Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 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.


    […] “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.

    Capn Billy | July 24, 2011 at 9:11 am

    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.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend