Image 01 Image 03

“If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

“If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

That’s Rick Perry’s position on the NY same-sex marriage law:

Perry, who is considering running for president, at a forum in Colorado on Friday called himself an “unapologetic social conservative” and said he opposes gay marriage — but that he’s also a firm believer in the 10th Amendment, the Associated Press reported.

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, the AP reported.

“That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

In response to which Rick Santorum tweeted:

Haven’t we had this discussion before?

What does it mean for the likely Perry candidacy?  To me, it’s a plus, a reflection of the libertarian streak (to a point) in the Tea Party movement. 

A conservative with a dash of libertarian.  Sounds like someone I know.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


NY may have the power to do it but that does not make it right. It is an attempt to make two different life styles as equals, which they are not.

Homosexual marriage cannot provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriage does and thus, should not be conferred the same benefits.

What people do behind their own doors is their own business. However, not conferring benefits upon one group because their life style does not contribute on the same level as another is not the same as discriminating.

    Awing1 in reply to obpopulus. | July 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    The marriage of couple over childbearing age can’t possibly provide those benefits either, or a marriage in which the woman is barren. Should the benefits conferred on those individuals also be banned?

    I gotta tell you, this makes me like Rick Perry a lot more. I’m a NY resident and proud that we now allow gay marriage, but to force it on any other state is unacceptable and a mistake. If we want a more perfect union, we definitely need a better understanding of, and even respect for, the tenth amendment.

      retire05 in reply to Awing1. | July 23, 2011 at 6:23 pm

      Will you be equally proud when polygamy is allowed in New York? Or allowing first cousins to marry, if they are barren? Or how about being able to marry your sister, no matter your gender? Gonna be proud of that?

      There is no historical, traditional or legal basis for gay marriage. It is just one special interest group wanting what they want over the objections of others to force their personal lives down other’s throats.

        obpopulus in reply to retire05. | July 23, 2011 at 6:29 pm


        Awing1 in reply to retire05. | July 23, 2011 at 6:53 pm

        Societies, by their very definition, determine the size, strength and constitution of the social institutions they accept. The people of New York have decided, through their elected leaders, to change the institution of marriage to allow gays to marry, because we simply believe it makes sense. Personally, I don’t much care if siblings or cousins are allowed to marry, but as the majority of the people in my society refuse to accept it, I will have to defer to their judgement.

        I don’t fully understand how anything has been shoved down anyone’s throat, considering the majority of the people of my state approve of gay marriage. Has anyone been forced to marry someone of the same sex against their will, and it somehow hasn’t gotten out yet? Do you mean some people who disagree with the practice must now deal with it in everyday life? As a personal matter, I disagree with sending one’s children to Christian youth camps, to me it seems like indoctrination, yet can you imagine the outrage if I had refused to process bank checks for individuals sending their kids to Christian youth camps at my old job as a bank teller? Was that just Christians forcing their lifestyle on me?

          dad29 in reply to Awing1. | July 23, 2011 at 7:51 pm

          “Forcing their….”

          What BS.

          When you are able to prove that anal intercourse is natural, then I’ll concede that rain can fall up.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | July 23, 2011 at 7:54 pm

          When you give me a succinct definition of natural, I will either prove that it is natural, or prove that you don’t agree with your own definition of natural.

          retire05 in reply to Awing1. | July 23, 2011 at 9:19 pm

          OK, so gays want to marry why? Oh, that’s right, they want to be able to marry same sex partners because that is their choice. Isn’t that the argument? Then New York needs to abolish ALL restrictions on marriage even for those who are siblings. Same difference.

          But it doesn’t end there. You say you don’t think that people should sent their children to Christain camps. But I bet you have no problem with the state of California forcing gay “history” (whatever the hell that is) down the throats of parents who have no say in the matter but don’t want their kids indoctrinated.

          And your example as a bank tell is moot. You have no right to impose your opinions on the company you work for, but if you don’t agree with that company’s policies, you can find another company to work for. The parents of California now have no such choice.

          Deekaman in reply to Awing1. | July 23, 2011 at 10:50 pm

          “Societies, by their very definition, determine the size, strength and constitution of the social institutions they accept.”

          More correctly,”BY to social institutions…”

          We have accepted a social institution in Gay marriage that is about nothing but $$$$. It is about government largess and nothing more. All other arguments for Gay marriage are items that can be covered by contract. Right to visit in a hospital? Power of Attorney will do fine. Right to inherit? A Will works just fine.

          We have chosen to continually weaken the fabric of American moral and social institutions, It will be to our detriment.

      retire05 in reply to Awing1. | July 23, 2011 at 9:21 pm

      Nature created humans to procreate. Now, when you can show me how two gay guys can procreate (without the use of a woman’s body), I will accept gay marriage. Until then, you don’t have nature on your side.

        Awing1 in reply to retire05. | July 23, 2011 at 10:04 pm

        You’re so off track of the arguments I’ve made I can’t possibly respond, all I can do is try to show you where you failed to understand the debate at hand. Based on our previous conversations, I’m guessing this is a common occurrence in your life.

        First, in discussing what is natural, I am attempting to take up “dad29″s challenge that I prove anal sex is natural by getting a starting point, a definition of natural dad29 would like me to work with. You have gone completely off base by personifying nature and assuming it is capable of having “purpose”, and then claiming you know nature’s “purpose” (I can only presume you’ve discussed this with nature?) for humans, and it’s solely procreation. While you didn’t state explicitly that you believe nature’s only purpose for humans is procreation, it is implied by you stating that meeting that purpose and that purpose alone is the only way to justify homosexual marriage.

        Second: I’m not certain what you are saying here “OK, so gays want to marry why? Oh, that’s right, they want to be able to marry same sex partners because that is their choice. Isn’t that the argument?”. I can only guess you are asserting that gay’s want to marry same sex partners because they choose to marry same sex partners? Unless you’re claiming we choose our desires in life (I’d love to desire broccoli, but I doubt I could “choose” to like it), this premise makes no sense. I cannot see any possible way the second premise in your argument connects to the first.

        Third, my point about the Christian camps was simply an example of a way in which others force their personal lives down my throat, in response to your claim that homosexuals are forcing their personal lives down others throats. You didn’t give me an actual example of a way in which homosexuals are forcing their personal lives on to anyone, so I had to make a general analogy of peoples personal lives entering my day that I don’t agree with. Regardless of what my employer might think, I would likely be violating the civil rights of that Christian by refusing to issue that bank draft to their Christian youth ministry. The law forces me to deal with Christians in my profession, I cannot discriminate even if my employer were to allow me to. So, in what way is that act of forcing ones personal life onto me different from the way in which homosexuals are supposedly forcing their personal lives on others?

        Californians are free to homeschool their children, if I’m not mistaken, so they have the same ability to leave that force as I do to leave my employer. We both have an ultimate right to do so, but we both would have to consider the fiscal implications of it.

        In the future, please respond to the actual posts being made, respond in a logical and cogent way, and remember to take your Clozapine.

          retire05 in reply to Awing1. | July 24, 2011 at 9:02 am

          Wow! Seems I hit a nerve. Did it hurt much?

          I don’t have to “talk” to nature to understand that nature designed all species to continue by proliferation. An oak tree is designed to drop its acorns for that specific purpose, just as nature designed humans to procreate in a specific way. And I implied (what you thought I said) nothing. I am very clear in my words.

          Second: you seem to be making the argument that gays can no more “choose” than you can “choose” to eat broccoli. Apples and oranges. If you choose to eat broccoli, it does not have any ramification on others. Gay marriage does, both socially and politically. Now, I can only assume that you are making the claim that being gay is not a choice. There is no proof of that. There is no magic gay gene that can be found in humans that will show a person will grow up to be gay.

          Third: parents who send their children to a Christian camp are not forcing that decision down your throat. It is their children, not you, they are sending to a Christian camp. You are free to stay right where you are, and chances are you will never be exposed to their beliefs. Not so with gay marriage. And I did give you an example; the teaching of gay “history” in public schools in California, where parents ARE forced to accept the opinions of others in schools those parents pay for with their tax dollars. Yes, they have a right to home school, or send their children to private schools, but they still have to pay for the public school system via their taxes. How it that (using your standards) not discrimination?

          Then you take it to a whole new level with your poorly constructed “bank” level. You are trying to make the argument that by not allowing gays to marry those of the same sex, they are being discriminated against. How so? Can you name one state where the application for a marriage license has the question “Are you gay” on it? Name ONE state that does not allow someone to marry under the same rules and regulations of all others. Just ONE. Or perhaps you are trying to make the argument that because the same rules apply to gays as it does to straights that constitutes discrimination? Please, that dog won’t hunt.

          Same-sex marriage serves not one social purpose. All it does is pander to a limited group of people in our society and makes legislators feel enlightened when in actuality, all they are doing is pandering for votes.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | July 24, 2011 at 9:35 am

          You clearly didn’t take my statement “context changes content” to heart. You cannot take only half my argument, switch some words around, and then argue against that. I see by trying to go word by word I’ve just made it too long for you to remember by the end what was said at the beginning, so I’ll keep this simple:

          You claim I am arguing gays are being discriminated against, please point to where I make that argument, even once.

          dad29 in reply to Awing1. | July 24, 2011 at 9:36 am

          You COULD simply say that the anus was designed as a receptacle for the penis, which makes homosexual activity ‘natural.’

          Instead, you come up with a straw-man argument, saying that opponents of gay marriage ‘want all marriages to be fecund.’ That’s not true, of course. Marriage should be open to the possibility of fecundity. Your simple-minded distortions are just that.

          A cite from any med-school text which condones anal intercourse will be fine, by the way.

          retire05 in reply to Awing1. | July 24, 2011 at 10:45 am

          Why are you tying to twist what I said: I said:

          “Or perhaps you are trying to make the argument that because the same rules apply to gay as it does to straight that constitutes discrimination?”

          You said:

          You claim I am arguing gays are being discriminated against. Please point to where I made that argument, even once.”

          Awing1, it seems clear that you do not understand the purpose of a question mark that was at the end of my question. You do know the difference between a question and a statement of fact, don’t you?

          I would suggest a remedial reading comprehension course for you, but I suspect that you knew exactly what you were doing in trying to make my question a statement of opinion. It is what people like you do when they have no real debate.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | July 24, 2011 at 2:16 pm

          I was referring to this: “You are trying to make the argument that by not allowing gays to marry those of the same sex, they are being discriminated against.”

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | July 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm

          Dad29, you said: “Nature created humans to procreate. Now, when you can show me how two gay guys can procreate (without the use of a woman’s body), I will accept gay marriage. Until then, you don’t have nature on your side.” How exactly did I build a straw man? What aspect of that argument did I change?

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | July 24, 2011 at 2:30 pm

          Sorry, Retire05 said that, not Dad29. But considering Dad29 said I built a straw man of the opponents of gay marriages arguments, my response is still valid, with a simple replacement of the introduction being “Dad29, Retire05 said”.

Doug Wright | July 23, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Don’t rightly recall the specifics, but do recall that the US government requires each new state to have written a contitution but do not recvall if that has to be accepted by Congress before the territory becomes a state.

Still, Sen. Santorum’s point is going beyond what’s reality. States could not simply allow whatever it wants contary to what the Constitution mandates as our rights as Americans.

Thumb up for Perry, thumb down for Santorum. Note to Santorum, NY did just allow polygamy when they authorized the definition of marriage to become open ended as the polygamy troll made so plain here the other day. Marriage will slowly become the wedding of two or more of anything you can name. Ages will go down, combinations will increase.

Tired of Santorum. I wish he would just drop out, save us the energy of having to read his snarky little tweets.

It’s a good strategy for Perry. If he enters the race, the left is going to try to make a big issue about his alleged statements in favor of “secession” (which was not what he actually said), and to paint states’ rights supporters as bogeymen and “neo-Confederates” in 2012, in order to distract people from Obama’s numerous failures. Perry’s approach to the Tenth Amendment here shows a pretty reasonable (and yes, somewhat Libertarian) side to him to counter this line of attack.

I haven’t been able to get past Perry’s faintly Bush-like inflections and what I mistook to be traces of evangelical dominionism … until now.

Perry has just upgraded himself to ‘Electable’.

    Awing1 in reply to Aucturian. | July 23, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    100% agree.

    retire05 in reply to Aucturian. | July 23, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    “faintly Bush-like inflections?” You mean they both have a Texan accent, Perry more so that Bush? Perhaps we Texans should feel that way about past presidents who have had a “faintly (name the president) inflection” and been against them for that sole purpose. That would make us as intelligent as you.

    And what if Perry is a person who happens to be proud of his Christian faith? I suggest you read the history of George Washington, one of the most religious leaders of that time. Can we assume that you would have had a problem with Washington’s “evangelical dominionism?”

      This New Yorker will readily vote for a qualified candidate who happens to be a Christian from Texas than an Evangelical Texan.

      Awing1 in reply to retire05. | July 23, 2011 at 7:13 pm

      I don’t believe George Washington was an Evangelist. My readings indicate he wasn’t very public about his religious beliefs, at least compared to his contemporaries, which would hardly make his actions come even close to the level of “Dominionism”.

        retire05 in reply to Awing1. | July 23, 2011 at 9:25 pm

        Then you haven’t read much about George Washington. He was very verbal about his believe in God and divine providence.

        And what if Perry is an evangelical (which he is not), so what? Or have you forgotten that whole “free exercise thereof” part of the First Amendment?

          Awing1 in reply to retire05. | July 23, 2011 at 10:15 pm

          As I have just posted above, please respond to the argument being made, not just out of context pieces. My previous fear of Perry was that he partook in “Evangelical Dominionism” which, with some variations, is essentially the believe that we should be a Christian nation by force of law. I have no problem with an individual believing whatever religion they wish, so long as they are not attempting to force that religion on my by rule of law.

          George Washington was not very vocal about his belief FOR HIS TIME PERIOD, that is what is meant by “his contemporaries”. While a handful of the founding fathers were prolific in their communications about their religious beliefs in what amounts to Deism, George Washington just didn’t discuss his actual beliefs about religion or the Bible all that much. Of course he invoked the name and idea of God considerably, but that is quite different from actually discussing one’s understanding of their religious beliefs.

          Please remember, context is what changes “I killed him” to “I can’t believe you said I killed him”. Context changes content, you can’t cherry-pick arguments.

      retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 24, 2011 at 9:18 am

      Awning1, why are all your arguments strawmen? If Perry is firmly seated in the Constitutional aisle, why would he support the 10th Amendment only to violate the First Amendment? You are basically trying to question his religious doctrine beliefs, indicating that he might be an evangelical, which you have no knowledge of. Let me ease your mind; Rick Perry attends a pretty run-of-the-mill protestant church in Terrytown.

      And you are wrong about George Washington. He was quite vocal about his belief in God and divine providence (the hand of God) not only during the Revolutionary War but also as he sat as head of the Constitutional Congress. His letters to Jefferson, in Europe at the time, were quite clear on that issue. Washington’s letters (the process of communication of the time) are full of his belief in God and the Hand of God in all things.

      The best book about Washington is “The Real George Washington” which is full of his own words and his own letters. I suggest you read it and expand your mind past its obvious narrow limits.

        dad29 in reply to retire05. | July 24, 2011 at 2:13 pm

        Retire, you observe (keen!) that our interlocutor has no arguments except by creating straw-men.

        He’s solidly on track with the “SCARY RELIGION” stuff, too. The Lefties tried to invent a story that “people” were put off by Romney’s Mormon faith; as it turns out, only the Lefties are ‘disturbed’ by it.

        Now, since Perry has risen in the polls, it’s his turn to take the “religious-nutcase” beating. (Same thing happened with Palin, as you recall.)

        They’re scared to death of anything resembling a firm, bedrock, belief, whether in natural law such as held by Aristotle (and every other philosopher in the West) or in religious doctrine (the fact that homosexuality is a grave disorder.)

        They cannot disprove, so they attack with falsehoods.

        Who, again, was the father of lies?

          Awing1 in reply to dad29. | July 24, 2011 at 2:39 pm

          Are you kidding me? If you actually read what I wrote, I support Perry because he has confirmed that he does not wish to force his beliefs on any state, but rather let each state decide on its own and suffer the consequences themselves.

          You are such a joke.

Santorum, do us all a favor and shut up.

If a state is free to adopt what the like (using the marriage example), wouldn’t they also be free to bar what the people don’t want? I know my state would shoot down a NY Gay marriage in a heartbeat.

    dad29 in reply to ironghost. | July 24, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    We did that in Wisconsin, joining 35 (?) other States in a state-Constitutional ban.

    NY is now a leader in crimes against nature. First abortion, now gay “marriage.”


I am a big fan of the 10th Amendment.

The issue of marriage is clearly not an enumerated power of the federal government but “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Each state has the right to define marriage according to the will of the people of that state.

But this means that the states and the people have the right to define other issues such as when a person becomes a person and is entitled to due process and legal protection.

The problem is the courts and politicians don’t want to hear the clearly expressed will of the people on virtually any issues. They increasingly force their will upon the people in spite and in contravention of clear expressions to the contrary.

Either the people are sovereign or they are serfs to an elitist “ruling class.” I am a citizen of the United States endowed with certain unalienable rights. Congress doesn’t bestow those rights upon me and they can’t take them away. Congress, the President and the bureaucracy governs in my behalf and does not rule over me. But they have forgotten that and much, much more.

Libertarians. F…..g typical.

Ann Coulter says it best about libertarians:

Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time.

So all of you hiding behind the Tenth Amendment, come out and make a stand.

    WarEagle82 in reply to obpopulus. | July 23, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Who is hiding behind the 10th Amendment? What are “the most important cultural issues of our time” that you are referring to? Can you be a little more specific?

    Awing1 in reply to obpopulus. | July 23, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    If you took out her ad-hominem attacks, Ann Coulter would just be a series of “the”s, “a”s and “and”s. What’s the point of saying a libertarian is a cowering fraud? What is it Ann supposes they’re afraid of? And what is it that they purport to be, that they are indeed not?

New York State takes the leadership role in crimes against nature! Abortion was first, now anal intercourse!

Should make interesting tourist literature, eh?

[…] In response to which Rick Santorum tweeted: via […]

I’m confused. What happens when people marry in one state, and then acquire property in multiple states, and then at some point down the road, have divorce or probate actions in another state. Full faith and credit?

    WarEagle82 in reply to janitor. | July 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    The tiny number of people who might face such circumstances would simply have to make additional legal provisions for their assets.

    This will almost certainly never be a significant societal concern and neither argues for or against “same-sex marriages.”

If Perry intends to be consistent in his defense of 10th
Amendment principles, I’m with him. Do you suppose that as president he would refuse to sign any legislation that violates the 10th Amendment? I doubt it.

[…] “If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.” […]

LukeHandCool | July 24, 2011 at 2:35 am

This is a really tough one. As Cheney said to the moderator in his debate with Edwards, this is one I really struggle with. Of course, the despicable Edwards struggled with no qualms trying to use Cheney’s lesbian daughter against him. How much lower can a man sink than to try to use another man’s daughter against him? We’ve seen the answer.

What many of us worry about, as conservatives, is widespread cultural acceptance and tolerance turning into normalization and, as retire05 touches upon with the new California law, institutionalization. It’s really all about our children and the environment they will grow up in. Adults can handle adult reality; kids shouldn’t be expected to be concerned with, let alone expected to handle, nuanced adult reality.

I am completely live and let live. The tedious anarchist lefty in our office once asked me what I would do if one of my kids turned out to be gay. I said I would be disappointed, but I would love him or her no less. Whether it be homosexuality or choice of a spouse or career, etc., I’m sure they will disappoint me at times, but I will love them no less.

Expect to be disappointed at times with your children … and you will not be disappointed!

Just as I’m sure our college-age daughter and her boyfriend sleep together occasionally when school is in session, when he has spent the night at our house a few times this summer, it is well understood they will sleep in separate bedrooms. A kind of charade? Yes, but charades, especially by parents, are underrated and have purpose. Extrapolating to society, true tolerance and a flair for charades are good friends. Polite fictions, you might call them.

A charade such as this is an ideal. I remember being at a friend’s Catholic wedding when I was in my twenties. The guy sitting next to me in the church was a mutual friend of the groom and an Olympian volleyball athletic stud. We’d laughed together a few times about our funny and/or embarrassing experiences/exploits with girls. He, like I, was no prude. But when the Priest said it was time to pray he and the other Catholics immediately got on one knee … it was beautiful … and illuminating. I knew a few of his stories that would probably have made the Priest vomit. But on his knee(s) … here was the ideal. He knew shame, meaning he had a conscience. His conscience, being an ideal, would never be met, but he would always strive in that direction.

I believe that an acceptance of civil unions is conservatives’ heartfelt compromise on this issue. Goodwill is best met with goodwill.

Parents know that good parenting is equal parts science and art, but try as we may for the ideal … heterosexuality, modern research says that for a significant percentage of adolescents that there is an element of plasticity in the development of their sexual orientation.

So, until we have information that leads us to believe otherwise, this is one case where social environment might really be key … to the sexual orientational development of a not unsignificant percentage of our youth. Charades might well be in order.

The 10th Amendment is fine, and I agree with Governor Perry this time. But I don’t agree with (actually, I vehemently oppose) California’s new law. Struggling.

LukeHandCool (whose best friend at work is a conservative gay man (a Sarah Palin fan, to boot) and who thinks constant struggle might just be a good thing).

Just because two people of the same-sex marry does not mean they are gay or homosexual.

How will Lawyers deal with this new word game?

How can it be gay marriage if two people of the same-sex marry? Isn’t this DISCRIMINATORY?

And about that 10th amendment….wasn’t it the Federal Government who Banned polygamist marriage for a specific religious group living in Utah?

There is no justice in America and the law is lost to lunatics looking for big money to pay off their over-priced law degrees.

Wouldn’t the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution require all states, including those who don’t allow “gay” marriage, to recognize those unions? So, a couple of gay blades from, say, Wyoming could take a vacation in NY, pop in to the local JP for the cermony and return home and the authorities would have to recognize their marriage. The relevant clause is quoted below:

Article IV

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

(I don’t know how reliable this is, as it’s pasted from a web site from a place called “Cornell University Law School”).

bleached cat | July 24, 2011 at 9:29 am

The Tenth Amendment appeals to those of us who don’t believe Congress should sweepingly dictate God, gun, and light bulbs for all of us across a vast nation of distinct regions and also to us who don’t much care for WH Executive fiat or the Judiciary making law, but…

This non-lawyer would like to know whether something that legislatively is made legal by one crop of State politicos can be revoked and made illegal, again, by another differently minded session. Wouldn’t this specter prove a problem in terms of relationship/ family stability and society at large? Seems to me that, at some point, the courts would need to step in and find a “right” or a violation somewhere in order to keep gays married and marrying, so as not to have extant sanctioned unions become a political football and historical burp.

I’ve supported the rights of gays to marry for a few decades now. Am decidedly against the CA law mandating (allowing for?) the teaching of gay history which, sure could be construed as a civil rights subject but I think it veers too far into teaching about sexual lifestyle of people. Just don’t teach hetero history, either. Harumph.

    bleached cat in reply to bleached cat. | July 24, 2011 at 9:44 am

    From first graf: to “we” who don’t much care for fiat?

    We/us need Preview and with Strunk capability, please.

    bleached cat in reply to bleached cat. | July 24, 2011 at 10:08 am

    the courts would need to step in and find a “right” or a violation somewhere in order to keep gays married and marrying, so as not to have extant sanctioned unions become a political football and the legalization of SS marrriage an historical burp.

    Something as basic as family formation and formalization should not be left to the vagaries of legislatures. Were NY to rescind their new law at some point in the future, we’d have grandfathered-in married gay couples who were given a temporary window of opportunity, while others in the community would just be out of luck.

Any candidate who will permit himself/herself to be distracted by social issues should not be allowed to carry the banner into the 2012 race. It’s the economy, stupid — with a heaping side of Obama.

    WarEagle82 in reply to Mutnodjmet. | July 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    I have never quite understood such statements. Social “progressives” have to implement big government to advance their agenda.

    Social conservatives or libertarians should reject “socially progressive” agendas and be proponents of small, fiscally responsible government.

    The only reason people are advocates of “big government” is to implement “socially progressive agendas.” Social issues matter.

Governor Perry is trying to have it both ways by hiding behind the Tenth Amendment, basically he is against it but for it in the same breath. My opinion, cowardice and a strike against someone who seeks to be president.

Does anyone really think Ronaldus Magnus – as Rush Limbaugh puts it – would take such a position. Greatness requires courage. Governor Perry is showing no courage on this issue.