Rick Perry Clarifies: ‘Obviously Gay Marriage Is Not Fine With Me’
- Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:01am by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
Texas Gov. Rick Perry clarified statements made last week that he is "fine" with gay marriage in a radio interview Thursday.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry clarified his widely-reported statement from last week that he’s “fine” with gay marriage, saying during a Christian radio interview Thursday that is “obviously” not the case.
Perry’s comments came during a forum in Aspen, Colo. when the Republican governor — widely assumed to run for president — said New York’s recent passage of gay marriage was “fine with me” because of his support for states’ rights.
“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,” Perry said in an interview with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.
Repeating his convictions to both the 10th Amendment and his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, Perry added: “My comment reflects my reputation that marriage and most issues of the family have historically been decided by the state and local level.
Perry pointed to his record as the governor of Texas, which includes the passage of a statewide constitutional ban on gay marriage.
He also emphasized his support for a federal amendment to protect marriage against “a small group of activist judges” and “liberal special interest groups” intent on redefining it.
“To not pass the federal marriage amendment would impinge on Texas and other states not to have [a redefinition of] marriage forced upon them,” Perry said.
Listen to the audio here.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 582 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (109)
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:08amIf the two issues are states rights or gay marriage, I pick states rights. I figure homosexuals will be judged in by GOD.
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:54amI’m just happy he clarified his position. I suspected he was focussed more on States rights-(As a politician one ought expect such) Those who jumped him for his comments ought to have asked for clarification before they so loudly insisted they can never support him again. The Reprobates will be Judged by God–but there is NO reasonable Cause our secular Govt. needs to redefine the Law to accomodate and appease the Reprobate.And No just cause to REPEAL DOMA
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:42pmAs a gay man, I expect that I will answer to God for everything I do, including every aspect of how I have lived my life. Theologically, I don‘t have all the answers and I respect those who’s religious beliefs object to me. For the record I don’t believe God made me the way I am in error. My life and lifestyle, is between me and Him.
Report Post »That being said, I’ve been trying to understand the secular argument against gay marriage. My consevative libertarian values tell me this is a state’s rights issue, and I respect the community of the state to have the right to decide the standards for thier community, though I wonder what becomes of the practice of states honoring each other’s contracts.
I really want someone to discuss with me (politely please) what harm gay marriage causes to traditional marriage or family. Initially I was for civil unions to protect marriage. Then I really thought about it. What damage does gay marriage do to the institution that hasn’t been done by straight people? Straight people abuse their marriages, ignore their spouses, get married with no real respect or understanding of the wonderful covenant of marriage. Straight ‘couples’ shack up and expect the world to treat them as if they bothered to form a covenant. I hold marriage in much higher regard than any other person I know. Please help me to understand what specifically gay marriage does to harm traditional marriage and family.
JJ Coolay
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:21pmI thought his position was pretty clear last week. Media likes to twists people’s words…especially those they do not like.
Report Post »Perry stated last week he was fine with NY States decision because he favors states right and that he did not personally agree with gay marriage.
Wasn’t that clear?
Lux
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 3:08amB_RAD the reason why I have such strong convictions against gay marriage has to do with my belief that the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman has been ordained of God. If you scroll down and read my response to LibertarianForLife you’ll get a better understanding of my views of homosexuality. It also has to do with our eternal identity as children of our Heavenly Father. In The Family: A Proclamation to the World the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles proclaim our stance on marriage. May I recommend you read it and if you still have further questions as to what harm gay marriage causes to traditional marriage feel free to post them here or email me at lux4veritas@hotmail.com.
(The Family: a Proclamation to the World. http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html ).
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 12:45pmLux, I appreciate your reply to me, and I respect your opinions. But, as I stated, I’m not looking for the theological argument, I’m looking for the secular one. While the laws of this country are based in Judeo/Christian values, they are secular. Our US constitution provides for very specific thing that the fed govt. can do and everything else is up to the states. I respect the state’s right to determine their values within that state, but I don’t understand the secular argument against gay marriage. See, this country is based on the ideal that as long as one is not infringing on another’s rights, they are free to do whatever they like. The consequences of those actions are theirs. As I said, my life is between God and me, just as yours is between you and Him. Since I don’t believe, and Jesus taught the opposite of, the idea of collective salvation, I understand your desire to help your fellow man through example and urging, but not the need to control him.
Report Post »Our laws are based on the ideal that man is free to do whatever he likes, just don’t infringe on the rights of others. Even the 10 Commandments are not the law of the land. People can legally covet, have false idols, cheat on their spouse, blaspheme, and work 7 days a week. So, your beliefs (I share many of them), while wonderful and fine for you, cannot be used as basis for all laws.
So, I’m still looking for anyone to tell me what about gay marriage specifically does harm to traditional marriage and family.
B_rad
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 12:49pmLux, I have other thoughts in response to your replys to LibertarianForLife. Scroll down.
Report Post »WingedPanther73
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 11:41pmB_Rad,
I’m definitely a Christian, so responding from a purely secular view will be a best attempt. With that said, I think the key to deciding whether gay marriage is appropriate is to first decide what the purpose of marriage is. I think the historical perspective would simply be that it provides two things: a stable environment within which to raise children, and protection for women who were not in a position to provide for themselves. Ultimately, then, your question comes down to whether or not that is still the purpose of marriage, and how gay marriage fits in to that.
I think that, in general, both items are still legitimate. Certainly, we’ve seen a huge rise in single-parent families, but we‘ve also seen that the don’t prove to be ideal environments. It is very difficult for a single parent to provide all the things a child needs, both emotionally and financially. So this suggests that a two parent family is still something that should be promoted by society. Barring adoption or infidelity, it is simply not possible for a gay couple to have a child. Since gay marriage is inherently between two women, or two men, the protection of women argument doesn’t really apply.
CONTINUE…
Report Post »WingedPanther73
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 11:42pmCONTINUED…
Based on that, the only sense in which gay marriage fulfills the traditional purpose of marriage is in the case of adoption. Infidelity is likely to cause problems in a relationship, so is probably NOT a good justification for gay marriage. There has been quite a bit of research that strongly suggests the ideal is a male and female parent. So, for adoption, the ideal would still be a couple in a traditional marriage. Also note that legalizing gay marriage will not cause single parents to suddenly offer their children up for adoption.
So, for fulfilling the traditional purposes of marriage, gay marriage simply doesn’t make sense. Now, the question becomes: is there another purpose in marriage that gay marriage legitimately fulfills? The most common argument I’ve seen is promoting stable, long-term relationships. To this point in history, the only stable, long-term relationships we have ever promoted have been those between a man and a woman.
CONTINUE again…
Report Post »WingedPanther73
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 11:45pmCONTINUED
Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether we will, as a society, use the institution of marriage as a means to validate and/or promote gay couples. It represents a change in the purpose of marriage, deciding what relationships we will endorse, and opens the door to many changes, not just this one. From a secular perspective, I don‘t think that’s a problem, but it should be approached with caution. We’ve learned over the years that changes that have never been tried before can have far reaching impacts that we failed to anticipate.
The problem I’ve seen with the entire debate, unfortunately, is the discussion of impacts. Most of the rhetoric I’ve heard from the gay community has minimalized any potential social repurcussions, and made sympathy plays regarding adoption. Most of the rhetoric I’ve heard from the Christian community has implied that any relationship imaginable will become covered and endorsed by marriage.
Report Post »CONTINUED yet again…
WingedPanther73
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 11:45pmFINAL CONTINUED…
To me, the question, from a secular perspective, is should we change marriage, and if so, how much? I think it is a relevant question, because we have seen some interesting changes starting to occur. Polygamy is recognized in Saskatchewan Canada, and is recognnized as civil unions(?) in the UK and Australia. Age limits on marriage also come into question. We recently saw a middle-aged man marry a 16-year-old girl in the US (with her parents’ permission). Both of these strike me as things that would actually weaken the protection of women that it originally served to provide. In general, there hasn’t been a reasoned discussion of where the line should be, or why it should be there. Failing to have that discussion, I believe the logical secular position is to exercise extreme caution in instituting any changes in the definition of marriage.
As a final note, it is important to question what marriage offers that civil unions do not. From what I’ve seen, based on limited knowledge, its primary impact is on adoption. If we need more adoptive parents, wouldn’t it make more sense to change the adoption requirements than to change marriage?
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 2:25am@Winged, thank you, I appreciate your perspective, and I see validity there. It is, by far, the best argument I’ve seen.
Report Post »In response I’d first point to my comments directly below to Coheir888 regarding adoption.
As to your other points; as far as a stable environment for children, straight couples and singles fail miserably at that daily. Either by not bothering to form a covenant, or not respecting the gravity of their covenant, they trounce on the sanctity of the institution, and harm any children they have created. Also, why would it be permitted for women beyond child bearing years, to marry?
As to protection of, and providing for, a woman; it is obvious that is no longer a main requirement. While I am for more traditional families in which someone stays home and actually parents any children they create, woman have proven more than capable of providing for themselves. It could be argued that a each person in a gay couple is willing to lay down their life for their spouse, and in that sense, protect them in the manner in which you speak.
I see marriage as so much more than an institution of stability. It is the dedication of one’s life to the purpose of another, and that is a beautiful thing, regardless the sex of the other.
In some ways, I wonder if, because it has been denied to them, gays don’t hold marriage in higher regard than many straight people. I see straight people take marriage, and their spouses, for granted every single day. Continued:
B_rad
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 2:35amContinued: Then you have the reasonable concern that altering the definition opens it to so many more definitions. Were that the case, I’d support the term civil unions if they encompass all the rights and priveledges afforded by marriage. Of course, then all those other definitions could insist they be granted civil unions. I’m for limiting the definition of marriage to a union between two consenting adults. Anything other than that would, in fact, defeat the purpose and sanctity of marriage.
The fact is that straight people have done every conceivable damage to the institution of marriage. From couples who get married with no respect or true concept of what marriage means or entails, to shack-ups who expect the world to treat them as if they actually bothered to commit to one another, straight men and women have made a mockery of marriage. When two consenting adults wish to lay down their lives for the other, to wake up every morning for the rest of their lives wondering how they can make their spouse’s life better that day, how can that ever degrade the institution? Gay marriage cannot harm an institution in the mind of any other person who understands and respects what marriage really means.
Report Post »WingedPanther73
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 4:18pm@B_rad: I agree that having a child be adopted is far better than having a child not be adopted. I‘ve had the misfortunate of seeing what happens when a child doesn’t get adopted until reaching the teen years.
I’ll agree that we have far to many unstable environments for children, currently. Things like “no fault divorce”, paternity testing, and normalizing teen pregnancy have worsened this situation. With that said, there is no evidence I’m aware of that this suggests that gay couples would do a better job. If gay couples are part of the same society that mocks marriage, wouldn’t they be susceptible to the same lack of stability?
Regarding protecting women, that is a justification for letting women beyond child-bearing years marry. Further, would we want to impose divorce on long-term couples simply because all the children have left the house and no more will be coming? That’s a natural extension.
I can also state with certainty that when I married my wife, her standard of living significantly improved. It made it possible for her to go back to college, and her general happiness has significantly improved. My life has also improved greatly having her in my life.
I agree that many women have an easier time than they used to, as far as being financially independent. With that said, organizations like NOW keep saying that women having achieved pay equity, so perhaps marriage isn’t quite useless yet.
Report Post »CONTINUED…
WingedPanther73
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 4:20pmCONTINUED:Making marriage harder to get into would be another fix. Rather than extending it, making it hard to get into or out of will change things. We live in a society that thinks we should get married because the other person makes you feel good. Mandatory pre-marital counseling, dealing with the hard issues that people “in love” don’t want to think about, would help a lot. Mandatory marital counseling prior to divorce, and having a violation of the marriage covenant as a prerequisite for divorce would help.
One final note: I noticed you talked about the sanctity of marriage. That has strong religious overtones. The reality is that marriage is not likely to ever be a purely secular relationship. From a secular perspective, abolishing marriage makes as much sense as extending it, given your observations about child-rearing and the ability of women to take care of themselves. The reality is I don’t think we want to abolish it, but we need to know why it is important today. I don‘t think there’s a secular answer to that.
Report Post »Coheir888
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:06amMary Gallagher of NOM has presented one of the most realistic arguments for not passing Fedral, let alone state, legislation making same sex marriage the law of the land. Most folks suscribe to marriage as to be between a man and woman. This oppinion can come from religious persuasion or from other very strong rationalizations. Wherever it comes from, it is very strongly held. As long as there are no laws pretaining to this viewpoint it remains an opinion. However, once it becomes law, the opinion that disagrees is a law breaker. This could best be seen as pastors who, from moral conviction, refuse to marry same sex couples would then have their licenses and tax exempt status questioned. This could also be the experience of excellent adoption agencies who because of their religious orientation could not in good conscience place children with same sex unions. They, too, are licensed by the state and their actions would then be breaking the law. Viewpoint or no, actively opposing a law mandated by the very government doing the licensing changes the playing field where the differences of opinion use to be just differences.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:02pmReligious beliefs trump any laws that would allow same-sex marriage. Why would anyone wish to force a religious leader to marry them against their beliefs? As far as adoption, I consider it wrong for a baby to be given to a gay couple over an equally qualified straight couple. Common sense makes it quite clear that the ideal environment for children is one that provides the polarity of a mom and dad working together. Similarly, I find it wrong for gay couples to intentionally create children who will be deprived of either a mom or a dad. I find it just as wrong for straight people to intentionally create children without first creating a loving, intact home with a caring mom and dad. However, children who have been abandoned and left to the foster care system will be far better off with two mommies or two daddies who love them and care for them, then to have no real home or family of their own. Adoption of children who don’t have married straight couples lining up to take them is a very good thing for single people, or homosexual couples to do.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 4:38am“This could best be seen as pastors who, from moral conviction, refuse to marry same sex couples would then have their licenses and tax exempt status questioned.”
Nonsense. when the Loving decision was passed, not one church or pastor suffered legal challenge if they refuse to preform an interracial marriage.
Many many ministers refuse to marry people who have been previously divorced – again without legal consequence.
Don’t believe the scare tactics.
some adoption agencies HAVE been mishandled (and this wrongly IMO) but only when they are acting as agents of the state government. Private agencies not associated with the state government have been fine AFAIK.
but the notion a minister or church would be legally compelled to preform gay marriages is utter nonsense.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:58amTo STAY THE HELL OUT of Churches and, therefore, marriages, IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH. The government has NO business in what we pray, when we pray, what religious symbols we display, who we marry, who we refuse to marry. The Constitution CLEARLY says so.
ANYTHING else is unconstitutional.
Yes, that means some states will have same-sex marriages/gay marriages/dudes marrying dudes and chicks marrying chicks. BUT, it also means I can pray over a dead soldier. I can pray on the street corner (even though Christ taught against public displays for the sake of display by the Sadducees). It means I can display a manger scene and it is none of the govt’s business. It means my Church can refuse to marry 2 dudes. It means your Church can choose to only have men in leadership positions…
IT MEANS…
GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS BEING INVOLVED IN OUR PERSONAL LIVES –
EVEN IF YOU ARE HOMOSEXUAL.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:36amI am not sure about your statement that it is in the constitution, but I do agree with your sentiments. Let me live my social life as I see fit (as long as I am not physically endangering anyone), and let the chips fall where they may. Federal government should be concerned with fiscal issues and leave the social issues alone.
Report Post »LOJ
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:51amI don’t know if Rick Perry is our man, but I would like to see a new Generation of Conservatives become involved in taking back their country. The Teaparty is the closest thing to the former Wigg Party. God give us leaders who are righteous and honest, not those obsessed with entitlements, spending, who are known as the Ruling Class!
Report Post »KS Jeffersonian
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:29amThe Whig party in England provided the basis for our country — that is, rights flow from God to man, and man then determines what power the government has. However, the Whig party in the U.S., was the successor to the Federalists, it was opposed to the Jeffersonian ideals, and supported Hamiltonian merchantilism — that is the government should actively promote American business interests, as opposed to getting out of the way, so business can promote itself. The Whig party actively promoted what is now commonly called crony capitalism. The Tea Party is definitely NOT like the American Whig Party.
Report Post »CommonSenseis Missing
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:15amWelcome to todays edition of homophobes on parade.
Report Post »Thomas
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:38amHe’s got my vote.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:49amPlease pay Attention to Governor Rick!
He is a good looking man, who is articulate. So that right there negates the “O’Bummer advantage.” And of course, he is evangelical Methodist (very close to true Christian) and of course a Texan/Veteran/Executive.
With his rugged good looks and manly strengths, he blows away opponents, and always pleases Republicans no matter how long it takes! Everyone from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Log Cabin Republicans LOVE Lil’ Rick!
Please support him, send him money, and volunteer your time to make him the Man, take back our country, and make it a White House again.
TEA
Report Post »PghLady13
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:42amPerry has created jobs. He is electable. He will stop the dismantling of America and let state rights stand as state rights. Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve makes perfect sense to most. As a libertarian, they GLB community does not need extra rights. Marriage was defined in Genesis when God gave Adam, Eve. She was created while he slept from Adam’s own rib. Now how much more personal does it get than that. And if anyone has any questions about God’s intention, read The Song of Solomon in the Old Testament…It is racey…LOL!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:15amPerry created jobs with Federal funds.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:49amHigher oil prices haven’t hurt either. Without oil and gas Texas is just a much hotter Alabama. Perry has done a good job of not screwing up the advantages they have but it was not a level playing field.
Report Post »harumph
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:23amThe media keeps harping on this issue. Not Perry. If someone doesn’t have an opinion and a belief system, they are useless and deserve to be run by the government. He made his point. NY does things differently because they “pride themselves” at being the melting pot. Sounds about right. Let ‘em pass rediculous State laws. Fine with me.
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:50amAll these problems and we are talking about this?
Report Post »Poverty, fuel prices, crime, horrible education system, crooked legal system, 2nd amendment attack, attack on religion, borders, debt, obummas wars, housing crash, government intrusion, TSA, progs, and a totally corrupt gang of crooks in DC. And the overload continues.
nysparkie
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:33amSo don;t tell us in NY that NY’s Gay Marriage bill is fine with you! DIP! Tell us you don‘t live here and can’t answer for NY. Tell us if the same bill came before you in Texas(Wouldn’t make it to your desk, I know) you would veto it. ANYTHING but you are fine with the NY bill, again, DIP!
Report Post »quicker
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:37amIt came up for a vote several years ago.And we voted it down.Look to me that ya`ll never had a chance to vote on the issue so the next best thing is to get rid of those polititions that voted for this.Also ya`ll need to put in place laws that let you elect judges like we have i n Tx,Judge that are voted tend to listen more to the people that voted them in .
Report Post »SFsuper49er
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:32amI don‘t like people who try to be down the middle on this and don’t like states passing laws for perversion and sodomy.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:24amSo, Rick Perry is for states’ rights, but also wants a constitutional amendment to make sure their views don’t actually matter on issues he disagrees with?
Huh. Well, at least he didn’t say he wants the SCotUS to decide the issue.
Report Post »Secessionista
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:48amWhy do we keep talking about this? It is a red herring. The government is not supposed to be in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution. We have separation of church and state. There can be no fees, no licenses, and no legal proceedings defining marriage and divorce. That is between you, your spouse, and your god. Insertion of a fourth party is in and of itself UN-holy.
Just because gays and lesbians are foolish enough to want to repeat the mistakes of heterosexuals is completely irrelevant.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:56amWe keep talking about it because the libs want to control every aspect of our lives, including marriage. You’re right, it should be between the husband, wife and God, and I wish they would keep it that way.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:00amGay sex is only Ok if I am at the Bohemian Grove
Report Post »Right Rick ?
https://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-bohemian-grove-meeting-on-july-13-2011/
the hawk
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:03am“Why do we keep talking about this? It is a red herring. The government is not supposed to be in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution.” maybe if we keep screaming this from the rooftops
Report Post »it will catch on ! The government wants to be the third party so they have say, over your property and kids………………………………………..NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS ! ! ! !
AT Least if he gets in Bachmann might get a little relief, but you cant Pray away the gay!
Actually I think the fix is in and he may be our next President.
SFsuper49er
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:23amThey are in it because they make money off the marriage certificate and other things The government only cares about things they can make money off of.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:01amAs the Log Cabin GOP teaches, it is nobody’s business when PRIVATE adult meetings occur.
TEA
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 4:48am@Lori – i agree that IN GENERAL Liberal are very controlling, which is why it saddens me to see so many conservatives ride this particular hobby horse because you are ACTING LIKE LIBERALS.
On the gay issues, it is the Conservatives who are trying to control the lives of others, not the libs.
Face reality: if two women want to get married and they can find a minister or official to do so it DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR OWN CONDUCT IN ANY WAY. It requires nothing from you, and imposes nothing on you. the ONLY reason for you to object is because you want to MEDDLE in someone else‘s affairs when it’s not your business.
just like a liberal.
Report Post »bew0576
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:41amI’m so glad that he clarified this issue – I’m against gay marriage also. Gay people can do what they desire but when they go against Christ and the Bible by living this lifestyle they should not expect the laws of this land to change. They go against the laws of the Bible and yet they want to force their gross lifestyle on the rest of us, talk about confusing children!!!
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 4:51amhere’s a bit of reality for you: we don’t live in a theocracy. However valid God’s laws are (and they are) and however valid a particular man’s interpretation of those laws are (which varies WILDLY) it is not the place of a free government to legislate doctrine.
If you want that, there’s lots of countries which have a very strong commitment to the local religion in their government. This is not one of them.
Report Post »dissentnow
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:06amRick, you should stick to your guns. You were correct about states rights in your first statement. That is the constitutional stance. Stop trying to pander to the bible thumpers. It wont get you the White house.
Report Post »Zorro6821
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:16amThis guy is such a wimp and a flipflopper. Perry is such a phony. Just read about his past an globalist vision. Any fool who votes for him has an IQ below room temperature.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:05amHe is NOT feminine at all, he really fills out a size 12 pair of Tony Lamas and needs an 11-Gallon hat, if you catch my drift. And if you look closely, you will detect he is packing a long barrel. He is, so; manly.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:26amZorro6821
Report Post »When are you going to understand that the candidate choices we have to choose from are ALL prevetted and approved choices. The ones who are not do not make it out of the primary elections. Go back and do your research…..think it has been that way since before I was old enough to vote!! That is why when Presidents get into office it doesn’t matter whether they are R or D…….either party dances to the puppet masters’ instructions………
tomloy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 6:35amIts too late to close the corral gate after the horse has left……
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:59amThis week California passed into law “Pedophile History Month: showcasing the struggles of perverts in America and the lack of tolerance by the right.
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 6:38amREALLY????
Report Post »It should but NOTHING that CA does shocks me any more.
They have become the state of the sexually degenerate.
Stuck_in_CA
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:21am@Favored93, I know how you feel. However, signatures are being collected to outlaw this perversion. Wish us luck!
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:13amStuck_in_CA
Report Post »Man, do I ever feel sorry for people who understand “good and evil” but are still in California!! That state’s governing body is just plain nuts! Are you sure you can’t get out of there??????
Tammy_Beth
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 4:56amit’s a testament to the mentality of this crowd that no one has pointed out that the pedophile comment is total BS and nothing of the sort has happened. Some of yall actually believed it.
Ignorance does not produce freedom – just sayin’
Report Post »TexasKnight
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:57amNice to see him clarify.
Report Post »He is right on the mark. He supports states rights.
If CA wants to tax corporations at 22 percent and drive them all to Texas, he is for it.
If NY wants gay marriage, great, let them go and live there. Texas will be further blessed.
Lets hope he increases state rights once in the oval office. The last few occupants sure have not.
Servant Of YHVH
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 4:01am@TexasKnight
Report Post »You are so right on. And NO, no other state gets him for their governor!
The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 4:18amHell, why wait when we can kick Texas out of the Union now–lord knows it would do wonders for the quality of the textbooks in our nation. I don’t think that alone would reverse educational decline in America, but at this point, any little bit would help.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:01amPleas please please kick us out of the Union…and let Texas get out of this Liberal mess!!!
Besides…RINO Rick will tickle your ears with any words you want to hear.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:06amTexas – Its like a whole other cuntry.
Report Post »busterpuddles
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:41amRick Perry is among the few that have it correct in politics when it comes to this subject. Gay and gay supporters are an abomination.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:59am“Repeating his convictions to both the 10th Amendment and his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, Perry added: “My comment reflects my reputation that marriage and most issues of the family have historically been decided by the state and local level.”
Ron Paul has held this position for decades. Ron Paul has a similar view on drugs.
Yes, gay unions are disgusting, and if allowed to be thought of as normal, will destroy lives by robbing men and women of their gender identity; but a respect for individual liberty demands that gays be allowed to do with each other whatever consenting adults choose to do.
See here.
The Meaning of Same-Sex Attraction
http://www.narth.com/docs/niconew.html
And here.
“Luca Era Gay” (Luca Was Gay) – Giuseppe Povia
Live Performance
Festival di San Remo, 2/17/09
http://www.narth.com/videos/povia.html
Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:26amSo….what you’re saying is…Ron Paul is just as horrible a bigot and just as ignorant of his bigotry as all the other Republicans–the difference is that he’s at least consistent between his political and economic beliefs. Sure, he hates gays as much as the rest of you, but it would by illiberal (contrary to the principles of individual freedom he preaches in his economic politics) to allow that prejudice to write laws in the social realm that he would not advocate/tolerate in the economic realm.
Hey–at least he’s consistent, right? Still won’t vote for him, but he gets character points in my book for sticking to his guns and using his brain to try to sort out his political beliefs.
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:31am@Third, Ya know, just because someone morally, and scientifically disagrees with the assessment that gays are ‘normal’ does NOT mean that they are homophobic and/or HATE gays. I stand firmly against the gay ‘lifestyle’ but also have friends and family who are gay. I don’t hate them. And the idea that I do is absurd. I am sick of anyone with a differing opinion being labeled as a hatemonger. That attitude I do hate.
Report Post »tkrnstr
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:45am@busterpuddles As a Christian, you are not supposed to be pro-gay but you are not supposed to be hateful to them. Attacking them with words or fists are both wrong. Also, I don’t think Rick Perry holds that same opinion that they are an “obamanation”. Rick Perry is against gays getting married but he is not against them as people. Each state can decide if they want gay marriage or not. You can vote with your feet.
Report Post »Servant Of YHVH
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:58am@jedi.kep
Report Post »I too have friends and family that are homosexuals and it is their choice of lifestyle and I am not one to force them to change. The only ones that have that problem are really liberal (that’s funny how that word always comes up when starting to describe people that only want to cause trouble) homosexuals that keep trying to cram their lifestyle choices down our throats (right Archon?). Archon couldn’t care less about anything that he says or the validity of it, he is just like the rest of the liberal haters just looking for any excuse to insult, put down and try and demean others. In fact, they are so full of hate that they don’t need an excuse. Just like archon’s name,he thinks that he is some kind of ruler or lord over the rest of us. Google the name archon, it’s a greek word. I bet if he knew Bill Maher that they would probably “be in bed together” (I don’t know if that would be literally or figuratively, nor do I care). Based on his statements and by virtue of his username, he’s just a petty little wannabe power player who is taking out his failures on everyone else. This is actually worse than the hating petty trolls that we normally get on here. The Third Archon = FAIL!!!
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:52am@The Third Archon,
“So….what you’re saying is…Ron Paul is just as horrible a bigot and just as ignorant of his bigotry as all the other Republicans–the difference is that he’s at least consistent between his political and economic beliefs.”
Gays are actually MORE bigotted, really. Not only do they hold to a particular view about gender identity, like straights do, but they hold this view even when it’s obvious that the vast majority of people hold a contrary view in common.
Do gays never stop to think how one could be against the gay lifestyle for themselves, and yet claim to be OK with it when it comes to others? It’s not like these people are saying “I really like the opposite gender, but gayness might grow on me”. No, they despise the gay lifestyle for themselves, and are merely willing to tolerate others’ freedom of choice.
And don’t make the mistake of comparing hatred for a behavior and hatred for skin color – it’s perfectly legitimate to hate behaviors (theft, murder, etc.).
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:56pmYou are an idiot if you think someone’s sexual preference is relevant to morality. There’s no logical empirical reason or evidence to suggest that gay people are different from heterosexual people in any way other than the gender to which they are attracted.
Report Post »polis
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:38amAbby, God is bigger than the Bilderbergers.
Report Post »Star Spangled
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:35amI like this guy , if he can do for America what he‘s done for Texas he’d make a fine president . There’s No ,no individual income tax or corporate income tax , almost half the jobs created this yr were in Texas . He’s made it a place friendly to companies .
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:22amYou mean turn it into a giant prison? He doesn’t have that much more to go.
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:34amAbby, what are these values you speak of? The ones he derives from his nonexistent god and then tries to shove down the rest of our throats? Homosexual behavior is just as natural as heterosexual behavior, contrary to your book of fairytale’s statements. Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:54amHey, look–a conservative who isn’t retarded! Somebody take a picture because these elusive creatures, usually known as Libertarians (although many social conservatives lie/don’t know any better and call themselves “Libertarians” because it’s what all the cool kids in the conservative movement are doing), are as rare and whimsical creatures as the unicorn.
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:40amThey may be rare, but most conservatives are lacking the personality required to be considered “Whimsical.”
Report Post »Lux
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:38amNonrecognition of the sin is just an attempt to justify oneself in that perversion. Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that “God made them that way.” This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be “that way”? To those weaklings who argue this way, James answers:
“Blessed is the man that endureth [i.e. resisteth] temptation: for when he is tired, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (James 1:12-16.)
Don’t get me wrong my attitude towards homosexuals is no different than my attitude towards any individual with any type of tendencies. Everyone will find themselves faced with one tendency or another. Many face the tendency to anger quickly. Others find it difficult to accept people of different race, faith, or origin. Some struggle with controlling their desires for those of the opposite gender, while some struggle with controlling their desires for those of the same gender.
Report Post »Lux
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:39amcontinued:
“And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.” (Ether 12:27.)
Homosexuality is a struggle, and through the Lord can that burden be lightened. Just like it is important for us to remove anger from our lives and control our passions and appetites, it is important for us to control all forms of tendencies that are not of God. Remember, God loves the homosexual person just as he loves all of his other children. When that person repents and corrects his life, the Lord will smile and receive him.
Report Post »Lux
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:02amI was going to let your remark about the nonexistentce of God slide but I felt I would be doing you a disservice by keeping quite. Now, I know there is a God. So will you share with me what evidence you have that there is no God? I know that you have nothing, save it be your word only. However, to the contrary, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and you also have all things as a testimony to you that they are true. So may I ask why will you continue to deny such eveidence?Can’t you see that all things denote that there is a God? The earth with all things that are upon the face of it, and its motion, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. (See Alma 30 http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30?lang=eng )
But all of these evidences shouldn’t be the foundation that proves to you the existence of God, they should just be a confirmation. The real knowledge of the existence of God comes from him. May I recommend that you study his words, then pray about them and ask God if they are true and if he exist. If you do this with a sincere heart and real intent you will receive an answer. (see Moroni 10:3-5 http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.3-5?lang=eng#2 )
Report Post »saranda
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:11pmLux, you almost had me until you quoted from something called the Book of Moroni. I have read the Book of Mormon and have spent much time reading about and speaking to members of the LDS church in order to know what my daughters were being inundated with on the local playgrounds (as I live in a large LDS community). I have no idea how anyone could read the BoM and conclude it is the truth. But that is just me. I love my LDS friends and admire their devotion to family, and would not challenge their right to believe whatever they choose. I have however seen the fallout of family when one chooses to leave the church or worse yet declares themself gay.
Report Post »Lux
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:37pmSaranda it’s truly is sad when families break apart over such foolishness. Forgiveness is a big part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, unfortunately for some it can be hard to forgive. May I ask what your problem is with The Book of Mormon? I want to more fully understand your statement “you almost had me until you quoted from something called the Book of Moroni.” Would you have preferred if I quoted James from the Bible instead? They both say the exact same thing, and I don’t see how quoting Moroni makes that statement any less true. So please help me understand.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 1:05pmLux, I share your unabashed belief in God. For those who say there is no proof so God can’t exist, I tell them that most of the billions of people on Earth who believe in God, know that He is there with absolute certainty. Their “proof” is individual and is in their heart. I have many reasons for my absolute faith that He is there, but they are mine and while others would perhaps understand or agree, no one can base their knowlege of a Creator’s existence on my experiences.
Report Post »That being said, your understanding of homosexuality, while understandable from your perspective, and not uncommon among religious folks who strive to understand it, is simply and fundamentally flawed. I understand that most straight people cannot understand homosexuality, there are things i don’t understand about it. But the fundamental flaw is that you look at it as a defect in the make-up, like those with pedophilic tendencies or strange fetishes. I can tell you, gays have all the same tendencies and proclivities as straights. Some pedophiles are gay, most are straight. Gay people have all the same feelings as straights growing up, it is just directed at the same sex. I WAS born this way. I remember from a very young age -before I could even articulate or understand what sexual attraction was- being ‘attracted’ to males. I grew up knowing I was supposed to like girls and even has schoolboy crushes on girls, but it was boys I was physically attracted to. CONTINUED:
B_rad
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 1:28pm:CONTINUED: I tried to hide it, even from myself, but trying to deny it is exactly the same as you, or any straight person, TRYING TO BE GAY. Nothing “happened” to me, I had a normal childhood, with flawed but loving parents. I had girlfriends, but would always put the brakes on when it came to real intimacy. Fundamentally I knew how wrong it was to deceive a girl, how unfair it would be to her to try to make a life with her, never truly desiring her. I tried to deny who I was for 3 decades, planning a straight life. I wanted nothing more than the traditional family. A loving wife, half a dozen kids, and to grow old watching my grandchildren play in the yard. TRY TO UNDERSTAND what it is like to desire that life with everything in your heart, and simultaneously knowing you can’t have it. I could have fought my nature, many do. I could have married one of those girls and made a life. But would it have been the right thing to do to a woman? Would it have been the right thing to do to me? I don’t think so.
Report Post »Gay is not a disease, it is not a punishment for sins of a father 3 generations prior. It is a fundamental part of who I am, just as your heterosexuality is part of you. It is not a defect in the genetics. It just is. I will live my life to the best of my ability as the person God made me to be. I will not harm others, and will ask others to not harm me. When I meet Him, I may find I was wrong, and I hope He can forgive me. If I understand Jesus’ teachings, He will.
Lux
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 1:14pmB_RAD I want to thank you for sharing your beliefs with me. Although we do not agree on the topic of homosexuality, you have my respect for sharing what you believe to be true. And I commend you for your courage to share what is in your heart, not many people would be willing to do that. I am glad we both agree in the definite existence of God, and if you are willing I would be interested to know your perspective on the following questions. Why are we here? Where did we come from? And lastly, where are we going after we die? Fell free to email me at lux4veritas@hotmail.com or you can post your response here if you wish. There is no right or wrong answer I am just curious to know what you believe.
In regards to your last comment: “When I meet Him, I may find I was wrong, and I hope He can forgive me. If I understand Jesus’ teachings, He will.” It is my belief that all can know where they stand with God in this life. God wants us to know because God loves us more than we can even comprehend. Part of the reason to why were here is so “that [we] might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:25.) And that joy in part comes from knowing with a certainty that are lives, however imperfect or flawed they are, are pleasing to our Father in Heaven. He knows us better than anyone including ourselves, and knows if we are trying to live our lives the best we can. And that is all He ask of us, is to do the best we can with what we have been given. For where we fall short Christ makes up the diff
Report Post »Lux
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 1:16pm“And thus he [Jesus Christ] shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.
And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety….” (Alma 34:15-16.) What a beautiful thing the Atonement of Jesus Christ is.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:31am“My comment reflects my reputation that marriage and most issues of the family have historically been decided by the state and local level.”
Except where the part of the Federal Constitution where it requires States to honor the marriage licenses of one another, so actually the Federal government has always had some role in those affairs, even in the days of our hippie anarchist revolutionary founding Fathers.
“Perry pointed to his record as the governor of Texas, which includes the passage of a statewide constitutional ban on gay marriage.”
Report Post »Huh, what a bigoted *******. Glad he’s proud of that–I’ll be proud to not vote for him if he makes the nomination in 2012.
busterpuddles
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:39amI’ve reached a point where I am no longer tolerant of life forms like you. You speak, yet you’re not human.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:50amWhat a heart-warming intelligent and reasonable thing for you to say. You must have an over-abundance of character and sense to be able to know that you are so infallibly right that you don’t even need to think about your position, justify it, or even acknowledge people of a different opinion as human.
Bravo sir–you’ve reached a new level of character deficiency and cognitive dissonance. Every time I think “I’ve seen the worst,“ or ”they must see the hypocrisy in THIS,” you Blazers manage to find a way to stoop to a new level of ignorance or incomprehensible overreaction and ideological incongruity. Just when I think “I can’t possibly manage to be surprised any more” bam–you do it. Good show sire, good show!
I’ll have the Olympics Commission notified so you can receive your Gold Medal immediately sir, and well done sir–keep up the good work–I knew there was a reason I kept coming back to the Blaze :)
Report Post »Gemini22
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:40amAnd I’m sure he will not miss or need you and your 1% of Anomalies who have managed to infect your way of life into this country and somehow consider the other 99% strange. And as far as bigotry is concerned, there are no bigger bigots then the glitter tossers of the LGBT community. See your softball “world series” for an example when a few bi-sexuals weren’t “gay” enough to be on the team.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:07pmLol, what a hilariously silly cherry-picked example that has little impact upon the lives of most people (discriminatory though it may be for the few people it affected). If were going to play a game of “who can find more bigot individuals on the other side of the gay/straight divide” then you’ve already conceded victory to me because:
1) There’s a lot more straight people than gay people, therefore there will be more bigoted straight people than gay people, and
2) Marriage Laws
There’s a wonderful example of discriminating, by definition, between heterosexual partnerships as legitimate, and homosexual partnerships as illegitimate, laws passed, I might add, that even IF they also had 100% of the support of the gays (which is of course patently absurd) would still require a larger voting block of straights to pass.
So…which one affects more people: softball, or marriage laws?
I’m thinking probably the marriage laws.
PS–I love how you assume I’m “one of them” (i.e. gay) just because I don‘t think they should be treated like **** and discriminated against by the legal system for a decision that frankly I don’t give a damn about and you shouldn’t either. It has no practical relevance to any public issue I care about and no impact upon my life whether or not they’re gay. I’m straight (surprise!)–you don’t have to be gay to see that they are on the receiving end of an injustice anymore than you had to be black to detest slavery.
Report Post »Kurty C Wipe
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:27amGays, this country is broke! Just like your morals.
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:36amMaybe he should adapt the christian moral of worshipping imaginary friends and stoning women.
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:25amWow a man with some values.. Mr. Perry can you tell us though what your affiliations are with the Bilderbergs are??
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:06amHe has a lot more than that against him…He is a RINO in disquise. I live in Texas and he is no conservative.
Report Post »wisdomnlight
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:42pmIf you want some info and who is affiliated with “Bilderberg”, I don‘t see Rich Perry’s name anywhere…go to this website http://www.jeremiahproject.com and you will be very surprised who you find that has an association with this world order organization…I was.
Report Post »