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 5 ... 8 Next »
How cute. You go straight to Christian bashing immediately.
Well, women have half the parts required to make a baby. Men have the other half. Women’s parts aren’t all that far removed from their anus, and sperm swim. Can you put two and two together yet, or do I need to be more specific?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:13 PM
You may be theoretically correct, but that has never stopped them?
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Yep. It’s about approval, and being declared normal.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Right. Because courts would view it as an intrusion by the government on the right to Free Exercise of religion.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Ding, Ding… we have a winner.
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Anyone ever hear of DOMA?
mwdiver on December 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Now read this:
dakine, 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 liberal ideology. 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 liberal 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.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM
I wasn’t thinking of normal as average or nearly average. I meant “normal” to mean something that happens from time to time and not really that important. For example, I would call having red hair or being left handed normal.
As an example of how our society has conceded that homosexuality is normal, Sarah Palin talked of having a long-term friend who happens to be lesbian. In fact, it is getting harder and harder to be successful at politics and not make the concession that gay people are normal people who could be your friend. Look at the defeat of Marilyn Musgrove in a very conservative district in the last election. And it certainly seemed to me that the reason for the large margin of the defeat of Rick Santorum in 2006 was his stance on homosexuality. Republican soccer moms from the suburbs of Pittsburgh voted against Santorum because his homophobia was well publicized. (He probably would have lost anyway.)
thuja on December 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Same-sex marriage is about getting homosexuals to feel good about themselves. That is not society’s problem however. It strangely enough is the problem of the homosexuals.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Is it a right?? Marriage is a contract and is covered under contract law. Contract law is set by the people or their representatives in government in a democracy. The people can set rules regarding contracts. Rules for forming a corporation or a limited partnership are set by the democratic process. They are not rights guaranteed to everyone. Getting a marriage license is no more a right than getting a liquor license or a drivers license is. The government actually can decide who gets a liquor license and who does not based on where a business is located, for example, or stop a blind person from getting a driver’s license. There are rules to obtaining a marriage license such as you can’t enter into a marriage contract for the sole purpose to obtain US citizenship, Courts have ruled such marriages null and void for years. Contract law is set by the people through the democratic process, but this also means they can be changed by the will of the people. The truth is, rights don’t require a license.
Dollayo on December 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM
There is if you pay attention to the structure and content of their arguments.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:22 PM
But he’s not correct.
This is about state laws and not the US Constitution.
State laws and state constitutions (rightly or not) are involved here since the US Constitution gives states the right to be involved in this matter.
There’s a thing called the 10th Amendment:
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 about the states and the people of the states.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Your example of the Boy Scouts is misplaced. The controversy turns on whether the Boy Scouts is considered a religious organization or not. If it is, it is free to maintain its own membership and leadership standards but must then be disassociated with government, including the priority treatment it has traditionally received in terms of land use, sponsorship, etc. If it is not, it must conform to all of the same non-discrimination standards as every other company. Your example actually supports the idea that religious organizations are unlikely to face interference from the government if gay marriage is legalized.
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 5:23 PM
I won’t hire a gay. They’re like broads; too emotional.
marklmail on December 10, 2008 at 5:25 PM
The Supreme Court has identified marriage as a fundamental right. They haven’t done the same with operating a liquor store.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:25 PM
What about a gay broad?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I doubt that. Churches aren’t currently forced to marry anyone. I could have been turned down by my own church.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Ultimately, your analysis in relation to states rights is fine. However, the Federal government forced many an issue of what was “legal” within that context (Utah becoming a state, because of the ban). So, maybe today since it is now a state, sure that argument flies. Unfortunately they have set bad precedent for the states to follow regarding the treatment of a practice(s) by a religious organization they disagreed with.
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 5:31 PM
What about a broad gay?
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:32 PM
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:25 PM
That must be because it wasn’t a white liquor store operated by a black guy.
*rolls eyes*
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Yes, but antidiscrimination laws are being applied, and will be applied more frequently in the future, to force “acceptance” of homosexuality by Christian churches and Christian religious groups. E.g., the Boy Scouts are being banned from holding events in public-owned places, EHarmony.Com was required to offer a gay dating service, and so forth. Under our Glorious Leader’s reign, I expect to see action to withdraw the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status because of its members’ support for Proposition 8, using the same reasoning in the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in the Bob Jones University case (which dealt with an anti-miscegenation rule that BJU had adopted).
Outlander on December 10, 2008 at 5:33 PM
I know that is the case now and my concerns may certainly be unjustified but usually people who feel they have been treated unfairly don’t stop until EVERYONE accepts them. Look at the way they handled Prop 8. Is that a way to win friends (votes) and influence people?
Cindy Munford on December 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Sure, but the initial question was whether the US Constitution has the power to recognize marriage. It doesn’t. It’s a power given to the states and the people of those states by the Constitution.
The question here is whether those state constitutions that only recognize opposite sex marriage are violating the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
States can do lots of things but that doesn’t mean (as you correctly point out) that the federal government doesn’t, in the end, have a say as to what they do. And how they do it.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM
You’re quick.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Sexuality is clearly not a matter of choice. It doesn’t necessarily follow from that that the institution of marriage must be changed to include homosexual unions.
The state has a right to involve itself in marriage for the purpose of protecting children and not otherwise.
Homosexuals would get a better hearing from people like me if they would drop their self indulgent digustingly lewd annual freak show parades.
Basilsbest on December 10, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Certainly understandable conclusion to draw. In fact, those people ruin every argument available for supporting them.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Sexuality is clearly not a matter of choice. It doesn’t necessarily follow from that that the institution of marriage must be changed to include homosexual unions.
Yes, the PR is horrible.
And that’s essentially why some people will never see a reason for gay marriage. To those that believe it’s a choice, it’s merely sin that shouldn’t be given the elevated status of marriage. To those who believe gays are born that way, it’s a civil rights issue.
Of course there are many positions in between, but the heart of the matter is whether or not it’s a choice.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:41 PM
You can read through Zablocki v. Redhail for a decision that addresses the limits imposed upon states in denying marriage licenses. There is no interracial question at issue in the decision.
The state doesn’t face similar limits on its power when regulating commercial establishments.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Yep, they are doing it wrong.
Cindy Munford on December 10, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I think you are using the word “normal” casually when you want to, and very specifically when applied to homosexuality.
It is abnormal, as is my height (6′3″). Personally, I’d like counters and doorways and ceilings built higher, car seats to go back further, etc. It would improve the quality of my life.
If I was trying to have gay marriage approved, I think a better tactic would be to say that while homosexuality is abnormal, it is human, and people can’t seem to do anything about it anyway, so please give us a break and don’t make life any harder or shun us or make alienate us from the society at large.
I think that’s where we are with it, and where we should be, and what is reflected in casual comments like Palin’s about a friend who is homosexual.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 5:45 PM
eHarmony didn’t pursue the matter in court. The Boy Scouts won their Supreme Court case on the banning of gays as troop leaders. Can states make a decision to drop support for the Boy Scouts? That’s a politcal decision for better or worse.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Usually two minutes or less.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Sure it is. How do you explain male-male prison sex?
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Let me concede that you have a point. My answer is that we need to get back to the Constitution and allow freedom of association–an important First Amendment right that we sacrificed to defeat racism. Now that racism has been defeat, let’s return to our basic rights! This means we need to get rid of most non-discrimination laws–though we almost certainly don’t want to get back to complete freedom of association in employment, but there is the commerce clause and state governments. Why should we make a legal point if there were to exist a restaurant which is “whites only” or some similar insanity? I’d gladly let restaurants and churches against gay couples in exchange for gay marriage.
thuja on December 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM
So I recall from our happy hour conversation.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:50 PM
By testing what would happen if a willing woman was in the cell for an evening.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Which is why I support the Boy Scouts.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Please, do not forget the gays abroad, so we can cover immigration and kill two birds with the same bullet.
Ropera on December 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM
It’s called rape. No surprise you’d equivocate it with homosexuality.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM
If the government allows gay marriage I will divorce in protest.
Ropera on December 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:53 PM
That’s terrible. No restaurant or other public facility should be able to discriminate against anyone who isn’t causing a disturbance.
Houses of worship and religious membership, of all kinds, are by definition, discriminatory, and must remain so.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 5:53 PM
^
Was going to say I was surprised you could recall anything but Russians everywhere.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Introducing a woman does not explain the CHOICE males in prison make to have anal/oral sex with another male. I also bet that some heterosexual males would, given the choice, still go for another male. Choices. Not genetics.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 5:54 PM
So do I and, even more so, their right to associate with whom they choose.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Unbelievable. ITS STILL A CHOICE numbnuts. How many males on the outside decide to rape males? Duh!
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM
At least you didn’t write ‘…put this whole sodomy thing behind us.’
James on December 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Show’s how little you know.
Tacitus_SGL on December 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM
True, that’s a bad example, but it is true that some men and some women opt for homosexuality when the opposite sex isn’t around.
I won’t argue that homosexuality is definitely a choice, but I believe wholeheartedly that some people can choose to be gay. A married friend of mine used to get drunk and make out with her girlfriends (not me) while her husband watched.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:57 PM
All caps and name-calling. What was that about arguing out of emotion?
And exactly how is there choice on the part of the raped?
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Exactly. A sex act and sexual attraction differ, with the former chosen and the latter being something that happens involuntarily.
Straight people all the time make a choice to avoid sex with people they are attracted to, or, in some cases, usually desperation, to have sex with someone they aren’t attracted to.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:59 PM
I agree. It seems like choice is at least a component of a lot of man-hating women who figure it’s some form of expressing their hatred, or even a feminist stance. It seems to me that the majority of the time, people who choose to be gay could probably be considered bisexual.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Russians are good friends of mine (which reminds me, I finished them all during the election and need a fresh supply), but you’re hard to forget.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I think the frequency of each are starkly contrasted.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:01 PM
That’s why darling…it’s incredible…
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Its not arguing out of emotion. Its trying to get you to improve your thought process by repeating the samething over and over. That was the third time I said “choice”, but apparently you can’t comprehend a counter argument.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I have the capitalist faith that discrimination against any segment of the population will cause a restaurant to fail, and even one were to succeed, why should I care? Can’t I eat somewhere else? Is it that really terrible if we are encounter bigotry every once in a while when the stakes are so low? I’m emotionally tough. We all should be.
thuja on December 10, 2008 at 6:04 PM
It may vary a lot by person. Some people may practice restraint very well. Others may regularly hookup with whoever is around at the end of the night. Still others may sleep with someone they aren’t attracted to in order to advance a career, access wealth or maintain family status.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Yep. I dont care what the democrats do.
Who cares. It’s about being right not popular. We’re the party of less government intrusion. I like to be able to defend positions, opposing gay marriage or civil unions is not defensible. I’ve never heard anything close to a good answer for it and it’s going to be a constant albatross for bits like this.
Being against abortion on the other hand, at least late term abortion, is completely defensible and infinitely more important.
Dash on December 10, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Certainly, and women like that really annoy me. Then again, women who think men are the end-all be-all annoy me as well.
Plus, I read something that’s stuck with me a long time. Tennessee Williams wrote his memoirs and discussed his homosexual youth in college and how he loved this one guy. They had sex frequently (because Tennessee apparently had an appetite), but the way he described it, the guy wasn’t gay.
It’s hard to describe now, as I read this years ago, but I got the impression that Tennessee didn’t even consider the guy gay. I mean he preferred women and even married one later but made an exception for Tennessee because he loved him.
So I don’t know how I’d classify that one. It’s just stuck with me.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 6:07 PM
When it involves screaming like a maniac and insulting me?
Yeah, that’s really a comprehension problem on my part.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:10 PM
This so sad. Republicans are liberals now.
There was homosexuality in the Classical ages and it hasn’t always been frowned upon, but marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman. To say it can be anything else is just absurd. There has been a reason for marriage and dismantling it leads to an unstable civil society.
Living in CA with the Prop 8 uproar, I can say that you people saying that Gay Marriage takes away rights are right! My rights to not have everything Gay in my face and taught to my kids against my religious beliefs. It DOES NOT take away the rights of Gays. They have Domestic Partnerships in this state that give them ALL the rights of married couples. The ONLY reason why radical Gays want to have DP called Marriage is so they can force their views and beliefs on my family via the concept of “discrimination” against them and their now “normalized” lifestyle.
There’s no other explanation for it and it’s not me whose vile forcing my beliefs on others, it’s them in Santa Monica, my hometown of Long Beach, San Diego, and San Francisco dressing up half naked parading around for PRIDE in the public square for their beliefs but them denying me the right to mine. Explain how I shield my children from an early conversation about what happens in the bedroom? You want to usurp your own kids innocence, fine by me. But don’t demand that I have to do it on behalf of being tolerate of YOU.
Sultry Beauty on December 10, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I agree on that. If we had to drop one, I’d say abortion is more important.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 6:12 PM
That theme came off a lot in his plays. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof comes to mind in particular. While I liked the movie a lot more than the play, the original idea even had Big Daddy discussing relationships between men as very, very subjective, yet it was evident he was not gay.
Ah, the truly wise ones.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Same here. I would bet 100 bucks that between two candidates, the one in favor of abortion would get nailed a lot quicker than one in favor of gay marriage.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:14 PM
I thought Huckabee seemed ill-prepared to debate his traditional marriage views. He had a general grasp of the purpose of marriage but seemed to overlook the wants and needs of children. It might fill a book the things he did not mention.
But to me gender is an essential attribute as to who we are, what we become and what is expected of us. Further we don’t know enough about homosexuality to apply special rights and laws to a group of people that is so in flux. For some homosexuality is a phase. For others they are bi-sexual. It is not time to make those with same-gender attraction a protected group until we know more. But I am certain that they are not some alien species who cannot live by societal norms and be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. They do not need special rights and some new set of standards.
Lori on December 10, 2008 at 6:14 PM
trying to get madison to improve its thought process is like trying to get a rock to improve its thought process. you’re wasting your time with madisonwacko. that faux conservative.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 6:14 PM
I would like to point out that not all social influences are choices. Studies with mice have shown that homosexual behavior could be induced by putting them into very crowded cages segregated by sex. However they would always revert back to heterosexual behavior when put back into integrated uncrowded conditions. It is clear that homosexuality can be induced by changes in environmental and social influences. This could explain why higher percentages of homosexuals are found in crowed cities rather than rural towns. Sexual identity is developed at a very young age when environmental and social influences are not chosen. It is possible that homosexuality is caused by social and environmental influences and not genetic ones without them being conscious choices.
Dollayo on December 10, 2008 at 6:15 PM
that and their desire to silence christianity is what this is all about. they want to impose a gay sharia on this country, where dissenting opinions are a crime. and christianity is silenced.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Oh, now it’s a party. Let’s hear some of the classics: ugly, fat, stupid.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:16 PM
sensitive aren’t we? there is surgery for the first two, I would encourage you to explore those options, but I’m afraid nothing will help you with the last item.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Yeah, this is where you can use my degree against me. I wrote a paper on him. That’s why I read his book. Before that I was fairly knowledgeable of him and his work.
But I was completely shocked when I found out he was gay. There he was, talking about it in his book like it was common knowledge, and I didn’t have a clue.
I don’t buy for a minute that you enjoy the company of women who can’t stop talking about their latest boyfriend and about what he’s done that was sweet or when he said that thing that pissed her off for a week, or when he started to break up but didn’t, or how he’s really immature even though he’s older, or how he can’t commit even though she’s really perfect for him in every way…
I’m not a very good girl friend.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 6:19 PM
very well said, lady!
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 6:20 PM
I’d hope so, but if they ever find that homosexuals are born gay, it might be a toss up for some people.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Eh, I’m no more of a good dude in that I quickly tire of jackasses discussing past conquests, or describing what they would like to do with the last woman they saw in the hall, or relaying their tiff with some girl where they “told her what was what”, yet every time they get a call from her they leave the room and their voice softens a good deal.
People suck.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Reading your posts only worsens the third.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I’d raise a glass to that.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 6:27 PM
I do not want my future children taught gay sex in school.
I do not want them taught about sex in school at all. I can do that myself when the time is right. You can not teach them how to read or write or do math problems so why (and if the gay marriage becomes law this will happen) should they be taught gay sex?
lexa on December 10, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Do you really think it isn’t happening now?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Schools are gender neutral and if they talk about sex education in any form in elementary school they must inform you about it upfront so as to allow you to opt out. Big problems for the school legally if they don’t. But if Gay Marriage is enacted then they are not required by law to inform you about such conversation prior to it occurring. Which is the point to this really. The damage is done and you’re left to sweep up after the mess. Let alone some other adult who can’t even keep the kids from saying, “F*ck You!” to her without have the VP in the class teaching your kids about the finer points of adulthood and morality in a secular society. You really need to have a strong connection with your kids to keep their head on straight. It’s not like it can’t be done but why are so many so eager to make it that much more difficult to raise up kids and let them be kids. There’s plenty of time for them to grow up and be serious with serious responsibilities or be secular and irresponsible and screwing up your life before it’s already begun and you even have a clue as to who and what you are or want to be.
Sultry Beauty on December 10, 2008 at 6:49 PM
then don’t! why do you keep reading and responding hmmmm?? seems like you have a thang for me sonny!
you’re not conservative, you’re just a dumb little troll. get a life and go away moron.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Because it’s like punching one of those blow-up boxing buddies that kids have. Even though you’re full of hot air, no matter how well and hard you get nailed, you just bob back up and sit there, waiting for the next knockdown.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Tell that to the Catholic K-8 school I was sent to where, from grades 5-8, religion class was sex ed, and had a good deal of focus on the legitimacy of “alternative lifestyles”.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 7:02 PM
You could say the same thing about drug dealers. Go to any Grateful Dead show and tell me how ‘terrible’ those people are (like my parents used to). You could say the same thing about crooks, murderers, rapists, any other type of activity. . . heck I bet if you actually MET Hitler he’d have come across as a likable guy.
ThackerAgency on December 10, 2008 at 7:06 PM
<blockquoteMadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 7:00 PM
yeah you’re a legend in your own mind. you don’t need any help looking like a fool, you demonstrate your ignorance with every post!!
you have no clue how stupid you are. you’re on this blog 24/7 you have no life, and its easy to see why.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM
30-0
gay marriage is a LOSER. and those that support it are LOSERS. but they cannot abide the will of the people, oh no, like the good little nazis they are they continue to try to impose their will upon others via the judicial system.
The gay movement has lost the battle of ideas.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 7:14 PM
I can’t see that. But I am beginning to see more and more of a leftie drift in the local air.
snaggletoothie on December 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Wow. How can I possibly recover from such a crushing retort?
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM
yeah a lot of these self-proclaimed ‘conservatives’ sure quack like liberal ducks…and if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…its a liberal wacko!
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 7:17 PM
No, just please tell me what page you found it on…
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Why are we getting in a semantic argument over the word “marriage?” The anti-gay marriage side says that they are all for gay rights, just not for gay marriage. But if we give gays and straights the same governmental coupons (It’s not really about rights, we are talking tax breaks, social security/property sharing, visitation privileges), then why care if gays can get married? It would make sense from a practical sense. Marriage = Close union (Marriage is not always used in the context of union of one man, one woman). Traditional Marriage = One Man, One Woman union. Gay Marriage = Two of the same sex union.
I agree with the original poster. The Huckster couldn’t squeeze out a winning point on why gay marriage is wrong. Note to Republicans: Don’t vote for Huck. Vote for Romney or Jindal. But at the same time Stewart referred to marriage as a human right, and I don’t agree with that either. No where does our constitution say government has a right to provide coupons and tax discounts to couples who got married in front of a priest.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 10, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Well, to be fair to Stewart he said “human right” and not constitutional right.
Second, this is about state constitutions and not the US Constitution. The matter of marriage is contained in those legal documents not the US Constitution.
However, the US Constitution comes into play when we discuss the equal application of laws. The argument by the pro-gay marriage side is that if state governments give benefits to opposite sex married couples that under the US Constitution they must apply the laws equally and give those benefits to opposite sex married couples. That is, if the state legally recognizes one pair it must recognize all pairs.
The anti-gay marriage side argues that all of the benefits that opposite sex couples receive can be received through civil unions and that the institution of marriage must be reserved only for opposite sex unions.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 8:03 PM
I do not believe gays should have civil unions that are marriages by any other name. marriage is a unique and very special institution that was created for the procreation of the species. gay civil unions, marriage, whatever are not equivalent, and do not deserve the same privileges, not rights, of REAL marriage.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Sorry, I disagree. I don’t see anything harmful to marriage by offering civil unions to other people (gay or straight) who wish to have some sort of contractual arrangement in case one of the party dies or is injured, et cetera.
However, they aren’t, if I understand the laws in most states, the same. I believe one difference is that married couples filing a joint return get tax write-offs that civil union couples filing separately do not.
Additionally, the federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions while it does recognize marriage (that is, a couple with a civil union who move to another state that doesn’t have civil unions won’t get the benefits; a married couple moving to another state will).
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Bad argument. No offense. Procreation is not a prerequisite for getting married. We have many couples in America who get married, but decide never to have children. You also have married couples out there who cannot have children. Unless you’re going to argue that all married couples must sign an agreement that they will have children one day, your argument simply doesn’t hold water.
Marriage does not always mean “one man, one woman union.” The term is used in the context of a close union. As I pointed out before, when two or more businesses merge, they are called a marriage. If you mix two or more musical genres together, that is a marriage.
But my larger point is who cares? So what if gays can get married. What’s the worst that could happen?
Frank T.J Mackey on December 10, 2008 at 8:32 PM
you should read Kurtz’ research about gay marriage in the netherlands….he quotes dutch researchers…
link
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Or a man and a few women … or vice versa. If you doubt this, there are a few old Jewish books I suggest you read.
Are you talking about property rights? A major reason for marriage around the world and fairly recently in our culture has been to secure inheritance rights. If not, maybe you’re talking about companionship. Old people and infertile people get married all the time, not because they want to have kids but because they want to make a commitment to a life companion.
Go ahead and call me a liberal – on gay marriage I certainly am. Just don’t try to support your own point of view with fake contentions about the reasons for anyone’s marriage, now or in the past.
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 8:36 PM
actually its a very good argument. ever hear the old saying, a rose by any other name? if civil unions are the same as marriage, then marriage is meaningless and the gays have won. and the children have lost.
yeah who cares about the kids growing up without fathers, right? it doesn’t matter…sure. amazing. let me guess, you’re a ‘moderate’
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Considering gay sex was illegal in most states 40 years ago, public opinion has moved a lot to a point where gay marriage is receiving a near-majority from heterosexuals.
It seems unlikely that the vote in CA would be the same in 2 years or 10 years. Given the trend of the past 40 years it seems likely gay marriage would pass with a majority of the vote in CA within a decade.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 8:37 PM
and you have no problem with the end of religious freedom that gay marriage would entail…my how ‘tolerant’ of you :rolleyes:
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 Next »