Rick Santorum: "We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."
Right, so now it's gotta be a federal thing but when the federal law doesn't suit them, they want states rights. e.g Arizona's immigration bill, OR their stance on states rights on marriage when the idea of a federal gay-marriage law ALLOWING it comes up.
In re Santorum: Yeah, basically twist the law to fit whatever is in style this week... for them. For corporations, it's whatever is most beneficial to them this week: they are or are not a "person" for purposes of X. Same thing with any policy they want pushed through.
Whatever happened to "small government?" <-- Remember this "time honored conservative value?" Turns out it really means "a government that lets "me" (them) do whatever the hell they want while being as nosy and intrusive as possible to everyone else."
Small government appears to fit in a woman's uterus, never mind abortion, now it's even birth control and contraceptives. It certainly fits in the gays' lives. On these issues, government can be as big as it takes to regulate the shit out the whole area, because it doesn't effect "me." Funny how a lot of insurances cover Viagra.... Birth control pills though, apparently this is the new national uproar that insurances don't and shouldn't cover this? For shame, that has to do with sex, sometimes. Never mind the health related, non sexual uses of birth control pills for women.... Viagra has no other use besides sex, but ... don't focus on that completely relevant issue.... Also never mind that without population control of some type, we'll have to pay far, far more to take care of all these people, which again, no one wants to do....
"Small government," bullshit. Only if you're someone they like. If you're not, then it should be huge and all over you....
"States' Rights," v. "National" is also misplaced and they've messed it up so bad no one knows how it should be anymore. Traditionally here's how it "should" go. The states have police powers and jurisdiction over family law. Ergo in theory they should have jurisdiction over the whole "marriage" and "gay marriage" thing under the federal separation of powers deal. However, then the conservatives didn't like that some states were allowing gay marriage so they conveniently forgot all about that "State's Rights" stuff and made a national law called DOMA basically giving the government power to deny a state's legally allowed gay marriage (in states where it was legal) any legitimacy on a national level. And now people are saying to revive the federal marriage amendment banning gay marriage is a great idea on the right wing....
They have no problems amending state constitutions to make sure nothing even close to gay marriage or civil unions is allowed (in 34 states last time I counted), but the idea of a state actually allowing it.... That's just completely unacceptable to them.... Those 34 states banning gay marriage, they have "State's Rights." The ones allowing gay marriage, screw them?
So basically, it's whatever gets (re)election and if that means changing back and forth as much as possible then so be it...? Got it. Consistency, tradition, the Constitution? They claim to be all about those things, except the parts they don't like.
The little things really, like the Constitution. And now it's "let's add another amendment to it while taking one out." Mix and match to your heart's content!