Another Flip Flop from Rick Perry (D) Texas

[The Rabbi]

Well, I don't call having to have the US Government's blessing to get married a "trivial matter". Additionally, I don't think forcing 12 year old girls to get inoculated against STDs is a trivial matter either. To each their own.

Not my biggest concern either but if you're going to label yourself a conservative, it would help to have some conservative principles based on less government interaction. Instead, he wants to amend the constitution right out of the box. Politically, its extremely suspicious how he said he didn't have a problem with NY's ruling on gay marriage then says he wants to amend the Constitution federally to ban it.

Wow, you are trying to drag up the Gardisil thing again? Really?

I think amending the constitution wouldn't be the best way to go. (I also think it's practically impossible, no matter how good the GOP does next year, and they are going to do really good if they nominate Rick.) But we wouldn't be having this discussion if the people who support gay marriage actually followed the democratic process and didn't keep trying to sneak it in the back door. (Pun Intended.)

If want gay marriage, you get 51% of the population of the country to agree that's what the law should be. Not some judge in some state ignoring the will of the people and deciding he's going to change the law, all on his own, no matter what they said at the ballot box.

Obviously, there's a problem of two principles on the conservative side conflicting here. Protecting marriage from redefinition vs. the right of states to make their own laws. I'm not really sure how it gets resolved at the end.

But Perry is no more slippery than "The One", who also says that he supports the traditional definition of marriage, but his Justice Department (when it isn't handing automatic weapons to Mexican Drug Gangs) won't be bothered to actually defend the law Congress passed.

When did it become okay to put minority rights to the "will of the people"? If we had waited for the "Will of the People", interracial marriage would not have become legal until 1992. It was passed by "activist judges" in 1967...

Gays aren't a minority. Get over it.

 

[Antiderivative]

The Rabbi showed up. Now this topic turned to shit.

 

[Dot Com]

I like how he forced school girls to get shots given out by big government

 

[Seawytch]

Gays aren't a minority. Get over it.

Of course they are...

Minority Groups

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree Perry is not the ideal Conservative Candidate. But he does deserve props for creating a lot of Jobs in Texas. His Job-Creation Numbers are second to none. No one even comes close,and that includes The One.

If the oil industry was based in Rhode Island, Rhode Island would have more jobs created than anyone else. Having industries in your state posting record high profits is the ONLY reason that there are jobs being created in Texas. But you tend to reap those benefits if you're the governor...right or wrong.


.

Actually both PA and NY have an oil industry. They could be creating thousands of jobs and bringing in tons of revenue. Instead, high regulations and taxes have people fleeing both those states.
TX is the destination for a lot of companies fleeing CA.

But wow. Perry hasn't even announced yet and already the Left is trying to smear him. The best is that he's--gasp--not really a conservative. If that's the case, all the Lefties here ought to be voting for him. Right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gays aren't a minority. Get over it.

Of course they are...

Minority Groups

Dream on.
And 10% of the population is gay. Don't forget that myth.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays aren't a minority. Get over it.

Of course they are...

Minority Groups

Dream on.
And 10% of the population is gay. Don't forget that myth.

We don't know what percentage of the population is gay or lesbian. It is anywhere from 4-10%.

Pacific Islanders account for roughly 4% of the US population. Does "low numbers" somehow effect minority status?

You may not LIKE that gays and lesbians are a recognized minority, but it is pretty much universally excepted that they ARE a minority.

The "majority" should never be able to vote on the fundamental rights of a minority, period.

 

[Sallow]

Yea cuz the Hopey Changey One and Democrats never Flip-Flop on anything. Remember when your boy just hated raising those Debt Limits when the other side had the power? Now he's telling us it's our sacred patriotic duty to raise the Debt Limit. Now that's a Flip-Flop. Yikes!

Perry is a Democrat is he not?

Perry is a Republican. He has supported Democrats in the past though. And that might just help him if he runs against the Hopey Changey One. Lots of Independent Democrat-leaning Voters are just itching to dump The One. Perry might just benefit from this.

Supported?

Texas LegislatureIn 1984, Perry was elected to the Texas House of Representatives as a Democrat from a district (64) that included his home county of Haskell. He served on the House Appropriations and Calendars committees during his three two-year terms in office. He befriended fellow freshman state representative Lena Guerrero of Austin, a staunch liberal Democrat who endorsed Perry's reelection bid in 2006 on personal, rather than philosophical, grounds. Perry was part of the "Pit Bulls", a group of Appropriations members who sat on the lower dais in the committee room (or "pit") who pushed for austere state budgets during the 1980s.

Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and was chairman of the Gore campaign in Texas.

In 1989, The Dallas Morning News named him one of the most effective legislators in the 71st Legislature.[citation needed] That same year, Perry announced that he was joining the Republican Party.[14]

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course they are...

Minority Groups

Dream on.
And 10% of the population is gay. Don't forget that myth.

We don't know what percentage of the population is gay or lesbian. It is anywhere from 4-10%.

Pacific Islanders account for roughly 4% of the US population. Does "low numbers" somehow effect minority status?

You may not LIKE that gays and lesbians are a recognized minority, but it is pretty much universally excepted that they ARE a minority.

The "majority" should never be able to vote on the fundamental rights of a minority, period.

I can look at a Fiji islander and tell that's what he is. I can't look at someone and tell he's gay. Therefore gays are not a minority.
Gays do not ahve any fundamental right, or any right at all, denied to them. None.

 

[Seawytch]

Dream on.
And 10% of the population is gay. Don't forget that myth.

We don't know what percentage of the population is gay or lesbian. It is anywhere from 4-10%.

Pacific Islanders account for roughly 4% of the US population. Does "low numbers" somehow effect minority status?

You may not LIKE that gays and lesbians are a recognized minority, but it is pretty much universally excepted that they ARE a minority.

The "majority" should never be able to vote on the fundamental rights of a minority, period.

I can look at a Fiji islander and tell that's what he is. I can't look at someone and tell he's gay. Therefore gays are not a minority.
Gays do not ahve any fundamental right, or any right at all, denied to them. None.

Closing your eyes to the reality do not make the reality go away. We've all heard your ridiculous justification for discrimination...that because straight people can't marry people of the same sex, it isn't discrimination to deny the fundamental right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

We heard it in 1967 when it was argued that anti-miscegenation laws weren't discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. They were wrong and so are you. It was stupid then and it is twice as stupid to use it now.

Can you look at someone and tell they are Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist? Can we deny marriage equality to these groups simply because you can't tell they belong to that group?

Can you come up with an argument that isn't either blatantly bigoted or just plain ludicrous?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is what Rick Perry said his position is....for the time being. It's a close race to see what expires first; the milk in your fridge or Perry's position on...anything.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential GOP presidential candidate, said he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and takes away the right of states to decide who can get married.

Perry, in an interview with the Associated Press, said a decision on whether he'll run for the White House can wait until Labor Day.

"Yes sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment," Perry told the AP in a telephone interview Saturday. "And that's about as sharp a point as I could put on it."

The issue of gay marriage has tripped up Perry in recent weeks.

Perry, a favorite of social conservatives, touched off concern when he said earlier this month that New York's decision to enact a same-sex marriage law is "fine with me." That drew rebukes from the right, including from GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator.

The governor sought to clarify his "fine with me" remark in an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He told Perkins that he's not OK with marriage, but believes in states' rights as contained in the 10th Amendment.

Perry said he would run on a platform centered on the need to create jobs if he decides to make the 2012 White House race.

Why is this a flip flop?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree Perry is not the ideal Conservative Candidate. But he does deserve props for creating a lot of Jobs in Texas. His Job-Creation Numbers are second to none. No one even comes close,and that includes The One.

If the oil industry was based in Rhode Island, Rhode Island would have more jobs created than anyone else. Having industries in your state posting record high profits is the ONLY reason that there are jobs being created in Texas. But you tend to reap those benefits if you're the governor...right or wrong.

And his Democrat past might actually benefit him in the General Election. There are many Independent Democrat-leaning Voters who are desperate for an alternative to this President. Perry could be what they're looking for.

Not likely. They don't want forced injections of a potentially deadly drug for their daughters or a Constitutional amendment forcing you to get the Government's blessing for your marriage.

Thanks but no thanks.

What do you mean by "the oil industry"? Do you imply exploration and production? Or the petro-chemical industry?
In any event, Texas is a huge growth state due to a business friendly tax climate, no or little union issues, climate, transportation system higher education, etc. On the other hand, States like Rhode Island with cold wet winters, very high taxes, well documented political corruption and a business unfriendly climate, lose out.
Your comparison is kind of silly. That's like saying the Indianapolis Colts wouldn't be a good football team if they didn't have Peyton Manning as their quarterback.
In other words, it's the fault of the State of Texas that Rhode Island cannot compete in the jobs market.....face palm.

 

[The Rabbi]

We don't know what percentage of the population is gay or lesbian. It is anywhere from 4-10%.

Pacific Islanders account for roughly 4% of the US population. Does "low numbers" somehow effect minority status?

You may not LIKE that gays and lesbians are a recognized minority, but it is pretty much universally excepted that they ARE a minority.

The "majority" should never be able to vote on the fundamental rights of a minority, period.

I can look at a Fiji islander and tell that's what he is. I can't look at someone and tell he's gay. Therefore gays are not a minority.
Gays do not ahve any fundamental right, or any right at all, denied to them. None.

Closing your eyes to the reality do not make the reality go away. We've all heard your ridiculous justification for discrimination...that because straight people can't marry people of the same sex, it isn't discrimination to deny the fundamental right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

We heard it in 1967 when it was argued that anti-miscegenation laws weren't discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. They were wrong and so are you. It was stupid then and it is twice as stupid to use it now.

Can you look at someone and tell they are Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist? Can we deny marriage equality to these groups simply because you can't tell they belong to that group?

Can you come up with an argument that isn't either blatantly bigoted or just plain ludicrous?

Gays aren't blacks. They aren't discriminated-against minorities. IN most cases they are totally anonymous in society. And they aren't even definable. What is a "gay" person? Someone who only has sex with the same sex? Someone who sometimes has sex with the same sex? Someone who one time had sex with the same sex? Someone who claims he is?
It's tough engaging in self-destructive behavior and opening yourself to crime and disease. But that doesn't entitle you to extra rights that the rest of us don't have.
Nor does it justify hijacking this thread.

 

[Seawytch]

I can look at a Fiji islander and tell that's what he is. I can't look at someone and tell he's gay. Therefore gays are not a minority.
Gays do not ahve any fundamental right, or any right at all, denied to them. None.

Closing your eyes to the reality do not make the reality go away. We've all heard your ridiculous justification for discrimination...that because straight people can't marry people of the same sex, it isn't discrimination to deny the fundamental right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

We heard it in 1967 when it was argued that anti-miscegenation laws weren't discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. They were wrong and so are you. It was stupid then and it is twice as stupid to use it now.

Can you look at someone and tell they are Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist? Can we deny marriage equality to these groups simply because you can't tell they belong to that group?

Can you come up with an argument that isn't either blatantly bigoted or just plain ludicrous?

Gays aren't blacks. They aren't discriminated-against minorities. IN most cases they are totally anonymous in society. And they aren't even definable. What is a "gay" person? Someone who only has sex with the same sex? Someone who sometimes has sex with the same sex? Someone who one time had sex with the same sex? Someone who claims he is?
It's tough engaging in self-destructive behavior and opening yourself to crime and disease. But that doesn't entitle you to extra rights that the rest of us don't have.
Nor does it justify hijacking this thread.

They ARE discriminated against minorities. Your refusal to SEE it does not make it less true. When you can lose your job in dozens of states because of your sexual orientation, that IS discrimination.

Why do YOU need to "identify" anyone? What overriding societal harm is there in allowing non familial same sex couples the legal protections of civil marriage?

Who is hijacking the thread? It's about legal civil marriage. That IS what we are discussing, your red herrings not withstanding.

 

[The Rabbi]

Closing your eyes to the reality do not make the reality go away. We've all heard your ridiculous justification for discrimination...that because straight people can't marry people of the same sex, it isn't discrimination to deny the fundamental right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

We heard it in 1967 when it was argued that anti-miscegenation laws weren't discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. They were wrong and so are you. It was stupid then and it is twice as stupid to use it now.

Can you look at someone and tell they are Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist? Can we deny marriage equality to these groups simply because you can't tell they belong to that group?

Can you come up with an argument that isn't either blatantly bigoted or just plain ludicrous?

Gays aren't blacks. They aren't discriminated-against minorities. IN most cases they are totally anonymous in society. And they aren't even definable. What is a "gay" person? Someone who only has sex with the same sex? Someone who sometimes has sex with the same sex? Someone who one time had sex with the same sex? Someone who claims he is?
It's tough engaging in self-destructive behavior and opening yourself to crime and disease. But that doesn't entitle you to extra rights that the rest of us don't have.
Nor does it justify hijacking this thread.

They ARE discriminated against minorities. Your refusal to SEE it does not make it less true. When you can lose your job in dozens of states because of your sexual orientation, that IS discrimination.

Why do YOU need to "identify" anyone? What overriding societal harm is there in allowing non familial same sex couples the legal protections of civil marriage?

Who is hijacking the thread? It's about legal civil marriage. That IS what we are discussing, your red herrings not withstanding.

No, the thread is about Rick Perry and his views. Why that was newsworthy I really don't know. I dont see anything about the views of Dave Freudenthal on here.
Gays are not discriminated-against minorities. That is a paranoia. Doubtless part of the pathology of the homosexual illness.

 

[Seawytch]

No, the thread is about Rick Perry and his views. Why that was newsworthy I really don't know. I dont see anything about the views of Dave Freudenthal on here.
Gays are not discriminated-against minorities. That is a paranoia. Doubtless part of the pathology of the homosexual illness.

Yeah, his flip floppy views on state rights when it comes to marriage equality. Both of his flip floppy views are wrong, whether he's arguing that it is a state's right issue or that there should be a constitutional amendment that would take away fundamental rights from American citizens.

 

[whitehall]

Last time I heard Perry had an (R) after his name. If it's a "D" now it would be a gigantic flip flop.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays are not discriminated-against minorities.

I just wonder what it must feel like to be on the wrong side of history.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential GOP presidential candidate, said he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and takes away the right of states to decide who can get married.

The governor sought to clarify his "fine with me" remark in an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He told Perkins that he's not OK with marriage, but believes in states' rights as contained in the 10th Amendment.

Well which is it? Is Perry for ‘states’ rights’ (which never actually existed) or forcing the states to confirm to a national standard. Perry’s inconsistency is indicative of his ignorance.

And a ‘marriage amendment’ would as much pollute the Constitution as a ‘balanced budget’ amendment.

Even by 1967, most of the states had already struck these laws off their books.

18 states still had ‘anti-miscegenation’ statutes on the books as of 1967, not an insignificant number. Indeed, two states – Alabama and South Carolina – didn’t amend their state constitutions to repeal anti-miscegenation provisions until 2000 and 1998, respectively.

Of course one state with such a law would be one state too many.

It’s consequently incorrect to present Loving as a ‘moot decision,’ that all states were ‘on their way’ to repealing anti-miscegenation legislation, when that was clearly not the case – particularly with regard to Virginia, Alabama, and South Carolina.

But my overall principle stands. YOu want to change the law, get a majority to agree with you.

Your ‘principle’ is inconsistent with the Constitution and the rule of law. If a law is determined un-Constitutional by the courts, it is struck down, regardless what the majority wants. It’s the fundamental tenet protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.

Well, first, Free Speech is in the constitution. Marriage isn't. Therefore it is a perogative of the people, not the courts.

And again, incorrect. .

Marriage law - like any other law - must be applied equally and the people given equal access to the laws per the 14th Amendment. Just as the majority does not decide who may have his rights and who many not, the majority also does not decide who may have access to a given law and who may not. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

Gays aren't a minority. Get over it.

Yet another wrong answer from the right.

Homosexuals are a protected class. See: Romer v Evans (1996).

 

[JoeB131]

[The Gallup poll, quite clearly, shows that the public did not "approve" of interracial marriages by a majority until the 1990s, over 20 years after laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down by the activist judges on the Supreme Court in 1967, not individual states, but the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Tell me, in what states was this civil right put to a majority vote? What would have happened if it had? That's what it boils down to, when have we put minority rights to a majority vote?

Once again, you fail to distinguish between "I don't approve" and "I think there ought to be a law."

For instance, I don't personally approve of abortion, but I think it should be legal because criminalizing it would be a practical impossibility. But you change the law in the LEGISLATURE, not the JUDICIAL. The Judiciary should ONLY be there to interpret the law.

In the case of Loving v. Virginia, one could make the very valid argument that the miscegnation laws were in violation of the 14th Amendment, which specifically protected civil rights based on race. (Although there were numerous previous precedents that said they weren't.)

No such argument exists for gay marriage. There is not a constitutional amendment that protects any kind of sex you want to have. If we took your illogic to it's ultimate conclusion, we could strike down the bigamy laws, the incest laws, perhaps even the age of consent laws.

Now, for the record, I would have no problem with it if the PEOPLE voted to allow gay marriage for their state and their state only. Not some unelected judge like Walker who has a conflict of interest.