Santorum's Comments On Prop 8 And French Revolution Demonstrate Ignorance
1. "You can call a dog a cat. It’s not. Marriage is something. It’s from time immemorium [sic], a union between a man and a woman is an institution you can’t redefine, because it is something natural, in nature, of men and women coming together, having children, raising children for the benefit of society. It’s always been that way. To redefine it then destroys it."
Wait a minute here. I thought marriage was a legal contract back in the good ol' days to used to transfer property, monetary means, and hopefully determine the legitimacy of a child.
If it's really something “natural” that men and women come together, have children and raise their children for the benefit of society, then I guess there shouldn't be any marriages where either spouse cannot have children. That's too bad. I mean, you really should only get married if you can have children, right? Otherwise, what's the point? It just isn't natural, according to Santorum’s own logic. You wouldn't want to redefine it now, would you?
2. "Marriage is defined and has always been defined as 'one man and one woman.' We simply cannot allow 50 different definitions of marriage."
Okay, I'm not even going to argue this one. I'm sure Santorum has read the Bible many, many times so perhaps he could testify to whether this picture accurately reveals the different definitions of marriage having occurred in the Bible? I personally haven't read the Bible, so I don't know if these are true or not.
3. "They [The Obama administration] are taking faith and crushing it. Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road."
Wait...what?! I am so confused. Are you?
I thought it was under the French absolute monarchy that people had no unalienable rights, where the government would “tell you who you [were].” I had no idea it was the other way around. If I remember correctly, the revolutionaries of the French Revolution signed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which called for "the natural and imprescriptible rights of man" to "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”
How was it that it was after the French Revolution where there was a government that gave you rights? Either I'm interpreting his speech wrong, or Santorum needs to go back to history class. Or maybe he just needs to hire a better speechwriter.
As for the rest of his analogy, is he possibly suggesting that President Obama's overt hostility to faith in America will be another Reign of Terror? That somehow clergies and bishops are going to prosecuted for their faith and decapitated?
Someone help me out here.
4. "Today's decision by the 9th Circuit is another in a long line of radical activist rulings by this rogue circuit - and it is precisely why I have called for that circuit to be abolished and split up."
I also believe we should abolish and split up a circuit because we don't believe in its rulings. Hell, you know what? I don't like some of the rulings by some other circuits too. Let's go ahead and call for those circuits to be abolished too. You know, because when I'm President I'm just going to call for all the circuits I don't like to be abolished and make one single giant circuit that only agrees with me. So it's off to the guillotine for you, 9th Circuit (Santorum doesn't make sense, I don't have to either)!