Perry stresses personal opposition to gay marriage

AP ^ | 7/29/11 | KRISTEN WYATT

[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.

[Raider Sam]

Also, for full faith and credit, there are already exceptions in regards to licenses. A fishing or concealed handgun license is not required to be recognized in other states. For the purpose of government and marriage, all it is is a license.

[Raider Sam]

He didnt say he was fine with gay marriage, he said he was fine with the procedures New York took. Rather than using courts, they passed a law through the congress and had the governor sign it. That was where his comment was directed.

[Clara Lou]

He didnt say he was fine with gay marriage, he said he was fine with the procedures New York took.
Aw, but it's so much fun to deliberately misconstrue the words of a guy who could defeat my personal favorite!

[Kenny]

Correct, we seem to have a slew of one-issue voters who would be content to put O back in office if all their demands aren’t met. It’s single-issue voters who got us into this mess to begin with, union, gays, abortion, etc.

News flash, no one is going to agree with you 100%, no one. But we have to get the current thug out of office and turn this country around or it’s over. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s fact.

[Clara Lou]

But we have to get the current thug out of office and turn this country around or it’s over.
Exactly.
I've voted for Perry for governor 3 times. I've said here that I "held my nose" the last time, because there were things that he supported that I didn't like. BUT, while I support Herman Cain, should Perry be the Republican nominee, I'll vote for him again.
Too many here seem to enjoy circular firing squads.

[Arthur McGowan]

The moment a candidate starts emphasizing that he is “personally opposed” to some evil, it means he plans to do nothing to oppose it.

As a voter, I don’t give rat’s posterior about his inner sentiments. It’s already obvious he is afraid to take a position on abortion—and now gay marriage.

[Raider Sam]

And whats really funny is, if (like in my case), you have no favorite candidate but are trying to correct wrong information, there is a contingent that will accuse you of trolling or assume that just because you are correcting wrong info, that you are personally pushing that candidate.

For full disclosure, I would say Cain, of any of the announced, is the only one I would push for, but not real hard. There are still some unannounced and potentially a darkhorse no one is thinking about, and I think the nominee will come from that pool vs Romney. I do think Romney has a chance to win the nomination, based on crossover votes, based on his popular name among those who dont debate politics daily, and based on the order of states that nominate. But saying that, does not mean I support him.

Also, on your circular firing squad comment, I couldnt agree more. Just in the past few months, I have seen Ryan, West, DeMint and more written off as traitors to conservatism. Even yesterday I saw one that tried to lump Thune into the pro Reid camp in the Senate, based on the headline, when the story clearly showed the opposite. But, some people saw the headline, and thus Thune was a traitor. We are going to lose every great to pretty decent conservative in the quest for Jesus.

[WOBBLY BOB]

basically you summed up real federalism.

all these “socially divisive” issues should be settled by states, as should capital punishment.

[WOBBLY BOB]

basically you summed up real federalism.

all these “socially divisive” issues should be settled by states, as should capital punishment.

A one-size-fits all federal goobermint law for everthing and decided by courts would really suck.

[Dumb_Ox]

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.

Millions of religious voters who showed up to vote for Bush didn't show up for McCain. Karl Rove claimed that could have made up half the margin of defeat.

The SSM law is purging conservative Republicans from town clerk positions in New York, with the open approval of Gov. Cuomo. If the Republicans won't stick up for conservatives on this, that's one less reason to bother voting for them.

[Spktyr]

That doesn’t explain the losses in Congress at the same time, though. Even if they had abstained from McCain, they would still have supported their senatorial and House candidates... and they still lost.

Also, Rove is not to be trusted.

[Spktyr]

This is the point I have been trying to make.

[Spktyr]

The Federal government has already spoken about licenses multiple times. Up to and including the Supreme Court. Every time it’s the same - states *do not* have to automatically honor *any* license issued by another state.

The airspace example you use does not apply; the precedent for airspace is that of navigable waterways, on which states cannot charge toll either.

Since you don’t seem to make the connection here, the point is to put the gay marriage states in a terrible unsolvable dilemma by means of a reasonable request that they cannot possibly grant. “Recognize our firearms licenses and we’ll recognize your marriage license.”

Worst of all from their point of view is that if they recognized out of state permits (invariably more permissible than their own laws) they would then be forced to scrap most of their gun control apparatus under their own equal protection/treatment laws. That’s not going to happen, so they will simply sit there and steam uselessly while their gay marriage licenses are treated as worth less than the plastic they were printed on. And there isn’t thing one they can do about it in such a scenario.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Actually, I have thought this through.

No you haven't and your answer shows it.

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.

Why should government set up a benefit that is "assignable"? You miss the point of marriage benefits. It is to offset some of the burden of raising children. It has otherwise no interest in the married couple or their wishes about who should benefit. The government is not interested in paying for a cat. That is what homosexuals don't get. A homosexual couple is naturally childless and the government has no inherent interest in supporting the partner, human or animal.

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.

Life insurance is an annuity or lump sum you fully pay for in advance and is in a lockbox for the term. But if you don't die within the term, it goes to other insured. Regular survivor benefits on the other hand are paid regardless of when you die and are thus far more expensive. The only way the system could work was pay as you go with a heavy up front subsidy and base of payers far larger than the payees. That subsidy simply rolls forward. And with the baby boom generation retiring, that Ponzi scheme is turning upside down and will have to be massively subsidized going forward. The only excuse for that subsidy has been children that cut into the ability to save for one's own retirement. If you die single, no one should benefit. But if the wife did the childrearing instead of vesting her own retirement, why should the husband or ex-husband be able to cut her out? The government has to have a way to prevent such injustice and disincentive to raising the next generation.

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.

Maternity can obviously be establshed at birth. Paternity cannot be automatically established. Paternity is therefore presumed through marriage. Marriage in general establishes a presumption that a man and a woman will be there to raise the child, which is the most natural and therefore presumably best situation that society should encourage. Outside of marriage, the government has to take a heavy hand in seeing that the child is supported properly and equitably between the mother and father. That is what happens with mere paternity.

[Spktyr]

Yes, I have.

How, exactly, would assignable survivor benefits harm a married couple?

Also, you say that this would harm the woman in the family - perhaps, but most women these days do work and vest their retirement anyway. It isn’t 1935 any more. :P

Paternity can be very easily established. It’s called “DNA Testing.” Inheritance laws there no longer require marriage for legal inheritance to happen, so again - nothing would change.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

How, exactly, would assignable survivor benefits harm a married couple?

When the assignee is not the other partner. When money that goes to a cat or same sex partner could have gone to someone who devote part of their life to children, it dilutes what is available to everyone.

Also, you say that this would harm the woman in the family - perhaps, but most women these days do work and vest their retirement anyway. It isn’t 1935 any more. :P

It sounds like you have the expectation that a woman had better have a career instead of kids or risk being thrown under the bus. You are not a conservative.

Paternity can be very easily established. It’s called “DNA Testing.” Inheritance laws there no longer require marriage for legal inheritance to happen, so again - nothing would change.

Again, if you want the government to maintain a DNA database on everyone instead of a marriage database, you are no conservative.

[Spktyr]

In the same vein, money that goes to a partner when there are no children in the home or the family at all also ‘dilutes’ it by your standards. Yet under the system we have now, that’s exactly what happens, and in vast numbers! So again - little or no negative change whatsoever.

As for the woman - I believe that forcing the woman in the family unit to be a housewife if she does not want to be is wrong, as I believe forcing her to work is wrong - and if you check, statistically most women wish to work. Since when is conservatism defined by ‘forcing other people to do things they do not wish to do?’

Paternity tests do not require a DNA database at all. If you believe someone is the father, you simply have two tests performed (if the party is willing). Also, due to all the illegals and people providing false IDs, the identity of the mother of a child is nowhere near as concrete as you’d think. All of this has been long settled in law, mostly due to all the children born out of wedlock in the past half century.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

In the same vein, money that goes to a partner when there are no children in the home or the family at all also ‘dilutes’ it by your standards. Yet under the system we have now, that’s exactly what happens, and in vast numbers! So again - little or no negative change whatsoever.

That is the homosexual argument. The counter is that in addition to the presumtion (flawed) that heterosexual couples will have children, the benefit is intended to encourage heterosexual couples to conceive. No amount of money can encourage homosexual couples to conceive and why should they? The benefits are presumptive but not conditional.

As for the woman - I believe that forcing the woman in the family unit to be a housewife if she does not want to be is wrong, as I believe forcing her to work is wrong - and if you check, statistically most women wish to work. Since when is conservatism defined by ‘forcing other people to do things they do not wish to do?’

That's what is wrong with your argument. The certainty of marriage benefits increases options.

Paternity tests do not require a DNA database at all. If you believe someone is the father, you simply have two tests performed (if the party is willing). Also, due to all the illegals and people providing false IDs, the identity of the mother of a child is nowhere near as concrete as you’d think. All of this has been long settled in law, mostly due to all the children born out of wedlock in the past half century.

The bottom line is that with mere paternity as a surrogate for marriage, the government has to and does micromanage the relationships and money. With marriage, debased as it has become, the presumption is that children are cared for equitably by both parents unless facts come to light that they're not, like abuse or neglect.

[Dumb_Ox]

Agreed on Rove, but his point that these people simply didn’t show up to vote would explain the lack of support for other GOP candidates.