From the Rick Perry Campaign Site:
Defense of Marriage
Perry strongly supports a constitutional amendment on the November 2005 ballot that will define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This measure is needed to prevent activist judges from voiding a law signed by Perry in 2003 that protects traditional marriage.
Here is the issue with this kind of statement. Perry wants to avoid “activist judges” (ie. judges doing their job) from voiding a law that “protects” marriage, by supporting a consititutional amendment that only makes it possible for judges to interpret what the hell the law actually means! The amendment is so vague that it can only be dealt with in the courts. For example, is a domestic relationship between a man and woman not married (either legally or commonly), like marriage? If so, as there is no union, then the state can't recognize this. Of course, that is open to interpretation, and who is going to decide on that? Not the legislature. The answer begins with “c” and ends with “ourts” – just in case you didn't figure that out.
He continues to amaze me, and not in a good way.