search
top

This is Disappointing

Apparently the religious right has gotten to Perry, and now he’s saying he’ll push a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

55 Responses to “This is Disappointing”

  1. So much for government out of our lives…and so much for attracting the moderate vote. Jackass.

    I too am against legalizing gay marriage…but from the standpoint that I don’t think that legalizing gay marriage eliminates the problem. The problem is that the government is involved in telling people what a marriage is in the first place.

  2. mike says:

    “Guys, please re-elect Obama.

    Thanks,
    Rick Perry”

  3. Wes says:

    What really annoys me are all the Bible-thumper “social conservatives” who call themselves “Tea Party” but then care more about gay marriage and things instead of fiscal. Keep your social issues out of the Tea Party! You guys would gain more ground if you’d tone down the Bible stuff and gay marriage stuff until the rest of the house was in order.

    Look at how the Republicans blew a good opportunity months back to cut spending, but then they go after Planned Parenthood specifically, which then immediately divides the country 50/50 due to abortion, and then the Democrats turned the tables and made them look like chumps.

    Am I a fan of Planned Parenthood in its current form? Not particularly. But know when to pick your battles. The country has far bigger problems than gay or not gay marriage.

    Hmm, I’ll think I’ll take a closer look at that Ron Paul guy who people on both sides of the status quo and business as usual fear so much they pretend he doesn’t exist.

    “How did Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel?”
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012—corn-polled-edition—ron-paul—the-top-tier

  4. Jeff says:

    UGH. I was getting close to grudgingly supporting Perry because he at least seemed to have some fiscal conservative credentials. I knew he was afraid of teh ebil gehys, but not this bad. I can’t in good conscience vote for him. Obama just got reelected.

  5. unclenunzie says:

    Indeed, it is a view to trampling of civil rights. Though I would not vote for Perry before, this just makes me disappointed that a potential major party candidate in 2011 could espouse such hate.

  6. Dannytheman says:

    There 50 things more important!!!

  7. JeremyS says:

    Well that’s that.

    I’ll vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries and for the Libertarian Candidate in the General election.

  8. Mobo says:

    Oh, so mr. “states rights” wants to ban gay marriage at the federal level, huh?

  9. thirdpower says:

    The stupid party strikes again. Basically we should plan on what we’re going to do w/ pt 2 of the Lightbringer administration.

  10. j t bolt says:

    ‘Gotten’ to Perry? What do you think he was for decades? You are surprised?

  11. Sebastian says:

    I don’t really give a crap what a politician really believe, because it honestly doesn’t matter. It seemed like he was trying to tap into the libertarian sentiment as a national candidate. Perhaps that’s not possible for him now. He might have his reasons, but I don’t have to care.

  12. mike says:

    If you like Ron Paul, have a look at [2 term governor] Gary Johnson.

  13. 45er says:

    Yeah, that shoots this candidacy down.

  14. Brad says:

    Just in terms of pure election strategy, I don’t think this pledge makes a significant difference. Plus it always matters more what a candidate actually does when in office than what he says during a campaign drive.

    For example, even though GW Bush said during 2000 he would sign an assault weapon ban renewal if elected president, I was confident that statement was pure campaignism rather than a real pledge. First off that pledge flew under the radar and was deliberately underplayed by the Bush campaign. Secondly while Bush was still governor of Texas in 1999 he signed the bill prohibiting anti-gun lawsuits in the midst of the white-hot political atmosphere in the aftermath of the Columbine massacre. I new from that history Bush could be trusted on the gun issue as president.

    As far as Perry signing this anti-gay marriage amendment pledge, in political terms it helps Perry to bump off competition to Perry’s right during the primary season. And during the general election it isn’t going to lose Perry votes he was likely to lose anyway because Perry is such a strong conservative. The general election will boil down to Perry talking about jobs-jobs-jobs, while Obama tries to claim Perry will bring back slavery.

    In practical terms, if Perry is elected president his pledge about the amendment will have even less real effect than the Bush pledge about the AW ban. First off the president has no real power when it comes to constitutional amendments (as opposed to signing legislation), the most Perry could do is give lip service to such an amendment. Secondly Perry will have his hands full with real duties including pruning back Federal spending and overturning Obamacare. When would Perry even bother about an anti-gay marriage amendment since he is such a radical supporter of limited Federal power, the 10th amendment, and States rights?

    History is what matters. Not campaign rhetoric.

  15. David says:

    Really, someone campaigned with the idea of spreading the wealth around, taking over health care, and some BS cap and trade system. He got elected. This election is not about Perry or Romney. It’s about the public saying if Obama get four more years or it’s time to try another direction. Maybe this is the year we hope and get change.

  16. Brad says:

    One more thing for the purists. Try and be realistic about the 2012 election.

    Perry is the most conservative candidate with a realistic chance of beating Obama. Heck, because of the jobs issue Perry is the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama, period!

    Our system is designed to move at a glacial pace, you will never get to a libertarian nirvana overnight. Even Obama discovered how difficult it was to push the system towards a left-wing socialist paradise.

    Perry is the best chance you have to reverse the course Obama has set the nation on. Do you really want to give Obama a chance to appoint more U.S. Supreme Court justices while 2nd Amendment issues are still working their way through the courts? That is what’s at stake here.

  17. Sage Thrasher says:

    I think “j t” called it: the religious right didn’t “get to” Perry, Perry IS the religious right. (Did no one notice his big tent revival not long ago in Texas?) And what is the religious right? It’s government interference in our private lives, they just emphasize different aspects of what they want to control and the 1st amendment be damned. Personally, you lose me when you make not-too-subtle hints about lynching the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, even in jest. Throw in the God-told-me-to-run bit and with Perry you’ve got yourself a complete bozo.

  18. Roberta X says:

    Pragmatic Brad observes, “In practical terms, if Perry is elected president his pledge about the amendment will have even less real effect than the Bush pledge about the AW ban. First off the president has no real power when it comes to constitutional amendments […]. Secondly Perry will have his hands full with real duties including pruning back Federal spending and overturning Obamacare. When would Perry even bother about an anti-gay marriage amendment since he is such a radical supporter of limited Federal power, the 10th amendment, and States rights? History is what matters. Not campaign rhetoric.”
    And not principles or what chickens he is willing to bite the heads off of in order to get the nomination and His Chance At History?

    I don’t see much evidence he’s a radical supporter of limited Federal power; he seems willing enough to have the Feds meddle in wedlock, after all. And considering the limited power of the President to determine spending &c, how’s he gonna fix the budget or roll back ObamaCare, either?

    I am a lot more interested in the House and Senate elections, such as they are. There’s the lads and lassies who could (hahahaha) decide to spend less and get out of the healthcare biz. (Suuuuure they will).

    Perry’s shown himself to be Just Another One; swap him for the Big O and all you’d get is a different accent and the Executive Branch and various Federal Bureaux and Departmentada tromping on a slightly different (but largely overlapping) set of inalienable rights. Whoopee.

    We might be better off if Washington were remediated as the Romans did Carthage, not that I’d suggest it nor think it likely — but as it stands, we could elect Mr./Ms. Perfect Libertarian to the Presidency and inside of two months, that pig would look exactly like the farmer.

    Boot. Human face. FedGov. Some assembly inevitable.

  19. Brad says:

    “Perry’s shown himself to be Just Another One; swap him for the Big O and all you’d get is a different accent and the Executive Branch and various Federal Bureaux and Departmentada tromping on a slightly different (but largely overlapping) set of inalienable rights. Whoopee.”

    Oh really? Gun rights are in much greater danger than any other rights in America. It makes a ton of difference who is elected President.

    Even though I am a nationalist and small l libertarian, I am also a gun-rights single issue voter.

    GW Bush appointments to SCOTUS gave us the 5-4 majority decisions in both Washington DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.

    One of Obama’s appointments to SCOTUS voted with the minority in McDondald v Chicago. The minority opinion in McDonald v Chicago wanted to overturn DC v Heller. And Kagan will likely join Sotomayor (in spite of her testimony under to the U.S. Senate) in future decisions regarding gun rights.

    Are the stakes clear now? No difference between Bush and Obama and (maybe) Perry? Tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum?

    I remember the Fed AW ban. I live in Commiefornia where the AW ban began and is STILL state law. I have no intentions of retreating to the bad old days of gun control and want to see the gun control movement utterly destroyed and the anti-gun laws ripped out wherever they are in the nation. Obama must be stopped.

  20. Sebastian says:

    Anyone who thinks a politician has real convictions is kidding himself. There are some, but the system tends to weed them out, which makes them a rare breed. Politicians represents interests. What I care about in a politician is what interests they mean to represent. Perry was sending some of the right signals…. at least until this bullshit.

  21. John Smith says:

    Perry is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He will get elected and the right will put their heads back up their asses like they were during the Bush’es. They don’t understand that Perry is as evil as Obama.

  22. Jake says:

    My only surprise is that he took so long.

  23. Carl from Chicago says:

    The WORST thing about this is the avenue they seek. Constitutional amendments are for LIMITING government power to infringe on rights of the people.

    While I don’t support it, I suppose the legislature could ban gay marriages. But a constitutional amendment?

    Perry and all those who support an amendment that CURTAILS instead of EXPANDS civil rights ought to be slapped upside the head. Several times.

  24. Lucky Forward says:

    Actually, the pledge would PROTECT the majority of people from having their states accept the oxymoron of “gay marriage.” In other words, “gay marriage” is a creature of legislation pushed through by fringe activists groups. “Marriage” that does not lead to procreation is not in anyone’s best interest; as Marco Rubio said, we need more taxpayers, not more taxes.

    And the religious sources that have helped articulate gun rights are those that demand the defense of real marriage, a.k.a marriage as it has been taken for granted for millennia in most places, that between one man and one woman.

  25. Wes says:

    “Secondly Perry will have his hands full with real duties including pruning back Federal spending and overturning Obamacare.”

    That and making sure illegal aliens get in-state tuition and building NAFTA super highways and things.

  26. AntiCitizenOne says:

    ““Marriage” that does not lead to procreation is not in anyone’s best interest; as Marco Rubio said, we need more taxpayers, not more taxes”

    So in other words you’re banning a practice because of fears of what MIGHT happen…

    Where have we heard this one before…? Hmmm, the Joyce puppets seem to be saying the same things about our guns.

  27. Wes says:

    As for gay marriage, I’d like to see government out of the marriage business, but if there is to be gay marriage, then that should open up my being able to have more than one wife if I want. If marriage isn’t between a man and a woman, then what says it has to be between only two people.

    …I know what some of you are thinking… “One wife nagging you is bad enough, who would want three!?” :P

  28. Jeff says:

    Lucky, how exactly does gay marriage hurt people in one man one woman marriages?

  29. Carl from Chicago says:

    Lucky Forward Said,
    August 27th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
    “Actually, the pledge would PROTECT the majority of people from having their states accept the oxymoron of “gay marriage.””

    That’s total bullshit.

  30. [quote]And the religious sources that have helped articulate gun rights are those that demand the defense of real marriage.[/quote]

    Excuse me, what are you talking about here? Explain yourself.

  31. OK, now some of you folks already know quite well who I am. My blog shows this pretty honestly.

    Rick Perry cannot be trusted, at all. You also cannot trust his 2A record, either. Someone offers him campaign money to sell us out, he will.

    For one thing, folks, Rick Perry speaks of being gay as being the same as an alcoholic. If that’s the case, then Mr. Perry has been falling off the wagon his entire life. He’s a closet-case in the same vein as Governor Jim McGreevey of New Jersey. He hid it very well, until it all came to light due to some sort of attempt at bribery. With Perry, it’s been swirling ever since before he became Governor in 2001.

    A President who is that personally compromised with photos possessed by the security services of rival nations cannot be trusted with the nuclear football, or anything else.

    Just think of the mischief that will occur if during a campaign outing, a gun control advocate gets a photo and shows it privately to Perry and tells him “If you don’t attempt to appoint judges who will overturn Heller and sign gun control laws, we will destroy your political career with your base showing pictures of you doing XXXXXXXX with said person”.

    I can say that if it comes to a competition between Obama and Perry in the general election, I am sitting out the Presidential election part of my ballot or doing a write-in vote for myself. I will not vote for gun controllers like Obama, or people who are so personally compromised by closeting themselves, or do things “walking back”.

    For example, Perry, in a true 10th amendment fashion, stated that New York was within it’s rights to pass a marriage equality bill for itself. He then walked that back when he realized that most of the people who “support the 10th amendment” likes to do things like make a “gay exception” to the 10th amendment. It’s a “convenient shield” belief, not a truly palpable belief like many of us in the gun rights movement have over 2A.

    Perry is a lying douche-bag & prick, and a closet case who would sell us out in a heart-beat. Don’t trust this guy. He’s bad news.

  32. Wes says:

    ” if it comes to a competition between Obama and Perry in the general election, I am sitting out the Presidential election part of my ballot ”

    At least vote for a third party like Libertarian. The more votes third parties get the more exposure and more funding they get and more of a chance there won’t be only two main parties in the future.

  33. Brad says:

    Gray

    You make a bold accusation. If true then why wasn’t Perry blackmailed to stop tort-reform in Texas? Or is the lawyers lobby too ethical and too weak to resort to attacking a “closet case”?

    http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/

    Whatever evidence you may think you have, Perry’s record in office seems to prove otherwise.

  34. Tam says:

    Boy, and here I was with a foot wavering right over the threshold of the Perry Train, and he goes and does this.

    Sorry, Rick. It coulda been real.

  35. Graumagus says:

    The whole pro or con “Constitutional Amendment” solution to gays getting married is a cynical bullshit move pandering to a vocal minority in the base of whichever side is spouting it.

    Does anyone here REALLY believe any politician will be able to get two thirds of the Senate and the house, and three fourths of the states to ratify such an amendment (for OR against)?

    Or get the votes through to convene a Constitutional Convention on the matter?

    Not a goddamn chance. Whatever side is in opposition would have absolutely no problem stopping either of those conditions from happening, so a pro or anti gay marriage amendment is a dead letter, and always has been.

    Politicians use the emotions of people too stupid to know better (do a poll on how many people actually know what’s required to pass an amendment and the ignorance will amaze you).

    Perry just disappointed the hell out of me. I know he’s just another bloodsucking politician, but pandering to people who will vote for you anyway in exchange for pissing off a whole lot of voters who want someone to focus on REAL problems is just weapons grade stupid.

    Gah.

  36. Lucky Forward says:

    “Gay marriage” has been voted down twice in California alone; therefore, it is a vocal minority that wants to redefine marriage into something it has never been. “Gay marriage” has been rejected in all 31 states where it ahs been put to a referendum:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225210/Gay-marriage-rejected-31-U-S-states-vote-Maine-gives-legislation-thumbs-down.html

    Also, we were told that “civil unions” were enough to ensure private-contract and insurance-beneficiary rights between homosexuals. Now they want to redefine what many of us cherish as a sacrament, and certainly an institution that most people, based on the aforementioned 31 referenda, do not want redefined. “Gay marriage” is part of a larger push to strip western civilization from what made it great, namely, Judeo-Christian influence in politics, which has always bolstered the traditional family; and how is the destruction of the traditional family working out for you?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903639404576516252066723110.html?KEYWORDS=JONATHAN+SACKS

    Judeo-Christian teaching has stressed the importance of protecting oneself and one’s family; some examples include the words of Christ Himself, and the catechism of the Catholic Church:

    He said to them,* “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.
    http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Luke&ch=22

    “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.” http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml/

    As we know, RKBA involves every citizen. The definition of marriage involves every citizen as well.

  37. Libertarian says:

    I agree with Graumagus

    There is no way in hell that 2/3rds of both the Senate and House and then 3/4 of the states(that’s at least 37 states people) will vote to pass it.

    Besides there is going to be enough to do Balancing the budget, repealing Obamacare, rebuilding our military, reducing unemployment and just fighting off all the whiny nanny staters once he begins to repair all the damage Obama has done to this country over the course of his Presidency.

    Lighten up or see Obama get reelected

    Geez!

  38. Graumagus says:

    This is more about Perry trying to woo primary voters away from Bachmaan than anything else.

  39. Tam says:

    Lucky Forward,

    Now they want to redefine what many of us cherish as a sacrament…

    If it’s a “sacrament”, then the government has no more business regulating it than they do Holy Communion.

    Either it’s a religious ceremony, in which case the government has no business even acknowledging its existence, or it’s a civil ceremony, in which case every citizen gets to play. Pick one, and only one.

  40. Tam says:

    Libertarian,

    Lighten up or see Obama get reelected…

    So, if I don’t vote for the guy who screws around with stuff the government has no business messing with and who pisses me off, then the guy who screws around with stuff the government has no business messing with and who pisses me off might win? Is that about the size of it?

    That’s a toughie. Wouldn’t want the wrong lizard to get in…

  41. Hey Lucky Forward, a few words of wisdom:

    “You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

    Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don’t like. This is why I don’t shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.”

    -Bill Wiese

  42. aeronathan says:

    +5 points for actually wanting to amend the Constitution instead of ignore it.

    -10 for wanting to do it for an asinine reason

  43. If judges would actually learn some restraint, there would be no call for such an amendment. The fact that both state and federal judges have managed to imagine same-sex marriage as a constitutional right reflects a judicial activism that needs to be swatted down hard.

    The notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage is absurd; homosexual sex was a felony, usually a capital felony, in 1789, and even as late as 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, it remained a felony in 32 of 37 states. How can marriage built on a felony be constitutionally protected?

    I would prefer leaving this matter to the states, but the creative actions of the SSM crowd–such as marrying in one state, then moving to a state that does not recognize SSM, and filing for divorce to force the second state to recognize it, demonstrates that at least, the Constitution requires an amendment that says, “The only definition of marriage which is constitutionally protected is between a man and a woman. States are free to expand this definition if they see fit, or regulate marriage by age or degree of consanguinity as they see fit.”

  44. Perry just disappointed the hell out of me. I know he’s just another bloodsucking politician, but pandering to people who will vote for you anyway in exchange for pissing off a whole lot of voters who want someone to focus on REAL problems is just weapons grade stupid.

    You may be mistaken about whose votes this gets. California’s Proposition 8 won because it enjoyed enormous support among black and Hispanic voters. (Why do you think Obama has been a fencesitter on gay rights?) It has been suggested that part of why Bush won Ohio in 2004 was that an initiative to define marriage as “one man, one woman” was on the ballot, and large numbers of socially conservative blacks (who tend not to vote) turned out to vote for that initiative. While they were there, they voted for Bush.

  45. Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don’t like. This is why I don’t shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.

    There’s a big difference between toleration and actively recognizing something. Unlike the miscegenation laws struck down in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that threatened the Lovings with 20 years in prison if they ever returned to Virginia together, a gay couple can call themselves married, find some church to declare them married, and move anywhere in the U.S. And the reaction will be…crickets chirping.

  46. Tam says:

    Dearest Clayton,

    Is marriage a religious or a civil ceremony?

    Either it’s a religious ceremony, in which case the government has no business even acknowledging its existence, or it’s a civil ceremony, in which case every citizen gets to play. Pick one, and only one.

    Answer, please, with one word: “Religious” or “Civil”.

  47. Lucky Forward says:

    A constitutional amendment on marriage is similar to a national right-to-carry law (or amendment), in that it is a federal reaction to conflict among the laws of the various states. If you like the federal reaction, then you risk that state power will have been weakened should the feds change their minds later. If you don’t like the federal reaction, then there is nowhere to move to escape its impact.

    I agree that laws should only be changed by the people, either by constitutional amendment, or by petitioning the legislature, not by Trojan Horse judges, who spawn government-created problems (such as “discovering” rights that the people have never recognized) that play havoc with society.

    I applaud Ron Paul’s instincts, that marriage is a church matter, and the government should stay out of it.

    Unfortunately, the questions of divorce, trusts & estates, spousal privilege involving court testimony, etc., show that the church matter often has significant civil ramifications. This is because society has traditionally recognized marriage as its central institution and has rallied around marriage to protect it. Society has acted under the Judeo-Christian precepts that have formed it, such as the right to own and defend private property, even by force of arms.

    Arguments may be made to separate gun rights from the defense of marriage, but in reality, both have essentially sprung from the same font of Judeo-Christian culture. Trying to have gun rights without acknowledging our Judeo-Christian heritage is like saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Happy Hanukkah” or “Merry Christmas,” or like using BCE and CE to denote years in the (Catholic) Gregorian calendar, as opposed to BC and AD; it is enjoying a ride on the train without paying the freight; it is taking the fruit from the tree, and pretending the tree does not exist, or worse, taking the fruit, then cutting the tree.

    For the reasons put forward in my earlier post, traditional marriage is worth defending. It should come as no surprise that the last fifty years or so have seen the rise of gun control contemporaneously with the assault on the traditional family, of which traditional marriage is a key part. The London Riots show that often (but not always), where the natural right to bear arms has been suppressed, so too has the traditional family, and with disastrous results all around.

  48. Sebastian says:

    Except that the state’s power to regulate guns was already severely limited by the 14th Amendment. National Right to Carry is based on powers the feds already have. Perry is, whether you agree with it or not, advocating the federal government usurping more power from the states and creating a uniform federal policy on marriage.

    I’m glad he’s working with the system, because I’m sure there’s some commerce clause arguments the left would try to make if this was their hobby horse, which would obviate the need for a constitutional amendment, but I don’t agree with taking the power to define marriage away from the states.

  49. Sebastian says:

    This is more about Perry trying to woo primary voters away from Bachmaan than anything else.

    I agree, but this is now the interest he’s beholden himself to now. It’ll be very difficult for him to walk back from it. Like I said, I don’t care what a politician really believes, because he’s not that kind of animal. There’s plenty of evidence out there that George W. Bush was pretty tolerant of gays too, but politics is politics. You gather various interests until you have an electable platform.

  50. jeff says:

    Gay bashing may be a primary winning platform, but I’m not sure how well it plays in the general. Take my girlfriend as an example: she’s pretty disaffected with obama now over taxes and spending, but gay rights are a big issue for her. There’s no way in hell she’d vote for Perry now. I think her attitude is pretty common. If the repubs could find a candidate with strong fiscal conservative credentials who can leave the bible at home, they’d have a strong chance.

    I guess that’s why they’re called the stupid party.

  51. Brad says:

    Jeff

    Do you really think your girlfriend would have considered voting for Perry absent the Perry support of the anti-gay-marriage amendment? Did Perry really lose her potential vote over just that issue?

    I suspect she would never have voted for a candidate as conservative as Perry in the first place. So the Perry pander to the christian-right doesn’t make any difference.

    To everyone else

    As far as elector politics goes, let us remember that only voters in the swing states matter, the rest of us don’t. For example, as a California voter, my vote for President is buried by the swarm of statewide Democratic-zombies.

    So as far as the general election goes, the real question is will Perry’s stance on the gay marriage amendment really hurt him in the swing states? Or help him? The states where Perry is hurt the most by the policy such as Massachusetts or New York, Perry wasn’t ever going to win anyway.

  52. Phil says:

    Looks like 2012 will be another election year like 2008 — when I didn’t vote for any presidential candidate at all.

    I don’t vote for statists or loony-tunes even when they run under a minor party banner, because that gives the minor parties the idea they can run creeps and get away with it. It doesn’t help empower the minor parties at all.

    Plus, most of them don’t deserve empowering, but that’s another issue.

  53. Roberta X says:

    In my Happy Place, the current and wanna-be Presidents all just happen to be on the scene for a nice, group-of-pols sized meteor impact.

    How about four years of None Of The Above?

  54. Tam says:

    Lucky Forward,

    Trying to have gun rights without acknowledging our Judeo-Christian heritage is like saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Happy Hanukkah” or “Merry Christmas,”

    My firearms rights, like all the rest of my property rights, derive from logic and my opposable thumbs, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

  55. karrde says:

    I feel like a latecomer to the discussion.

    A few observations, with commentary below.
    (1) this sounds, to my ears, like the Anti-Flag-Burning Amendment, the Sanctity-of-Life-Amendment, and the Balanced-Budget-Amendment. The kind of things that politicians talk about in primaries. And the kind of things that Presidents can’t do much about.

    (2) What part does the President have in the Amendment
    process? I thought it was a Congress-and-the-State-Legislatures thing.

    (3) A handful of States have actually passed No-Gay-Marriage Amendments for State-level Constitutions. Much easier than amending the U.S. Constitution, and popular among Black voters.

    Commentary:

    Per point (1) above, this still appears stupid. Amendments aren’t the way to fix vexing political questions. (Neither are Supreme Court rulings…)

    Per point (2), why hasn’t the Press lambasted him (or any other we-need-an-Amendment Presidential Candidate) for stupidity? The President can use the bully pulpit for or against an Amendment, but he has no power over the Amendment Process.

    Per point (3)…Perry picked a subject that he thinks is a winner. Maybe he is trying to entice more Black voters away from the Democrat party in places like Michigan and California.

    This is not to defend Perry, but to raise several possibilities that aren’t Perry Caving to The Religious Right.

top