Poll Position: Should gay marriage be left up to the states?
Rick Perry, the three-term Texas governor and somewhere-between-rumored-and-announced GOP presidential candidate, raised some social conservatives’ eyebrows last week with this comment about New York’s new gay marriage law:
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.
The remark to a gathering of Republican donors came as a surprise to many social conservatives because Perry is regarded as one of their own. Asked about the comment in a radio interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Perry drew a distinction between it and his personal beliefs: “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.” He also said he favored a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:
I have long supported the appointment of judges who respect the constitution and the passage of a federal marriage amendment. That amendment defines marriage between one man and one woman, and it protects the states from being told otherwise. It respects the rights of the state by requiring three quarters of a states vote to ratify. It’s really strong medicine but is again our founding fathers had such great wisdom and their wisdom is just as clear and profound today as it was back in the late eighteenth century.
Michele Bachmann, another social conservative who’s officially running for president, has spoken in favor of the same approach.
Back to Perry: The Texas governor also reiterated his 10th Amendment stance this week by saying the legality of abortion should be up to the states if the Supreme Court were ever to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Should gay marriage be decided state by state?
- No (104 Votes)
- Yes (103 Votes)
Total Voters: 207
Loading ...Perry is being consistent on the states’ rights issue. But is that a principled position or a cop-out? Should the issue of gay marriage — we’ll leave out abortion for today, since Roe is still very much in force — be decided on a state-by-state basis until/unless there’s a constitutional amendment on the issue? Or would there be too many problems caused by gay marriages that are recognized in some states but not others (which the Defense of Marriage Act, now in legal limbo, was passed in part to address)?
That’s this week’s Poll Position. Answer in the poll and in the comments thread — and know that I will be keeping a close eye on comments to make sure they are substantive and in good taste.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
125 comments Add your comment
DawgDad
July 29th, 2011
11:15 am
I’m a conservative with a libertarian streak. I’m firmly convinced the left supports gay marriage ONLY for the following reasons: (1) it sticks a needle to social conservatives, whom they hate, (2) it snags a voting block, and (3) it will be a boon for lawyers and bureaucrats. Otherwise, I’m sure the vast majority of them couldn’t care less.
I’ve thought this through from my perspective, and the MAJOR objection I have to “gay marriage” is the slipperly slope it unfolds in legal terms for all sorts of unsavory behavior, of which the unintended consequences will be massively destructive to this country and completely irreversable (legally). So, I would support gay marriage under ONE condition: One partner must legally declare themselves to be the “male” role in the marriage, and the other must legally declare themselves to be the “female” role in the marriage. From that point forward, all existing marital, inheritance, and child support law (etc.) would apply AS IT CURRENTLY DOES. Absent that condition, I am steadfastly committed to opposing it.
It’s so simple: If the gay marriage partners are unwilling to make this declaration, then they aren’t really seeking marriage as it is defined. My contention has always been they don’t really want to be married, they want special privileges.
Jefferson
July 29th, 2011
11:16 am
Sure if you want to cause problems for gay couples. Just think if they are transfered on their jobs to different states how much fun that would be. The answer simply should be the same as non gay couples, but if you want trouble, its there to be caused.
Least of my worries, way down the line.
Logical Dude
July 29th, 2011
11:18 am
Kitty says: Marriage should not be a state-by-state decision because of significant federal tax issues
And since there are so many Federal forms that need people to clarify if they are married or not, then this is NOT a state issue. This is a Federal Issue.
midtownguy: For those under 35 (referred to as the Will and Grace generation) sexual orientation is a non-issue.
And that is why the .. . errr. . old conservatives. . are on the losing side on this one, the EXACT SAME WAY they were on the losing side in interracial marriage.
Logical Dude
July 29th, 2011
11:21 am
DawgDad: If the gay marriage partners are unwilling to make this declaration, then they aren’t really seeking marriage as it is defined. My contention has always been they don’t really want to be married, they want special privileges.
And what do YOU mean by “marriage as it is defined”?
Did you get married because you wanted special privileges or did you get married because you found that special someone that you wanted to spend the rest of your life with?
kitty
July 29th, 2011
11:23 am
DawgDad….oh the drama.
I’ve thought this through from my perspective, and the MAJOR objection I have to “gay marriage” is the slipperly slope it unfolds in legal terms for all sorts of unsavory behavior, of which the unintended consequences will be massively destructive to this country and completely irreversable (legally).
==========================
Unsavory behavior can include hetereo divorce. Those can be quite unsavory especially to the children. You for outlawing that? Divorce is much more of a problem for society than gay marriage.
Also you have no libertarian streak if you don’t see the individual rights issue in all this; much less actually reading through the comments as to why gay marriage should be legalized. You just went all right wing parisan. You are no libertarian.
kitty
July 29th, 2011
11:26 am
and…So, I would support gay marriage under ONE condition: One partner must legally declare themselves to be the “male” role in the marriage, and the other must legally declare themselves to be the “female” role in the marriage. From that point forward, all existing marital, inheritance, and child support law (etc.) would apply AS IT CURRENTLY DOES.
=====================
Currently inheritance, child support and all those things you listed do not require one to be male or female to apply. They apply equally to both sexes. Women can be liable for child support if they are not the custodial parent and that happens more and more. Just because men tend to die before female spouses does not mean inheritance laws don’t apply to women as well if the wife should die first.
John
July 29th, 2011
11:26 am
“One partner must legally declare themselves to be the “male” role in the marriage, and the other must legally declare themselves to be the “female” role in the marriage. ”
DawgDad, can you define the “male” role versus the “female” role?
Another Cynic
July 29th, 2011
11:33 am
@DawgDad…. How interesting!
So…please help me understand your line of thought. Is it safe to assume the “male” is responsible for being the breadwinner, and occasionally fixing things around the house while the “female” is supposed to stay home, take care of the kids, clean up the house, and have dinner ready when the “male” comes home from work? Is this your line of thought? LOL!!! Only in “Dawgland” I guess.
DBCOOPER
July 29th, 2011
11:34 am
NO . NO. NO That would be a states rights issue. AND we all know “States Rights” is code for RACISM!!!
zeke
July 29th, 2011
11:45 am
As long as the actions of one state are not forced on other states if the perverts decide to move! For instance, if two perverts marry in NY then later move to Georgia, then the fact that they are married in NY can have no legal validity in Georgia!!! We CANNOT ALLOW ONE STATE TO DECIDE THE LAWS OF ANOTHER AND FORCE THEM TO ACCEPT THE IMMORAP PERVERTS THEY CREATED!!!
DawgDad
July 29th, 2011
11:46 am
To all of you questioning me on the “male” role vs. “female” role distinction, if this really does not matter as you claim PLEASE explain why it is on virtually every legal document, government form, and insurance form I fill out? Just what compelling interest does it serve to know if I’m male or female if it makes no difference legally? The easy answer is, it does matter.
My father fought and won legal custody of me following divorce. Don’t for a minute try to say male vs. female does not matter, that’s a complete crock and still is today, though today there are more exceptions made.
There have already been well-publicized child custody and divorce cases among same-sex partners. Why do we want to entertain more of this?
As for not being “libertarian”, you know not of what you speak. I couldn’t care less if two same-sex partners cohabitate, or multiple partners for that matter as long as under-age people aren’t involved. The ONLY reason I care is because they are ASKING FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.
DawgDad
July 29th, 2011
11:47 am
And yes, it should be a State decision, not a Federal decision.
Jack McFarland
July 29th, 2011
11:50 am
One of the things that I always liked about Republicans is that they want less government. By making rules that force government to enact certain laws, does not create less government, but does the opposite.
John
July 29th, 2011
11:57 am
“if this really does not matter as you claim PLEASE explain why it is on virtually every legal document, government form, and insurance form I fill out? ”
DawgDad, it’s a classification not a role distinction, just as race is on most forms as well. You have still not answered my question, what are the “male” and “female” roles? While you’re at it, since you think classification is a role distinction, just what are the various “race” roles?
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
12:01 pm
I say ban all marriage, it is un-natural to settle with one mate for life, straight or gay. I used to consider myself as a Republician, back when they mainly concerned theirselves with getting the government to quit spending so much of my money. The modern day Republican loves spending money as much as Democrats, and they have been taken over by loud bible thumping morons that want to control everyones life, so that you have to live by the narrow standards that that their closed minedness decides is right. Nothing should be against the law, if I am not violating anyone else’s rights or safety.
John
July 29th, 2011
12:01 pm
“As long as the actions of one state are not forced on other states if the perverts decide to move! ”
Zeke, so are you saying contracts, any contract, entered into should only be valid in that state and no other states? Does that mean a heterosexual couple legally married in one state could potentially not be recognized in all states? What about business contracts? Loan contracts, etc.?
Linda
July 29th, 2011
12:10 pm
The definition of marriage is very simple. There’s many marriages that have already been banned. Gays & lesbians have no more “rights” than do men wanting to marry multiple wives, wives wanting to marry multiple husbands, relatives wanting to marry relatives, parents wanting to marry their children & people wanting to marry their pets. Where will the line being changed end up in the sand?
There are many reasons people want to change the definition of marriage. The main one that I see is for the sake of legitimacy. Their lift up to legitimacy takes legitimacy down.
Marriage is a civil union. It is a legal union. For some of us, it is a union of sanctity. The sanctity of MY marriage is MY right & it is MY right to preserve.
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
12:10 pm
Can you tell me what special privileges two gay men or two lesbians are asking for by requesting the right to marry one another?
I hear that argument all the time and no one can ever give me an answer? All they want are the same rights AND responsibilities of marriage as a man and a woman in a marriage.
Hopefully you can clear this matter up for me once and for all.
John
July 29th, 2011
12:11 pm
“There have already been well-publicized child custody and divorce cases among same-sex partners. Why do we want to entertain more of this?”
Just as there are well-publicized child custody and divorce cases among opposite-sex partners. You just mentioned your parents are divorced and your father fought and won custody of you (sounds like it may have been ugly).Why do we want to entertain more of this? Let’s just ban all marriages.
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
12:13 pm
So Linda,
The sanctity of your marriage is threatened when two men or two women marry? Can you please describe?
If it can be threatened by the mere fact two men or two women enter into a marriage then I don’t think you have much of a marriage to begin with.
Marriage is not YOURS. It doesn’t belong to ANYONE.
John
July 29th, 2011
12:13 pm
“The ONLY reason I care is because they are ASKING FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.”
No…conservatives only want to PRESERVE THEIR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.
John
July 29th, 2011
12:17 pm
“people wanting to marry their pets”
Linda, when their pets can consent to marriage by understanding what they are getting into, being able to say I DO and signing the contract…then let them marry their pet.
midtownguy
July 29th, 2011
12:22 pm
Dawgdad: I just read your post to my partner of many, many years and he is still laughing. We are trying to imagine the knock-down-drag-out that would occur at our house if we had to determine which one of us is the “husband” and which one of us is the “wife” (he is in the kitchen making lunch right now and I am playing on the computer, so maybe the husband nod goes to me for today).
John
July 29th, 2011
12:22 pm
“The sanctity of MY marriage is MY right & it is MY right to preserve.”
No one is trying to take away or dissolve your marriage. How would your marriage, in any way, be affected? Sounds like you have a weak marriage is gay couples getting married would affect yours. Are you or your husband a closet case where your marriage would end in divorce so that you or your husband would marry someone of the same sex?
Logical Dude
July 29th, 2011
12:23 pm
Zeke says: For instance, if two perverts marry in NY then later move to Georgia,
What about straight (non-homosexual) perverts?
John
July 29th, 2011
12:36 pm
“My father fought and won legal custody of me following divorce.”
Dawgdad, does that mean your father took on the “female” role? Did he check “female” on all those forms you mentioned? Did you mother check “male” on those forms?
Linda
July 29th, 2011
12:52 pm
People who have great credit, great driving records & no criminal records receive preferential treatment. We live in a society that discriminates. When those who have bad credit, poor driving records & criminal records demand the same rights, standards are lowered for all. Their credit, driving records & criminal records do not improve nor disappear. Advantages & incentives disappear & society as a whole declines.
I have been married once & for 35 1/2 years.
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
12:54 pm
Linda, so you are equating two gay men or lesbians who you don’t know to people with bad credit, poor driving records and criminal records?
Please explain your logic because I do not understand your rationale.
Another Cynic
July 29th, 2011
12:56 pm
@Linda…. You nailed it! Nothing else needs to be said.
“We live in a society that discriminates”
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
1:06 pm
Another cynic, I agree there is discrimination but discrimination is not justified, especially when it comes to fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.
But the discrimination Linda refers to isn’t discrimination based on anyone’s rights.
Poor credit – those individuals are discriminated with, if you want to call it that, because of the credit risk they pose to potential creditors.
Poor driving record – they are discriminated against by insurance companies because of the increased risk they present
Criminals – they are discriminated against because they committed a crime and were convicted.
What does that have to do with marriage?
amy
July 29th, 2011
1:14 pm
midtownguy
Same hilarious argument going on downtown.
kitty
July 29th, 2011
1:17 pm
@ linda and another cynic….we live in a society that discriminates? Does that make it right? So under your standards it is okay to discriminate based on race? Do you people EVER stop to think about what you are writing? EVER????
Another Cynic
July 29th, 2011
1:18 pm
I agree with you Swede… my point is that our society has always discriminated against others (typically minority groups) until protections were put in place to help minimize/eliminate them. Most of it is usually rooted out of fear and ignorance.
kitty
July 29th, 2011
1:18 pm
@swede atlanta What does that have to do with marriage?
I suspect it is the best they can do intellectually because there is no logic to that argument at all. Good grief!!!
kitty
July 29th, 2011
1:19 pm
Phew, another cynic, you had me going there for a minute. It was sarcasm, got it. Hard to show that in a blog isn’t it?
John
July 29th, 2011
1:24 pm
Linda, you admit it is discrimination and has nothing to do about “special privileges”
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
1:31 pm
Cynic, thanks for clarifying as I thought you were agreeing.
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
1:38 pm
Why can’t someone marry multiple partners? If they can afford the expense who is it hurting? If 2 cousins want to get married, who’s business is it anyways. If you look at the sceince and not the myths, it takes generations of incest, before you start getting 2 headed babies. As long as all partners are consenting adults, go for it. the biggest problem we have in the country today is nobody knows how to “MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS”. Everyone says that they believe in freedom as long as the freedoms that a person chooses fall in to beliefs system that you hold, and that IS NOT freedom.
Ayn Rant
July 29th, 2011
1:39 pm
semyon_suslov … Your allegations about homosexual behavior don’t apply at all to female homosexuals, i. e. lesbians. They have far lower rates of infectious disease and promiscuity than heterosexuals. There is virtually no lesbian pornography, although sex between two women is a common feature of pornographic sites for males.
Actually, all your allegations apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual men. Perhaps we should ban males; it would solve the crime problem as well since 92% of the 2 million or more residents of American prisons are male.
Better yet, why don’t you do a mental reset to clear your mind of outdated prejudices.
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
1:40 pm
forgive my bad spelling, my fat finger are having a hard time on this tiny keyboard
Linda
July 29th, 2011
1:41 pm
We live in a society that discriminates. We discriminate against people with bad credit, poor driving records & criminal records. Do those people have less rights than homosexuals? Do homosexuals have more rights than polygamists?
What will the new definition of marriage be? Who will be allowed to marry whom? Who will be denied the right to marry? When lifting the ban on sex, will you also lift the ban on age, number & consent?
Conservative Voice
July 29th, 2011
1:42 pm
I want the government to stay out of my life.
But I want it to ban everything I disagree with.
Seems reasonable to me.
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
1:47 pm
Linda I am not sure that I am getting your point, do you really believe that if 2 adult consenting men or 2 adult consenting women are allow to legally marry, that that opens the door to adult/infant marriages or human/animal. I find it hard to believe that a reason person would make that leap.
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
1:48 pm
that should be reasonable
John
July 29th, 2011
2:03 pm
“What will the new definition of marriage be? Who will be allowed to marry whom? Who will be denied the right to marry? When lifting the ban on sex, will you also lift the ban on age, number & consent?”
Linda, none of these questions shouldn’t matter to you. As a conservative, it’s ya’ll mantra “less government”. If that’s the case, these questions are irrelevant. But as Conservative Voice points out, conservatives don’t really want less government…they just want the government to stay out of their lives but ban everything conservatives disagree with.
TGT
July 29th, 2011
3:09 pm
This is not an issue that can be dealt with appropriately using the “states’ rights” argument. As if the militants driving the pro-homosexual agenda would be satisfied with legal same-sex marriage in only a handful of states.
An Outside the Beltway pro-same-sex marriage blog post (State’s Rights Is Not The Answer To The Same-Sex Marriage Debate) notes that, “[the "states' rights" argument] ignores the issues of how the law ought to handle American citizens who are legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and then move (or travel) to a state where same-sex marriage is illegal. Under current law, specially Section Two of the Defense of Marriage Act, their marriage is invalid as soon as they cross the state line, and whatever rights they might have as a marriage couple (including rights related to hospital visitation, or the right to make medical decisions when the other partner is incapacitated) no longer exist…Even if one agrees that the 10th Amendment means that a state does not have to license same-sex marriages, that should not mean that it would be permitted to refuse to recognize a validly performed marriage from a sister state.”
The blog also noted that the entire concept of “states rights” is “a concept with a checkered history, mostly associated with racial segregation and secession. It has little support in the law. And, as Stephen Green noted in a post last year, its an idea that is entirely incompatible with individual liberty: ‘States don’t have rights. Individuals do. It’s time we went about the business of restoring those rights, without alienating a huge constituency which suffered too long without them.’”
The blog continues: “More importantly, we fought a war that pretty much resolved the issue of state’s rights, and afterwords passed an amendment that significantly altered the relationship between the states and the federal government. Whatever the “rights” of the states may have been before the ratification of the 14th Amendment, they were significantly cut back by it’s adoption. So it is pointless to talk about the 10th Amendment in a vacuum as if the 14th Amendment doesn’t exist.”
Kev
July 29th, 2011
4:33 pm
“The ONLY reason I care is because they are ASKING FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.”
No, we just want the same SPECIAL PRIVILEGES straight married couples share.
Atlantarama
July 29th, 2011
4:44 pm
There are still people who think being gay is only about sex. It’s not; it’s about love, and two people who love each other should be able to get married. Unfortunately, too many people don’t understand this, which is why some rules shouldn’t be left up to the majority.
Aquagirl
July 29th, 2011
4:50 pm
Many, gay marriage posts really bring out the inner crazy thoughts of some conservatives. Paperwork with “male” and “female” roles everywhere? Whooo-weee.
Of course the basic canards about special rights and marrying your dog get dragged out, but Dawgdad deserves special kudos for taking it to a whole new level.
JamieNAtlanta
July 29th, 2011
4:51 pm
I’m a 15 generation gay American and I should be allowed to get married. semyon_suslov should be deported back to whatever 3rd world country he came from.