Skip to comments.Perry stresses personal opposition to gay marriage
Posted on 07/30/2011 4:15:57 AM PDT by markomalley
Potential Republican presidential candidate Gov. Rick Perry of Texas repeated his personal opposition to gay marriage in a speech to conservatives in Denver Friday.
But Perry didn't backtrack on his statement last week in Aspen that New York's recent decision to allow gay marriage is "their business." That's despite a direct attack earlier in the evening from a rival GOP presidential hopeful, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who took Perry to task for the comment.
"There are some in our party who say, `Well, if someone in New York wants to have gay marriage, that's fine with me.' ... States do not have the right to destroy the American family," Santorum said to applause from many of the 1,000 conservatives gathered at the Western Conservative Summit.
Perry, who spoke after Santorum, simply told the crowd that the traditional definition of marriage "suits Texas and this governor just fine."
He repeated his advocacy for states' rights. "Washington needs a refresher course on the 10th Amendment," Perry said.
Last week Perry told a Republican crowd gathered for as fundraiser for the Republican Governor's Association that he was an "unapologetic social conservative" but didn't mind the New York decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I know that I won't support anybody who would do anything to advance the homosexual agenda.
The way I see it, the only way out of this hole he's dug himself (without pulling a Romney-style backtrack) is to advocate a Constitutional Amendment to cover the situation. Either:
a. (preferred) - A constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
b. (fallback) - A constitutional exception to the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV for marriages that fall outside of the state's definitional requirements for a marriage.
“He has dug himself a hole. While his strident support of the 10th Amendment in regards to this issue will win him the support of libertarian-leaning people, the conservative evangelical / fundamentalist base he is pursuing has got to be skewering him at every turn.”
Agree. Mario Cuomo, former (liberal Democrat) governor of New York, was ‘personally’ opposed to abortion, but would NEVER interfere with a woman’s right to terminate a child. So what’s the good of a position like that.
I could CARE LESS what Perry ‘personally’ thinks about gay marriage - I just want this stuff STOPPED and if Perry doesn’t want to stop it, I’ll find someone that will.
I’ll say from my viewpoint that he hasn’t. Remember, if he’s to win (should he declare), he needs to attract that mushy middle, the independents.
And, as 2008 proved, the evangelicals and fundamentalists are NOT enough to win. They’re not going to vote for Obama anyway, so that’s not exactly a big deal.
I’d also point out that his interpretation is in fact correct - if we’re going to be strict constructionists on the Constitution, where does it say that marriage, children, or family formation is any business of the Federal government? Last I checked, it doesn’t. If you want it to be, get an amendment passed.
Until then, and as much as it pains me because I’m not a big Perry fan, he’s got it right - it is none of FedGov’s damn business and that kicks it back to the states as part of the 10th.
This campaign is going nowhere. It has been how long and he is still stuck on gay marriage? Pick a position and stick with it.
Feel free to get an amendment passed.
I for one am tired of activist presidents trying to ram any agendas through; we need a strict constructionist now if we want the US to survive and that means chopping everything that isn’t listed as part of the Constitution.
By the way, has it occurred to you that if, in fact, you do have a problem with gay marriage under full faith and credit, you could challenge it on the grounds that marriage is primarily a *religious* ceremony and no government agency should be forced to recognize it under separation of church and state?
I posted the following a couple of days ago in regard to this story:
Essentially, it seems that Perry has little concept in how our Constitution works on a national basis that makes him very dangerous to the country. He also (as noted below) is CLUELESS to how thoroughly infiltrated our courts are with Socialists at all levels. Perry’s been in Texas politics a long time - he needs to learn something about national politics before trying to become our president.
That is the reason that the federal marriage amendment is being offered. Its the small group of activist judges...
This is kind of a scary comment. I realize that Governor Perry is busy in Texas trying to prevent things like Sanctuary Cities from getting on his desk and making it easier for little girls to have sex, but he will have to think a bit more national if hes serious about running for office.
First, he thinks that some states can prevent gay marriage from being imposed on them...which is why he gave his initial answer - we all know that were one court ruling away from that (as mentioned in the article). Then he seems to imply that a state constitutional amendment carries some weight against federal law and the US Constitution...dream on - what Texas did at the state level is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS when discussing federal issues.
Now he seems to think that activist judges constitutes a small group. Well, he needs to spend some time with his handlers and less time on his hair. First of all, 44% of the Supreme Court is composed of Activist Judges, and everyone on this site knows it. And should one of the non-activist judges leave the court, Obama will bring that number to 56% and the Constitution will effectively cease to exist...and its very likely that states will start pulling out of the union (i.e., this is serious stuff). And thats only the Supreme Court. Anyone who follows the other courts at all KNOWS FULL WELL that Activist Judges are far from a small group and may well be a majority (and certainly are in the 9th Circuit).
Governor Perry, you need to avoid Bush-43s mistake and find out how Washington works BEFORE YOU GET THERE, because it sure as hell doesnt work like Austin.
“Feel free to get an amendment passed.”
THANK YOU. It sucks to have to do that, but until a decade or so ago, the word “marriage” had ONE DEFINITION. If judges decide that the language is “FLEXIBLE”, then I guess we’ll have to pass amendments to clarify definitions of words.
It’s a sick, sick, country when that happens, but the Constitution was made to be amended, and I guess it needs to be now.
Also, it should be pointed out that “full faith and credit” does not apply to all things.
I figure that if you are anti-gay marriage, you could have the states that do not wish to have it simply say that they refuse to honor another state’s marriage licenses until that state honors their CCW licenses. (Hint - the gay marriage states generally do not have CCW reciprocity). Problem solved under the 10th amendment.
Those gun control states will simply shut up as the case law regarding “well, you don’t need to honor another state’s permit” is sadly well established and the logic would extend to gay marriage quite well. And they won’t give reciprocity any time soon.
The holy grail of political speak is to say one sentence that appeals to both sides in an argument. The fantasy is that people on both sides of an issue would support you as a candidate.
It doesn’t work.
It only serves to identify those who seek the office for the sake of seeking office, not because they desire to take on the responsibility of executing the office righteously.
Leaving aside the question of the 10th Amendment, Perry’s position seems deeply relativistic. He’s fine with New York having gay marriage, but Texas’ traditional definition is also fine. He sounds like Stephen Douglas on slavery: he “don’t care whether it’s voted up or down.” Different strokes for different folks. If he’s fine with local majorities redefining marriage, it must be because he is, after all, not convinced it’s based on nature rather than on convention. If he thought New York fundamentally wrong, why not say so — and then add on his 10th Amendment point?
Actually, I have thought this through.
I believe that survivor benefits should be assignable. Solves the widows issue just fine, and if you are single and want to leave your ‘paid’ SS benefits to sustain your beloved cat, I don’t have a problem with that either. Rationalize it like life insurance - list a beneficiary. If you hate your cheating wife but can’t bring yourself to divorce her, why, simply cut her off after your death. Want to leave it to your sibling who took care of you in your twilight years - you’d be able to. This would be an improvement over what we currently have.
Orphans? Sorry, paternity and maternity have been established, with inheritance laws, and they don’t require marriage any more. Little or nothing would change there.
By the time I’m eligible for SS or Medicare, there won’t be anything left, so why even bother? Finish out the current recipients and those who were counting on it and can’t start over (anyone over 50), and axe it for everyone else.
That’s what the 10th amendment is actually about - states can experiment with things that other states may find abhorrent.
I’ll point out that I don’t really care about gay marriage. As the joke goes, why should they get out of being miserable like everyone else.
Gay marriage, by the way, is one of the big trip switches in the young and indoctrinated so the sooner that we can kick that issue out of national politics the better. Kick it down to the states instead. I feel that it would be much better for the GOP to say “We don’t feel that intruding into your bedroom and family life is the FedGov’s job” and deny the Dems a plethora of talking points and triggers than it is to say “We don’t want gay marriage” and handing them tons of free ammo to use in elections.
Remember, on a state level, gay marriage routinely gets shot down in even liberal states. So kicking it back down to there means that they lose.
“I figure that if you are anti-gay marriage, you could have the states that do not wish to have it simply say that they refuse to honor another states marriage licenses until that state honors their CCW licenses.”
Unfortunately, a federal court ruling, or a federal law, automatically trumps all state laws and state constitutions (something that Perry has to learn, by the way)...so we will not the option you describe, until we can get a federal CCW law passed (or a ruling in a federal court).
But good thinking, it took me a while to come up with an answer.
You’re not quite getting it. There is *existing* case law on the books for one state not honoring licenses from another. In this case, it’s CCW. There’s lots and lots of law saying that Massachusetts doesn’t have to honor out of state licenses, just to pick one example.
The same precedents can and should apply when a gay couple asks another state to honor their marriage license from a gay marriage state. The state can and should use the same logic and legal reasoning and state that they will not honor the gay marriage state’s marriage licenses until that state honors their CCW licenses.
The precedents are set. States do not have to honor non-driving licenses or even professional licenses from other states. Marriage is just another license (at the governmental level).
And since the gay marriage states are all heavy gun control states, the problem is then de facto solved because those states will *never* pass reciprocity. And therefore their marriage licenses won’t have to be honored elsewhere either.
“Youre not quite getting it. There is *existing* case law on the books for one state not honoring licenses from another. In this case, its CCW. Theres lots and lots of law saying that Massachusetts doesnt have to honor out of state licenses, just to pick one example.”
I didn’t say there wasn’t. I’m just saying that once the federal government speaks, it’s over. The federal government owns airspace. You can site all the case law you want, but the State of Pennsylvania will NEVER being to charge transit tolls to aircraft flying from New York to Chicago. NEVER!!! ...and states have tried to regulate airplanes and air travel at times, and have ALWAYS been shot down - due to FEDERAL LAW.
The federal government owns the airspace - case closed.
Constitutionally speaking, Perry is probably right. Marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, and the Constitution does say that powers not specifically granted to the Federal gov’t are reserved to the states or to individuals. Since marriage isn’t a power specifically granted to the Feds, then it belongs to individuals or to states.
This strikes me true, as well, regarding abortion, education, control of the airwaves, speed limits, and on and on and on.
I’ve also no doubt that all of these would be better off someplace other than the Fed.
What it means is that states are more like nations, and “The United States of America” is more like “the united States of America”.
If the nation-state I live in outlaws abortion, I’m OK with that. I don’t believe the Founders envisioned a huge Federal government telling me I had to cut back on Big Macs.
You are right.
I cannot imagine the Founders envisioning a scenario where the "full faith and credit" clause would be used to force this immoral situation down a state's throats. And that is what it is coming to...particularly with the Øbama Administration's backing of the homosexual agenda.
That's why I said, in the OP, the only way out of this mess is to get a Constitutional Amendment in place.
Without that, it is just a matter of time until you, pastor, are going to be required by law to solemnize homosexual "marriages" (You act as an agent of the State when you sign off the marriage license, after all). Or get out of the marriage business altogether. See this editorial if you don't believe that this is the next front in their war on Christianity.
If this were to happen, American Christendom would be well led to unite and establish a common, traditional matrimony. I would gladly join with Catholics in this endeavor. That's not to say that we would conduct one another's marriages or even approve of one another's doctrines of marriage, but we would agree that matrimony is one man and one woman, and that those not receiving an agreed upon joint document would not be married in the eyes of historic Christianity.
I've not thought my way through this at any depth...just initial meanderings on the subject.
A marriage amendment would put the subject in the Constitution at the Federal level, but those are exactly the people I do not trust.