Skip to comments.Gov. Rick Perry Signs NOM Marriage Pledge
Posted on 08/26/2011 10:37:32 PM PDT by newzjunkey
WASHINGTON The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement today announcing that Gov. Rick Perry has signed their marriage pledge:
"Kudos to Gov. Rick Perry for making it clear: he's a marriage champion!," said Brian Brown, president of NOM. "The purpose of NOM's Marriage Pledge is to move from vague values statements to concrete actions to protect marriage. Gov. Perry joins Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum as a signer of NOM Marriage Pledge. By doing so, Perry makes crystal clear that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, gay marriage is going to be a bigger issue in 2012 than it was in 2008, because the difference between the GOP nominee and Pres. Obama is going to be large and clear. We look forward to demonstrating that being for marriage is a winning position for a presidential candidate."
I, (name), pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:
One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restrain and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.
Three, defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.
Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.
Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.
This is a mistake on his part.
If they are going to have Gay Rights because they are born with it.....
Then for the same reason we need drinker and smokers rights, we are born with it too
We need special accommodation to be able to smoke in class and drink in public.
Same theory as the Gay Marriage folks .... Equal protection folks.
I don't necessarily disagree, but why do you say that?
It should be left up to the states.
What happens if a gay couple gets married in New York and moves to Georgia. Are they still married?
DOMA’s on Obama’s checklist.
Unfortunately, most feel it’s important for the govt to sanction their religious marriage. For that, some sectors of govt are now forcing homosexual marriage down their throats.
Maybe the legislators should mind their own damn business, and stay the hell out of one’s personal and religious affairs.
Like electric plugs and sockets, there is a physical reality behind the concept of marriage between two complimentary opposite systems.
Therefore, gay marriage is impossible.
I was about to come back and say that I’m being ambiguous.
This might be where I become a public enemy...but I think there are some people who are gay and who are born that way.
These people have a right to be conservatives.
I know that FR is the site for God and country and allthat....
I will say that in my life I have met great conservative men... who are gay. I would no sooner marry them than I would decide to join Warren Jeff’s cult. Oddly, I’ve known a few lesbians and they were all uber-libs.
Deep down... I think we ALL know that they gay people are gay.
“I don’t necessarily disagree, but why do you say that?”
The GOP message should be jobs, jobs, jobs. Anything that takes the focus away from that message is a distraction and helps Obama.
It should be left up to the states.
God begs to disagree.
Read my comment after this.
You won’t like it.
I don’t know the mind of God.
I'm 100% with you. This is absolutely the wrong time to be indulging in social conservatism sabre rattling, especially with several pretty strong socons in the race. Liberals will take any excuse to take the conversation off the economy they ruined, and on to more nebulous matters where they have an even shot.
And the term for those plugs and sockets is MALE and FEMALE. Just as the maker (or Maker) intended.
Therefore, gay marriage is impossible.
As I've stated in similar threads, count me in as an unabashed supporter for gay marriage. I'd like for 100% of all marriages to be nothing but gay marriages. Of course, I use "gay" in the original, rightful meaning of the term before the sodomites corrupted it. Marriages -- each between exactly one man and one woman -- ought to all be happy and joyous, thus gay.
I'll confess that I'm a tad selfish. Not only do I want my country back but I also want my word back! And, yes, I sick of the snickers from the younguns when "Deck the Halls" is sung.
“If they are going to have Gay Rights because they are born with it.....
Then for the same reason we need drinker and smokers rights, we are born with it too...”
You want to marry a cigarette or a beer? Anyone stopping you from smoking a cig or enjoying an adult beverage”
“We need special accommodation to be able to smoke in class and drink in public.”
So... you are still in school?
“Same theory as the Gay Marriage folks .... Equal protection folks.”
No... not really. Not really at all.
Yes.... you are right. Why should Perry sign on to this purity test when no one is asking Obama about his stance on gay marriage?
Don't worry, fellow heretic, I know what you mean. I'm always curious when people say it's a state matter, when people change states like socks. I don't think the government has any business in the marriage business, for or against it, but now that we're here, it's an issue that begs for solution.
This is a tough issue. Most people don't care about gay individuals, they care about the gay agenda. Even people who don't support gay marriage think that, for instance, Michelle Bachmann's husband trying to 'pray the gay away' is nothing short of snake handling. That makes this entire issue potentially poisonous to an otherwise ascendent GOP year.
So, how does the GOP deal with the thorny issue of respecting the rights of gay individuals, while not having to absorb an unwanted gay agenda that will enforce speech codes and carry legal ramifications?
I don't really know the answer to that.
They have asked Obama, and he has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage. I have a flyer sent to my home just before the 08 election in support of prop 8, the anti gay marriage initiative, and they use Obama’s comments on the issue to make their case. Prop 8 passed in part because there was a huge turnout of blacks and hispanics who are opposed to gay marriage.
How about conservative rights? How about worldwide political incorrectness, forever?
Then for the same reason we need drinker and smokers rights, we are born with it too” - dila
People aren't born smokers or drinkers. They're almost certainly born gay. So your analogy doesn't work (IMO).
Not only that, but you don't have to believe civil unions are required under the equal protection clause, to believe that they should be made available.
To straights who might want to pool their resources as well. They are a contract between two people, that simulate marriage, w/ the rights and burdens.
If gays want the spiritual part, and they can find some holy man willing to do it, well that's between them and him. But it has nothing to do w/ civil unions or the government.
“This is a mistake on his part. It should be left up to the states” - Winstons Julia
I believe in gay rights, but I don't see anything wrong w/ this pledge other than the “vigorous defense of DOMA”. I would have no problem signing the rest of it.
The President has nothing to do w/ constitutional amendments, so why not let the states debate it, whatever it is?
And I don't want nine unelected priest-kings on the bench deciding these things.
I also disagree that social conservatism has no place in this election. It's necessary to explain why Presidential appointments are important, and to get out the so-con voters.
Let Obama explain he wants to appoint Justices who want to treat KSM the same as a purse snatcher, and we'll see who wins the issue on Judges/Justices.
I guess I should say that it’s a state issue, but it’s also a “social issue” and the left is expert at throwing these “social issues” up as cosmic grievances.
I’d never support penalizing churches for not performing gay marriages or denying facilities, services to things they don’t agree with. We can say that we think that a civil union is ok... but that’s not enough for some because they claim that it doesn’t have the benefits of a “straight marriage.”
There’s a portion of the gay community that presents themselves in a manner that causes people to say “faggotry is afoot”. These are the liberal gay people. And I don’t like the liberal gay people. When I was in college I had some friends that went gay (men) and I had to tell them that harassing a straight man was as bad as some guy harassing ME. I hope I educated some of them.
I recall reading about Reagan getting a letter from a schoolgirl about how he was going to handle the Lesbianese (Lebanese) and he asked, “How can I answer that without alienating a political action group?”
I think we need to remember that our basic unit of strength is the family. I’d never shun a family member for being gay. If gay people want to form a union... and look to form a cohesive unit....then great.
It’s only the bisexuals and willy nilly ... @#$% everyone all the time crowd that I detest.
“One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.”
You actually do know the mind of God. It’s innate. Willful ignorance is a choice you’ve made. You had nothing to do with how modern society works. You only flatter yourself that you have something to do with it now. I don’t want a argument with you but either you or I are wrong in the extreme.
How exactly have liberals 'ruined' the economy? Why it is from 'social' liberalism. People can run into the tall grass to escape in a blind fear of 'social conservatism', but that is exactly what these heathen liberals have taken advantage of US ridiculing US as 'evil'. I can't wait for the big heavy foot of liberal conservatives back hand 'social' conservatives so they can cough cough 'win'.
Where is your evidence that ‘perverts’ are born that way. Personally I am sick of being required to pervert the language to demonstrate I accept such nonsense. Do a history check and find the last ‘great’ nation who survived over blessing a perverted lifestyle.
I will seek no argument with you.
They are not still married as far as insurance benefits and things. They are not considered married except as they see it themselves. There are no spousal rights.
Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 10:13:29 AM by Jim Robinson
“The presidential race is heating up. We now have conservatives Bachmann and Cain officially in the race fending off RINO Romney; and Palin and Perry could possibly jump in. My hopes are with Palin, but if she decides not to run I could be happy with Bachmann or Cain. Also, if Palin does not run but Perry does, he’d probably suck all the air out of the race. Either way, Palin, Bachmann, Cain or even Perry would all be excellent alternatives to Obama the commie. Anyone but RINO Romney the big government chief architect of CommieCare!”
Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 10:13:29 AM by Jim Robinson
Old flip flopper showing his true colors, tomorrow he may flop back.
Well, lets not mix social and socialism. Similar, but not the same. Also, all issues are social or economic to a degree.
Entitlements brought on by socialism will bankrupt the nation. This is liberal economics. Is there a social aspect to it? Sure. But socialism without an economic mechanism is just sappy sentimentality. Who cares about a 'social contract' if it doesn't cost anything?
With, say, abortion or gay marriage, those are pure social issues. The economic impact is negligible. There are some costs that go into either, but the real dilemma is the moral aspect of it. How are these issues handled in a just society.
While you can certainly make the case that if you're soft on social issues, you'll be soft on economic issues, most Americans aren't going to grasp that connection. It makes some of the work we need to do more delicately presented to the people than it should have to be. If that means avoiding ruffling some social feathers in order to ruffle economic ones, that's probably a good strategic move when the situation has deteriorated as far as it has with us.
Unless you are pointing out to clueless liberals screaming about hateful conservatives that their messiah doesn’t approve of gay marriage. Or does he? No one has asked lately ... so why is it a PURITY TEST for conservative candidates when Obama has the same views?
YOU go to DU ... feed them your ham-fisted sandwich.
Looks like Perry signed this pledge. What? You not happy?
So, basically, your’e a Bachmannbot who can’t be satisfied unless she wins? Super. But she’s not going to win. The sooner you can climb onto the reality bus, the better.
Wholesale abortion and queer unions have an 'economic' price few are willing to accept or even calculate. Also few are able to comprehend since our beginning what was set in motion that graced US with the blessing of wealth and health unseen ever in the history of flesh man. People who snuff and ignore the source of these blessings and protection will sell out in a heart beat.
I am a Christian, and I cannot begin to describe what it is to hear so called Christians participate with, celebrate and cheer on BamBamKennedy's policies of literally the redistribution of this nation's wealth. God said thou shall not steal. And God also said if an able bodied man does not work he/she should NOT be fed.
The majority may well fence out the God given rule of law, but then history is filled with those who deceived themselves they could do things better.
What any mangod society cannot stand is an independent productive middle class. Well we middle class are teetering on the edge of a rain drenched cliff. There is nothing productive in abortions or a bunch of perverts demand recognition over their sexual lusts. And the heathen liberals know that the majority of human beings cannot handle their ridicule and so they have US over a barrel from the get go.
Exactly! Who decides between New York and Georgia? The Supreme Court or Congress will rule, one way or another. That’s what libertarians totally miss in this debate. If conservatives sit idly by, liberals in the courts and government will force the homosexual agenda on every state.
Conservatives should not be fooled by “everyone relax, just leave gay marriage up to the states and nobody will bother you.” That’s a convenient argument for libertarians who don’t care about social issues. But not for conservatives who worry about the future of marriage and civilization.
I once made a mistake buying several boxes of electrical plug ends for where I worked, I had dozens of regular 15amp three prong 120volt male plugs.
And then I had several boxes of three prong twist lock also male plugs.
All useless to make anything work, you cannot make a finished extension cord, it just won’t connect to anything, total rubbish. You can debate the niceties until the sun goes to a red dwarf but you still have to have female plugs.
Same theory if you had nothing but all female plugs, or even garden hose ends, just one type is useless, you need both.
“I believe in gay rights, but I don’t see anything wrong w/ this pledge other than the vigorous defense of DOMA.”
You may have stumbled into the wrong website to push your queer agenda.
This shows the ignorance that is out there. A federal marriage amendment would do nothing more or less than what DOMA now does, which already leaves it up to the states. It would just take the issue out of reach of activist judges and liberal congresses.
An FMA would prevent states from being forced to recognize a fake "marriage" from another state and prevent the federal government from recognizing these counterfeits.
If the men you’ve known who are “gay” are militantly, openly so, they aren’t conservative. Sorry, but you’ve been duped if you think they are.
I don't really know the answer to that.
The obvious answer is to oppose it! Like NOM and others, without whom we would now likely have nationwide homo "marriage," are doing. Perry is doing exactly what he should be doing, committing himself to what a vast majority of voters think he should. This pledge is not a liability, it is a line in the sand. I and millions of relevant voters in this country are sick of squishy politicians skirting this issue, afraid of appearing "insensitive." We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. Surrender social issues, CONSERVATIVE ISSUES, to the left at any time, and we lose; we even lose at the fiscal issues.
We need to find a way to focus or we end up with another McPain because we can't decide what we will/won't put up with in a candidate and the Left wins without having to work for it (their favorite status of non-work).
“This is a mistake on his part.”
I agree. it may well be the ‘killer’.
Perry continues to soar in the polls. I think this pledge is what did it.
“Perry continues to soar in the polls. I think this pledge is what did it.”
I hope so but when the rabid GLBT organizers get going in response to this its gonna get ugly. With the phony intellectual-elite chiming in they are going to beat this drum to suggest Perry is nothing less than a KKK mogul.