God Said: "Divorce = 1 Man + 1 Woman"

   Leaders of faith across the nation have suddenly become inspired by their convictions that God has defined marriage as being the holy union of one man and one woman. This has translated to a multitude of charged organizations to fund massive advertisement efforts in the fight to admirably protect the institution of marriage.
    One of these, the newly formed Texas-based non profit organization known as God Said has the pious goal "to switch 25% of African American voters from voting their political party to voting their Biblical values." They announced their focus to change the hearts and minds of a large swath of voters within the African-American community within the swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin through nearly $1 million in television advertisements.  Their website states it has the support of notable personalities as Dr. Day Gardner, former Miss America contestant, and Dr. Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, as well as the Coalition of African-American Pastors.
    It would appear God Saiders are quite fixated on a firm belief that they have been offended by the backing of National leaders, like President Obama, who have supported same sex marriage.  Their foundational belief is that since the biblical Old Testament Book of Genesis depicted the first marriage as Adam and Eve, it has therefore been decreed that marriage is between one man and one woman.  They further state that God's Word is Final and that we should all Vote His Value.
    Suspiciously devoid from the ad against same sex marriage, is a widely paraphrased Biblical verse that "what God has joined, let NO MAN separate."  Perhaps highlighting this statement of God's was conveniently left for future ads?  It would seem that God Said, being a rather new organization, was too busy putting words in God's mouth while writing copy for same sex marriage opposition ads to be bothered with the other thing God Said: "Divorce = 1 Man + 1 Woman."  
    At least we can give credit to secular organizations, like the Maryland Marriage Alliance, who have acknowledged the existence of divorce and the role it has played in protecting family values.  Within the state of Maryland, they have added their own opposition of same sex marriage and perspective on the Question 6 referendum.  Their ads which, as of October 8, state that "Marriage is more than what adults want for themselves. It's also about the next generation.  Marriage provides children the best chance of being raised by a mother and father. While death and divorce too often prevent it, children do best when raised by their married mom and dad.  Everyone is entitled to love and respect, but nobody is entitled to redefine marriage.  Vote against Question 6."
    Perhaps Maryland Marriage Alliance can borrow from the ad tactics of God Said by rewriting thier ad to remind children of divorced families that: "Divorce = 1 Mom + 1 Dad."  We Agree.  Vote His values not your party. Be reminded of what God said.
 

The Fight for Life ... without Liberties

According to Rick Santorum's own article, entitled "My Fight for Life" in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), "the other Republican candidates simply check the pro-life box."  He contrasts his 'record' of fighting for the unborn to his opponents' (and President Obama's) records in what results in a virtual political advertisement published in the conservative-leaning WSJ.

In case you missed it, I'll paraphrase his fight for life argument and apply them to an equal protection of liberties argument - one of those liberties being the right of marriage (of any individual in the eyes of the U.S. government).

FIRST POINT - He states that "life is a right endowed by our Creator, that it is inalienable, laid down in the Declaration of Independence, and should be guaranteed under the Constitution. The right to life is the first right.  Without its protection, no other rights matter."

Santorum Translation: Given the U.S. Government hasn't protected the right to the unborn, there is no point to protect the liberties of the populace that live and are governed within the U.S.

SECOND POINT - He makes the argument that "the 14th Amendment states explicitly: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  The Constitution is clear. The meaning is inconvenient."

Santorum Translation: It is inconvenient of me to admit that United States Constitution equally protects liberties of ANY PERSON and that the States should have to equally apply liberties such as the right of marriage (in the eyes of the U.S. Government).


THIRD POINT - Mr. Santorum blatantly admits that he helped champion the confirmations of two conservative Supreme Court justices nominated by President George W. Bush which allowed the Supreme Court to change its precedents on partial-birth abortion.

Santorum Translation: With respect to the Supreme Court, if I were to be President I would submit Supreme Court nominees that can interpret the law through partial opinion and unfair judgements when the ideology suits my ideology.  I would expect that the Senate Judiciary Committee have the confirmation advise and consent toward those nominations as when I was a member.  Lastly, Supreme Court opinions pertaining to abortion, right of marriage (by any citizen), and similar liberties be judged with partiality and unfairness.


FOURTH POINT - Mr. Santorum accuses Ron Paul that he "embraces the 10th Amendment but ignores the 14th Amendment" pertaining to his position on abortion rights.  He further states "The Constitution protects not only property rights but people too.  What is liberty with the right to life?"

Santorum Translation: I don't embrace either the 10th Amendment or the 14th Amendment.  Basically, until the United States changes its position on abortion, those of you who are living should have unequally protected liberties. I believe that the U.S. Government should have full power over governing the liberties (like the right of any to marry) and furthermore, only certain individuals should have their liberties protected, and not equally.  

Mr. Santorum...here's a question. Can you truly be a President that would actually stand for an equal protection of liberties in the same fairness and fervor that you stand for the protection of the rights of the unborn?   Maybe it's best you not respond,... I think we all know the answer to that question.