In Case You Didn't Know, Rick Santorum Is Pathetic

 
 Rick Santorum is a half-beenloser, but because he was once a U.S. senator, he is allowed to run for president of the United States and be taken somewhat seriously. Unfortunately for Santorum, he's not even very popular these days with the conservative base, who once loved him but have since morphed into prickly Teabaggers. Santorum is pretty clueless as to how to reach these people, since they ignore him, but he's going to try to pander anyway. An op-ed in the Des Moines Register entitled "Forefathers fought for religious freedom" gives us an early look at what his platform will look like. According to brand-new constitutional scholar Rick Santorum, there's an oft-overlooked section of the First Amendment the founders put in there so the government couldn't pass a law that violates Christianity. It's a "national treasure" secret that'snot Clarence Thomas' dick!

Schools, the media, and even some politicians often like to remind us of the first part of our First Amendment - that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - but tend to omit the remainder: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [...]

Just five years ago, Catholic Charities of Boston announced it was getting out of the adoption business as a result of Massachusetts "orientation discrimination laws." Catholic Charities had a terrible choice: continue finding homes for hard to place kids at the expense of their religious principles or stop providing adoption services and keep the faith. It was a choice they should have never had to make.

With the redefinition of marriage, religious groups of all types will be forced to make the same type of choice - get out of the business of helping people or compromise your constitutionally protected convictions. This will pit the rights men like Jefferson and Madison hammered out against the desire of a sect of society to be personally affirmed.

See, because Massachusetts wouldn't give its orphans to the Catholic Church, which only wanted them if it could discriminate against people, legalizing gay marriage will make religion illegal. And the framers didn't want religion to be illegal. Makes sense! Yeah, the founders definitely wanted religions deciding what laws could and couldn't be passed. That worked well in England. [ Des Moines Register via Wonkette operative chascates]