Santorum: Cruz Has Dangerous Position on Marriage

The Iowa Republican ^ | January 19, 2016 | Craig Robinson

[Ohioan]

The framers intent would clearly not support Santorum's call for usurpation. They would have simply continued the policies in each of their States, which criminalized certain activities. (No one would have even discussed the obvious oxymoron of "same-sex marriage." The very concept is looney.)

Santorum just doesn't understand that the Federal Government was created to serve certain limited & carefully defined functions. In the vernacular, Santorum just doesn't "get it."

[Sun]

The Framers used the term self-evident for a reason, and marriage between a man, and a woman is certainly self evident.

[Ohioan]

Yes, the point was to avoid having to take up a lot of space in the Declaration's Preamble, to state the premises upon which they postulated the compact theory of Government. That has nothing to do with Santorum's chaotic view of the function of our specific Federal Compact.

The subject of the thread is not the Declaration of Independence, but Santorum's ridiculous attack on Ted Cruz. But if you are interested in Jefferson's plan in the structure of the Declaration, see Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide.

Of course, the Declaration was not concerned with dealing with the absurdity of trying to redefine marriage away from its very purpose--the sanctification of human mating & procreation. That was not an issue in the war with Great Britain; nor in any sense at the Constitutional Convention. (The Founders were both rational & focused.)