Santorum: Roe v Wade to Blame for Marriage Ruling

Rick Santorum has a rather strange take on the Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned state laws banning same-sex marriage. He seems to think that it’s all because of Roe v Wade, a decision that has pretty much nothing to do with the latter case at all.

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very difficult time in America,” the GOP presidential candidate said. “We’ve seen some court decisions that I know have people very upset about what the future of the family and marriage and our culture is looking like.”

Roe v. Wade, he said, is “the cancer that is infecting the body of America” and “you saw Roe and its subsequent decisions bare its ugly head in the case of the gay marriage decision just a few days ago.”

The court’s majority in the marriage equality case, he said, declared that “it is what we say it is and we can do whatever we want to do to whomever we want to do it to.”

“And it was the Roe decision, the Casey decision and subsequent decisions on abortion that have led us to this decision on marriage,” he said. “It’s a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution, ignoring truth, ignoring Nature and Nature’s Law.”

This argument seems to be as simple, and as dumb, as “I don’t like both decisions, so the first one must have caused the second one.” But the cases could hardly be more different. Roe had nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause. Roe applied strict scrutiny, which Obergefell did not do with state marriage laws.

This reminds me of how conservatives like to claim that liberals and Islamists are part of the same dark conspiracy. “I don’t like those two things so therefore they’re the same thing” seems to be an argument they are fond of making. It makes sense as political boilerplate, but no intelligent person could take it seriously as an argument.

"I've got it figured out, colnago80. You've reprogrammed your keyboard so that the NumLock key ..."

EPA Environmental Justice Official Resigns
"There are two parts of the story. I personally don't have that much problem with ..."

Two More Accusers Step Forward in ..."
"And who better to testify that heterosexual escapades have no cost other than Jimmy Lee ..."

And Two More Women Come Forward ..."
"Keep talkin, crackpot sister! You do more to hasten the end of religion than a ..."

Crokin: God Will Reward My Crackpottery

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Sastra

    “And it was the Roe decision, the Casey decision and subsequent decisions on abortion that have led us to this decision on marriage,” he said. “It’s a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution, ignoring truth, ignoring Nature and Nature’s Law.”

    The dogwhistle reference to “Nature’s Law” shows that for Santorum the connection between Roe v Wade and gay marriage isn’t so much a legal one as a religious one. And in a sense he’s right. Neither ruling rested on interpreting the Constitution by interpreting the Bible.

    “Nature’s Law” is such a deceptive term. It sounds like they’re talking about natural laws like gravity or chemistry. No, they mean “God’s moral mandates.” And divine rules on right and wrong can’t really be checked in nature at all.

  • John Pieret

    If he had said Griswold v. Connecticut had led to Roe v. Wade, then Lawrence v. Texas and then to Obergefell there at least would be some tenuous connection. Free availability of contraception was a kind of prerequisite of the sexual revolution, which spurred an interest in the right to abortion, the right to private sexual intimacy and eventually to the right to marital equality.

    That would be too complicated a thought process for Santorum, however.

  • kantalope

    “But no intelligent could take it seriously…” Luckily Santorum does have to take those kinds of people into account.

  • Scientismist

    Makes perfect sense, coming from a fascist, theocratic Christian. “Nature” and “Nature’s Law” (note the capital letters) are infallible, magical, absolute Truth from a magical book, and means exactly what the preacher wants it to mean.

  • Artor

    Conveniently, Santorum is no intelligent person, as he demonstrates every time he opens his mouth. What a mucking foron!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Look, it’s really quite simple. First the “Supreme” “Court” sanctified and normalized murdering little babies, and now it’s murdered marriage.

  • minxatlarge

    Wayne at Nursing Clio argues that gay marriage threatens sexist power structures simply by demonstrating equality between spouses: “I am struck in listening to the opposition to same-sex marriage by the persistent denial that gender is a socially constructed role. This is a “traditional” view of marriage in the sense that it is grounded in “biology is destiny,” or specific roles assigned based on sex. It is an extremely narrow view of “marriage” based on specific roles assigned by sex, rather than marriage as an emotional and physical and social partnership between two individuals. Most telling, it is a view that denies that heterosexual people can be in egalitarian marriages, or should be. It is a belief in “traditional” marriage as hierarchical. Not as a true partnership of equals, but as a microcosm of society with a power structure that flows from husband to wife to children.”

    http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex-marriage-does-threaten-traditional-marriage/

    IMO, requiring Teh Wimmins to be treated as if they were adult humans with rights to their own bodies (instead of being merely property) is the greatest threat, which is why the most effective way to keep women in economic bondage (keep ’em barefoot and pregnant) is immediately invoked whenever an idea that implies a glimmer of freedom for women pops up.

  • A Masked Avenger

    I can see why right-wingers would connect the two. The common thread is (a) overturning laws that mostly embody a religious scruple, and (b) recognizing second-class citizens as if they were equal to everyone else. Once you start down that road, there’s no telling where you’ll end up.

    If he had more guts, Santorum could also have connected this with Loving v. Virginia.

  • raven

    The court’s majority in the marriage equality case, he said, declared that “it is what we say it is and we can do whatever we want to do to whomever we want to do it to.”

    This is meaningless gibberish.

    It was a specific ruling based on constitutional law. Satanorum is a lawyer for Cthulhu’s sake. He should know this.

    There is something very dark and sick about Rick Satanorum. He doesn’t want to be President. He wants to be a New Dark Age Pope. Fortunately, so far, few people want to live in his New Hell on Earth.

  • eric

    Maybe the argument he’s making is “expansion of the 14th amendment…we hates it, precious…” AFAIK, that’s about the only thing the two have in common.

  • raven

    ignoring Nature and Nature’s Law.”

    You know when they dig up Natural Law, that they are just lying and babbling.

    There is no such thing as Natural Law!!! It’s something used by the Catholics to pretend to prove things they can’t prove. It’s meaningless.

    Natural law says if the gods wanted people to live in Michigan, they would have thick coats of fur. Natural law says if the gods wanted people to drive cars, we would be born with wheels and internal combustion engines.

  • gshelley

    Maybe he means that he thinks Roe vs Wade established a right that wasn’t specifically mentioned in the constitution, and that was the precedent for the court to start misinterpreting the 9th amendment to mean that there could be rights not mentioned in the constitution that people still have?

    Though I don’t recall any suggestion that the 9th came up in the decision

    I haven’t studied Roe v Wade, but looking on Wikipedia it says this did not depend on the 9th, which the district court had found but the 14th

  • busterggi

    Just Like Dredd Scott led to Citizens United.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Personally, I blame the Constitution for leading to all this.

  • Synfandel

    @11 raven wrote:

    There is no such thing as Natural Law!!!

    I challenge you to levitate.

  • http://composer99.blogspot.ca composer99

    I thought Roe vs. Wade was one of the “primordial”, as it were, causes of modern American degeneracy among the far-right (along with the 1960s).

    So tying SSM marriage back to that makes perfect sense.

  • xuuths

    @Synfandel, people in the International Space Station do it all the time — levitate, that is (what with the microgravity and all). It’s physics, not legality.

    Everything the religious claims is “Natural Law” has been proven to be wrong. Everything. Without exception.

  • whheydt

    If he’d linked Obergefell to Loving, he would have something that looks like a causal connection. The problem would be that it would give away the whole agenda even to some of his dimmer adherents.

  • timmmmm

    To be fair if you are speaking in front of the National Right to Life Political Action Committee, everything in the world you view as bad is a result Roe v Wade.

  • raven

    Everything the religious claims is “Natural Law” has been proven to be wrong. Everything. Without exception.

    True.

    Gravity is a law of science and physics. And those are empirically derived and predictive.

    Natural law is like religion. Not anchored in reality, unprovable, and proving everything and nothing.

    It’s been used to support the subjugation of women, slavery, the Divine Right of Kings, opposing interracial marriage, child abuse, and really anything, especially if it harms someone else.

    You won’t go wrong if you substitute Natural Law = Making Stuff Up.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    echoing John Pieret.

    I actually think the connection is more than tenuous, but that’s just me.

    Clearly what’s really going on is Reed v Reed leads to Obergefell, but Reed v Reed isn’t a buzzword-level case, and doesn’t receive the level of hatred and contempt for the decision and decision making which Santorum and his ilk sling at Roe.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    @raven:

    Natural law is like religion.

    Natural law IS religion – imported into the legal profession. Study legal theory and that could hardly be more clear.