Conservatives Misrepresenting Rick Santorum ? ( States Have No Right To Do Wrong )

It really appears I might with this second post on Rick Santorum look like I am giving him the all most important OPINIONATED CATHOLIC endorsement. Well I am not. I am not that too concerned with Mitt Romney and the abortion pro life issue.

The kicker for me with whom I choose will deal with

(1) electability

and

(2) who might do the "most growing" on this complicated immigration reform issue. I feel that second factor is very much related to the first by the way.

Regardless I am seeing a lot of unfortunate misrepresenting of Santorum views from some conservatives and the libertarians branch of the GOP leaning voter demogrpahic. Well all is fair in war and politics is not romper room.

But this post that seems to piggy back off a RED State Post needs to be corrected. See from a site I post often from The Volokh Conspiracy and their post Santorum: “States Do Not Have the Right to Do Wrong” .

Now the comments are bad enough with their CATHOLIC THEOCRACY talk but at least one was sane and of course was ignored.

I think Santorum’s remarks were more normative than positive. This appears to be his remarks that were stated during a GOP debate when Perry, Paul, and others were stating that gay marriage was primarily a state issue (and that the President shouldn’t care about the policy within each state).

Thus, Santorum is of the belief that what happens within each state concerning social policy does matter. And that the President should take an active role in shaping social policy (not legislation, but bully pulpit politics similar to the IA recall election of SC judges).

I don’t think Santorum would disagree that a federal marriage amendment is necessary or desirable to alter marriage law in each state.

This might have been in response to a direct question whether each candidate, as president, would get involved in a hypothetical recall election centering around gay marriage.

I in fact think that is exactly what Santorum was saying. That is engage in the bully pulpit politics. I don't see exactly where this is prohibited at all. In fact President's on the left and right do this all the time. Including LINCOLN.

At the end the writer of the piece said this:

A more charitable interpretation of Santorum’s remarks would be that there is nothing in the 10th Amendment that would prevent a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. That would be true, but trivially so. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the adoption of additional amendments on anything (with one exception still relevant today). But this only makes the point. Were a constitutional amendment adopted prohibiting same-sex marriage, then states would be specifically prohibited from recognizing such marriages by the Constitution, not by some conception of America’s “moral enterprise” or the “basic fundamental values” of the nation.

Well I am not sure that is exactly trivial though I am not sure again if Santorum was not thinking the Bully Pulpit. Regardless I think the consensus that American is a "moral enterprise" or based on fundamental values" is shared by both the left and right.

The problem that the libertarians have is they often think of this just as a right wing conservative Christian thing.

I cannot help but notice the underlying tone to the recent religious liberty and related conscious right fights. I do wonder if MS MAGAZINE and others for instance are more concerned about using Govt power to force Catholic Inst. to violate their doctrines as to Birth Control. Ms Magazine, Planned Parenthood etc see a lack of birth control and other Catholic sexual doctrines as oppressive and perhaps a evil. As violating a FUNDAMENTAL value and they have no problem with using the bully pulpit and having like minded politicos use theirs.

I also wonder if we are seeing shades of this in the fights over Catholic Charities and adoption in Illinois. For many the Catholic Church's viewpoint on not putting kids with gay couple is a evil against the "American moral enterprise" and goes against the " basic fundamental values" of the nation. That is at least the tone I pick up.

I am not sure why Santorum because he is on side of the divide that must disarm and other's do not. Regardless what Santorum is saying is not to take a few words from the comments "fascist", "theocratic" , or my favorite "ultramontanism". It's also not a threat to the Republic or it's founding documents.