Hmmm...lets' see. Googling Rick Santorum. I wonder if he has a sad over that gay thing.

[Miles Archer]

HE DOES!

Rick Santorum blasts Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling as ‘based on a lie’

DENVER — Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Friday that the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of same-sex marriage is “based on a lie,” namely that the only argument against such unions is a hatred of gays.

The court’s Friday decision said in effect that “the only reason you could possibly oppose changing marriage laws in America is because you hate people of the same sex who want to marry. But that’s not true,” Mr. Santorum told the crowd Friday night at the Western Conservative Summit.

“It’s a decision based on a lie. It’s a decision based on fundamental untruths,” Mr. Santorum said. “And yet it is the law of the land.”

“We are now faced not just with a society that’s going to say and is saying that marriage has nothing to do with children,” Mr. Santorum said. “That’s the impact of this decision. Marriage has nothing to do with children.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/27/rick-santorum-blasts-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-r/

[cantbeserious]

1. Hey Rick - Raising Children Is Not A Mandatory Outcome Of Marriage - It Is An Optional Outcome

eom

[Renew Deal]

2. Marriage has nothing to do with children

It is the affirmation of a legal contract. Married people are not required to have children. Sometimes parties choose to make it both a spiritual and legal contract, but there is no such legal requirement to do so.

I wonder if Santorum is opposed to marriages of people unable/unwilling to have kids like Guiliani's latest marriage.

[randome]

3. I can see him introducing us to his new gay lover.

And saying "See? I'm going to continue being gay until this horrible decision is reversed. Is that what you want? Is it?"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[drm604]

4. This conservative idea that marriage must involve children doesn't make sense.

How do you enforce something like that?

Do you require that the woman be pregnant before issuing a marriage license? I doubt that they'd support that.

Do you annul the marriage or require a divorce if children aren't produced within X years of marriage? I also doubt that they'd support that.

So what is their position? Fertility tests before a license is issued?

[mnhtnbb]

5. Santorum and all the rest of the anti-marriage equality crowd

cannot seem to acknowledge that their opposition to marriage equality
is based on their religious beliefs. That's their only argument and the reason
they look down their noses at marriage equality.

They refuse to acknowledge what everyone else has figured out: they think
they have some God-given correct view of how the world should be and they
really are pissed off that they can no longer restrict marriage to only people
who pass their "God approves" test.

And, geeze, take a logic course, too. “That’s the impact of this decision. Marriage has nothing to do with children.”
Total fail in logic.

[CanonRay]

6. Marriage was never about children, you dufus.

Otherwise why would 70 year olds, like my neighbors, get married? I am sick to death of these fools.

[Panich52]

7. Frothy's ignoring 2 major points:

1. Anti-SSM crowd is basing their argument not on hatred of gays, but on religion. That alobe makes their argument unconstitutional IMO

2. IRS, probate courts, medical emergencies & end-of-life decisions are just a few of the issues that depend heavily on marriage status/next-of-kin. Children are a second-thought when it comes to intent of union -- and yet legal parentage is also a big issue f/ SSM.


Can't wait till Frothy Saintorum stops preaching for theocracy and stays home with his pathetic home-schooled brood.