Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Rick Santorum says that if elected he would ensure that all existing same-sex marriages will be nullified. That's not too surprising actually, but that's a step further than we've heard from the other GOP tools.
There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July. Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president. Once the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit same-gender marriages, "their marriage would be invalid," the former Pennsylvania senator said Dec. 30 in an NBC News interview. "We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/03/ri ... llify.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Santorum - right-wing terrorist.

So could you look past that and still vote for him Jon?

A real Renaissance man, this fuck.

89Hen wrote:So could you look past that and still vote for him Jon?

I'm gonna vote for him just to piss Jon off.

89Hen wrote:So could you look past that and still vote for him Jon?

Unless you are a theocrat, not sure how anyone could vote for him.

The man is a serious wack-job

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote:So could you look past that and still vote for him Jon?

Unless you are a theocrat, not sure how anyone could vote for him.

The man is a serious wack-job

He's pro life which means Hen, Z, Tbag, Joe and the rest of Conk Nation will vote for him, then lie about doing it.

D1B wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Unless you are a theocrat, not sure how anyone could vote for him.

The man is a serious wack-job

He's pro life which means Hen, Z, Tbag, Joe and the rest of Conk Nation will vote for him, then lie about doing it.

If I DO vote for him, it'll be in spite of the fact he's pro-life.

question, Jon: how can he unilaterally nullify same-sex marriages without a constitutional amendment? You have GOT to know he's just pandering to the religious right hoping to get their votes in the primaries. Honestly, why people get so worked up about moral positions of politicians is beyond me. We've got bigger fish to fry.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
He's pro life which means Hen, Z, Tbag, Joe and the rest of Conk Nation will vote for him, then lie about doing it.

If I DO vote for him, it'll be in spite of the fact he's pro-life.

question, Jon: how can he unilaterally nullify same-sex marriages without a constitutional amendment? You have GOT to know he's just pandering to the religious right hoping to get their votes in the primaries. Honestly, why people get so worked up about moral positions of politicians is beyond me. We've got bigger fish to fry.

It would take a constitutional amendment - which now has little chances of passing. But this just shows how crazy this man is.

Why do I get worked up? Because it DIRECTLY effects me - and on an big economic scale.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

If I DO vote for him, it'll be in spite of the fact he's pro-life.

question, Jon: how can he unilaterally nullify same-sex marriages without a constitutional amendment? You have GOT to know he's just pandering to the religious right hoping to get their votes in the primaries. Honestly, why people get so worked up about moral positions of politicians is beyond me. We've got bigger fish to fry.

It would take a constitutional amendment - which now has little chances of passing. But this just shows how crazy this man is.

Why do I get worked up? Because it DIRECTLY effects me - and on an big economic scale.

Don't get all uppity now.

It also speaks volumes that the #2 horse in a major party primary is willing to go public with this.

D1B wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Unless you are a theocrat, not sure how anyone could vote for him.

The man is a serious wack-job

He's pro life which means Hen, Z, Tbag, Joe and the rest of Conk Nation will vote for him, then lie about doing it.

I'll see Z's and raise him a

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
It would take a constitutional amendment - which now has little chances of passing. But this just shows how crazy this man is.

Why do I get worked up? Because it DIRECTLY effects me - and on an big economic scale.

Don't get all uppity now.

It also speaks volumes that the #2 horse in a major party primary is willing to go public with this.

It also speaks volumes that the "#2 horse" is a swayback with 3 legs.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

If I DO vote for him, it'll be in spite of the fact he's pro-life.

question, Jon: how can he unilaterally nullify same-sex marriages without a constitutional amendment? You have GOT to know he's just pandering to the religious right hoping to get their votes in the primaries. Honestly, why people get so worked up about moral positions of politicians is beyond me. We've got bigger fish to fry.

It would take a constitutional amendment - which now has little chances of passing. But this just shows how crazy this man is.

Why do I get worked up? Because it DIRECTLY effects me - and on an big economic scale.

It's blather. Nothing more. He's pandering to the religious right, courting their vote in the primary. It's how the process works. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

If I DO vote for him, it'll be in spite of the fact he's pro-life.

question, Jon: how can he unilaterally nullify same-sex marriages without a constitutional amendment? You have GOT to know he's just pandering to the religious right hoping to get their votes in the primaries. Honestly, why people get so worked up about moral positions of politicians is beyond me. We've got bigger fish to fry.

It would take a constitutional amendment - which now has little chances of passing. But this just shows how crazy this man is.

Why do I get worked up? Because it DIRECTLY effects me - and on an big economic scale.

Having to learn Chinese directly affects both of us. Which is more important to our lifestyles in the long run?

CAA Flagship wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
It would take a constitutional amendment - which now has little chances of passing. But this just shows how crazy this man is.

Why do I get worked up? Because it DIRECTLY effects me - and on an big economic scale.

Having to learn Chinese directly affects both of us. Which is more important to our lifestyles in the long run?

For me, being able to get legally married - hundreds of thousands of dollars of consequences over my lifetime

CAA Flagship wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
It would take a constitutional amendment - which now has little chances of passing. But this just shows how crazy this man is.

Why do I get worked up? Because it DIRECTLY effects me - and on an big economic scale.

Having to learn Chinese directly affects both of us. Which is more important to our lifestyles in the long run?

dbackjon wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Having to learn Chinese directly affects both of us. Which is more important to our lifestyles in the long run?

For me, being able to get legally married - hundreds of thousands of dollars of consequences over my lifetime

The Chinese won't be any more sympathetic to your cause.
If it is the money you are concerned about, the Donks will take it away from you in higher taxes anyway. You'll take it in the can either way......err.....um.....well, you know what I mean.

dbackjon wrote:For me, being able to get legally married - hundreds of thousands of dollars of consequences over my lifetime

Why the need to exaggerate Jon?

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:For me, being able to get legally married - hundreds of thousands of dollars of consequences over my lifetime

Why the need to exaggerate Jon?

5-10 K a year in extra taxes, plus death benefits, etc. It adds up quickly.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: Why the need to exaggerate Jon?

5-10 K a year in extra taxes, plus death benefits, etc. It adds up quickly.

No guarantee you will stay together until death. Get married and you "lose" half immediately (that's present net worth (sans pre-nup) and future earnings). You just don't realize the loss until the time of divorce. You know all of this though. Why still argue your position?

CAA Flagship wrote:

dbackjon wrote:


5-10 K a year in extra taxes, plus death benefits, etc. It adds up quickly.

No guarantee you will stay together until death. Get married and you "lose" half immediately (that's present net worth (sans pre-nup) and future earnings). You just don't realize the loss until the time of divorce. You know all of this though. Why still argue your position?

Gay folks don't get divorced. Sorry to break your theory wide open.

grizzaholic wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: No guarantee you will stay together until death. Get married and you "lose" half immediately (that's present net worth (sans pre-nup) and future earnings). You just don't realize the loss until the time of divorce. You know all of this though. Why still argue your position?

Gay folks don't get divorced. Sorry to break your theory wide open.

There aren't enough cases yet and there hasn't been enough time for the ones that did get married.
For hetero couples, the wife decides on the type and color of the curtains. The husband says, "I don't care either way." The husband decides on....well....anything that does not concern the wife. Again, no problem. But a gay couple will come to blows (no pun intended) over the curtains and everything else.

CAA Flagship wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Gay folks don't get divorced. Sorry to break your theory wide open.

There aren't enough cases yet and there hasn't been enough time for the ones that did get married.
For hetero couples, the wife decides on the type and color of the curtains. The husband says, "I don't care either way." The husband decides on....well....anything that does not concern the wife. Again, no problem. But a gay couple will come to blows (no pun intended) over the curtains and everything else.

You sure know a lot about gay couples. I won't jump to any conclusions but it looks like someone might not be out of the closet yet.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: Why the need to exaggerate Jon?

5-10 K a year in extra taxes, plus death benefits, etc. It adds up quickly.

I think you are incorrect.

http://money.msn.com/tax-planning/7-tax ... epper.aspx

grizzaholic wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: There aren't enough cases yet and there hasn't been enough time for the ones that did get married.
For hetero couples, the wife decides on the type and color of the curtains. The husband says, "I don't care either way." The husband decides on....well....anything that does not concern the wife. Again, no problem. But a gay couple will come to blows (no pun intended) over the curtains and everything else.

You sure know a lot about gay couples. I won't jump to any conclusions but it looks like someone might not be out of the closet yet.

Closets are dark. I'm scared of the dark.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:


5-10 K a year in extra taxes, plus death benefits, etc. It adds up quickly.

I think you are incorrect.

http://money.msn.com/tax-planning/7-tax ... epper.aspx

So which is it? Jon's saying he's losing hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime by not being legally married, and the literature says that being married ends up costing people money over a lifetime. Which is it?