Leaders of the Christian Right find their preferred candidate in Rick Perry

posted at 2:00 pm on July 5, 2011 by Tina Korbe

In advance of any kind of campaign declaration (or even any kind of confirmation of campaign rumors), Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry is sitting pretty for the GOP presidential nomination.

Just two recent successes, ripe for bragging: The Republican Governors Association, of which Perry is chair, raised $22.1 million for the first half of the year, eclipsing its six-month totals for 2007 to 2009, and erased its debt left over from the 2010 elections. (Admittedly, that cash is not for presidential campaign purposes, but it surely says something about Perry’s popularity and the general appeal of a Republican governor.) And Perry’s supporters independently secured a vendor slot at the Ames, Iowa, straw poll, just because they’re that committed to him as a(n undeclared) candidate.

Add to that, this: Leaders of the Christian Right are now seeking him out behind the scenes.

In early June, TIME has learned, a group of prominent figures on the Christian Right held a conference call to discuss their dissatisfaction with the current GOP presidential field, and agreed that Rick Perry would be their preferred candidate if he entered the race. Among those on the call were Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; David Barton, the Texas activist and go-to historian for the Christian Right; and John Hagee, the controversial San Antonio pastor whose endorsement John McCain rejected in 2008.

Religious conservatives have often played a substantial role in choosing past Republican nominees, but leaders on the Christian Right have been conspicuously quiet so far in this campaign season. Privately, however, they are enthusiastic about Perry and are encouraging the Texas governor to throw his ten-gallon hat into the ring.

Perry’s favor with the Christian Right is relatively new, and he is their candidate of choice as much by default as anything.

If that’s true, he’s a pretty decent default. Take his current project — an all-day Christian prayer event called “The Response” — as just one example of the way he’s showing his support for the Christian conservative cause. The American Family Association will co-sponsor the explicitly Christian event, scheduled for Aug. 6 in Houston. Perry also recently signed a gay marriage ban into law at a Christian school in Fort Worth with evangelical heavyweights Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), Rod Parsley (Ohio mega-church pastor), and Don Wildmon (American Family Association) in attendance.

So, it’s not so much a surprise that the Christian Right would support Rick Perry, as it is a surprise they find the present GOP field so dismal. You’d be hard-pressed to find two more socially conservative presidential candidates than Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, for example. Santorum might be easily dismissed — as Time’s Amy Sullivan so wittily put it, “his poll numbers in Iowa are smaller than the number of children he has” — but Bachmann’s impressive surge in popularity might conceivably have garnered her the support that Perry has picked up seemingly without so much as lifting a finger.

It must come back to that little thing called electability. In the minds of the Christian Right, it seems, Perry’s got it.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

Next, navigate your way to Matthew 19:9, where the basic wording is “except for marital unfaithfulness”. What about that says “no fault divorce is ok”, to you? HMMMMM???

Good enough, or would you like me to actually crack open the bible for you, hand it to you, and even turn the pages?


Talismen on July 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM

There is one other section – when taken in context of Believers not suing another in a court of law, one could make the case for no-fault in the event of being unequally yoked.

1 Corinthians 7:
10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

AH_C on July 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM

AH_C on July 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Hit submit too soon. This would also make the case for Govt getting out of the marriage business. With the full context of 1 Cor 7, it is clearly up to the individual churches as to who belongs in fellowship and who should be shunned. Granted, it would be in the State’s interest regarding custody of children, if not resolved by the couple.

AH_C on July 5, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Talismen on July 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Thank you for being so nice in replying to a simple question. Your “modesty” won’t be forgotten.

First of all, I asked you, not Ed. I am not Catholic and don’t quite agree with much of Catholic doctrine. There’s no need to go into that.

Secondly, thank you for pointing out where you were getting “no fault divorce.” I did not deny it, as you seem to have assumed, I asked what verse you were reading because I’d never seen “no fault divorce” in the Bible phrased that way. You were referring to Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees on marriage and divorce…I never thought of it in legalistic terms, but religious terms.

Perhaps a little context is in order (Matt 9:4-12):

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

You are correct that Christians are not to divorce willy-nilly, which is why Churches try to counsel young betrothed couples before making vows.

However, this does not help your case. Nor does Ed’s comment (why bother quoting him…it’s not like he is infallible). You are saying that easy divorces and the lack of any real sense of commitment has done more to damage marriage than same-sex unions would. I don’t know if I agree, but for the sake of argument, I’ll accept the premise. Let’s do an analogy for simplicity.

Getting shot by a .50 cal machine gun does a lot more damage than by a 9mm. However, I wouldn’t say that a person who’d been shot with a .50 cal and survived (barely) should go ahead and stand in front of a Beretta just because it will do less damage. Both are bad for you, one simply does more damage.

The above is the same as arguing that homosexual marriage would be less damaging than what heterosexual singles have done through “no fault divorce” laws. The whole premise isn’t that same sex unions will do no damage (much less help the institution), the premise of the argument you are pushing is that they will do damage, it just won’t be as bad as what has already happened to marriage.

How about we start repairing the institution instead?

As for your stance on government involvement…we can rely only on churches for marriage if you like. I am in complete agreement with getting the government out of the institution completely. I like the idea of a married couple being forced to go to a pastor to get a divorce.

Pattosensei on July 5, 2011 at 5:02 PM

mankai on July 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM

I agree. These are leaders of various Christian parachurch ministries and specific churches.

While I may agree with some individuals or their ministries, I’m tired of them being touted as leaders of the Christian Right. They speak solely for their organizations or their churches. No one sent ballots out to all the conservative Christians in the U.S., and they weren’t elected.

INC on July 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM


mankai on July 5, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Nonsequtors! Get yer nonsequitors here!

MJBrutus on July 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Talismen on July 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Another thought… Christ wasn’t talking to the church of this hour.

Matthew 10:6-7
Matthew 15:24
Romans 15:8

Not everything in the Bible is directed at everybody at every age… unless you’d like to build an ark, make bread from dung, try to raise the dead or act is if you have no wife… etc…

mankai on July 5, 2011 at 5:09 PM

It seems curious that these individuals would endorse Governor Perry’s entry into the race when he apparently endorsed a pro-abortion candidate, Mayor Guiliani, in the previous presidential campaign. Was anyone aware of this endorsement by Governor Perry? Videos below.



Did Governor Perry set aside his pro-life convictions as a lower priority to endorse the former Mayor? This would seem to raise questions about Governor Perry’s conviction about the life issue. Are these pro-life leaders aware of the Governor’s previous endorsement. It’s hard to imagine that any one of them would have supported the former Mayor in 2008.

SheetAnchor on July 5, 2011 at 5:10 PM

I like Perry, but this is about as meaningful as all those GOP bigwigs allegedly begging Christie to get in. Good grief, just let whoever wants to run run.

But as I’ve always said, Perry is better doing what he’s doing now: being governor of Texas and spokesman for conservative causes. ;) *sarcasm I couldn’t resist, once again*

It must come back to that little thing called electability. In the minds of the Christian Right, it seems, Perry’s got it.

Over-generalization. Whatever the “Christian Right” may be at any one moment, I’m sure many of them also think Bachmann and Palin are ultimately as electable as Perry.

ddrintn on July 5, 2011 at 5:29 PM

I recognize all those names in the article. I’m very happy to see influential Christians get behind him. I don’t need them to tell me who to support, since I came to the decision that Perry might be my candidate on my own, but I’m happy to see the support.

Perry was on TBN in December 2010 (I only just saw it recently as a repeat) on their flagship show “Praise the Lord”; it was a terrific interview.

Run, Rick, Run!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 5, 2011 at 5:48 PM

This assessment from American Thinker is very interesting about Governor Perry and conservatism.

“Because here in Texas, we know Rick Perry is anything but a conservative.”

“Perry, as was Bush before him and Romney is today, is a slick, chameleon politician who changes his colors for the times. Rick Perry is a former Democrat, Al Gore’s state chairman in 1988, a big government type who used an executive order to try to force Texas children entering 6th grade to be injected with Gardasil, a drug to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Mandated — sound conservative to you?”

“His signature legislation was the Trans-Texas Corridor, where Texas would use its eminent domain to take a mile-wide swath of land from the Texas border to the Oklahoma border and turn it over to a Spanish company for a highway, rail corridor. And, anyone from Mexico could travel into Texas, with no customs check until they hit Kansas.”

“And the Arizona immigration law passed last year? “It’s not for Texas,” says Perry.”

“Perhaps you do not understand hate crime legislation is an underhanded way to control free speech. Rick Perry is your guy. He not only signed the Texas hate crime legislation, he made a very big deal about why it was needed.”

Link to the full article below.


SheetAnchor on July 5, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Exit question: What is Perry waiting for?

Steve Z on July 5, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Maybe recovering from minor back surgery the other day?

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 5, 2011 at 6:39 PM

JannyMae on July 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM

ITA. I would add, too, that they are not “self-appointed leaders”, they have earned that distinction through their many years of service in the Lord.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Marriage is not just a religious rite, it is a social contract. Its value and configuration has been recognized everywhere by custom, statute and/or common law since the dawn of history (at least). For most of the thousands of years that marriage has existed, the one thing that no one considered to be in any way pertinent to the purpose of marriage is the affection that the two (or more) parties felt toward each other. Virtually every institution, entitlement, right, or privilege pertaining to marriage, in all that time, has considered marriage to involve two sides to the contract, male and female, that – while sometimes held to be equal before the law – have nevertheless always been seen as fundamentally different in their obligations and value to the marriage in non-quantifiable ways.

Normal contracts between two parties involve quantifiable obligations (if you give me a 100 Simoleons, I’ll deliver to you a fresh widget every month for a year). No such material quid pro quo exists in a marriage. Instead, by marrying, the husband agrees to provide those things of non-quantifiable societal value that only a husband can provide and a wife agrees to provide those things of non-quantifiable societal value that only a wife can provide. The purpose of the marriage contract, then, is to establish and enforce, for their mutual and individual benefit, a ‘social quid pro quo’ between two human beings of fundamentally different value to the marriage. If that fundamental difference does not apply, in my view, no marriage contract can be said to exist in any meaningful, legal sense. In addition, every facet of marriage that doesn’t involve this fundamental difference between men and women can be already be established and protected in other legal way, without resorting to redefining marriage.


Knott Buyinit on July 5, 2011 at 7:14 PM

cartooner on July 5, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Asking for “protection” from the government for ANYTHING means that one must also dance to the government’s ‘tune’, for providing such protections. Ever see “The Godfather”? Duh!!

Government has NO business intruding into something that started out to be consecrated by faith, NOT GOVERNMENT. Legally, the state is ALREADY constitutionally bound to provide protections for those willingly entering into a contract together. Helllooooo???? Any of this ring a bell?

Read the constitution.

Talismen on July 5, 2011 at 8:12 PM

AH_C on July 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM
AH_C on July 5, 2011 at 4:55 PM

While I may disagree slighly with a point or two in your commentary, your posts were right-on, IMO! Good context there!

Talismen on July 5, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Pardon me, but YOU were snotty 1st. Quid Pro Quo rules apply to all my posts. You get what you give. And yet I said NOTHING about YOU being snotty, ay? Until now, that is.

And now that we’ve addresssed that childishness….

1. I’m not catholic either. I’m Lutheran.
2. To “repair” the institution of marriage would require less divorce among the majority of those who marry. That would be “straight” marriages (so called). Good luck with that.
3. Suggesting that there are “right” and “wrong” marriages is equal to having ESP for all soon-to-be married persons, because whether they are straight or “gay” (etc), makes no difference? I knew a supposedly “normal” catholic family when I grew up…lived just down the block from me. The father molested his daughter for years, raped and beat his wife, and beat the crap out of his boys. He was a pure-bred drunken SOB…and yet according to the defintions most “social conservatives” spew, that family was “normal”, because they were “straight”.

Talk about grade-A prime BS!

Talismen on July 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Talk about grade-A prime BS!

Talismen on July 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM

And I can link to a news story about a gay English couple that molested every boy put in their charge. What is your point? Or are you one of those that believe that gay couples have an intrinsic virtue just by being gay? That they are somehow actually “better” than a normal couple?

hawkdriver on July 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM

hawkdriver on July 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Obviously Talismen’s point was that sexual preference does not imply fitness for marriage. So why did you distort his clear meaning?

MJBrutus on July 6, 2011 at 7:31 AM

MJBrutus on July 6, 2011 at 7:31 AM

Bingo – MJBrutus nails it!

Fitness for parenthood or marriage of any kind does NOT depend on whether on is straight or gay/lesbian/bi (whatever). People learn parenting skills from THEIR parents, guardians, etc etc. That’s it.

Equating parenting skills with one’s sexual preference is to also suggest that if someone is “straight”, but chooses to go to “nudie” bars, have stacks of “nudie” magazines, and all kinds of sexual “toys” in the house, they’re still somehow a “fit” parent. Yes, statistics would probably show that maybe there are parents out there who do those things and still raise good kids, but, I’m attempting to use the puristic definition that “social conservatives” LOVE to use when it comes to how they define what makes someone “fit” to be a parent.

Talismen on July 6, 2011 at 8:38 AM

hawkdriver on July 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Obviously Talismen’s point was that sexual preference does not imply fitness for marriage. So why did you distort his clear meaning?

MJBrutus on July 6, 2011 at 7:31 AM

I dunno, he threw me with his “clear meaning” when he used “so-called” as a descriptive for straight marriages. Perhaps you missed that part of his comment?

hawkdriver on July 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM

hawkdriver on July 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM


My use of the term “so-called” when referring to the term “straight marriages”, was intended, IF TAKEN IN PROPER CONTEXT, to mean most marriages that many “social conservatives” would consider as “normal” are slapped with their favorite term. That term being “straight marriages”.

Hellooo??? Any of this gettin’ through the static?

How about we stop labeling marriages “straight” or “gay”, and start labeling them “successful” or “doomed to fail”?
Because whether a marriage is “straight” or “gay”, it has an equal chance of failure.

Talismen on July 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM

“You don’t spend everything you have.” Rick Perry messed up his Biblical reference to the Egyptian Pharaoh who sold stored grain during the 7-year drought/famine in the land during Jacob’s old age. Perry wasn’t referencing Jacob or the starving masses when recalling Bible story time from Sunday School. But details never matter if you’ve already bought your membership into the boys’ club. So long as you switch the character roles, the lesson “don’t spend everything” might have held water, since that was exactly how the Pharaoh managed to enslave the starving populations that sold all that they had for food. And ironically, that lesson exposes the designs of the establishment politicians intent on their authoritarian status quo opportunism, Perry in league as a corporatist.

Leaders of the Christian Right

Wasp good ol’ boys are male. Surprise that right wing Christian chauvinists prefer men leaders over women? No surprise.

Allahpundit’s weekend quote of the day linked to a woman Democrat “evangelical” who at least approved of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin for their active public roles in politics, to show little girls in Sunday School that all things are possible to those who believe, whether in evangelical feminism or simply in equal rights.

But in the Republican Party, sexism still rears its ugly leadership head. Evangelical or Christian Right is beside the point, though they’re not doing themselves any favors these days still promoting their image as male chauvinists with a few female lackey pets, one named Noonan, not actually campaigning, just directing the elitist gossip column for her own pretty penny.

Perry issued his infamously illegal executive order requiring only females to comply, not males, to take STD vaccination in order to attend public schools. Again, statist dictates don’t offend “Leaders of the Christian Right” who support that sexist abuse of power, intruding on the rights of individuals and families to determine their own choices in seeking medical advise and treatments. Side effects including death are of no concern. Ugh. Thank God that the courts determined against authoritarian Rick Perry in this case.

Apologists need not argue that so long as it’s YOUR man being the authoritarian, all is well in America. Been there, done that with GWBush and his departing executive orders including making the US Treasury Secretary completely autonomous and beholden to no one, especially not to be held accountable before Congress. Thanks again for paving the road to hell for Geithner, and every other cursed Ivy Beleaguering elitists sucking America dry, making a globalist profit at the expense of every non-union laboring American citizen’s existence.

You want to cry “class warfare” as if only Democrats or atheists manipulate the masses and augment inflation and unemployment? Hang that hat on “common values” shared by bipartisan elitist global authoritarian corporatism and their apologists selling America down river in order to perpetuate their own corrupt careers. You’ll find organized religions well represented.

maverick muse on July 6, 2011 at 3:37 PM

So how many of you would be taking Perry seriously if he were quoting from the Koran and explaining his decisions in relation to Islam?

Zekecorlain on July 6, 2011 at 5:12 PM


lol right back at ya. (Not sure what was funny, but, okay)

My use of the term “so-called” when referring to the term “straight marriages”, was intended,

Obviously. The point was not lost on me. Ergo, my first comment to you. Ergo, my second comment to MJBrutus who thought your comment contained no such affrot to straight marriages.

IF TAKEN IN PROPER CONTEXT, to mean most marriages that many “social conservatives” would consider as “normal” are slapped with their favorite term. That term being “straight marriages”.

There is no “context”, a marriage is what it is.

Hellooo??? Any of this gettin’ through the static?

Hello??? No, because so many of us don’t accept your basic premise. Hello???

How about we stop labeling marriages “straight” or “gay”, and start labeling them “successful” or “doomed to fail”?

How about let’s not. You can call it anything you like, but it’ll never be a marriage in the eyes of God.

Because whether a marriage is “straight” or “gay”, it has an equal chance of failure.

I’d say that statement were true if you had said a marriage and a civil union have equal chances of failing. But they’re different.

Talismen on July 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM

But thanks for acknowledging to MJBrutus you did intend the jab at real marriages.

hawkdriver on July 6, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Zekecorlain on July 6, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Do you still advocate lowering the age of consent?

hawkdriver on July 6, 2011 at 10:29 PM

hawkdriver on July 6, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Evasion and obfuscation….thy name is: “hawkdriver”.

And, just so we’re clear — if more people like yourself stopped trying to speak FOR God, and instead “walk the walk”, we might be in better shape. You have your ideas about what you believe the bible to say…And many (like myself) have different ideas. YOU can believe yours are set-in-stone, and so can I. But, that will turn in to nothing more than a spiritual “pissing contest”, round and round, getting no where. You clearly want to head down that road, but, I ain’t playin’ along.

Just remember this — and this goes for EVERYONE who may share your thoughts on this — calling yourselves “Christian”, when all the while you take great pleasure in citing the faults and sins of others (no matter the fault or the sin)…Is nothing more than spiritual haughtyness, at it’s best. Without learning a lick of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, you and your ilk sit upon your self-appointed thornes of authority, without a CLEAR understanding of the actual linguistics of the bible. You LOVE every chance you can create for yourselves to look down at your fellow man, whatever the perceived sin may be, chiding them in the most hateful ways imaginable. Then, you have the brass balls big enough to hang that horrid behavior around the neck of Christ Himself, saying such things as “Oh I’m not hating,…I’m doing this in Christian love”. It’s the biggest lie about the spiritually haughty, and their biggest weakness.

As for politicizing a personal issue (such as “gay marrige”, or any other personal issue for that matter)…Well, “social conservatives” love to do that too. What they don’t realize is…This practice provides distraction, and it also provides ‘wedges’ which our political enemies (the left) LOVE to use to pull us apart. If you can’t see that, you’re doomed to repeat this same ‘cycle’, everytime the conservative side has a chance at the White House.

Also remember — one doesn’t have to be a “social conservative” to actually be POLITICALLY conservative. Folks like to lump all of us together, and, it’s sickening. I no more share in the ideas about “social” anything with most “social conservatives”, than I share political ideas with obama. There ARE some of us that believe law abiding citizens have the personal Liberty to live their lives as they see fit.


Talismen on July 7, 2011 at 9:35 AM

I have a question for hawkdriver….

Intereting wording found here, ay?: “Our mission is to re-establish the limits and boundaries of Government as framed by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.”

Can you tell me where, within those “limits and boundaries of Government as framed by the Founding Fathers…” is the right for government to intrude upon the private lives of law abiding citizens? With a mandatory purchase of healthcare? With not allowing members of the U.S. Military, who are under age 21, the right to enjoy an adult beverage if they so choose? With preventing law abiding citizens from marrying any consenting adult they choose?

“Limits and boundaries” — yeah, right. That notion was lost a LOOOOONNGGG time ago. We The People are just now realizing that…Thank heavens.

Talismen on July 7, 2011 at 10:50 AM


You seem to be missing the point about heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions. The civil unions can be LIKE marriages, but they will never actual be marriages, like God and society have always intended.

The point about society placing it’s stamp of approval on gay marriage and about children being reared in gay marriages has NOTHING to do with parenting skills.

It has to do with what is best for the child and what is best for society. The traditional male/female family unit, the building block of a healthy and successful society from the beginning of time. That is the point. That this building block has already suffered hits in recent decades shows in society’s ills now. Further damage would cause further damage to children and society.

It is best for children to have a mother and a father. Not simply 2 parents. Every study shows that. And children are the future of our society. Divorce and single mothers who never married have already caused damage.

I have absolutely no problem with a gay couple (or a single gay or heterosexual person) adopting and raising an older child (5 and up or one with disabilities) who has a hard time being adopted by a traditional married couple. I think that most gay people and most heterosexual people make average to good parents. But they cannot be a male and female at the same time.

I don’t believe that gay couples or single people (gay or straight) should be adopting infants. Infants should go to the huge number of heterosexual married couples on the waiting lists for infants. Because that is best for the child. And because of that it is best for society.

You have to compare apples with apples. Good straight parents with good gay parents. You can’t say, “well look at all these abusive or bad straight parents or divorced straight marriages.” You have to compare the optimum of both gays and straights.

And there is no debating that a child is best with a mother and father. Even if one of them dies, it is a hardship for the child, but at least they would have known both a mother and a father. Even if there is a divorce, if there is no absentee father, it is a hardship for the child, but at least the child knows both a mother and a father.

Sometimes bad things happen in our lives and sometimes people make mistakes. The child might suffer somewhat, but still survive and adjust. Like unplanned single mothers or divorce or death of a parent. But we do not INTENTIONALLY go into situations that would not be good for the child. Government has a responsibility to protect children and society by sanctioning what is best for both.

Elisa on July 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM

We have made enough mistakes in our society at the expense of children and a deteriorating society.

We shouldn’t be adding to our mistakes. We should be trying to heal what has already been done and return to our old values that succeeded.

Elisa on July 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Rick Perry: Who worked for the charlatan Al Gore’s campaign. I do believe that is called a “flip flop” according to the Hot Air forum.

“Rick Perry Was Al Gore’s Texas Campaign Chairman in 1988
Political observers have noted that Jon Huntsman is likely to take some flack from conservatives for having served as President Obama’s Ambassador to China until recently. But Huntsman isn’t the only prospective GOP candidate who has worked for a prominent Democratic politician in years past.”

Rick Perry, who entered the Texas legislature as a Democrat in 1984, served as Al Gore’s Texas Campaign Chairman in the 1988 presidential campaign. Soon after the campaign, Perry switched parties and was elected Texas Agriculture Commissioner as a Republican in 1990.

Perry flip flopped due to “seeing the light” The article also explains Gore was a radical on the environment at the time…

I know a lot of you here will be hypocrites and say Perry’s flip flop is OK, and his support Gore’s Global Warming agenda was OK, but Romney can’t change his mind on abortion nor say he believes in AGW (like Bush) but won’t kill the economy for it.

scotash on July 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Elisa on July 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Have you had ANY experiences with close friends or relatives who are one of those “building blocks” of a healthy society, where the children or other family members are abused in some way, shape or form? Do you realized that “dysfunctinal” does NOT discriminate? Do you understand that most marriages deemed “normal” or “building block” are just as screwed up as what “social conservatives” imagine a same-sex marriage to be? We have this society that everyone complains about, and has complained about almost since the beginning of time, and yet that society was built upon those supposed “normal” marriages. Yeah, that’s workin’ out, ay?

PS – Assuming God will agree with your perceptions and understanding of the bible…is one big honkin’ assumption.
Good for you for having the ego big enough for that one. More power to ‘ya.

“A child is best with a mother and father”….Ugh, here we go again. Tell me something — If kids are better off with a mother and father (even if that mother and father are divorced but share equal time with the child)…Then why is the younger generation so screwed up? They should all be saints, right? They shouldn’t have any behavior problems, they should do well in school…All because they have a mommy and daddy who spend time with them. Right? I’ll ask again…Then why are kids so screwed up these days? Answer – The fact that mommy and daddy are there is only 1/2 the battle. What they teach that child matters too, and proper raising can come from multiple females or multiple males. Proper life lessons (the kind that teach kids who to relate to one another, how they should treat each other, how they should treat their fellow man)…Those can be taught by ANYBODY, regardless of sex. I’d rather a child be brought up in a same-sex household, then to put up with a drunkard abuser, or a slutty mother, in one of those supposed “building block” homes.

Talismen on July 7, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Talismen on July 7, 2011 at 2:43 PM

You obviously have NOT read my 2 posts, because every single point you raised (including all the strawmen you brought up and the words you put in my mouth) were already addressed.

Or maybe you don’t like the truths that I said in those posts. They are not my truths. They are the truths of successful societies from time immemorial and they are Biblical truths and they are psychological truths from science. A mother and a father is best for children and society.

It may be hard to hear.

Either way, I won’t repeat myself. Anyone (including you) can read these posts again to find the answers to your points.

God bless you and good luck.

Elisa on July 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Elisa on July 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Elisa on July 7, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Leaders of the Christian Right? In their own minds, maybe. Problem with the Christian Right? There are no real leaders / followers. DD

Darvin Dowdy on July 7, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2