Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive'

[Modbert]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

 

[Trajan]

 

[Toro]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

When you're polling at 0%, you've got to do something!

 

[Caroljo]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

He didn't back track...he first said it was fine with him because it's NY's business, not his. He never said it was fine with him about gay marriage...just that NY wasn't his business. Then pointed out that states should use their own rights to decide, and that gay marriage wasn't fine with him. So for his state, he wouldn't want it.

 

[candycorn]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

He didn't back track...he first said it was fine with him because it's NY's business, not his. He never said it was fine with him about gay marriage...just that NY wasn't his business. Then pointed out that states should use their own rights to decide, and that gay marriage wasn't fine with him. So for his state, he wouldn't want it.

Does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?

 

[Dot Com]

This is what I've been waiting for, conservatives ripping each other to pieces in the primaries

 

[Caroljo]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com





I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

He didn't back track...he first said it was fine with him because it's NY's business, not his. He never said it was fine with him about gay marriage...just that NY wasn't his business. Then pointed out that states should use their own rights to decide, and that gay marriage wasn't fine with him. So for his state, he wouldn't want it.

Does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?

Do you normally speak out your ass when you don't understand something?

 

[candycorn]

He didn't back track...he first said it was fine with him because it's NY's business, not his. He never said it was fine with him about gay marriage...just that NY wasn't his business. Then pointed out that states should use their own rights to decide, and that gay marriage wasn't fine with him. So for his state, he wouldn't want it.

Does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?

Do you normally speak out your ass when you don't understand something?

Just so you know, answering a question with a question is a sure sign you've just had your ass handed to you.

Just admit Perry flip flopped and move on. All politicians do it. Admit it, move on.

 

[Caroljo]

Does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?

Do you normally speak out your ass when you don't understand something?

Just so you know, answering a question with a question is a sure sign you've just had your ass handed to you.

Just admit Perry flip flopped and move on. All politicians do it. Admit it, move on.

No he didn't....you need to read it again and THINK about what's being said. It's not that hard to understand!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

More like ignorant and un-Constitutional conservatism.

Talk about a race to the bottom.

We have two republican nitwits advocating violating the 14th Amendment and rule of law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you normally speak out your ass when you don't understand something?

Just so you know, answering a question with a question is a sure sign you've just had your ass handed to you.

Just admit Perry flip flopped and move on. All politicians do it. Admit it, move on.

No he didn't....you need to read it again and THINK about what's being said. It's not that hard to understand!

Candycorn is a simpleton. There are no nuances. Just black and white.
Sad that people really cannot think for themselves.

FWIW, Perry's stance is principled--you support the right of something even if you oppose the actual thing. Santorum is correct philosophically though.
Really they are both right. And either one would make a better president than Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

More like ignorant and un-Constitutional conservatism.

Talk about a race to the bottom.

We have two republican nitwits advocating violating the 14th Amendment and rule of law.

Please post which law school you went to and which articles on ConLaw you've published so your credibility isn't even further damaged.

 

[Full-Auto]

Does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?

Do you normally speak out your ass when you don't understand something?

Just so you know, answering a question with a question is a sure sign you've just had your ass handed to you.

Just admit Perry flip flopped and move on. All politicians do it. Admit it, move on.

Relay that to the white house.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

So what is the difference between Obama not supporting Gay marriage but ending the defense of DOMA? Is such destructive as your headline claims?

 

[The Rabbi]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

So what is the difference between Obama not supporting Gay marriage but ending the defense of DOMA? Is such destructive as your headline claims?

It's actually worse as the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws, not making them. But Obama decides which laws he wants to enforce and which he doesnt.

 

[Avatar4321]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

I can't imagine why you think preventing government from regulating same sex relationships is somehow contrary to the principles of small government. Giving the government power to regulate such relationships seems much more contrary to the principles of small government.

 

[ladyliberal]

Can someone explain Perry's position to me? It would seem that as an ardent "Federalist" he supports the right of New York to legally recognize gay marriage even as he disagrees with their decision to do so.

However, he also has no opposition to DOMA, and in fact supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. This seems to be the same position that Bachmann took in the debate, and which I find completely confusing. How can he support the right of states to define marriage while also support a Constitutional ban on the same? Is there a consistent underlying philosophy?

More likely, I think the politicians are trying to have it both ways, as usual. It's funny how the ardent Constitutionalists tend to be the very ones who seem to dislike the Constitution the most, based on how many amendments they want to add to it: no gay marriage, no flag-burning, no direct election of Senators, no new taxes, etc.

PS: If anyone has thought of a way to boost Santorum's electoral chances to measurable levels, they're keeping it to themselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

More like ignorant and un-Constitutional conservatism.

Talk about a race to the bottom.

We have two republican nitwits advocating violating the 14th Amendment and rule of law.

I can't imagine why Republcians would be ignoring things that are irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Can someone explain Perry's position to me? It would seem that as an ardent "Federalist" he supports the right of New York to legally recognize gay marriage even as he disagrees with their decision to do so.

However, he also has no opposition to DOMA, and in fact supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. This seems to be the same position that Bachmann took in the debate, and which I find completely confusing. How can he support the right of states to define marriage while also support a Constitutional ban on the same? Is there a consistent underlying philosophy?

More likely, I think the politicians are trying to have it both ways, as usual. It's funny how the ardent Constitutionalists tend to be the very ones who seem to dislike the Constitution the most, based on how many amendments they want to add to it: no gay marriage, no flag-burning, no direct election of Senators, no new taxes, etc.

PS: If anyone has thought of a way to boost Santorum's electoral chances to measurable levels, they're keeping it to themselves.

It's like free speech. Perry probably supports the right of a know-nothing witless zero like yourself spouting off about things you are totally ignorant of. But he doesn't think anything you say is worthwhile. I would agree.
Here too, the NY legislature can decide they want to allow fudgepackers to marry, even though it's bad policy in itself. Since it is bad policy the right way to deal with it is change the constitution, not bring court cases to sympathetic judges. The Left could watch Perry and learn a thing or two.
The Constitution called for senators not to be directly elected. It was an amendment that changed that. I haven't heard a proposal for a constitutional amendment prohibiting new taxes.

 

[bodecea]

Just so you know, answering a question with a question is a sure sign you've just had your ass handed to you.

Just admit Perry flip flopped and move on. All politicians do it. Admit it, move on.

No he didn't....you need to read it again and THINK about what's being said. It's not that hard to understand!

Candycorn is a simpleton. There are no nuances. Just black and white.
Sad that people really cannot think for themselves.

FWIW, Perry's stance is principled--you support the right of something even if you oppose the actual thing. Santorum is correct philosophically though.
Really they are both right. And either one would make a better president than Obama.