Video: Perez vs Prager on gay marriage
posted at 11:32 am on April 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Greg Hengler gives us the Larry King matchup between Townhall’s Dennis Prager and Perez Hilton from last night. In boxing terms, this intellectual debate would be akin to Joe Louis vs Manny Pacquiao’s public-relations guy. It’s no contest. My friend Dennis talks about philosophy, history, and biology, while Perez mostly whines about his feelings. Perez’ corner should have thrown in the towel in the first minute.
And yet … does Dennis really score any points here?
Dennis brings up several analogies, but only one of them really has any relation to the issue, and that’s the e-Harmony case. Civil litigation imposed a requirement on e-Harmony to provide services to gays, even though the owners really only wanted to serve straights. No one imposed such solutions on gay dating services, and Dennis makes the good point that a free market serves all by promoting business that cater to market demand. Very few would argue that the government should put such dating services out of business or force them to serve a market against their will.
But that’s not the same thing as government recognition of gay marriage, nor are the Girl Scouts/Boy Scouts or social club analogies that Dennis uses. Those are also private associations, not government agencies, and the Scouts have a right to organize as they see fit, as long as they don’t break other laws in doing so. American culture looks more favorably on organizing along gender lines with children than they do with adults, as the single-gender social clubs that Dennis mentions have been disappearing for decades under the pressure of gender equality. None of these have any need for government recognition, which makes them irrelevant to the issue of whether governments should recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.
If I were Dennis, I would have used a sports analogy instead. Title IX guarantees equal access on gender, but doesn’t require that schools eliminate gender separation for their athletic departments. Gymnastics, golf, baseball/softball, basketball, hockey, and other sports get separate teams for men and women, but they get equal financing. That would at least somewhat parallel the policy of recognizing marriage for heterosexual unions only while providing for civil unions for gay relationships that protect their partnership rights. That’s actually an analogous government-treatment argument that Dennis misses in favor of an irrelevant free-market argument.
For the record, I don’t think government should be in the marriage business at all. We’d be better off having everyone use partnership agreements that will get treated better than marriage contracts ever do these days in court, and leave the question of marriage to religious institutions. No-fault divorce destroyed any argument that government should protect the sanctity of marriage, and unless I’ve missed a deep groundswell for eliminating that, government does more to damage marriage now than it helps.
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: 1 2 3 Next »
I actually support legislatively enacted gay marriage, but Perez Hilton is an open sewer.
TedInATL on April 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Let’s see: 1) Click video and watch Perez Hilton for 7½ minutes; or 2) Assume Perez Hilton is going to act like a jerk.
Easy choice here.
Snowed In on April 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM
You can call a dog a cat, but that doesn’t make it a cat.
RBMN on April 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Not one argument supporting gay marriage cannot be applied to polygamy and group marriages, which at least have religious and historical precedences. You cannot rationally support one without the other; they want no gender bias, but want a numerical bias??
michaelo on April 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM
+1
Also, this was a pitiful beatdown. Perez was a toddler getting into the ring with Muhammed Ali.
MadisonConservative on April 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Lefty trolls? This work for you? I’m waiting for your response.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Ed FTW!
Rae on April 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM
In a nutshell, yup.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Is ‘perez hilton’ or whoever that guy is…
Is he engaged? What is he freaking out about?
bridgetown on April 22, 2009 at 11:39 AM
As I’ve stated elsewhere, governments aren’t going to give up the revenue stream marriage produces, unless a “partnership agreement” provides that same revenue. And knowing government, I suppose it could.
Snowed In on April 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM
This administration is bringing out the freaky celebrities. Where are the usual suspects like George Clooney, Susan Sarandon, or Meryl Streep? They are noticeably absent from this circus.
sherry on April 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM
In what?
Snowed In on April 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Amen.
Repurblican on April 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM
I’m not that fond of Al Sharpton, but I leave it out of my opinions about race relations.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Perez who?
Up until 2 days ago, no one ever heard of this miserable, muppet-faced little fagg0t. Now he’s all over the news.
Let’s ignore him and let him fade back into obscurity.
UltimateBob on April 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
What about Civil Unions? Sorry Gays, the voters and President Obama have spoken.
marklmail on April 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
The QUESTION was inappropriate for the Miss America contest.
perroviejo on April 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM
America today, where political discussion is led by Perez Hilton and Meghan McCain
joey24007 on April 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Who gets to define the partnership agreements?
Bishop on April 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Wow – what an absurd “solution” by Ed. What is this special “partnership” arrangement if not marriage? Will it have the same status, for example, when filing federal income tax returns. If it really isn’t marriage, then what purpose does this beast serve? If it’s just to reduce taxes, why wouldn’t any group (no reason to limit it to two or to adults) get in on this deal to cut their tax bills? Then everyone in the country will. Then tax rates will have to go up to make up the lost revenue. Then …
If you’re in favor of same-sex pseudo-marriage, say so.
If you’re in favor of destroying marriage, say so.
If you don’t have the courage of your convictions,
talk about something else.
corona on April 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Perez needs to be waterboarded, just for fun. He has no real information in his head.
kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Thank you, Ed! I wholeheartedly concur.
Taking a neutral position on a controversial issue is not the same as endorsing one side or the other.
UltimateBob on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM
But for the record, I could swear you have written that you support gay marriage, Ed.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
BigD on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Government is not in the marriage business. They’re in the divorce, child protection, and benefits business. That’s what drags them into marriage.
RBMN on April 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Tee hee hee.
lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM
corona on April 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I agree, if Ed’s solution is implemented, it’s at the alter of lawyers and moral equivalency.
Marriage is as old as humanity itself, between a man and a woman. The real FACT is that gays are perfectly free and protected under current laws, and their only reason for whining is to destroy traditional marriage so they can recruit more gays.
kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Isn’t this just political correctness, though? Changing a word so as not to offend a certain group of people even though the meaning is the same?
Governments do have an interest in people being married – marriage is good for you. Married people are stable, make more money, live longer lives, are less likely to commit crimes, etc. etc. etc.
So you want to replace “marriage” with “partnership agreements?” Indulge me and consider a hypothetical: What if, say, France wanted to replace ‘marriage’ with ‘partnership agreements?’ What would the reaction be then?
Marriage is a fundamental aspect of our society. We place a great deal of value on the family, as we should – it’s hard to imagine the American Dream without the spouse and the kids. What homosexuals want is to be able to partake in that dream.
If marriage became a solely religious enterprise, it would discourage people from different faiths from marrying each other, and it would prevent people that may not belong to a church from marrying each other. “No, I”m not married, but I’m in a partnership agreement with so and so.” Why should a person have to say that? It, essentially, brings religion into every introduction. Further you’d be punishing heterosexuals when the real purpose of saying, “Government should get out of the marriage business” is to maintain a logically coherent position while still not allowing homosexuals to get married.
Proud Rino on April 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Brilliant. +1
warbaby on April 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I think you’re missing the obvious con to having prager be the one arguing this…
Anyway, check out another judge ragging on Miss Cali… compare and contrast…
http://aliciastage3.blogspot.com/2009/04/pretty-is-as-pretty-does.html
http://aliciastage3.blogspot.com/2009/04/happy-birthday-hef.html
I know she a journalist and she has to be professional but… haha… why should we care what she thinks?
Now that Christi Hefner is working at CAP it’s obvious that America’s current creed is… nsfw-ish
http://www.playboy.com/articles/hugh-hefner-philosophy-manifesto-01/index.html
Good luck with that though…
Nobodies going to be willing to die for the telephone company…
ninjapirate on April 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Nope. Even though he does utterly outclass that boob Hilton, there is no knockout because being against gay marriage is so difficult to defend as a conservative. In effect you need to argue for more government intervention and intrusion on our personal lives, i.e. DOMA, banning gay marriage.
I really dont get why social cons have such a bug up their arse about this one, it truly is frustrating and there are no good arguments on it. Use this energy on abortion please.
Dash on April 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM
http://civitatedei.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/dying-for-the-telephone-company/
ninjapirate on April 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM
UltimateBob on April 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
I WILL SIT HERE AND WAIT, JUST WAIT FOR ALL THOSE HOLIER THAN THOU TYPES THAT RAKED ME OVER THE COALS FOR JUSTLY CALLING MEGHAN MCCAIN A USELESS —- TO NOW CONDEMN BOB AND DEMAND THAT HE BE BANNED FROM THIS SITE FOR THE TERM HE USED. BUT THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I AGREE WITH HIM AND DON’T WANT HIM BANNED. PEREZ HILTON IS A ——, AND MEGHAN MCAIN IS CERTAINLY A USELESS —-!
Ghoul aid on April 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM
All gay people should go and talk to Goldie Hawn.
If you love someone, live your life. Such drama queens.
bridgetown on April 22, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Maybe we could not call anyone any names and just be respectful regardless of whether we agree or disagree. There’s a thought!
Proud Rino on April 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Dash on April 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Social cons should be arguing to get government out of the marriage business, as Ed suggests.
bridgetown on April 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Proud Rino on April 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Yay…an adult in the room! Thanks for being here.
bridgetown on April 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM
That’s fine, but religious denominations should be expressly exempt from gay discrimination litigation when they decline to perform ceremonies for gays. The analogy too often tossed out that we overturned interracial marriage years ago is inapt. And the price for the exemption I mention shouldn’t be forfeiture of tax-exempt status on the federal, state, or local level. The principled decision not to perform ceremonies for gay couples is not the moral equivalent of Bob Jones University basing admission decisions on race.
BuckeyeSam on April 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Ed,while you are not responsible for the ” lines in the sand ” on this issue, they have allready been drawn,choose a side.
Offhanded on April 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Perez Hilton is an embarrassment to this cause…he needs to shut up, stop hating on opinionated straight people, and get back to his real job–waxing poetic on celebutards.
RepubChica on April 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Proud Rino, I know, but there be Trolls about. They need to be called what they are!
kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Here here. I am with on that. The government should be out of the business marriage and only focus on the partnership of the union.
Let the religious institutions decide who can get married within their churches.
willt73 on April 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM
…and out of the divorce, child protection, and joint tax return business too? “Marriage” can’t be separated from all the other things that government is involved in.
RBMN on April 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM
it’s hard to respect so called “republicans” that are doing their best to destroy the party and what conservatives stand for. i’m not trying to justify anything, just telling the truth. it-is-very-hard.
Ghoul aid on April 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM
I’m sorry, civility in political discussions disappeared around 1998.
Snowed In on April 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Certainly government should stay out of enforcing religious institutions, but that does not mean the public doesn’t have an interest in providing benefits to couples who raise their own children. Perhaps the answer is to make it explicit: specifically identify the benefits and rules to be given to the cohabitating parents of underage children.
We have no interest in extending those benefits to couples that do not use them in the intended way, nor do we have an interest in providing legitimacy to that kind of behavior.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM
It’s hard to imagine, but our country has come to this. People who were most likely born with “that gene” are widely persecuted by society with the full compliance of the American government. Many pray daily to “become normal”, but very few ever change. Strangers cruelly mock their mannerisms, and even family members find excuse to avoid them. Often unable to find work or insurance to cover them in case of sickness, these people often seek others with similar predilections. Knowing their lifestyle is risky and dangerous, and lives often miserable and short, these souls just want the warmth and companionship of those who know what they are going through. But they have little voice on their own. From sea to sea, governments are shutting down places these people gather, and often enact legislation to even drive them from their homes, all the while shunning them and subjecting them to confiscatory taxation.
Friggin’ smokers.
Rhinoboy on April 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Do we have “Gay Scouts”? Then there could be “Twink Scouts”, “We Blows” and so forth, all the way up to “Spread-Eagles”
Kasper Hauser on April 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Anyone else notice when they post a story regarding gay marriage, the ads show this really buff, shirtless dude with ripped abs advertising something called Red Energy Patch? I dunno, maybe it’s just me. ^^;
Doc Savage on April 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Nice.
Snowed In on April 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM
send fag boy home…
NRA Lifer on April 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM
You have a hard time not calling people names? It’s difficult to be respectful of other people’s opinions? That doesn’t seem very difficult to me.
Proud Rino on April 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM
EXACTLY! An awful lot of people here and elsewhere are making the primary mistake of applying “logic” to the demands of people like this creature Hilton. It’s never been about logic, it’s always been about attack and changing the subject (Oh look! A puppy!) It should be obvious that “marriage” is not the real issue here, but is merely a step in a much longer agenda.
Don’t make the mistake of fighting the argument that Lefties want you to. This is just another example of “framing the debate,” which Conservatives have been falling for for the last 40 years.
For a better explanation, see this. This woman is really something.
warbaby on April 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM
First you have to convince a majority of Americans that publicly and officially acknowledging that two same-sex adults are anal and oral sex partners is somehow worthy of being called “marriage.” That hasn’t happened yet.
RBMN on April 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Even to the sympathetic ear, the words and actions of Perez and the rest of the extremist pro gay marriage groups turn people away from their cause. There are some who can quietly work within the system to change things, and others who yelp and scream about their percieved victimhood. You say you want the government out of your bedroom. I agree. Honestly I do not want to know what happens in your bedroom Perez and yet you feel the need to throw it in everyones face when you introduce yourself as gay. A gay activist is someone who does something to affect a positive change for their cause, Perez is no gay activist.
canditaylor68 on April 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (passed bi-partsianly, signed into law by Clinton) needs to be amended or repealed. Until civil unions/domestic parterships/whatever all allowed equal status under law, the moral high ground will be held by people that don’t deserve it.
BohicaTwentyTwo on April 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM
You have to be married to have a kid? Who knew!
strictnein on April 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Hilton set the gay movement back ten years.
drjohn on April 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM
It’s admittedly easy for a lot of people to get caught up in it when they feel personally affronted. The only place worse, in that respect, is any sports-related message board, where I feel my IQ dropping after a few minutes reading.
Snowed In on April 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM
RBMN on April 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Out of divorce, yes.
Concerning the children…make sure they are protected and cared for, of course.
Yes, out of joint tax return…that would be the first thing to go, wouldn’t it? When I say out of the business, I mean out of it.
Except where children’s welfare is concerned.
bridgetown on April 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM
It’s only the aggressive, militant, in-your-face smokers that most of us have a real problem with.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM
This is the winning arguement. If you want to protect your religion KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT!!!! This applies to the Muslims who want foot baths in airports, and the Christians who want organized prayer in school.The best way to protect your right to worship, is to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT!!!!
I’m glad you are coming around Ed.
tottoritodd on April 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Its not that it can’t, it just that it will take a major restructuring to accomplish. Long term, it is probably worth the effort, just to fend off the attempts to use government as a form of self validation.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM
You know, the tax return issue would go away if we had a flat tax with no deductions.
Just saying…
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Huh? Apparently you need to listen to what Dennis said. Again.
Andy in Agoura Hills on April 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM
yeah, i do have a hard time not calling people names when i feel those names perfectly describe them. you have just met a “homosexual” that calls it like he sees it, and has zero time to sit around and play nice with others. exactly why should i give any amount of respect to someone like meghan mccain who wants to change what the republican party stands for and makes it her business to call conservatives dinosaurs who are out of touch with reality??? who the hell is she to do this? she can vomit all this crap out of her mouth because her daddy is famous and in politics??? the same daddy that sat on his ass the entire campaign and flat out refused to stand up to the fraud that sits in the white house today? sorry, i have less than zero respect for the two of them. and perez hilton is beyond sewer scum.
Ghoul aid on April 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM
What a shame the ACLU did not step in on her behalf since she was CLEARLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR HER BELIEFS! Oh thats right, ACLU stands for ASSHOLE Civil Liberties Union….
SDarchitect on April 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM
If 51% of Americans were in favor of government-sanctioned gay marriage, and the relevant bills made it through Congress and into law, I wouldn’t like it, but I’d accept it enough to follow the law. I’m just not going to pretend I think it’s a good thing.
RBMN on April 22, 2009 at 12:14 PM
admittedly I didn’t read all of the responses and I couldn’t stand to watch the video.
This is a ridiculous argument anyway. It should be a STATE decision!
If it isn’t national security or interstate commerce, it shouldn’t be a federal government problem. The fed needs to get out of my bedroom whether I am with my wife or with my husband, it is none of their business!
fumpbump on April 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM
I voted for gay marriage in FL when it came up last election as a con amend. But now, thanks to the gay mafia and their rude authoritarian streak, I won’t vote for it next time.
The fact is that thousands of years of moral tradition and legal precedent can’t be swept away by claiming everyone who’s the least bit traditional is a horrible bigot. Though I don’t see a glaring social harm from the change, I do see a huge harm from the tactics of the people who should be using gentle persuasion and democratic process.
Yes, I said “gay mafia”. When they took violently to the streets in CA it reached that point.
Beagle on April 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Perez is one nasty little c**ksucker. For most folks that would be an insult. In his case it’s a matter of fact. He not only agrees, he lives it every day. How does one insult someone who aspires to be despicable?
Guardian on April 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Now we get to the nub of the argument. If anyone in any combination is allowed to “marry,” then the only protection that traditionalists have is to restructure the whole historic legal understanding of the institution.
Take a deep breath and mull that over. Do you seriously believe that could ever be accomplished? Don’t you see that any attempt to do that, certainly in light of the instant claims that the newly “married” partnerships were having their “rights” trampled on, would be only an invitation to more and more litigation and “victimhood?” When we play by the Left’s rules we’ve already lost.
Again, I urge everybody to read this.
warbaby on April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM
That was roughly my first thought on reading the title. Dennis is one of the smartest guys…ever. And “Perez” is the opposite.
baldilocks on April 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Dennis Prager is brilliant as always.
Perez looks as confused as ever.
jencab on April 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Uh, Ed, government is not in the marriage “business”. Its in the “what’s best for society business”. Supposedly. Same-sex marriage is not good for society. And as Dennis said, if you listened, where would secular people go to get married? Over two thousand years, hundreds of prophets and laws, and billions of people over the centuries have defined marriage as one man and one woman. Today, a small minority in the 21st century are suddenly enlightened as to what marriage should be and people are being bullied by these limp-wristed pole smokers into throwing what is best for society away. Why?
Andy in Agoura Hills on April 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM
OT Question: were Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt separated at birth? :)
baldilocks on April 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I like the fact that a debate broke out.
LOL the whole debate goes over his head.
Dennis should have used California to refute the “we don’t have the same rights” arguement. California’s civil union law gave identical rights to gays, but that still was not good enough.
And Loving v. Virginia did not change the definition of marriage. A black and white couple met the definition of marriage and to deny was a violation of the law. But the definition of marriage never changed it was only between a man or a woman. If Loving V. Virginia had done what gays think it did then gay marriage would have been the law of the land since that decision and states could not ban gay marriage if they wanted to, I wish Dennis had explained that better.
Theworldisnotenough on April 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I have always supported government getting out of the marriage business.
As to the tax benefits of marriage I don’t believe there should be any. The tax benefit should follow the caretaker/dependent. In a domestic partnership where both persons earn an income and there are no dependents there is absolutely no reason for them to get any sort of domestic partnership tax break. Let’s say Dana and Pat form a union, they both work and pay taxes. Then Pat’s mother breaks her hip and has to move in with them. Dana (the lower income earner) decides to stay home and nurse Pat’s mother. Dana is then a caregiver and Pat’s mother a dependent; Dana pays no taxes and Pat has two dependent tax credits. Seems simple enough and works for families with children too.
darcee on April 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Perez=reprobate
daesleeper on April 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM
*Takes a deep breath*
OK. I’ve mulled it over. I think I can figure out how to accomplish it.
The historic legal understanding is that it’s one man one woman, not related or married to anyone else at the time and of legal age’ (taking a very narrow view of ‘historic legal understanding, but whatever). Change it to “two people, not related or married to anyone else at the time and of legal age.”
Pretty difficult. It took me like 3 seconds.
Proud Rino on April 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM
So Perez voted for Obama who was only for marriage between a man and a woman, but voted against a Miss USA candidate with the same position, and in favor of a Miss USA candidate (from NC) who wasn’t asked that question but would probably have answered the same as the California candidate. What a frigking tool.
eaglewingz08 on April 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Well it has been a state decision. But the critical question that will come up is what happens to a gay couple who marry in Vermont, a state that recognize legally same sex marriage, and then move to Virginia or a state that doesn’t legally recognize same sex marriage?
Is their marriage void?
But the federal government isn’t involved. This has all been about state constitutions and state rulings or state referenda.
SteveMG on April 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Prager is brilliant.
nickj116 on April 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Proud Rino on April 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Common sense in action. Imagine that.
bridgetown on April 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM
For the record, was President Reagan a RINO?
He did:
Grant Amnesty to illegal aliens
appoint wishy washy conservatives to the SC
Abandon Lebanon to Islamic radicals after the Marine barracks bombing
Give weapons to Iran
Does this mean that I dislike President Reagan? No way. He was, (and is) the greatest President of my lifetime (if not the last century)
But this calling names because of single issues, especially religious ones, only serves to divide us while we lose more and more freedoms. President Reagan saw the big picture. Then it was the USSR. Today it is a mixture of Islamic Jihad, and government spending (and therefore control) as the major threats.
I think the majority of American people agree on the two above reasons. Lets fight that fight together now, and we can deal with the rest if we win(which we will if cut out the bickering!)
tottoritodd on April 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Not going to happen Ed. America has about the same chance as becoming completely atheist. Even atheist would not get rid of marriage legislation. Culture and values will always be incorporated into law. It is the nature of man to do so when he establishes a government.
Theworldisnotenough on April 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Ha ha!
baldilocks on April 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Where could non religious go to get married? Gardens, hotel lobbies, Vegas, jumping out of airplanes, on a beach, just off the beach in scuba gear, historic sites….
Any justice of the peace, heck even a public notary could do the job. Look online there are “faiths” that “sell” ordination so that just about anyone is able to do a marriage ceremony. My brother-in-law does a decent business in the summer months presiding at marriages, no religion involved at all. The fact the piece of paper in you file cabinet would have the words “Domestic Contract” as opposed to “Marriage Certificate” won’t slow down weddings or marriages at all.
darcee on April 22, 2009 at 12:29 PM
How I wish we could discuss this without the degrading terminology.
capitalist piglet on April 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Six states recognize gay marriages. Letting the states handle it allows us to analyze the possible negative fallout on a smaller scale.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Never noticed that before. But I have noticed men and women notice different things. You know, like maybe we might be different?
Loxodonta on April 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM
This.
ZJPolitical on April 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Actually that happened in 1995 when Billy Jeff Clinton blamed Rush for the OKC bombing….
—-
Anywho, why are there exemptions permitted for marriage [def: the union of 1 man and 1 woman or the union of 1 woman and 1 man]? I mean it’s marriage unless this group decides it is this or it’s marriage unless this other group it’s that. Isn’t that discrimination against those who know what the definition of marriage is?
Or is it just, “it depends on what your definition of
ismarriage is?”Branch Rickey on April 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Because more government is just want we need.
/s
Branch Rickey on April 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM
+1
The more burning question is what Miss America’s opinion is on abortion,student vouchers,welfare reform & how to distribute TARP II funds.
portlandon on April 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Cute, son. Way to substitute snarkiness for addressing my point.
Now if you really believe several hundred years of history and all its (unexamined) consequences can be reversed/ignored with the changing of a few words (and where would you change them? How many decades would it take just to ferret out every possible permutation of definition that exist in various civic codes, to cite only one example?), there’s a bridge I want to sell you.
The last word will undoubtedly be yours, and won’t that make you feel proud?
warbaby on April 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Well Miss California did mention last night on FOX that she was contemplating going into politics…
canditaylor68 on April 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM
As I said the arguments are absurd. “Not good for society” says who and based on what? Canada can be our canary in the coal mine, how about that as a compromise. When they collapse as a nation because gays got married we’ll ban it again ok? By the way, gays can get married right now in any state, it’s all a matter of government recognition.
Dash on April 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Dennis Prager walked into a trap, and he fell for it. Somehow or other this low life jerk, Hilton, has turned his boorish, immature, and cowardly behavior into a question of whether or not to have gay marriage?
The question is him and his behavior not gay marriage. Prager by his responses an ad hominem argument justified Hilton’s behavior.
Jdripper on April 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Although they were speaking the same words, I think at times they were using different definitions.
Oh, yeah… almost forgot,… one more thing… Is it me, or is Larry King’s face slowly sliding down his head? Man, that’s a weird looking guy.
Daddy-O on April 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »