Video: Rick Perry on why he supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

posted at 8:54 pm on August 4, 2011 by Allahpundit

I asked yesterday what criteria he would use to decide when states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment simply must be trumped with an amendment in the interest of a greater national good. Here’s the answer:

It’s part of the fabric of America to support traditional marriage and that being between one man and one woman. I led the charge back in the mid 2000′s in Texas when we passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, passed by 75%, that’s rather overwhelming. But I do respect a state’s right to have a different opinion and take a different tact if you will, California did that. I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, ‘listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the constitution here’s the way you do it’. It takes three quarters of the states deciding that this is important, it goes forward and it becomes an amendment to the United States Constitution. I support that for issues that are so important, I think, to the soul of this country and to the traditional values which our founding fathers, on the issue of traditional marriage I support the federal marriage amendment.

Why would you want an amendment in a case where you respect a state’s right to have a different opinion? The touchstone for an amendment, I would think, is when you don’t respect that right because a particular state’s legislative preference would lead to grievous harm. Slavery is the paradigm example; abortion, arguably, is another. If you can look at your opponent’s position and say, “I see your point but I think you’re wrong,” that should take the amendment option off the table and put you back in Tenth Amendment territory. Federalism is “part of the fabric of America” too, after all; as a wise man once said, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Perry’s arguing, I guess, that this experiment is simply too dangerous to conduct — except, actually, he never does say that it’s dangerous. He just says it’s contrary to “traditional values,” a standard that would prohibit “novel social experiments” altogether. And the kicker is that he’s couching his argument in terms of Article V, which is the most “non-traditional” part of the Constitution insofar as it lets future generations change the law as opinions change. Well, opinions are changing. Why use Article V to stop it if you can’t articulate some sort of overweening harm?

Exit question: Opinions are changing about marijuana laws too even though it’s a longstanding American tradition to ban drugs (alcohol mostly excepted, of course). Time to get ahead of the curve with a federal anti-weed amendment?

Breaking on Hot Air

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

It’s not an either/or choice, unseen. You can talk about the economy and about preserving marriage. And a boatload of other things, to boot.

whatcat on August 4, 2011 at 10:36 PM

maybe. but the more issues you talk about the more you divide and wedge people into camps. the less united one is on the major topics. Politicans like to use wedge issues for that very reason. Now those in favor of gay marriage you might have voted for Perry because of his economic record will take a strong second look at him and might decide to go with a Mitt or god forbid an obama instead.

Obama’s greatest weakness is not gay marriage it is the economy, jobs and his out of control spending. As well as his oout of control federla power grab. the more those issues are hammered home day in and day out the better chance we have of defeating Obama.

Now this is primary season and i do understand why Perry is talking about this because it seperates him from the mitt’s and huntsman of the world and gives him a wedge for the social cons. my orginal post was about the timing with the world markets in meltdow is it really the proper time to discuss gay marriage it makes to me at least Perry seem out of touch.

But your milage may vary.

unseen on August 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

bluefox on August 4, 2011 at 10:37 PM

There’s no link or anything. It was just me writing how Rick should respond to the abortion and gay marriage issues.

TXUS on August 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Allahpundit, that very clearly is not a gay marriage ban. The first part does not prohibit states from adopting whatever rules they want. The second part just prohibits gay marriage from being mandated through the judiciary. There’s absolutely no way it can be construed as a gay marriage ban, so calling it one is a lie.

JohnJ on August 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Yes, the first part does prohibit states from adopting the rules they want. I don’t know how it can be any clearer: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” I.e. no male/male marriage anywhere in the U.S. The Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery in every state, is written in similar language. I’m sorry you’re having trouble grasping the remarkably plain meaning of the amendment, but kindly stop calling me a liar for trying to point it out.

Oh, and here’s the second sentence again: “Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” Even if the people of a state amended their own constitution to legalize gay marriage, this would trump it. If you don’t believe me, here’s the Cato Institute describing a similar, earlier version of the amendment: “Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages.”

Allahpundit on August 4, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Dire Straits on August 4, 2011 at 10:25 PM

I see the “opposition crew” are out early tonight:-)

bluefox on August 4, 2011 at 10:56 PM

unseen on August 4, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Thanks. I agree and I don’t understand why that subject was picked. It’s the economy, period.

Perhaps some organization asked his stance on these two issues.

bluefox on August 4, 2011 at 11:01 PM

bluefox on August 4, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Looks that way..:)

Dire Straits on August 4, 2011 at 11:12 PM

You are so full of crap.

cartooner on August 4, 2011 at 10:27 PM

The governor is who he is — he’s been very good over his quarter-century in Texas politics at anticipating which way the wind blows, but he’s not the kind of guy who going to be perpetually unwavering on his core beliefs, if he perceives that doing so will cost him a couple of years down the line.

As part of his presidential run, Perry back in May signed a bill outlawing the takings of land by the state for eminent domain purposes; thereby making sure state politicians can’t do in the future what Rick Perry tried to do with the Trans-Texas Corridor in 2007. You can say he’s learned his lesson — the former light governor in Texas, Bob Bullock, championed the constitutional amendment banning the Legislature from implementing an income tax in Texas, after Bullock was one of the main backers in pushing a Texas income tax when Ann Richards became governor in 1991. But you can also say Perry did it because he anticipates the TTC kerfuffle being a problem for him in the 2012 presidential primary, and now has this new law to prove to voters he’s changed.

He’s very, very good at finding the right path to go down before the crowd arrives, and he’d be good for at least 2013 and the first part of ’14 if he were elected president. But I wouldn’t bet the house on Rick Perry not disappointing his core backers any time after that, if he thought modifying his core beliefs was his best tactic for winning re-election in 2016.

jon1979 on August 4, 2011 at 11:14 PM

my orginal post was about the timing with the world markets in meltdow is it really the proper time to discuss gay marriage it makes to me at least Perry seem out of touch.

But your milage may vary.

unseen on August 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

1. This was an interview, Perry was asked this question and answered it honestly.

2. Maybe you missed the rest of Perry’s answer, where he linked the states rights issue to the economy.

I also support that same process for a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution so Washington will finally get the message of ‘hey, quit spending all the money and quit mortgaging our kids future’. So, those are not incompatible, they’re actually what our Founding Fathers meant for this country to do. There were a few things, enumerated powers in the constitution. The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to it by the state are reserved for the states respectively or to the people. It’s so eloquent, it’s so simple. The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states not the other way around and we’ve really gotten away from that. I suggest, and I hope that we can have this kind of lengthy conversation over the next 17, 18 months that wouldn’t America be stronger economically if we removed all those strings that have been attached to everything. Things like, whether it’s our EPA regulations, or whether it’s the way we deliver health care or what the heck business is it of federal government to tell us how to educate our kids. Remove all these strings and really let these states go out there and be laboratories of innovation.”

3. You are being a hypocrite, something you frown upon supposedly, because you have previously stated many times “here come the thread police” when people complained that you were palinizing the thread. Yet here you whine about a thread discussing Perry and gay marriage.

windansea on August 4, 2011 at 11:15 PM

unseen on August 4, 2011 at 10:15 PM

There is an awful lot between “everything” and “one thing.”

cartooner on August 4, 2011 at 10:20 PM

No, I wouldn’t. See how easy?

DrMagnolias on August 4, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Except he didn’t pick it. He would much rather talk jobs etc.

cartooner on August 4, 2011 at 10:39 PM

You are correct..He did not pick it..It was an interview..:)

PS..He does talk about jobs during the interview..:)

Dire Straits on August 4, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Do all the people arguing, its the economy stupid, and jobs stupid think that these issues are not pretty much already locked on favorites to put votes into the Republican ticket?

So, what the argument is, is pretty much the Emanuel claim to never let a crisis go to waste. Because you certainly are not. Hey, stop trying to prevent us from changing your the culture of the society you live in, don’t you have better things to do!?!

astonerii on August 4, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Apparently I am very seriously wrong and I don’t know what I’m talking about. My sincere apologies, Allahpundit. You’re right.

JohnJ on August 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM

The gay activists are the ones who have made this an issue. If they honestly believe that the country is changing its attitude then why do they fear this? Let the states vote for an ammendment and see what happens.

Rose on August 4, 2011 at 11:26 PM

1. This was an interview, Perry was asked this question and answered it honestly.
windansea on August 4, 2011 at 11:15 PM

And I’m assuming it was taped? When?

Knucklehead on August 4, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Why would you want an amendment in a case where you respect a state’s right to have a different opinion?

That is the question, and it calls into question just how deeply ideological Perry is. I’m afraid he’s an empty suit, just like the rest.

MadisonConservative on August 4, 2011 at 11:31 PM

This is only ONE thread. There are others if you don’t care to post to this one. Most of the time each thread has it’s own topic.

bluefox on August 4, 2011 at 10:38 PM

HotAir didn’t make this a f’n topic in the middle of an economic sh-t-storm.

If Ted wants to marry Fred, why the f should you care? It just doesn’t matter. I like Perry. I would like for Perry to focus on important issues.

toliver on August 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM

It’s not an either/or choice, unseen. You can talk about the economy and about preserving marriage. And a boatload of other things, to boot.
whatcat on August 4, 2011 at 10:36 PM

maybe.

No maybees about it. Aside from that, one issue candidates usually don’t get very far or last very long.

but the more issues you talk about the more you divide and wedge people into camps. the less united one is on the major topics.
unseen on August 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Anything a person says is almost guaranteed to tick somebody off somewhere. And I think people are a little wiser now about campaigns that consist solely of meaningless fuzzy slogans, a la “hope & change”.

That’s not to say a campaign should not have a “theme” – but if you don’t have a candidate who is conversant on the misc issues or who runs and hides in fear of taking stands on the issues, you’ve got problems. Look at the beating Romney took for not having an opinion during the debt ceiling debate. He was derided by pretty much everyone for the lameness.

whatcat on August 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM

I don’t know if AP is mad at me or what. The last post I tried did not go through…..hmmmmmmmmmm

sicoit on August 4, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Looks like the liberals have won the gay marriage argument. I never thought I would see so many so-called conservatives get upset that a candidate is against gay marriage. Pretty soon I expect to see Hot Air commenters whining about a candidate who promise not to raise taxes.

My god. Like I have said before, there will be no surprise when Obama wins re-election. Whenever someone asks me why I think Obama will easily win again I tell them to go read comments on Hot Air.

No one supports any republican candidate. You all find faults with everyone. No wonder this country is falling apart.

This site is full of phoney conservatives.

Trust me, you will all get your wish and none of these candidates will win in 2012. You will have no one to blame but yourselves.

Personally I could care less which candidate wins the nomination. All I care about is not giving that pile of dung in the White House 4 more years.

The Notorious G.O.P on August 4, 2011 at 9:26 PM

didymus on August 4, 2011 at 11:42 PM

I asked yesterday what criteria he would use to decide when states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment simply must be trumped with an amendment in the interest of a greater national good.

False dichotomy, AP. By definition, an amendment can not “trump states’ rights” because the states themselves get to vote on it. Bone up on your constitutional law and you’ll avoid embarrassing yourself like that.

gryphon202 on August 4, 2011 at 11:42 PM

seriously people the DOW crashed today. Lost 512pts. The entire world markets crashed today. And we get gay marriage?

unseen on August 4, 2011 at 9:28 PM

The country is in an economic crisis and this is important how?

Knucklehead on August 4, 2011 at 10:28 PM

There are three topics on the front page of Hot Air about “gay marriage”, and not one about “operation fast and furious”.

Priorities. Get some.

Rebar on August 4, 2011 at 9:30 PM

What do you expect? To Allah, this is the most critically important issue facing our time. Every candidate’s utterance on this subject has to be studied and analyzed down to the smallest detail. I just wish he would be consistent in his thinly veiled obsession with this, and endorse RINO Huntsman who is the only candidate who shares Allah’s view on this.

Personally I couldn’t care less. I am not in favor of Gay Marriage given the negative effects on society it has had in my home country of Norway, but it is not something I feel is worth debating since here are about a gazillion more important issues out there.

Norwegian on August 4, 2011 at 11:44 PM

I don’t know if AP is mad at me or what. The last post I tried did not go through…..hmmmmmmmmmm

sicoit on August 4, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Calm down. Here’s a straw, take a nice drink……

Knucklehead on August 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Opinions are changing about marijuana laws too even though it’s a longstanding American tradition to ban drugs (alcohol mostly excepted, of course).

Hyperbolize much, AP? You should have qualified that with “recreational,” as there is a whole sh!tload of drugs you can have legally dispensed by a licensed pharmacist…

gryphon202 on August 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Looks like the liberals have won the gay marriage argument. I never thought I would see so many so-called conservatives get upset that a candidate is against gay marriage. Pretty soon I expect to see Hot Air commenters whining about a candidate who promise not to raise taxes.

My god. Like I have said before, there will be no surprise when Obama wins re-election. Whenever someone asks me why I think Obama will easily win again I tell them to go read comments on Hot Air.

No one supports any republican candidate. You all find faults with everyone. No wonder this country is falling apart.

This site is full of phoney conservatives.

Trust me, you will all get your wish and none of these candidates will win in 2012. You will have no one to blame but yourselves.

Personally I could care less which candidate wins the nomination. All I care about is not giving that pile of dung in the White House 4 more years.

The Notorious G.O.P on August 4, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Hot Air is not really representative of conservative thought. That is to say, there seem to be a lot more atheists, skeptics, and “hard” libertarians than you will find in the broader conservative community. And of course, those who really care about an agenda tend to post more often to promote it, creating an impression of much broader support than it may actually have.

It’s still disappointing to see so many push an anticonservative agenda like same-sex marriage with a straight face as if they’re championing small government, but they’re giving an impression of broader support than it really has.

Which is one reason we keep hearing about new polls showing that the broad public wants same-sex marriage, yet actual public votes are still 38-0 against.

didymus on August 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM

I do respect a state’s right to have a different opinion and take a different tact if you will, California did that. I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, ‘listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the constitution here’s the way you do it’. It takes three quarters of the states deciding that this is important, it goes forward and it becomes an amendment to the United States Constitution.

there absolutely nothing wrong with this statement

…except that California didn’t do that. The citizens twice voted “for traditional marriage,” i.e., against gay marriage. If he’s trying to say that California’s courts interpret things differently from Texas’ courts, and that he thinks that’s wonderful because it’s federal, then he should say that. Otherwise, it sounds like he’s ignorant of how California votes, or at least trying to paper over the uncomfortable details.

calbear on August 4, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Hot Air is not really representative of conservative thought. That is to say, there seem to be a lot more atheists, skeptics, and “hard” libertarians than you will find in the broader conservative community.

…and fewer moderate conservatives, too, I might add.

calbear on August 4, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Apparently I am very seriously wrong and I don’t know what I’m talking about. My sincere apologies, Allahpundit. You’re right.

JohnJ on August 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM

You’re probably thinking of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was not an amendment, just a federal law. It sounds pretty close to what you describe.

didymus on August 5, 2011 at 12:02 AM

“anti-weed amendment”

AP’s smart-ass atheist crap gets tiresome.

Whether you like it or not Allah conservative politicians don’t need gays or atheists but they’re dead in the water without conservative Christians.

rcl on August 5, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Opinions are changing about marijuana laws too even though it’s a longstanding American tradition to ban drugs (alcohol mostly excepted, of course).

Hyperbolize much, AP? You should have qualified that with “recreational,” as there is a whole sh!tload of drugs you can have legally dispensed by a licensed pharmacist…
gryphon202 on August 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM

It’s just a comforting confirmation bias at play with AP. He sees the joy of “gay” marriage everywhere claiming “everybody’s screaming for it!”, when in reality Americans keep rejecting the demand to un-define marriage.

So, in attempting to shore up his confirmation bias AP invokes the weed non sequitur, intentionally ignoring an actual, valid comparison point – “incest marriage”. The argument for homosexual “marriage” is the same as for “incest marriage” – people who “love” each other should be allowed to marry. Also applies to group marriage, polygamy, etc.

whatcat on August 5, 2011 at 12:18 AM

windansea on August 4, 2011 at 11:15 PM

I thot there may have been more to this statement by Gov. Perry. Do you or does anyone have a link for this interview?

What you have stated in your post adds to what was said by Gov. Perry and it gives a more complete meaning to it.

Thanks

bluefox on August 5, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Whether you like it or not Allah conservative politicians don’t need gays or atheists but they’re dead in the water without conservative Christians.

rcl on August 5, 2011 at 12:06 AM


Blasphemy!!!

Or common sense.

didymus on August 5, 2011 at 12:27 AM

When the religious nuts allowed King and State to become involved in a sacred ordinace the seeds for this were sown. Now so-cons want to refuse that which is sold like a fishing license to fellow Americans based on what they do with their private parts.

borntoraisehogs on August 5, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Ahhhhhhh…The nightly conservative kick in the groin.

I don’t know why I just don’t tune in ABC rather than view an Allahpundit post.

birdhurd on August 5, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Whether you like it or not Allah conservative politicians don’t need gays or atheists but they’re dead in the water without conservative Christians.
rcl on August 5, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Blasphemy!!!
Or common sense.
didymus on August 5, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Even setting aside “conservative Christians” I don’t know anybody in real life as totally hyped up as AP is for the idea of un-defining marriage – even Democrats. It’s just not a deciding elective factor for the overwhelming majority of Americans. They have more important fish to fry in their lives.

whatcat on August 5, 2011 at 12:37 AM

bluefox on August 5, 2011 at 12:25 AM

This Link will get you started..You can go from there..:)

Dire Straits on August 5, 2011 at 12:43 AM

And Perry’s absolutely right, again.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on August 5, 2011 at 12:54 AM

I’m not having a problem with it. States can do as they please, and if that’s not good enough for the vast majority of people, go ahead and pass an amendment.
Perry’s position doesn’t require a degree in rocket science.

Murf76 on August 5, 2011 at 1:10 AM

get some Geritol or something.

cartooner on August 4, 2011 at 10:33 PM

That’s tired…

Gohawgs on August 5, 2011 at 2:09 AM

Hey, stop trying to prevent us from changing the culture of the society you live in, don’t you have better things to do!?!

astonerii on August 4, 2011 at 11:19 PM

This is the essence of the shell game–by trying to get you to focus on what’s going on over here, they hope you miss everything going on over there. And if you happen to notice what’s happening over there, they respond with sarcasm about how it’s none of your business and you should get back to minding your business over here.

didymus on August 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Exactly. There is a communication theory called “Spiral of Silence” that says, essentially, that people are good at recognizing what opinions risk getting them ostracized and they are therefore more likely to keep those views to themselves, thereby contributing to the impression that those views are in the minority. This can take place on the Internet despite anonymity. On HA, I notice a lot of name-calling, mocking, and other tactics to silence those who the person disagrees with–for every dozen people who can vigorously debate, there are a few who simply want to silence others. Of course I may be off on the numbers, but that is part of the point–after awhile, people just don’t want to say anything.

The research also shows that even one person stating a contradictory viewpoint can be the encouragement for others to speak up and change the pattern, which conservatives should keep in mind. I can go days without checking in and commenting on HA (and often don’t have time to comment–and I generally don’t like to be a hit-and-run commenter), but if I see something I disagree with and there doesn’t seem to be anyone giving my view, I try to say something. If you ever see me end with “Let the flaming begin,” you now know why I’m speaking up. :)

DrMagnolias on August 5, 2011 at 5:16 AM

Apparently all you here denigrating Perry for his views in supporting a federal law to prevent ‘gay’ marriage have missed or are intentionally trying to redirect attention from what the Democrats are up to.

One of California’s devious Senators (D/CA), Dianne Feinstein, is leading the effort in D.C. (from the federal level) to destroy marriage as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).

What the Democrats are attempting to do is remove that Act (DOMA) and then to pass something in its stead called “The Respect for Marriage Act” which would, from the federal level, make ‘gay’ marriage the law of the land and which would trounce any and all state’s decisions to determine what marriage is for themselves.

So this isn’t some silly, foolish point Perry is making as are others like him. For everyone who seeks the “state’s rights” way yet who denounces the idea of a federal law, take a look at what the Democrats are attempting.

Lourdes on August 5, 2011 at 6:49 AM

And Perry’s absolutely right, again.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on August 5, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Yes, he is.

Lourdes on August 5, 2011 at 6:52 AM

If same-sex marriage is so overwhelmingly approved, why won’t the Democrats incorporate 100% support for it into their platform?

ddrintn on August 4, 2011 at 9:16 PM

From the DNC website as to their party platform, under category, “Civil Rights”:

Democrats are committed to:

Strengthening the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to better protect voting rights;
Enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which includes measures prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity;
Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security;
Ensuring civil unions and equal federal rights for LGBT couples, as well as fully repealing the Defense of Marriage Act;
Ending racial, ethnic, and religious profiling; and
Building a fair and more equitable criminal justice system that provides non-violent offenders a second chance at a rehabilitated life.

This “issue” *IS* an aspect of party aggression by the DNC. Their distortion of “civil rights” continues but, unfortunately for our nation, too many Libertarians insist the voters not discuss these issues — ‘gay’ marriage specifically — while the Democrats are busy aggressing upon the very definitions and credibility of tentpole factors in our nation. The stronger the Libertarian/Social Liberals attack the GOP and Conservatives about these issues — “don’t talk about it, not important, loser issue, etc.” — the more the Democrats continue their attacks on the nation by propaganda campaign after another.

The DNC is busy trying to make it federal law that marriage is NOT defined by one man and one woman at one time, and at this very time in Congress. More of you should pay attention.

And about those issues that no one wants to talk about or likes to, the Left sure isn’t silent on what it’s trying to implement, so why denounce those of us on the Right who do want to discuss issues?

Lourdes on August 5, 2011 at 7:02 AM

If some states want “gay marriage”, they can create something else (like civil unions) that don’t force recognition on all other states through he full faith clause. An amendment banning gay marriage would just prevent one state from forcing it on the rest.

Count to 10 on August 5, 2011 at 7:12 AM

When the religious nuts allowed King and State to become involved in a sacred ordinace the seeds for this were sown. Now so-cons want to refuse that which is sold like a fishing license to fellow Americans based on what they do with their private parts.
borntoraisehogs on August 5, 2011 at 12:31 AM

No, a sizable chunk of the population is ashamed of the choices they have made in life, and see the gay marriage attack on the moral values that make them feel that shame as a way for government to make them feel better about themselves. The only thing this has to do with religion is that people have left their’s because they didn’t feel like living up to the required level of moral behavior.

Count to 10 on August 5, 2011 at 7:22 AM

Perry thought he could use the 10th Amendment argument to finesse the problem on social issues, satisfying the primary base he needs while offering him an out in the general election so he wouldn’t lose moderate swing voters. But that didn’t fly, and he’s about to find out to position himself as a social conservative, he’s going to have to lock himself in on key issues far more than he ever had to do when running for governor against Hutchison or Carole Strayhorn.

jon1979 on August 4, 2011 at 9:23 PM

You are so full of crap.

cartooner on August 4, 2011 at 10:27 PM

No, I think jon1979 might be right on target with that.

ddrintn on August 5, 2011 at 8:07 AM

The question was asked. It isn’t as though Perry could refuse to discuss other issues while the economy is going down the drain.

The reason that what he said makes sense, unfortunately, exposes that he didn’t do a terrific job of saying it.

Article 4.
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This is why the issue cannot be avoided. The agenda of those pushing for gay marriage is not benign. I find it amusingly ironic that AP chooses to cite Brandeis’ commentary in a dissent where he repeatedly and forcefully refers to the essential necessity of the government responding to evil resulting from flawed legislation.

The reading of Article 4 Section 1 chosen by those wanting to be able to marry whomever or whatever they choose, intends that once they succeed in any state, all other states would be forced to acquiesce to their position. Since this presents a plethora of conflicts and unintended consequences, each of which represents harm to the wishes and statutes of those states which do not agree, it naturally rises to a valid level of requiring a federal solution.

Simply put, the people forcing this issue are hoping to require that everyone agree with their position through the “Full Faith and Credit” provision. There are but two ways to prevent this. Either attain a federally agreed upon exclusion of this provision in the matter of States’ respect for non-traditional marriages (leading to massive amounts of chaos), or clarify the definition of federally acceptable marriage.

Freelancer on August 5, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Why would you want an amendment in a case where you respect a state’s right to have a different opinion? The touchstone for an amendment, I would think, is when you don’t respect that right because a particular state’s legislative preference would lead to grievous harm.

Perry or “The Feds” would not be imposing their will on the states. The states would be choosing to affirm their shared values about marriage (or abortion).

I really don’t see the problem with Perry’s position. He is saying that as it now stands under the constitution he respects the different states’ rights to choose different paths. That doesn’t mean he rejects the prospect of working for a constitutional amendment.

Y-not on August 5, 2011 at 10:37 AM

cartooner on August 4, 2011 at 10:27 PM

No, I think jon1979 might be right on target with that.

ddrintn on August 5, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Er, no, Perry has always been a So-Con, this isn’t a new position for him. jon1979 is just not as familiar with Perry as he pretends. And the amendment process is a federalist process!

cartooner on August 5, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Dire Straits on August 5, 2011 at 12:43 AM

Thanks for the link!

bluefox on August 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM

DrMagnolias on August 5, 2011 at 5:16 AM

This is not exclusive to Hotair only as I’m sure you know. The ones that do this are easy to spot. The Tech sites, most of the time no matter the topic most always become a war between Apple & Microsoft, LOL. It doesn’t take long before you realize the topic has been disregarded.

bluefox on August 5, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Lourdes on August 5, 2011 at 6:49 AM

What you have stated is exactly what Gov. Perry is addressing. Keep it a State Right issue, but if the Feds want to take away the States Rights by what they are trying to do, then the Constitutional Amendment is the way to go.
That was my understanding of what he said(of what AP posted). This was why I posted this previously:

Do you think Gov. Perry is saying that this is a State Right issue; but a Constitutional Amendment would be the way to go rather than the Federal Government mandating it for all of the States?

bluefox on August 4, 2011 at 9:16 PM

bluefox on August 5, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Lourdes on August 5, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Thanks for expanding on your comments and posting this additional information. It is difficult to try and keep up with all of the behind the scenes activity that goes on. Certainly agree with you that if the Dems are planning this Federal intrusion into States Rights, that ALL political parties involve themselves in the discussion. This nitpicking must stop and we all must be united against that which is wrong. Our Country and our Liberties have been under assault for way too long.

I am of the opinion that Gov. Perry is aware of much more than he said. However, what he did say is clear. There should be no disagreement with it.

bluefox on August 5, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Freelancer on August 5, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Very well stated. That is exactly what is trying to be done.
Very similar that everything they want to use the taxpayer’s money for those that don’t contribute is a “civil right”, the latest is birth control & cell phones. So the private health care providers are going to be mandated for this free stuff. Then those that work, will have their costs go up. They use legitimate rights as an umbrella to include anything and everything to take away the rights of the States and the people.

bluefox on August 5, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Oh, and here’s the second sentence again: “Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” Even if the people of a state amended their own constitution to legalize gay marriage, this would trump it. If you don’t believe me, here’s the Cato Institute describing a similar, earlier version of the amendment: “Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages.”

Sorry I wasn’t here last night for this. It’s probably too late but here it is.

It seems to me that the statement about the state’s constitutions is in there to prevent another situation like the one that occurred in Iowa, where the elected representitives of the people passed a DOMA, and the Iowa supreme court struck it down and said that the Equal Protection clause of the Iowa constitution requires same-sex marriages.

It seems to me that the federal amendment is just trying to keep the courts from dictating gay marriage against the will of the people.

Of course that liberal mob at CATO might have a different opinion. You can choose who to believe.

jaime on August 5, 2011 at 6:11 PM

By the way, I think the federal amendment will allow states the option of same-sex marriage legislatively, just not constitutionally. That is a way to keep the power in the hands of the people and out of the hands of the courts.

jaime on August 5, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Just to be clear, I think the federal amendment is OK with a state constitution allowing same-sex marriage, but not OK with a state constitution requiring same-sex marriage.

jaime on August 5, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2