Perry signs pledge backing gay marriage ban

[peejay 327]

Perry signs pledge backing gay marriage ban

By JOE HOLLEY, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Updated 10:09 p.m., Friday, August 26, 2011

Gov. Rick Perry on Friday became the latest Republican presidential candidate to sign a pledge to support an amendment to the Constitution that would outlaw gay marriage. His pledge came a month after he voiced support for the right of states to decide for themselves about gay marriage and other social issues.

The National Organization for Marriage pledge states that, if elected, Perry will send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He also pledged to appoint U.S. Supreme Court judges and federal judges who will "reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into the Constitution."

"The purpose of NOM's Marriage Pledge is to move from vague values statements to concrete actions to protect marriage. Gov. Perry joins Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum as a signer of NOM Marriage Pledge," said Brian Brown, president of the organization, in a statement. "By doing so, Perry makes crystal clear that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, gay marriage is going to be a bigger issue in 2012 than it was in 2008, because the difference between the GOP nominee and President Obama is going to be large and clear."

Perry also signed a pledge this week offered by an anti-abortion group called the Susan B. Anthony List that commits him to selecting only "strict constructionist" judges and anti-abortion appointees to Cabinet and executive branch positions. By signing the pledge he also commits to an effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood and to sign a Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Perry's signature on the anti-abortion pledge is consistent with positions he has taken throughout his career, but he has had to scramble since becoming a presidential candidate to clarify his position on gay marriage.

Speaking to a Republican Governors Association forum in Colorado last month, a few days before he declared his candidacy, he said that his strong support of state's rights meant that he could accept New York's approval of gay marriage, even though he still considered himself an "unapologetic social conservative."

"Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex," he told the Colorado gathering. "And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."

Adding a few words

Social conservatives immediately took issue with Perry's position.

"So, Gov. Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy, or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK, too?" former Sen. Rick Santorum tweeted. Santorum also is seeking the GOP nomination for president.

A week later, Perry told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, "I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me,' and that it's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously, gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed. I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman."

He told Perkins he had worked to pass a defense of marriage act in Texas and had signed a bill in 2003 specifying that Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union.

He also told Perkins he was in favor of a federal marriage amendment as a way to thwart "activist" judges.

His book Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington, would seem to tolerate differences among the states: "If you don't support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don't come to Texas. If you don't like medical marijuana and gay marriage, don't move to California. ... I would no more consider living in Massachusetts than I suspect a great number of folks from Massachusetts wold like to live in Texas. We just don't agree on a number of things. They passed state-run health care, they have sanctioned gay marriage."

The pledge factor

More interest groups this campaign season are insisting that candidates sign pledges to gain endorsements and donations. Although Democrats occasionally are asked to sign pledges, it primarily is a Republican phenomenon.

GOP candidate Jon Huntsman, a former Utah governor, has pledged not to pledge.

"I don't sign pledges - other than the Pledge of Allegiance and a pledge to my wife," he said while campaigning in Idaho recently.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Perry-backs-gay-marriage-ban-2143570.php

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeeeehaaawwww.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tea baggers love freedom so much they don't want no one else to enjoy it.

[Danno 1,228]

Tea baggers love freedom so much they don't want no one else to enjoy it.

As you know "freedom" is a pretty broad term.

Any marriage amendment would have a number of hurdles to cross but if they did.... then it would be the will of the people in a number of ways and as you know the number one freedom we have is to "have our voices heard".

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You mean he'd deprive the states of their rights?

Edited August 29, 2011 by Sousuke

[scandal 951]

As you know "freedom" is a pretty broad term.

Any marriage amendment would have a number of hurdles to cross but if they did.... then it would be the will of the people in a number of ways and as you know the number one freedom we have is to "have our voices heard".

Danno, why do you care what two people, total strangers to you, do in the privacy of their own home?

Isn't the most basic aspect of conservative dogma to allow the individual, causing no harm to another, to live his life as he sees fit? Why do you want to take right away from a gay couple? I frankly just don't understand conservatives on this issue. You'd think that - like Ted Olson - you'd be right out in front of the parade to champion this cause.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, why do you care what two people, total strangers to you, do in the privacy of their own home?

Isn't the most basic aspect of conservative dogma to allow the individual, causing no harm to another, to live his life as he sees fit? Why do you want to take right away from a gay couple? I frankly just don't understand conservatives on this issue. You'd think that - like Ted Olson - you'd be right out in front of the parade to champion this cause.

Come'on my friend, let's not be so disingenuous, this issue is far widder than "The privacy of ones home".

Your definition of Conservatism is more akin to Amsterdam than the American Conservative concept.... and you know it.

If Conservatism is not aimed at conserving Culture, traditions and fiscal concepts it's nothing at all.

The part that cracks me up is how phony so many are on this issue for examples:

Why do you limit your example to just "two people".... aren't you in fact doing exactly what I am?

Who are you to decide only "two people" define a marriage, why must you cling to some religious tradition of two?

Who are you to tell the Bi-sexual person' YOu must choose one or the other but not both?

Your argument rings like a plastic bell to me buddy.

[scandal 951]

Come'on my friend, let's not be so disingenuous, this issue is far widder than "The privacy of ones home".

Your definition of Conservatism is more akin to Amsterdam than the American Conservative concept.... and you know it.

If Conservatism is not aimed at conserving Culture, traditions and fiscal concepts it's nothing at all.

The part that cracks me up is how phony so many are on this issue for examples:

Why do you limit your example to just "two people".... aren't you in fact doing exactly what I am?

Who are you to decide only "two people" define a marriage, why must you cling to some religious tradition of two?

Who are you to tell the Bi-sexual person' YOu must choose one or the other but not both?

Your argument rings like a plastic bell to me buddy.

Actually, we've talked about this before.

I'd be far more laissez faire than most, I think you'll find.

I've got no problem with polyamorous relationships of any sort. Two people, three people, six, seven, eight.. whatever floats your boat. Polygamy, polyandry, even consensual incest between consenting adults. Why not? What business is it of me or you what others do? Whatever number, gender, race, orientation. Call it shacking up, friends with benefits, a marriage, it's all good. The only rules I would have deal with consent. Everyone involved must be of legal age to consent and must willingly give that consent to whatever activities or relationships they undergo. After that - have at it.

So how's that? More comfortable now?

I've got no rule of two, and I'm not clinging to any religious tradition.

I mention two in my question to you since we're talking about a gay marriage ban. But if you want to widen the scope I'm totally down with that.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Interesting. I sort of see the generational theory of Strauss-Howe here.

[Danno 1,228]

Actually, we've talked about this before.

I'd be far more laissez faire than most, I think you'll find.

I've got no problem with polyamorous relationships of any sort. Two people, three people, six, seven, eight.. whatever floats your boat. Polygamy, polyandry, even consensual incest between consenting adults. Why not? What business is it of me or you what others do? Whatever number, gender, race, orientation. Call it shacking up, friends with benefits, a marriage, it's all good. The only rules I would have deal with consent. Everyone involved must be of legal age to consent and must willingly give that consent to whatever activities or relationships they undergo. After that - have at it.

So how's that? More comfortable now?

I've got no rule of two, and I'm not clinging to any religious tradition.

I would like to study Cultures which have thrived under this type of social atmosphere for an extended length of time, can you name a few?

[scandal 951]

I would like to study Cultures which have thrived under this type of social atmosphere for an extended length of time, can you name a few?

So there we have it.

I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is - on a truly laissez-faire small-government, get out of the people's bedrooms form of liberty. And you still want the government telling us what to do, on some premise of "culture". Gotcha.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I would like to study Cultures which have thrived under this type of social atmosphere for an extended length of time, can you name a few?

Greece from the Archaic through Hellenistic Period , Rome, Japan from the Kamakura period all the way through the end of the Tokugawa shogunate.

Most of the periods are at least 700 years long.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Sousuke

[luckytxn 2,265]

If any state wants to allow marriage between same sex then let them but do not expect then that same couple then to move to another state and expect that union to be recognized if that state wishes to not recognize marriages between same sex. This should not even be an issue at all as marriage is essentially a religious component and should be recognized by the two independent people uniting in a holy matrimony. It is the states that are recognizing the religious component. Now the states can recognize a pact between any two people to unite in a civil way but not call it a marriage but to issue a marriage license means they are intruding into religious affairs.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If any state wants to allow marriage between same sex then let them but do not expect then that same couple then to move to another state and expect that union to be recognized if that state wishes to not recognize marriages between same sex. This should not even be an issue at all as marriage is essentially a religious component and should be recognized by the two independent people uniting in a holy matrimony. It is the states that are recognizing the religious component. Now the states can recognize a pact between any two people to unite in a civil way but not call it a marriage but to issue a marriage license means they are intruding into religious affairs.

So what about all the atheists who marry? I really don't see the state thinking of marriage along religious lines.

[luckytxn 2,265]

So what about all the atheists who marry? I really don't see the state thinking of marriage along religious lines.

Reread what I wrote. Civil unions are a contract between any two people to unite as one entity. Marriages are a uniting into a holy matrimony.

To make it more clear. For a state to say that any union has to be between only a man or woman then the state is intruding into religious issues.

Edited August 29, 2011 by luckytxn