Rick Perry Signs Pledge Opposing Gay Marriage
Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry has signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledging to oppose same-sex marriage and advance a constitutional marriage amendment.
Perry joins front-runner and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in signing the pledge promising to defend traditional marriage.
The pledge lists five commitments concerning the natural understanding and legal definition of marriage.
The first commitment is to support passage of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That position marks a change for Perry, who previously said that the legal definition of marriage is the states’ prerogative, while also opposing having one state’s definition imposed on another state.
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me,” Perry told an audience in Aspen, Colorado on July 22.
“That is their call," said Perry. "If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”
Days later Perry further clarified his stance, saying that he opposed re-defining marriage and reiterating that the right way to protect marriage was at the state level.
“[I]t’s fine with me that the state is using their sovereign right to decide an issue,” Perry told the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in a July 28 interview.
“Again, my comment reflects my recognition that marriage and most issues of the family historically have been decided by the people at the state and local level," said Perry. "That is absolutely the state of law under our constitution.”
However, in the same interview, Perry also said that he opposed allowing “liberal special interests” and “activist judges” to impose a definition of marriage on the states, broaching the possibility of using a constitutional amendment to define it.
“[T]hat is the reason that the federal marriage amendment is being offered, it’s that small group of activist judges, and frankly a small handful, if you will, of states, and liberal special interest groups that intend on a redefinition of, if you will, marriage on the nation, for all of us, which I adamantly oppose," he said.
Perry said that using a constitutional amendment to define marriage would protect states like Texas from having marriage defined for them.
“Indeed, to not pass the federal marriage amendment would impinge on Texas and other states not to have marriage forced upon us by these activist judges and special interest groups," he said.
Read more at CNSNews.com.
- Matt Cover's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
A big battle is heating up in
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 08/31/2011 - 2:51am.
A big battle is heating up in the NC GA. They will meet on September 12th to try and get and amendment on the Nov 2012 opposing gay marriage. The Republicans have introduced a bill for he past 4 years. The Democrats turned it down. Well the Dems are no longer in charge. They don't want to see a constitution amendment on the ballot in Nov 2012 because conservatives will turn out in droves.
In a round about way this is another reason for term limits...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 08/31/2011 - 6:45am.
...to prevent that, through the courts, by the actions of a few states, the whole nation is made to accept laws created by people that the other states did not elect, and laws the other states do not want.
That's how liberals usually get what they want through the courts. With term limits the electeds wouldn't be there long enough to start mischief like "gay" marriage.
The Founding Fathers debated term limits at the 1787
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 08/31/2011 - 4:13pm.
constitutional convention and turned it down for very good reasons. They reasoned that in order to have good government Americans need to get more involved by knowing the principles of the republican form of goverment and becoming well informed on any issue being debated.
There is no silver bullet other than an informed electorate.
The problems we face today (unbalanced budgets, law-making judges, unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional creations of departments, bureaus and agencies, ie: Dept of Ed, Dept of Energy, EPA, etc.) is NOT the fault of the Constitution. The Constitution does not need amending to limit terms of congressmen, it just needs to be obeyed! The problem of bad government polices is the fault of the VOTER who keep electing the Kennedy, Barney Frank, Pelosi and Reid and RINO type of politician more than the Jesse Helms, Larry McDonald, Robert Taft, Ron Paul, Tom Coburn or Jim Demint type of statesman.
Already in some con. districts and some states the voters are more keenly aware of who is good and who is bad for America and they understand the principles of good government that is demanded of citizens in order to keep our republican system operating.
The 2010 election proved that term limits are not needed.
Entrenched politicans were ousted either in the primary or the general election. If we had had a term limits amendment there would not have been such a large turn over. The voters were forced to get acquainted with issues and cull out the RINOs in the GOP primaries to face the super liberals with tougher candidates more in tune with constitutional principles. We need tosee more of that in 2012!
Term limits erases from the voters the burning desire to vote out bad politicians as soon as they can be removed (every 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators). Voters will not be so anxious to get to the polls to vote out a liberal big spender since they'll convince themselves with the attitude of " why bother, the bum will be out of office in 6 years anyway?"
The office holder will likely get a chip on his shoulder due the "term limits" bell that will end his career. He or she won't be in an hurry to answer mail or to bend to pressure from the voter back home since they are essentially 'lame ducks.'
More negatives on Term Limits
No time to get experience and learn the ropes of how the system operates and they will be more dependent upon unelected professionals in DC who will have more influence on them than the voters back home.A voter wants a congressman to listen to his constituency not to the professionals who will staff his office.
Then you have the lobbyists who will turn his or her head with a promise of a nice job if they vote their way. The term limits amendment will place congressmen ( except the most honest) into the hands of influencers in Washington, far away from the congressional districts that they are supposed to represent.