Texas Gov. Rick Perry is asked about marriage and why he hasn't changed his views on it:
Video: Rick Perry Explains Why He Stands Strong for Marriage
July 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm
-
Categories
- Adoption
- Ads
- Africa
- Alerts
- Australia
- Canada
- Catholic Church
- Chick-fil-A
- Children
- Civil Unions
- Civility
- Cohabitation
- Congress
- Corporate Ethics
- Culture
- Debating Marriage
- Divorce
- DOMA
- Dump General Mills
- Dump Starbucks
- Economics
- Education
- Election 2010
- Election Watch 2012
- Ethics
- Europe
- Events
- Featured
- Federal
- France
- Free Speech
- Gay Voices
- GOProud
- Human Rights Campaign
- Humor
- IRS
- Law
- Let The People Vote
- Manhattan Declaration
- March for Marriage
- Marriage
- Marriage Election Watch
- Marriage Moment
- Marriage Update
- Marriage Victory
- MarriageADA
- Media
- Mexico
- Mitt Romney
- New Zealand
- News
- NOM Marriage News
- NOM on Facebook
- Offbeat
- Parenting
- Pedophilia
- Politics
- Poll
- Polling
- Polygamy
- President Obama
- Press Releases
- Pro-Life
- Prop 8
- Religious Liberty
- Research/Study
- Ruth Institute
- Same Sex Marriage
- Science
- SFMA
- Social Media
- South America
- SPLC
- States
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Texas
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Washington DC
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Statistics
- Supreme Court
- United for Marriage
- United Kingdom
- Women
- Youth
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
42 Comments
Bravo Governor!
Now we're talkin!
And god or no god, the man-woman union is phenomenal.! And phenomenally different!
Science, nature and the stars have not changed their minds about it.
Pity he had one of the most colossally failed runs at the presidency in recent history.
His campaign really went into free fall when he posted that video "Strong" video attacking "Don't ask, don't tell" repeal. That video is still one of the most disliked and widely mocked videos in YouTube history.
Is it possible Rick Perry isn't really all that popular outside a tiny little conservative Christian echo chamber?
If Rick Perry were a little quicker on his feet he'd probably be the nominee or be neck and neck with Romnee right now.
The man has the right idea, but lacks the ability to articulate it. But when he does articulate, he's good, he's really good.
A smart man with deep convictions and with a successful background. That's the kind of person we need in office.
Either way, he's a good man who leads the most successful state in the country.
Typo: Romney*
...another homophobic idiot. Thank God his attempt at the presidency was an utter failure.
@Mick32
Yeah I know. Saying that Marriage is between a man and a woman is so evil and displays an outright fear of homosexuals.
You need some thicker skin seriously.
"Yeah I know. Saying that Marriage is between a man and a woman is so evil and displays an outright fear of homosexuals."
No, not necessarily. Now, making it your life's mission to prevent gay people from getting married? It may not be evil, but it is something negative! What in the world DRIVES you people?
James, perhaps you were not ripped from the opportunity to have both a mother and father as nature intended. Perhaps the institution of marriage was not de-gendered and neutered when you were growing up. Perhaps you did not experience the horrific harms of being exposed to homosexual relationships as an innocent helpless child. Perhaps this is why you don't understand the importance of protecting and saving marriage as it always has been and as nature intended.
What matter public opinion, when one stands for Truth? "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matt. 16.26
@ James
The CHILDREN.
And our own biological children.
What drives you?
HATE of the man-woman union?
No gay person hates straight people getting married. Nobody's doing anything to straight marriages. That's all in your heads. What drives me is the want of equality.
Children are not a requirement for marriage, nor are marriages required to have children. I know I've said it, but it bears repeating. "For the children" is not a reason to deny marriage equality!
Being a man and a woman IS a requirement for marriage, however, not because we hate homosexuals, but because that is the only combination that CAN procreate children.
Whatever exceptions you can find does not invalidate the rule, nor is it fair that children be banished from all relevance and significance to marriage just because we live in an imperfect world.
@James
Let me repeat it. For I think you missed it: the CHIDREN.
And for a word that names mom and dad's union. The only union that in theory, and in reality, can independently create human life.
Stop HATING biological parents and the men-women couples who wish to associate with this unique union under the word of marriage.
Find your own word. “Cautelage”, why not.
“Marriage” is only for the man-woman couple. Do gay people HATE that? I'm afraid so.
Please stop your HATE. Learn to love, and to be respectful of other peoples feelings, and differences.
@James
Once again. For I think you missed it: the CHIDREN.
And for a word that names mom and dad's union. The only union that in theory, and in reality, can independently create human life.
@James
Stop HATING biological parents and the men-women couples who wish to associate with this unique union under the word of marriage.
Find your own word. “Cautelage”, why not.
@James
“Marriage” is only for the man-woman couple. Do gay people HATE that? I'm afraid so. Stop your HATE. Learn to love, and to be respectful of other peoples feelings and of their differences.
The very beginning of this video is the most important and shows how strong this is. Claiming to be strong on economics but baking off on social views.
Those of us who understand the importance of this, understand the importance of linking economics and marriage. One cannot have a strong economy without a strong commitment to the institution of marriage. Allowing the homosexuals to attack marriage is helping to bring down the economy.
Now that Mitt Romney is the nominee he has to hammer hard on this point. By defending marriage as is and making it as important as the economy is what is best for all of us.
We cannot have a strong economy without having a strong commitment to marriage. The male/female marriage has produced the best and brightest offspring to move this country in the future. The breakdown of the family where marriage corruption makes things worse only leads us to a weaker economy.
@Good News:
“Marriage” is only for the man-woman couple.
@Son of Adam:
"Being a man and a woman IS a requirement for marriage"
I keep hearing this, and yet isn't it a fact that in eight states, that's a complete fabrication? Six perform same-sex marriages, and another two recognize those performed in other states. Even if we ignore the multitude of foreign countries that recognize SSM, 14% of -this- country's states don't adhere to your definition; yet you continue to espouse this definition as absolute truth, when it just isn't so.
@M. Jones
"perhaps you were not ripped from the opportunity to have both a mother and father as nature intended."
Nature intends many things that we no longer adhere to. We don't needlessly die young when we have access to antibiotics and dental care, and we would do well to -neither- deny a stable union to potential parents for the sake of "the children". Gay parents have children -already-, and those children are being deprived of the best possible upbringing not because their parents are gay, but because their parents are unfairly discriminated against. In no possible future will you -ever- take those kids from the families that raised them, so why are you doing your best to deny their parents marriage?
I could go on all day, but this is already too long. Suffice to say that Eagle Scout Zach Wahls, researchers Nanette Gartrell and Henry Bos, and the APA have all looked into the claim that homosexuals make worse parents and come up with nil. Studies that claim otherwise have evident flaws that are in no way related to their funding, but instead methodology.
"I keep hearing this, and yet isn't it a fact that in eight states, that's a complete fabrication? Six perform same-sex marriages, and another two recognize those performed in other states. Even if we ignore the multitude of foreign countries that recognize SSM, 14% of -this- country's states don't adhere to your definition; yet you continue to espouse this definition as absolute truth, when it just isn't so."
There are many places in the world that recognize polygamy, King. Does that discredit traditional marriage too?
The point is that Western society, over thousands of years of cultural development, has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman for several good reasons. None of which are in any way arbitrary.
Rick Perry?
You mean the guy who said he was cool with New York exercising its states' rights prerogative in legalizing deviant marriage?
I'd definitely have supported him over Romney, Gingrich (a philanderer), or Cain (I supported Santorum), but "the States do not have the right to do wrong".
@Son of Adam
"The point is that Western society, over thousands of years of cultural development, has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman for several good reasons. None of which are in any way arbitrary."
Don't forget slavery until 147 years ago, the right of women to vote until 92 years ago, and anti-miscegenation laws until 45 years ago. Many at the time claimed to have good reasoning. However, our forebearers' judgement is not to be unquestionably followed, but tested against modern reasoning.
Ah!, the Coiff Führer, or Governor Good Hair, as we Texas like to call him.
@James
"It may not be evil, but it is something negative! What in the world DRIVES you people?"
The fact that I'm being forced to accept something I disagree with. That the social left would rather my children grow up beliving that they don't need a mother nor a father to properly develop.
That's what drives me.
"Don't forget slavery until 147 years ago, the right of women to vote until 92 years ago, and anti-miscegenation laws until 45 years ago. Many at the time claimed to have good reasoning. However, our forebearers' judgement is not to be unquestionably followed, but tested against modern reasoning."
How are any of those things similar on any moral and intellectual level to a man and a woman bonded by matrimony and having children together and raising them as a mother and father?
Natural marriage has passed modern reasoning in most court cases and will again and again because family values are not the moral twin of either slavery, miscegenation, or misogyny.
@Andy
Stop hating those who want a unique word to name the man-woman union. Stop attacking, with unrestrained vengeful hatred, that which you don't understand. You have a blinding prejudice toward people who want an unambiguous word to name “the human species in its completed form” (the male body and female body united to create one living entity for life, which can in reality, or in theory, reproduce itself- marriage). This unprejudiced unique thing deserves, in a reasonable society, a unique word to name itself.
How will clearly identifying in name the man-woman union hurt you? Why must you hurt others? Stop your blind hate. Learn to love.
It puzzles me that you don't understand that we in the LGBT community are in favor of men and women getting married if they choose to do so. We think that is a wonderful thing, and in no way are working towards preventing that from happening. We are not taking children away from happily married couples, we are not preventing them from living their lives as families.
What we are asking is that we be allowed to do the same, live our lives as married families with the same rights and protections granted by the state that you enjoy.
As to the whole "unique word" thing, marriage IS the word that the state uses to define that particular relationship. So unless you think it a good idea to spend many hundreds of thousands of tax dollars re-writing all state and federal laws that refer to marriage to call the state sponsored institution something else (and YOUR marriages would then also be called by whatever it the word marriage was changed to) then perhaps it is time for you to let that go, and understand that the word itself is used in law, and should apply equally to everyone, not just you. It would be FAR easier for churches, who could do it for FREE to call your church marriages something else, which would be fine by us.
"It puzzles me that you don't understand that we in the LGBT community are in favor of men and women getting married if they choose to do so. We think that is a wonderful thing, and in no way are working towards preventing that from happening. We are not taking children away from happily married couples, we are not preventing them from living their lives as families."
Just so long as we do not consider the things that an opposite sex couple can do that a same sex couple cannot to be important and relevant to society - like the procreation and rearing of children with a mother and father. To do so is considered a huge personal blow to the egos of the LGBT community and generates enormous hostility, as indicated by the inane name calling like "bigot", "homophobe", and "hater."
@Anyongirl,
You are not asking; you are demanding that your proclivity be held in the same regard as the natural family.
Again I ask; why do you demand to be that which the very nature of your proclivity does not provide for? If you truly felt masturbating against a same gender companion was moral you would not be working this hard to have it declared to be that which it could never be.
Calling a dog a horse will never make it so.
"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything." Confucius
@SofA: the problem is, is't not just a word. It's not something that any one person or state or body or government can reserve for the their own personal meaning. Time and again it has shown to be within the purvue of the government, voted in by the majority, can change if they so wish.
eg. introduce differing forms of divorce incompatible with certain relgious versions or differing forms of race not acceptable to certain people.
According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. Those landmarks and contextual clues in this case are social constructions.
Thus marriage is not a horse, but it is possible to have precision in lanaguage in a certain context but it may not remain thus, stuck.
eg. awful: this meant ‘full of awe’ i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing. However, over time it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.
Words, traditions, institutions, social perceptions change because we are human.
"Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed."
Boy old Wittgie got that one right.
Take, for example, the metaphysical world view of the pseudo-marriage advocate.
This world view must ignore biology, history, law, and immemorial practice in order to redefine the term "marriage", so as to leave it signifying "friendship with Federal benefits attached".
Indeed, a philosophical problem, that......
AnonGirl see Rengenerus 2012, a peer reviewed study, the largest family structures scientific study done to date showing the horrific harms innocent children suffer when exposed to homosexual adult relationships. A child needs an intact mother and father, responsible procreation is important, not only is this supported in natural law, but in history as well.
"Mother".
This term means a woman who has a child, in reality.
It has no meaning whatever in pseudo-marriage metaphysics.
"Father".
This term means a man who has a child, in reality.
It has no meaning whatever in psuedo-marriage metaphysics.
Thanks, Paul Mc.
You have advanced a persuasive case against pseudo-marriage here.......:-)
James L. Greenlee, the man-woman basis of marriage law does not prevent "gay people from getting married?"
You demand that a gay subset of relationship types be treated superior to the rest of nonmarriage. Progay favoritism is irrelevant to marriage but it sure is central to the SSM campaign and to your comments here.
The assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics, that is what drives the SSM campaign. Not equality. Far from equality, that.
Andy King said:
"Gay parents have children -already-, and [1] those children are being deprived of the best possible upbringing not because their parents are gay, but [2] because their parents are unfairly discriminated against."
(I've added the numbers for added clarity.)
[1] Here you refer to same-sex households (a census term that assumes the household is led by a same-sex duo in a sexualized relationship). The vast majority of children in such households got there by having been migrated from the previously procreative man-woman relationships of their mom-dad duos. Less than 10% of such households attained their children by other means such as adoption or use of "donor" gametes and/or surrogacy.
These children already have the protections accorded children of divorced or otherwise estranged mom-dads. But your comment would portray the nonresident mom or dad as invisible or irrelevant.
So you are wrong: the adults deprived their own children; and the SSM campaign, including yourself, work slavishly to discriminate against the non-gay mom or dad who is not resident. The vast majority of these children are being misrepresented by SSMers for no other reason than because the mom or dad in a same-sex household is deemed to be of far greater significance than the children themselves.
There is zilch that the imposition of SSM can do for children, directly, that cannot be done more directly through other reasonable means. The mere presence of children does not bestow marital status nor does it bestow eligilbity to marry nor does it bestow eligiblity for parental status. It does not do so for two-sexed scenarios nor for non-gay scenarios. Why your comment would portray this equality as somehow unjust discrimination you really do need to explain better.
[2] The adults who chose a nonmarital alternative (such as one that just happens to be lacking either a bride or a groom) make their own decisions. Not just for themselves but for their children as well. But it appears that the SSM idea really is adultcentric because somehow society is being blamed for the choice of adults who prefer a nonmarital alternative. If their reason for that choice is gaycentric, then, the SSM idea is not childcentric but rather adultcentric and gaycentric. The thing revolves around the adults and the gay identity group and children are an afterthought.
Marriage law is for marriage, not non-marriage. To choose an alternative to marriage is a liberty exercised and not a right denied. Society may discriminate between marriage and other stuff. This is not unjust discrimination.
Alan Kind said:
"However, our forebearers' judgement is not to be unquestionably followed, but tested against modern reasoning."
Well in the conflict of ideas, the marriage idea passes the test of reason. The SSM idea does not.
There has been no good reason on offer to treat the gay subset of relationship types as superior to the rest of nonmarriage.
On the other hand, the core meaning of marriage provides very good reason for societal preference over all other types of relationships. Especially regarding children.
That core meaning, Andy King, is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. as a foundational social institution). SSM is sex-segregative; SSM does not provide for responsible procreation; and the SSM idea is an incoherent conceptual mess and is not foundational to civil society.
The SSM idea is merely a political vehicle for the promotion of the asserted supremacy of identity politics. Such an assertion does not stand the test of reason when it is about white identity politics and it does not stand the test of reason when it is about gay identity politics. The SSM idea is an anemic imitation of the marriage idea but one which is anemic for the same reason it is anti-marriage: it is an outright rejection of the core meaning of marriage.
That places our pro-marriage forebearers in rather good light by comparison with the SSMers of modern times.
Paul Mc said: "Words, traditions, institutions, social perceptions change because we are human."
And with all that, the core meaning of marriage has remained constant across the anthropological and historical records.
Marriage is two-sexed. Marriage is sex-integrative; SSM is not. Marriage provides for responsible procreation; SSM does not. Marriage is foundational to civil society; SSM is not.
Marriage is the comprehensive union of man and woman because it arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, from the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation, and from the complementary nature of human community. The family, led by the man-woman duo, the husband-wife, the mom-dad, this is the organic unit of civilization. This is so because we are human.
SSM is a specious substitution for marriage; it is an idea that would be imposed in replacement of the marriage idea in our laws -- and according to the SSM campaign also in our culture and traditions. And that is not because we are human but because the SSM campaign is driven by pro-gay favoritism. The SSM idea is irrelevant to marriage but the gayness is central to the idea and the ways and means of its promotion over and above marriage and good governance.
Zack: "That the social left would rather my children grow up beliving that they don't need a mother nor a father to properly develop."
Sorry dude, but that's just reality. Telling kids they can't devlop properly without a mother and a father sounds worse to me. Tons of kids have grown up just fine, thank you, without a traditional nuclear family. You're insulting every parent and kid from a non-nuclear family. Everyone raised by a grandparent, single mother, anyone who had one parent die. . . Your premise is just not true.
Chairm: "You demand that a gay subset of relationship types be treated superior to the rest of nonmarriage. Progay favoritism is irrelevant to marriage but it sure is central to the SSM campaign and to your comments here."
Where did I ever say that gay people should be superior? Equal. That's an easy word. And why is being gay a "subset" of relationship types? It's just a relationship type. Honestly, when I visit pages like this, it's as though you get all of your information from hunches, and supposition and from talking to each other in your anti-gay bubble, rather than fact gathering.
There are lots of gay people out there, they will give you answers to questions if you ask them. Unless you think we are ALL lying. If that's the case, I'd have to ask you how and when we all agreed to do that. I must have missed the meeting.
Randy: "If you truly felt masturbating against a same gender companion was moral you would not be working this hard to have it declared to be that which it could never be."
Omg....obsessed much?
James L Greenlee,
Of all the types of relationships can you plainly state the essentials of the marital relationship without which it would not be marital?
Given that there is the marriage category, it must be identifiable by what makes marriage, marriage. The rest of the types of relationships are not marriage.
Promoters of SSM cannot distinguish SSM from nonmarriage except by their emphasis on gayness. They are not shy about that. They tell me this all the time. Your own comments align with that pro SSM rhetoric and argumentation.
You use the word equal in a misleading way. What do you place on either side of that equation?
Marriage is different from nonmarriage. You would demand special status (marital status is a special status) for your favored gay subset of all the types of relatoonships that populate nonmarriage category.
The union of husband and wife merits special status due to the core meaning of marriage. SSM is a rejection of that core meaning. So on what basis do you insist that it be treated as the equal of what your rhetoric and argumentation opposes?
All that has been put forward is the assertion that gay favoritism trumps marriage itself. The assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics is a lousy reason to impose SSM.
To get to equal one would have to subtract from the marriage idea so as to reach the lowest common denominator of marriage and non-marriage. Hence my query to James L Greenlee who, like most SSMers, has no real answer with which to respond on point.