Santorum Compares Same-Sex Marriage Ruling to Dred Scott Case

rick-santorumThe Supreme Court ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional and Rick Santorum is not happy.

The former Pennsylvania Senator and presidential candidate has long been an opponent of same-sex marriage and his response today was no different.

“Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input,” Santorum stated. “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.”

The cases Santorum cited, Dred Scott and Plessy, are generally considered the most infamous in the history of the Supreme Court.

In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Court ruled that Scott, a slave at the time in Missouri, could not sue for his freedom. Additionally, Chief Justice Roger Taney’s majority opinion asserted that African-Americans, whether then enslaved or free, were not American citizens and therefore had no legal standing.

The Dred Scott case is considered by historians as one of the major causes of the Civil War. It is unlikely today’s decision will lead to similar circumstances.

The Plessy v. Ferguson decision declared racial segregation as constitutional and created the “separate but equal” doctrine.

Santorum went on to state that he will lead the fight against the Court’s ruling that LGBT Americans have, as the Justice Kennedy put it, “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

“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,” Santorum concluded. “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.”

Justice Kennedy did address religious liberty, however, in his majority opinion.

The following is the last paragraph of section IV of Kennedy’s opinion:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment 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 and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Of course, Santorum’s statement was released just a half hour after the ruling was announced so it is possible he had not yet read the decision.

June 26th, 2015 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Presidential, Top Stories | 26 Comments

26 thoughts on “Santorum Compares Same-Sex Marriage Ruling to Dred Scott Case”

  1. Gortalloreday says:

    five million The poles burned case in point, dfg3esl

  2. John M says:

    Leviticus equals hate.

  3. bungy says:

    Leviticus 18:22. Please read.

  4. a dude said says:

    dumb people–you are just a bigot who won’t recognize the love between two brothers. It’s not like we can make a baby like a brother and sister can. Your opinion is too closed-minded to be printed in the Patriot News and I will ignore it like my hero Micek would.

  5. David Diano says:

    Dumb people-

    You know what case I was talking about, and the only thing you could come up with was a typo?

    My point was that this landmark case dealt with the Supreme Court striking down State marriage bans. It is more relevant that any of the nonsense coming from Santorum (and this case was cited repeatedly in the final opinion).

  6. FreidasBoss says:

    @Dumb People are great…

    I think you missed the joke. For years Santorum has used the “Slipery Slope” analogy; first we allow gays to marry, next thing you know we’ll see people marrying their pet dog (beastiality) or their sister (incest).

  7. Dumb people are great...at saying dumb things says:

    Once again, @Bungy, @Dude, and @David Diano prove how dumb they are in trying to look smart.

    @Bungy – you cannot marry a pigeon or any other animal. That is called “bestiality.” If you knew how to read with clear eyes, you would see even an elementary school kid can discern Obergefell does not come close to addressing that. Bestiality still is illegal, and bans on it still are constitutionally enforceable. Your sense of humor falls short of the standard established by a slow high school kid. Your idiotic comment shows you have no argument to offer, and nothing to say when you lose.

    @A Dude – You cannot marry your brother or any other immediate relative. That is called “incest.” If you knew how to read with clear eyes, you would see even an elementary school kid can discern Obergefell does not come close to addressing that. Incest still is illegal, and bans on it still are constitutionally enforceable. Your sense of humor falls short of the standard established by a slow high school kid. Your idiotic comment shows you have no argument to offer, and nothing to say when you lose.

    @David Diano – The landmark case striking anti-miscegenation laws was Loving v. Virginia, not Virginia v. Love. Every 1L knows that. They are very far from being a lawyer, but far closer than you. I know you like to think you know a lot about everything, but you don’t. Just stop being a know-it-all. Nobody likes the know-it-all, and that is why everyone of good sense who knows you and all who read your crazy ramblings on this board think you are a nutjob joke. Learn it, understand it, accept it.

  8. bungy says:

    Diano, when He gives you one more chance, you will BEG for mercy.

  9. David Diano says:

    Bungy-

    Do you realize the stupidity and irony of warning Atheists that they won’t get into heaven?

    What’s next, that we won’t get into Neverland or Atlantis or Hogwarts?

  10. Brian says:

    So, Santorum blasts 2 Supreme Courts decisions that rule against equality for blacks, while blasting 1 Supreme Court decision that rules for equality for gays.

  11. George Nofer says:

    Santorum complains about 5 unelected justices making the decision. Having in mind the large public support for the decision, I dare say that if all 9 justices had been elected, the decision would have been unanimous.

  12. bungy says:

    Santorum will spend eternity in HEAVEN. You atheist sinners may NOT.

  13. David Diano says:

    People “dread” Santorum opening his mouth and saying more stupid sh*t.

  14. bungy says:

    I can marry my pet pigeon. I can’t wait for my wedding night.

  15. Jim says:

    17 point loss in Pa Senate race –nuff said

  16. Anne Umbrecht says:

    Say what you will about Santorum (I’m no fan), but he was quoting the Roberts dissent in which the Chief Justice (who yesterday saved Obamacare again) pointed out that the Dred Scott decision was (in his view) the first use by the Court of substantive due process as the rationale for what some view as judicial activism. His point is that this could come back to bite us.

  17. seve says:

    What a despicable human being Rick Santorum is.

  18. 13thDistrctDemocrat says:

    Of course, Santorum’s statement was released just a half hour after the ruling was announced so it is possible he had not yet read the decision.

    Maybe my favorite thing I’ve ever read on PoliticsPA. Kudos, Nick.

  19. a dude said says:

    Finally, I can marry my brother.

  20. Isaac L. says:

    Diogenes – better find some raw octopus before the FEMA camps get you!

  21. Plubius says:

    Actually, the decision expands the institution to which Santorum refers. If he is so worried about the sanctity of marriage, perhaps the former Senator should be more concerned with the heterosexual couple who are divorcing instead of couple who actually want to partake. Conservative indeed.

  22. Diogenes says:

    Good for Santorum. With any luck we have a few years before such statements are followed by an ominous knock at the door.

  23. Mike Panza says:

    This man has not lived in Pennsylvania since 2001. Please stop writing about him.

  24. Chris says:

    President Santorum, everyone! Horse’s ass.

  25. Happy Valley says:

    Plessy and Dred Scott both denied equality and rights, but today’s ruling expands them. Santorum can’t even draw a proper analogy.

  26. David Diano says:

    “five unelected justices”
    Santorum wants to be president so he can pick his own unelected justices

    “without public debate or input”

    Yes. This is the first we’ve heard about gay people wanting to get married. Odd, that Santorum never brought this subject up before in public debate.

    ““I will stand for the preservation of religious liberty and conscience, to believe what you are called to believe free from persecution” … unless you believe gays can marry. Then Santorum will persecute you.

    If Santorum is looking for a relevant court ruling, he should check out Virginia v. Love that allowed inter-racial marriage.

Comments are closed.