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
MB
July 29th, 2011
4:51 pm
Marriage, gay or straight, should be a personal decision. The state and federal governments should both be out of the marriage business altogether.
ND
July 29th, 2011
6:11 pm
Marriage is a social institution and shouldn’t be a political one. Let any two consenting adults regardless of sex get a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to religious bodies.
Dave
July 29th, 2011
6:12 pm
So Kyle, be honest, the agin’ gay marriage folks are losing the debate so far aren’t they? At least admit that most of them need a remedial junior high English class.
Bobby
July 29th, 2011
6:27 pm
Remember that segregation was at one a “state” decision. Not practical. If a Georgia gay couple get married in NY, there is no valid reason for Georgia to not recognize the marriage other than good old fashioned bigotry.
TruthBe
July 29th, 2011
6:36 pm
Homosexuality is anbomination to the LORD thy GOD. JESUS CHRIST the LORD said to “love the sinner and hate the sin”. JESUS never said to embrace sin. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin period. GOD will not be mocked. Gays need to stop forcing this sinful behavior on others. We are all sinners but that doesn’t give us the right to force one’s sin upon another.
Songbird
July 29th, 2011
6:52 pm
TruthBe – please tell me what Bible Verse says that homosexuality is an abonimation to the Lord. There is no such text in the Bible.
Do you eat pork or shellfish, because that is forbidden in Leviticus?
Candylicious
July 29th, 2011
7:11 pm
My personal belief is that sodomy is unnatural and disgusting. But I agree with Perry that the gay marriage question should be decided state by state rather than a one size fits all approach for the entire nation.
John
July 29th, 2011
7:35 pm
Here’s what conservative Charles Krauthammer had to say today…
“Under our constitutional system, you cannot govern from one house alone. Today’s resurgent conservatism, with its fidelity to constitutionalism, should be particularly attuned to this constraint, imposed as it is by a system of deliberately separated — and mutually limiting — powers.
Given this reality, trying to force the issue — turn a blocking minority into a governing authority — is not just counter-constitutional in spirit but self-destructive in practice.”
TGT
July 29th, 2011
10:11 pm
So opponents of same-sex marriage are “homophobes,” dunces, etc. Nevermind that in every state where the electorate has voted on it, same-sex marriage has been rejected. 31 for 31. With Maine voters rejecting same-sex marriage barely a year-and-a-half ago, every state that has put gay marriage before its electorate—31 states now—has seen it rejected. At an average rate of 67.5%, voters in the 31 states have, at the very least, banned same-sex marriage. (Nineteen states have banned not only same-sex marriage, but also civil unions.)
The rejection of gay marriage has occurred not only in conservative states, but in very liberal ones as well: Maine, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. Purple states such as Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada have also soundly rejected gay marriage. Across the U.S., from the Deep South to the Northeast to the Midwest to the West coast, Americans have united behind biblical marriage. Yet the tide is turning?!
Same-sex marriage supporters tell us that “nobody chooses their sexual orientation,” because homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable, right? Yet nothing in science supports this. And the traditional (biblical) marriage supporters are the backward Neanderthals?! Noted psychiatrist, physicist, and author (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Jeffrey Satinover notes that “The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.”
Songbird
July 29th, 2011
10:43 pm
TGT, these votes should never have taken place. They are exactly what the founding fathers were trying to protect against when they set up our government the way they did. Tyranny of the majority against a minority. This is exactly what these votes are! Tyranny of the majority to take rights away from people because you don’t like something about them. It’s bigotry, plain and simple.
TGT
July 29th, 2011
11:42 pm
“It’s bigotry, plain and simple.”
Ah, I see that you’ve come to a moral conclusion. Why is it bigotry? Upon whose morality do you come to such a conclusion? Many Americans see homosexual behavior as immoral, and most (significantly most) Americans, when given an opportunity to have their say in same-sex marriage, have rejected it. I would say that the vast majority of these Americans have reached their conclusions based upon their morals. We’re all governed by morals, it’s just a matter of whose morality one wants to be governed by.
And I see that you’ve resorted to the old “tyranny of the majority” argument to discredit the electoral results of 31 states. Never mind that, as David Barton notes, “In every case where a constitutional protection has been established for any minority, whether by race, gender, social status, or age, each protection was conferred by the consent of the majority of eligible enfranchisees at that time. For example…slaves received their rights from the majority consent of non-slaves in three-fourths of the states….In other words, all minority rights in the Constitution, and all explicit protections for minorities, have in all cases been established by the majority.”
What the pro-same-sex marriage movement has done (or aims to do) is replace alleged “tyranny of the majority” with actual “tyranny of the minority.”
John
July 29th, 2011
11:45 pm
“Same-sex marriage supporters tell us that “nobody chooses their sexual orientation,” because homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable, right?”
TGT, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you when you choose? Were you attracted to both sexes and then decided to choose one? What was the process you went through in making your decision?
Jones-Munoz
July 30th, 2011
12:01 am
As the right of women to vote is not a states rights issue, as inter-racial marriage is not a states rights issue, as blacks civil rights were not a states rights issues, Gays and Lesbians right to enter into marriage is not a states rights issue. With so many rights and liabilities exersized on a federal level, ie: taxes, immigration, & even intra state commerse, those issues are superseded by the Feds over the states. So it is a primarily a federal issue. Those opposed to marriage like the states rights issue because it allows regional battles in which misinformation is easier to produce. NOM is a perfect example at how this is done. In California and Maine, they did just that. On a Federal Level it will have to be delt with on the CONSTITUTIONALITY issue which opponents know they will sincerely loose.
John
July 30th, 2011
12:06 am
“Never mind that, as David Barton notes, “In every case where a constitutional protection has been established for any minority, whether by race, gender, social status, or age, each protection was conferred by the consent of the majority of eligible enfranchisees at that time. For example…slaves received their rights from the majority consent of non-slaves in three-fourths of the states….”
Really, TGT? Slaves received their rights from the majority consent of non-slaves in three-fourths of the states? Don’t you recall something about a civil war in this country? Are you suggesting some stated did not succeed from the union and instead just voted to end slavery? Laws banning interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court…they were struck down by voters in same race marriages. Desegregation of schools…you guessed it the courts, not majority of white voters.
We also have something called the US Constitution which trumps the electorate and offers some protection to the minority. We can vote laws in but they can be challenged an ruled unconstitutional by the courts…this was the case in interracial marriages, school desecration and in the case of CA’s law prohibiting same sex marriage.
TGT
July 30th, 2011
12:06 am
John: I never said that sexual attraction was simply a matter of “choice,” but neither is homosexuality genetic an unchangeable. Many have left the homosexual lifestyle.
John
July 30th, 2011
12:15 am
“John: I never said that sexual attraction was simply a matter of “choice,” but neither is homosexuality genetic an unchangeable. Many have left the homosexual lifestyle.”
Yeah…really?
The American Psychological Association published a comprehensive report reputing the effectiveness of ex-gay (or reparative therapy) ministries. The governing body of the mental health organization examined 83 studies on sexual orientation dating back to 1960 and found no substantial evidence that homosexuality can be cured through therapy or any other means as many ex-gay ministries claim. The report urged mental health professionals not to advise clients that they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.
Perhaps the most well known ex-gay leader and founder of Exodus, John Paulk once described his “transition” to a heterosexual lifestyle: “I accepted Christ into my life and realized I could leave homosexuality. I learned that homosexuality was reversible. Through faith in Christ and counseling and support, over a four-year period, my homosexuality is greatly subsided.” Shortly after, Paulk was spotted and photographed in a D.C. gay bar. He was later removed from his post at Exodus
TGT
July 30th, 2011
12:22 am
And just how were the items placed in the Constitution that the courts must (or at least are supposed to) rely upon to reach their conclusions? (Hence Barton’s statement: “all minority rights in the Constitution.”) THROUGH A MAJORITY.
Likewise, it may be that the issue of the definition of marriage will be settled by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, this requires significant MAJORITIES in congress and among the states. If the Constitution is amended, then the courts must rule based on an amendment that was decided by MAJORITIES.
John
July 30th, 2011
12:33 am
“And just how were the items placed in the Constitution that the courts must (or at least are supposed to) rely upon to reach their conclusions? (Hence Barton’s statement: “all minority rights in the Constitution.”) THROUGH A MAJORITY. ”
Not all items are placed in the Constitution. What amendment specifically says the states cannot ban interracial marriage or that schools must be desegregated”
“If the Constitution is amended, then the courts must rule based on an amendment that was decided by MAJORITIES.”
If the Constitution is not amended, the courts must rule based on the Constitution as it is today…where in the Constitution is the MAJORITIES opinion on gay marriage?
TGT
July 30th, 2011
12:57 am
You mean the APA that, in 1973, with a vote (of 5,834 to 3,810) removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual?
In 1963, only ten years prior to the APA vote, the New York Academy of Medicine, prompted by a concern that homosexual activity was on the increase, charged its Committee on Public Health to report on the subject of homosexuality. It concluded that:
homosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations…some homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now argue that deviancy is a “desirable, noble, preferable way of life.”
Yet only ten years later, with no significant new scientific evidence, the APA, led by liberals, vote to decide to tell us what homosexuality is and isn’t? As Satinover notes, “The APA vote to normalize homosexuality was driven by politics, not science.”
As Satinover also notes, according to a 1994 University of Chicago study, “…it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.” Dr. Satinover adds that, “Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same. We now know that in the majority of both men and women, ‘homosexuality,’ as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to ‘mutate’ into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.”
John
July 30th, 2011
2:55 am
And who is Satinover? A Christian psychiatrist who is a member of NARTH, an organization that believes in reparative therapy. Interesting about NARTH’s 2009 study.
By NARTH’s own admission, it is merely a survey of 100 years of literature.
That it is a survey means that, second, it is not a study. Jones-Yarhouse, for all its flaws, was a scientific study. NARTH’s paper, written by James Phelan, Neil Whitehead, and Philip Sutton, simply collates a century’s worth of material that (they think) supports the pro-reparative therapy position. It contains no new or original research whatsoever.
Jim Phelan confirmed both of these things directly when XGW spoke to him last year. Phelan said clearly the report was “a literature review – no new science. The data is presented more comprehensively than before.”
Third, that it is peer-reviewed is a sadly risible claim. It appears in Volume I of the Journal of Human Sexuality, a publication produced by NARTH. In other words, NARTH has reviewed its own paper for inclusion in a volume that appears to have been created specifically as a vehicle for NARTH’s views. The “peer review” therefore means next to nothing. In theory, I could rehash a few bits of other people’s work, get my XGW chums to look it over, and then publish it in a new magazine I’ve called the Journal of Ex-Gay Studies and claim it as a peer-reviewed milestone study. The problem is glaring.
Again, on this point, Phelan told XGW that the paper was “to be reviewed by members,” confirming that the peer review was nothing more than an internal review by like-minded NARTH members.
What’s also interesting, NARTH’s 2009 “study” doesn’t mention anything about Kirk Murphy or George Rekers.
Chuck Anziulewicz
July 30th, 2011
8:49 am
It is tempting to say that marriage should be left up to the states, but it’s the federal government which, through its own actions has made marriage a FEDERAL issue. Most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the federal government. Much of this has to do with tax law and Social Security.
Complicating this issue even further is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That this clearly unconstitutional law has been on the books for 15 years now is appalling. The reason DOMA is unconstitutional is that is sets up differing legal standards for legally married Gay and Straight couples. For instance, a Gay couple that is legally married in New York is unrecognized as such by the federal government, and that couple is ineligible for the tax breaks and Social Security benefits that a similarly married Straight couple takes for granted.
Consider, also, the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes “UN-married” once they move south to Missouri.
The only way marriage can be a “States’ Rights” issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and put an end to the 1,138 legal benefits that it bestows on legally married couples. I wonder how many Straight married couples would be happy with THAT!
ATF
July 30th, 2011
3:34 pm
Civil benefits are just that, civil benefits. And we have had to learn that those benefits should be given not just to white males, but also and equally to all citizens, including women, blacks, latinos, Irish, Catholics, Orientals, and, yes, even Muslims. We are learning that denying equal benefits to gays is just another example of an blindness we have to supposing the status quo is always right, will always be.
If religious organizations feel it is necessary to reserve bestowing the blessing or sacrament of marriage only to those who meet that religions criteria, that is fine with me. No one wants to coerce a faith to perform a ceremony that is anathama to that faith. But, the civil benefits in the laws of this country should be availabe to all, equally.
So, no, I don’t think that individual states should be able to decide if they will recognize gay marriage. That would be like letting States decide if Catholics or women should be allowed to vote.
Carl G. Oehling
August 1st, 2011
11:31 am
This is a personal issue. Each one of us must always vote for their moral position I think mine must give Jehovah the glory or I am rejecting Him. Read God’s answer to Elijah when he complained the people were not following him in rejecting Baal as God. Read the results of North Israel following Ahab. Apply the principle.
Jezel
August 2nd, 2011
10:32 am
Discrimination of any kind violates the U.S. Constitution.
Proud Democrat
August 2nd, 2011
4:04 pm
I think the whole state’s rights arguments is a bunch of BS. How is that any different than when slavery and jim crow laws were left up to the states to decide? Even as a straight man, I see a problem with these anti-gay marriage proponents. How can it possibly be constitutional for one state to not recognize a legal marriage from another state? How is it that two men or two women wanting to get married harms my life or anyone elses life? As I read somewhere else, if you have a problem with gay marriage than you should also have a problem with straight divorce. How about we all just mind our own businesses and let grown, consenting adults live their life as they see fit?