[Spktyr]

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.

[buridan]

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?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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.

[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.