Rick Santorum, as interviewed by Rachel Maddow last night. Two thoughts:<\/p>\n
1. Yes, we live in an America where the "American people" (or, more precisely, a majority of same) have the final word. And if the American people want to legally ban marriage equality, or homosexuality, or pretty much anything you can name (alcohol, Christianity, wearing white after Labor Day) … by amending the US Constitution, which was intentionally set up as being something deucedly difficult to do. Because making fundamental legal changes at a whim is an awful way to run a country.<\/p>\n
(The other way they can is equally difficult — over time, the majority can elect enough presidents and confirming senators to get enough Supreme Court justices on board to rule the way they want on an issue. Santorum kind of alluded to this, and it's a tactic the Right has been fairly successful with over time, aided and abetted by GOP gerrymandering in 2010.)<\/p>\n
2. The idea of Congress just passing laws that won't pass constitutional muster because maybe the justices will have changed their mind … is exactly what I would expect a Republican member of our present Congress to suggest, given how they've legislated over the past several years.<\/p>\n
3. Santorum seems to suggest that we shouldn't deem sexual orientation as genetic because that opens up the possibility of abortions to select against it, which he thinks would be a bad idea. And I agree that would be a really bad reason to have an abortion, but it's also a bad reason to make a scientific judgment.<\/p>\n
I have no doubt that Santorum will not<\/i> be the GOP nominee this year. That his ideas are out there at the moment and part of the GOP debate (and, honestly, not drawing any criticism from within the GOP) is a lot more bothersome. Maybe, after this election cycle, he'll go away.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n