If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business. Constitution that limits marriage to one man and one woman. My stance hasn't changed. 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.
So to change those at the age of 50 or 60 tells you all you need to know about that.
And passing a federal marriage amendment is one of the ways to do that. According to The Examiner: Perry is the third candidate, behind Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, to sign the Family Leader pledge to protect the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, to remain faithful to their spouse and to appoint judges who are faithful constitutionalists. Within days of formally declaring his White House run, however, Perry changed his mind.
In August , he signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge to defend the institution as between one man and one woman. According to The Houston Chronicle: Rick Perry defied the Pentagon, saying Texas defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Romney vs. Family Values: His Administration's Homosexual Programs Targeting Children - Kindle edition by Amy L. Contrada. Download it once and read it on. His Stealth Promotion of "Gay Rights" and "Gay Marriage" in Massachusetts The Romney Administration's Radical Homosexual Programs Targeting Children in Massachusetts Pro-Family Group Asks: Is the Conservative Movement Dead ? values, conservative religious beliefs, or conservative political principles; or.
But Hagel made it clear Oct. Texas cited its state constitution and Family Code in refusing Hagel's demands. It told same-sex couples to file their paperwork at more than 20 active-duty installations and refused to let them to apply for benefits at guard facilities in Abilene, Austin, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and the Rio Grande Valley…..
The governor, who has led challenges to Washington over redistricting, abortion and its new voter ID law, insisted the state wouldn't give in, and the phrasing of a news release Tuesday on the guard's website didn't suggest that Texas backed down. American Military Partner Association: Rick Perry, is creating a hostile climate of discrimination and has sent a strong message that Department of Defense policies and direct orders by the secretary of defense will not be followed.
Perry Criticized A U. We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state. We are all children of God, and the fact is that people will decide where they want to live if Washington will respect the 10th Amendment. Though a judge recently struck it down, pending appeal. Perry said he respects how other states come down on the issue. That's Rhode Island's choice and I agree with that. And if we as a country will get back to allowing the states to decide these instead of -- we got lots of big issues in this country like how do we get this country back working again, how do we secure the border, how do we have a foreign policy that is actually not feckless.
Perry refused to implement a Department of Defense order to ensure LGBT military personnel had access to domestic partner benefits. According to the Chicago Tribune: President Obama issued an executive memo outlining the campaign, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made a speech on International Human Rights Day arguing that gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights. I will not make that mistake. So, I fall down with the ladder [sic] group.
Religious freedom is worth protecting. We believe in freedom. We believe in religious freedom in the state of Texas. We passed that religious freedom bill in , and I was proud to work with George W. Bush as the Lt. Governor to pass that. I do know this: For instance, there's probably a debate that goes on about if you're an alcoholic you were born with that genetic trait. But every day, individuals realize that that is a trait that is not particularly good for their health, not good for their well-being and that it can be controlled with responsible behavior.
And I would suggest that that is probably an argument that can be made for a host of genetically inclined disorders. If that in fact is where they come from.
Rick Perry asked Christians to turn to God for answers to the nation's troubles as he held court Saturday over a national prayer rally attended by thousands of evangelical conservatives, an important constituency should the Republican seek the GOP presidential nomination. No right-thinking adult would encourage a student tempted to shoot up to yield to such impulses and plunge headlong into a drug-addled lifestyle.
In fact, we would be highly critical of any adult who would do that, and hold him partially accountable for the destruction that would follow. Nor should we encourage students wrestling with same-sex attractions to take the plunge. Rather, they should be helped to resist these self-destructive impulses and redirect their sexual energies in healthy and life-giving directions. It can be done; in fact, it happens every day. If we want to see fewer students commit suicide, we want fewer homosexual students.
What all truly caring adults will want to do for a student struggling with his sexual identity is to help him resist dangerous sexual impulses, accept his biological identity as either male or female, and help him learn to adjust his psychological identity to his God-given biological one. Along that path lies psychological, spiritual, mental and emotional wholeness. Along the path of sexual depravity lies loneliness, self-torment, disease, and even death. E-book excerpts also available: How "Gay Marriage" Came to Massachusetts: Amy held a sign advocating removing the judges.
The Judiciary was the problem, not the Massachusetts Constitution. Candidates should be judged by their past actions, not by their rhetoric. Contrada has given a gift to America by exposing the faux 'conservatism' of former Governor Mitt Romney. Contrada lays bare Romney's servile embrace of the radical Massachusetts 'gay' agenda in his statewide campaigns for office he criticized Ted Kennedy from the left. Then she exposes his subsequent doublespeak in posing as the stalwart defender of traditional marriage in his bid for the GOP presidential nomination.
In the process, Contrada also reveals how prominent, pro-Romney social conservatives cut corners to preserve Mitt's marriage myth. This is a must-read for anyone wanting to go beyond the conservative media hype surrounding the former Massachusetts governor to understand the real Romney. Has a few misquotes.
Romney's promises to homosexuals still stand ," by Michael Carl. He consistently works both sides of the street on the same issue. He is consistently cynical and expedient and self-serving. What a mistake he made, inviting scrutiny of his record on constitutional and social issues as Governor of Massachusetts. During my tenure, our conservative values also came under attack. I pushed for a stay of the decision, fought for a marriage amendment to our constitution, and successfully prohibited out-of-state couples from coming to our state to get married and then go home.
On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage. When I am President, I will preserve the Defense of Marriage Act and I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. During my time in office, I stood up to those who wanted to call into question the very definition of life. I vetoed a bill that would have opened the door to cloning and embryo farming.
I vetoed a bill that would have allowed young girls to gain access to abortion-inducing drugs. I fought for abstinence education in our public schools. The four judges simply invented it. So why did Governor Romney give it any credence? The Legislature never changed the law as the Court suggested it do since it had no power to order another branch to act.
The Massachusetts Constitution states clearly that only the Legislature can make or overturn a law.
Yet he did just that in early — to the shock of many. Why did he enforce this illegitimate ruling the Court could not have enforced on its own? Romney knew when running for Governor in that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would soon be issuing a pro-gay-marriage ruling. What did he have to say on the issue as a candidate?
Plenty — at a meeting in a gay bar with the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans. And, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment, did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections. Also just previous to his election, he opposed the only realistic chance Massachusetts had to pass a marriage amendment, because its wording would have outlawed civil unions equivalent to marriage in all but name.
What happened when the Massachusetts Court opinion was announced on November 18, ? He delivered this brief, tepid statement — which failed to make any argument for either constitutional government or traditional marriage: I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear.
Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman. Watch the video of his statement here. His current campaign website distorts the record by omission, posting only the first part of his statement, leaving off the gay rights clause. How can he be called a champion for marriage?
This is a telling comment. This reveals his acquiescence to the Court, recognizing it as the supreme arbiter of the law with final authority over the other two branches, no matter how absurd their opinion. Why did he then think an irrational, out-of-bounds Court would pay any attention to his request for a stay while the amendment process ran its course?
But Romney claimed that he needed support from the Attorney General or Legislature to approach the Court, and they refused him. Did he lack the courage for a confrontation? Meanwhile, his Executive Office was busy behind the scenes implementing the marriage ruling. He discounted the possibility of simply ignoring the illegitimate ruling, issuing a clarifying Executive Order that no same-sex marriages would occur, or supporting the grassroots effort to remove the errant judges. He never explained what was wrong with any of those options. Recall that he had opposed the one good chance for a strong amendment in He lobbied Republican legislators to vote for it on its first legislative round, making the difference in its initial passage.
It was later voted down in the Legislature in late It went down to a humiliating defeat just months after Romney left office. Romney made no bully-pulpit speeches in Massachusetts for traditional marriage. But that latter event was really the kickoff for his Presidential campaign, as he stood Patton-like before an enormous American flag draping the State House just a month before his term ended.
The ad has been posted on about 23 blogs so far, said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for the Romney committee. Boston Herald , Jan. Romney also made a show of filing suit against the Legislature in late to force their vote on the amendment. Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court asking the court to clarify the legislators' duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the ballot.
That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing the ultimate pressure on the legislators to vote. The SJC unanimously ruled that the Legislature must vote and the historic vote was taken on January 2, winning legislative support. This cleared a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth. But it was Ed Pawlick who originally petitioned the SJC in for an opinion in that regard, after the Legislature refused to vote on the Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage amendment.
Romney's petition was thus unnecessary. At the federal level: Senate for a federal marriage amendment was his only extended argument for traditional marriage.
It opens with a lecture on tolerance and an indictment of traditionalists who disapprove of homosexuality, implying that they may be haters and bigots:. You have asked for my perspectives on the recent inauguration of same sex marriage in my state. This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice.
This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians. Inexplicably, he points out that the Massachusetts Court was out of bounds: He notes that the separation of powers should prevent such power grabs by the Court.
But that would only work if the Governor had not also acted beyond his authority, and he had done his duty to check the Court. Romney told the Senators:. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend. The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process. Note that he neglects to say: If the Court overreaches, the Executive can refuse to enforce its opinion as if it were law.
And judges can be impeached. Amending the Constitution is not the only solution, and certainly should not be the first resort. He makes no mention of sexual morality or the public health concerns related to aberrant homosexual practices. Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred?
I believe that is the case. And I believe their error was the product of seeing only a part, and not the entirety. They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights. But marriage is not solely for adults.