Poll: Public now evenly split at 48 percent on legalizing gay marriage — in Utah

posted at 6:01 pm on January 16, 2014 by Allahpundit

I thought gay-marriage polls had lost their capacity to surprise but I was wrong. Utah is so overwhelmingly Mormon, and Mormons are so heavily opposed to legalizing SSM, that a poll of the state would necessarily produce some lopsided 30/70 result against — I thought. Not so: A third of Mormons there are now pro-legalization and the non-Mormon population is large enough (and pro-SSM enough) that, between them, they’ve made this a toss-up even in one of America’s reddest states.

For what it’s worth, there may be a silver lining for opponents here.

Residents are now evenly split on whether same-sex couples in Utah should be allowed to get state-issued marriage licences — 48 percent for and 48 percent against — and nearly three-fourths (72 percent) said same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage…

The results reflect a remarkable turn since 66 percent of Utahns who participated in the 2004 general election approved Amendment 3, which limited civil marriage to a man and a woman and barred any state recognition of other relationships such as civil unions or domestic partnerships…

Support for same-sex marriage was strongest among non-Mormons, people between ages 18 and 34 and those who described themselves as Democrats. Slightly more than a third of respondents (36 percent) said their views on same-sex marriage have shifted over time, something that was equally true of Mormons and non-Mormons. Overwhelmingly, people in both of those demographic categories said their views had become more accepting.

Mormons oppose legalizing gay marriage 32/64 while non-Mormons support it 76/21. On the lesser question of civil unions, though, they’re in sync: 65 percent of Mormons say yes versus 84 percent of non-Mormons. The latter result is, I assume, an olive branch by LDS members to gay couples to show that they don’t oppose all legal recognition of gay relationships, just the traditional concept of “marriage.” Problem is, it’s arguably harder to defend marriage laws from an equal protection challenge in court once you’ve extended substantive marriage rights to gays, even if your motive in extending those rights was well intentioned. If gay relationships are entitled to virtually every legal benefit of marriage except the label itself, a court’s going to find more often than not that withholding the label amounts to discrimination for its own sake, without a good/rational reason. The olive branch, designed to keep “marriage” as a separate sphere for straights only, actually weakens the case for it.

These numbers are interesting too:

sl

Protecting religious conscience via constitutional amendment is probably the next phase of the great gay-marriage debate — maybe even at the federal level, as there are some Democrats at the moment who are willing, if only in the name of quieting critics of legalizing gay marriage, to rhetorically endorse conscience protections. That’d be fertile ground for social cons next year if the GOP takes back the Senate. The public supports freedom of conscience in this area overwhelmingly; a two-thirds majority of both chambers in Congress isn’t out of the question, especially since red-state Democrats don’t like being seen as anti-religion. Better move fast, though, before these numbers too slowly start to erode in a country that’s becoming marginally less religious.

The other poll result above, about challenging the ruling of the federal judge on gay marriage in Utah, is where the silver lining I mentioned comes in. Even in a state that’s trending towards support for legalizing SSM, people don’t like having the rules made by judges. The Supreme Court is sensitive to that, too. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has grumbled that pro-choicers might have been better off without Roe v. Wade, since that would have left legalization to the states and that would have built a democratic legitimacy for the practice that Roe, to some extent, short-circuited. The Court’s ruling on Prop 8 last year, in which it declined the opportunity to strike down traditional marriage laws across the country, may be an example of the same logic at work. There’s almost no question that SCOTUS will, eventually, legalize gay marriage; there is a question of whether they might hold off for several years if they see the public even in conservative redoubts like Utah shifting their way. Why open itself up to “tyranny of the judiciary” charges if it can sit back and let changing electoral demographics do the job? As such, polls like this might buy more time for other conservative states to keep their marriage laws, even though they almost certainly won’t last forever.


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 4

I can’t even begin to engage a paranoia in which letting gay people lead normal lives leads to the enslavement of society. It’s sad that you think that way, but I don’t want to go there, even in an attempt to find humor in it.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 7:10 PM

It’s not gay marriage. It’s all that comes after, and that all leads to the complete destruction of marriage. Don’t get me wrong there will be many, many people claiming to be married, but it won’t mean anything at all legally or socially. The legal part will be replaced by civil unions, and all the flavors of the new social “marriage” will be overwhelming so people who will simply shrug and move on. That then has an effect on society, specifically child rearing, and that leads to the true problems.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 7:18 PM

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Do you see marriage (any form) as a “right”? And if so, please define “right”.

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 7:19 PM

I can’t even begin to engage a paranoia in which letting gay people lead normal lives leads to the enslavement of society.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Paranoia? In 1978, if you talked about gay marriage, you’d be called paranoid. Paranoia has little to do with the article I just posted

Please, tell me how gays can’t lead ‘normal’ lives, as you call it.

We’ve just had one (Jetboy) on one hand, fighting for gay ‘marriage’ yet on the other hand, he’s OK with all marriage being done away with.

Now if he’s not leading a ‘normal’ life now, what good is gay ‘marriage’ gonna do?

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:19 PM

The slow chiseling away at moral norms leads us to this.

50 years ago, if you said Gay marriage, you’d be laughed out of the room.

Whose laughing now?

What modern day Taboos will be morally acceptable 50 years from now?

Pedophilia?
Beastiality?
Plural Marriage?

portlandon on January 16, 2014 at 7:24 PM

We’ve just had one (Jetboy) on one hand, fighting for gay ‘marriage’ yet on the other hand, he’s OK with all marriage being done away with.

Now if he’s not leading a ‘normal’ life now, what good is gay ‘marriage’ gonna do?

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:19 PM

This is why I hate these threads…the complete and utter bs like this.

At least try to be somewhat intellectually honest, huh? I keep hearing how gay marriage is a “slippery slope” to “anything goes”. And if that’s true, then “traditional marriage” as it’s often called has led to gay marriage. Therefore, “traditional marriage” itself is a slippery slope. So if ending gay marriage prevents further slippage, if you will, then let’s cut marriage out completely. Problem of slippery slopes solved.

That’s not what I’m a proponent of. That’s your solution put in full action. Not mine.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:24 PM

The Founders wouldn’t recognize the joke of our Supreme Court and would be sharpening their pitchforks posthaste.

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 7:25 PM

It’s not gay marriage. It’s all that comes after, and that all leads to the complete destruction of marriage.

Oh you mean like the 50% + divorce rate and the multiple marriages because that, you idiot, is just making it stronger right you bible swilling reatrd.

Your Mamma loves me on January 16, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Do you see marriage (any form) as a “right”? And if so, please define “right”.

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Marriage is not a “right”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Pedophilia?
Beastiality?
Plural Marriage?

portlandon on January 16, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Don’t forget “plural pedophile bestiality” or as they call it in San Fransicko: “Monday.”

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 7:28 PM

It’s not gay marriage. It’s all that comes after, and that all leads to the complete destruction of marriage.

Oh you mean like the 50% + divorce rate and the multiple marriages because that, you idiot, is just making it stronger right you bible swilling reatrd.

Your Mamma loves me on January 16, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Whoa…please don’t with the name-calling. It doesn’t help.

But you’re spot-on with this:…the destruction of marriage is going swimmingly without any help from teh gheys. High divorce rates, pre-nups, child custody battles, not quite the Norman Rockwell image some people like to make marriage out to be.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:30 PM

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:25 PM

I agree. Oddly, most who support gay marriage disagree with you.

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Apparently now it violates the rights of the dog not to label it a cat. – AP

p0s3r on January 16, 2014 at 7:32 PM

“traditional marriage” itself is a slippery slope.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:24 PM

No, son, it is not. Liberalism is a slippery slope. Look. Whether you choose to admit it or not, humanity has to have moral restraint for societies to survive. Whether you choose to believe it or not, homosexuality is not ‘normal’. You do what you want, sexually, I really don’t care. But keep it to yourself.

We seem to be involved in a quickening, of sorts. If, you and I are still alive and kicking at the end of our lives and our country has any semblance of real freedom left, you may blame it on George Bush.

The reason I don’t condemn homosexuals is that I’m a pretty fair fornicator/adulterer myself. But I don’t broadcast it and I damned sure ain’t proud of it.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Don’t forget “plural pedophile bestiality” or as they call it in San Fransicko: “Monday.”

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 7:28 PM

LOL.

portlandon on January 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM

It’s not gay marriage. It’s all that comes after, and that all leads to the complete destruction of marriage. Don’t get me wrong there will be many, many people claiming to be married, but it won’t mean anything at all legally or socially. The legal part will be replaced by civil unions, and all the flavors of the new social “marriage” will be overwhelming so people who will simply shrug and move on. That then has an effect on society, specifically child rearing, and that leads to the true problems.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 7:18 PM

How exactly is it that you know comes after gay marriage? My synagogue has had gay marriage for years. When do we get to the eating pork phase of the complete destruction of marriage?

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 7:36 PM

And here’s another, Jetboy. We have NAMBLA, but the powers that be look the other way. Yet we also have the NRA, a group that was started more or less to make sure blacks had rights against what the KKK was doing, now being attacked by some fatfuck Hollywood piece of crap whose people were marched into ovens by another leftist.

Tell me how a society can survive that kind of nonsense.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM

And here’s another, Jetboy. We have NAMBLA, but the powers that be look the other way. Yet we also have the NRA, a group that was started more or less to make sure blacks had rights against what the KKK was doing, now being attacked by some fat bastard Hollywood piece of crap whose people were marched into ovens by another leftist.

Tell me how a society can survive that kind of nonsense.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:39 PM

This is a losing battle…who cares

Let them get married and be miserable like everybody else

Attorneys all over the country can’t wait to handle all of the divorces, custody fights

As usual, this is all about $$$$ Lawyers….

Redford on January 16, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Should be this:

How exactly is it that you know what comes after gay marriage? My synagogue has had gay marriage for years. When do we get to the eating pork phase of the complete destruction of marriage?

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 7:36 PM

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 7:39 PM

But you’re spot-on with this:…the destruction of marriage is going swimmingly without any help from teh gheys. High divorce rates, pre-nups, child custody battles, not quite the Norman Rockwell image some people like to make marriage out to be.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:30 PM

You think the maintenance of society is a Norman Rockwell painting. Well, that’s your deluded problem right there. I guess that’s why you want the institution so badly, if that’s your perception of it.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Your synagogue? I’d hate to think of what they do with their menorahs…..

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 7:42 PM

No, son, it is not. Liberalism is a slippery slope. Look. Whether you choose to admit it or not, humanity has to have moral restraint for societies to survive. Whether you choose to believe it or not, homosexuality is not ‘normal’. You do what you want, sexually, I really don’t care. But keep it to yourself.

I’m not your “son”. Liberalism is a mental disorder, if you ask me. I’m not a liberal. Whether you choose to accept that there are homosexuals in the world, and always have been, is up to you. Frankly, I don’t give a rats *ss if you think being gay is normal or not. But I’m not about to slunk away in the shadows because you don’t like it.

I do keep “sex” to myself. Have you ever seen me once talk about sexual exploits here? Have you ever seen one gay poster here talk about sex? No, you have not. Every instance of gay sex talk can be attributed to the “normal” people. You know, the hetero man who beats his wife every night…normal. The hetero woman who neglects her kids? Normal. And why are they normal? Because they aren’t gay.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:43 PM

How exactly is it that you know comes after gay marriage? My synagogue has had gay marriage for years. When do we get to the eating pork phase of the complete destruction of marriage?

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 7:36 PM

So some high end synagogue performs boutique gay marriages and since the world hasn’t collapsed, yet, you just know that it’s all going to be alright. You and Jetboy should get married. It would be just like a Normal Rockwell painting.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 7:46 PM

… or maybe a Grant Wood painting? Who gets to hold the pitchfork?

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM

You’re somebody’s son, son. Nobody cares if gays are here, always have been here and are here to stay. You don’t need, nor do you need to ‘fight’ for gay ‘marriage’ to be ‘normal’ in regards to life in general. Yet, here you are, believing that you’re denied something you vaguely feel entitled to, example- forcing society to accept your behavior as normal so you can have this vague sense that homosexuality is a normal and logical way to live.

We don’t accept the child neglect mother as normal.
We don’t accept the wife-beating husband as normal.

But I’ll tell you what. The Roman Empire fell quickly. The Soviets took over Russia quickly. Cuba lost their freedom quickly. If it happens here, and it is quite possible, try to place some of the blame on yourself for taking more rope than you were entitled to.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Sodomy is still sodomy.

rich801 on January 16, 2014 at 7:53 PM

And I don’t mean blame yourself personally, Jetboy. I mean accept the blame as a group, as it were. We have serious problems in this country regarding our government and here we are worked up over this nonsensical hogwash.

Tell you what. You find a way of getting liberalism out of the societal mind, and I’ll be there in the front pew at your wedding. Or one of your friends’ weddings, if you personally ain’t into that.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I realize you probably don’t wish to comment further but I’m wondering, why are you not (apparently) a conservative homosexual? And no, I don’t think it’s semantics. – BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 7:09 PM

I will say that I don’t follow the far left gay agenda or the far right socon agenda. With gay marriage comes legal responsibilities to the partners of those who exchange vows.

SC.Charlie on January 16, 2014 at 8:01 PM

I will say that I don’t follow the far left gay agenda or the far right socon agenda. With gay marriage comes legal responsibilities to the partners of those who exchange vows.

SC.Charlie on January 16, 2014 at 8:01 PM

My divorce took all of a month if I remember, so much for those legal responsibilities. You guys really do think it’s a f@%$% Norman Rockwell painting.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 8:06 PM

I dont get why people care so much about other people’s business. So what if someone wants to practice polygamy? As long as the state isn’t incentivizing it with handouts in any manner, its none of my business what they do. Do you people literally have nothing else to worry about in your own lives that you gotta stick your noses into the bedrooms of others? And you religious nuts who believe in hell and all that, do you seriously think its your duty to add your disapproval on top of the never ending torment you believe awaits these people after death? Its almost as if you realize your notion of heaven/hell/God is utter nonsense, so you have to take over and be “God’s” hand here on earth because you realize there is no punishment for what you consider immoral behavior after death. If you TRULY believed in God, don’t you think its his business to handle this shit? He doesn’t need your help.

thphilli on January 16, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Anyone who creates a child for the purpose of giving the child to homos should go to jail.

Mormontheman on January 16, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Now the ranting is about “the slippery slope.”

* rolling eyes *

Not too long ago we were warning that the real goal of homosexuals was to create a protected status for themselves…so they could force people to go along with them, lest they be “discriminating.”

We’ve already got one person, maybe more to follow, who are going to land in prison for refusing to perform services for a “gay” wedding. Next will be the churches.

Soon, it will be a “hate” crime to read bible scriptures condemning homosexuality, and polygamists WILL be suing for the same “right” to marry.

That’s the slippery slope. It’s quite real, and if you don’t believe me, just consider abortion for a moment. We were told it was absolutely unthinkable that full term infants would be aborted. How long did it take for that to start happening?

JannyMae on January 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM

This is what happens after gay marriage becomes legalized.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html

The rest of the Homosexual Normalization Agenda goes into full swing.

p0s3r on January 16, 2014 at 8:29 PM

…This isnt a Chris Christie thread wtfwtfwtf

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 8:30 PM

My divorce took all of a month if I remember, so much for those legal responsibilities. You guys really do think it’s a f@%$% Norman Rockwell painting. – DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 8:06 PM

No, marriage is not a Norman Rockwell painting. I guess that you thought it was. Should we address no fault divorce on this thread? Or, would you like me to get into my brother’s divorce from his wife, that was a divorce from hell. It was a three day trial. I had to testify for one half day on the stand. As they say, only the lawyers only won.

SC.Charlie on January 16, 2014 at 8:30 PM

My divorce took all of a month if I remember, so much for those legal responsibilities. You guys really do think it’s a f@%$% Norman Rockwell painting.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Enough, huh? I’m not the one who sees marriage as a Rockwell painting. I make the point that when someone says gay marriage will destroy the institution, I point out that “traditional marriage”…of which I haven’t gotten a real definition of yet…isn’t all happy kids with happy parents around a happy dinner table, etc. Gays aren’t going to make grandma’s homemade pies turn to stone.

Anyone who creates a child for the purpose of giving the child to homos should go to jail.

Mormontheman on January 16, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Yeah, that’s nice.

And I don’t mean blame yourself personally, Jetboy. I mean accept the blame as a group, as it were. We have serious problems in this country regarding our government and here we are worked up over this nonsensical hogwash.

Tell you what. You find a way of getting liberalism out of the societal mind, and I’ll be there in the front pew at your wedding. Or one of your friends’ weddings, if you personally ain’t into that.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I am not accepting blame “as a group” any more than I would ask you to accept blame for a 50% divorce rate as a group. The main problem is that you and others are looking at gays as this one group, all the same. I cringe every time I hear “the gay community”. There is no gay community, anymore than there’s a straight community. It’s ridiculous to even start with that.

If we judge straight marriage based on the performance of straight married couples as a whole group, with a 50% divorce rate, I’m sure you’d agree it would be a pretty dismal conclusion. And a failing grade. That’s why we don’t judge marriage as a group performance. We judge marriage on a case-by-case. The same way we should all be judged.

God Bless, and good night.

And here I always thought conservatives believed in empowering the individual, not the “group”. That’s something that drew me into conservationism. Each of us, individually, are responsible for our own actions. And each of us is responsible for our own success…or failure…and we don’t place blame elsewhere for it. In a larger sense, when it comes to our lives, we all “built that”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:30 PM

My last couple paragraphs got mixed up somehow…frankly I blame the Joooos. Gay Jooos.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Good night, Jetboy. Most of us still love ya here.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Gay Jooos? WTF???

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Gay Jooos? WTF???

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM

It’s a joke, Lanceman. Sheesh.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Y’know who else is a God-fearing heterosexual?

Fred Phelps.

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Here here JetBoy! I can’t wait for the day when religions lose their tax exempt status in this country. Talk about a racket.

Bandit13 on January 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM

“Gay marriage” is not illegal in any state.

“Gay marriage” has not been banned in any state.

Stop the media/liberal lie of “gay marriage” being banned or illegal.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 16, 2014 at 8:38 PM

My last couple paragraphs got mixed up somehow…frankly I blame the Joooos. Gay Jooos.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Don’t forget the Build-a-Bear group and the Wrathchilds;-)

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 16, 2014 at 8:39 PM

This is an excellent article on marriage that was published yesterday. I quoted it on an earlier thread from Tuesday, but I’ll do so again because Ryan Anderson succinctly covers almost all of the issues and gives cogent answers.

Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs
by Ryan T. Anderson

What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage? Adapted from testimony delivered on Monday, January 13, 2014 to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee.

I have included only some of the embedded links. Any emphases in bold are mine.

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the Editor of Public Discourse. He is co-author, with Sherif Girgis and Robert George, of the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame.

[You can watch video of this testimony here.]

I will be speaking today from the perspective of political science and philosophy to answer the question “What Is Marriage?” I’ve co-authored a book and an article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy with a classmate of mine from Princeton, Sherif Girgis, and with a professor of ours, Robert George. Justice Samuel Alito cited our book twice in his dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case involving the Defense of Marriage Act.

The title of that book is “What Is Marriage?” An answer to that question is something we didn’t hear today from people on the other side. It’s interesting that we’ve had a three-hour conversation about marriage without much by way of answering that question.

Everyone in this room is in favor of marriage equality. We all want the law to treat all marriages equally. But the only way we can know whether any state law is treating marriages equally is if we know what a marriage is. Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships.

So, in the time I have today, I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:40 PM

What is marriage?

Marriage exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to then be equipped to be mother and father to any children that that union produces. It’s based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary. It’s based on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman. It’s based on the sociological reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Whenever a child is born, a mother will always be close by. That’s a fact of biology. The question for culture and the question for law is whether a father will be close by. And if so, for how long? Marriage is the institution that different cultures and societies across time and place developed to maximize the likelihood that that man would commit to that woman and then the two of them would take responsibility to raise that child.

Part of this is based on the reality that there’s no such thing as parenting in the abstract: there’s mothering, and there’s fathering. Men and women bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise. Rutgers sociologist Professor David Popenoe writes, “the burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” He then concludes:

We should disavow the notion that mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.

This is why so many states continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, many doing so by amending their constitutions.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM

It’s a joke, Lanceman. Sheesh.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM

I know. I didn’t just walk in here off the cotton fields.

Y’know who else is a God-fearing heterosexual?

Fred Phelps.

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM

And you know who else in this forum no one considers ‘normal’?

Fred Phelps!

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Ironically, very ironically, as I mentioned the other day, in June Obama himself initiated a national conversation on the importance of fathers. Indeed, he’s given numerous speeches on fatherhood, even as he has worked to destroy the family. No logic is evident in his thinking.

Here’s Ryan again:

So why does marriage matter for public policy? Perhaps there is no better way to analyze this than by looking to our own president, President Barack Obama. Allow me to quote him:

We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

There is a host of social science evidence. We go through the litany and cite the studies in our book, but President Obama sums it up pretty well. We’ve seen in the past fifty years, since the war on poverty began, that the family has collapsed. At one point in America, virtually every child was given the gift of a married mother and father. Today, 40 percent of all Americans, 50 percent of Hispanics, and 70 percent of African Americans are born to single moms—and the consequences for those children are quite serious.

The state’s interest in marriage is not that it cares about my love life, or your love life, or anyone’s love life just for the sake of romance. The state’s interest in marriage is ensuring that those kids have fathers who are involved in their lives.

But when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high. As the marriage culture collapses, child poverty rises. Crime rises. Social mobility decreases. And welfare spending—which bankrupts so many states and the federal government—takes off.

If you care about social justice and limited government, if you care about freedom and the poor, then you have to care about marriage. All of these ends are better served by having the state define marriage correctly rather than the state trying to pick up the pieces of a broken marriage culture. The state can encourage men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children while leaving other consenting adults free to live and to love as they choose, all without redefining the fundamental institution of marriage.

On that note, we’ve heard concerns about hospital visitation rights (which the federal government has already addressed) and with inheritance laws. Every individual has those concerns. I am not married. When I get sick, I need somebody to visit me in the hospital. When I die, I need someone to inherit my wealth. That situation is not unique to a same-sex couple. That is a situation that matters for all of us. So we need not redefine marriage to craft policy that will serve all citizens.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:42 PM

The future of society is grim without children who grow up into well-adjusted, mature adults capable of responsibility in all they do and in establishing healthy relationships.

Lastly, I’ll close with three ways in which redefining marriage will undermine the institution of marriage. We hear this question: “how does redefining marriage hurt you or your marriage?” I’ll just mention three in the remaining time that I have.

First, it fundamentally reorients the institution of marriage away from the needs of children toward the desires of adults. It no longer makes marriage about ensuring the type of family life that is ideal for kids; it makes it more about adult romance. If one of the biggest social problems we face right now in the United States is absentee dads, how will we insist that fathers are essential when the law redefines marriage to make fathers optional?

Much of the testimony we have heard today was special interest pleading from big business claiming that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would make it hard for them to appeal to the elite college graduates from the East and the West coasts. We heard no discussion about the common good of the citizens of Indiana—the children who need fathers involved in their lives. Redefining marriage will make it much harder for the law to teach that those fathers are essential.

Second, if you redefine marriage, so as to say that the male-female aspect is irrational and arbitrary, what principle for policy and for law will retain the other three historic components of marriage? In the United States, it’s always been a monogamous union, a sexually exclusive union, and a permanent union. We’ve already seen new words created to challenge each and every one of those items.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM

I can’t wait for the day when religions lose their tax exempt status in this country. Talk about a racket.

Bandit13 on January 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM

I’ll go with that. Churches, by-and-large, contribute heavily to the democrats. Both monetarily and via the pulpit.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Here are the three words:

“Throuple” is a three-person couple.New York Magazine reports about it. Here’s the question: if I were to sue and say that I demand marriage equality for my throuple, what principle would deny marriage equality to the throuple once you say that the male-female aspect of marriage is irrational and arbitrary? The way that we got to monogamy is that it’s one man and one woman who can unite in the type of action that can create new life and who can provide that new life with one mom and one dad. Once you say that the male-female aspect is irrational and arbitrary, you will have no principled reason to retain the number two.

Likewise, the term “wedlease” was introduced in the Washington Post in 2013. A wedlease is a play on the term wedlock. It’s for a temporary marriage. If marriage is primarily about adult romance, and romance can come, and it can go, why should the law presume it to be permanent? Why not issue expressly temporary marriage licenses?

And lastly, the term “monogamish.” Monogamish was introduced in the New York Times in 2011. The term suggests we should retain the number two, but that spouses should be free to have sexually open relationships. That it should be two people getting married, but they should be free to have sex outside of that marriage, provided there’s no coercion or deceit.

Now, whatever you think about group marriage, whatever you think about temporary marriage, whatever you think about sexually open marriage, as far as adults living and loving how they choose, think about the social consequences if that’s the future direction in which marriage redefinition would go. For every additional sexual partner a man has and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chances that a man creates children with multiple women without commitment either to those women or to those kids. It increases the likelihood of creating fragmented families, and then big government will step in to pick up the pieces with a host of welfare programs that truly drain the economic prospects of all of our states.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Religious liberty is the last consequence to redefining marriage that is given by Anderson. We’ve already seen this immediate consequence.

Finally, I’ll mention liberty concerns, religious liberty concerns in particular. After Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC, either passed a civil union law or redefined marriage, Christian adoption agencies were forced to stop serving some of the neediest children in America: orphans. These agencies said they had no problem with same-sex couples adopting from other agencies, but that they wanted to place the children in their care with a married mom and dad. They had a religious liberty interest, and they had social science evidence that suggests that children do best with a married mom and dad. And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that.

We’ve also seen in different jurisdictions instances of photographers, bakers, florists, and innkeepers, people acting in the commercial sphere, saying we don’t want to be coerced. And that’s what redefining marriage would do. Redefining marriage would say that every institution has to treat two people of the same sex as if they’re married, even if those institutions don’t believe that they’re married. So the coercion works in the exact opposite direction of what we have heard.

Everyone right now is free to live and to love how they want. Two people of the same sex can work for a business that will give them marriage benefits, if the business chooses to. They can go to a liberal house of worship and have a marriage ceremony, if the house of worship chooses to. What is at stake with redefining marriage is whether the law would now coerce others into treating a same-sex relationship as if it’s a marriage, even when doing so violates the conscience and rights of those individuals and those institutions.

So, for all of these reasons, this state and all states have an interest in preserving the definition of marriage as the union—permanent and exclusive—of one man and one woman.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Churches, by-and-large, contribute heavily to the democrats. Both monetarily and via the pulpit.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:44 PM

You must mean the liberal Protestant denominations, which are slowly withering away.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:46 PM

I am not accepting blame “as a group” any more than I would ask you to accept blame for a 50% divorce rate as a group. The main problem is that you and others are looking at gays as this one group, all the same. I cringe every time I hear “the gay community”. There is no gay community, anymore than there’s a straight community. It’s ridiculous to even start with that.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:30 PM

JetBoy is wrong. I was exiled from the gay community for being too conservative. At least, that’s what my leftist friends tell me.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 8:48 PM

If we judge straight marriage based on the performance of straight married couples as a whole group, with a 50% divorce rate, I’m sure you’d agree it would be a pretty dismal conclusion. And a failing grade. That’s why we don’t judge marriage as a group performance. We judge marriage on a case-by-case. The same way we should all be judged.

It doesn’t have much bearing on the larger argument, but, the 50% divorce rate figure is not accurate.

That is achieved by comparing the # of marriages in a given year with the # of divorces in a given year. It’s not a particularly useful figure since it doesn’t look at outcomes for the same group of people.

The actual rate tends to be closer to 40% (still not great); however, for different cohorts the chance of getting divorced are much different. A college educated woman that marries in her late 20′s is very unlikely to get divorced. A woman that hasn’t graduated high school has one of the highest likelihoods of getting divorced.

Neither here nor there, but, that 50% statistic rubs me the wrong way since it involves so many caveats as to be almost meaningless.

JadeNYU on January 16, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Here here ….
Bandit13 on January 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM

You’re an idiot and you’ll never guess why. (Not that there are not many reasons.)

There, there? Too funny you low quality troll.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 16, 2014 at 8:50 PM

You must mean the liberal Protestant denominations, which are slowly withering away.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:46 PM

No, not hardly. Just about every black church and the Catholics big time.

I was exiled from the gay community for being too conservative. At least, that’s what my leftist friends tell me.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I understand. My gay friend Eddie, whom I turned semi-conservative, gets called nasty things by his California gay friends and his partner for liking Sarah Palin.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:51 PM

The big money would be with the Catholic church. I’m not Catholic so I don’t know what numbers they actually contribute directly to Dems.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:55 PM

My gay friend Eddie, whom I turned semi-conservative

Semi-conservative is a lifestyle choice.

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM

JetBoy is wrong. I was exiled from the gay community for being too conservative. At least, that’s what my leftist friends tell me.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I mentioned in another thread…I’ve been booted from LGBT forums because of being a conservative. The most entertaining arguments I get into are at the gay bars. I’m a political junkie, so it happens often…my gay friends get a kick out of me. Whenever I get into a political discussion, it usually ends with the other person throwing their hands in the air and storming off, right after I’m called a Nazi traitor or an Uncle Tom.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Oh man, the Pope could seriously troll so many billions of people.

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM

The big money would be with the Catholic church. I’m not Catholic so I don’t know what numbers they actually contribute directly to Dems.

INC on January 16, 2014 at 8:55 PM

I look at facebook for northern Catholics I once knew and I still can’t figure out how they square abortion with their love of obama.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Seems like freedom is breaking out all across this great country and this little nest of socons contains the only group predicting the end of the world.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Oh man, the Pope could seriously troll so many billions of people.

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM

I thought he did.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:01 PM

I thought he did.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Well, that was Ezra Klein and his ilk really wishing it were so.

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Seems like freedom is breaking out all across this great country and this little nest of socons contains the only group predicting the end of the world.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Man, are you phuckin’ stupid.

But seriously, what color panther are you?

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Freedom breaking out all over? Isn’t that what Pol Pot said?

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Freedom breaking out all over? Isn’t that what Pol Pot said?

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Freedom is slavery.

Panthers are idiots.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Seems like freedom is breaking out all across this great country and this little nest of socons contains the only group predicting the end of the world.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

The end is inevitable. Even a grade school child knows that you can’t get away with lending money to yourself for very long. My prediction is that Japan collapses and then dumps their treasuries, then BOOM! If you aren’t aware of this collapse, then what makes you think you’re anymore informed about what might happen due to SSM?

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Ha!

Ha!

HA!

alchemist19 on January 16, 2014 at 9:11 PM

The end is inevitable. Even a grade school child knows that you can’t get away with lending money to yourself for very long. My prediction is that Japan collapses and then dumps their treasuries, then BOOM! If you aren’t aware of this collapse, then what makes you think you’re anymore informed about what might happen due to SSM?

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 9:10 PM

We are talking about gay marriage, not the socialist financial policies. That is a different thread and I would happily agree with you.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Seriously, what color panther are you? That shouldn’t be too difficult to answer.

We’ve confirmed your a bread-and-circuses idiot, now I’d like to put a face on it.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:16 PM

I dont get why people care so much about other people’s business. So what if someone wants to practice polygamy? As long as the state isn’t incentivizing it with handouts in any manner, its none of my business what they do. Do you people literally have nothing else to worry about in your own lives that you gotta stick your noses into the bedrooms of others?

thphilli on January 16, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Straw man. I couldn’t care less what people do in their bedrooms. But I do object to forced societal approbation of what anyone does sexually via judicial duress. We were told that SSM would never ever lead to, say, churches being forced to perform and bless same-sex marriages. That was, uh what was it? Socon paranoia? Uh-huh.

Look. SSM really isn’t my “issue”. At heart, I really couldn’t care less. But the ones prying into people’s souls, and not “bedrooms”, are the proponents of SSM. It is about manufacturing and forcing society’s approval of their lifestyles, and nothing more. If you want anarchy, have at it.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:17 PM

*you’re

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:17 PM

We are talking about gay marriage, not the socialist financial policies. That is a different thread and I would happily agree with you.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:13 PM

No we’re talking about society. You can’t compartmentalize it, because it’s all related. Our insane economic policies, are the same as our view on entitlements, which are the same as our view on social issues. It’s all connected.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 9:19 PM

It is about manufacturing and forcing society’s approval of their lifestyles, and nothing more. If you want anarchy, have at it.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Thought I said that? Again and again and again and again…

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:20 PM

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Don’t sully your brain trying to engage a commenter who belongs at Politico rather than here.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:21 PM

I want to marry my aborted fetus……

Who are you to tell me I can’t?

Marriage is open for refinement. So let’s do it.

PappyD61 on January 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM

We are talking about gay marriage, not the socialist financial policies. That is a different thread and I would happily agree with you.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:13 PM

So why are you trying to impose your narrow view of economic morality on everyone else, obstructing the flow of history in a more collectivist direction? You self-described econo-cons are such a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and you’re on the wrong side of history…after all, all the other advanced countries have such a marvelous array of cradle-to-grave social-program goodies…you’re on the wrong side of history, dude…

Isn’t that how the game goes?

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Regarding the reversal of moral standards, so that, as the horrid sisters chant in Macbeth, “Fair is foul and foul is fair,” there are some apt words by Simone Weil . I don’t know whether you are familiar with her: a French Jewess who is also a lady of great mystical insight, who actually died in this country in the recent War. Simone Weil, whose luminous intelligence and insights are among the most penetrating of our time and bear very clearly on this not just confusion between the concepts of good and evil, but the actual replacement of one by the other. “Nothing is so beautiful,” she writes, “nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good; no desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. But with fantasy, it is the other way around. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied, intriguing, attractive, and full of charm.”

Let me turn also to a similar theme to Pascal, who in his Pensees says this: “It is in vain, O Men, that you seek within yourselves the cure of all your miseries. All your insight only leads you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good. The philosophers promised them to you, and have not been able to keep their promise. Your principal maladies are pride, which cuts you off from God, and sensuality, which binds you to the earth; and they have done nothing but foster at least one of these maladies. If they have given you God for your object, it has only been to pander to your pride; they have made you think that you were like him, and resembled him by your nature. And those who have grasped the vanity of such a pretension have cast you down into the other abyss by making you believe that your nature was like that of the beasts of the field, and have led you to seek your good in lust, which is the lot of animals.” In other words: egomania and erotomania, the two ills of our time – the raised fist, and the raised phallus.

http://stmichaelbroadcasting.com/truecrisis.html

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM

I mentioned in another thread…I’ve been booted from LGBT forums because of being a conservative. The most entertaining arguments I get into are at the gay bars. I’m a political junkie, so it happens often…my gay friends get a kick out of me. Whenever I get into a political discussion, it usually ends with the other person throwing their hands in the air and storming off, right after I’m called a Nazi traitor or an Uncle Tom.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Hah! I have you beat in not accepting the terms of LGBT community, because I reject B and T. I say the only bisexuals are bisexual unicorns. Idiots then reply that there are people who have sex with men and women, but the point of B “bisexuality” is not that some people will f*** anything, but that they desire both genders, and it’s not true. The leftards at this point will go on to a bizarre philosophical point that I am guilty of essentialism about human sexual identity. They claim humanity sexuality is more fluid and nuanced than the dualism I believe. I do not agree with their claim, but I have sympathy for the idea there may be more than one good description of any situation. The problem here is that you can’t any more essentialist than the claims of the transgendered ideologues. They say that there is a set of emotional states relating to one’s gender and that the only correct response to the situation is a sex change operation. I think there are all sorts of responses to it, and most of them don’t involve body mutilation. In short, the justification for believing a bisexual identity directly contradicts the justification for believing that a transgendered identity. So one of them has to go!

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Gays sitting in jail in Nigeria must be totally stoked at the news.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Lousy neocons!

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:28 PM

It is about manufacturing and forcing society’s approval of their lifestyles, and nothing more. If you want anarchy, have at it.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Thought I said that? Again and again and again and again…

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:20 PM

And if you dare to disagree, you’ll be a “non-person”, such as “they” wanted to make of Phil Robertson. Who are the totalitarians and thought-controllers here? “Freedom”? Yeah, right.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:29 PM

because I reject B and T. I say the only bisexuals are bisexual unicorns. Idiots then reply that there are people who have sex with men and women, but the point of B “bisexuality” is not that some people will f*** anything, but that they desire both genders, and it’s not true.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM

So you’re making the assertion that somebody who claims to be sexually attracted to both genders is lying?

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Hah! I have you beat in not accepting the terms of LGBT community, because I reject B and T. I say the only bisexuals are bisexual unicorns. Idiots then reply that there are people who have sex with men and women, but the point of B “bisexuality” is not that some people will f*** anything, but that they desire both genders, and it’s not true.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Well then you’re obviously trying to impose your own views on others. Shame!!!1111!!!

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:29 PM

No we’re talking about society. You can’t compartmentalize it, because it’s all related. Our insane economic policies, are the same as our view on entitlements, which are the same as our view on social issues. It’s all connected.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Of course they are separate. Gay marriage hurts no one and expands individual liberty. Redistribution of wealth harms the society’s producers and leaves the unpaid charge card to our children. Integrating these two is unjustified.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Here come the “slippery-slopers” with “next we’ll have to recognize marrying an animal and a vacuum cleaner”.

JetBoy

Not nearly as soon as the pro-gay marriage hypocrites though, lol.

Oh you mean like the 50% + divorce rate and the multiple marriages because that, you idiot, is just making it stronger right you bible swilling reatrd.

Your Mamma loves me

Speaking of idiots….the divorce rate isn’t 50% +.

And what exactly is the “traditional definition of marriage”? I mean, at what point in history, and in what culture, do you pinpoint this “traditional marriage”? Should non-virgin brides still be stoned, as they were long ago? Should a wife be considered her husband’s property? Because that’s “traditional”. How about dowries?

See what I mean?

JetBoy

Notice what is ironically absent from all those examples throughout history? A gay dude and his gay dude bride, lol.

xblade on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Of course they are separate. Gay marriage hurts no one and expands individual liberty.

Legalizing any and every sort of marriage would do likewise. Correct?

Redistribution of wealth harms the society’s producers and leaves the unpaid charge card to our children. Integrating these two is unjustified.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Socialists would disagree. They would say that the real “producers” are the workers who are getting shafted by the ones you would designate as “producers”. You’re on the wrong side of history, Neanderthal. Crawl back into your cave. Right?

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Of course they are separate. Gay marriage hurts no one and expands individual liberty. Redistribution of wealth harms the society’s producers and leaves the unpaid charge card to our children. Integrating these two is unjustified.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 PM

What happens to church attendance during every recession? What happened to morality in general during the great depression? Economics isn’t a hard science it’s a branch of psychology. It’s all related.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 9:36 PM

So why are you trying to impose your narrow view of economic morality on everyone else, obstructing the flow of history in a more collectivist direction? You self-described econo-cons are such a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and you’re on the wrong side of history…after all, all the other advanced countries have such a marvelous array of cradle-to-grave social-program goodies…you’re on the wrong side of history, dude…

Isn’t that how the game goes?

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Clearly the difference is that gay marriage is victimless; in fact empowering to the people who are allowed equal status with their fellow citizens. On the other hand, socialism uses the coercive power of government to steal money from one group and give it to another.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Gay ‘marriage’! It’s for the children!!!

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:39 PM

So you’re making the assertion that somebody who claims to be sexually attracted to both genders is lying?

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Some are lying, but most are not. Lying means knowing you are not telling the truth. People have various incentives for wanting to be bisexual and thus they believe they are bisexuals. Historically, gay men wanting to make their sexuality less different were the bulk of the bisexuals, but their numbers are decreasing. Now, the bisexuals are mostly people who want to be different or have some strong ideological motive (to the point of knowing words like “essentialism”). Another group of “bisexuals” are really ugly people. Chances are better than 50/50 that if you encounter a young person in the bottom .1% of the physical appearance spectrum, you have found yourself a bisexual. And it makes sense for someone with few sexual options.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 9:40 PM

Clearly the difference is that gay marriage is victimless; in fact empowering to the people who are allowed equal status with their fellow citizens.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:37 PM

It all depends on who you want to call “victims”. Socialism is likewise “victimless”, and it empowers blahblahblah.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:40 PM

What happens to church attendance during every recession? What happened to morality in general during the great depression? Economics isn’t a hard science it’s a branch of psychology. It’s all related.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Church attendance has nothing to do with morality. You have a tendency to conflate things that don’t belong together. Kind of like the old Sesame Street song, “One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong.”

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Seems like freedom is breaking out all across this great country…

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Except, of course, for the freedom to say things like “I believe homosexuality is wrong”.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:42 PM

And it makes sense for someone with few sexual options.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 9:40 PM

A fat, tatted, doughy pig like Lena Dunham is able to have sex with countless men and what’s this about few sexual options?

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:43 PM

It all depends on who you want to call “victims”. Socialism is likewise “victimless”, and it empowers blahblahblah.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:40 PM

I gave you a clear example of the victim in socialism. You have yet to provide a victim in allowing gay marriage.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 PM

I gave you a clear example of the victim in socialism. You have yet to provide a victim in allowing gay marriage.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 PM

But the socialist would not call that a victim, but an example of an expropriator being expropriated.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Why is America falling in the world?

Endless discussions rationalizing sodomy and unnatural relations.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4