The Corner had this up earlier today – it will become part of the issues of the Primary campaign:
Gov. Rick Perry Says He’s ‘Fine’ with New York’s Gay Marriages; Rick Santorum Tweets Back
Gov. Perry was at the Aspen Institute, that upscale gathering where great minds come to think together, when someone asked him about New York passing a gay marriage law.
According to a Des Moines Register reporter:
“Texas’s Republican Gov. Rick Perry on Friday said he’s “fine” with New York’s approval of gay marriage because such decisions should be left up to states.
That prompted a response from Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who tweeted overnight: “So Gov Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK too?”
It is a legitimate question – all polling aside that show that the general population is becoming more accepting of gay marriage (a function of encroaching secularism, IMHO), every time that a state’s general population gets to vote on whether or not to legalize homosexual marriage (as opposed to judicial fiat or, in the case of NH and now NY, much $$ was thrown into the legislative issue to grease the skids of changing politicians votes) has gone down in flames.
It seems to be de rigueur that the "marriage equality" folks hate the idea of polygamy, polyandry and polyamory brought brought up – once again, I bring up what happened when I brought that question up to Ron Tunning, gay activist and former Chair of the Laconia (NH) Democrats, when we were doing Meet The New Press back in 2007 and just discussing civil unions. At the time, my co-host Pat Hynes wrote:
One line of questioning I attempted to pursue in the interview with Ron didn’t go very far, but it is this: Are civil unions the end game for the homosexual lobby? Will gay activists be happy with civil unions or will they springboard from the civil unions law into the courtroom in pursuit of a judicial edict mandating full-blown gay marriage? (For the record, I think civil unions are plenty bad enough to get exercised about without the threat of gay marriage on the horizon. But I wanted to know where the gay lobby was headed with all of this.)…
…One line of argument I did not pursue in the interview, but which my co-host Skip Murphy did pursue, was the so-called slippery slope argument: If this is okay now, what next? Ron’s answer was, essentially: Screw you, I’ve got mine. If the polygamists want marital rights, let ‘em form a lobby group and make it happen. Again, Connecticut shows us a glimpse at the future:
Plaintiff’s attorney Bennett Klein told the court Monday that the fundamental principles of marriage are not based on gender. … "It is really a relationship of two legal equals based on mutual consent by which they take responsibility for each other, and that relationship is protected by the state," he said.
The legal argument here is that any two “legal equals” form a marriage. Brother and sister? And why only two? See the problem here?
And now from the vantage point of 2011 we now know that working for just civil unions was a lie – the end game was always for homosexual marriage. however, the problem is now others are suing for polygamy – and having redefined marriage from its traditional moorings of man and wife, they are reduced to stating "only two! only two!" with no real logical or effective reasoning on which to stand.
That’s not to say that traditional marriage hasn’t been under stress…
…for decades – three real quick:
- the Pill made it easy to play without the committment
- the welfare state made Govt the "Provider" for many (if not most) single mothers with kids (and in urban areas, spawned a multi-generational incidence of households headed by single females with the "sperm donors" merely transitory at best and non-existent in the life of their children at worst
- The selfishness of the Boomer Generation that gave up on the idea of sacrifice and commitment and turned to being the "me first" – its all about me first, second, and last.
But really – Federal or State level definition – what IS to stop the slide down the slippery slope. After all, if the gays can ram redefining a nuclear block of society, what basis do they have to deny others? Have they succeeded in such a way that they have already laid in their own defeat?
I think that Rick Santorum is owed an answer. Frankly, who ever is going to be President should answer it. We all should answer it – especially by those that launched society down that slope and demand that the rest of us accept it.
Gov. Perry? Your turn!
