Posted on 07/26/2011 6:57:11 AM PDT by Mozilla
A key group sponsoring The Response, a day dedicated to prayer for the nation that has been promoted by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, says he "missed an opportunity" when he answered that he "was fine" with New Yorkers' plans to adopt same-sex "marriage" in their state.
Bryan Fischer is director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, a key backer of The Response, and told WND that the organization is not changing any plans to work with Perry over the comment.
But he said, "I think there's probably disappointment in the governor over his comments. … There was an opportunity for him to say New York has the right to establish [homosexual 'marriage'] but same-sex marriage is not good public policy."
According to reports, Perry was at a meeting of GOP donors in Aspen, Colo., when he called himself an "unapologetic social conservative" but also said:
"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. … That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."
A spokesman for the governor, Mark Miner, today explained all that Perry has done for traditional marriage, from working on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman to his leadership in passing the Defense of Marriage Act.
But Miner refused to say that the governor, who is considered by many to be running for president although that announcement has not yet been made, should have expressed his support of the 10th Amendment ....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The people who hate Perry and want to pounce on every perceived or imagined misstep are the ones of whom you speak.
Perry isn’t gonna tell New York what to do and they dang will better not tell Texas what to do.
I tend to give him benefit of the doubt in that statement.
I cannot ,in good conscience read it to mean Gov. Rick Perry is “fine” with “same sex Marriage”Or even “fine” with how that
law was pushed through. IMO he meant he was “fine”with the fact that the definition of “marriage” and what will be accepted by the States has been—is - and ought remain a States Rights issue. WHY DOMA was needed and ought remain.
I disagree with Mass. and with EVERY State that has redefined “marriage” They do not represent me. And I can never surrender of my own free will to those who have redefined “marriage.” But it ought be up to the States to say what they will accept or reject. And the people who give consent to be governed ought have a voice heard by the people they choose as their leaders.
You are dead wrong. First, the second part of DOMA, which has never been successfully challenged specifically states that no state has to recognize a same-sex "marriage" performed in another state.
Second, the Supreme Court has recognized a public policy exception to recognizing an out of state marriage that conflicts with the law of another State. (See Nevada v. Hall).
Same-Sex Marriage and Full Faith and Credit
http://msgre2.people.wm.edu/Conflictsquestions38.html
I googled Full Faith and Credit Clause along with Same Sex Marriage.
Here’s only one of many, many links to sites that plumb the legalities/Constitutionalities of the issue.
I don’t have time right now to pursue these, but off the top it is as I said in another post, it isn’t as cut and dried as has been stated here.
Apparently there is a difference between for example a judgement, such as a divorce, and how that must be recognized in another state, and a marriage. Traditionally in law this site states that it makes a difference and that marriage is not deemed a judgement.
Also, that there is a public policy exception to full faith and credit, for instance, if a state has a public policy against same sex marriage. Then it goes on to further ask, how do you define that a state has a public policy against something? What does that actually mean in practice.
And this is just one site of MANY...
Interesting question. I guess the proper analogy would be 1 state does not recognize marriage at all. So what would happened when a married couple moves there? Would they still be married? I suspect not at least not a far as the state gov was concerned. What would happen if they wanted to get a divorce? Lol.
No, it isn’t that simple. See my recent post. Google it yourself. I googled Full Faith and Credit Clause along with Same Sex Marriage. Oy vey, it isn’t that simple. LOL
One problem you might have is assuming that Rick Perry is a very, very, very stupid man.
He isn’t.
You are correct... and this principle has a long history:
“The full faith and credit clause does not require a State to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another State, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the its enactment with respect to the same persons and events — at least in the absence of action by Congress prescribing the extra-state effect to be given state statutes.” PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM’N, 306 U. S. 493 (1939)
“The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” NEVADA v. HALL, 440 U.S. 410, 422 (1979).
Except there are states that issue concealed carry licenses that do not recognize mine.
If state A defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, while state B defines it as being between one person and his/her love interest de jour, why is it that state A must give full faith and credit to state B’s declaration, but not vice versa?
Is your MO taking comments out of context?
What yall do not seem to understand is that our Christan values are under a full frontal attack and we are losing. Our politicians (leaders) that "don't get it" are worse then our enemies, see G.W. Bush for what happens when we pick our leaders foolishly.
Perry has a history of going whichever way the wind blows, comments like this illustrate that fact. Now to Perry's credit, if he takes enough crap on this issue he will change his position. One thing I do like about Perry is he can be made to see the light and feel the heat. I concider that a good thing. :)
Wrong... There are two parts of DOMA, in fact, DOMA was actually two separate modifications of the United States Code. The first defines Marriage for purposes of Federal Law, and the other, holds that no State has to recognize a marriage from another State.
The only portion that has been struck down is the portion involving the definition of marriage for federal benefits.
The separate section of the Code invoking Congressional Power under the FF&C clause HAS NEVER BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED.
Well that does not seem right, so I don’t know what to say about that. I am not a lawyer, I am just opposed to twisting society into knots to make the homosexuals and their Marxist friends happy.
“And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
You quoted it, but you didn’t get the significance of it.
Congress has exercised its authority under the FF&C: “28 U.S.C. 115, 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.
“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
Absolutely correct, now that homosexual marriage is legal, homosexuals are suing schools to promote the homosexual lifestyle in curriculum, suing churches to allow adoption to homosexual couples. Suing our mititary to repeal DADT. Like I said full frontal attack on Christan values.
So you are OK, with Perry’s comments on homosexual marriage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.