» Politics and other things

Rick Perry signs pledge on Anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment

(156 posts)
  • Started 8 years ago by Brianl
  • Latest reply from Andy_brown

  1. Brianl

    "AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Rick Perry has signed a pledge to back a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage — a reversal from a month ago when the Texas governor said he so supported individual states' rights that he was fine with New York's approval of same-sex marriage.

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

    Others vying for the Republican presidential nomination, including Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, have also signed it, according to Brian Brown, president of Washington-based National Organization for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex marriage."

    So most of the GOP have signed a promise to write bigotry and discrimination into the Constitution. It should also be noted that our Founding Fathers rejected the rights of women to vote, and not only were blacks enslaved back then but only 60% of them were counted as people under the 3/5 rule. (Black people didn't have federally protected rights until 1964 in fact.)

    THIS is why I have run away, kicking and screaming, from the GOP, F&B.

    Posted on August 26, 2011 - 04:32 PM #
  2. Andrew

    GOOD! This should help Obama in the general if Perry wins the nomination. Gay/lesbian volunteers and voters who might otherwise not have been energized will definitely be out in force in 2012 to defeat Perry now.

    Posted on August 26, 2011 - 04:39 PM #
  3. Brianl

    And if Perry gets the nod (or anyone else who signs off on this), this straight voter will be out in force to defeat them too.

    Posted on August 26, 2011 - 04:50 PM #
  4. Andrew

    Perry is much too extreme to win a general election, even under a sagging economy. I think even many mainstream Republicans privately dislike him. The Bush people still hold some sway in the Republican party and they apparently HATE the guy. You can almost imagine them privately helping Obama win re-election. (If you believe the "Jeb in 2016" chatter, it's really in Jeb's best interest for Obama to win in 2012.)

    Most non-political-junkie voters aren't paying attention to 2012 politics yet, so they know almost nothing about Perry. If he's the nominee, just wait. Unless Obama is convicted of a felony I think he'd beat Perry not necessarily by a landslide but without too much trouble. Romney would be harder to beat.

    Posted on August 26, 2011 - 05:09 PM #
  5. skeptical

    I'm okay with Obama the felon. Better than Perry the santorum any day of the week.

    Posted on August 26, 2011 - 09:04 PM #
  6. missing_kskd

    I wonder how Dan Savage will redefine, "Perry", or maybe "Perri" for starters?

    Posted on August 26, 2011 - 10:37 PM #
  7. PianoMan

    Hard to say if this latest "pledge" will help or hurt the Republican candidate in the general election. It's true that a very slight majority of U.S. adults now approve of same-sex marriage, but recent polls targeting "likely voters" (who skew quite a bit older than the general population) still find a majority opposed, though even that gap is narrowing. My guess is it won't matter much either way. Barring another 9/11-type incident, 2012 will be about jobs and the economy, nothing else. Not foreign policy, not abortion, not the environment (sadly), and not same-sex marriage.

    Posted on August 26, 2011 - 10:46 PM #
  8. missing_kskd

    It's going to hurt him, because it's seriously going to motivate socially liberal people, and it's a big turn off for independents.

    Really, it's a nice boost for the 23 percent, lock in trade regressive votes for bigotry crowd, meaning he gets many business votes, some ignorance, and bigots plus, but that's it.

    Posted on August 26, 2011 - 11:04 PM #
  9. Master of Disaster

    What I wonder is why those who think we should have a smaller government that does less, provides fewer services at lower quality, and stay out of how people live their lives; are not instead insisting on declaring that marriage is a religious ceremony for religious benefit purposes, therefore since there is separation between church and state, government must stay out of deciding who can and can't marry and cannot treat those who are married any differently than those who aren't.

    Posted on August 27, 2011 - 12:15 AM #
  10. edust1958

    Is a large focus on getting the ability to have state-recognized co-habitation contracts related to the weaving of special privileges into almost all other aspects of the law, especially tax law? Why should we ("we the people") treat those who have chosen to enter into a contractual arrangement a preference that others who have chosen not to (or who are currently precluded from entering) are not granted? If government treated everyone as an individual and didn't spent time trying to manage individuals and their contracts (leaving that to civil courts) and not recognizing what certain religions want to do or not as having any legal weight, wouldn't this entire issue go away?

    Jesus was very clear, in my mind, that those who follow Him need to keep the church (the body of Christ) separate from the State... I wonder why those who profess to follow Him want to keep mixing the two?

    Posted on August 27, 2011 - 07:45 AM #