Video: Huckabee battles Stewart over gay marriage
posted at 3:35 pm on December 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Nothing you haven’t heard before but I know how much Hot Air readers like to watch Huck squirm. The tone is set early, with Stewart pressing him on why conservatives think government should be in the business of commanding armies but not, say, handing out cheese or otherwise playing perpetual wet nurse to the population. The gay marriage exchange comes in the second clip; as often happens with opponents, he hops from one justification to the other without trying very hard on any of them. First it’s tradition, then it’s a slippery slope to polygamy, then (by implication) it’s a distinction between immutable traits like race and “lifestyle choices” like homosexuality, then it’s procreation. He’s in retreat the whole way. Not his finest hour.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 8 Next »
ceremony, rings and the symbolism of it.
Wrote 40 years ago, before “Gay Marraige” even occurred to anyone or advocated for in the West.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Why do you insist on a moniker that is obviously a lie?
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Whats the next stop for Huck? Letterman for damage control? Its usually the other way around.
I don’t care if gays want to marry. If they do, it doesn’t affect me or my marriage one iota. Who marries whom is none of my bidness anyway. Same for the rest of this rapidly effing up country.
44Magnum on December 10, 2008 at 4:32 PM
It is technically possible to create life when two heterosexuals have anal sex. If I don’t have to explain, I’d rather not.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM
The human race & future species.
portlandon on December 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM
My bad – other way around..
Reynolds vs US
hehehehe….
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Are you a fundamentalist Christian Andy?
dakine on December 10, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Gay people – or same sex individuals – can get married in America any time they want. The government doesn’t “ban” or forbid such arrangements (unlike the miscegenatation laws which prohibited inter-racial cohabitation).
The question on the table is whether the government should recognize same sex marriage as legally equal to opposite sex marriage and extend the same benefits and privileges to them (tax deductions, et cetera).
To flip this argument around, if the government only recognized (legally) same sex marriages but not opposite sex marriages that doesn’t mean that a man and women couldn’t get married. It would only mean that they wouldn’t get the benefits and privileges that a same sex married couple has.
Again, nothing in the laws in any state prevents two same sex people from finding a church or pastor who will marry them. Once “married”, nothing will happen to them. They may go on with their lives in happily (or not so-happily) married bliss.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Huckabee trotted out all the usual bogus arguments against gay marriage, and for a change was confronted about their lack rather than given a pass. If it had been Mitt Romney being interviewed by Stewart, it would have been the same result.
starfleet_dude on December 10, 2008 at 4:34 PM
dk on December 10, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Oh PLEASE.
Compared to the left’s stranglehold on education, absolute trashing of intellectual freedoms, Hollywood blacklisting of conservatives – only for starters – you have NO room to browbeat me or any other Republican / Christian about rights.
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 4:34 PM
What, precisely then, do you think gay marriage is if you do not think it is portraying homosexual relationships as the moral equal to heterosexual ones?
It isn’t being done for legal reasons, I can assure you that. “Civil Unions,” the granting of extra rights to two random people with no discernable benefit to society, are not enough for the gay lobby.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Wrong. State laws vary. In California, unfortunately, there is very little difference. Now Federal law, that’s a very big difference, thankfully.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM
The “gay” marriage thing is all about rights and benefits. Is their an insurable interest if gay partners buy life insurance on each other? Who gets the house? If one has health insurance at work can the “life partner” be included in the coverage?
Civil unions take care of this. The gays who complain about this are just attention whores. I don’t think anyone cared if they got “married” by the justice of the peace until the gays started complaining.
Vince on December 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I agree with this. I don’t think the government needs to be in the business of sanctioning anybody’s union as a marriage, whether it’s between a man and a woman or a homosexual couple. Give all contractual couples the same rights and let them call it whatever the hell they want.
Telling gays that their unions aren’t as valid as heterosexuals because they’re not called marriages isn’t going to keep them from being gay or from coupling up. And even if it did, who cares?
As far as the adoption of children, I am not particularly in favor of homosexual couples adopting, but it’s better them than no one.
Sign of the Dollar on December 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Their should be there.
Vince on December 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM
The human race Mankind & future species.
portlandon on December 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Fix’t. We’re not running a marathon, or anything. ;)
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Look, I can play the little games too.
Until you stop claiming to know what I am, which you don’t, you can talk with Angry in Agoura Hills. I’m sure you two will get along swell.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Ack. I meant to strike that through. My bad.
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 4:37 PM
I’m liking you more and more, you seem to be in the more libertarian western conservative camp that steers far from the southern-style social conservatism that has turned off so much of the country.
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Possible, but not likely, and definitely not the way “god intended”. It’s a fair point.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Huckabee is an idiot when it comes to moral arguments. But it doesn’t mean the arguments against homo marriage are not more valid and more moral than those for homo-marriage.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 4:37 PM
How bout its perverse and wrong, or is that indefensible anymore?
Speakup on December 10, 2008 at 4:38 PM
I watched this interview. Huckleberry Hound had absolutely nothing to say beyond tedious pabulum about how we should be “nice” to each other and that, if only we could be “nice,” we wouldn’t need government.
As for gay marriage, the bottom line is that the only “winning” argument against gay marriage is one that has culturally lost the day: that homosexuality is wrong and that it should not be rewarded or officially sanctioned. Since that argument can no longer be made publicly, gay marriage opponents have instead framed the argument in terms of incentives (marriage is designed to encourage procreation) or slippery slopes (if gay marriage is legalized, man-dog relationships will soon be sanctioned too). Those arguments are losers, which is why you see support for gay marriage growing and why you see courts so willing to trample state constitutions to create a right for gay marriage.
In the long term, the only way for gay marriage opponents to stop gay marriage in the long term is to delegitimize homosexuality on a social and political level. When the homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the DSM-IV back in 1973, they started a process that has all but won them the culture war. Today, a lot of very smart people believe that homosexuals are “born gay,” even though there’s virtually no evidence to support that theory. The cultural message is “gay is ok,” and that’s what sticks.
What’s then fun is to watch the cognitive dissonance. Watching a liberal watch homosexual culture in action (e.g. a San Francisco gay event, or activities at gay bars or the behavior of gay college students, etc.) is as hilarious as watching liberals watch the vicious anti-women and anti-minority behavior of people from the third world. They intrinsically know that what they’re seeing is awful, but they are so firm in their moral relevance and belief that “oppressed people” be given a pass that they willfully ignore what they’re seeing.
Outlander on December 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Listen MadisonCon, your arguments here have ALWAYS lacked a strong intellectual thought process. You go on feeling and emotion. Just like every other leftist.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM
…except being in favor of not amending the Constitution over such matters. You know, conserving the Constitution, and rejecting the “living document” attitude that some, like Barack Obama, hold.
Oh wait, Bush was pushing the marriage amendment. And he is a beacon of conservatism, after all.
Since when is it unconservative to be in favor of Constitutional amendments? They may not always be wise or the best option but favoring amendments is not a liberal or unconservative postion. Constitutional amendments are the proper and legal way that the Founding Fathers left us with for making changes to the Constitution (only if neccessary). Judicial activism is what the liberal position is, not Constitutional amendments.
keepinitreal on December 10, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Ronald Reagan was one of the icons of conservatism, and he said some basic words:
Therefore, any conservatives would be averse to government intervening not only to define terms of a religious ceremony, but to tell religions how they may or may not practice their beliefs. They should be out of it altogether, and churches should make up their own minds whether they want to marry gay couples or not.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:40 PM
bingo, Muhammed “Loved” his 6 year old wife he screwed when she was 9 years old. the same type of “love” that Pedophiles around the world “feel” for little kids. That was all perfectly okay and within is “Rights” then.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Interesting, although Schaeffer doesn’t,imo, explain the totality of the motives and forces in this regard.
I wonder why not give gays “marriage,” and have hetero couples switch to civil unions. A distinction is preserved. If this isn’t acceptable, is it equality they’re after, or approval?
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM
…says the guy whose first post was insulting one of the two main writers on this site.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Please do! I’ll give you time to find the how-to in that bible of yours….
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM
A Gay marriage banning constitutional amendment would constrain the government from granting official recognition and thus moral equivalence to sexually deviant relationships.
Gay “marriage” does not currently exist except via judicial fiat. The right to recieve government benefits based on your sexual attraction to another human being is not a civil right. Marriage is not about stroking the ego of two consenting adults, it is about creating mechanisms which aid in the protection of children and the family.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I don’t give a damn what you or anyone else thinks about two gays getting married. All I care about is that the government obeys the Constitution. You can rant about how inferior they are to your heart’s content. You don’t have any right or authority to abuse the power of government by casting your bigotry into legal stone.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Francis Schaeffer’s son, Frank Schaeffer was interviewed by Terry Gross yesterday, and had some fascinating things to reveal about how the issue of homosexuality was picked up on by both evangelicals and the Republican Party, who were looking for something besides abortion to use as a electoral wedge issue.
Otherwise, Francis Schaeffer was basically stuck on strict male/female roles, which were not beneficial to women.
starfleet_dude on December 10, 2008 at 4:42 PM
That’s not really what gays want, and even if it was, it’s not really a politically viable option for gay activists. A common complaint is that gays want to destroy marriage. It would be hard to argue against that complaint if they start wanting to end state sanctioned marriage. People fail to understand the distinction between marriage as a secular contract and marriage as a religious covenant. They are similar, but serve different functions. And changing the law on one has absolutely no affect on the other.
justfinethanks on December 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM
…and attempting to alter the constitution to assert a law based solely on religious belief is religious activism. If we can amend the constitution to turn religious belief into law, where does it end? It sets a horrible precedent.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM
A gay man can not marry another man. A straight man can not marry another man. This is not really so much a rights issue as an attempt to gain endorsement of a behavior. Whether or not a behavior is in your genes is irrelevant.
I do not believe that men are monogamous by nature. If they were, married men would not have a swivel on their head every time a beautiful woman walked my or would not not be enticed by porn, etc. Should it therefore be acceptable to give in to their natural desires and sleep with whomever they want? Of course not. Infidelity destroys a marriage.
They say they have found genes for alcoholism. Should we then encourage them to drink saying they can not help themselves? Of course not. It destroys lives.
How about the “Fat Gene”? Should we now say that these people can not help themselves and encourage them to give in to their desires and eat whatever they want? No, it destroys health.
I’m sure there are exceptions, but I believe that homosexuality is a very difficult lifestyle. I have a very dear friend who is gay and has already buried three quarters of his friends. He is a wonderful and caring human being but I will never endorse the lifestyle that I see is slowly killing him.
jman on December 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM
why do you guys keep saying this lie on this issue????
being against Gay Marriage is so popular its a winning issue in CALIFORNIA, even freaking Barack Hussein Obama is against Gay Marriage(for poltical reasons).
there is absolutely 0% chance the evangelical base of the GOP would vote for any candidate that supports Gay Marriage, along with many other americans out there as Votes have shown.
being pro-Gay Marriage for the GOP is far dumber than anything Huckabee stands for politically.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Quick outline of argument points:
1) Legal marriage is a privilege, not a right.
2) The state has the right, through the will of the people, to create the institution of legal marriage to suit whatever purposes the people desire. Traditionally, it has been to streamline the organization of a household for the purpose of conceiving, baring, and raising children.
3) The state is not obligated to extend the benefits of this arrangement to suit any other purpose, nor is prevented from doing so if that is the will of the people.
4) There is reason to believe that further extending these benefits will have a negative impact on society. This is for the people to argue and ultimately decide.
5) Traditionally, legal marriage has conformed to largely to the institution of religious marriage. If the state chooses to break with this relationship, it is unconstitutional for the state to require a church, or any private institution at all, to recognize the results of said break.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM
By the way, your Christian-bashing isn’t helping the argument at all. You’re free to hate religion as much as you want, but making it part of your case only makes me consider that you would probably be right there with the Prop 8 mobs trying to intimidate people who disagree with them.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM
“It’s not unusual to have a baby in your butt.”
Dead Hand Control on December 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Go stuff it, troll. The only people who bring the Bible into discussions like these are the people who need a strawman to rail against.
Yes or No: Homosexual relationships are, under their own power, capable of creating children?
No.
Yes or No: Homosexual relationships have on average about the same level of commitment and duration as heterosexual relationships?
No.
Yes or No: Fidelity and Monogamy are defining features of most homosexual relationships?
No.
Yes or No: Homosexual relationships often have adverse health effects on their participants not common to heterosexual relationships?
Yes.
On these bases alone, one can see homosexual relationships are an inferior, inequal good. Inequal goods demand inequal treatment.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Gay marriage is bad for society, but so are a lot of other things that are legal. As a result of conservative and Christian opposition, both of those movements are now a minority position, when they both have more positive to offer than gay marriage has negative. We might be better off dropping opposition and regaining support and majority status in both areas from people who are driven away by that single issue.
pedestrian on December 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Andy, from what I’ve seen, your arguments ALWAYS lack a logical and rational thought process. Everything you write flows from the certainty you have in your version of “The Truth” as set forth in the Bible. Facts, evidence, logic, critical thought, an understanding and appreciation of differing points of view…none of these things matter to guys like you. Your moral superiority and lack of curiousity about anything beyond the religious dogma to which you subscribe makes you uninteresting and small. You live your life in a strangely (but empty) comfortable bubble of ignorance. Sad and pathetic.
dakine on December 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM
…you mean that’s their number one issue?
If that’s the case, this country is screwed even worse than the bailout could do.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Would someone kindly post a link to the last post by AP where a conservative comes off well?
Thanks.
Stephen M on December 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM
I can’t bear to watch the clip, two guys I’ve grown to dislike immensely discussing a topic I find repulsive.
ain’t gonna do it…
Tim Zank on December 10, 2008 at 4:47 PM
its a necessary and unfortunate REACTION to Secular Humanist trying to Legislate(Unconstitutionally by your logic) their brand new in history definition of Marriage and force it via Govt. into Churches accross the country.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:47 PM
As I understand anti-miscegenation laws, they prohibited marriage between whites and minorities but did not prohibit cohabitation per se. I don’t like this argument, though, because I think you get down to arguing a fine point of semantics.
The argument is that “any man can get married, but just not to a man.” But how is that different than “any white man can get married, but just not to a black woman?” You could structure the argument by saying that anti-miscegenation laws were couched negatively (”thou shall not marry someone not of your race”) whereas traditional marriage laws are couched as negative-by-inference (”marriage is one man and one woman”). But really, isn’t that just a semantic distinction?
Outlander on December 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Such an amendment would not be so much about asserting a religious belief as it would be about reigning in the excesses of the judicial branch. Same with abortion.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM
How is the government defining terms of a religious ceremony with regards to gay marriage?
If a church wants to marry two gay/same sex people, the government will not stop them. There is no law against churches marrying two gay people. The church can define marriage whichever way they want.
The question is whether the state will recognize for legal purposes that marriage as equal to an opposite sex marriage. And with that whether the gay couple will receive the benefits that an opposite sex couple receives.
Again: There are no laws banning gay people from getting married or forbidding a church from marrying gay people.
None.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM
The Bible doesn’t prohibit anything between consenting married partners so far as I’m aware, if your definition of sodomy is in tune with the origin of the world. Given the biblical definition, married people cannot perform sodomy. Therefore, sodomy laws that prohibited certain acts between married partners were misnamed.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 4:49 PM
You can’t blame Huckabee. I’m not sure who is clever enough to defend something as indefensible as being as opposition to gay people getting married. Once the concession is made to treat gay people as normal human beings, then there is no justification left for this remnant of our past brutal treatment of gay people.
thuja on December 10, 2008 at 4:49 PM
The necessary reaction to some churches CHOOSING their belief that gay people can marry, and following through on that?
How is that secular humanism?
And again, I’m in favor of the government staying out of churches, period. I’m not advocating any government action at all other than getting the hell out of the way and allowing the faithful of this country to worship as they choose. The only government action I’ve seen that needs to be taken is the arresting of some of these riotous anti-Prop 8 thugs in California who are playing “Union” and intimidating and threatening people who dare disagree with them.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:51 PM
dakine on December 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM
“In your version of the truth” ?
Are you one of those moral relativists who thinks murder, pedophilia or adultery is A-OK if you just look at it in the right context?
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I have read post after post here a cannot believe my eyes. Disgusting. ‘Nuff said.
mwdiver on December 10, 2008 at 4:52 PM
If that were the true motives behind the pushes for such things as the marriage amendment, I could get behind it. However, that’s not the case. It is a religious lobbying effort, and the successful attainment of which would immediately invalidate the separation of church and state.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:52 PM
it means, it would completely invalidate everything Western Civilization was founded on and is repulsive. Not just to Christians about non-religious types who grew up in our Judeo-Christian based culture.
Its akin to a politician taking a Bible, ripping it to shreds and flushing it down the toilet. the GOP would be a useless avenue at that point.
but thats beside the point, its Politically INSANE to suggest the GOP should become Pro-Gay Marriage given that its a Non-Partisian winning issue to be against at the moment. yet somehow it keeps being suggested that the GOP should just drop the issue by supposed Republicans.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM
On what basis should we treat circles as triangles?
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM
You should wear a helmet.
I’ll tell ya what….how about an amendment that states “Congress shall make no law respecting the institution of marriage” ?
We’re not subjects, and we don’t require government’s permission or recognition to freely associate and commit ourselves to one another in any form of betrothal.
All government meddling in such private affairs should be eradicated. The legal aspect of marriage should remain purely within the realm of private contractual law.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM
This is my problem with gay marriage, because you know darn well that churches will not have that option. They will be forced to perform the services because others do. There is no such thing as “separate but equal”. You may think I am out in left field but look at what has happened to the Boy Scouts. If they could write a bill to protect churches who feel that they cannot perform the services I would be more comfortable.
Cindy Munford on December 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM
That was way over the top.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Actually, as I understand the history, they did both. That is they prohibited interracial marriages as well as interracial cohabitation (unmarried couples living together/having sex). Additionally, churches that did marry interracial couples would be fined or the pastors arrested.
None of this occurs with same sex couples. Anti-sodomy laws have been ruled un-constitutional so gay people can live/co-habitat together with no penalty.
Re the semantic differences: well, as you know there is a world of a difference between someone’s sex or gender and someone’s race. The latter tells us nothing about a person while the former tells us a great deal.
Again, the difference between inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage is hugely different. The former was outlawed and banned. The latter is not outlawed by the government but it is not recognized by the government as being equal to a opposite sex marriage.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Madison
ConservativeGotta go. Sorry I missed your answer to my question about what allowing marriage between sex perverts would conserve. Maybe next time.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Stewart hit’s the “it was deregulation that caused the collapse”. Why didn’t Huckabee set him strait? – Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, Reid, etc etc????? Come on man.
marklmail on December 10, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I don’t know. I bet you there are more people than you think that think a Constitutional amendment is a necessary evil.
keepinitreal on December 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM
People can already worship as they choose and no one is going to make any church do anything it doesn’t want to do. This is about denying homosexuals the basic civil right of legal marriage, not about religion. There is no good reason to discriminate against gays when it comes to civil marriage, only bad ones repeated again and again.
starfleet_dude on December 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Just because a major organizational effort is made by a church, or its members, does not mean the results are a violation of the first amendment.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM
great, let gay people get married then and we can put this whole sodomy thing in the past.
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM
At this point it comes down to personal beliefs. As we have already confirmed that gay people can enter into civil unions, and some churches believe that marriage twixt gay couples are legal, it seems like the refusal to put the last piece in the puzzle is more out of a refusal to admit what the picture is, based on all the other pieces being together.
Can arguments be made to say that just because the government recognizes civil unions it doesn’t recognize the basic ideal of an officiated gay relationship? I suppose so, but they strike me as weak given what has already been recognized.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM
You do know that same sex individuals can get married at any time they want?
Whether the government recognizes that “marriage” is another issue.
And that’s the debate.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM
You help make my point Ryan. To fundamentalists like you, anybody who doesn’t accept “The Truth” as defined in the Bible is a moral relativist. And the answer to your question is obviously no.
dakine on December 10, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Secular Humanism is alive and well in many ‘churches’ in America today, its usally the elitist churches that push humanism using theological terms.
if churches are “choosing” that beleif in gay marriage, the “beleif” part is rooted in the religion of Humanism, not Christianity.
as for the rest, see the above fears about lawsuits if a church refuses to marry a gay couple on discrimination grounds.
In addition to that, this is a State’s Right’s issue. If some states legalize gay marriage, while most others outlaw it. All the Liberals have to do is get the SCOTUS on their side numbers wise. Then a gay couple from a state it is illegal in, goes to a state its Legal, gets ‘married’ and then moves back to their state. At that point they sue on bounds that the Constitution says all States must honor contracts formed in other States and since Marriage is a Contract then it falls under this constitutionally and Presto: Gay Marriage Forced on all 50 States
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:58 PM
and just where does your Source of truth and morality come from?
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Hey Noneye (no eyes), why don’t you FLY back over to the Jet fighter post where you were playing internet tough guy and second guessing the honor & bravery of our servicemen?
Weren’t you “Preaching” about the Honor of death over on that post?
portlandon on December 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM
why are infertile and older straight couples allowed to marry then?
OK, I’d love to see the stats on this one. Please post them.
Wouldn’t letting them get married change just that?
Again, I’d like the stats.
Since you made most of this up, it’s your argument that is inferior.
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Again, gay marriage is “legal” if “legal” is defined as not being prosecuted if one marries someone of the same sex.
There isn’t a state in the union that will arrest or fine a same sex couple for getting married. Or fine a church for performing the ceremony.
How could they? It’s not against the law for two people to call themselves married.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Cindy Munford, churches are free to not marry interracial couples if they so desire so no one is going to force any church to marry a gay couple either. So there’s no need to write a bill dealing with something that isn’t a problem in the first place. The Boy Scouts were accepting public funding and then discriminating against homosexuals, and that’s what caused them problems.
starfleet_dude on December 10, 2008 at 5:01 PM
I’m unhappy with what they’ve done to the Boy Scouts as well, except from the perspective that they were receiving federal funding and therefore could not legally discriminate. On the basis of the idea, though, I thought it was a travesty.
Again, I’m not arguing in favor of government intervention, I’m arguing in favor of it staying out of the picture entirely. While that may be a difficult to attain, I think it would only become even more difficult when we give the government carte blanche to dictate the legitimacy of religious ceremonies. Leave that to the votes.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Significant deviation from the average. How much is significant?
Committing a crime can be considered normal. The prisons are full.
I don’t think you can get all the people to think as you want, but you may get the laws changed. I wonder if the incidence of lifelong homosexuality (or any) is sufficient to ever be considered normal.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 5:01 PM
btw, I’m abnormally tall.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 5:02 PM
There are more people than I thought would vote for Obama, too. I’m not worrying about that. I’m worrying about whether their motivation for lobbying comes from conservative principles as I know them and have learned them.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:03 PM
jp, nobody has a monopoly on the truth as it relates to any single issue…it’s a continuing search. The world is full of uncertainty and doubt. My morality is hard wired as the result of thousands of years of societal evolution and the corresponding environmental influence of my parents and other adult role models. Honesty, integrity, loyalty, compassion, diligence, etc….these traits have nothing to do with religious dogma.
dakine on December 10, 2008 at 5:03 PM
So then, you’re one of those post-modernists who belive that males and females, despite their obvious physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral differences are completely and totally interchangable to the point that men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women is the functional and moral equivalent of men sleeping with women.
That’s your definition of progress?
A pretty weak brew, if you ask me.
Sounds like an intellectual regress to me.
Not that I expect much better from regressive thought.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Well, let remember that historically marriages were arranged by parents, but companionate marriage or marriage based on mutual love won the battle for how our society works. The values of love-based marriage remain a fundamental value of our society–not just almost universally held, but also subject to almost no argument. The flimsy excuses offered up against gay marriage cannot compete against the values of romance and marriage based on love.
thuja on December 10, 2008 at 5:04 PM
As much as I agree with you in principle on this point, it’s too late for that Holmes. LDS are walking history of how Govt will impose their “view” on your religious practice. They know how well that worked out for them.
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 5:04 PM
As I stated in detail above, this is not about rights so much as it is about endorsing an unhealthy lifestyle.
jman on December 10, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Ah, but I sort of see that as a moot point since there really is no way to know what is motivating peoples decision on this issue.
keepinitreal on December 10, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Don’t be so scared. As I noted above, if this were the case, you’d see all kinds of lawsuits against the Catholic church for refusing matrimony based on their own numerous requirements (just as “divorce” has no meaning in Catholicism, “marriage” between same-sex partners would have no meaning, and the government would not interfere). You’d see suits against the Mormons, Jews, Muslims, etc. too. These kinds of things don’t happen because the government generally refuses regulate what churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. can teach and accept.
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 5:06 PM
It isn’t about religion at all, it’s about homosexuals being discriminated against with regard to the civil marriage contract. The reason why there’s civil marriage to begin with is that not all churches recognize each other’s marriages. So that’s why civil marriage is necessary in a multi-religion society such as ours.
starfleet_dude on December 10, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Aren’t you the same person who constantly brings up the divorce rate?
Square that circle. If marriage guarentees Monogamy, the divorce rate is irrelevant.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 5:07 PM
They can undergo a ceremony of their choosing and make vows to one another, sure, but further than that, they run into nationwide legal obstacles.
Right. There is no Constitutional authorization for government to impose its recognition of marriage – gay, straight or turnip. This is something the government is not empowered to do. Therefore it is prohibited from doing so, and all laws to the contrary are unconstitutional.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 5:07 PM
No.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Improve your reading comprehension.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Christians should focus on creating a body of credible scientific evidence for these two propositions: (1) homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that is developed during or after adolescence; and (2) the sex-charged, nihilistic, and promiscuous lifestyle practiced by most homosexuals is harmful both to the homosexual and to the society. Christians then feed that information into the public, while at the same time extolling the virtues of a Christian existence.
The idea is to make it no longer “cool” or “chic” to live the promiscuous gay lifestyle. Then, homosexuals have to choose to give up homosexuality or live a more mainstream lifestyle as a homosexual (i.e. monogamous partner, regular life).
Outlander on December 10, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Sorrby, but no one has the “civil right” of legal marriage.
If the government got completely out of the marriage business – as some people suggest (and I’m leaning towards) – that doesn’t mean people couldn’t get married. Of course they could.
The issue is whether the benefits – and these are benefits and not rights since the government can rescind them – that a opposite sex married couple receive from the state should be extened to same sex couples.
Actually, as I understand it, in California civil unions give all of the same benefits (hospital visitation, inheritance, et cetera) that a marriage does.
In effect, we’re debating a word.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 5:10 PM
dakine on December 10, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Dude, you’re not helping your case by attacking Christianity or painting people you disagree with as boogeymen.
Just stop.
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I think most churches are exempt from property taxes and I think they would have to give that up in order to make their stand on these marriages. I was unaware of Boy Scouts receiving federal dollars but I think we could go on and on about the organizations that also receive moneys that the majority of the voters cannot embrace their mandate, such as Planned Parenthood. Those folks should be able to stand alone without the help of the tax payer. But as we all know, we don’t get to pick and chose.
Cindy Munford on December 10, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I’m calling in gay on this one.
The Ugly American on December 10, 2008 at 5:13 PM
States issue marriage licenses. Not the federal government.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This is a debate about state laws not US laws. The US Constitution doesn’t apply.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 5:13 PM
the short answer of this source is…..”Humanism”
which is a religion, described as such in the Humanist Manifesto.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 8 Next »