About that Washington Post/ABC News poll on same-sex “marriage”

posted at 8:41 am on March 6, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

Yesterday, Allahpundit looked at the Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows 59 percent of the American public supports same-sex “marriage.” It’s a devastating number, but no real surprise, since the numbers have been trending that way for years.

Far more interesting than the support for same-sex “marriage,” however, is the way the poll reveals the real intent behind its creation: to create a narrative, not actually get the public’s opinion on the matters referenced in the poll.

First, the poll asks what people think about giving “gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.” This is the wrong question for three reasons:

A. Homosexuals cannot “marry” each other. Marriage is between heterosexuals. A secular government cannot change what “marriage” is, no matter how much it may want to.

B. Gay and lesbian Americans already have the legal right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

C. Lastly, the poll should be asking what people think about gay and lesbian American couples having the right to participate in a marriage-like ceremony. Again, homosexuals can already legally marry.

Second, the poll asks if respondants “think businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians”? Again, this is the wrong question. Businesses – or, rather, their owners – are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in helping homosexuals commit sin.

The difference is critical. From Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, discussing the now-famous New Mexico photography case:

Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin lost a case before the New Mexico Supreme Court, and have now appealed the ruling. As noted in their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Huguenins’ photography business does serve gay and lesbian clients, just not same-sex weddings. Insofar as a photographer can distinguish between discriminating against a class of client and a type of event—there is, perhaps, a limit—their business does so: “The Huguenins gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

The photography business has also turned down clients other than gay and lesbian couples while citing religious objections. “They have declined requests for nude maternity pictures,” their petition states, “and photographs portraying violence.”

Finally, it isn’t just same-sex weddings they’d be uncomfortable photographing: their petition states that they’d also refuse business capturing a polygamous marriage.

A restaurant owner who provides a meal to a homosexual is not helping that person commit sin, and in fact by not serving that person would probably do more harm than good to the cause of evangelization. Similarly, a doctor who saves the life of a gay person is not an accomplice to that person’s immoral actions later on in life, in the same way that doctor is not responsible for the immoral sexual activities of a heterosexual person who sleeps around.

However, a Catholic restaurant owner who provides a wedding reception for a homosexual couple would be participating in sin.

 The poll also asks the following:

Do you think businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians? (If should NOT,) What if the business says homosexuality violates their owners’ religious beliefs?

In American culture, “homosexuality” generally means someone has homosexual attractions (though many theologians and other intellectuals in religious circles would define “homosexual” as an act, not a person). Business owners aren’t asking people for their gay identification cards, or putting up gaydars on their front doors. Even the allegedly hateful Catholic Church distinctly separates homosexual attractions from homosexual acts.

It is the acts that are the issue, not the attractions, when it comes to service – something both ABC and the Post know, but choose to ignore in order to get the results they want.

Interestingly, the Post/ABC poll comes less than a month after the Public Religion Research Institute published a survey of 4,500 adults about various religious issues. While 53 percent of respondents supported same-sex “marriage,” 51 percent believe “sex  between  two  adults  of  the  same  gender” is immoral. (54 percent of respondants said abortion is morally wrong, and 65 percent believe pornography is morally wrong. So maybe there’s hope for American culture, after all.)

I’ll pull an Allahpundit and ask two exit questions: First, will the same people up in arms over Arizona Senate Bill 1062 (which is a surprisingly short read, and unsurprisingly is not “anti-gay”) be as angry if an unmarried heterosexual couple is turned down by an inn owner because they want one room, not two? And where’s the public flaying of the gay hairdresser who refused to serve the governor of New Mexico because of the latter’s opposition to same-sex “marriage”?

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 11

Again, this is the wrong question. Businesses – or, rather, their owners – are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in helping homosexuals commit sin.

That’s exactly right. They’re not discriminating against the people, they’re discriminating against an activity.

Would the same photographer be punished if he refused to take part in a porn shoot? Why not?

29Victor on March 6, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Not how language works, dude. Everyone knew exactly what the poll question meant, including you.

ATG on March 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Hope you brought fireproof shorts.

–Had to rub my eyes. It even has the word “sin” in it. I could have written most of it.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 8:49 AM

I’ll pull an Allahpundit…

*giggety*

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM

If homosexuality is normal or natural because it isn’t a choice, then every manner of sexual perversion must be considered normal and natural for the same reason.

People who disagree with ceremonies celebrating sexual perversion should have the opportunity not to participate.

Bigbullets on March 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM

They pull the same BS will all types of issue polls including illegal immigration.

Wigglesworth on March 6, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Not how language works, dude. Everyone knew exactly what the poll question meant, including you.

ATG on March 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Amazing mind reading abilities you have! Let me guess, you’re psychic?

Wanderlust on March 6, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Not how language works, dude. Everyone knew exactly what the poll question meant, including you.

ATG on March 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Which question? The first or the second?

Bitter Clinger on March 6, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Would a Muslim caterer be asked, let alone required, to cater a Jewish wedding?
What about those who participate in the BDS movement?

Gwillie on March 6, 2014 at 8:58 AM

is the way the poll reveals the real intent behind its creation: to create a narrative, not actually get the public’s opinion on the matters referenced in the poll.

Homosexuals have been fooling others, and themselves, for decades. Deception is part of the lifestyle.

Sterling Holobyte on March 6, 2014 at 8:58 AM

I’m conservative on pretty much every other issue, but I’m so, so tired of this fight against all things GLBT by my fellow conservatives. People can say a lot of things in favor of the traditional side I agree with, but both the GOP and the Church has been unwelcoming in very unnecessary ways. Gay and lesbian people are our family members, our friends, and our neighbors, and I think this fight causes us to alienate a lot of wonderful people who, through no choice of their own, happen to be attracted to the same sex.

Anyway, I just want to give a shout out to any of my fellow conservatives who don’t believe in the standard conservative position on GLBT issues. You aren’t alone.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Oh come on, Dustin. You’re really splitting hairs with this post. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not. We won’t win the argument on tortured definitions of what marriage is and isn’t. We should be fighting about whether we get it by legislation or judicial fiat.

Occams Stubble on March 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Not how language works, dude. Everyone knew exactly what the poll question meant, including you.
ATG on March 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Actually, that’s exactly how language works. Words have definitions, and using them inconsistently in different contexts leads to equivocation and ambiguity.

Most Americans now support faux marriage because even we conservatives lost sight of that in this debate. Now we have to fight an uphill battle after we finally got our stuff together.

bossmanham on March 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM

What exactly is “devastating” about the poll? Social cons need to worry about their own marriages and stop their obsession with policing the lives and bedrooms of everyone else. If there is a God he can handle sending the gays to hell to burn forever, he doesn’t need you trying to do his bidding. Do social cons believe that if society allows gays to marry that God will prevent them from going to heaven or something? If not then mind your own goddamn business and let God handle his.

thphilli on March 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM

They should poll with a third option of “civil unions”. When “civil unions” is added as a option, the support for “same sex marriage” declines…which is why it was dropped from polling.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Not how language works, dude. Everyone knew exactly what the poll question meant, including you.

ATG on March 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Oh yeah, we know. See my above comment.

Sterling Holobyte on March 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Businesses – or, rather, their owners – are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in helping homosexuals commit sin.

No, they are self-righteously refusing service to people who live their own lives in a way that does not affect the owners in any way.

psrichter on March 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM

That’s exactly right. They’re not discriminating against the people, they’re discriminating against an activity.

Would the same photographer be punished if he refused to take part in a porn shoot? Why not?

29Victor on March 6, 2014 at 8:46 AM

The ruling the New Mexico case interpreted the Lawrence v Texas ruling as stating one can not distinguish the homosexual from the homosexual act. To discriminate against a homosexual act is the same as discriminating against the homosexual.

The logical result will be if we choose not let our children go to the school trip to the gay pride parade, we’ll be arrested for a hate crime.

p0s3r on March 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Point number 2 I have said for years. Equal rights are already being protected under the law.

Gays can currently have any ceremony they want, they can exchange rings and move in together.

What they want is to make others call what they are doing marriage, and for Christians they aren’t going to get it.

I used to be ok with state recognized civil unions, but after seeing what they do with photographers ( and soon pastors/clergymen ) I would say NO now.

DavidM on March 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Tech note: If you just added “width: 100%;” to that image element, it would be displaying correctly on my browser. :)

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Dustin, you’re splitting hairs dude.

SoulGlo on March 6, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Businesses – or, rather, their owners – are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in helping homosexuals commit sin.

I posted this last week but it bears repeating.

In any of these stories about business owners declining to participate in gay “marriage” ceremonies, the gays make it sound as if the business owner acted like Christ turning out the money lenders. The reality has usually been a polite refusal on religious grounds without any sort of judgement or reproach (and certainly not the screaming for the gays to get out of their store that is always alluded to by the so-called victims)

Happy Nomad on March 6, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Wow, call me stunned. A post actually addressing the real issue. Gay marriage proponents have always quickly jumped over what should have been the first question in this debate which is “Are gay unions Marriage?” Clearly, they aren’t. Had this been done accommodation for gays unions would have been made years ago.

As far as business owners are concerned a very good point is made. If Richard Dawkins, who thinks teaching religion to kids is about the most immoral thing going, decided to open a bakery would he be forced to bake a cake to celebrate a child’s first communion? I highly doubt it.

Rocks on March 6, 2014 at 9:09 AM

What exactly is “devastating” about the poll?

Nothing. All the drama is your sides.

Social cons need to worry about their own marriages and stop their obsession with policing the lives and bedrooms of everyone else.

Then quit advertising and promoting your lifestyle as if all of creation depends on it.

If there is a God he can handle sending the gays to hell to burn forever, he doesn’t need you trying to do his bidding.

There is a God.

Do social cons believe that if society allows gays to marry that God will prevent them from going to heaven or something?

No. But it’s stupid because you getting married to another of your sex makes as much sense as me getting a Bar Mitzvah our being allowed to have Communion in a Roman Catholic Church.

If not then mind your own goddamn business and let God handle his.

thphilli on March 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM

We might ask you the same. I do not care a whit what you do in your life. When you force your social issues on the rest of society like you claim Christians and other people of faith have, that’s where we square off. As a gay and an atheist, why is it a moral imperative for you to force your influence over a faith based organization like the Scouts. How did that ever become, “your” business?

Mind your own gd business.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Atheist retaliation post in 3…2…1…

Eph on March 6, 2014 at 9:10 AM

That’s exactly right. They’re not discriminating against the people, they’re discriminating against an activity.

Would the same photographer be punished if he refused to take part in a porn shoot? Why not?

29Victor on March 6, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Along those same lines–essentially, being versus conduct–I still don’t see the equal-protection argument that SSM supporters cart out. Sex, race, are national origin are all accidents of birth. Religious creed is adopted, but we generally don’t touch beliefs unless it involves conduct that violates public policy–for example, we aren’t going to allow child sacrifices. Indeed, I think there’s a SCOTUS case denying a Native American tribe the ability to use peyote in its ceremonies.

In the end, why should homosexual couples be elevated to the status of married couples?

BuckeyeSam on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

What exactly is “devastating” about the poll? Social cons need to worry about their own marriages and stop their obsession with policing the lives and bedrooms of everyone else. If there is a God he can handle sending the gays to hell to burn forever, he doesn’t need you trying to do his bidding. Do social cons believe that if society allows gays to marry that God will prevent them from going to heaven or something? If not then mind your own goddamn business and let God handle his.

thphilli on March 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Dear, The Gay:

You probably don’t care, but for the ten thousandth time, I don’t care who you’re sleeping with. This isn’t about me letting you do what you want or your freedom. It’s about my freedom to do what I want, which you are trying to take away. If you want to have ceremonies, have at it. It’s when you want me to take them seriously, or are trying to force me to participate in them, that I have a problem. I don’t want to make cakes for them, or take pictures at them, or play music at them, because I think doing that would be wrong. So stop suing me for money and trying to put me in jail for hate crimes, and I’ll stop accusing you of trying to force your beliefs on me. And any time you’d like, you can also stop flipping this to make it look like it’s me trying to take freedoms away from you.

Love and Rockets,

SoCon

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Desperate Dustin.

lexhamfox on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

I think this ridiculous post is trying to “create a narrative”. Our obsession with hampering the rights of our fellow citizens will be to our own detriment.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

First, the poll asks what people think about giving “gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.” This is the wrong question for three reasons:

A. Homosexuals cannot “marry” each other. Marriage is between heterosexuals. A secular government cannot change what “marriage” is, no matter how much it may want to.

A secular government can, and does, change a whole lot of things all the time. Even the US Constitution was set up to be amended when necessary. The state can’t define “marriage” as a religious institution/sacrament…but it can define “marriage” in the legal, secular sense.

B. Gay and lesbian Americans already have the legal right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

That’s such a patently ridiculous statement. So it’s better for gays to marry someone of the opposite sex, either for convenience or a cover, and that is more beneficial to “marriage” than actual love, commitment, and family?

C. Lastly, the poll should be asking what people think about gay and lesbian American couples having the right to participate in a marriage-like ceremony. Again, homosexuals can already legally marry.

Who cares what “ceremony” a couple has? Every culture and religion has their own ceremonial marriage rites, and they’re all different in some ways.

This entire argument is fine when arguing religion making their own decisions. Which I agree with. But the state should not be bound to any religious determinations.

Anyway, I’m glad Dustin Siggins is posting here…the gay marriage opponents here haven’t had a real staunch ally in the regular bloggers: Ed has too much class to get argumentative, and Allah is a “squishy RINO atheist SSM enabler” :)

I, for one, welcome Mr Siggins. Cheers!

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Doug Matagaydar say what?????????????????????

Eph on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

The word “union” as in “civil union” incorporates the concept of “in perpetuity”, like a corporation, and could be very hard to dissolve or solve disputes. The term and concepts of a civil partnership would be better. I know….I know….marriage should be forever. Just trying being practical and pedantic at the same time.

HonestLib on March 6, 2014 at 9:12 AM

I can understand not wanting to sanctify homosexuality within the realm of the church.

But I am sorry. In the culture war, when it comes to gay marriage, social cons have lost that fight.

Vyce on March 6, 2014 at 9:12 AM

“Our obsession with hampering the rights of our fellow citizens will be to our own detriment.”

Including those who follow G-d’s word

Eph on March 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

This thread is gay! In a carefree sort of way.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Not how language works, dude. Everyone knew exactly what the poll question meant, including you.

ATG on March 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM

What did it mean, dude?

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Well said.

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

This thread is gay! In a carefree sort of way.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

No, it’s just gay in all ways gay. Maybe even super-gay. :P

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:14 AM

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM

For a “conservative”, you speak just like the immoral left. Same wrong arguments.

thphilli on March 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM

You too.
Not saying you are conservative, just using the same wrong arguments: “Policing the lives and bedrooms of everyone else.”
It is not conservatives who have been legislating immorality from the bench. Most conservatives have a “live and let live” mentality. We don’t care what you do in your bedroom. It’s when you started shoving your choice to have sex with a member of your own gender in our children’s faces and minds in schools(and everywhere else) that the problems started. The homosexuals are the actual ones “Policing the lives and bedrooms of everyone else.”

Sterling Holobyte on March 6, 2014 at 9:14 AM

If you are a conservative, you shouldn’t support redefining marriage. It will have disastrous affects on society in the same way no fault divorce has ripped apart the family unit for decades. I challenge anyone to watch Ryan Anderson’s presentation and come away unconvinced.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2014/02/27/ryan-t-anderson-on-true-marriage-equality-man-and-woman/

Donald Draper on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Gay and lesbian people are our family members, our friends, and our neighbors, and I think this fight causes us to alienate a lot of wonderful people who, through no choice of their own, happen to be attracted to the same sex.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM

And there are a lot of wonderful people; our family members, friends, and neighbors, who through no choice of their own, happen to be attracted to booze or meth. That doesn’t mean we support their lifestyle choice even as we love the individual.

But of course faux conservatives speaking out in favor of the sodomites automatically stake out faux positions about what churches really say about homosexuality.

Happy Nomad on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Man I do have to admit, you got tons of energy and never quit. I know you know that I ain’t picking on you.

HonestLib on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

These Gay/Lesbian posts are becoming tiresome…

PatriotRider on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

I can understand not wanting to sanctify homosexuality within the realm of the church.

But I am sorry. In the culture war, when it comes to gay marriage, social cons have lost that fight.

Vyce on March 6, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Methinks you have no clue what religious liberty is.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:16 AM

This thread is gay! In a carefree sort of way.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

I’m thinking HA/Townhall is about to announce the all-gay blog. Gay issues 24/7; everything from the social issues to costume designs for gay pride parades.

Happy Nomad on March 6, 2014 at 9:16 AM

That’s such a patently ridiculous statement.

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Because, why? You need to demonstrate how gays are treated unequally under the law.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:17 AM

And there are a lot of wonderful people; our family members, friends, and neighbors, who through no choice of their own, happen to be attracted to booze or meth. That doesn’t mean we support their lifestyle choice even as we love the individual.

But of course faux conservatives speaking out in favor of the sodomites automatically stake out faux positions about what churches really say about homosexuality.

Happy Nomad on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Booze and meth are drugs.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:17 AM

How about this: Get the goddam gubment out of our lives.

Why do I need a triplicate permission slip to leave my estate to whomever the hell I want to leave it to, whether it be my siblings, my best friend, or the Amish. Why do I have to pay a tax for dying? Why do I need to be officially and legally connected to someone for so many things I might want to do?

And if I enter an establishment and they say “Sorry, my religion forbids me from serving you” then you know what I’ll do? Leave and go somewhere else.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:17 AM

***

Do social cons believe that if society allows gays to marry that God will prevent them from going to heaven or something? If not then mind your own goddamn business and let God handle his.

thphilli on March 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM

While everyone is minding his or her own business, can we keep homosexuality out of the textbooks of children until an appropriate age?

And can we return to judging people by the content of their character rather than celebrating them solely for their aberrant sexual conduct?

BuckeyeSam on March 6, 2014 at 9:17 AM

This thread is gay! In a carefree sort of way.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

http://i.imgur.com/PD99QYC.gif

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 9:18 AM

thphilli on March 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Ditto.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 9:19 AM

I think this ridiculous post is trying to “create a narrative”. Our obsession with hampering the rights of our fellow citizens will be to our own detriment.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Does someone have the right to deny their services to actions they believe are sinful or not? You can pretend these are not issue that are actually being litigated currently, or you can be honest and tell us how you think the 1st Amendment should be subverted.

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Second, the poll asks if respondants “think businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians”

“Voluntarily offering” service is the exact opposite to “requiring” service as a private business is opposite to slavery. That is until we were gifted with Hope n Change.
“Not being allowed” to refuse equals “required”, equals servitude, equals slavery. At least it did before the dictate of double standards mandated by the will of this Stalinist regime. Now it means patriotism. Now servitude equals patriotism.

onomo on March 6, 2014 at 9:19 AM

What exactly is “devastating” about the poll? Social cons need to worry about their own marriages and stop their obsession with policing the lives and bedrooms of everyone else. If there is a God he can handle sending the gays to hell to burn forever, he doesn’t need you trying to do his bidding. Do social cons believe that if society allows gays to marry that God will prevent them from going to heaven or something? If not then mind your own goddamn business and let God handle his.

thphilli on March 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM

You didn’t read this post before commenting, did you? I’ll specifically cite the part you missed…

A restaurant owner who provides a meal to a homosexual is not helping that person commit sin, and in fact by not serving that person would probably do more harm than good to the cause of evangelization. Similarly, a doctor who saves the life of a gay person is not an accomplice to that person’s immoral actions later on in life, in the same way that doctor is not responsible for the immoral sexual activities of a heterosexual person who sleeps around.

However, a Catholic restaurant owner who provides a wedding reception for a homosexual couple would be participating in sin.

In other words, Christians are not “policing the lives and bedrooms of everyone else”, they are in fact worrying about their relationship with God in that they may go to Hell for helping others go to Hell.

My questions to you are… why are homosexuals so bent on policing other’s faith to force them to participate in sinning? Is it to justify their own sinning? And, at what time did we start ignoring the 13th Amendment which prohibits forced servitude?

dominigan on March 6, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Business people of faith. Just do what the tyrants demand. Then take out an ad in your local paper explaining your actions.

“My fellow (Insert faith discipline here), On (date) I was approached by a gay couple who asked to retain me as their photographer for a ceremony that they saw as a marriage in the eyes of God that I did not. For fear of retribution from their community and litigation, I am compelled to comply against my will. I will do my best to fulfill their request although I do not support their assertions this is an actual marriage.”

If you don’t cave, they will gut you. They are the most powerful victims in all of known history and I’m afraid they cannot be opposed anymore for fear of them destroying your life.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:21 AM

BuckeyeSam on March 6, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Or perhaps leave it out of textbooks altogether. I managed to get through my entire education, including grad school, without having a text mention homosexuality. I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that sex and all related proclivities could just as well be left out of textbooks.

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 9:22 AM

A secular government can, and does, change a whole lot of things all the time. Even the US Constitution was set up to be amended when necessary. The state can’t define “marriage” as a religious institution/sacrament…but it can define “marriage” in the legal, secular sense.

Had this been done through action of the secular government and not almost exclusively by judicial fiat you would have a point, That isn’t what happened. Were laws passed here through popular actions? Amendments? Yes, I seem to remember quite a few and there were almost all against calling a gay union marriage.

That’s such a patently ridiculous statement. So it’s better for gays to marry someone of the opposite sex, either for convenience or a cover, and that is more beneficial to “marriage” than actual love, commitment, and family?

It’s not a question of better and love, commitment and family aren’t legal requirements for marriage in a secular society. They aren’t even mentioned on the marriage license.

This entire argument is fine when arguing religion making their own decisions. Which I agree with. But the state should not be bound to any religious determinations.

So the state defined marriage based on religion? Were people not getting married before Christ came along? Or Buddha? Or Moses? Or whoever? The state defined marriage as a reflection of societal practice. A man and a woman is not solely a religious definition.

Rocks on March 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Gay and lesbian people are our family members, our friends, and our neighbors, and I think this fight causes us to alienate a lot of wonderful people who, through no choice of their own, happen to be attracted to the same sex.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Like my niece’s ex-wife who claimed the world will be better when the last religious person dies?

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM

And if I enter an establishment and they say “Sorry, my religion forbids me from serving you” then you know what I’ll do? Leave and go somewhere else.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:17 AM

It’s that easy.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:24 AM

I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that sex and all related proclivities could just as well be left out of textbooks.

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Tenth grade health class would have been a lot less interesting.

What next, you want to get rid of the beanbag scrotum and breast props used in class too? Douchebag.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

These Gay/Lesbian posts are becoming tiresome…

PatriotRider on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Everything gay is becoming tiresome.

jmtham156 on March 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

And there are a lot of wonderful people; our family members, friends, and neighbors, who through no choice of their own, happen to be attracted to booze or meth. That doesn’t mean we support their lifestyle choice even as we love the individual.

But of course faux conservatives speaking out in favor of the sodomites automatically stake out faux positions about what churches really say about homosexuality.

Happy Nomad on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

What does “love the individual” mean to you, in practical terms? I’m curious. If you know a friend or family member to be gay, what do you do to show them love?

I don’t think anyone who has ever discussed abortion, teacher tenure, school choice, minimum wage, government spending, tax rates, the PPACA, IRS abuse, military preparedness, etc., would call me a “faux conservative”.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Yep. Sad, really, because in our culture no one ever has a chance to see bosoms. :)

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 9:26 AM

A secular government can, and does, change a whole lot of things all the time. Even the US Constitution was set up to be amended when necessary. The state can’t define “marriage” as a religious institution/sacrament…but it can define “marriage” in the legal, secular sense.

The state issues licenses. It gives out different licenses to people who drive cars or drive trucks. There’s no need to redefine marriage. Just issue some other type of license.

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 9:28 AM

WAPO 59% = 44% reality

Eph on March 6, 2014 at 9:29 AM

I think this ridiculous post is trying to “create a narrative”. Our obsession with hampering the rights of our fellow citizens will be to our own detriment. mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

You mean rights like the freedom to associate -or not- with whom we please? The right to practice our religion as we see fit? I agree.

On the right we have anarchy. On the left, totalitarianism. Somewhere to the right of center is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When the govt forces me to do anything that violates my conscience, it comes from the left. When the govt protects my liberty and assumes that I am a responsible individual, it comes from the right.

If that’s wrong, tell us where. If it’s correct, then the govt forcing acceptance of anal marriage under civil and/or criminal penalty comes from the left.

Now tell us, how is forcing someone into involuntary servitude to support homosexual activity conservative?

Akzed on March 6, 2014 at 9:30 AM

“These Gay/Lesbian posts are becoming tiresome…”

Salem should be proud…

Eph on March 6, 2014 at 9:30 AM

The homosexual lobby is nothing more than a bunch of screaming crybabies.

Let’s assume, for the moment that homosexuality is something one is “born into.” If it is possible to be born a homosexual then it is also possible to be born a heterosexual. One cannot be “born” a homosexual and “choose” to be heterosexual; it’s not possible.

If homo/heterosexuality is genetic then homophobia cannot exist because an individual will be sexually attracted to one sex and be repulsed by the other. Sexual rejection of identical genders by heterosexuals is by genetics, not choice so homophobia cannot exist.

If homophobia does exist then heterophobia must exist as well. The homosexual lobby cannot handle criticism so it must violate common sense because it fears logic.

Kingfisher on March 6, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Like my niece’s ex-wife who claimed the world will be better when the last religious person dies?

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM

So, basically, we should judge people based on what the most extreme and intemperate member of the same group says? Should every gay and lesbian person be judged based on what some other gay or lesbian person said?

Demographically, I fall into many groups. Some of the people who fall into the same demographic groups as I will say or do things that in no way represent me. I don’t think it would be fair for someone else to judge me based on what someone else says who happens to have something in common with me.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 9:32 AM

I don’t think anyone who has ever discussed abortion, teacher tenure, school choice, minimum wage, government spending, tax rates, the PPACA, IRS abuse, military preparedness, etc., would call me a “faux conservative”.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 9:26 AM

If you disagree on one issue…

thebrokenrattle on March 6, 2014 at 9:32 AM

I would love for all of these pro-gay people with vapors to explain how a photog refusing service to a gay wedding is any different than when I get in a taxi here in Lexington, KY and ask him to take me through the liquor store drive through and he refuses, or when I walk out of Rite-Aid with a brown bag and he asks me to go ahead and call another cab? This has happened multiple times almost to the point that I want to start requesting non-muslim drivers. There’s not one whit of difference yet I only see people getting worked up over the former.

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:34 AM

At least you use scare quotes, but they don’t work verbally. The term you should be using is same-sex pseudo-marriage.

corona79 on March 6, 2014 at 9:35 AM

The term you should be using is same-sex pseudo-marriage.
corona79 on March 6, 2014 at 9:35 AM

That’s redundant.

Akzed on March 6, 2014 at 9:35 AM

These Gay/Lesbian posts are becoming tiresome…

PatriotRider on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Actually, no. It’s not the POSTS that are getting tiresome.

Cleombrotus on March 6, 2014 at 9:36 AM

First, the poll asks what people think about giving “gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.” This is the wrong question for three reasons:

A. Homosexuals cannot “marry” each other. Marriage is between heterosexuals. A secular government cannot change what “marriage” is, no matter how much it may want to.

A secular government can, and does, change a whole lot of things all the time. Even the US Constitution was set up to be amended when necessary. The state can’t define “marriage” as a religious institution/sacrament…but it can define “marriage” in the legal, secular sense.

Reality isn’t set up to “amend.” A marriage is what it is; a working legal definition is accurate or inaccurate. Marriage isn’t created by law, it’s described.

B. Gay and lesbian Americans already have the legal right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

That’s such a patently ridiculous statement. So it’s better for gays to marry someone of the opposite sex, either for convenience or a cover, and that is more beneficial to “marriage” than actual love, commitment, and family?

There’s nothing ridiculous about that flatly accurate statement. No gay person has ever been denied the right to marry because they were gay, and gays marry all the time. A marriage is not a union between two men or two women.

It’s not “better” to marry the opposite sex. The structure of marriage requires the opposite sex; it’s a union of a woman with a man.

. . . This entire argument is fine when arguing religion making their own decisions. Which I agree with. But the state should not be bound to any religious determinations.

It’s not possible to create law or frame a society without a set of common religious determinations. An honor killing in another society is murder in this one, because America’s law presupposes Christian morality and not (incompatible) Sharia. And Atheistic morality is not neutral ground. We’re shifting from Christianity to Atheism, and the law is shifting along with it.

You just want the state bound to your religious determinations and not the ones it was already using.

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 9:36 AM

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 9:32 AM

She was the only gay member of my family. It follows your comment and my narrow frame of reference.

But …

You sound and many other gay activists sound like you’ve formed entire world-views over a very few of the faithful.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Pretty awesome run-down.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Gay and lesbian people are our family members, our friends, and our neighbors, and I think this fight causes us to alienate a lot of wonderful people who, through no choice of their own, happen to be attracted to the same sex.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Actually, it is they who choose to alienate us. Interesting how you label gays as ‘wonderful people’ but imply that the same case doesn’t exist for religious people.

As a Catholic, I know full well that a lot of people will reject me because of my religious beliefs. That’s fine by me because the country is big enough for all of us. Trouble is, the gay lobby does everything in its power to exterminate religious beliefs.

Today’s Christians are told to get to the back of the bus. If you disagree then provide evidence of the gay lobby supporting religious people. Good luck finding it.

Kingfisher on March 6, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Yeah, no one makes the distinction between religious “marriage” and legal “marriage” anymore. I agree as far as I think that they should have always been separate, but this whole post just comes off as you desperately trying to spin something to make yourself feel better because you can’t handle the reality that the nation is moving away from ultra-religious, SoCon beliefs.

At least most people still hate late term abortion though. As they should.

Cyhort on March 6, 2014 at 9:40 AM

These Gay/Lesbian posts are becoming tiresome…

PatriotRider on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Everything gay is becoming tiresome.

jmtham156 on March 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

I’ll say. When are these scags gonna challenge a mosque for a wedding and reception? Never but it would bring a close to this need for “an honest” conversation in regards to unprincipled kerrs.
Much like the discussion of a terrorist act of mass murder by stabbings at a train station should close unprincipled cries against the second ammendment. But it won’t.
Facts meaning nothing to an ideologue. Guess you could call it the Matthew Shepard Rule.

onomo on March 6, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Know what would dramatically change poll numbers like these? If the media ever, ever reported stories of people who successfully left the homosexual lifestyle and became heterosexual. I know two personally. (One of them was a friend from college who used to hang out with me with his boyfriend. He’s now happily married to a woman.)

Know what else would likely tinker with these numbers? If polls also asked whether responders thought children should be taught that homosexual marriage is as good a choice for them as heterosexual marriage. Because…guess what? The State recognizing homosexual marriage now means it must be. I really think lots of parents don’t realize this.

butterflies and puppies on March 6, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Our obsession with hampering the rights of our fellow citizens will be to our own detriment.
 
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

 
+1
 
Those bakers should know their place.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

You mean rights like the freedom to associate -or not- with whom we please? The right to practice our religion as we see fit? I agree.
Akzed on March 6, 2014 at 9:30 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.
 
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

 
+1. You’re making some great points today, btw.
 
Attorneys have to take every case that walks through the door, right?

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Like my niece’s ex-wife who claimed the world will be better when the last religious person dies?

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Your niece’s ex-wife? She sounds pretty reasonable. Which brings up a question. Are there both men husbands in a gay union?

jmtham156 on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:34 AM

I’m begging someone to please highlight the difference between the situation I’ve experienced and the many different ones described in this post along with several others?

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

At least most people still hate late term abortion though. As they should.

Cyhort on March 6, 2014 at 9:40 AM

I guess that’s where you drew your line. You’ll lose too. Give it time.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 9:43 AM

I’m conservative on pretty much every other issue, but I’m so, so tired of this fight against all things GLBT by my fellow conservatives. People can say a lot of things in favor of the traditional side I agree with, but both the GOP and the Church has been unwelcoming in very unnecessary ways. Gay and lesbian people are our family members, our friends, and our neighbors, and I think this fight causes us to alienate a lot of wonderful people who, through no choice of their own, happen to be attracted to the same sex.
Anyway, I just want to give a shout out to any of my fellow conservatives who don’t believe in the standard conservative position on GLBT issues. You aren’t alone.
MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM

So you support calling for the deaths of conservatives and their children.

You may lecture Christians on behavior when you do one of two things: hold gays similarly accountable, or admit that gays are subhuman and incapable of meeting basic moral standards to function in a civilized society.

Until then, you are a whitewashed tomb.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 9:43 AM

And if I enter an establishment and they say “Sorry, my religion forbids me from serving you” then you know what I’ll do? Leave and go somewhere else.

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:17 AM

No, no, no. You have to throw a fit and get the law involved.

Or at least attempt to start up a boycott…

If you disagree with something, you have to make sure everyone else does whether they want to or not….

Rube.

BigWyo on March 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Anyway, I just want to give a shout out to any of my fellow conservatives who don’t believe in the standard conservative position on GLBT issues. You aren’t alone.

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Represent, bro! I’m all for freedom of association, on both sides. You’re a guy and want to marry another guy, go right ahead and get your marriage benefits. You’re a baker and don’t want to make a cake for them, that’s your right to refuse service to them (though it would be nice to point them toward an alternative bakery).

I’m all for equal rights, but these activists need to realize that they win no friends by calling for acts of vengeance or trying to indoctrinate our kids. And the socons need to realize that we can allow for marriage equality without having to accept the rest of whatever this silly “gay agenda” consists of.

TMOverbeck on March 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Because why? Because of the public accommodation clause in the Constitution?

But let’s forget freedom of association (a right already thoroughly violated by anti-discrimination laws) and focus on freedom of religion. Do you believe a business owner can deny service to an act or action they find violates their own religious tenets?

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM

+1. You’re making some great points today, btw.

Attorneys have to take every case that walks through the door, right?

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

No. But their reason for turning down a case should have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the person.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:45 AM

+1. You’re making some great points today, btw.

Attorneys have to take every case that walks through the door, right?

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Obviously you’ve never needed an attorney.

Rocks on March 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM

No. But their reason for turning down a case should have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the person.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Again, why? Why must a person be forced to associate with whomever the government deems specially protected?

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

How long do you suppose a business would stay in business if they adopted that policy???

BigWyo on March 6, 2014 at 9:47 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.
mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Yep.

And there would be black-owned restaurants that refuse to serve the KKK.

Not a problem.

Meanwhile, as Dustin pointed out, we have a gay-sex bigot hairdresser refusing to serve a Hispanic female. Now, either file a lawsuit and call him a bigot or be exposed as a lying hypocrite.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 9:47 AM

I think you sort of lose out on those “association” rights when you open a business that serves the public. Otherwise, there would probably still be restaurants that could refuse to serve black people.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

So sexual proclivity is the same as age, gender, and race when it comes to providing a service or product to the public?

Bishop on March 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Yeah, no one makes the distinction between religious “marriage” and legal “marriage” anymore. I agree as far as I think that they should have always been separate, but this whole post just comes off as you desperately trying to spin something to make yourself feel better because you can’t handle the reality that the nation is moving away from ultra-religious, SoCon beliefs.

At least most people still hate late term abortion though. As they should.

Cyhort on March 6, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Am I the only one who doesn’t see marriage as an ultra religious socon belief? In engineering and several other fields the word marriage describes things that were made to fit together to form a single entity. Fasteners, brackets, etc., as such, marriage describes the naturally occurring union of 2 people of different sexes. I’m on the very fringe of religiosity and don’t consider my views to be informed by Christianity or any other. Just because the bulk of people who believe something are religious it doesn’t make their beliefs inherently religious. The joining of 2 heterosexual humans is defined as marriage and has been since the dawn of time. It’s illogical and downright weird to want to change that.

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM

And the socons need to realize that we can allow for marriage equality without having to accept the rest of whatever this silly “gay agenda” consists of.

TMOverbeck on March 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM

You’re a little late to the party, friend.

Cleombrotus on March 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Because why? Because of the public accommodation clause in the Constitution?

But let’s forget freedom of association (a right already thoroughly violated by anti-discrimination laws) and focus on freedom of religion. Do you believe a business owner can deny service to an act or action they find violates their own religious tenets?

NotCoach on March 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Not if you are a public-serving business and you are discriminating against a protected class. No. Otherwise, anyone could come up with “religious beliefs” that suits their prejudices.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 11