The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Perry Gives Liberals Another Reason to Fume

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Perry Gives Liberals Another Reason to Fume

By David N. Bass on 8.4.11 @ 12:46PM

I caught a payload of flak from AmSpec readers a week ago for my column taking Rick Perry to task for telegraphing that he would not support a federal marriage amendment. Since then, Perry has walked back his comments on marriage and the 10th Amendment, eliciting the ire of liberals who, just a short time ago, heaped breathless praise on the Texas governor for his political acumen in winking at New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage.

During an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Perry affirmed his support for amendments protecting traditional marriage and the sanctity of unborn human life, and requiring that the federal government run a balanced budget. (On that last one, the Beach Boys’ tune “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” keeps running through my head, particularly as I watch the Dow nosedive today.)

Specifically on the marriage question, Perry said (emphasis mine):

… That 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 interests groups that intend on a redefinition of, if you will, marriage on the nation, for all of us, which I adamantly oppose.

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.

Our constitution was designed to respect states including the amendment process. That is one of the beauties and why I talk about in my book “Fed Up” that we need as a nation to get back to really respecting our constitution and the tenth amendment in particular which allows the states to impede against each other, whether it is on taxes or regulations or litigation and create the economic environment.

But the overall constitutional protection, if you will, by and how we amend our United States Constitution to reflect the values of the nation as whole is very important. Balanced budget amendment, another one of those with all of the debt ceiling talk going on right now. The balanced budget amendment and clearly telling those people in Washington, “look your spending too much money, and one way we protect your human nature, which is to say yes to special interest groups, is to prohibit you from doing that by passing a balanced budget amendment.” And I hope we’ll do that, and I hope we also pass the federal marriage amendment as well.

Liberals’ hypocritical outrage over Perry’s so-called “abandonment” of the 10th Amendment is humorous, though hardly unexpected. It underlines their selective reliance on states’ rights and local control — e.g., they support it only when it furthers their political ambitions. After all, if state autonomy is truly such a concern to them, why support ObamaCare, the uber-encroaching federal law that tramples on the rights of states?

Perry’s rationale for a federal marriage amendment is reasonable. Which upholds state autonomy more — having the federal courts impose same-sex marriage nationwide (as they did with abortion on demand), or going through the rigorous amendment process that requires ratification by three-fourths of the states? On this social issue in this day and age, those are the two options. It would be nice if we lived in a world where federal courts respected state autonomy. They don't.

To date, only a handful of states have legalized same-sex marriage through the legislative process. The others did so through judicial edict. In comparison, 30 states have passed marriage amendments by a popular vote of the people. Despite shifting polls in the issue, a majority of Americans still view marriage as between one man and one woman. A federal imposition of same-sex marriage would run counter to what most Americans want, in addition to crunching states' rights.

Make no mistake about it: a federal solution is the Left's ultimate goal on this issue. That means conservatives have to play tough defense. To that end, Perry’s latest remarks haven’t lost him his status as a defender of federal non-intrusion. They’ve bolstered it.

View all comments (45) | Leave a comment

MD_LA| 8.4.11 @ 1:20PM

Yawn. Sounds like, yet another, flip-floppin' Texas Politician with the "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

Like most conservatives, Perry screams, "the government needs to stay outta my business." Yet, he's eager to pass laws which would limit personal freedoms to anyone who doesn't "conform" to his beliefs. I just love how Conservative can "pick and choose" what defines "Personal Freedom." Sure, limit who can get married (according to what I deem fit) but don't you DARE touch my gun. What a load of crap.

Now, as for Perry... As Governor of a state that:
1) Ranks #3 as states with highest number of welfare recipients
2) Ranks #3 as states that receive the most in Federal Aid
3) Ranks #4 as states with the highest levels of pollution
4) Has had the worst drought in it's recent history.

With all this said, I think Perry should be concentrating on more important things than whether or not 2 consenting adults want to marry each other. Oh, by the way Perry... nice quick plug on your book there in the interview. Nice to see you have priorities (i.e. only the Presidency).

Perry for Prez| 8.4.11 @ 2:39PM

You posted the same on Breibart, The blaze etc. You must be a paid DNC shill. Obama will be voted out in 2012

W| 8.4.11 @ 4:22PM

Texas is the second most populous state, so these rankings are in line. What did Perry do to cause the worst drought?

beebop| 8.4.11 @ 6:31PM

Uh ... 1 and 2 is the INTENDED consequence of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

I would like to see who the hell conducted the study that you cite for 3.

uh ... 4? Seriously? You need to take your meds.

darcy| 8.4.11 @ 1:48PM

Mr. Bass: Please avail yourself of this exceptional discussion of Rick Perry's 10th Amendment/homosexual marriage comments:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020040.html

And let me add that I learned several days ago of Tony Perkins' interview with Perry; I receive emails from FRC. And I was disappointed in FRC's giving Perry a pass on this issue. It's a huge miss-step for an organization I greatly admire and have supported for more than 20 years.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.4.11 @ 2:12PM

And in an interesting sidebar all one has to do is review recent history to see how the state handles alleged state beliefs:
http://news.yahoo.com/man-inte.....03335.html
Rudolf Brazda, believed to be the last surviving person who was sent to a Nazi concentration camp because of his homosexuality, has died, a German gay rights group said Thursday. He was 98.
The Berlin branch of the Lesbian and Gay Association, or LSVD, said that Brazda died on Wednesday. It didn't give details of the location or cause of death.
Brazda was sent to the Nazis' Buchenwald concentration camp in August 1942 and held there until its liberation by U.S. forces in 1945.
Nazi Germany declared homosexuality an aberration that threatened the German race, and convicted some 50,000 homosexuals as criminals. An estimated 10,000 to 15,000 gay men were deported to concentration camps, where few survived.
When a memorial to the Nazis' gay victims was unveiled in Berlin in 2008, the LSVD said the last ex-prisoner that it knew of had died three years earlier. But the group said it was then contacted by Brazda, who visited the memorial at its invitation and became an honorary member.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 3:03PM

And is the point of your post that this is what will eventually be done with all traditional Christians in a pro-gay state?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.4.11 @ 4:37PM

No. Only a lunatic would have come to that conclusion.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 5:56PM

" . . . all one has to do is review recent history to see how the state handles alleged state beliefs . . ."

My apologies for not viewing your post through the biased prism you wanted me to.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.4.11 @ 8:15PM

You sound like you are fuming.

john dubose| 8.4.11 @ 2:34PM

Stories about Homosexual marriage consistently ignore the notion that the government does NOT make a marriage. This one is no exception. Decent governments just enforce contracts and ( in an ideal world ) look out for the abused and helpless. Homosexuals should have as much right to make contracts as anyone else. Whether they can make a marriage is up to God, not Rick Perry.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 3:01PM

Homosexuals can already "make contracts", Mr. Dubose. All they have to do is hire lawyers. But it is absurd to expect the state to pay their legal fees, considering their relationship -- unlike child-bearing marriage -- adds no more to the state then that of very close neighbors.

john dubose| 8.4.11 @ 3:18PM

If a state pays a legal fee, it better be on behalf of some "wronged" innocent. This is a separate issue and one would have to go deep into the legal system to sort it out.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 3:46PM

No it isn't. The state has set up within its legal structure a way to streamline the husband-wife contract, which historically has been crucial to determining the legitimacy of children for the sake of parental rights. (DNA testing, along with liberals' accomodations to out-of-wedlock births -- brought on by their sexual revolution -- has whittled away at this important purpose.)

The point is that the state has no compelling interest in creating contracts to regulate gays' sexual relationships. But it has a compelling interest in maintaining contracts to regulate heteros' sexual relationships.

No one is stopping gays from forming their own contracts. This entire "rights" issue is a sham.

john dubose| 8.4.11 @ 4:05PM

Since Homosexual couples can not have children except by adoption, the DNA part is not relevant.
In the case of adoption, there is every reason to treat homosexual unions as inferior to those of
hetreosexual ones. If the laws need tweaked for that purpose by all means, do it.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 4:24PM

The parentage issue is relevant because it is what makes marriage a meaningful institution. Same-sex inclusion in marriage removes the purpose of marriage's very existence. (If you can't have something yourself, you might as well go and destroy it, right?)

And the law does not need to be tweaked -- it already casts homosexual unions as inferior to heterosexual unions by not legally acknowledging homosexual unions. But gay activists can't have that. They want fabricated equality for their sexual relationships, whether Nature agrees or not (medically and psychologically, Nature completely disapproves). The penalty for not playing along with their delusion is a scarlet "B" for Bigot.

john dubose| 8.4.11 @ 4:39PM

Question .. not an arguement
How is a marriage between a man and woman both incapable of having children different than that of a pair of the same gender? If you would allow those and not the homosexual ones, you need a darn good reason.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 5:50PM

Thanks for the discussion.

The *prospect* of children is why all societies discriminate between husband-wife relationships and other relationships. Barren couples do nothing to undermine this institution. But two men insisting their sex, their attachment, matters as much as a husband and wife's devalue the husband-wife relationship (and its responsibilities and obligations) IN THE MINDS OF FUTURE MOTHERS AND FATHERS.

You know what else is an important discriminatory institution structured into our legal system? The Parent-Child relationship. Behold the discrimination: just because a woman gives birth to a child, she automatically has special legal rights to control it. The law *discriminates against* all other people who did not give birth to that child. Are there legal exceptions to this institution? Yes: adoption. Does allowing adoptive parents to acquire these rights make it unjust to structure our legal system around the special, automatic legal rights parents have to their own children?

If not, why does the fact of childless couples mean we have to extend "marriage" to any two people who sleep together? Why then, should they even have to sleep together, for that matter?

john dubose| 8.4.11 @ 6:44PM

We are back to square 1. If a same sex couple shacks up and claims to be "married" are they really maried? Maybe not in the eyes of us old folks and "God". But they think they are and some basic respect is due.

I think we disagree about the degree such couples affect heterosexuals who want to have a family. At worst the homosexual couple down the street is an annoyance. If emerging modern research is correct, they got that way by genetics and/or a bad childhood. In that view, hardly any people are turned to homosexuality by recriitment. If you are a normal male, girls are way more fun.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 8:37PM

"In that view, hardly any people are turned to homosexuality by recriitment . . . "

Boys that are sexually abused have been found to be 7 times more likely to self-indentify as gay later in life:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/c.....80/21/1855

john dubose| 8.5.11 @ 12:20AM

Exactly, abuse of boys sometimes leads to Homosexuality. But a grown up hetero-sexual
( at least in the past ) male is much more likely to punch the perv out.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 9:09PM

"In that view, hardly any people are turned to homosexuality by recriitment . . . "

And why is it that conservatives who want to preserve our Christian heritage in history textbooks are proselytizing, but gays who want to teach gay sex to second graders are DEFINITELY NOT recruiting?

john dubose| 8.4.11 @ 4:29PM

I would agree that in the real world a "homosexual" marriage contract ought not mean much except to the two parties.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 4:11PM

Marriage is designed to sublimate men's urges to allow them to be used to protect children and help raise them. We are facing a fertility crisis in the developed world. We DO NOT need to be undermining a proven mechanism for chlid raising for airy fairy social science crap. (I'm a psychiatrist by profession.)

darcy| 8.4.11 @ 4:43PM

The abused and the helpless are the purview of local churches, friends and family, and private charitable entities who can tell a truly needy person from a leech. The ideal world to which you refer is the world that has created an unsustainable fiscal drain on taxpayers and our economy and that has saddled MY children and grandchildren with crippling debt and dim prospects for their ability in the future to provide for themselves.

Sorry John -- but your ideal is already here and it stinks.

john dubose| 8.4.11 @ 5:17PM

Custody fights happen in the courts all the time. That is where we settle such things. It has nothing to do with the welfare state which is nothing to like unless you are a liberal. Homosexual "marriages" would have some intersection with these cases. For obvious reasons, judges should give the benefit of the doubt to the more stable claimants to the child's custody. This is where judges should be instructed that ( all other things being equal ) a hetero couple should be assumed more fit.

tonypal| 8.4.11 @ 4:51PM

I didn't realize homosexuals couldn't enter into contracts. When did that happen? That would come as a surprise to any gay or lesbian couple that has purchased a house recently, or was involved in a business transaction. Broadway is filled with homosexuals who presumably entered into contracts to perform.

As for God, I believe he's already spoken on the issue. Since the inception of marriage, it has always been between one woman and one man. So if it's up to God and we here on earth are bound to follow God's laws, it seems pretty clear that we ought not be giving homosexuals the "right" to marry.

About the word "right." There is no fundamental right to marry. If you don't agree with me, just point out the relevant passage in the Constitution and I'll consider myself corrected. So the fact of the matter is that homosexuals are not being denied a right that currently exists exclusively for the benefit of heterosexuals. So if you're going to debate the issue, use the proper terminology. There is simply no fundamental right to marriage. Period.

darcy| 8.4.11 @ 6:18PM

No fundamental right to marriage?

Insanity exemplified. I have no fundamental right to use the bathroom everyday -- it's just that humans have been doing it since recorded history.

It takes a Communist atheistic mindset that decides it will 'CREATE' rights that promulgates such utter garbage.

beebop| 8.4.11 @ 6:34PM

Seriously?

You based upon your "theories," you owe me a husband. Where to I go to pick him up?

darcy| 8.5.11 @ 12:38AM

We have a right to choose to be married, as long as we're not eyeing our sister, mother, father, brother, or a person of the same sex. Age restrictions apply as well.

If we abandon those restrictions we'd be in the process of remaking our society in a manner that fits a new kind of society, an atheistic society that mocks God -- if we so casually disregard His will for His creation. We'd also be engaged in dismantling further our once great country.

Wayne | 8.4.11 @ 7:16PM

Pretty much my take. It is not a function of the government. It does not have the authority to define a word it did not create. Marriage already has a meaning.
I have no problem with people wanting to have their contracts, and it does not have to be limited to two people, just don't expect us or the government to call it marriage.

Conservative Bob| 8.4.11 @ 3:51PM

Certain issues really bring out the dedicated activists, as well as the paid to post shills.

This one does much more than others.

I agree with Perry's thinking as stated here. I think this and many othr decisions are best left to the states to work out according to the desires of their populations. (Except when activist seeking to circumvent the will of the people seek out judicial legislation.)

If enough of the population of a state wants to amend their constitution to recognize gay marriage so be it. On the other hand, if the voters choose not to embrace gay marriages as Californians have now done on several occasions then their will should also be respected and not subjected to judicial tyranny.
That is the beauty of our republic the citizens of the several states get to decide what works for them.
Among the many things we really need to return to its original limits if the judiciary, they have exceeded their constitution design and limits.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.4.11 @ 5:05PM

I do not care what Perry thinks of abortion, gay marriage or any social issue for that matter. What I do care about is what he is going to do about our loss of Constitutional Rule (the one's in effect now). Why do these people talk of anything but the economy, our loss of freedom, and expansion of government and regulation? It is just simply another flip flop, and boy, am I tired of politicians going with the flow or speaking to whatever audience they are standing in front of.

Joe| 8.4.11 @ 5:26PM

That is correct, the majority do not favor gay marriage, and once again a small group is trying to impose and force its will upon the majority. They cannot and will not succeed. The government cannot stop gay sex or gay couples cohabiting. Gay marriage should never be given legal recognition or any government approved legitimacy whatsoever, it's not in the best interests of society.

Dave| 8.4.11 @ 6:09PM

Mr. Bass,

I think this sentence shows how off base you are: "Liberals’ hypocritical outrage over Perry’s so-called “abandonment” of the 10th Amendment is humorous, though hardly unexpected. It underlines their selective reliance on states’ rights and local control — e.g., they support it only when it furthers their political ambitions. After all, if state autonomy is truly such a concern to them, why support ObamaCare, the uber-encroaching federal law that tramples on the rights of states?"

Liberals do not rely on the 10th Amendment to advance their positions, so it is wrong to say that they selectively rely on it. Conservatives, and especially Rick Perry, do rely on the 10th Amendment and pretend to do so consistently. Liberals praised Rick Perry for his apparent consistency and rightly criticized him for completely backtracking. If the goal is to protect a state's right not to have same-sex marriage imposed on it from federal judges, then the amendment should not ban same-sex marriage in all states but rather expressly grant state legislatures the exclusive right to define marriage for that state. An amendment like that would support the 10th Amendment unlike the amendment Perry supports which would trample the rights of those states (however few) that choose to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.

NotALibertarian| 8.4.11 @ 6:34PM

" . . . but rather expressly grant state legislatures the exclusive right to define marriage for that state."

You know what? This solution is a scam. The liberal bureaucrats who populate our *Federal* government are using their power over the institutions and regulatory agencies they control to redefine marriage without the people's consent, as fast as they can. The only thing that will stop them is a Constitutional amendment.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.4.11 @ 6:34PM

Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group backed by billionaires Charles and David Koch, has been accused of attempting to suppress Democratic voter turnout in the Wisconsin Senate recall elections.

Patch.com reported that Charles Shultz, a Democrat who lives in the 10th Senate District, received an absentee ballot application form last week from AFP that contained incorrect information on it. The form instructed him to mail it back to the wrong location by Aug. 11 -- two days after the recall election in his district between Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R) and Shelly Moore (D) is set to take place, on Aug. 9.

Politico obtained a copy of the AFP mailer, which was also distributed to voters in the 2nd District.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party filed a formal complaint Tuesday with the state's Government Accountability Board over the issue, accusing AFP of "falsely representing the time frame" for the upcoming August 9 recall election. Shultz filed his own complaint with the GAB on Saturday.

AFP may also be getting involved in the increasingly heated ad wars that have been leading up to the recall elections. According to One Wisconsin Now, AFP has reportedly purchased over $150,000 in television ad time in the Green Bay, Madison and Milwaukee areas.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 4:13PM

Good for AFP.

Wayne | 8.4.11 @ 7:09PM

We should not forget that Texas was the Lone Star State, and it actually negotiated the right to leave the Union at any point. Now how legal that negotiation was I do not know, but I think it has some legitimacy.

John D. Froelich| 8.4.11 @ 7:14PM

It is odd how many people fudge the State/Federal responsibility and want opposite direction answers on Abortion and Gay Marriage!

elephant4life| 8.4.11 @ 10:29PM

I really hope that the GOP does not squander its regained popularity (for want of a better word) by once more attempting to pass amendments for what are the most heated social issues: marriage, right-to-life, burning the flag, etc. It's not that these are not issues which need resolution, and the only satisfactory resolution will be through the amendment process; I'm just not sure that these are the most important amendments they should be working on. I would much rather they passed amendments to rein in the powers that recent presidents have grabbed for themselves because the Constitution is silent on the issue; term limits for CongressCritters; term limits and other restrictions for the judiciary to make judges more accountable; clarification of the birthright citizenship and natural-born status issues; national prohibition of eminent domain; some way to Constitutionally exclude the political aspects of Islam from our country while not infringing on the faith elements of Muslims (assuming they can be separated); repeal of the income tax; return of Senatorial election to the state legislatures - these, not whether Adam wants to marry Steve, are the issues that have eroded the quality of our lives and the quantity of our liberties, and which are worthy of the attention due amendments at this time.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 4:14PM

Adam wanting to marry Steve is contributing to the creation of a Culture which will lose to Islam.

Robert Speirs| 8.5.11 @ 9:43AM

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. A male homo can marry a woman just as a normal male can. What extra rights do normal men have? Just because you want to call a perverted relationship a "marriage" doesn't mean it becomes your "right". You may want to fly by flapping your arms, but you have no "right" to do that or anything else that violates logic and common sense.

Alex_Votocracy| 8.5.11 @ 12:01PM

Everybody should have the right to marry whomever they want. And this man is considering running for the White House? Crazy...I'd rather elect a president this way: http://bit.ly/rpx86v

Alex_Votocracy| 8.5.11 @ 12:01PM

Everybody should have the right to marry whomever they want. And this man is considering running for the White House? Crazy...I'd rather elect a president this way: http://bit.ly/rpx86v