Perry clarifies thoughts on New York’s ‘marriage’ law — and endorses a federal marriage amendment

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council interviewed Texas Gov. Rick Perry today on his thoughts on marriage. The interview will do well to reassure supporters of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

Just last week Perry commented on New York’s passage of a same-sex “marriage” law, saying: “That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me…”

Those comments caused a backlash and could have threatened Perry’s chances at winning the Republican presidential nomination even before his campaign started.

But Perry told Perkins:

“I probably needed to add a few words after that ‘it’s fine with me,’ and that it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn’t changed. I believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. My record as governor of Texas reflects a very strong commitment to defending traditional marriage.”

During his radio interview with Perkins, Perry stressed his active support in 2005 for marriage amendment to Texas’ Constitution.

Perry said his initial remarks simply reflected the federalism found in our Constitutional system.

“My comments reflect my recognition that marriage and most issues of the family have historically been decided by the people at the state and local level. And that is absolutely the state of law under our Constitution,” said Perry.

Perkins agreed with Perry on the need for federalism and the 10th amendment but noted that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 is only a law, not a constitutional amendment, thus offering only a “thin-line of defense” against activist judges. If DOMA were thrown out, same-sex marriage would be legal in all 50 states.

It was a concern that Perry shared:

“That is the reason that the federal marriage amendment is being offered. It’s the small group of activist judges. And frankly a small handful of states and these liberal special interest groups that are intent on a redefinition of marriage on the nation, for all of us. Which I adamantly oppose.

“Indeed, to not pass the federal marriage amendment would impinge on Texas and other states not to have (a redefinition of) marriage forced upon them by activists judges and these special interest groups. The Constitution was designed to respect the states, including the amendment process,” said Perry.

Perry noted that the amendment process respects the rights of the states, because any amendment to the Constitution must have the support of 3/4ths of the states to ratify.

“It’s really strong medicine, but our Founding Fathers had great wisdom,” Perry said. “I hope we pass a federal marriage amendment.”

Sounds good to me.

You can listen to the FRC interview here.



  • tz1

    Perry is a weathervane in a tornado, spinning which way the wind is blowing at the moment.

    However, before we define marriage, how about that human life begins at conception so we can halt the abortion holocaust.

    Gay bashing has distracted the pro-family forces from the baby killing.

    No one will immediately or directly die due to an error of the definition of marriage.

    More die daily than were killed on 9/11/1 from the definition Roe v. Wade, upheld in Casey.

    Keep you eyes on the prize, not on the salacious side show.

  • Philip

    Seriously folks, how hard is it to confuse one’s own thoughts and beliefs on marriage? What we learned from the initial interview are Perry’s own convictions. Simply put, Perry only voiced what he believes. He does a good job of masking himself very well.

    What good could come from a globalist, CFR and Bilderburger? That’s another honest question to ask ourselves.

    I’ll close with saying that it only now seems obvious–more than ever–that Rick Perry will become the Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States. It will only take Chris Christie to destroy that ascent, not Bachmann or anybody else (sadly), because much to my disappointment, we have turned Rick Perry into a saint.

  • John

    Is this not cognitive dissonance? How can not enacting a federal marriage amendment impinge on Texas’s rights, but enacting a federal marriage amendment somehow doesn’t impinge on Massachusetts’s rights?

    Either you support federalism or you don’t. You can’t support it when it’s politically in your interest and not support it when its not. (Or i guess, Perry can…)



Receive our updates via email.