California Gay Marriage Ban: Why Santorum's 'Intolerance' Remarks are Intolerant

Opinion

By Maggie Astor: Subscribe to Maggie's

February 9, 2012 6:02 PM EST

In the two days since the California Supreme Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, we have seen swift and utterly predictable responses from the Republican presidential candidates, and none more so than caucus star Rick Santorum.

Share This Story

The issue is not equal protection, but religious freedom, Santorum says. The victims of intolerance are the supporters of Proposition 8, not the same-sex couples it targets. And because he doesn't agree with the decision, the judges who made it must be shameless activists who twist the Constitution to fit their personal agendas.

Let's take this quote by quote:

1. "7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges."
-- Twitter, Feb. 7

What rights did these 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 have stripped away on Tuesday? Their right to hold a popular vote on other people's rights? Because the Founding Fathers did not provide for that.

Follow us

If you don't believe me, ask John Adams:

"Checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission of some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen. ... That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority is demonstrated by every page of history."

Or James Madison:

"The form of popular government ... enables it [the majority] to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. ... The majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression."

If the "right" to subject other people's civil liberties to popular vote doesn't exist, the 9th Circuit ruling can't possibly have "stripped it away."

Marriage, on the other hand, has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as "one of the basic civil rights of man" and "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

It is beyond me how people like Santorum can argue that the overturning of Proposition 8 takes their rights away, but deny that the prohibition of same-sex marriage takes same-sex couples' rights away.

2. "Your belief of marriage between a man and a woman is purely irrational, based on hatred and bigotry: that's what [the court] just wrote."
-- McKinney, Texas, Feb. 8

The court did not pass judgment on the personal beliefs or motivations of Proposition 8 supporters or same-sex marriage opponents at large. It passed judgment on the legal merits of their attempt to impose those beliefs on all Californians. There is a big difference.

This article is copyrighted by International Business Times, the business news leader
Sponsor Link:
Join the Conversation
IBTimes TV

73 yr Old Becomes Oldest Woman to Climb Mount Everest

Global Markets
Existing Home Sales Jump, World Banks Lowers China Forecast, Euro Prepares for Greek Exit

Recommended for you
  1. Mark Zuckerberg Turns 28: Ten Interesting Facts About The Facebook Founder And His Social NetworkMark Zuckerberg's $6.4 Billion Loss: Value Of Facebook CEO's Stake A Gambler's Nightmare
  2. Story of Diane Tran, Jailed Texas Honors Student, Sparks Outrage [VIDEO]The controversial story of Diane Tran, a jailed Texas honors student, has sparked widespread outrage on the Internet.