Rick Perry's Fair-Weather Federalism

The Texas governor backtracks on his 10th Amendment support for New York's gay marriage law.


Two of Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry's most cherished loves are in conflict. Those two things are the 10th Amendment, which states that the "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people"; and right-wing holy rollers, a constituency that Perry will need if he decides to seek the GOP presidential nomination.  

Since 2009, when Perry made headlines by reminding the nation that Texas had once been an independent republic, and "could," according to his spokeswoman, "secede if it wanted," Perry's two great loves existed in separate spheres.

The religious right did not make a peep when Perry said shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, "I believe the federal government has become oppressive. I believe it's become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state." Christian conservatives had no qualms with Perry's endorsement of a nonbinding resolution authored in the Texas legislature that reaffirmed the protections provided by the 10th Amendment. Being opposed to public education specifically and Democrats in general, the religious right did not ding Perry when he said earlier this year that "Obamacare, the EPA's takeover of Texas' successful air permitting program, and a misguided amendment to the education jobs bill filed by Rep. Lloyd Doggett in his attempt to require the governor to make assurances in violation of the Texas Constitution" were all violations of the 10th Amendment.

In fact, Perry's love for the 10th Amendment was fine and dandy until he said last week that New York's gay marriage law was none of Texas' business.

"Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said that marriage can be between two people of the same sex and you know what that is New York and that is their business and that is fine with me, that is their call," Perry said at an event in Colorado. "If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."

That statement did not sit well with Tony Perkins, president of the once (and apparently still) influential Family Research Council. Perkins quickly got Perry to submit to an interview, so that he could recant.

"I think marriage and family policy is best dealt with at the state level," Perkins said. "But the tenth amendment — and I am a strong supporter. I fought the federal government on a number of issues when they were trying to force us to do things. But when you look at what's happening on marriage, the real fear is that states like New York will change the definition of marriage for Texas. At that point the states rights argument is lost."

Perry heartily agreed. "That is the reason that the federal marriage amendment is being offered, it's that small group of activist judges, and frankly a small handful, if you will, of states, and liberal special interests groups that intend on a redefinition of, if you will, marriage on the nation, for all of us, which I adamantly oppose."

Perkins continued to lead Perry through his absolution: "Governor, we are about out of time but I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think I hear what you are saying. The support given what's happening across the nation, the fear of the courts, the administration's failure to defend the defense of marriage act."

And Perry, like the false mother who went before King Solomon to determine the parentage of a stolen baby, gladly cut the baby in half rather than maintain his defense of the 10th Amendment. 

"I have long supported the appointment of judges who respect the constitution and the passage of a federal marriage amendment," Perry said in the final minutes of his interview with Perkins. "That amendment defines marriage between one man and one woman, and it protects the states from being told otherwise."

Putting aside for a moment that the president has no role in the amendment process, and that with enough time and fear-mongering, the Constitution could be amended to such an extent that the 10th Amendment would be absolutely worthless, Perry's conversation with Perkins suggests that he is either confused, or a liar. For Perkins wasn't the only person Perry spoke to this week about his comments in Aspen. On the same day the Perkins interview appeared, the Texas governor told the New Hampshire Union Leader, "If you're going to respect the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, you can't go picking and choosing" which laws to shove down the states' throats.

Either way—confused or lying—Perry's lip service to the 10th Amendment appears to be exactly that.

Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

NEXT: George Will: "America is moving in the libertarians' direction"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “There’s an old saying in Tennessee?I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee?that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.'”
















        1. hunter thompson

        2. i see what you did there

          1. me too

        3. He wrote a poem about an old goat who sold balloons.



      2. So you’re an eclectic reader. I see…

    2. Two things:

      STEVE SMITH appears to have a new name.

      And, where is Ayn Rand?

  3. I can’t even imagine what horrors will happen once Texas is forced to honour New York’s marriage laws.

    If the state weren’t doing things like doling out health benefits to the spouses of state employees, they wouldn’t need to worry about who’s married to whom. (And you’d think Texas could worry a bit more about the YFZ Ranch if they’re worried about “unseemly” marriages, and a bit less about gay couples in NYS.)

    No dogs were married.

    1. “you’d think Texas could worry a bit more about the YFZ Ranch if they’re worried about “unseemly” marriages”

      WTF, arresting those people and throwing their kids in the juvenile system wasn’t persecution enough? Also, Texas is always of at least 2 and usually 3 minds about cultural things. You’ve got the cowboy/wildcat culture, the fundies, and the leave-me-the-fuck-aloners. But other than that, you’re exactly right.

      1. plus the “austiny” types though there is some overlap there with that last one.

    2. I would marry my dog Heather if the law allowed it. I’m pretty sure she’d say yes if I popped the question.

      1. wait…nevermind

      2. You have a talking dog?

        1. That’s the punch line to my favorite joke.

          1. While she does understand English, Spanish, German and ASL, she only responds in Canine.

            1. Needs provability. Probably just as mad as communism.

      3. I wouldn’t marry you even for a whole box of scooby snacks

  4. I thought Tony Perkins was a long-time gay.

  5. Why the fuck do they keep talking about this shit? They couldn’t even get a majority for cloture, let alone a supermajority, let alone a majority voting for the bill, let alone the 2/3 to make a Constitutional amendment. And that was 7 years ago, when gay marriage had more opposition, and with a Republican majority. They have no chance. At all.,

      1. Sounds fun? Where do the Ayn Rand fans rally?

        1. It’s no question that it’s going to be fun. That should have been an exclamation mark.

        2. A gulch in Colorado, IIRC.

  6. You mean a Republican is a 10th-Amendment absolutist insofar as the 10th Amendment suits him? Who’d ha’ thunk?









    391-23-2142 IS MY SS#.


    TAKE IT.



    1. “RAPEVILLE”


    2. Put me in touch with your weed man.

    3. How do you rape a marble is what I want to know.

  8. “I’m telepathically telling Blago that he fucking wishes he had my hair.”

    1. Head-shot.

    2. “I feed it raw meat and strippers.”

      1. So you cook the strippers then?

        1. I’m pretty sure that raw modifies both meat and strippers in that formulation. “I feed it strippers and raw meat” would be a better formulation to acknowledge that the strippers might not be raw.

          1. Every stripper I ever met was pretty damn raw.

            1. I’ve met plenty who were baked.

  9. This is totally unsurprising to anyone who has been paying attention. That’s why I will never vote for a fundagelical under any circumstances. They are simply not to be trusted to not attempt to impose their beliefs on others once in office.

    And this isn’t about team donkey vs. team elephant; it’s about team reality versus team fantasy.

  10. Preferred alt-text:

    “This is Chad Chadstone, signing off”

  11. Governor hood hair waffles on an issue to appease some of his christian base? Say it ain’t so! Republicans such as Perry only believe in states rights when its something they agree with.

    1. same w backman & palin.

      1. Dems, meanwhile, view the 10th as toilet paper.

        1. How is republican inconsistency any different?

          1. Dems are consistently anti-federalism except when it comes to marriage, but (some) Repubs are consistently pro-federalism except when it comes to marriage.

            1. or medical mj

              1. True. And education.
                Losing hope. Slowly losing hope.

  12. Is it really a contradiction to say that as of now, the 10th Amendment should allow each state to make their own policy but also support the amending of the Constitution which would make the issue legitimately a Constitutional issue? Personally, I would not favor a federal marriage definition but I do think we might need a Constitutional DOMA because otherwise we are held at Anthony Kennedy’s whims.

    1. You may be right.

      1. You may be crazy?

        1. But it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for.

          1. Get outta sight!

            1. Don’t try to save him.

        2. Probably so. A Constitutional amendment on the issue is probably a bad idea regardless, but Kennedy’s judicial activism does need checks.

          1. Probably so. A Constitutional amendment on the issue is probably a bad idea regardless, but Kennedy’s judicial activism does need checks.

            I would favor a soft amendment, one that explicitly leaves the issue to the states, as well as Congress concerning territories and D.C..

            And you are right about Kennedy. We can not take anything regarding his vote concerning the cert petitions for Lofton and Pietrangelo.

    2. DOMA & Roe are bad federal law for the same reason. states issue & regulate licenses period.

    3. Thank you. finally someone who actually read the article as not even the author, Mike Riggs, had the critical thinking skills to figure that out.
      There is no conflict with the 10th Amendment if a constitutional amendment is passed, which is all the Perry suggested.

      1. Ned here seems to have mistaken “critical thinking” for “being willfully obtuse”.

        Of course there’s no conflict with the 10th amendment if a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is passed. The point is that you’re not really for state’s rights (which is obviously the spirit behind the 10th amendment) if you’re in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

        Like most people who claim to advocate state’s rights or small government, Perry is a hypocrite is perfectly fine with big, overbearing federal government as long as it pursues policies he agrees with.

  13. Threadjack: Obama reaches new low of just 40% approval among all American adults in latest Gallup poll.

    Don’t believe the media narrative that limited government advocates are losing the battle folks. The Putz In Chief is going to hit the thirties for the first time any day now.

    1. Oh, boy, gonna send dem jungle bunnies all the back to the Congo.

      They’s raping our women for years now. Time for their Ape in Chief to head down to the 30 percentages. Damn time!

      Can’t wait for the 20 percentages because we’s goings to lynch him.

      1. So like, FUCK OFF.

      2. As we can see, the statist trolls are shitting a brick. As they should be.

        1. Statist like in Texas, boy!

          We gonna crack down on niggers!

  14. Rick Perry, don’t fuck up again. You have been warned, mother-fucker!1!!11

    1. He will. I have all the faith in the world in that pandering hair helmet.

      I’m being slowly forced to admit Rick Perry may emerge as the least worst possible candidate. Yes, I’d prefer Paul or Johnson, but that ain’t gonna happen. Out of the remaining pack, Perry may be the most acceptable.

      And once again, I’ll be voting LP in the general.

      1. Don’t discard Paul just yet. It’s actually very, very possible at this stage for him, but what I fear is that he’ll just drop from his position in a few months and we’ll have to vote for another faux-republican Republican shithead.

      2. And once again, I’ll be voting LP in the general.

        *Sigh* …yup.

        1. Don’t give up hope! Liberty shall prevail! In the name of the Republic, it SHALL prevail!

          *Sobs quietly*

  15. “…the real fear is that states like New York will change the definition of marriage for Texas.”

    “Animal sacrifice, cats and dogs living together… MASS HYSTERIA!!!”

    1. Just another day in D.C.

  16. Sure. Everyone says they will vote LP in the general, but nobody actually does it.

    Far more likely you and 30 million other libertarians are going to wake up on election day hung over wondering at what point in the night you lost your pants.

    1. No, that’s the day after the election. Plus, my wife is usually all too happy to point out to me how much of jackass I made of myself while drunk, so I would hope she keeps track of my pants, too.

      And if there were 30 million libertarians, we might actually see some worthwhile change in the system.

      1. If there are 30 million libertarians, then we could go take over a few states and seceed.

      2. He’s being honest. He’s a LP voting drunken jackass.

        But I’ll still keep track of his pants.

  17. Putting aside for a moment that the president has no role in the amendment process, and that with enough time and fear-mongering, the Constitution could be amended to such an extent that the 10th Amendment would be absolutely worthless[.]

    Too late:

    14th Amendment
    16th Amendment
    17th Amendment
    Brown vs Board of Education
    Wickard vs Filburn
    Roe vs Wade

    1. God Save the Republic

      1. Yeah, damn those amendments not allowing slavery!

  18. Perry made the same statement in regards to abortion, and his reasoning is sound:

    At this point, there is no justification to impose a nationwide abortion ban or gay marriage ban. Such a matter would REQUIRE an ammendment to the constitution (and we all know thats never going to happen for these issues). Rick can say (truthfully), that if the 3/4s of states, plus congress passed such an ammendment, he would sign it. He supports banning abortion and gay marriage in that scenario, and that scenario is one where the entire country is overwhelmingly demanding bans of those things. Not. Gonna. Happen.

    1. Not. Gonna. Happen.

      It’s amazing how bent out of shape some get over things that aren’t going to happen.

      1. You must be new here 🙂

  19. Looks like the nomination is going to come down between Perry or Romney – either way, we get super religiosity, 4 to 8 years of pandering to Christers, continued TSA police state nonsense, war, war and more war, enormous budget deficits and economic malaise. Or Obama. Which is to say all of the above listed miseries minus the Christ pandering, substituted by insufferable egotism and self worship.

    1. Goodbye, United States! Hello, People’s Democratic Unitary Gracious and Most Serene Republic of Amurca!

      1. But but but but
        Perry is from Texas. I mean, EVERYONE knows that Southern Republicans are just crazy anti-government nuts who want to turn America into a cross between South Africa pre-apartheid and Somalia.
        I mean, John McCain, George Bush, Lindsay Graham, they’re practically anarchists!

  20. Quite frankly, as a New York resident and libertarian-conservative: I was not totally annoyed that my legislature spent a grand total of 3 contentious weeks wasting time on the gay marriage bill when the economy of NYS was swirling down the crapper.

    Here’s the synopsis. I, a male still like women. If two homosexuals want to marry, fine. Now they can learn all about divorce proceedings in NY, the fact that now homosexuals must get married to avial themselves of spousal benefits (no more domestic partner exemptions allowed), fight the DOMA lack of recognition for their new found marital bliss and other little legal issues that they thought would flitter away like butterflys across a field of wildflowers. Ain’t gonna happen!

    However, we have the administration of Niagara Falls, NY proclaiming it the Gay Marriage Destination of The World. Good luck. It’s not far from becoming Detroit on Lake Erie and has actually gotten aesthetically worse since when I worked there in the halcyon days of HazMat Remediation in the 1980-1990 era. Also, the Buffalo News will occasionally tout the benefits and agada of gay marriage, complete with photos of the happy homosexual couples. I now understand why lesbianism is embraced by some women. All told, if there is an economic benefit to be achieved, it won’t have a major impact on the already dying NYS economy.

    As far as re-defining marriage in Texas, again ain’t gonna happen. This philosophical concept will either be adopted or rejected; recognition does not mean acceptance. All a marriage license does is make revenue for the State, not confer automatic respect and adminration by your fellow citizens.

    By the way, even homosexual advocacy groups and political scientists admitted that this could only have been achieved by the actions of the legislature; a public referendum would have most likley yeilded the same results as in California; even in New York.

    1. Hello Freeman, a unique sign…

      I recommend you this professional crystal jewelry, silver jewelry online store – Welcome!

    2. Hello Freeman, a unique sign…

      I recommend you this unique pattern crystal jewelry, silver jewelry online store – welcome!

    3. Hello Freeman, a unique sign…

      I recommend this unique style crystal jewelry, silver jewelry online store – welcome!

    4. If two homosexuals want to marry, fine.

      You are assuming that what they propose is a marriage, a contention the Kentucky Court of Appeal rejected. See Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 at 591 (Ky. Ct. of Appeal 1973)

  21. Rick Perry’s record:

    ? Toll Roads and Trans Texas Corridor ? Is it socialism, fascism or communism? Toll roads are gargantuan debt time bombs and a whopping TAX on consumers. Rick Perry has instituted a huge tax increase in Texas in the form of toll roads; going from zero debt on roads to $30 billion in toll road debt in 10 years as Perry sells off Texas’ public infrastructure. (2003-2011)
    ? Was Democrat Al Gore’s campaign chairman 1988 ? for all of Texas. Then Karl Rove recruited Perry to switch parties so Perry could win Ag Commissioner as a Republican.
    ? Business Margins Tax ? backdoor state income tax (2006)
    ? HPV vaccine mandate ? Attack on parental rights. Tried to make every 12 year old girl in Texas be forced to take Gardisil shots because his former Chief of Staff Mike Toomey is a lobbyist for Merck. (2007)
    ? FLDS El Dorado raid ? Religious Oppression and attack on parental rights, traumatizes 438 children and their parents; out of control Child Protective Services raid based on crank phone call; breaks up dozens of families (2008)
    ? Defeats Steven Wayne Smith ? makes robo phone calls against most conservative Supreme Court judge in modern Texas history. Smith was the equivalent of Robert Bork (2004)
    ? Vetoes Texas Eminent Domain Bill ? taking your land for a toll road more important than signing property rights protection overwhelmingly passed by Legislature. (2007)
    ? Supports Sobriety Check Points! Unconstitutional trashing of YOUR 4th Amendment rights where everyone is pulled over with no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion. (Perry supported SB 298 bill) 2009
    ? Signs Hate Crimes bill — Attack on free speech and creates thought crimes, includes sexual orientation as a class! (2001)
    ? Globalist bootlicker ? Bilderberger toady (2007). For United Nations, NAFTA, CAFTA, Trans Texas Corridor.
    ? Governor for NINE years, then reads about the 10th Amendment a few years ago. (2009)
    ? Supports No Child Left Behind Act and Dept. of Education (Hey, is the federal government running your local school in the Constitution? Fine with Rick Perry.)
    ? Endorses liberal cross dresser and gun grabber Rudy Guiliani for President (2008) ? tells his good friend Mike Huckabee I love you like a brother, but you can’t win so I am going with gun grabber Rudy Julie Annie, he’s a sure thing! The Bilderbergers said I can be VP if I grovel enough and am for toll roads, globalism, open borders, big government and, of course, the Federal Reserve.
    ? Token opposition to illegal immigration ? probably because the illegals will be building all his toll roads!
    ? Does not stand up for elected State Board of Education every time it gets castrated by the liberals in the legislature (2000s). Throws crumbs to conservatives on SBOE, but when they really need him, hides under desk, sticks fingers in ears. (2009) Did not veto SBOE redistricting map which was designed to castrate conservatives. (2011).
    ? Instituted state CHIP program for Texas!, a widely abused program and one more step to socialized medicine, more taxes and rationed healthcare. (Hey, is CHIP in the 10th Amendment?)
    ? Texas Enterprise Fund ? basically, Rick Perry’s slush fund for politically connected insiders, another WASTE of your tax dollars. Gave $20 Million to Country Wide Financial which went bankrupt. Big Government + Big Business = Fascism.
    ? Refused to stay the death sentence of Cameron Todd Willingham ? Willingham had been convicted of murdering his family via an arson determination that was based on junk science. Even worse, Perry later removed 3 members of board of the Texas Forensic Science Commission that was investigating the case and put political pressure on the head of the panel (2009)
    ? Supported whopping $3 Billion Cancer BONDS, the Lance Armstrong cancer tax ? more taxing, borrowing and spending. (2007). For Texas borrowing money to go into the cancer research business.
    ? Tries to intimidate FEMALE state trooper who pulls him over for speeding while he was lieutenant governor, telling her “Why don’t you just let us get on down the road?” as she was writing him a ticket. (1999)
    ? Tells a Houston tv reporter Ted Oberg “Adios, mofo.” (2005)
    ? Wants to use Texas Teacher and State Employee Retirement Money on risky TOLL ROADS!

    1. Toll roads are gargantuan debt time bombs and a whopping TAX on consumers.

      I see. You want roads socialized so people who don’t use are still forced to pay for them.

      1. Texas toll roads are paid for by the tax payers, and then handed over to over-seas companies to maintain. there about as “private” as the post office.

    2. Dude,

      Ack-off bay on the oll-tay oads-ray.

      … “HTH” Hobbit


      1. Leave the pillow alone.

    4. Yes, we know that Ron Paul is better than Perry. You could have cut your post down by about two-thirds and still gotten the message out.

      1. Ah yes, the “trans texas corridor = NAFTA super highway” meme. Because trade with other nations = FASCISM/COMMUNISM/SOMETHING BAD!!!

  22. Isn’t part of the issue though that normally marriages issued in one state are valid in all states. And that’s what DOMA puts a stop too.

    1. Isn’t part of the issue though that normally marriages issued in one state are valid in all states. And that’s what DOMA puts a stop too.


      Ina brief defending DOMA, Justice Department lawyer W. Scott Simpson pointed out that states had refused to recognize marriages that violate public policy. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

      And even pre-DOMA, the federal government had declined to recognize same-sex “marriage”. In Adams v. Howerton , 673 F.2d 1036. (9th Cir. 1982), the Ninth Circuit had noted that it was clear that “Congress did not intend the mere validity of a marriage under state law to be controlling” and that “even though two persons contract a marriage valid under state law and are recognized as spouses by that state, they are not necessarily spouses for purposes of section 201(b) [the immigration marriage law].” They then held that “[t]he term marriage ordinarily contemplates a relationship between a man and a woman” (Internal quotations and citations omitted) and that “[t]he term spouse commonly refers to one of the parties in a marital relationship so defined. Congress has not indicated an intent to enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words. In the absence of such a congressional directive, it would be inappropriate for us to expand the meaning of the term spouse for immigration purposes” (Internal quotions and citations omitted) and as such, “Congress intended that only partners in heterosexual marriages be considered spouses under section 201(b).”

      Because of Adams , even if DOMA is repealed, it is not certain if the federal government would recognize same-sex “marriage” within the Ninth Circuit, unless the Ninth Circuit en banc or the Supreme Court overrules Adams .

  23. I’m for gay marriage and all, but I don’t feel the outrage here. At least he’s taking the right legal path…a Constitutional amendment can force the states to do things. As much as we hate alcohol prohibition, it was done legally. It’s a far cry better than what everyone else does, which is force the states to do things because Congress passes a law based on “interstate commerce.”

    This article did not convince me that Perry doesn’t love the 10th amendment.

    1. I’m for gay marriage and all, but I don’t feel the outrage here. At least he’s taking the right legal path…a Constitutional amendment can force the states to do things. As much as we hate alcohol prohibition, it was done legally. It’s a far cry better than what everyone else does, which is force the states to do things because Congress passes a law based on “interstate commerce.”


      And neither should states to forced to recognize such things by an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court, including Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, rejected.

  24. Either way?confused or lying?Perry’s lip service to the 10th Amendment appears to be exactly that.

    So Perry is a politician. This is news? The more challenging question is what pol doesn’t do this?

  25. As I understand it, Gov. Perry believes that the constitution, as it stands today, forbids the federal government from rewriting New York’s marriage laws. The problem is that the feds might require other states to recognize New York’s SSMs – that’s the whole point of attacking DOMA. Without DOMA, not only would New York be able to define marriage how it wants, it would be able to *export* that definition to other states, which would have to recognize same-sex unions solemnized in New York.

    Apparently, the DOMA statute isn’t enough to protect states against this one-way federalism, so Perry supports a constitutional amendment.

    Until such an amendment is approved by 38 states, then Perry indicates that the feds won’t be able to meddle in New York.

    Just because Perry defends the 10th Amendment doesn’t mean he renounce all constitutional amendments for ever and ever.

    This would be Perry’s business as President because the President has the duty to “recommend to [Congress’s] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Obviously, Perry believes that a marriage amendment is “expedient,” so if he were President he would have to recommend such an amendment to Congress.

  26. The christian far right hates LGBTQ persons … oh, they would deny that, saying how much they luv ’em and want to save them. But you will know them by their fruits, said Jesus. The fruit of the far right is rejection, and rejection is prelude to all kinds of horrible things. But in the mind of the far right, this is only thing that counts. Oops, I forgot. Anti-choice counts. So do guns. And lots of war! All in the name of Je-e-sus!

    1. “you will know them by their fruits”

      Ooh, snap!

    2. The fruit of the far right is rejection, and rejection is prelude to all kinds of horrible things.

      What is your problem with rejection?

  27. Perry and his Tran-Texas-Corridor cronies are a bunch of would-be land thieves.

  28. Never forget: Perry publicly supported the anti-TSA-groping bill while working behind the scenes to make sure it would never pass. He’s a typical lying, nanny-state scumbag.

  29. Rick – it appears you only heard what you wanted to hear. Over and over, Rick Perry has continually spoken the same words in support of marriage between a man and a woman, as being ordained of God – not man !

  30. This is a great post. This writing contains lots of information, as like this site. think it will be helpful to all.


  32. Perry is no statesman. He is just another politician who speaks out of both sides of his mouth while furthering the agendas of his benefactors. The current GOP field is a disgrace with not a single statesman among them. How utterly sad.

  33. It seems like Mr. Riggs never read what Gov. Perry actually said, even though Mr. Riggs included the very quote in his own article that debunks the whole argument of the article. Gov. Perry specifically says he supports a “federal marriage AMENDMENT”….AMENDMENT….AMENDMENT…AMENDMENT. There is no conflict whatsoever with proposing an amendment to the Constitution and upholding the 10th Amendment. An amendment to the constitution would specifically grant the federal government the right to regulate marriage, thus in no way would it conflict with the 10th Amendment. I think it’s time Mr. Riggs does a bit more reading and critical thinking before overreacting in the name of ideological purity. And nowhere in Gov. Perry’s quotes does he state that other than a constitutional amendment that anything could or should be done about state laws such as NY’s gay marriage law.

    Personally I am not a fan of most any marriage law or amendment, but this article was a complete waste of my time and presented ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT BETWEEN PERRY’S POSITION ON GAY MARRIAGE AND THE 10TH AMENDMENT.

  34. All politicians are the same they always want to be diplomatic.I have lost the trust in all the policticians.I will keep follwing this news from my unlock iPhone 4.3.5 and would share my views

  35. ah finally – a place where I can post to Mr. Ejercito. Sir, on NOM’s blog, you are constantly claiming that you’re not anti-gay, but you just want to protect marriage as heterosexual only.

    Why, today, did you call someone “queer?” Yesterday, you used the term, “sodomist.”

    You, sir are a hypocrite.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.