Rick Perry: I support constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and abortion

posted at 5:25 pm on August 3, 2011 by Allahpundit

Two caveats to his otherwise strict support for the Tenth Amendment, both of which happen to serve the agenda of social conservatives whose votes he’s depending on. He backed away from his “states’ rights” defense of legalizing gay marriage last week; here’s the inevitable climbdown on abortion too, which he described as a states’ rights issue a few days ago. Follow that last link and re-read the post to see why it was predictable. I’m surprised he didn’t anticipate the tension his Tenther rhetoric on these issues would cause with his base, which he could have defused by mentioning his support for the amendments straightaway. There’s nothing necessarily inconsistent in that position: You can be a strong federalist and still condone federal solutions for exceptionally grave evils like slavery which the states, for various reasons, can’t be trusted to police as diligently as they should. That’s the core of the pro-life argument for an anti-abortion amendment — it’s a matter, literally, of life and death. What’s Perry’s argument, though, for why gay marriage qualifies as an “exceptionally grave evil” warranting a nationwide ban? Is smoking, say, an evil sufficiently grave to require a constitutional amendment outlawing it? (Don’t answer that, liberals.) He’s not in a legal trap here but he is in a philosophical one. And a political one, of course, as the press will use this to throw him off his economic message. Specify, please, which behaviors are so pernicious that we can’t risk letting parochial state legislatures deal with them.

Incidentally, as with Fred Thompson four years ago, the media’s “Perry as GOP savior?” hype is already being replaced by the “Perry as overhyped flop?” counter-narrative. Here’s Politico’s new piece wondering whether a tea-party-flavored Bush soundalike can get traction with the current conservative base. (One state Republican chairman compares Perry to “Will Ferrell doing a George W. Bush imitation.”) And here’s CNN noting that Perry’s upcoming prayer event, which can accommodate 71,000 people, has had just 8,000 registrants thus far. I doubt Perry cares — the real audience for that event is in Iowa, not Texas — but they’ll build that counter-narrative with any available brick. Exit question via Democratic pollster PPP: Does the GOP need Romney to win?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

What’s Perry’s argument, though, for why gay marriage qualifies as an “exceptionally grave evil” warranting a nationwide ban? Is smoking, say, an evil sufficiently grave to require a constitutional amendment outlawing it?

Coming in late… but here is my two cents…

First, the comparison above is, well, stupid. “gay marriage” and smoking? C’mon, you can do better than that.

Mike Adams made a goo point in his column this week: if we seek to legalize “gay marriage” on the basis that it is “tolerant” thinking and because we have “no right” to “impose our beliefs” on the consensual acts of adults… why don’t we legalize incestuous marriage? Why not father-daughter marriage?

There is a limit to what society can and should allow.

As for the “tenth” argument, one can support the 10th and also support a constitutional amendment, both are CONSTITUTIONAL. He didn’t say he supports the courts mandating anything, he supports the absolutely legitimate process of amending the Constitution. Prohibition was enacted and ended by the same process, ratifying amendments.

One can support both positions. I can say that UNTIL the Constitution is amended, the 10th amendment is king. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

mankai on August 4, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Perry never said he supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He said he supports a federal marriage amendment. The only FMA I know of protects federalism by prohibiting the reinterpretation of the Constitution to mandate gay marriage. How is that inconsistent with his federalist view of marriage?

JohnJ on August 3, 2011 at 6:38 PM

that’s exactly how i took that too. He said nothing about banning gay marriage.

cpaulus on August 4, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Don’t mess with the Constitution. Abortion again? How bad do the Social Conservatives want to see another four years of Communism? Abortion will never again be illegal. Get used to it. Any legislation banning it will never pass. Bush was an evangelical conservative. That was the best chance it ever had, and was never on his radar. Keep the Social Conservative garbage going and it’ll be Mitt or Obama. Mitt if we’re lucky…

adamsmith on August 4, 2011 at 8:53 AM

hmmm tough decision

trust “steebo” the palinista

or the Tax Foundation, who have been running the numbers since 1937

windansea on August 3, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Do you even know what the Tax Foundation’s methodology was? How about data sources? I made all of that clear for my calculations, which are pretty sound.

My sources were the 2000 and 2010 Texas CAFRs; the 2006, 2007, and 2009 Alaska CAFRs; and population estimates from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

My methodology was dividing total liabilities of each state (as listed in its CAFR) by its population (as given by the Census Bureau) to give a per capita total.

As I said before

According to Alaska’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2009 (ending July 31, 2009) debt outstanding totaled $2.617 billion. However, total liabilities were $7.090 billion (about $10,151 per capita – closer to the Tax Foundation’s numbers). However, in 2006 total liabilities were $12.254 billion (about $18,287 per capita). That would mean that during Palin’s term as governor, “debt” (all outstanding liabilities) per capita was reduced by 44%.

As of 8/31/00, total liabilities for Texas were $48.2 billion (about $2,314 per capita). By 8/31/10, total liabilities has increased to $77.3 billion (about $3,073 per capita). That is an increase of 60% (33% per capita).

Palin REDUCED total per capita liabilities of the State of Alaska by 44%. Perry INCREASED per capita total liabilities of the State of Texas by 33%.

steebo77 on August 3, 2011 at 11:14 PM

My hat’s off to you steebs. Ya clobbered him.

Dongemaharu on August 4, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Don’t mess with the Constitution. Abortion again? How bad do the Social Conservatives want to see another four years of Communism? Abortion will never again be illegal. Get used to it. Any legislation banning it will never pass. Bush was an evangelical conservative. That was the best chance it ever had, and was never on his radar. Keep the Social Conservative garbage going and it’ll be Mitt or Obama. Mitt if we’re lucky…

Abortion never was illegal in most states. At the time of Roe only a few states required permission from a judge.

cpaulus on August 4, 2011 at 8:59 AM

The amendment process is a federalist process. If marriage is defined by sexual behavior, why wouldn’t a constitutional amendment be appropriate since it is also a legal contract and people move their spouses state to state with them? And where do you get this “exceptionally grave evil” standard? Was the 16th Amendment adopted to combat the “exceptionally grave evil” of not paying your fair share?
These are not afterthoughts on Perry’s part. I’m sure it never occurred to him that anyone would equate an amendment as counter to the 10th Amendment.

cartooner on August 3, 2011 at 6:33 PM

This! Light thinker, meh. When enough States feel a certain way, then the Constitution is amended accordingly. There is no hypocrisy, nor pander. Just as MB took hits for the same notion on DOMA and was accused of being ditzy.

Certainly better than being forced on an issue by activist judges. Had the pro-abortion done this, it wouldn’t be such a sore and contested issue going on 40 years with Roe v Wade.

AH_C on August 4, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Palin REDUCED total per capita liabilities of the State of Alaska by 44%. Perry INCREASED per capita total liabilities of the State of Texas by 33%.

steebo77 on August 3, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Excellent. Where would we be without the Internets and Excel? In the dark and clueless.

And these politicians want access to the Internet to be universal? Unintended consequences is us pajama-clad peons working from Grammy’s basement to churn out new perspectives of government data. ;)

AH_C on August 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Amending the Constitution doesn’t fly in the face of Federalism, whether it’s to ban alcohol or gay marriage.

It’s what the framers of the Constitution envisioned.

Vote for it or against it, but having a Constitutional amendment vote is certainly not unConstitutional.

molonlabe28 on August 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM

This country is rapidly circling the drain, and I don’t know if Palin or Perry or anyone else can stop it.

Ward Cleaver on August 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM

To those freaking out over this “philosophical” hypocrisy: what part of “I support constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and abortion” does not equal to “I will amend the constitution to ban gay marriage and abortion” do you not get?

All he is saying is that such issues are State issues, not federal, as in COTUS, SCOTUS or even EOs from POTUS should stay out of trying to legislate this from on high. IF 3/4 or more States (or by convention) feel that such a law is necessary, he would support it as it aligns with his principles. The reality is that even if he didn’t support them, he couldn’t do anything about it as well. He’s only saying he would lend moral support to one side or the other.

This is much different from say; Obie thinks DOMA is unconstitutional, therefore his stooges in the DOJ will refuse to support this law. If and when the two are constitutionally amended, Obie wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, other than to try other means to undermine it. But you would never hear him justify his actions due to his insight that such is unconstitutional.

Stop hyperventilating and think it thru to its logical conclusion. If pro-abortionists or pro-gay marriage want to stop this from going forward, all you have to do is focus on your Governors/State Legislatures to ensure support remains below the 75% (13 States to be against amendment). If you can’t find 13 States to back you, then you are truly in the super minority. The reality there are bigger fish to fry, i.e. repealing the 16th & 17th as CAs go, plus the economy et al. Calm down.

AH_C on August 4, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Amending the Constitution doesn’t fly in the face of Federalism, whether it’s to ban alcohol or gay marriage.

It’s what the framers of the Constitution envisioned.

Vote for it or against it, but having a Constitutional amendment vote is certainly not unConstitutional.

molonlabe28 on August 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Exactly. The Libertarian community likes to pretend that they are on the ‘side of the constitution and the founding fathers’ all the time but in reality, their positions are nowhere close to what the vast majority of founding fathers believed. Forget homosexual marriage, the whole of the founding fathers found sodomy to be a crime so reprehensible that they called it, “the crime that is not to be named.” Thomas Jefferson,(the one that supposed to be a social libertarian) as governor of Virginia, called for those caught in the act of sodomy to have the offending member cut off. It would have been totally inconceivable that the founding fathers would have tolerated any state legalizing such wickedness. Founding jurist Zephaniah Swift in America’s first law book stated,

This crime, tho repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal creation. Our modest ancestors, it seems by the diction of the law, had no idea that a man would commit this crime [anal intercourse with either sex]. . . . [H]ere, by force of common law, [it is] punished with death. . . . [because of] the disgust and horror with which we treat of this abominable crime.

NeverLiberal on August 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM

He backed away from his “states’ rights” defense of legalizing gay marriage last week; here’s the inevitable climbdown on abortion too, which he described as a states’ rights issue a few days ago.

If this was Romney you’d all be screaming flip-flop, and Romney’s positions changed after years, not the very next week.

jjraines on August 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Exactly. The Libertarian community likes to pretend that they are on the ‘side of the constitution and the founding fathers’ all the time but in reality, their positions are nowhere close to what the vast majority of founding fathers believed. Forget homosexual marriage, the whole of the founding fathers found sodomy to be a crime so reprehensible that they called it, “the crime that is not to be named.” Thomas Jefferson,(the one that supposed to be a social libertarian) as governor of Virginia, called for those caught in the act of sodomy to have the offending member cut off. It would have been totally inconceivable that the founding fathers would have tolerated any state legalizing such wickedness. Founding jurist Zephaniah Swift in America’s first law book stated,

This crime, tho repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal creation. Our modest ancestors, it seems by the diction of the law, had no idea that a man would commit this crime [anal intercourse with either sex]. . . . [H]ere, by force of common law, [it is] punished with death. . . . [because of] the disgust and horror with which we treat of this abominable crime. – NeverLiberal on August 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson needs to get into a time machine come to the 21st century and and speak with people who now know far know more about the subject. I wonder what he would think about the right of women to vote and sit on juries? And, he seemed to feel just fine about human slavery.

SC.Charlie on August 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM

SC.Charlie on August 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Frankly I think old Jeffy would have a seizure once he was told that voting wasn’t restricted to landowning WASP’s. And his reaction to good triumphing over evil in 1865 would probably be more of the rabble-rousing he was famous for.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Frankly I think old Jeffy would have a seizure once he was told that voting wasn’t restricted to landowning WASP’s. And his reaction to good triumphing over evil in 1865 would probably be more of the rabble-rousing he was famous for. – Uncle Sams Nephew on August 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM

He lived in his day and believed in things that we would find abhorrent. Today I would not live in any nation that imposed sharia law.

SC.Charlie on August 4, 2011 at 4:22 PM

meanwhile Huntsman scores high with and is very popular with Chinese tourists in Washington DC…almost like a dress-rehearsal for when the Chinese will vote in our elections :-)..

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/governor-huntsman-outside-white-house-gets-swarmed/

jimver on August 4, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3