Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perry stresses personal opposition to gay marriage
AP ^ | 7/29/11 | KRISTEN WYATT

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
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.

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.

1 posted on 07/30/2011 4:16:01 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“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.


2 posted on 07/30/2011 4:22:09 AM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

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.


3 posted on 07/30/2011 4:23:41 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Perry's theme song:

HOW COULD YOU BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAID I LOVED YOU, WHEN YOU KNOW I'VE BEEN A LIAR ALL MY LIFE?

Video

4 posted on 07/30/2011 4:23:49 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

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.


5 posted on 07/30/2011 4:25:47 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

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?


6 posted on 07/30/2011 4:26:24 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I posted the following a couple of days ago in regard to this story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2755444/posts?page=14#8

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. It’s 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 he’s 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 we’re 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 it’s very likely that states will start pulling out of the union (i.e., this is serious stuff). And that’s 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-43’s mistake and find out how Washington works BEFORE YOU GET THERE, because it sure as hell doesn’t work like Austin.


7 posted on 07/30/2011 4:29:08 AM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

“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.


8 posted on 07/30/2011 4:33:22 AM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BobL

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.


9 posted on 07/30/2011 4:36:10 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

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.


10 posted on 07/30/2011 4:39:09 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

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?


11 posted on 07/30/2011 4:46:53 AM PDT by buridan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
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.

What you are saying is that regarding Social Security survivor benefits, that either the Federal government should not recognize marriage at all and widows and orphans should be S.O.L., or that the Federal government should abide by state or even individual decisions on giving benefits to spouses of any sex or any number.

The Federal government does not decide who is "married", even though it may be put that way as shorthand. The Federal government, and states, localities and private businesses only decide which and what kind of marriages they will support with benefits.

If you want to exchange personal vows with your sister or three women, knock yourself out. But do you want the federal government to pay you for it? Or do you want the federal government to ignore marriage altogether and cut off all widows and orphans?

If you want the feds to end all programs like Social Security and Medicare as unconstitutional and undesirable in the first place, then you could render official recognition of some marriages but not others moot. But then you would be well beyond the scope of the issue of marriage per se.

I just don't believe people with your opinion have thought the matter through.
12 posted on 07/30/2011 4:47:18 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

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.


13 posted on 07/30/2011 4:53:26 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: buridan

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.


14 posted on 07/30/2011 4:59:36 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

“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.”

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.


15 posted on 07/30/2011 5:05:16 AM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BobL

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.


16 posted on 07/30/2011 5:11:11 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

“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.”

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.


17 posted on 07/30/2011 5:28:28 AM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; P-Marlowe

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.


18 posted on 07/30/2011 5:34:13 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Since marriage isn’t a power specifically granted to the Feds, then it belongs to individuals or to states.

You are right.

HOWEVER....

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.

19 posted on 07/30/2011 5:46:10 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Cronos
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.

20 posted on 07/30/2011 5:56:55 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

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.


21 posted on 07/30/2011 6:41:08 AM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: buridan

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.


22 posted on 07/30/2011 6:46:08 AM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam
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!
23 posted on 07/30/2011 6:54:43 AM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

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.


24 posted on 07/30/2011 7:27:07 AM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kenny
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.
25 posted on 07/30/2011 7:39:56 AM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

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.


26 posted on 07/30/2011 10:07:42 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

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.


27 posted on 07/30/2011 10:11:21 AM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

basically you summed up real federalism.

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


28 posted on 07/30/2011 12:23:35 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

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.


29 posted on 07/30/2011 12:26:23 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
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.

30 posted on 07/30/2011 6:40:24 PM PDT by Dumb_Ox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox

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.


31 posted on 07/30/2011 7:49:18 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

This is the point I have been trying to make.


32 posted on 07/30/2011 7:55:14 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BobL

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.


33 posted on 07/30/2011 8:02:48 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
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.
34 posted on 07/31/2011 11:05:44 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

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.


35 posted on 07/31/2011 11:30:30 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
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.
36 posted on 07/31/2011 3:48:44 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.


37 posted on 07/31/2011 6:16:49 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

38 posted on 07/31/2011 8:55:57 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

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.


39 posted on 08/01/2011 9:45:17 AM PDT by Dumb_Ox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson