Chris Christie to Democrat: Stop demagoging me on gay marriage, “numbnuts”

posted at 10:10 pm on January 30, 2012 by Allahpundit

The tough-guy bravado wears ever thinner over time but I don’t blame him for being irritated at a smear this nasty. He wants to hold a referendum on gay marriage and therefore he’s … George Wallace? What?

The punchline is that Christie’s pushing the referendum not because he’s militantly opposed to gays getting married and thinks the popular vote will vindicate his position but because he’s not militantly opposed and doesn’t want to be forced to issue a veto. Watch the second clip below from last summer’s chat with Piers Morgan for the basics of his thinking. He believes marriage should be for straights only but wants equal rights for gays otherwise and won’t even commit to the belief that homosexuality is sinful. He sounds, in fact, a lot like Obama in his lack of conviction for his supposed position. His problem is that if the New Jersey legislature passes a bill legalizing gay marriage, then Christie the blue-state governor and Christie the potential Republican VP have a conflict on whether he should veto or not. The cynical solution: Punt the issue entirely by encouraging a referendum instead. If it fails, great! The people have spoken. If it passes, oh well. Not his fault. It’s not a show of principle but it’s not Christie standing in the chapel door either. (The possibility that he might have to cast this veto doubtless helps explain why he just appointed a gay Republican to the New Jersey Supreme Court.)

That said, I’d like to see the language of the referendum he has in mind. Is he proposing to let the public amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage or to specifically legalize gay marriage or to decide on both questions? His critics are hammering him for encouraging a majoritarian solution to a question of equal protection, which of course is not the way constitutional rights work. But gay-marriage supporters have been perfectly comfortable using democratic means to advance their own position, most famously last year when the New York legislature passed gay marriage. That statute is different from what Christie has in mind with a referendum — the latter would take the issue out of the courts’ hands via a constitutional amendment whereas the statute is subject to judicial review — but if the referendum is limited purely to whether to legalize gay marriage (without saying anything about banning it), then the courts could still consider the equal protection claim later on even if the referendum fails. Curious to know how Christie, who seems not terribly invested in the idea of keeping gays from marrying, feels about that.


Related Posts:

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 3

Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Polygamy is a red herring? How bigoted of you. How dare you deny free citizens their rights!

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:38 AM

thuja on January 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM

*smile*

KOOLAID2 on January 31, 2012 at 12:42 AM

It’s not an excuse to avoid the issue just because you don’t want to deal with it. The rationale for a “civil union” or state marriage is to offer government support for the most basic unit of society – parents and families.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Yes, and in this country we shouldn’t allow what the government considers to be the most basic unit of society to be determined on the basis of religion.

People are free to believe what they want in that case, but not to unreasonably impose their views on others.

Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Polygamy is a red herring? How bigoted of you. How dare you deny free citizens their rights!
gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Seriously though – on what grounds can you approve of gay marriage but deny polygamist marriage? If it’s a right as you claim then no one can be denied.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Polygamy is a red herring? How bigoted of you. How dare you deny free citizens their rights!

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:38 AM

It’s not bigoted. It’s a reflection of the law which considers marriage between two consenting adults. So sorry …no donkeys, kids, or dolphins either.

lexhamfox on January 31, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Are there stats describing the percentage of homosexuals in the population?

Sherman1864 on January 31, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Perhaps I don’t understand what motivates the activists, but I can’t see civil unions as anything but a “separate but equal” institution that exists so religious groups can have their cake and eat it too by having marriage both recognized by the government and subject to whatever conditions their religion places on it.

Um, yeah, a civil union is separate from a religious union, so what? My parents aren’t religious so guess what? They didn’t have a religious ceremony but they got a civil union and last i checked government can’t proclaim a religious union, that whole first amendment thing about establishment of religion.

clearbluesky on January 31, 2012 at 12:48 AM

It’s not an excuse to avoid the issue just because you don’t want to deal with it. The rationale for a “civil union” or state marriage is to offer government support for the most basic unit of society – parents and families.
gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Yes, and in this country we shouldn’t allow what the government considers to be the most basic unit of society to be determined on the basis of religion.
People are free to believe what they want in that case, but not to unreasonably impose their views on others.
Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:44 AM

How is this a religious mandate? Just because you don’t like the rationale for state sponsored “marriage” doesn’t make it religious. It’s a sociological and historical fact that the union of a man and a wife and their natural offspring are the fundamental basis of culture, society and civilization.

If you want to argue that it’s not the government’s business to sponsor this arrangement that’s fine – it’s not a right.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:51 AM

You know what else is a “gay right”? Shutting down adoption agencies that won’t give you a child.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Polygamy is a red herring? How bigoted of you. How dare you deny free citizens their rights!
gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:38 AM
It’s not bigoted. It’s a reflection of the law which considers marriage between two consenting adults. So sorry …no donkeys, kids, or dolphins either.
lexhamfox on January 31, 2012 at 12:46 AM

I think you missed my point. Inverness is claiming that somehow gay couples have a right to a civil union but polygamists don’t. It’s an inconsistency.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Newt strongly believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.
…and one woman
…and one woman
…and…
:p

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 31, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Let’s not make excuses and/or pretend the arguments against gay marriage are anything but religiously motivated.

Inverness on January 30, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Homosexual marriage has never been legal, in the 5000 year recorded history of civilization. It has always, since pre-history, been between men and women, and a public commitment ie government sponsored. The earliest written law, the code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylon had marriage laws – and no gay marriage. The idea that homosexual marriage was somehow banished by mean old white Christian men – is simply full on ignorance of the most fundamental societal building block.

It’s an inconsistency.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Every single argument for homosexual marriage applies equally to polygamy and consanguineous unions, and the progressive homosexual activists know that full well. They simply lie that they don’t.

Rebar on January 31, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Am I the only conservative Christian left on this blog that thinks that gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so?

Look, if the Bible says it — I believe it. It’s not up for a “vote” — society doesn’t determine what’s moral; God does.

RationalIcthus on January 31, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Solution, take government out of marriage, period. Marriage should be a religious ceremony only, or nothing at all. Any legal relationship should be a contract and contracts can be between any people. Just like the big wedding in Monaco last summer, you go do the legal thing, then follow with the big church wedding, if you want to.

Frankly, as long as they don’t defraud taxpayers on welfare issues, I don’t really care about polygamy either. Who cares what consenting adults do within their own household? And how is it any worse than singles hooking up with multiple partners or football players having 10 kids with 6 different women?

Several roommates or a couple of siblings could have the same kind of contract stating inheritance, power of attorney, etc. so it would even benefit people who don’t have sex with each other.

Traditional marriage IS better for kids and society, but it’s already been broken down so much by divorce or the never married that I don’t see that it makes any difference. Look how many celebrities are “engaged” with children or pregnant. They have NO marriage but live as if they do. I guess the lack of a piece of paper makes the breakup a bit easier.

I also think that traditionalists are somewhat hypocritical. They say that marriage is a stabilizing force for society but want to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Wouldn’t married homosexuals be more stable than those that are single and just sleep around?

Expecting people to go back in time to traditional marriage only is a fantasy. Reality is that our culture no longer demonizes people for out-of-wedlock relationships or children and our laws should reflect that. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

Common Sense on January 31, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Proof once again that the real numbnuts are the ones who think GOVERNMENT should be involved in the marriage process at ALL. The solution is quite simple. Government issues “CIVIL UNION” licenses only. You want marriage? Go to church. Don’t like gay marriage? Be Catholic. Want gay marriage? Be Episcopalian. There. Done. Duh.

eyesights on January 31, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Your Mamma loves me on January 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I know there are liberals out there (and sadly, I think some fiscal conservatives and libertarians) who hold those views, but I’d think if one wants to be taken seriously, he would refrain from all the ad hominem (“religards,” etc), which makes me think this guy is a troll.

TigerPaw on January 31, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Frankly, as long as they don’t defraud taxpayers on welfare issues, I don’t really care about polygamy either. Who cares what consenting adults do within their own household?

Polygamy laws prevent the sanctifying, sanctioning, (or whatever you want to call it) by the state of behavior that is likely to lead to the physical and mental abuse of children and makes it likely said children will have a disadvantage in joining the broader society.

And how is it any worse than singles hooking up with multiple partners or football players having 10 kids with 6 different women?

Besides the above, obviously because some singles and some football players get away with a deed or a lifestyle doesn’t make it moral, good, or sensible.

Expecting people to go back in time to traditional marriage only is a fantasy. Reality is that our culture no longer demonizes people for out-of-wedlock relationships or children and our laws should reflect that. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

Common Sense on January 31, 2012 at 1:16 AM

The debauchery of the Romans a couple of thousand years ago certainly dwindled post-empire. That genie was bottled right up, to use your metaphor. I’m not saying that the debauchery completely disappeared, but it certainly lessened and became taboo as time passed.

Our culture today is in the shitter; it doesn’t have to be permanently.
Sleeping around and children born out of wedlock are definitely not positive things for the individuals concerned nor for society.

The morals of various cultures and societies have waxed and waned throughout history.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Am I the only conservative Christian left on this blog that thinks that gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so?

Look, if the Bible says it — I believe it. It’s not up for a “vote” — society doesn’t determine what’s moral; God does.

RationalIcthus on January 31, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Sorry my state has been separated from your religion. I am honestly baffled by this debate. It’s not like gay men are going to start forcing straight guys to marry them, and I have never heard anyone suggest that religious institutions be forced to recognize a gay marriage as being blessed by that church and therefore God.

TheOarsman on January 31, 2012 at 2:40 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Several roommates or a couple of siblings could have the same kind of contract stating inheritance, power of attorney, etc. so it would even benefit people who don’t have sex with each other.

Common Sense on January 31, 2012 at 1:16 AM

There is nothing stopping roommates siblings or anyone else from signing the same contracts concerning inheritance, power of attorney, etc. today, regardless of their bedroom behavior.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

****Apologies — this should have been in my previous post****

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2012 at 2:40 AM

I have never heard anyone suggest that religious institutions be forced to recognize a gay marriage as being blessed by that church and therefore God.

TheOarsman on January 31, 2012 at 2:40 AM

I have heard of a religious institution being forced to forgo the sponsoring and running of adoption agencies because of their beliefs. I have also heard of a Department of Justice that argued before the Supreme Court (unsuccessfully, this time) to force religious organizations to retain employees in ministerial jobs that have views and practices contrary to the tenets of that organization.

That separation you mentioned is under assault, and it’s not by the religious organizations in this instance.

Some are baffled by the huge deal that some are making of this debate; it boils down to semantics in the end.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2012 at 2:53 AM

If you listen closely, it’s pretty clear the big fella said “donuts.”

benny shakar on January 31, 2012 at 3:46 AM

If government should stay out of the subject of marriage what religious factors are going to come into play when you want a divorce? Who decides on who gets the kids? Who supports who? This gets involved, huh. Sinful according to who? Who is it that separates the wants from rights? I’m in favor of thousands of years of Moms and Dads.

mixplix on January 31, 2012 at 4:12 AM

Your Mamma loves me on January 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Public school graduate are you?

This “gay marriage” stuff is designed to:

1. legitimize a perverted lifestyle
2. obtain health and insurance benefits

Such a lifestyle has been abnormal in all human societies since the dawn of recorded history and will continue to be, hence the desperate desire to have it legitimized by statute by those who choose the lifestyle. Trouble is that then opens the door to a host of polygamist claims towards legitimization. After all if Steve and Fred can get hitched why not Sam and Frank and George? They love each other! And they all love George’s health insurance.

Bubba Redneck on January 31, 2012 at 5:01 AM

His critics are hammering him for encouraging a majoritarian solution to a question of equal protection, which of course is not the way constitutional rights work.

I don’t buy this equal protection argument. Immutable characterstics (sex, race)? Sure. Behavior? No.

BuckeyeSam on January 31, 2012 at 6:02 AM

***

And they all love George’s health insurance.

Bubba Redneck on January 31, 2012 at 5:01 AM

Especially if George is a member of a sheltered public-employee union.

Beyond that, you forgot pension benefits. Gays can always leave their partners their life insurance, IRAs, 401(k)s, profit-sharing accounts, and the like BY BENEFICIARY DESIGNATION like everyone else with half a brain. They can leave other assets by relying on titling (joint tenancy with right of survivorship, transfer on death, payable on death), by a transfer to a trust for the benefit of the partner, or by will. Gays are successful and well-educated; they should get some estate planning.

But gays who are members of public-employee unions, by and large, receive a pension that, with gay marriage, will saddle taxpayers with a pension–and presumably the health care tab–of the surviving partner. I have a problem with saddling taxpayers with the cost of supporting transient relationships. And think about the chaos of multiple surviving partners of pension recipients in the case of polygamous situations. Ugh.

BuckeyeSam on January 31, 2012 at 6:14 AM

Am I the only conservative Christian left on this blog that thinks that gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so?

No. I’m with you.

Doesn’t mean I don’t care about gays. Doesn’t mean I hate gays. Doesn’t mean I’m trying to force people to be Christian. But right or wrong has to come from somewhere and for me it’s God…as it was for many of the Founding Fathers. Marriage is a religious union. 1 man. 1 woman. If the state ultimately allows civil unions recognized by the state, well ok. But the state can’t force a church to recognize a union it fundamentally doesn’t agree with.

tyketto on January 31, 2012 at 6:39 AM

But the state can’t force a church to recognize a union it fundamentally doesn’t agree with.
tyketto on January 31, 2012 at 6:39 AM

But they will try and will persecute any resistance. Look at England and the Europe. Preaching against homosexuality is a crime there. Refusing to accept homos is a crime. Denying them services based on religious beliefs is a crime. That’s what they want here and will never stop agitating for it.

tommyboy on January 31, 2012 at 6:53 AM

I know he’s not the most conservative, but I love this guy. If only for the possibility that because of him, finally, now, the PC bulls-it is starting to get old with almost and I say ALMOST everyone.

Bring it Chris.

LtT26 on January 31, 2012 at 7:05 AM

(The possibility that he might have to cast this veto doubtless helps explain why he just appointed a gay Republican to the New Jersey Supreme Court.)

And if you fail to grasp AP’s logic, then let’s make it easier — he just appointed a gay Republican to the New Jersey Supreme Court because he is 100% in favor of gay marriage. Duh.

Jaibones on January 31, 2012 at 7:05 AM

It’s amusing watching Christie twist in the wind on this. On the one hand he is a known big RINO and personally probably has zero issue with gay marriage On the other hand he is an ambitious politician and has enough problems with the base so he’s desperately trying to avoid having to deal with this issue that the base is not keen on.

Dance fat boy, dance!

CorporatePiggy on January 31, 2012 at 7:09 AM

That aside…I love the clarity of his speaking. He’s makes his points perfectly clear and knocks down the silly straw men that numbnuts liberals erect in the public square.

Jaibones on January 31, 2012 at 7:11 AM

And Piggy, he’s not in any way, shape or form twisting in the wind.

Jaibones on January 31, 2012 at 7:12 AM

“Fat boy”.

What a idiot.

LtT26 on January 31, 2012 at 7:14 AM

in 30 years Prop. 8 and its like will be seen similar to the Jim Crow laws. Times are changing people, accept it already

DBear on January 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM

No it won’t. Who you have sex with is a personal choice not a genetic disposition. Before you even try to argue that it is, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary IN SPITE of the attempts of our politically correct field of liberal scientists. All that has been presented are heavily flawed speculations in the form of studies that wouldn’t pass a 5th grade peer review.

Also if you want to argue that it is genetic then you HAVE to accept pedophilia and bestiality as such, ready to go there? As long as any “homosexual” is willing to say the above two are immortal / wrong then others are perfectly in their right to believe and act in a manner that homosexuality is wrong.

Homosexuality is an abomination in nature and whether it be among humans or lesser animals the results are always destructive, it destroys the practitioner entirely by the removal of them from the species leaving nothing to pass on.

Which by the way, for all you evolutionists, if homosexuality was a genetic issue just how does that particular flaw continue to pass on where other undesirable mutations result in a dead line within the species?

Skwor on January 31, 2012 at 7:28 AM

Is he proposing to let the public amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage or to specifically legalize gay marriage or to decide on both questions?

You say that as if the legislators and not the people should have the final say on issues that go to the very core of society. I for one am sick of politicians making these value-based decisions in the echo chamber of the statehouse instead of listening to the people. How many states have legalized gay marriage by populuar opinion and how many have had it forced on them by legislatures and/or the courts?

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Except of course, if the chicks are hot.

LtT26 on January 31, 2012 at 7:40 AM

I also am sick of the attack on all of our cultural traditions that have served us so well as a nation for so long. So long to all that, I suppose.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 30, 2012 at 10:27 PM

The only american “tradition” that matters is respect for individual rights, the constitution and rule of law. Keep those alive and your dream of co-existing with only those that you choose (straight couples with picket fences and 2.3 children) will continue to be a reality AND legal. To hell with what constitutes anyone else’s sphere of existence.

As long as we have the traditions that matter, just live and let live, dude!

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Is he proposing to let the public amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage or to specifically legalize gay marriage or to decide on both questions?

You say that as if the legislators and not the people should have the final say on issues that go to the very core of society. I for one am sick of politicians making these value-based decisions in the echo chamber of the statehouse instead of listening to the people. How many states have legalized gay marriage by populuar opinion and how many have had it forced on them by legislatures and/or the courts?

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 7:38 AM

YOU SAY THAT as if a relationship between two people is properly a matter that should be subject to a vote.

Get over yourselves, people. It’s none of our business how others choose to relate to themselves. Should we vote on the validity or rectitude of a business relationship simply because it is a relationship? Should we vote on the purpose of that same business relationship? If you’re for limited government, the answer to both is no. Why then, should it be any different simply because the relationship is of a romantic or personal nature? It shouldn’t.

The rule of law is for safeguarding individual rights not to modify behavior.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM

There’s only one way out for this.

Christie needs to create a bi-partisan Super Duper Fabulous Committee with joint chairs filled by Tom Cruise, Louis Farrakhan, Elton John, and Oran Roberts.

Give them a couple of months to come up with some proposals, tell them thanks, then go play golf and forget all about this. It worked with Simpson-Bowles and will work with the Cruise-Farrakhan Committee.

CorporatePiggy on January 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM

It’s a non-issue legally in New Jersey. Same sex couples in NJ can have civil unions that provide all legal protections. If they have to have a stupid piece of paper that says “marriage license” they can drive up to New York City and get one.

This is a silly political issue designed by Democrats to trap Chris Christie.

rockmom on January 31, 2012 at 7:56 AM

The rule of law is for safeguarding individual rights not to modify behavior.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Respectfully beselfish, go to hell! No state legislature should have the right to regulate morality in the way you demand. It isn’t about safeguarding individual rights- no gay inidividual is harmed by the status quo. This is your side demanding that you and only you have the correct viewpoint. Again you selfish ignorant idiot, go to hell!

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Give them a couple of months to come up with some proposals, tell them thanks, then go play golf and forget all about this. It worked with Simpson-Bowles and will work with the Cruise-Farrakhan Committee.

CorporatePiggy on January 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Committee work is always a good way to ignore reality. Simpson-Bowles, the 9/11 Commission, the Supercommittee for resolving the debt….. committees always give the illusion of doing work while actually doing nothing.

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 8:07 AM

The only american “tradition” that matters is respect for individual rights, the constitution and rule of law

And these are disappearing rapidly in favor of group entitlements and the whim of political power. Much is already gone.

tommyboy on January 31, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Female + Male = reproduction. That’s a natural way of continuing the human race. That’s the definition of marriage.

Except that many heterosexual married couples do not procreate – either by choice or by some other circumstance (ie, infertility).

Are those who don’t procreate now not married?

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Proof once again that the real numbnuts are the ones who think GOVERNMENT should be involved in the marriage process at ALL. The solution is quite simple. Government issues “CIVIL UNION” licenses only. You want marriage? Go to church. Don’t like gay marriage? Be Catholic. Want gay marriage? Be Episcopalian. There. Done. Duh.

eyesights on January 31, 2012 at 1:55 AM

The reason why Gov. is involved in marriage is because for the first 200 years of our nation, it wasn’t an issue…marriage was and only defined as between a man and woman, there wasn’t any other issue.
So the government, like most all for the past several thousand years documented marriages so families, cities, states, countries would have a record.
What you want to do is change thousands of years of history because a few % want it changed…so who are the “numbnuts”? The ones who do not understand simple history, history of thousands of years…or someone who thinks we just change major social laws on a whim of a few people…
Marriage is between a man and a woman, by defintion, and it doesn’t have to be in a church…a justice of the peace can do the same.
Civil unions can be between whatever or whomever…just realize that once that can of worms is open, it’s a free for all.

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM

The rule of law is for safeguarding individual rights not to modify behavior.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Exactly, and allowing gay marriage is modifying behavior, since the standard of behavior for tens of thousands of years has been that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman…good to see you agree.

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Skwor on January 31, 2012 at 7:28 AM

OK, Skwor, it is a choice. I do, wholeheartedly agree with you. My guess is that’s where our agreement ends.

Given that it’s an individual who makes that choice and the individual right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is unalienable (and the basis of law), unless that choice has violated someone’s rights, it is outside the realm of government to attempt to legislate that choice.

However, what I guess may be to your liking, Skwor, is that in my view the choice for same sex romance (love, marriage, etc..) is not outside the realm of cultural acceptance. And this is where the advocates of Skwor’s “abomination” jump the shark. Trying to use the force of government to make a culture accept your way of life is as dishonest and reprehensible as trying to use that same force to legislate away individuals’ choice.

So, Skwor, it is a choice and though society can choose to “blacklist” it, government and the rule of law must be used to protect it.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 8:21 AM

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:18 AM

I see what you did there, R2B. funny, haha.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Exactly, and allowing gay marriage is modifying behavior,

Whose behavior is being modified?

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Gay gene proponent Simon LeVay concedes, “Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality.”

Those who have kept track of homosexuality’s status in American society know that homosexuality was taken out of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM list of mental disorders back in 1973. This laconic defense ignores problems with the decision.

Even sympathizers with the APA’s decision admit that politics, rather than science, was the chief reason for removal.

Gay gene proponent Simon LeVay concedes, “Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality.”
Also, the final tally was not impressive. The vote was 5,584 to 3,810 out of about 30,000 APA members, meaning that only about 37 percent of the APA took part in the decision.

In total, only approximately 20 percent of the organization actually said yes to removal, meaning that as much as 80 percent of the APA in 1973 might have opposed removal.

Furthermore, the decision did not fully eradicate psychology’s condemnation of this now acceptable act, as “ego-dystonic homosexuality” remained on the books until the 1980s. Yet, as Dr. David S. Holmes noted, “because of changes in social norms and strong political pressures … homosexuality was not listed as a disorder.”
In other words, not science, but politics, was the chief factor.

Thursday, May 1, 2008 – 10:58am
By Broadside Opinion Columnist Michael Gryboski

We are watching the downward spiral of our moral beliefs forced upon us by by a group of people that are completely out of sink with normal sexual orientation.
The motivation behind this may be that they, in their innermost thoughts, consider themselves out of sink sexually. And that by forcing us to accept and treat their sexual orientation as normal, they can feel vindicated.
It is not any ones business what someone else does behind closed doors as long as they keep their business to themselves. And do not attempt to change my religion to suit your own selfish, purposes.

rightoption on January 31, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Given that it’s an individual who makes that choice and the individual right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is unalienable (and the basis of law), unless that choice has violated someone’s rights, it is outside the realm of government to attempt to legislate that choice.
beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Than bestiality, polygamy, is in play for you, that’s okay in society?
Pedophile is acceptable is the child says it’s okay, or a father daughter “hook up” is okay as long as the daughter is over 16 or 14, after all it’s with “parental consent”…get it now why we have laws? Probably not.

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:27 AM

In total, only approximately 20 percent of the organization actually said yes to removal, meaning that as much as 80 percent of the APA in 1973 might have opposed removal.

That’s an assumption, not a statistic. Sorry.

The motivation behind this may be that they, in their innermost thoughts, consider themselves out of sink

It’s ‘sync,’ not ‘sink.’

They’re not forcing you to accept or practice anything. What you can’t do is discriminate against them as if they’re mentally ill. And that bothers you.

And do not attempt to change my religion to suit your own selfish, purposes.

Oh, so they’re changing your religion now?

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:31 AM

I don’t get why some people claim the only arguments against gay marriage are based on religion. They say that like it somehow invalidates opposition to gay marriage. We’re a religious country, for the most part, so it should follow that what the predominant religion(s) say about marriage would play some role in our views of marriage. I’m curious what is the objective basis for the “if straight couples are recognized then so should gay couples” argument. I’m not aware of any religious basis for that argument, but it’s still a moralized viewpoint. Just like you may not share someone’s religion, they may not share your morals, either. So it’s best to just stop trying to disqualify opinions you don’t like, because you may be in fact disqualifying your own.

jas88 on January 31, 2012 at 8:32 AM

It is not any ones business what someone else does behind closed doors as long as they keep their business to themselves. And do not attempt to change my religion to suit your own selfish, purposes.

rightoption on January 31, 2012 at 8:25 AM

So it’s okay for polygamy, or whatever…okay for pedophile behind closed doors…how about battered woman who won’t turn in there husband out of fear, that’s behind closed doors.
How about child rape behind “closed doors”, and believe me, they won’t try to change your religion to suit their needs, they will just keep doing what the want, behind closed doors, because you say “It is not any ones business what someone else does behind closed doors”…
No society has continued to exist without basic laws of decency…

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:32 AM

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:27 AM

It is only you that has presumed the legality of pedophilia from what I stated. My guess is, that a proper legal argument based on our unalienable rights would find that pedophilia is a crime.

I would say, however, bestiality and polygamy is more clearly legal assuming consenting adults are involved.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 8:36 AM

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Stay calm, I was talking about two consenting adults.

rightoption on January 31, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Except that many heterosexual married couples do not procreate – either by choice or by some other circumstance (ie, infertility).

Are those who don’t procreate now not married?

No, but you’re comparing an exception to a rule. Not all heterosexual couples procreate, but no homosexual couple can procreate. “Sometimes” isn’t the same as “never”.

jas88 on January 31, 2012 at 8:37 AM

So it’s okay for polygamy, or whatever…okay for pedophile behind closed doors

What business is it of yours if a polygamist wants to engage in relations with other consenting adults?

None.

how about battered woman who won’t turn in there husband out of fear, that’s behind closed doors.

Assault is illegal. If it happens behind closed doors, that’s a shame and tragic, but it’s still illegal.

And stop comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. The violation of children is objectively wrong – even prison inmates hold child abusers and pedophiles as the lowest of the low.

Are you now suggesting that because bad things might happen from time to time in a free society that the government should be empowered to kick in everyone’s door whenever a demagogue wants to enforce their idea of “basic decency” to see what they’re doing behind closed doors?

“It is not any ones business what someone else does behind closed doors”…

It really bothers you that you don’t get to control what law-abiding citizens do with each other in the privacy of their homes, doesn’t it?

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:39 AM

I would say, however, bestiality and polygamy is more clearly legal assuming consenting adults are involved.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I’m pretty sure the cow doesn’t get to consent no matter if an adult is involved.

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Not all heterosexual couples procreate, but no homosexual couple can procreate.

An infertile heterosexual couple cannot procreate.

Do they cease to be married now? Your definition of marriage was predicated on the fact that it’s simply biology.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:40 AM

The rule of law is for safeguarding individual rights not to modify behavior.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM

… No state legislature should have the right to regulate morality in the way you demand. …Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 8:05 AM

I think you may have misunderstood, Nomad. I agree that no state legislature should regulate morality. The statement of mine you quoted says as much (I thought so, anyway). Hope that clears the air a bit.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:39 AM

No, as a matter of fact,I don’t give a rats azz. Just don’t tell me that everything I was raised to believe in is now considered wrong because that makes things work better for you.
Keep your sex life out of other peoples face.

rightoption on January 31, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Just don’t tell me that everything I was raised to believe in is now considered wrong because that makes things work better for you.

You were raised to believe that homosexuals were mentally ill?

Keep your sex life out of other peoples face.

rightoption on January 31, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Keep your morality policing in church and in your own home.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:51 AM

From Baker v. Nelson:

The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion. A Connecticut criminal statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples was held invalid, as violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic premise of that decision, however, was that the state, having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship. Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife,” 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, and that the very idea of its enforcement by police search of “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives * * * is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship,” 381 U.S. 485, 85 S.Ct. 187*187 1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 516. In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of “the traditional relation of the family—a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization.” 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688, 14 L.Ed.2d 522.[3]

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that “abstract symmetry” is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.[4]

melle1228 on January 31, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Stay calm, I was talking about two consenting adults.

rightoption on January 31, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I can only respond to what you post, not “what you meant”…so your premise is not much…why only two consenting adults? Why not three, are three “consenting” not as intelligent? And adults are what? Sexually it’s 16, and 14 with consenting parents…get it? Messing with something that is tens of thousands of years old, you better have more than “consenting” involved.

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:55 AM

why only two consenting adults? Why not three, are three “consenting” not as intelligent?

Again, it doesn’t matter how many people are involved in the arrangement if all agree to be part of it.

What part of ‘consenting’ don’t you understand? What business is it of yours what consenting adults do with each other?

Messing with something that is tens of thousands of years old, you better have more than “consenting” involved

Ah, the “it’s old, therefore, it’s permanently correct” argument.

Very convincing.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I want to make sure I have this straight. The left sees no distinction between heterosexual marriage, and homosexual marriage, but they do see a distinction between a fetus and an infant?

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 9:01 AM

It’s not bigoted. It’s a reflection of the law which considers marriage between two consenting adults. So sorry …no donkeys, kids, or dolphins either.

lexhamfox on January 31, 2012 at 12:46 AM

I was with you, until you mentioned dolphins. How do you feel about sheep? It can get lonely on the farm.

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM

melle1228 on January 31, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Your appealing to an authority that gave us the Kelo V New London ruling, the rulings that validated the Social Security Act and all socialist style entitlements.

Stop with the appeals to authority. Make your argument and prepare to be judged.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM

After all if Steve and Fred can get hitched why not Sam and Frank and George? They love each other! And they all love George’s health insurance.

Bubba Redneck on January 31, 2012 at 5:01 AM

I’ll do you one better. If Steve and Fred can get hitched, then why not Jack, and his sister Jill?

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Mainstreaming gross immorality and perversity is the only way to secure a peaceful and prosperous future.

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2012 at 9:08 AM

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:55 AM

R2B approach, “this is the way its always been done, it must be the right way”.

Rock solid logic, I tell ya. oh, boy.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Your appealing to an authority that gave us the Kelo V New London ruling, the rulings that validated the Social Security Act and all socialist style entitlements.

I see so if the court rules in your “favor” then it is a smart decision if not then the court is fallible. Court decisions gave us gay marriage far more than legislatures.

melle1228 on January 31, 2012 at 9:10 AM

It’s not bigoted. It’s a reflection of the law which considers marriage between two consenting adults.

Actually the “reflection” of the law was between two consenting adults of the opposite sex.

So if we change the law to say that states cannot regulate marriage and that any regulation is discrimatory then the logical next step is polygamy.

melle1228 on January 31, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Messing with something that is tens of thousands of years old, you better have more than “consenting” involved.

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:55 AM

So, if something has happened in the past we are not allowed to change it? Are you familiar with the word progress? Or do you still want slavery? Because that happened for hundreds of years, and then we changed it because it was oppressive and reflected poorly on our society. The similar need of your type of people to lower homosexuals to second class citizens is disgusting.

sob0728 on January 31, 2012 at 9:14 AM

The similar need of your type of people…

sob0728 on January 31, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Totally racist.

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2012 at 9:15 AM

So, if something has happened in the past we are not allowed to change it? Are you familiar with the word progress?

I think you mistake “progress” for progressive. Not all things progressive are progress.

melle1228 on January 31, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Mainstreaming gross immorality and perversity Limiting the size and scope of government power is the only way to secure a peaceful and prosperous future.

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Sorry you have a problem with what other law-abiding and consenting adult citizens do in their bedrooms, but it’s really none of your business. And none of the government’s, either.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Ah, the “it’s old, therefore, it’s permanently correct” argument.

Very convincing.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:58 AM

R2B approach, “this is the way its always been done, it must be the right way”.

Rock solid logic, I tell ya. oh, boy.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 9:08 AM

And replacing a morality that is thousands of years old with one created in the last decade or two is “rock solid”.
Funny how neither of you broached the subject of a 14 or 16 year old daughter having sex with her father…that’s okay by your standard…and of course polygamy, and any “consenting” which means you can have a whore house next door to you, and the consenting adults can “do their thing” day and night…no problem.
Gambling next door, drugs next door, as long as it is behind closed doors…and okay with teenagers, all the sex you want since it’s “consenting” and parents give consent to 14 or 16…

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 9:19 AM

So if we change the law to say that states cannot regulate marriage and that any regulation is discrimatory then the logical next step is polygamy.

melle1228 on January 31, 2012 at 9:12 AM

If consenting adults want to live in a polygamous arrangement, and they all consent to it, why do you care?

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:21 AM

If the definition of marriage is changed to include homosexual marriage, churches will be forced to perform weddings for homosexual couples.

Religious organizations are being forced to include abortion in their health care coverage, because the law says that health care plans must cover abortions. If the law won’t recognize a religious exemption for churches when it comes to abortion, then it won’t recognize an exemption when it comes to performing a wedding.

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 9:22 AM

this is the way its always been done, it must be the right way”.

Apply that to slavery. Apply that to racism. Apply that to radical Islam.

Doesn’t work, does it? Imagine that.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM

After all if Steve and Fred can get hitched why not Sam and Frank and George? They love each other! And they all love George’s health insurance.

Bubba Redneck on January 31, 2012 at 5:01 AM

I’ll do you one better. If Steve and Fred can get hitched, then why not Jack, and his sister Jill?

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I have to admit, you two have the emotional argument on your side. The relationships you point out are, from my cultural perspective, ludicrous and laughable. My idea is to consider seriously what Bubba said above regarding health insurance. If you’re a free market, limited government type, this may very well be the ticket to marginalizing your laughable relationships.

Maybe, if we get government out of health care and health insurance (repeal obamacare), insurance companies can once again begin to write their own more affordable policies based on market demand. It is possible, given the risk of HIV in homosexual community and the costs associated that it becomes very expensive to write policies for the same sex couples. That in effect will minimize the type of relationships you despise.

Let the markets do your “dirty” work for you.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Am I the only conservative Christian left on this blog that thinks that gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so?

No. I’m with you.

As am I. And there must surely be more; take a look at the “Socially, I describe myself as: ________” question here. 36% conservative (7/7) and an additional 48% right-of-center (5/7 + 6/7).

Silent majority, eh?

Mr. Prodigy on January 31, 2012 at 9:24 AM

If consenting adults want to live in a polygamous arrangement, and they all consent to it, why do you care?

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I don’t care and could care less if they marry their sister either, but I also don’t think the state should endorse such unions either. Non-discrimination policies will crop up making small employers having to cover Jim Bob and his four wives. It is the height of big government.

melle1228 on January 31, 2012 at 9:26 AM

I don’t care and could care less if they marry their sister either, but I also don’t think the state should endorse such unions either.

So get the state out of the business of marriage altogether.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:27 AM

This will all be cleared up once we have Sharia Law.

Kenosha Kid on January 31, 2012 at 9:27 AM

So get the state out of the business of marriage altogether.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:27 AM

In theory, I agree with you. Unfortunately the state has made its presence in the marriage unavoidable. Divorce, child custody etc.

melle1228 on January 31, 2012 at 9:29 AM

This will all be cleared up once we have Sharia Law.

Kenosha Kid on January 31, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Sharia or anarchy. whichever wins out, It will be awesome!

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2012 at 9:30 AM

The gay community really needs to have a little respect for the man and woman who brought them into this world. Really, how did they all get here? Heterosexual union and a pro-life mother.

monalisa on January 31, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Keep your morality policing in church and in your own home.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I was not not attempting condemn homosexuality, merely explaining that it may be something that people cannot control or would even wish to, you know? That there are other factors that may be involved.
That however does not change the fact that good bad or otherwise, homosexuality is an abnormality.
I have read many of your posts and I believe you are a good man, so if you can likewise keep your sexual beliefs to yourself, we can agree to disagree on this subject.

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 8:55 AM

We cannot keep the hurt, pain, and misery of this world at bay with mere laws. There has to be a morality and good men with brave hearts guiding the way.
I am not trying to avoid this discussion, but I have a business to run, I’m heading across state and I need to get going.

rightoption on January 31, 2012 at 9:34 AM

This will all be cleared up once we have Sharia Law.

Kenosha Kid on January 31, 2012 at 9:27 AM

And watch how fast some people who claim we need more religion in government come around to Jefferson’s wisdom of the Separation of Church and State.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Sharia or anarchy. whichever wins out, It will be awesome!

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2012 at 9:30 AM

It has started already. Oklahoma tried to ban Sharia and the courts overturned it.

Oklahoma City and Tulsa now look just like Mecca.

CorporatePiggy on January 31, 2012 at 9:35 AM

That however does not change the fact that good bad or otherwise, homosexuality is an abnormality.
I have read many of your posts and I believe you are a good man, so if you can likewise keep your sexual beliefs to yourself, we can agree to disagree on this subject.

Fair enough.

I would just point out that Christianity, across the world, accounts for about 1/3 of the world’s religious population. That means that 2/3 aren’t Christian. Which makes Christianity somewhat of an abnormality when taken in totality with everyone on the planet.

Just sayin.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Are those who don’t procreate now not married?
Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 8:13 AM

I know you could care less, but for Christians, which comprise 80+% of the population, God’s reason for instituting marriage matters. After creating Adam God said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Then He created a complimentary partner for him, namely, woman, who also by the way is his partner in procreation.

Even if you don’t believe in the creation narrative, which you don’t, and even if the author of the passage meant it as allegory, Christians believe that it is inspired by God, and so it establishes the Christian dogma that marriage is between a man and a woman, AND that the purpose is primarily companionship, not procreation.

So marriage’s primary purpose (as seen by most voters) is a covenant of friendship, and only secondarily an arrangement to enable procreation. Therefore, any two people of opposite sex can be married, even if they are both sterile.

Akzed on January 31, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Oklahoma City and Tulsa now look just like Mecca.

CorporatePiggy on January 31, 2012 at 9:35 AM

OK City: http://www.cincystreet.com/images/oklahoma_city_skyline.jpg
Tulsa:http://www.okgenweb.org/~photogallery/Snapshots/tulsa.jpg

Mecca:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2232050473_4273353997.jpg

Not really.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:44 AM

it will never matter what a President, Judge or piece of paper with a fancy stamp on it says:

Two men or two women getting together to form a family will never be the same as a man and a woman getting together to form a family.

Eventhough in some places the “dishonest scale” is the law of the land, it is only a cruel lie to tell two men or two women that their getting together to form a family is the same as a man and a woman getting together to form a family.

jack_in_the_box on January 31, 2012 at 9:49 AM

You know…if you want some dude to puncture your tater, I guess you like what you like.

What I don’t get is the overly dramatic, talk like a black woman super effeminate super queen persona. You know the whole “girlfriend”, “miss thang” thing. They act like the girls in Bad Girl’s Club.

That has GOT to be put on, and it’s gotta be hard work to keep that up. That’s where I think there’s some damage up there. I mean, there has got to be a time where you drop the act, flop on the couch, scratch your ‘nads and put on some sports…and relax. You know, drop the whole Perez Hilton thing.

But the two chicks thing…totally understand that. Yep.

LtT26 on January 31, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I would just point out that Christianity, across the world, accounts for about 1/3 of the world’s religious population. That means that 2/3 aren’t Christian. Which makes Christianity somewhat of an abnormality when taken in totality with everyone on the planet.

Just sayin.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 9:37 AM

And interestingly enough, the vast majority (95+%) believe as the Christians do, the act of homosexuality is abnormal, and not acceptable in society, at least not legally or morally acceptable.
It’s not just the “Christians” it’s cultures throughout time…it’s only the past 20 years, of tens of thousands, that such acts are wanting to be embraced.
That’s like a any other type of “urge”, you don’t give in just to appease…the anti-thesis of what an organized society tries to prevent. Where immediate desires replaces tradition.
Decades may seem like a lot to some of you, many just barely older than that, but it means nothing in the scheme of time. It would be as if you have an urge one moment, and act on it…that’s what children do, they don’t think through the consequences, and they have no idea of time or relativity…just that they want it now, right now, right this instance…no matter the consequence, they want it now.
That’s not how the grown up world works. Stomping your feet, and whining about it, doesn’t change the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, as classically defined by adults for thousands of years…that the act of homosexuality is an abnormal and not acceptable for tens of thousands of years…and a tantrum won’t change that fact.
You can twist the definition, as children do, or ignore the rules, as children do, ignore history or logic, as children do, but in the end the adults will prevail.

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 10:09 AM

The gay community really needs to have a little respect for the man and woman who brought them into this world. Really, how did they all get here? Heterosexual union and a pro-life mother.

monalisa on January 31, 2012 at 9:32 AM

The irony is lost on children…

right2bright on January 31, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3