Headlines

NYT

“If I’m going to make a mistake, it’s on the side of less government”

One reason behind the surge is evident from both opinion polls and interviews for this article: there is a marked increase in the number of people of all ages who know gay men and lesbians.

Put another way, when it comes to public support of same-sex marriage, familiarity breeds contentment.

In May, 69 percent of adults in a New York Times/CBS News poll said they had a gay colleague, close friend or relative, compared with 44 percent in 2003. By age group, 77 percent of baby boomers in 2012 knew someone who was gay, versus 42 percent in 2003. For 18- to 49-year-olds, it was 70 percent, up from 49 percent; and for seniors, 54 percent, up from 27 percent.

In 1988, 15 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds — the age of baby boomers at the time — supported same-sex marriage, according to the General Social Survey, which is financed by the National Science Foundation. Now, among 18- to 34-year-olds — the millennials — 63 percent do.

Read the Article

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

There will be no reduction of government by allowing or preventing same-sex marriage. Total non sequitur.

alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

There will be no reduction of government by allowing or preventing same-sex marriage. Total non sequitur.
alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

“Allowing it?” It is already allowed. It just isn’t regulated by the Feds. Somehow you think that federal regulation of something is synonymous with allowing something. A very telling and sad indictment.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM

describes himself as a devout Christian, a very conservative Republican and, only recently, a supporter of same-sex marriage.

It is impossible to describe yourself as devoted to living a godly life and be in support of the only thing in the universe that God himself called an abomination. How people can claim to be both is inconceivable to me. It’s like proclaiming you are devoted to equal rights as you don the white hood, take up the rope and light the torches. The two concepts can not be more at odds with each other.

HotAirian on December 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM

“If I’m going to make a mistake,” he said, “it’s on the side of less government.”

Then he should be for getting government out of the marriage business altogether.

RadClown on December 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I agree with him.

From the end of the article:

“In my old country, they told you what you need to do, what you have to do, what you cannot do,” she said. “This is why I left.”

Asked if she is a supporter of same-sex marriage, Ms. Goykhman said: “Yes, of course. We live in a free country.”

If Ms. Goykhman doesn’t want to be told what to do by the government, then I trust she also opposes Obamacare.

ThanksMo on December 17, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Then he should be for getting government out of the marriage business altogether.

RadClown on December 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Exactly!

PatientWolf on December 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Wait, this is still an issue?

Because all the low information Gen Y morons on my FB page who voted for Obama 90% because of gay marriage, seemed to imply that the election was actually a referendum on gay marriage and it was now magically legal…

So confused

/sarc

thurman on December 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Less government?

Is that why the gay lobby has forced the Catholic Church in MA to shut down?

gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM

“In my old country, they told you what you need to do, what you have to do, what you cannot do,” she said. “This is why I left.”
Asked if she is a supporter of same-sex marriage, Ms. Goykhman said: “Yes, of course. We live in a free country.”

If Ms. Goykhman doesn’t want to be told what to do by the government, then I trust she also opposes Obamacare.
ThanksMo on December 17, 2012 at 11:17 AM

It’s worse than that. It is already allowed. She somehow doesn’t think that it is allowed, however, unless the government puts its seal of approval on it. So she thinks that she is still in her old country or something.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Less government?

Is that why the gay lobby has forced the Catholic Church in MA to shut down?

gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM

That should read the Catholic Church’s adoption services

gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It’s worse than that. It is already allowed. She somehow doesn’t think that it is allowed, however, unless the government puts its seal of approval on it. So she thinks that she is still in her old country or something.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM

+1

gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 11:26 AM

That should read the Catholic Church’s adoption services
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Affirming the gay lifestyle is way more important than freedom of religion.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Somehow you think that federal regulation of something is synonymous with allowing something. A very telling and sad indictment.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM

…no, I don’t. I was pointing out that the marriage laws are not going to go away even if SSM happens, they’re just going to be changed. So the “less government” argument is bunk. And as far as a marriage certificate is concerned, yes, gov’t is either allowing or prohibiting its issue. A certificate is obviously not a marriage, it’s just the gov’t's (or historically clan, tribe, priest, etc) part in the process. Marriage is not a private act. Marriage is a public act.

alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Less government is better – PERIOD.

MoreLiberty on December 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM

That should read the Catholic Church’s adoption services

gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM

No one forced the Catholic Church to get out of the adoption business. The Church elected to get out of the adoption business because it did not want to comply with the laws that apply to all of its public and private competitors in that business.

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

…no, I don’t. I was pointing out that the marriage laws are not going to go away even if SSM happens, they’re just going to be changed. So the “less government” argument is bunk. And as far as a marriage certificate is concerned, yes, gov’t is either allowing or prohibiting its issue. A certificate is obviously not a marriage, it’s just the gov’t’s (or historically clan, tribe, priest, etc) part in the process. Marriage is not a private act. Marriage is a public act.
alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 11:30 AM

A very statist view. Marriage is not real unless it has the seal of approval of the government? No act is public unless done through the government? Pathetic. Why don’t we just make an idol and name it “government” and start worshiping it?

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

No one forced the Catholic Church to get out of the adoption business. The Church elected to get out of the adoption business because it did not want to comply with the laws that apply to all of its public and private competitors in that business.

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

That were contrary to their religious beliefs. So the mandate was: give up your religious beliefs, or give up adoption. Sounds like they were forced out to me.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:42 AM

While he trusts most everything in the Bible and knows that Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an abomination, “there’s no other reason I can think it’s wrong except the Bible,” he said.

“I’ve coached youth sports for years and had a few kids with gay parents,” said Mr. Montzka, 53. “As far as I’m concerned, if it works for them, it’s O.K. with me.”

I wonder what keeps all the resident Hot Air fundamentalists from seeing things this way.

ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I wonder what keeps all the resident Hot Air fundamentalists from seeing things this way.

ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Who is proposing stopping them?

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I wonder what keeps all the resident Hot Air fundamentalists from seeing things this way.

ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Because it means he doesn’t really believe the bible is true, and authored by the Creator. It also means he hasn’t engaged his brain at all as concerns the other reasons against homosexuality (most people haven’t).

GWB on December 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I wonder what keeps all the resident Hot Air fundamentalists from seeing things this way?

ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

You mean spiritually convoluted and insanely at odds with their conflicting ideologies like this guy?

I’m going to go with “because they are rational” as an answer to your question.

HotAirian on December 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

A very statist view. Marriage is not real unless it has the seal of approval of the government? No act is public unless done through the government? Pathetic. Why don’t we just make an idol and name it “government” and start worshiping it?

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I don’t know what to tell you. You can go off and live with whoever you want and no one will stop you. You can call anyone you want your wife or husband. I don’t care. What you cannot do yourself is obtain the status of “married” that is recognized by the government. You have to get that marriage license from the gov’t. You can’t just make one up yourself. And obviously it has value or people wouldn’t bother getting it. Is it the only measure of a valid marriage? No. But it is the measure people traditionally look to and it is the measure that SSM advocates want.

alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I don’t object to gay marriage, but I don’t see why the government should provide it benefits. Hetero marriage is subsidized because it provides benefits to society, through the raising, educating, and socializing of children who become the next generation of society, and it has proven to be the best institution yet discovered for doing so. The benefits to society of gay marriage are, at this point, only theoretical. It will take at least a couple of generations to decide if its contribution is comparable to traditional marriage, and society should make that evaluation for itself, not the courts.

Socratease on December 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

No one forced the Catholic Church to get out of the adoption business. The Church elected to get out of the adoption business because it did not want to comply with the laws that apply to all of its public and private competitors in that business.

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

No one is preventing gays from getting married. Gays are simply electing not to get married because they do not want to comply with the laws that apply to everyone else.

Sophistry is easy.

alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

What you cannot do yourself is obtain the status of “married” that is recognized by the government. You have to get that marriage license from the gov’t.

alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Exactly. Only a statist cares.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I don’t object to gay marriage, but I don’t see why the government should provide it benefits. Hetero marriage is subsidized because it provides benefits to society, through the raising, educating, and socializing of children who become the next generation of society, and it has proven to be the best institution yet discovered for doing so.
Socratease on December 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Well then, would you support marriage “with benefits” for gays who are raising children? How about witholding the benefits of marriage to couples that are unable to have children, such as sterile or post-menopausal couples?

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

And obviously it has value or people wouldn’t bother getting it.

alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM

That is debatable. And the government should only be involved in something to the extent that it provides significant public policy benefit. If SSM proponents think that SSM does, then we should debate that. Not whether or not they are allowed to get married, which they are.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Gays are simply electing not to get married because they do not want to comply with the laws that apply to everyone else.
alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

No, gays are petitioning the government for a change in the law, which is their right under the First Amendment.

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Well then, would you support marriage “with benefits” for gays who are raising children? How about witholding the benefits of marriage to couples that are unable to have children, such as sterile or post-menopausal couples?
cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

At least you are finally admitting, to a certain extent, what the debate is about. It’s not about marriage, it’s about affirmation and benefits. I’m sick of people lying about the policy question that is at issue.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I wonder what keeps all the resident Hot Air fundamentalists from seeing things this way.

ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

You mean obeying theological tenets based upon popular opinion? What exactly is the point of joining any church if that is a person’s standard? Why not just make the Church of Me and do whatever you want?

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM

No, gays are petitioning the government for a change in the law, which is their right under the First Amendment.

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM

I call what they did in LA rioting. And what they did to Prop 8 and similar supporters intimidation. But, I guess they’re also petitioning for a change to the law.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

No, gays are petitioning the government for a change in the law, which is their right under the First Amendment.

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Define “petitioning”. There is a difference between political agitation and compulsory court rulings. The later destroys the democratic process and leaves us all at the mercy of a judge’s feelings on any particular issue.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM

What theological tenet of Christianity says that Christians must use earthly law to enforce Christian beliefs, and what theological tenet requires that they compel non-believers to behave in any particular way?

ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

What theological tenet of Christianity says that Christians must use earthly law to enforce Christian beliefs?

ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Is the government involved in marriage or not? Simply by the government being involved in marriage of course Christians who follow Christian tenets closely will be opposed to the government sanctioning gay marriage. Just as any good Christian would be opposed to the government legalizing murder.

[A]nd what theological tenet requires that they compel non-believers to behave in any particular way?

Since when are gays compelled to act contrary to their own beliefs and desires? Gays can get married if they want. They have free will, which is one of the most important Christian tenets. The issue here is not stopping gays from getting married, but whether or not such marriages should be recognized legally in the same way that heterosexual marriages are.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Define “petitioning”. There is a difference between political agitation and compulsory court rulings. The later destroys the democratic process and leaves us all at the mercy of a judge’s feelings on any particular issue.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I think it encompasses both concepts. You can file a legal petition with a court or lobby your elected representatives for a change in the law. The latter is considered by some to be more “legitimate,” but judicial power to review leglislation has been accepted since the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Either way, the movement’s most recent successes have been at the voting booth, so you can hardly complain! ;-)

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM

What theological tenet of Christianity says that Christians must use earthly law to enforce Christian beliefs, and what theological tenet requires that they compel non-believers to behave in any particular way?

ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Who is compelling anyone to do or not do something? Other than SSM supporters, that is, forcing religious institutions to accept their union despite their religious tenets? You are lying about the issues. I’d like, for once, someone on the left to make an argument without heavy reliance on strawmen. I think it is impossible.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Either way, the movement’s most recent successes have been at the voting booth, so you can hardly complain! ;-)

cam2 on December 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Any state that wants to change their own laws is free to do so. But the problem with lawsuits on this issue is that people are attempting to invent a right that does not exist under our constitution. So yes, the former is certainly illegitimate.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM

“In my old country, they told you what you need to do, what you have to do, what you cannot do,” she said. “This is why I left.”

Asked if she is a supporter of same-sex marriage, Ms. Goykhman said: “Yes, of course. We live in a free country.”

Is she one of those calling for “common sense gun control” today?

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 1:28 PM