Q-poll: NY voters back gay marriage bill 54-40

posted at 10:05 am on June 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Did the New York legislature exceed their mandate by approving gay marriage?  According to a new Quinnipiac poll of registered voters, the answer appears to be a resounding no.  Not only do voters overall approve of the vote, but it leads it in every region of the state:

New York State voters support 54 – 40 percent a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, with voters under 35 supporting the measure 70 – 26 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Voters 35 to 64 years old also support the measure, while voters over 65 oppose it 57 – 37 percent. Support remained consistent before and after passage of the bill.

Some people assumed that more-conservative voters in upstate New York would oppose the bill, where Republicans normally do better.  While gay marriage doesn’t win a majority as it does in New York City (60/36), it does win a near-majority at 49/42.  It also has majority support in every income level except for opposition among those who make $30K-50K, 45/51.  Both men and women support it by wide and almost identical majorities, 55/39 and 55/40 respectively.

The age demographics tell the main story.  Seniors oppose it 37/57, but every other age demographic supports it by wide majorities, going from 59/36 among 50-64YOs to 70/26 among 18-34YOs.  The definition of marriage demanded by social conservatives from government is too restrictive for the New York populace, and I suspect we will see that more libertarian trend eventually make its way through most other states as well.  That’s why I argue in my column for The Week today that social conservatives should have taken my advice from years ago and fought to get government out of the marriage-definition business altogether:

American marriage didn’t get devalued because New York’s legislature followed that of New Hampshire and Vermont in legalizing same-gender marriage. It got devalued when we began treating marriages as less important and less binding than business partnerships.

The lesson from this isn’t that we need to jettison no-fault divorce. The proper lesson is that government doesn’t handle marriage well in the first place, especially protecting its “sanctity.” What does government do well in addressing relationship issues? Enforcing contracts.

Instead of demanding that states define and enforce marriage in a narrow sense, conservatives should demand that government stay out of defining and performing marriages at all. Couples that want to form partnerships should create a legal relationship based on existing contract law that is neutral to issues of gender and sexual preference. When one partner wants to end a partnership, then the terms of the contract should be enforced by courts. That will not only get rid of government as a spiritual arbiter in marriage, a role for which it has repeatedly proven unsuitable, it would encourage couples wishing to marry to discuss and agree in great detail the terms of their relationship up front.  That kind of preparation — and the knowledge that a court will enforce a partnership agreement — will produce better and longer-lasting partnerships, in part by discouraging impulsive decisions to leap into marriage in the first place.

As I wrote last year, that would actually benefit the religious communities:

Then, if people want to get “married,” they can go to the institutions that actually care about marriage: churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and so on.  Marriage can be a private, faith-based recognition of a sacramental relationship that exists outside of the civil context entirely, and houses of faith can set their own requirements as to what it means and who can participate — just as they do now.  Not only does that protect the sanctity of actual marriage much more than a government, but it also means that government has no way to poke the camel’s nose of intervention into the religious tent, as it were, to force houses of faith to conduct marriages that violate their tenets in the name of fairness.  Divorcing marriage from the state and dissolving the partnership between government and religion benefits the latter more than the former.

In New York and other states, people want government to treat domestic partnerships in a gender-neutral manner.  Social conservatives should fight to get government out of the marriage-definition business in order to keep sacramental definitions where they belong — where they have always belonged.

Update: Two errors should be noted.  First, the headline was incorrect; the poll results showed support for the bill 54/40, not 52/40.  I’ve changed that.  Second, the subheadline at The Week (which I didn’t write) said that conservatives have demanded that “courts” define marriage, when conservatives have fought against court interventions.  The subhead should have read “government,” and they are making that correction now.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

They always trot out these polls but never seem to be willing to put it to a vote of the people? I wonder why?

Rocks on June 28, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Except they did put it to a vote of the people. That representatives of the people of the Stae of New York just voted on it, and they voted yes. How much more of a vote of the people would you like?

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM

That’s why words are important. This is mostly propaganda and media hype. all around The pro family message needs to be brought out clearly and taken away from the hatred and hype being spread by the gay activists against anyone who doesn’t agree with them. ***
mozalf on June 28, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I think social conservatives have cause & effect reversed in the case of gay marriage. A lot of social cons argue that gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage, which makes them look silly to younger people–i.e. gay marriage causes a decline in the institution of marriage.

In fact, I think the opposite is true. Marriage used to be the main building block of “family.” Man and woman got married, then had kids, then raised kids. If you got divorced or had a kid out of wedlock (literally, a “bast-rd child”), you suffered huge social approbium. In that world, gay marriage makes no sense because marriage was primarily about raising familes and not tax write-offs and making public declarations about how much people really, really love each other.

But now, thanks to the decline of religion and the 60s counterculture, everyone gets divorced, has kids and raises kids out of wedlock. Marriage is no longer the building block of the family in the eyes of many. Instead, it now IS more about tax write-offs and public declarations of love… And in that world, gay marriage is much easier to defend.

Bottom line: social cons should focus more on defining marriage around raising children and fighting the serious social problems that the 60s have wrought. Gay marriage should be treated as a peripheral issue and not a “main focus.”

Outlander on June 28, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Except they did put it to a vote of the people. That representatives of the people of the Stae of New York just voted on it, and they voted yes. How much more of a vote of the people would you like?

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Nice dodge, pal. Two of the suddenly “enlightened” Republican yes votes explicitly campaigned against gay marriage. I frankly don’t want to know what kind of horse-trading went on to secure that monstrosity.

Don’t even try to tell me that there was a shred of honest representation in this. This was legislative hackery, just like every other initiative that voters at large reject.

KingGold on June 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM

That’s why words are important. This is mostly propaganda and media hype. all around The pro family message needs to be brought out clearly and taken away from the hatred and hype being spread by the gay activists against anyone who doesn’t agree with them. The liberals have always been good at making up facts if the truth doesn’t suit them and their causes.

mozalf on June 28, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I got kids to raise. It ain’t easy and the votes on gay marriage over the years haven’t perceptibly affected the difficulty of the challenge.

Talk to me about schools, crime, divorce, the economy or a dozen other topics and I’ll recognize how it impacts my family.

dedalus on June 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Not for changing the constitution, no. But it does indeed allow questions to be placed on the ballot for other items.

KingGold on June 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM

I don’t think there is any provision for statewide binding questions in New York. I could be mistaken about that, but IIRC, the only thing New Yorkers get to vote on statewide are measures put on the ballot by the legislature itself.

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Yes, Outlander
You’ve heard that “A lot of social cons argue that gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage, which makes them look silly to younger people–i.e. gay marriage causes a decline in the institution of marriage.”" from fake conservatives like Allapundit and Ed Morrisey who purposely promote the lesser agrument for the benefit of liberals

We have Foxes in the Hen house. They promote weakly done polls , pretending to object but clearly trying to convince their readers the liberal policy is best

LeeSeneca on June 28, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Don’t even try to tell me that there was a shred of honest representation in this. This was legislative hackery, just like every other initiative that voters at large reject.

KingGold on June 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM

It’s as honest as you are likely to find come out of Albany. You want to play stickball in Canarsie, you better learn Brooklyn rules.

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 11:57 AM

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Nothing like some regional flavor to liven up the debate :-)

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:00 PM

I’m sorry, folks. Gays aren’t going away any time soon, and yes, they’re going to eventually be given the same civil rights as you are. I know that pains some of you oh so very much, but it’s true.

Vyce on June 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Not necessarily true. Once the reason for homosexuality is discovered, there are no sane parents that would choose it for their child. If there were a drug that a parent could give to their child to cure them of homosexuality, there would be no homosexuals.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM

It’s a race. If scientists can cure stupid first then Vyce will be right.

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Not necessarily true. Once the reason for homosexuality is discovered, there are no sane parents that would choose it for their child. If there were a drug that a parent could give to their child to cure them of homosexuality, there would be no homosexuals.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Bingo! This whole, “It’s not choice!” point that gays promote is a double edged sword. If that is true then homosexuality will someday be eliminated through medicine. It will probably start with abortions when this “affliction” can be diagnosed prenatally.

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:13 PM

In New York and other states, people want government to treat domestic partnerships in a gender-neutral manner. Social conservatives should fight to get government out of the marriage-definition business in order to keep sacramental definitions where they belong — where they have always belonged

Excellent… suggest the party buck the will of the people through religious dogma. I mean, if “social cons” prioritize the same sex marriage issue, it will clearly bring more votes to Republicans, maybe then we can chip away at Roe v Wade for success in 2012…

This party needs an enema.

Odie1941 on June 28, 2011 at 12:14 PM

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM

How exactly is it stupid to wish your child grows up to marry someone of the opposite sex and give you grandchildren?

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I’m sorry, folks. Gays aren’t going away any time soon, and yes, they’re going to eventually be given the same civil rights as you are. I know that pains some of you oh so very much, but it’s true.

Vyce on June 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Not necessarily true. Once the reason for homosexuality is discovered, there are no sane parents that would choose it for their child. If there were a drug that a parent could give to their child to cure them of homosexuality, there would be no homosexuals.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Too bad parents cant determine IQ.
I would never had to reply.

Odie1941 on June 28, 2011 at 12:16 PM

How much more of a vote of the people would you like?

JohnGalt23 ernesto on June 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM

A statewide referendum, as held in 31 other states.

That would do fine.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:15 PM

It is stupid to wish for anything but that one’s child be happy, whatever his preferences.

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Civil Rights Unions…

Seven Percent Solution on June 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM

It is stupid to wish for anything but that one’s child be happy, whatever his preferences.

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

BS. All parents have an inherent desire to see their genes reproduced. You cannot remove that. Many parents accept the hand they have been dealt and love their children regardless. But when given a choice at a critical moment to satisfy that inherent desire they will choose heterosexuality for their child.

That is not stupid, that is human nature. We see it at work even today with babies diagnosed with Downs prenatally. The vast majority of these children, unfortunately, are killed in the womb.

Should there be an abortion exception for those diagnosed as homosexual prenatally? If so, why?

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Bingo! This whole, “It’s not choice!” point that gays promote is a double edged sword. If that is true then homosexuality will someday be eliminated through medicine. It will probably start with abortions when this “affliction” can be diagnosed prenatally.

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Well then, if that’s true, then I guess there will be homosexuals, because the pro-life families arent about to abort a baby because it’s gay.

Right?

Jeddite on June 28, 2011 at 12:26 PM

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:25 PM

I said what I meant. And I have no idea what an “abortion exception” is.

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Jeddite on June 28, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I would hope not. But take a gander at Downs Syndrome and how over 90% of Downs babies never reach birth today.

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:28 PM

You do understand that the New York “same sex marriage” law codified and legalized religious discrimination against gays, right?

profitsbeard on June 28, 2011 at 11:31 AM

There was an inseverability clause attached so that the religious exemptions cannot be separated from the legislation, but already its legality is being questioned and arguments are being made that it is not constitutional. (See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/25/988684/-Is-The-Inseverability-clause-in-the-Marriage-Equality-Law-legal?detail=hide)

When courts start ignoring the clause or ruling it unconstitutional, it will be interesting to see how many HA posters who are now saying “happy now, you’re protected so shut your yap” will then be saying, “well, serves you right for trying to get the law to protect your biggoty antediluvian beliefs!”.

Threshing Flora on June 28, 2011 at 12:28 PM

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Not being allowed to get an abortion if your child is diagnosed as having the gay gene.

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Let me catch you up on the current state of our laws. Women in this country have reproductive choice with certain caveats. Those caveats (ability to consent, gestation time, etc) do not to my knowledge include down’s syndrome.

I don’t think that sexuality, if it some day be determinant from a genome (assuming it ever can be), should have any bearing on the question.

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:35 PM

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Your point being? This does not stop the fact that over 9 in 10 Downs children are aborted. And trust me, parents who choose to abort based on whether a child has Downs or not will most likely abort if their child is diagnosed gay.

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:38 PM

A statewide referendum, as held in 31 other states.

That would do fine.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Then you should talk to the NY legislature about making provisions for such a thing.

Because right now, the State of New York doesn’t provide for statewide binding referenda.

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Because right now, the State of New York doesn’t provide for statewide binding referenda.

JohnGalt23 ernesto on June 28, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Massachusetts does, didn’t matter though. The will of the people will be ignored, when it doesn’t track with the progressive agenda.

Time for the red states to start looking for the exit.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Massachusetts does, didn’t matter though. The will of the people will be ignored, when it doesn’t track with the progressive agenda.

Time for the red states to start looking for the exit.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Sorry. I thought we were discussing New York, not Mass. I didn’t realize this was just another opportunity for you to whine.

Do you ever stop whining?

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Your point being?

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I wasn’t making a point. I was explaining that I have no idea what an “abortion exception” (your term) is.

MJBrutus on June 28, 2011 at 12:56 PM

So … what’s next?

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Fernando will marry his parakeet and Lucy will marry her German Shepard. It’s coming.

faol on June 28, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Do you ever stop whining?

JohnGalt23 ernesto on June 28, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Want to make a bet on it?

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Social conservatives should fight to get government out of the marriage-definition business in order to keep sacramental definitions where they belong — where they have always belonged.

The problem with that is that you’re also getting rid of divorce. That leaves whichever party is in a better financial situation with carte blanche to abuse the relationship. No more custody rights or possibility of alimony for housewives, for example.

RightOFLeft on June 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Want to make a bet on it?

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Bet on you stopping whining? Wouldn’t even make it onto the board.

But we’ll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Exactly what process would you like to see followed to give the voters of New York more of a say on gay marriage than they already have had, via a vote in their Assembly/Senate?

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 1:01 PM

But we’ll give you a chance to redeem yourself.

We? You mean both your accounts, JohnGalt23 the hard core libertarian account, and ernesto, the left wing shill account? Those we?

Exactly what process would you like to see followed to give the voters of New York more of a say on gay marriage than they already have had, via a vote in their Assembly/Senate?

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 1:01 PM

This.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Now when Barack decides to come out in favor of gay marriage he’ll be able to dump Michele and marry Barney Frank in either Mass. or New York just in time for the election. Isn’t choice wonderful!

Annar on June 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Isn’t choice wonderful!

Annar on June 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Na, his heart belongs to Reggie Love.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

When it passes the Assembly and is signed by the Governor… let me know. Until then, the people have had as much voice as New York State law allows.

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Now when Barack decides to come out in favor of gay marriage

It won’t happen unless the 12 election starts slipping away from him in lib states.

He doesn’t favor it at all or he would have said so already. Remember the church he attended for years. They are extremely anti-gay.

Moesart on June 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Time for the red states to start looking for the exit.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Don’t let the door hit your particularly large behind on the way out.

ernesto on June 28, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Bingo! This whole, “It’s not choice!” point that gays promote is a double edged sword. If that is true then homosexuality will someday be eliminated through medicine. It will probably start with abortions when this “affliction” can be diagnosed prenatally.

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Interesting thought; if and when parents will be able to tell that their child will be ‘born homosexual’, will the lefties be so quick to grant abortion on a whim in that case?

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Not much of a founding father fan, are you? Direct democracy isn’t exactly given a glowing review in the Federalist Papers…

ernesto on June 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Will modern medicine mean ‘the end of homosexuality as we know it’? If a drug is available to cure homosexuality before or after birth, will the lefties allow that drug to come to market?

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM

ernesto JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM

If the founding fathers saw what the progressives have done to their nation, they’d burn the whole thing down and rebuild from scratch.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 1:33 PM

With respect, Ed, redefining marriage is not a “libertarian” trend. It’s an interventionist trend.

If people were left alone by schools, the entertainment industry, politics, and the government, they would default to the historically universal human understanding of marriage. Whether monogamous or polygamous, it has always and everywhere been defined as a male-female union. No society or civilization has ever, before the last 30 years, redefined marriage to include same-sex unions.

It takes an enormous amount of social intervention to change a definition this basic in people’s minds. Using government to affirm this level of intervention is the opposite of libertarian.

J.E. Dyer on June 28, 2011 at 1:41 PM

If the founding fathers saw what the progressives have done to their nation, they’d burn the whole thing down and rebuild from scratch.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 1:33 PM

You’ve moved from “whine” to “uber-whine”.

Congratulations.

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Polls can be manipulated to match a desired outcome, from people who want that particular outcome. To try and make people say, “Hey, the people of New York say in this “poll” that same-sex marriage is ok with them, so no need to put it to a vote from the people, right?!”
The people of New York should demand that this be put on the ballot.

How come in every state where this was put up for a vote, the majority of voters REJECTED homosexual “marriage”??! Yet the media would like you to think that voters “overwhelmingly” support it.
Well, I guess it matters how you phrase the question in these polls, and who you ask. You can’t ask every single voter now, can you.

Even in California, the homosexual capital of the U.S., homosexual marriage was struck down. Remember Prop. 8, which was supported by the majority of Californians, to the bewilderment of the homosexual community who believed, and probably manufactured, the belief that same-sex “marriage” was overwhelmingly accepted by the people.

And then there is the trickery, where (some)people can be tricked into voting a certain way. Some day homosexuals may get the actual vote from the people to go their way, and not just going around the people by usurping the judicial establishment to that end as they have been in every case. But if they do, it would be because they discovered a new trick; some new method to manipulate the masses to voting that way. You wonder how these people can sleep at night, and would they really be proud that they coerced, and lied, and maneuvered enough voters so they could “get their way”?. But then, they have been brought up to believe that the ends justify the means. These people, supposedly so open-minded and freedom-loving, using such close-minded and freedom-zapping methods just to try and make others, and themselves, believe that the self-destructive lifestyle that they are living is all natural, and normal, and pro-family.
If it were natural, they wouldn’t need tricks and activist judges to force it down regular folks throats now would they?!

Right here in Wisconsin, when homosexual marriage was up for a vote, the activists were out in force, trying to trick the public into voting their way. The group FairWisconsin, a group that is anything BUT fair, would start their telephone messages urging people to “Protect Marriage”, then end by telling them that a “No” vote on the amendment will protect it.
The amendment was to define marriage as between one man and one woman, so no wonder they wanted people to vote no. They just weren’t honest about it. They did the same thing to people in nursing homes. My brother, who for his church would go visit the elderly in nursing homes, was surprised to learn from some of the residents that these activists actually came in and told THEM that a No vote would protect marriage. Now how evil are you willing to go to get your way, homosexual activists?! These people have no shame, no regret, no conscience.
Even with all these types of tricks, the amendment passed by more than 60%. And I think it would’ve been even higher without the deceptive tactics of these activists. Thankfully, enough people were informed about the tricks, which is why you have to remain ever vigilant, as these people really have no conscience, no morals, and no future. Which is what they want the whole world to have as well.

Sterling Holobyte on June 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Congratulations.

JohnGalt23 ernesto on June 28, 2011 at 1:41 PM

When the red states leave, and stick you with the bill, we’ll see who’ll be whining then.

I know I’ll be laughing.

Rebar on June 28, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Nice dodge, pal. Two of the suddenly “enlightened” Republican yes votes explicitly campaigned against gay marriage. I frankly don’t want to know what kind of horse-trading went on to secure that monstrosity.

Don’t even try to tell me that there was a shred of honest representation in this. This was legislative hackery, just like every other initiative that voters at large reject.

KingGold on June 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I doubt that it was just political horse trading that got gay marriage passed. My suspicion is that the GOP Senators who voted for gay marriage were subject to intense lobbying by close family members or close friends. At some point the details will come out. A problem for the opponents of gay marriage is that anybody may have a gay child or sibling. People with normal emotions aren’t going to deny their friend or relative marriage for an irrational prejudice.

thuja on June 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Fernando will marry his parakeet and Lucy will marry her German Shepard. It’s coming.

faol on June 28, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Before we get there Polygamy will be brought back officially for the Muslims and when that happens the LDS god will drop a revelation re-sanctifying the concept for the Mormons. Polygamy is already tolerated in Europe where Muslims go through one state marriage and fill their quota of four with under the table religious unions. In France some Muslims were able to bring in their wives if they were already married before immigrating. Will it happen in the U.S.? Well, wasn’t gay marriage unthinkable a few years ago?

Annar on June 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Ed, you are hopelessly naive, muddled in your ethics and have not thought through the history, the definition of marriage, it benefit to society and child rearing and child development. This is my conclusion to my own post:

What we are looking at today is not an inclusion into this institution of those who have been “denied” marriage because of their homosexual activity, but a redefinition of a relationship that is the cornerstone of society, and which societies and countries have protected through legal means because of the understanding and recognition of the importance to society of the mutual and complementary love, enjoyment and support uniquely provided by each sex to the other, and because of the understanding and recognition of the importance of the future of a society through the protection and rearing of children in a family setting in which they learn love, trust, discipline and identity through the unique and different abilities and perspectives of the two sexes.

Tattered as many families and marriages are across this country, our goal as individuals and as a nation should be to support them and assist the strengthening and perpetuity of this institution rather than its destruction. Conservative Christians and Jews work as individuals and as groups to help marriages and children. The attempt by those antagonistic to marriage to redefine the institution must, by the very logic of their purpose, also include in the cross hairs, not only the destruction of the definition of the legally recognized marriage relationship, but the destruction of those who defend the marriage relationship.

INC on June 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM

The inclusion of religious protection that was a sop. It is naive to think anything else.

Next on the list is the conflict over religious liberty.

That’s where this has been headed for years. In May of 2006 Maggie Gallagher wrote the column:

Banned in Boston
The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.

I highly recommend reading it.

…last December [2005], the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion. Picarello summarizes: “All the scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming. They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they all see a conflict coming.”

…Reading through these and the other scholars’ papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead–perhaps because they tended to find it “inconceivable,” as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that “a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage.”

…By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that’s pretty close to the world in which they live now.

Gallagher quoted Chai Feldblum saying (yes, that Chai Feldblum who was first an Obama recess appointment to the EEOC and has now been confirmed by the Senate. She is also pro-abortion, and even before her tenure the EEOC was limiting religious freedom of a Catholic college.):

And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she [Feldblum] admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

INC on June 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Another thing that has not been discussed is the manner in which this bill was passed. From The Corner, last Friday:

One of the facts about tonight’s debate over same-sex marriage that will be neglected in the adulatory coverage is the really extraordinary process that brought this innovation to the Empire State. New York law, for instance, requires bills to be published 72 hours before a vote. The public, however, did not see the full language of the bill voted on tonight for more than a few hours (and only if they were exceedingly diligent in looking for it). Normal rules of debate were waived, the session was extended, etc. These kinds of exceptions are allowed for, but only in instances of emergency. Governor Cuomo had no qualms about claiming, and many legislators were complicit in accepting, the argument that redefining marriage in New York was so pressing a priority that the public’s ability to weigh the proposals (not to mention the senators’ ability to do so) should have been short-circuited.

When Sen. Ruben Diaz tried to ask the Republican senator who had announced the new exemption language questions about that language, he refused even to yield for a question….

Just like ObamaCare—go against the law and ram legislature through without debate.

INC on June 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM

This reference to the “it-doesn’t-hurt-my-marriage” canard applies to Ed’s pseudo-argument as well:

Pro-SSM people (like Patterico) are fond of making the argument that somebody else’s SSM doesn’t affect his own marriage; his marriage is still just as strong! Just as strong, perhaps; but not just as special as it used to be, not when any random association between two or more people of any gender can also be called a “marriage.”

It’s like counterfeiting money: If I print my own twenty-dollar bills, that doesn’t physically change the real bills you have in your wallet at this moment; they don’t magically change into newspaper, the ink doesn’t turn a different color, Andy Jackson doesn’t morph into George Soros. In that sense, my counterfeits don’t directly affect your sawbucks… but my counterfeits indirectly devalue your real bills, creating uncertainty about which currency is real and which is fake, how much is out there, which is truly legal tender and which an ersatz copy that, if discovered, is worthless.

My counterfeit currency spreads fear, uncertainty, doubt. Private counterfeiting is as bad as rampant money-creation via the Federal Reserve; worse in the sense that at least the Fed must report on its activities from time to time.

Getting government out of the marriage definition business is akin to getting the government out of the currency definition business.

OhioCoastie on June 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

People with normal emotions aren’t going to deny their friend or relative marriage for an irrational prejudice.

thuja on June 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I didn’t get a response to my earlier question, which was, does being for the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage necessarily preclude one from being pro-gay?

I bring this up again in response to the idea that (presumably straight) “people with normal emotions aren’t going to deny” gays marriage. But I think that’s why gay marriage is doing so well in the polls; people can essentially do nothing and feel good that they “gave” marriage to people who desperately wanted it.

But again, I rarely see the question argued from the other perspective, e.g., why would gays “with normal emotions” seek to deny straights a sacrament which has stood to mean one thing throughout human history?

Hence, my original question: has it come to the point where either I “give” you marriage (something far beyond my power to do) or be branded as “anti-gay” and motivated by “irrational prejudice”?

I certainly do not look forward to the “re-education process” that is going to have to take place, particularly in the public schools, and that will certainly play out in court as speech codes require acknowledgement of this new definition of marriage.

saint kansas on June 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

New Yorks state government has gone to hell!

MCGIRV on June 28, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Not necessarily true. Once the reason for homosexuality is discovered, there are no sane parents that would choose it for their child. If there were a drug that a parent could give to their child to cure them of homosexuality, there would be no homosexuals.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM

I can just see the enraged near violent, to violent reaction you’d get saying this to a group of gays.

Homosexuality is either a choice, or it is a genetic defect that should have a cure researched.

Sadly though, since we live in a Democratic Republic, New Yorkers DID vote yes for gay marriage. Whether their Representatives were bought or not would have to be investigated and would be very difficult to prove.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Here’s a hint as to how this legislation passed. Call it the fear factor:

A Democrat from Brooklyn, known for his gruff style and shifting alliances, Senator Kruger voted against same-sex marriage two years ago, was seen as a pariah in his party and was accused in March of taking $1 million in bribes in return for political favors.

Some gay activists, assuming he was a lost cause, had taken to picketing outside of his house and screaming that he was gay — an approach that seemed only to harden his opposition to their agenda. (Mr. Kruger has said he is not gay.) But unbeknown to all but a few people, Mr. Kruger desperately wanted to change his vote. The issue, it turned out, was tearing apart his household.

Awww, I bet. People are being intimidated into supporting gay marriage, intimidated into silence with their peers, who will viciously attack anyone who is not a full-fledged supporter.

Buy Danish on June 28, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Homosexuality is either a choice, or it is a genetic defect that should have a cure researched.

Homosexual activists go bonkers when confronted this way. The truth stings.

OhioCoastie on June 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM

I certainly do not look forward to the “re-education process” that is going to have to take place, particularly in the public schools, and that will certainly play out in court as speech codes require acknowledgement of this new definition of marriage.

saint kansas on June 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Gays always ask while practically hissing how them getting married will affect our families/marriages.

This is how. Thank you for bringing it up saint kansas. Also, Allahpundits comment:

I suspect we will see that more libertarian trend eventually make its way through most other states as well.

This reminded me that Libertarianism is simply the flip side of the same coin as Liberalism. It is dangerous just like Liberalism is.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Also, Allahpundits comment:

Oops, I mean Ed’s comment. I’m used to Allahpundit making the gay marriage articles.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Let’s reinstate the anti-Sodomy laws and be done with it. We really do have more important things to talk about.

sartana on June 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Let’s reinstate the anti-Sodomy laws and be done with it. We really do have more important things to talk about.

sartana on June 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM

What a delightful contradiction.

Jeddite on June 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Homosexuality is either a choice, or it is a genetic defect that should have a cure researched.

Actually a psychological defect. Or at least it was rightly defined as such by psychologists up until the 70′s when the psychological association was pressured to change the definition(sound familiar-changing definitions?), and not through scientific research, but through activism by the homosexual lobby.

Sterling Holobyte on June 28, 2011 at 3:57 PM

The fact that a retronym -straight marriage- and a neonym -gay marriage- have popped up is initial evidence of the confusion to come.

Akzed on June 28, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Will modern medicine mean ‘the end of homosexuality as we know it’? If a drug is available to cure homosexuality before or after birth, will the lefties allow that drug to come to market?

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM

I think when we eventually reach the point of designing our offspring to order there will be a host of issues society will have to confront. The gay people I know aren’t all gay for one reason or another and they are gay to varying degrees. It’s certainly an interesting topic but somewhat irrelevant to a debate about same sex marriage or how best to promote happy and stable families and couples.

lexhamfox on June 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Will modern medicine mean ‘the end of homosexuality as we know it’? If a drug is available to cure homosexuality before or after birth, will the lefties allow that drug to come to market?

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM

I think when we eventually reach the point of designing our offspring to order there will be a host of issues society will have to confront. The gay people I know aren’t all gay for one reason or another and they are gay to varying degrees. It’s certainly an interesting topic but somewhat irrelevant to a debate about same sex marriage or how best to promote happy and stable families and couples.

lexhamfox on June 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Nice straw man. No one is talking about ‘designing children’, only curing one particular abnormality. The precise reason that a person ends up homosexual is likely to be determined within the next ten years, with a remedy to quickly follow. Should we redesign our society for a type of people soon to be obsolete?

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 4:58 PM

People with normal emotions aren’t going to deny their friend or relative marriage for an irrational prejudice.

thuja on June 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I didn’t get a response to my earlier question, which was, does being for the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage necessarily preclude one from being pro-gay?

saint kansas on June 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Certainly, you can be pro-gay and want straight exclusive marriage, but it’s not a position that will be sustained through time. If you are pro-gay, it does mean that you accept gays are here to stay and that you want society to take care of gays fairly. Thus, you end up accepting some form civil unions for gays. But you will be disappointed to find that gays will call the civil unions “marriage” and some will get huffy if you don’t call them marriage. Meanwhile most people are lazy and would prefer to use just one word for two fairly identical legal contracts. Thirty years from now the idea of having different gay civil unions and straight marriage will just seem weird.

thuja on June 28, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Except they did put it to a vote of the people. That representatives of the people of the Stae of New York just voted on it, and they voted yes. How much more of a vote of the people would you like?

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM

This is utterly false, because they did not go through the normal process in debating this bill. It was rushed through under circumstances reserved for “emergency” bills, and there were all kinds of sweetheart deals made to get support for it.

Stop spouting this false meme, please.

JannyMae on June 28, 2011 at 5:33 PM

“One of the facts about tonight’s debate over same-sex marriage that will be neglected in the adulatory coverage is the really extraordinary process that brought this innovation to the Empire State. New York law, for instance, requires bills to be published 72 hours before a vote. The public, however, did not see the full language of the bill voted on tonight for more than a few hours (and only if they were exceedingly diligent in looking for it). Normal rules of debate were waived, the session was extended, etc. These kinds of exceptions are allowed for, but only in instances of emergency. Governor Cuomo had no qualms about claiming, and many legislators were complicit in accepting, the argument that redefining marriage in New York was so pressing a priority that the public’s ability to weigh the proposals (not to mention the senators’ ability to do so) should have been short-circuited.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270490/same-sex-marriage-comes-new-york-now-william-c-duncan

JannyMae on June 28, 2011 at 5:41 PM

People with normal emotions aren’t going to deny their friend or relative marriage for an irrational prejudice.
thuja on June 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I know plenty of parents of gay children who do not believe in gay marriage. That does not mean that they don’t love their children with all their heart. There is nothing irrational or prejudicial about maintaining the family unit/mother/father/children/grandchildren, ad infinitum – the bedrock of civilization. Gay marriage is like The Shakers. If it were to become the prevailing societal force the human race would die out in short order. We’re already destroying generations of children by promoting “Single Motherhood” and sentencing those children to live without fathers, and (for most of them) to grow up in poverty. These movements are utterly selfish in nature: They don’t give a flip about “The Children”. All they care about their own needs and wants. We cannot sustain all these cracks to our system without it crumbling.

Buy Danish on June 28, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Except they did put it to a vote of the people. That representatives of the people of the Stae of New York just voted on it, and they voted yes. How much more of a vote of the people would you like?

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Nom that’s a vote of their representatives. If you are going to redefine a word as basic & well defined as marriage you ought to ask the people directly.

Rocks on June 28, 2011 at 6:53 PM

that social conservatives should have taken my advice from years ago and fought to get government out of the marriage-definition business altogether

I heartily agree.

Common Sense on June 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM

If a drug is available to cure homosexuality before or after birth, will the lefties allow that drug to come to market?

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM

A very good question indeed. When we’re already having trouble with parents refusing to give their kids shots because some Internet quack said they cause awww-tism – diseases that have jack squat to do with sexual choices – I could easily see an uproar for that. We could very well be facing the thorny problem of wether or not to make taking such medicine mandatory.

But IMHO we’re going to be facing that sooner or later anyhow, “homo-vaccine” or not, unless people quit falling for every Chicken Little medical scare. And you tell me how likely that is…

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Should we redesign our society for a type of people soon to be obsolete?

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 4:58 PM

For better or worse, straight marriage remains unchanged by Albany’s action.

dedalus on June 28, 2011 at 7:50 PM

If you are going to redefine a word as basic & well defined as marriage you ought to ask the people directly.

Rocks on June 28, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Except NY doesn’t have a provision for binding statewide referenda. The legislature is the closest thing you’ll get.

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Social conservatives should fight to get government out of the marriage-definition business in order to keep sacramental definitions where they belong — where they have always belonged.

Sorry, Ed. You’re wrong.

The stability of a society is very much tied to the stability of the smallest social unit – the family. And, the family isn’t primarily about contracts, but about raising kids.

If we care about how our kids are raised, then we will make traditional marriage a priority, and will defend it with our laws. The financial breaks given to families with kids supports those families in supporting their kids.

It’s about the kids, or it’s about nothing. Why do the kids get left out of the marriage equation so much these days?

oakland on June 28, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Where is this confident assumption that women will be going in droves to abort homosexual children and there will be some cure for in the next ten years?

This sounds like someones sadistic anti-gay fantasy more than anyone else. They want to make homosexuality curable and want women to line up around the block to abort homosexual children.

Back to reality. Not going to happen. There will be no vaccine or cure for homosexuality. These children will be born this way. There won’t be children being aborted by the thousands because they are homosexual. Especially amongst conservatives unless their Pro Life stance comes with exceptions which would make them hypocrites. Gays are here to stay, they are going to be allowed to marry, adopt children, make decisions about each others medical care, receive pensions and property when one dies, and they will have picnics, and mow their lawns, and stroll around the mall with their families and go to their childrens’ graduations, weddings and have grandchildren, grow old, and die. Just like the rest of us.

Get over it already.

Magnus on June 28, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Yawn…………Civilization started going down hill when the Roman Empire fell. Let’s review the great Roman Empire. Human slavery, Gladiator games with fights to the death, ethic cleanzing…………..so forth and on.

SC.Charlie on June 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Think of the tremendous benefit to society from a cure to homosexuality. Just for starters, how much money is spent on AIDS drug research, private and public, on the drugs themselves, and on hospital care for AIDS patients? Trillions worldwide?

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Bingo! This whole, “It’s not choice!” point that gays promote is a double edged sword. If that is true then homosexuality will someday be eliminated through medicine. It will probably start with abortions when this “affliction” can be diagnosed prenatally.

NotCoach on June 28, 2011 at 12:13 PM

GOD FORBID someone live a lifestyle that isn’t morally correct by christianity’s standards. Obviously there must be something terribly wrong with them.

/massive sarcasm

Ya know, being gay wouldn’t be such a huge social problem.. if intolerant pieces of human excrement like yourself didn’t take it upon yourself to judge other people who just happen to be different.

The world will be a much better place when people like you are no longer around. That 18-34 stat is VERY promising, and I can’t wait until my generation runs the show.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 1:21 AM

PS: Your “Final Solution” for getting rid of gays is disturbing on multiple fronts.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 1:23 AM

PS: Your “Final Solution” for getting rid of gays is disturbing on multiple fronts.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Oh geeze, take a deep breath and drop the Nazi references.

If a mother with a child in the womb is told that the child appears to be a developing homosexual, and if they just take this pill they can correct the condition, is there a mother alive that would refuse?

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2011 at 1:32 AM

That 18-34 stat is VERY promising, and I can’t wait until my generation runs the show.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Sorry, us young ones doesn’t have what it takes to run this country.

b1jetmech on June 29, 2011 at 1:48 AM

GOD FORBID someone live a lifestyle that isn’t morally correct by christianity’s standards.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Yes, parents are only concerned about babies that are going to live a morally incorrect lifestyle. Parents never worry about any other issues with their babies or children. /sarc

Frankly, with respect to abortion, statistically speaking, it’s probably not the christian mothers that you need to worry about.

if intolerant pieces of human excrement like yourself didn’t take it upon yourself to judge other people who just happen to be different.

Intolerant pieces of human excrement like yourself take it upon yourself to judge other people who just happen to be different every day within these threads. Hypocrisy much?

blink on June 29, 2011 at 3:25 AM

Being gay is not a disease to be cured. I love how the anti-abortionist now love to talk of killing and “curing” (aka killing) to get rid of a population people they hate. Sound familiar?

Magnus on June 29, 2011 at 6:27 AM

Blink, its one thing to have a different opinion. It is another to muse over and give high hopes to the event of a mass killing of people because the are different. You are despicable. I bet your pro life?

And seriously, non-christian parents probably WOULDN’T be the ones killing their homosexual children because its really religious wingnuts that have such a visceral problem with it and see it as a mortal sin. Don’t project your death wish for homosexuals on the rest of us.

Magnus on June 29, 2011 at 6:31 AM

Magnus on June 29, 2011 at 6:27 AM

triple on June 29, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Both of you take this far too personally and seem to fail to understand human nature completely.

There may never be a way to diagnose homosexuality. But then again there may be someday. And if that day comes that people can know before their child is born what sexual orientation they will be there will be many parents who choose to abort homosexually diagnosed children. Sorry triple, your “superior” generation will not change human nature. Human beings have an inborn desire to see their genes carried on to the next generation. Knowing their child will grow up to be a homosexual will cause a natural gut reaction opposed to such an outcome. Add to that the feeling parents will have that a homosexual child will have a less then desirable life then the heterosexual child and many will choose the evil of abortion.

I personally consider all human life sacred and would council against an abortion under any circumstances. But as I have already pointed out in this thread one only needs to look at Down’s syndrome to understand what abortion makes possible. If homosexuality can someday be diagnosed in the womb and there is no pill to “correct” it, just like Downs over 90% of such unborn babies will most likely will be aborted.

NotCoach on June 29, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Magnus you are really out there. I mean so far out there your detached from reality which explains your thinking on homosexuality.

They were making this aborting the homo babies as an “illustrating the absurdity by being absurd.”

So don’t go thinking conservatives will theoryrectally abort babies because of some made up “homo” gene.

We know how much your side will think up the most ridiculous things to justify your positions…You all give new meaning to “Wingnuts”

b1jetmech on June 29, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Are you supposed to have sex at work? I guess it depends on your profession, but for most of us the answer is “no.” Why then is corporate America obsessed with training about sex?

As described in several recent columns by Mike Adams, I was fired as a vendor by Cisco for my conservative beliefs about sex and marriage even though my beliefs were never expressed on the job. When a homosexual manager found out on the Internet that I had authored a book giving evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for society, he couldn’t tolerate me and requested I be fired. An HR executive canned me within hours without ever speaking to me. This happened despite the fact that the leadership and teambuilding programs I led always received high marks (even from the homosexual manager!).

Read more about sodomist sociopathy at the link.

Akzed on June 29, 2011 at 10:15 AM

b1jetmech on June 29, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Very true. If and when homosexuality can be determined before birth with no remedy, it is those opposed to abortion that would be most likely to have the child. Conversely, it will be liberals that abort on a whim that will choose to not have a homosexual child. We see exactly the same pattern with birth defects like Downs.

This is not the likely outcome however. Once the cause is determined, a remedy will quickly result.

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2011 at 10:40 AM

We know. We know. And man will never set foot on the moon.

blink on June 28, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Not only are you wrong (as usual), but you continue to set both feet in your mouth. What a pathetic comparison.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 29, 2011 at 12:45 PM

I love how the anti-abortionist now love to talk of killing and “curing” (aka killing) to get rid of a population people they hate. Sound familiar?

Magnus on June 29, 2011 at 6:27 AM

If you’re truly surprised at the blatant hypocrisy, I have some beachfront property here in Nebraska I’d like to sell you.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 29, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2