Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on March 27, 2013 by Allahpundit

As attorney Paul Clement took to the Supreme Court to defend the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of House Republicans, the lawmakers who hired him to do so stood silently by. It was the right thing to do, many Republican strategists say, to avoid distracting from the GOP’s core economic message.

But some members of the House Republican Conference thought their leaders should have done more to publicly stand behind an effort that is important to social conservatives.

“The silence was absolutely deafening and very disappointing to the millions of value voters that are in the party,” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., told National Journal Daily.


In a mostly hidden subtext of the gay marriage debate, a lot of Republicans would be thrilled with the most far-reaching court decision [on gay marriage] possible. This is the only way, they reckon, to take the issue out of an electoral arena in which it is increasingly bringing them little but grief…

One top Republican pollster, who requested anonymity in order to speak bluntly, said that Republicans will struggle to connect with many swing voters as long as they’re perceived as the party of cultural retrenchment.

“We can’t continue to fight a losing battle on gay marriage and gay rights, and if we need the Supreme Court to help in that regard, so be it,” the pollster said…

One of the reasons some Republicans hope for a pro-gay marriage ruling from the Supreme Court is that barring a judicial resolution to the issue, there’s no obvious way for the party to liberalize on gay rights without angering its most fervent rank-and-file supporters.


Let’s be honest: If you are a conservative evangelical who believes in the biblical definition of traditional marriage then guess what? You are one of the following: An outcast, a bigot, narrow-minded, a “hater” or all of the above. It’s a different type of ridicule but it’s still ridicule.

The tables have been turned. Evangelicals are now the ugly stepchild. In our American culture today, you can easily make the argument that it is harder to stand for biblical truth than it is to be a supporter of gay marriage in today’s society…

[T]he level of vitriol by media commentators and others who support the homosexual lifestyle is just going to continue to increase and get more aggressive against Bible-believing evangelicals. That’s what happens when you become part of the minority. It’s inevitable. Just ask homosexuals about being in the minority opinion. They know the feeling. It wasn’t that long ago!


No one with half a brain wants to be thought of as a bigot. But that’s what I and others risk as members of a distinct and irritating minority — as traditional Christians in journalism.

It is a world of language and political symbolism, a world where ideas are often framed so that they may lead to inexorable conclusions favored by the dominant culture. In this media world, I sometimes wonder whether the word “sin” has been outlawed by the high priests of journalism for fear of offending one group or another. And I’d rather not ask.

Now that the debate has been framed, if I hold to my faith and resist applauding the changes, I’m easily cast as some drooling white cartoon bigot of the Jim Crow era, denying black Americans the right to sit at a lunch counter and have a meal with the white folks…

What is also clear is that, given demographic shifts and attitudes, particularly by young people regarding sexuality and family, traditional Christianity is no longer the dominant culture.

It is the counterculture, fast becoming a minority view.


Social conservatives are greatly outnumbered (a byproduct of having lost the culture war argument). We hear a lot about the supposed “three-legged-stool” of the conservative movement, but in fighting the culture war, social conservatives are on their own. In fact, it’s wrong to think of this in terms of a left versus right paradigm. It would be better understood as part of the continuing struggle between virtue (as social conservatives define it) and liberty (defined by our modern secular society to mean the freedom to do whatever we want). In that light, liberty is murdering virtue…

Of course, there has always been a tension between virtue and liberty. But at some point, America ceased emphasizing community values and began valuing extreme individualism. More and more, Americans — including many conservatives — now believe that individuals should do whatever they want so long as it isn’t hurting anybody else.

But the cultural conservative says that there is a “tragedy of the commons” problem with this — that the “if it feels right, do it” mentality will eventually hurt society collectively.


Yet one gets the sense that, at root, the same-sex marriage project isn’t even really about opposition to the family as it is currently conceived—no matter how outmoded and bourgeois it may be. No, the family is just necessary collateral damage in the real struggle for sexual liberation. I suspect that, to the left, arguments about contraceptives, abortion, and gay marriage are really all about the same thing: the idea that sexual behavior must not be discriminated against, by anyone, in any sense. There must be no adverse outcomes; there must be no distinctions made; and any form of disapproval is tantamount to discrimination. Other freedoms—of speech, of liberty, of thought—may be, to some extent, negotiable. But for the left, sexual freedom is a paramount freedom.

The opponents of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, are just as deeply invested in a different freedom—religious freedom. Because they recognize that the same-sex marriage project is headed directly for conflict with religious organizations. Chai Feldblum is a thoughtful and honest proponent of same-sex marriage who serves on President Obama’s EEOC and was, before that, a professor at Georgetown Law School. Here’s Feldblum explaining the inevitable conflict between gay marriage and religious freedom to Maggie Gallagher a few years ago…

“To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real: ‘When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians.’ Most of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don’t matter.”


Christians should, starting yesterday, work on a new front. While we should not stop the fight to preserve marriage, and we may be willing to compromise on civil unions, we must start fighting now for protections for religious objectors to gay marriage.

Churches, businesses, and individuals who refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution must be protected as best we can. Those protections will eventually crumble as the secular world increasingly fights the world of God, but we should institute those protections now and pray they last as long as possible.

The left cannot allow Christians to continue to preach the full gospel. We already see this in, of all places, Canada. Gay marriage is incompatible with a religion that preaches that the unrepentant are condemned, even of a sin the world has decided is not one. The religious freedom will eventually be ended through the judiciary. We should work to extend that freedom as long as we can.


When former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean began campaigning for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, he would regularly say in his stump speech, “I am tired of fighting elections on guns, God and gays. We’re going to fight this election on our turf, which is going to be jobs, education and health care.”

Fast-forward 10 years to the third month of President Obama’s second term. Suddenly, the Democrats’ turf doesn’t look so friendly anymore. It’s not hard to see why they’re changing gears to fight a culture war of their own choosing…

Unless the economy markedly improves in the near future, or Obamacare is miraculously implemented without a hitch, expect Obama and the White House to turn the 2014 election into an all-out culture war centered around gun control and gay marriage. This is the only turf that appears remotely friendly to them these days.





Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 8 9 10

Good point HN

Times cover has 2 different covers of same sex folks kissing…. mj crew just digging them

How many of those issues will be sold?

cmsinaz on March 28, 2013 at 7:53 AM

Times cover has 2 different covers of same sex folks kissing…. mj crew just digging them

How many of those issues will be sold?

cmsinaz on March 28, 2013 at 7:53 AM

Who cares? It has been at least 15 years since a weekly news magazine has had any relevance. What with 24/7 news channels and the internet, Time has to come up with sensationalized stories like “We’re all gay now!” to sell the pathetic few copies they peddle.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 8:00 AM

cmsinaz on March 28, 2013 at 7:53 AM

and still no mention of Sarah’s ad. no mika or joe. as i fast forward through the show all i see is rainbows and jonathan capehearts bowtie.

renalin on March 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM

Good point again HN

Correctamundo Renalin…. Nada

-mika and joe on vacay probably

cmsinaz on March 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Christians should, starting yesterday, work on a new front. While we should not stop the fight to preserve marriage, and we may be willing to compromise on civil unions, we must start fighting now for protections for religious objectors to gay marriage.

Move the goal posts. If marriage is going to be redefined to include same sex couples, then we need to come up with a new word for the union of one man and one woman. They simply cannot be the same thing. We should start asking the proponents of same sex marriage what that word is.

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Natural marriage versus legal marriage?

Ted Torgerson on March 28, 2013 at 8:13 AM

They simply cannot be the same thing. We should start asking the proponents of same sex marriage what that word is.

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM

They already call straights ‘breeders’, so why not Breeder Bigotry?

Liam on March 28, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Natural marriage versus legal marriage?

Ted Torgerson on March 28, 2013 at 8:13 AM

They already call straights ‘breeders’, so why not Breeder Bigotry?

Liam on March 28, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Well, right now it’s being called opposite sex marriage or heterosexual marriage. Authentic, Real, Original Marriage? Or maybe we should start called gay marriage MINOs – marriage in name only.

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Move the goal posts. If marriage is going to be redefined to include same sex couples, then we need to come up with a new word for the union of one man and one woman. They simply cannot be the same thing. We should start asking the proponents of same sex marriage what that word is.

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM

With all due respect, why do we have to come up with an new word for traditional marriage? Let the gays come up with a word to describe sodomite relationships! Instead of standing down on this point, I think we should be screaming that whatever you want to call the relationship between these deviants it is not marriage.

The gays can get the benefits, legal status, and all the other things they claim they are being denied by society (a bald-faced lie but gays like to play victim to strengthen their weak position) but they may not have the word marriage attached to their unholy alliances.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Religous conservatives need to be more Daily-Show-clever in the art of rhetoric. Stop quoting the Bible in opposition and start quoting the Koran. Replace “God hates gays” with “Allah really hates gays”. Etc.

It won’t change the political facts on the ground but given the secular left’s reverence toward Islam it should produce some highly entertaining reactions.

kd6rxl on March 28, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Agreed, but it has already been hijacked. I have argued on this page that the word marriage is the status brand, like Tiffany’s, Harvard, Rolex etc. Those brands would never stand to have copycats proliferate because then the brand is over. This is something that young people and non-religious understand. They want the word but a gay union is not the same as and can never be equal to heterosexual union. So let’s ask them what is it called?

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 8:43 AM

So let’s ask them what is it called?

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Whatever it is, I can see it sounding neutral on the surface but be spoken with a sneer and derision, as it inherently has to do with some form of bigotry. Much like how the term Jim Crow constitutes an automatic definition in people’s minds. It might take a while, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens.

Liam on March 28, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Best defense of DOMA yet? First look…Senator King?

A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal. State governments issue licenses to protect certain activities in which that state government has a compelling interest. One must have a license to drive, to fly, to practice medicine, to conduct certain business, to teach school, to practice cosmetology, to join the bar and to own one. In order to get married, one must possess a marriage license.

Each license comes with a set of qualifications that must be proven in order to obtain it. Those qualifications always indicate the government’s compelling interest in the activity. To drive, one must prove he or she is a safe and capable driver. The government’ compelling interest is safety. To teach school, one must prove he or she is equipped to teach adequately, prepare children for the rigors of society, and handle unique challenges of certain students. The government’s compelling interest is to perpetuate what is best for the children.

To marry, two people must prove they are of opposite sex, not related, of age, and not married to anyone else. There is no requirement for proof of enduring love, comingling of finances, or even intent to cohabitate. To ask the government to certify any of those things would offend all Americans who jealously guard their individual autonomy. The government has a compelling interest in a legal record of procreation (this is further indicated by the doctrine of presumed paternity), and in creating a lasting environment where children will thrive. The fact that one must obtain a court order to divorce and the existence of tax-based incentives for marriage are other effects of the government’s interest in marriage.

Marriage is the stable platform from which families are launched. Government surely has a compelling interest in ensuring the stability of that platform, and even subsidizing the practice with tax incentives. Moreover, society has an interest in promoting procreation amongst married adults. Same-sex marriage does not present the possibility of natural procreation nor has same-sex parenting endured and thrived for millennia of human experience.

In our legal system, qualifications for licenses have long-standing foundation, and those qualifications are not considered discriminatory. They are considered to be necessary to pursue the interest of the public. In the case of marriage, those interests are all about children.

You do not need a license to begin a new friendship, start shopping at a new grocery store or pharmacy, or even begin a new dating relationship. Likewise, one does not need a court order to terminate any of those relationships. This fact indicates that there is something unique about marriage that necessitates government involvement. Insisting upon heterosexual marriage is therefore not discriminatory, nor does it constitute the government telling anyone whom to love. The argument for upholding the Defense of Marriage Act is rooted in the way marriage is historically treated by state laws. To understand why government is involved in marriage in the first place is to understand why government cannot validate same-sex marriage.

— Congressman Steve King represents the Fifth District of Iowa.

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Religous conservatives need to be more Daily-Show-clever in the art of rhetoric. Stop quoting the Bible in opposition and start quoting the Koran. Replace “God hates gays” with “Allah really hates gays”. Etc.

It won’t change the political facts on the ground but given the secular left’s reverence toward Islam it should produce some highly entertaining reactions.

kd6rxl on March 28, 2013 at 8:35 AM

I like this thinking. Gay marriage is like New Coke. They messed with the formula that worked and eventually went back to the original.

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 9:05 AM

This article concisely offers rebuttals to Homosexual Marriage Activists…

” However, before we begin, let’s note a few things. First, this article concerns civil marriage — marriage as defined and promoted by the state. It doesn’t deal with the Church’s sacramental understanding, although the two often overlap. Second, the responses to the arguments are emphatically nonreligious. They don’t depend on any sacred text or divine revelation. They’re based on reason, philosophy, biology and history. Third, this article only refutes arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. It doesn’t touch upon the many positive arguments supporting traditional marriage.

One more note: This is not an attack on people with same-sex attractions. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Instead, this article is a rational look at whether civil marriage, an institution that touches all people and cultures, should be redefined…

1. Marriage has evolved throughout history, so it can change again.

Different cultures have treated marriage differently. Some promoted arranged marriages. Others tied marriage to dowries. Still others saw marriage as a political relationship through which they could forge family alliances.

But all these variations still embraced the fundamental, unchanging essence of marriage. They still saw it, in general, as a public, lifelong partnership between one man and one woman for the sake of generating and raising children.

This understanding predates any government or religion. It’s a pre-political, pre-religious institution evident even in cultures that had no law or faith to promote it.

Yet, even supposing the essence of marriage could change, would that mean it should? We know from other areas of life such as medical research and nuclear physics that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you ought. After all, such action may not be ethical or serve the common good. Even if this argument had historical basis, it would not necessarily be a good reason to change the meaning of marriage.

2. Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality.

This argument is emotionally powerful since we all have deep, innate longings for fairness and equality. Moreover, history has given us many failures in this area, including women banned from voting and African-Americans denied equal civil rights. The question, of course, is whether same-sex couples are denied equality by not being allowed to marry each other.

To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different.

Second, there are really two issues here: the equality of different people and the equality of different relationships. The current marriage laws already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man and unmarried woman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the law is neutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and religion.

The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is yes. The largest difference is that same-sex couples cannot produce children, nor ensure a child’s basic right to be raised by his mother and father. These facts alone mean we’re talking about two very different types of relationships. It’s wrong, therefore, to assume the state should necessarily treat them as if they were the same.

Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that it’s discriminatory to favor heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With all of the benefits flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one set of relationships over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage, it would then be favoring gay “spouses” over unmarried heterosexual couples. The argument runs both ways and is ultimately self-defeating.

3. Everyone has the right to marry whomever he or she loves.

Though catchy, few people truly believe this slogan. Most of us acknowledge there should be at least some limitations on marriage for social or health reasons. For example, a man can’t marry a young child or a close relative. And if a man is truly in love with two different women, he’s legally not allowed to marry both of them, even if both agree to such an arrangement.

So, the real question here is not whether marriage should be limited, but how. To answer that, we must determine why the government even bothers with marriage. It’s not to validate two people who love each other, nice as that is. It’s because marriage between one man and one woman is likely to result in a family with children. Since the government is deeply interested in the propagation and stabilization of society, it promotes and regulates this specific type of relationship above all others.

To put it simply, in the eyes of the state, marriage is not about adults; it’s about children. Claiming a “right to marry whomever I love” ignores the true emphasis of marriage.

Notice that nobody is telling anyone whom he or she can or cannot love. Every person, regardless of orientation, is free to enter into private romantic relationships with whomever he or she chooses. But there is no general right to have any relationship recognized as marriage by the government.

4. Same-sex marriage won’t affect you, so what’s the big deal?

Since marriage is a relationship between two individuals, what effect would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, it sounds like a good question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is a public institution, redefining it would affect all of society.

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral and religious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage threatens religious freedom.

5. Same-sex marriage will not lead to other redefinitions.

When marriage revolves around procreation, it makes sense to restrict it to one man and one woman. That’s the only relationship capable of producing children. But if we redefine marriage as simply a loving, romantic union between committed adults, what principled reason would we have for rejecting polygamist or polyamorous — that is, multiple-person — relationships as marriages?

Thomas Peters, cultural director at the National Organization for Marriage, doesn’t see one. “Once you sever the institution of marriage from its biological roots, there is little reason to cease redefining it to suit the demands of various interest groups,” Peters said.

This isn’t just scaremongering or a hypothetical slippery slope. These aftereffects have already been observed in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. For example, in Brazil and the Netherlands, three-way relationships were recently granted the full rights of marriage. After marriage was redefined in Canada, a polygamist man launched legal action to have his relationships recognized by law. Even in our own country, the California Legislature passed a bill to legalize families of three or more parents.

Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to two people. When sexual love replaces children as the primary purpose of marriage, restricting it to just two people no longer makes sense.

6. If same-sex couples can’t marry because they can’t reproduce, why can infertile couples marry?

This argument concerns two relatively rare situations: younger infertile couples and elderly couples. If marriage is about children, why does the state allow the first group to marry? The reason is that while we know every same-sex couple is infertile, we don’t generally know that about opposite-sex couples.

Some suggest forcing every engaged couple to undergo mandatory fertility testing before marriage. But this would be outrageous. Besides being prohibitively expensive, it would also be an egregious invasion of privacy, all to detect an extremely small minority of couples.

Another problem is that infertility is often misdiagnosed. Fertile couples may be wrongly denied marriage under such a scenario. This is never the case for same-sex couples, who cannot produce children together.

But why does the government allow elderly couples to marry? It’s true that most elderly couples cannot reproduce (though women as old as 70 have been known to give birth). However, these marriages are so rare that it’s simply not worth the effort to restrict them. Also, elderly marriages still feature the right combination of man and woman needed to make children. Thus they provide a healthy model for the rest of society, and are still capable of offering children a home with a mother and a father.

7. Children will not be affected since there is no difference between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.

This argument was most famously stated in 2005 when the American Psychological Association (APA) wrote that “not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

However, several recent studies have put that claim to rest.
In June, LSU scholar Loren Marks published a peer-reviewed paper in Social Science Research. It examined the 59 studies that the APA relied on for its briefing. Marks discovered that not one of the studies used a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children. Several used extremely small “convenience” samples, recruiting participants through advertisements or word of mouth, and many failed to even include a control group. Furthermore, the studies did not track the children over time and were largely based on interviews with parents about the upbringing of their own children — a virtual guarantee of biased results.

One month later, Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus released a comprehensive study titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” His research used a large, random and national sample and its scope was unprecedented among prior work in this field. Contrary to the APA, Regnerus found that for a majority of outcomes, children raised by parents with same-sex relationships drastically underperformed children raised in a household with married, biological parents.

He quickly noted that his study didn’t necessarily show that same-sex couples are bad parents, but that it did definitively put to rest the claim that there are “no differences” among parenting combinations.

8. Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on bigotry, homophobia and religious hatred.

These accusations are not so much an argument for same-sex marriage as personal attacks designed to shut down real dialogue. Let’s look at each one.

First, bigotry. A quick visit to Facebook, Twitter or any online comment box confirms that for many people, support for traditional marriage is tantamount to bigotry. This holds off-line, too. In November, Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien was pegged “Bigot of the Year” by a gay rights group for simply opposing same-sex marriage in public.

So, is the charge accurate? Well, the definition of bigotry is “unwilling to tolerate opinions different than your own.” However, tolerating opinions does not require enshrining them through law. One can tolerate advocates of same-sex marriage, and seriously engage the idea, while still rejecting it for compelling reasons.

Second, homophobia. This refers to a fear of homosexuality, and the assumption is that people who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they’re irrationally afraid. But as this article shows, there are many good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with fear. Branding someone “homophobic” is typically used to end rational discussion.

Third, religious hatred. Some people disagree with same-sex marriage solely for religious reasons. But, again, as this article demonstrates, one can disagree for other reasons, without appealing to the Bible, divine revelation or any religious authority. You don’t need religious teachings to understand, analyze and discuss the purpose of marriage or its effects on the common good.

If these accusations were all true, it would mean that the overwhelming majority of people throughout time — who by and large supported traditional marriage — would likewise be homophobic, intolerant bigots. That would include the most profound thinkers in many different traditions: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes, Plutarch, St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and Mahatma Gandhi. Most people would reject such an absurdity.

9. The struggle for same-sex marriage is just like the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

The suggestion here is that sex is similar to race, and therefore denying marriage for either reason is wrong. The problem, however, is that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are significantly different.

For instance, nothing prevents interracial couples from fulfilling the basic essence of marriage — a public, lifelong relationship ordered toward procreation. Because of this, the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1960s were wrong to discriminate against interracial couples. Yet same-sex couples are not biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.

It’s important to note that African-Americans, who have the most poignant memories of marital discrimination, generally disagree that preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sex marriage. For example, when Californians voted on Proposition 8, a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor.

According to Peters, “Likening same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is puzzling and offensive to most African-Americans, who are shocked at such a comparison.”

10. Same-sex marriage is inevitable, so we should stand on the right side of history.

On Nov. 6, voters in three states — Maine, Maryland and Washington — voted against marriage as it has traditionally been understood. In Minnesota, voters rejected a measure to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Many advocates of same-sex marriage considered this a sign that the marriage tides are turning. But is that true? And if so, how does that shift impact the case for same-sex marriage?

First, if the tide is in fact turning, it’s still little more than a ripple. The states that voted in November to redefine marriage did so with slim margins, none garnering more than 53 percent of the vote. The tiny victories were despite record-breaking funding advantages, sitting governors campaigning for same-sex marriage and strong support among the media.

Before these four aberrations, 32 states had voted on the definition of marriage. Each and every time they voted to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Of the six states that recognized same-sex marriage before the November election, none arrived there through a vote by the people. Each redefinition was imposed by state legislatures and courts.

Overall, Americans remain strongly in favor of traditional marriage. Most polls show roughly two-thirds of the country wants to keep marriage as it is.

Yet, even if the tides have recently shifted, that does not make arguments in its favor any more persuasive. We don’t look to other moral issues and say, “Well, people are eventually going to accept it, so we might as well get in line.” We shouldn’t do that for same-sex marriage, either. …”


workingclass artist on March 28, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Bluegill, the last day of the term is 24 June, so I would think then or any 1-3 days preceding it.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Perhaps if more Evangelicals had bothered to show up at the polls last November they might not have found themselves so marginalized now.

paulus1 on March 28, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10