MANAGING THE MEDIA AND PRUDENCE
by Phil Sevilla
Tuesday, 26 July 11, 11:30 AM
Gov. Perry ignited a firestorm after his comments in Aspen about homosexual marriage.
I found a good summation of the blowback in the secular press after Perry's careless comments. Read on: Perry, Conservatives and Gay Marriage: An Evolving View?
Bottom line... lessons learned... again and again:
Nothing new here about the media - most are not friends of Christian conservatism and they are not objective.
Watch what you say, tread very carefully - every word will be scrutinized, second guessed, and distorted.
Perry should know this.
One last thing I observed which critical Christian believers picked up on ...What did Perry say in Aspen that offended their Christian sensibilities?
"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." He continued, "That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."
"Well, it's not fine with God, Governor Perry," is a common thread I found resonating on Christian blogs voicing readers' disappointment with Perry's statement .
Perry needs to send out a clear explanation addressing Christian conservatives' concerns about his remarks. Confusion can spiral out control if he intends a White House run.
I'd like to remind Perry that in 1967 there were only a handful of states who legalized child killing - Colorado, Oregon, California, N. Carolina. New York followed in 1970. What happened? Six years after Colorado, seven Supreme Court judges voted that a Texas statute restricting abortion only when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The rest is history.
What makes Gov. Perry think that New York legalizing homosexual marriage is irrelevant to Texas and the other states that have defended traditional marriage? That's how corruption works! It spreads! Most of his book, Fed Up, talks about activist legislators and judges.
If he meant what he said in his book about the danger of activist judges and legislators, doesn't he realize his statement came across as defending the narrow majority of state legislators (33-29) acting to obstruct the will of the people of the state of New York? If he is fine with New York upending traditional state marriage laws, then, he will soon find the fight in his state by the same leviathan attacking marriage in all 50 states.
Has he forgotten what happened in Lawrence vs. Texas?