Rebecca Berg of RealClearPolitics that he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, even though that is the very first clause in the NOM pledge that he has apparently signed.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today identified four Republican presidential candidates they have dubbed "Marriage Champions" for having pledged to the American people that they will take several specific actions as president to restore marriage to the law and protect people of faith from discrimination because of their support for traditional marriage. NOM said that Sen. Ted, Cruz, Sen. Rick Santorum, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Dr. Ben Carson have emerged as the top candidates for marriage supporters.



1. Support a federal constitutional amendment that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

2. Work to overturn the US Supreme Court's Obergefell decision that illegitimately imposed same-sex 'marriage' on every state in the nation, including nominating to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, and appointing an attorney general similarly committed.

3. Conduct a review of actions taken by the Obama Administration that have undermined marriage and work to restore our policies to be consistent with the proper understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consistent with this, prevent the promotion of a redefined version of marriage in public schools and other government entities.

4. Support the First Amendment Defense Act and other legislation that recognizes the right of organizations and individuals to act in the public square consistent with their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman without fear of retaliation from the government.

5. Direct the Department of Justice to investigate, document and publicize cases of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

"NOM has invited every candidate for president to sign our pledge, and we encourage those who have not yet signed to do so as soon as possible," Brown said. "We will not support a candidate for president who has not pledged to the American people to take specific actions in support of restoring marriage to our law and protecting people from government discrimination over their beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman."

Brown said that several candidates have issued strong statements in support of marriage but have decided not to sign any pledges as a candidate. Governor Mike Huckabee covered marriage in his own pledge to the American people and Gov. Scott Walker has promised to support a constitutional amendment restoring true marriage.

Rick Santorum Pledges To Sign Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Repeal

In an interview yesterday with Newsmax TV after a press conference at which he reiterated his support for ending birthright citizenship, Rick Santorum promised that as president he would “absolutely” sign a bill repealing the right, saying that it could probably be done without a constitutional amendment.

Ignoring the clear history of the 14th Amendment, Santorum told Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg that it wasn’t clear whether the Constitution requires that children of foreign nationals born on U.S. soil be granted citizenship. Santorum said that he would leave it up to the Supreme Court to interpret the stipulation that birthright citizenship applies only to people “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — long interpreted by the courts as excluding only a small class of people such as the children of ambassadors.

“That’s a decision that’s actually appropriately left up to the Supreme Court,” Santorum said. “These are the kinds of decisions that the Supreme Court should be making with respect to how do we determine somewhat vague language in the Constitution, not doing what they did and have been doing routinely is creating new constitutional rights.”

When Malzberg asked if the Supreme Court has ever “weighed in on whether the 14th Amendment covers these babies born of illegals,” Santorum replied that “to my knowledge, they have not.”

In fact, the Supreme Court did just that in 1898, ruling that a California-born child of Chinese immigrants, who were later barred from returning to the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act, could not be denied citizenship under the 14th Amendment. That case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, cemented the right to birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.


 

'What's Wrong With Slavery?' And Jan Mickelson's Other Worst Pro-Confederacy, Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Gay Moments

If you are a presidential candidate, you spend a lot of time talking to people in Iowa. And if you’re a Republican, that means a lot of time on Iowa conservative radio, including popular programs hosted by right-wing activists Steve Deace and Jan Mickelson.

The fact that Deace and Mickelson have long histories of extreme rhetoric has not dissuaded Republican candidates from joining their shows. But Mickelson just upped the ante with comments he made on his program today.

Media Matters caught Mickelson proposing that undocumented immigrants in Iowa become “property of the state” and pressed into hard labor. When a listener called in to point out that Mickelson’s proposal “sounds like slavery,” Mickelson asked, “Well, what’s wrong with slavery?” Undocumented immigrants, he went on to say, are the ones who are enslaving American citizens:

It will be interesting to see if any of the GOP candidates who have been on Mickelson’s radio program recently — which, according to Media Matters’ count, includes Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal — repudiate his remarks.

But the fact is that if these candidates were concerned about Mickelson’s rhetoric, they should have stopped going on his show long ago.

When Graham appeared on his program in June, Mickelson declared his allegiance to the Confederacy, as Graham scrambled to distance himself:

Mickelson has also backed Jim Crow-type voting laws.

Today’s comments are hardly Mickelson’s first foray into anti-immigrant extremism either. He has proposed barring undocumented children from public schools and said that if someone has a Hispanic name and is involved with the police, “I assume you’re not here legally.” After an interview with anti-immigrant activist Ann Corcoran, Mickelson promised to press every candidate he had on his show to oppose the U.S. resettlement of refugees from war-torn Muslim countries, which he said was an “act of jihad.” When he asked Rand Paul about it, Paul said the U.S. shouldn’t resettle Iraqi refugees because “we won the war.”

Mickelson’s anti-gay activism includes calling AIDS an “invention” of God to punish homosexuality and agreeing with former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on the issue of homosexuality.

The Iowa talk radio host also enjoys promoting fringe right-wing conspiracy theories. Mickelson helped to bring the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory into the GOP mainstream, asking Paul on his program about the supposed federal plan to take over Texas .

And just last week, Mickelson was getting Rep. Steve King to entertain the conspiracy theory that a botched EPA mine cleanup in Colorado was a deliberate plan to pollute a river to create a Superfund site:

Republican candidates may try to avoid Mickelson’s show after today. But given their track record, we somehow doubt that they will.

Rick Santorum: Liberals 'Rewriting History' To 'Fit Their Ideology' Like In Communist China, USSR

On Friday, Rick Santorum spoke to Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson about his recent debate with Rachel Maddow in which he disregarded the principle of judicial review, pointing to Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson as presidents who defied the court in order to “do what is right.” This led Mickelson to ask him about the Iowa Democratic Party’s recent decision to rename their “Jefferson-Jackson Dinner” because the two men were slaveholders.

“This is what the left does, the left has done this from the days of the Soviet Union and Communist China, is they erase history and what history they have they re-edit it and redefine it into something that is fundamentally untrue to fit their ideology,” Santorum said. “If you are trying to decide what’s true, conservativism and traditional American values or this new progressivism, if progressivism is true, why are they going back and rewriting history to make it match what they believe in? That should raise some question marks.”

Clearly Rick Santorum has never heard of David Barton.

Santorum: Judicial Review Is Okay…If The Court Agrees Me!

Last month, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum got into a heated exchange with Rachel Maddow about his statement that the Supreme Court doesn’t “have the final say on anything,” including abortion rights and LGBT equality. He attempted to clarify his position at a campaign event in Iowa last week, explaining that while he is fine with the Supreme Court having judicial review powers, the president and Congress should simply ignore decisions that they think are wrong.

In comments captured on video by the conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts, Santorum said, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the right or the duty or the obligation to determine what is constitutional and what is not.”

“Marbury v. Madison is a Supreme Court case where they granted themselves that authority,” he continued. “And for a couple of hundred years, roughly, we have seen that deference given to the court. I think the court is the right place to make these types of constitutional judgments. But what happens if the court makes an unconstitutional judgment? What happens if the court itself violates the Constitution? Is there a remedy?"

“Our founders clearly wanted it to be very hard to change the Constitution,” he said. “That’s why when you see the court change the Constitution in an unconstitutional fashion, in other words…amend the Constitution by creating something that’s not there, they’ve short-circuited something that was supposed to be very hard to do, and there should be some remedy of saying, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ And what is that? Well, what is that is the president or the Congress saying, ‘You’re acting unconstitutionally and we’re not going to pay attention to that law, we’re not going to pay attention to your ruling.’”
 

Santorum: 'Poisonous, Wretched, Cancerous' Abortion Rights Creating Another Holocaust

Speaking at an anti-Planned Parenthood rally in Iowa on Saturday, Rick Santorum compared the “poisonous, wretched, cancerous” legalization of abortion in America to the Holocaust, saying that both were “based on a lie.”

Santorum told the rally that he had recently read the book “How Do You Kill 11 Million People?” by Andy Andrews and thought it applied just as easily to legal abortion as to the Holocaust.

“The title of the book is ‘How Do You Kill 11 Million People?’ He could have retitled it ‘How Do You Kill 55 Million People Here In America?’” he said. “This book is about the Holocaust. And you know what his answer was, in one simple sentence? How do you kill 11 million people? You lie to them. Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry, Roe v. Wade, all of it is based on a lie about when a child becomes a human being.”

“We see the poisonous, wretched, cancerous result of that lie,” he continued. “Every lie, we all know, we tell our kids that when you lie that one lie leads to another lie, and another one, and another one, and pretty soon you just have this poisonous web that you can’t get out of. That’s where we are.”
 

 

Right Wing Round-Up - 7/23/15

Rick Santorum: Legal Abortion Is 'Genocide,' Planned Parenthood A 'Cancer'

After claiming that books in Massachusetts schools aren’t allowed to feature straight parents, Rick Santorum told “Boston Herald Live” today that the deceptively edited video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal tissue donations show that the government must cut all ties with the organization and criminalize abortion.

“When we as a society allow for the dehumanization of any of our community, then we lead to this type of genocide and it leads to even more, as you see, more horrible — and an insensitivity to the dignity of lives and respect for that life,” Santorum said. “I think Planned Parenthood is a cancer in this country, something that the federal government should not have anything to participate with.”

Santorum, who last week called on the government to “take down Planned Parenthood,” added that the group has a “record of deplorable behavior.”

Rick Santorum: Schools Only Allow Books Featuring Gay Parents, Not Straight Parents

Former Sen. Rick Santorum appeared on “Boston Herald Live” today, where he blamed the social safety net on the rise of single parenthood, which he somehow managed to link to gay-inclusive books in schools, and the supposed blackout of books about families led by opposite-sex couples.

“I know in the schools in Massachusetts, in the grade school, they teach — there are books in place that say ‘Suzy has two moms,’ it’s okay to put a book that says ‘Suzy has two moms’ but you can’t put a book in there saying that moms and dads and marriage is important and tell people how important it is to be married before you have children, then you’re moralizing,” Santorum said. “It’s okay to say, ‘Suzy has two moms’ or ‘Johnny has two dads,” but you can’t say that marriage is an important part of having a stable and healthy economy.”

When the host asked if he would focus on rolling back abortion rights and same-sex marriage if elected president, Santorum said that he would indeed do so because “strengthening the American family” is “important not just for a culture but it’s important for education.”

He added that government policies discourage women from marriage and instead boost cohabitation: “That’s the most dangerous place for children in America, it’s a mother and a child living with a man who is not the father of that child. We’re creating dangerous homes, we’re creating barriers to marriage and family formation all because of our welfare policies.”

Rick Santorum: Racist Planned Parenthood Trying To 'Deconstruct Humanity'

Last week on “Washington Watch,” Rick Santorum spoke to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins about an anti-choice group’s deceptively edited video targeting Planned Parenthood, arguing that the reproductive health organization has been corrupt from the get-go.

“The person who started Planned Parenthood was a racist, was a segregationist, was a eugenicist, and they have not strayed far at all from their original idea, which is to deconstruct humanity,” Santorum said.

Santorum also suggested that President Obama is hypocritical for supporting Planned Parenthood: “To see a president who talks about civil rights and talks about discrimination and to see him align himself with an organization with this history, and now this present abuse, illegal criminal activity, for him not to step forward and prosecute this fully just shows you that it’s not a moral issue, it’s simply a power and political issue, and that’s what’s driving the current Democratic Party and this president.”

As we’ve noted previously:

While Santorum is correct that Sanger was a supporter of the eugenics movement, as PolitiFact noted, the movement “had been widely accepted” at the time among political leaders including Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover: “In other words, supporting eugenics did not automatically equal racism.” Biographers have also found that Sanger strongly opposed racial segregation. Instead, her critics have relied on a single quote that they have badly distorted.

Rick Santorum: 'Take Down Planned Parenthood' To 'Scrub All Racism From America'

Yesterday on “The Simon Conway Show,” Rick Santorum fielded a question about the heavily edited video purporting to show a Planned Parenthood official trying to sell fetal tissue. The unedited video makes clear that she was actually “discussing the reimbursement cost for consensual, legal tissue donations.”

Santorum, ignoring the fact that the video’s claims were quickly debunked, called for a full-scale government investigation into Planned Parenthood and criminal prosecution. He also linked his war against Planned Parenthood to the recent debate over the Confederate flag in wake of the Charleston church shooting.

“If you want to scrub all racism from America, let’s start with Planned Parenthood because it was started by a racist named Margaret Sanger,” he said, alleging that Sanger was bent on “culling out the ‘undesirables,’ including blacks, in America, so if you want to go back and take down the Confederate flag, let’s take down Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood has continued to do disgusting things.”

Santorum also criticized Hillary Clinton for receiving the Margaret Sanger Award — whose other honorees include Martin Luther King, Jr., who praised Sanger — claiming that it is “remarkable that she is able to get away with that.” Santorum vowed that if he were to be elected president he would use the bully pulpit to go after Planned Parenthood.

While Santorum is correct that Sanger was a supporter of the eugenics movement, as PolitiFact noted, the movement “had been widely accepted” at the time among political leaders including Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover: “In other words, supporting eugenics did not automatically equal racism.” Biographers have also found that Sanger strongly opposed racial segregation. Instead, her critics have relied on a single quote that they have badly distorted.

Rick Santorum: Gay Marriage Part Of Secular Theocracy

Rick Santorum has been boasting recently that his prediction of legal man-dog and adult-child marriages has come true with the Supreme Court’s decision last month to strike down bans on same-sex marriage, making the case once again last week on Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ “Washington Watch” program.

Santorum told Perkins that the recent marriage decision was “an inevitability” because of Roe v. Wade.

“Roe v. Wade is the cancer that is eating away at the body of American freedom and we’re turning into this oligarchy of judges who can impose their will on the American public,” Santorum said. “This is so troubling on so many levels. You have the abuse of the court and really robbing us of our republic. You have the abuse of the First Amendment and imposing their religious doctrine — You can say, ‘What do you mean, religious?’ Their sexual orthodoxy, let’s call it that, their morality — on the rest of this country and the destructive element of that. And then finally the destructive element being the impact on the nuclear family. I’ve been warning about all of these things and they’ve all come together in this one suit.”

Santorum went on to chide fellow Republicans who want to “move on” following the court’s ruling: “What is it about losing our republic, losing our First Amendment and losing the family that’s not worth fighting about?”

Perkins agreed with the former senator’s dire assessment, adding that “you cannot move on from something that is at the very core of who we are as a nation and without it we cease to exist, we will not be a nation.”

Santorum similarly told the National Right to Life Committee that Roe v. Wade is “the cancer that is infecting the body of America.

Santorum: Marriage Equality Shows Spread Of Abortion Rights 'Cancer'

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told the National Right to Life Committee’s convention this morning that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down bans on gay marriage was part of the spread of the “cancer” that began with Roe v. Wade.

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very difficult time in America,” the GOP presidential candidate said. “We’ve seen some court decisions that I know have people very upset about what the future of the family and marriage and our culture is looking like.”

Roe v. Wade, he said, is “the cancer that is infecting the body of America” and “you saw Roe and its subsequent decisions bare its ugly head in the case of the gay marriage decision just a few days ago.”

The court’s majority in the marriage equality case, he said, declared that “it is what we say it is and we can do whatever we want to do to whomever we want to do it to.”

“And it was the Roe decision, the Casey decision and subsequent decisions on abortion that have led us to this decision on marriage,” he said. “It’s a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution, ignoring truth, ignoring Nature and Nature’s Law.”

He told the audience that he would keep on fighting marriage equality just as he kept on fighting abortion rights after Roe: “When did it become the law of the land that the Supreme Court has the final say on anything? They do not have the final say on anything! The American people have the final say on everything!”
 

Santorum: SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Proves 'Man On Dog' Warning Was Accurate

Back in 2003, not long before the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing sodomy in 13 states in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, then-Sen. Rick Santorum made his infamous statement that if the court struck down such laws, it would ultimately destroy marriage and the family because then "you have the right to anything," including pedophilia and "man on dog" relationships:

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 ... [I]t 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 ... In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

On the day that the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide last month, Santorum was speaking at the Western Conservative Summit in Colorado, where he held a press conference to provide his thoughts on the ruling. State Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt was on hand for the Q&A and today posted footage of it on his "Pray In Jesus Name" program.

The very first question Santorum received linked the gay marriage decision back to his infamous "man on dog" comment, which prompted Santorum to declare that exactly what he had predicted has now come true.

"What I say is if you have the right to consensual sexual activity," he said, "then it opens the door to a variety of different things. And this ruling did it. This ruling followed up with what I said would happen if the Supreme Court ruled the way it did and the Supreme Court has followed their line of reasoning that I identified very early on that if consensual sexual activity is a constitutional right, then we have to, it leads logically, as you saw in the court's opinion, that all things, that all the rights come with that."

When he was asked if the Supreme Court's decision now opened the door to polygamy, Santorum said that he couldn't see any legal basis for banning it because the court "has certainly opened the door for a variety of other things that are going to happen."

Rick Santorum Vows To Stop 'Promotion' Of Gay Marriage In Public Schools

Delivering the keynote speech to a National Organization for Marriage gala last week, Rick Santorum denounced the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality, criticizing the ruling as “a loss for America.”

At the gala, the GOP presidential candidate signed NOM’s candidate pledge, with his campaign boasting that Santorum was “proud to sign and fully support the National Organization for Marriage's presidential pledge.”

As we’ve noted, NOM’s pledge is about much more than simply asking candidates to oppose same-sex marriage.

Santorum also vowed to “prevent the promotion of a redefined version of marriage in public schools and other government entities” and pledged to “direct the Department of Justice to investigate, document and publicize cases of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.”

I, _____________ _____________, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

One, support a federal constitutional amendment that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Two, oppose and work to overturn any Supreme Court decision that illegitimately finds a constitutional "right" to the redefinition of marriage. This includes nominating to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, and appointing an attorney general similarly committed.

Three, conduct a review of regulatory, administrative and executive actions taken by the current Administration that have the effect of undermining marriage and work to restore our policies to be consistent with the proper understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consistent with this, prevent the promotion of a redefined version of marriage in public schools and other government entities.

Four, support the First Amendment Defense Act and other legislation that recognizes the right of organizations and individuals to act in the public square consistent with their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman without fear of retaliation from the government.

Five, direct the Department of Justice to investigate, document and publicize cases of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

'Satan Dancing With Delight': The Religious Right Reacts To The Legalization Of Gay Marriage

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, effectively legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states.

Needless to say, anti-gay Religious Right activists and Republican politicians who have repeatedly warned that such a ruling would literally destroy America have not reacted well, as exemplified by Bryan Fischer, who fired off a series of tweets declaring that Satan is now dancing in the streets of America:

Other anti-gay activists were equally outraged:

Anti-gay Republican presidential hopefuls were quick to weigh in:

Mike Huckabee

"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.

"This ruling is not about marriage equality, it's about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court's most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny."

"The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the law of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment."

Bobby Jindal

Governor Jindal said, “The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.

This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.

The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America’s long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment.

I will never stop fighting for religious liberty and I hope our leaders in D.C. join me.”

Rick Santorum

Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input. Now is the people’s opportunity respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate. The Court is one of three co-equal branches of government and, just as they have in cases from Dred Scott to Plessy, the Court has an imperfect track record. The stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices.

“But leaders don’t accept bad decisions that they believe harm the country, they have the courage of their convictions and lead the country down the better path. Marriage, the family and our children are too central to a healthy society to not fight for what is best. I realized that fact early on and that is why I lead the charge against some in my own party in 2004 to ensure the Federal Marriage Amendment received a vote and I continue to stand for marriage, for families, for freedom.

“As President, I will be committed to using the bully pulpit of the White House to lead a national discussion on the importance to our economy and our culture of mothers and fathers entering into healthy marriages so that every child is given their birthright- to be raised by their mother and father in a stable, loving home. I will stand for the preservation of religious liberty and conscience, to believe what you are called to believe free from persecution. And I will ensure that the people will have a voice in decisions that impact the rock upon which our civilization is built.”

Scott Walker

I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges “has been with us for millennia.”

In 2006 I, like millions of Americans, voted to amend our state constitution to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism. The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made, and as we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas.

As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.

Anti-gay Religious Right organizations, like the Family Research Council, likewise vowed never to accept this ruling:

"Five justices on the Supreme Court have overturned the votes of 50 million Americans and demanded that the American people walk away from millennia of history and the reality of human nature.

“In reaching a decision so lacking in foundation in the text of the Constitution, in our history, and in our traditions, the Court has done serious damage to its own legitimacy.

“No court can overturn natural law.  Nature and Nature’s God, hailed by the signers of our Declaration of Independence as the very source of law, cannot be usurped by the edict of a court, even the United States Supreme Court.

“Marriage is rooted not only in human history, but also in the biological and social reality that children are created by, and do best when raised by, a mother and a father. No court ruling can alter this truth.

“It is folly for the Court to think that it has resolved a controversial issue of public policy. By disenfranchising 50 million Americans, the Court has instead supercharged this issue.

"Just as with Roe v. Wade in 1973, the courts will not have the final say on this profound social matter.  The American people will stand up for their right to have a voice and a vote, especially as they experience the ways in which redefining marriage fundamentally impairs their freedom to live and work in accordance with their beliefs.

“With this ruling, the Supreme Court has set our government on a collision course with America’s cherished religious freedoms, explicitly guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“Americans will not stop standing for transcendent truth, nor accept the legitimacy of this decision.  Truth is not decided by polls or the passage of time, but by the One who created time and everything that exists therein.

“We will not lapse into silence but will continue to speak uncompromisingly for the truth about what marriage is, always has been, and always will be: the union of one man and one woman,” concluded [Tony] Perkins.

The National Organization for Marriage:

Though expected, today's decision is completely illegitimate. We reject it and so will the American people. It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives. It is a decision that is reminiscent of other illegitimate Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Roe v Wade and will further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.

Make no mistake about it: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and countless millions of Americans do not accept this ruling. Instead, we will work at every turn to reverse it.

The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine something it did not create. Marriage was created long before the United States and our constitution came into existence. Our constitution says nothing about marriage. The majority who issued today's ruling have simply made it up out of thin air with no constitutional authority.

In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King discussed the moral importance of disobeying unjust laws, which we submit applies equally to unjust Supreme Court decisions. Dr. King evoked the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that an unjust law or decision is one that is "a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or natural law."

Today's decision of the Supreme Court lacks both constitutional and moral authority. There is no eternal or natural law that allows for marriage to be redefined.

American Family Association

“This morning’s ruling rejects not only thousands of years of time-honored marriage but also the rule of law in the United States,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “In states across the nation, voters acted through the democratic process to protect marriage and the family. Yet, courts around the country chose to disregard the will of the people in favor of political correctness and social experimentation. And we witnessed firsthand the consequences, as individuals were repeatedly targeted by the government for not actively supporting homosexual marriage. Sadly, our nation’s highest Court, which should be a symbol of justice, has chosen instead to be a tool of tyranny, elevating judicial will above the will of the people.

“There is no doubt that this morning’s ruling will imperil religious liberty in America, as individuals of faith who uphold time-honored marriage and choose not to advocate for same-sex unions will now be viewed as extremists. But to the Court, we send this unequivocal message: We will continue to uphold God’s plan for marriage between one man and one woman, and we call on all Christians to continue to pray for the nation, and for those whose religious liberties will be directly impacted by this ruling.”

In the years leading up to the landmark SCOTUS case, voters in 31 states had acted through the democratic process to uphold marriage and the family. Yet, same-sex marriage was legalized in 36 states, due in large part to overreaching judges who chose to disregard the will of the people and cater to those who advocate for homosexuality. 

Concerned Women For America

Today goes down in history as the day nine unelected judges kicked the Constitution to the curb — overturning traditional marriage — and put your religious freedom dangerously at risk.

The decision is in. The justices have ruled. Marriage will be redefined to conform to the pro-LGBT view of marriage.

In one appalling decision, the Supreme Court has effectively opened the door to the criminalization of Christianity when it comes to the marriage issue ... and not just Christianity, but every major religion that supports God’s model for marriage and family.

Catholic League

Once again, five Supreme Court justices have invented a right that is nowhere mentioned or implied in the U.S. Constitution. Instead of allowing the states the right to make decisions about marriage, these judges have elected to impose their will on the nation.

Moreover, their reasoning is sociologically illiterate. The idea that marriage is a matter of individual autonomy—and not a social institution—is the most profound flaw in their ruling. In their mind, society is composed of monads.

For people of faith, this decision is ominous. On p. 27, the majority declares that religious Americans “may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” It is nice to know they respect our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

“The First Amendment,” the five justices say, “ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives….” That’s the best they can do? Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, rightly criticizes this genuflection to religious rights. “Religious liberty,” he says, “is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally”—it is not confined to advocacy.

In order to stop the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that refuse to marry two men or two women, Congress needs to pass the First Amendment Defense Act that was introduced last week. Nothing less is acceptable.

Right Wing Steamed Over Pope's Climate Change Encyclical

In the past few decades, politically conservative American Catholics and their allies in the Republican Party got used to having the public voice of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops serving as a politically useful one that prioritized opposition to legal abortion and LGBT equality. So, needless to say, some are having a hard time adjusting to Pope Francis, whose critiques of the dehumanizing excesses of modern corporate capitalism have dismayed some right-wing Catholics. Now, the Pope’s new encyclical on climate change and care for the planet, which apparently did not pay much heed to an April appeal from “Biblical worldview”-promoting climate change denialists or warnings from the Koch Brothers, is pushing some right-wing pundits over the edge.

Alan Keyes, a far-right Catholic and perennial political candidate, argued that the facts about human contribution to climate change have not been established and warned that “the whole push for totalitarian government remediation of the allegedly terrible damage we are inflicting on God’s creation is a slander against the human race, a sin against humanity being committed as a pretext for the rape of human life, human conscience and God-endowed human liberty.”

The never-subtle Keyes said that when he looks “in the mirror of reason at the reflections Pope Francis offers in his encyclical, what I see looks unlike Jesus Christ (who as of now still comes to save and not harshly to penalize humanity).” He added, “Pope Francis’ reflections look more like Marx, Stalin or Mao Zedong – materialistic ideologues who punished not for the sake of God or truth, but on account of resentful, self-idolizing human will and ideology.”

Over at the free-market-adoring Acton Institute, Kishore Jayabalan was more respectful, saying he welcomed the pope’s encyclical, but wrote that he was disappointed that the pope “seems to blame markets, over-consumption and especially finance, rather than human sin, for all our environmental problems.”

Others have had much harsher words for Pope Francis. The reliably bloviating Rush Limbaugh said the encyclical seems to confirm that Francis is a Marxist, a sentiment echoed by Fox News pundit Greg Gutfield. James Delingpole, an editor at Breitbart, said the encyclical includes “hackneyed language and extremely dubious science you might expect from a 16-year-old trotting out the formulaic bilge and accepted faux-wisdom required these days…” At Fox Business, Stuart Varney warned of a sinister alliance between the Pope and President Barack Obama to “reshape the world by taxing the rich, taxing fossil fuels, and redistributing the wealth.” Right-wing radio host Michael Savage, furious at the encyclical, called the Pope “an eco-wolf in pope’s clothing” and “a stealth Marxist in religious garb,” claiming that Francis will put Catholics “in chains” and is reminiscent of “the false prophet in Revelation, an ecumenical spiritual figure directing mankind to worship the Antichrist.”

It’s not just a bunch of pundits.

The Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg notes that Sen. James Inhofe, a notorious climate change denier, “bluntly told reporters that Francis was out of line.” Inhofe told attendees at a conference of the right-wing Heartland Institute, “The pope ought to stay with his job.” ThinkProgress notes that back in May, the Koch-funded Heartland Institute warned that “the Left” was working with the Pope on climate change, something akin to the “unholy alliance of international communism with the jihadi Islamists.”

Republican presidential candidates have also been slamming the encyclical. Jeb Bush, who has talked about his conversion to Catholicism on the campaign trail, has also suggested the Pope should butt out of the public conversation on climate change. “I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting in the political realm,” he said.

Rick Santorum said the church is not credible when “we get involved with controversial political and scientific theories,” not a concern he seems to have when the topic is, oh, same-sex couples getting married or being parents. He told an interviewer, “The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we’re good at, which is theology and morality.”

As many have noted, the pope has studied more science than Rick Santorum. Rev. Thomas Reese, former editor of America Magazine and now a senior analyst for National Catholic Reporter, flipped Santorum’s comments, saying, “It's nice — for once the Catholic Church is on the side of science.” Climate scientists agree.

Right Wing Round-Up - 6/18/15

  • PFAW: PFAW Foundation Mourns the Loss of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, a Member of Our Family.
  • Andrew Kaczynski @ BuzzFeed: Ben Carson Compares Abortion To Slavery.
  • David Edwards @ Raw Story: Rick Santorum thinks white Charleston shooter chose victims at black church ‘indiscriminately’.
  • Jeremy Hooper: The one where Brian Brown attacks @FakeDanSavage's son at an anti-gay church conference.
  • Andrew Kirell @ Mediaite: Fox’s Steve Doocy and Guest Wonder Whether Charleston Shooting Part of ‘War on Christians’.

President Santorum Will Protect Children From Gay Marriage

Earlier this month, Rick Santorum participated in a conference call organized by right-wing pastor E.W. Jackson, during which the 2016 presidential hopeful spent most of his time promoting his economic plans.

But Santorum's agenda to provide economic opportunity to blue collar workers was obviously not what participants on the call were interested in because as soon as Santorum agreed to answer some questions, the very first thing he was asked about was what he would do as president about the fact that "our children are being forced to accept lifestyles that are totally against our values." The caller demanded to know why "is it that our government allows people that hurt children by way of child molestation" to impose their views upon this nation.

Santorum, who is not unfamiliar with having to field questions from unhinged audience members, responded to the question about child molestation by talking about same-sex marriage. "That's one of the reasons why I talk about the importance of focusing on the nuclear family," he said, adding that the next president must take a stand for the rights of children to be raised by a mother and a father.

If the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on gay marriage, he continued, "that doesn't mean we won't fight and try to push back both as the Congress should and as the president should as a co-equal branch of the government."

"Depending on what they rule," Santorum said, "we would certainly make sure that we are protecting children and that we are creating an optimal atmosphere for every child, as I said, that have their birthright, which is to be raised by their mother and father."

Rick Santorum Interviewed By Gordon Klingenschmitt, Colorado's Premier Anti-Gay Demon-Hunting Legislator

Last year, Gordon Klingenschmitt was elected to a seat in the Colorado House of Representatives, despite the fact that he was a long-time Religious Right activist with a well-documented history of making outrageous statements. Unsurprisingly, Klingenschmitt's tenure in office has been racked with controversy precisely because he has continued to make those sorts of statements, but that did not dissuade Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum from agreeing to be interviewed by Klingenschmitt for his daily "Pray In Jesus Name" program.

Klingenschmitt managed to interview Santorum when he was recently campaigning in the state and ask him about Indiana's effort to pass a law that would have granted business owners the right to discriminate against customers, particularly gay ones, in the name of "religious liberty."

Santorum falsely claimed that the original Indiana law was merely designed to protect religious "employees from discrimination at the workplace" and lamented that "those who are defending religious liberty backed down, they're not willing to take the fight and be called all sorts of names and take the blows for standing up for religious liberty in the face of a media onslaught that doesn't care about the truth."

Syndicate content

Rick Santorum Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Tuesday 08/25/2015, 4:30pm
GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Bobby Jindal have joined Rick Santorum in signing the National Organization for Marriage’s presidential candidate pledge. As we’ve reported, NOM’s pledge goes well beyond just banning same-sex marriage nationwide through a constitutional amendment. It also requires the candidate to vow to “prevent the promotion of a redefined version of marriage in public schools and other government entities” and direct the Justice Department to investigate the supposed harassment of gay marriage opponents. Curiously, Carson... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Friday 08/21/2015, 1:20pm
In an interview yesterday with Newsmax TV after a press conference at which he reiterated his support for ending birthright citizenship, Rick Santorum promised that as president he would “absolutely” sign a bill repealing the right, saying that it could probably be done without a constitutional amendment. Ignoring the clear history of the 14th Amendment, Santorum told Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg that it wasn’t clear whether the Constitution requires that children of foreign nationals born on U.S. soil be granted citizenship. Santorum said that he would leave it up to the... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Wednesday 08/19/2015, 4:41pm
If you are a presidential candidate, you spend a lot of time talking to people in Iowa. And if you’re a Republican, that means a lot of time on Iowa conservative radio, including popular programs hosted by right-wing activists Steve Deace and Jan Mickelson. The fact that Deace and Mickelson have long histories of extreme rhetoric has not dissuaded Republican candidates from joining their shows. But Mickelson just upped the ante with comments he made on his program today. Media Matters caught Mickelson proposing that undocumented immigrants in Iowa become “property of the state... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 08/18/2015, 2:35pm
On Friday, Rick Santorum spoke to Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson about his recent debate with Rachel Maddow in which he disregarded the principle of judicial review, pointing to Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson as presidents who defied the court in order to “do what is right.” This led Mickelson to ask him about the Iowa Democratic Party’s recent decision to rename their “Jefferson-Jackson Dinner” because the two men were slaveholders. “This is what the left does, the left has done this from the days of the Soviet Union and Communist China, is they erase... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Monday 08/17/2015, 3:00pm
Last month, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum got into a heated exchange with Rachel Maddow about his statement that the Supreme Court doesn’t “have the final say on anything,” including abortion rights and LGBT equality. He attempted to clarify his position at a campaign event in Iowa last week, explaining that while he is fine with the Supreme Court having judicial review powers, the president and Congress should simply ignore decisions that they think are wrong. In comments captured on video by the conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts, Santorum said, “... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Monday 08/17/2015, 1:30pm
Speaking at an anti-Planned Parenthood rally in Iowa on Saturday, Rick Santorum compared the “poisonous, wretched, cancerous” legalization of abortion in America to the Holocaust, saying that both were “based on a lie.” Santorum told the rally that he had recently read the book “How Do You Kill 11 Million People?” by Andy Andrews and thought it applied just as easily to legal abortion as to the Holocaust. “The title of the book is ‘How Do You Kill 11 Million People?’ He could have retitled it ‘How Do You Kill 55 Million People... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 07/23/2015, 5:32pm
Alex Griswold @ Mediaite: Glenn Beck’s Radio Show Bans Any Mention of Donald Trump. Sarah Posner @ Religion Dispatches: Strangest Hot Take of the Day: Why Evangelicals Like Trump. Tim Murphy @ Mother Jones: Mike Huckabee Is Blowing Up Disney Characters for Attention. Kyler Geoffroy @ Towleroad: Rick Santorum ‘Absolutely’ Regrets Infamous ‘Man on Dog’ Homosexuality Remark But Still Thinks He Was Right. Nigel Jaquiss @ Willamette Week: Bittersweet Cake. Bethania Palma Markus @ Raw Story: Michigan town blocks Muslim man’s secular scout... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 07/21/2015, 5:05pm
After claiming that books in Massachusetts schools aren’t allowed to feature straight parents, Rick Santorum told “Boston Herald Live” today that the deceptively edited video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal tissue donations show that the government must cut all ties with the organization and criminalize abortion. “When we as a society allow for the dehumanization of any of our community, then we lead to this type of genocide and it leads to even more, as you see, more horrible — and an insensitivity to the dignity of lives and respect for... MORE >