Is Gay Marriage An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

SCOTUS Gay MarriageNow that the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of same sex marriage, it might be a good time to consider this tidbit that should make even the most ardent opponent of gay marriage feel uneasy:  In the United States of America a convicted felon in prison for robbery, rape, murder or a whole bunch of other crimes is allowed to marry — but, except in a handful of states, gays can’t.

To many of us, this makes absolutely no sense.  Neither does the argument that if the court rules that gay marriage is legal it would re-define the meaning of marriage.  Yes it would.  And?

Another argument, this one made by Charles Cooper, the lawyer representing the anti gay marriage side at the Supreme Court, makes even less sense.

At one point Justice Elena Kagan said this to Cooper:  “It seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State’s principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?”

Cooper replied, “That’s the essential thrust of position, yes.”

So does that mean couples in their 50s and 60s not to mention 70s and 80s can’t marry – because marriage, after all, is for having children and there aren’t a lot of 75 year old women having babies these days?

The argument is beyond absurd.  And they’re all canards, masking the real source of opposition to gay marriage – which, in a word, is the Bible.

As my pal Bill O’Reilly, passionately put it on The Factor: “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals.  That’s where the compelling argument is.  ‘We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument.  And to deny that, you have to have a very strong argument on the other side.  And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

Conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, are arguing that gay marriage should be left to the states – not to nine men and women in robes in Washington.  And there’s something to that.  The Supreme Court handed down their ruling on abortion in Roe v. Wade 40 years ago and we’re still fighting over it.  The decision on gay marriage, Limbaugh and other conservatives say, should be the result of “the will of the people” — not the edict of a court.

But what would the will of the people have been back when black people were fighting for their civil rights.  Does anyone really think the people – or the state legislatures – in Georgia or Alabama or Mississippi would have voted to let black people vote,or eat at lunch counter, or drink out of water fountains reserved for “whites only,” or stay at hotels, or go to public school with white kids?

Not likely.  After all, these are the same people who voted for segregationists like George Wallace to make sure those “Negroes” knew their place.

I’m all for letting the people decide.  That’s the best way to go.  But do we really want to put civil rights up for a vote?

Opponents of gay marriage say this isn’t about civil rights.  The same thing was said back in 1967 when a mixed race couple – Richard and Mildred Loving — was arrested in Virginia, simply for being an interracial married couple living in Virginia where that kind of thing was against the law.

The trial judge in the case, one Leon M. Bazile, suspended a one-year sentence on condition that the Lovings leave Virginia and promise not to come back for 25 years. And at their sentencing the judge also said this:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Remember, this was in 1967, which in the big scheme of things wasn’t that long ago.   When the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, Virginia’s law was unanimously shot down.  In the court’s ruling, Chief Justice Earl Warren said:

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Now the question is not about race but about sex.  We may all be better off if the states decide the issue one by one.  But on principle, banning same sex marriage is just as wrong as banning interracial marriage.  Chief Justice Warren was right:  Marriage is a basic civil right.  Besides, if convicted felons can marry, do we really want to deny that basic civil right to gay Americans, who have committed no crime?

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Doyle Perry

    Let’s carry this a step further. Why is the government adjudicating the religious ceremony of marriage at all? Why not let the churches do what they will with marriage, and have the government govern intestate inheritances, medical decisions, etc, solely on the basis of civil contracts between or among consenting adults? That would solve everything.

  • ARJ127

    Carol

    Why didn’t you try Bing? An internet search should find them, if they exist.

  • Jav

    Rush limbaugh argument is not based on bible thumping. Family like marriage were instituted to built something not to discriminate against people. If we change the definition of marriage in order to be ” fair” what prevents then to change the definition of a family not based on blood and adoptions but by any other definition that force to include any other people that feel discriminated by not being member of a given family

  • Moebius

    A correction to my post above: “Just like they should not have to think of at least half of their childhood friends as such either” should read “Just as they should not have to think of ALL of their childhood friends (male and female) as such either”. A child generally has more same-sex than opposite-sex friends and should not have it planted in their minds that they are potential future sexual mates by a culture which pretends that there is no difference whatsoever between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

  • ARJ127

    Maybe, you haven’t heard of civil ceremonies officiated by a judge or justice of the peace.

    • Ed

      ARJ127….Maybe you should consider thinking about life a day few BEFORE you were born, huh? I know very well what “Marriage” has evolved into today, and what people are trying to further evolve it into. The fact remains, “Marriage” is a religious ceremony, That is where it came from. I don’t care WHAT nonreligious people twisted it into today, and I am not going to debate with you WHEN the twisting occurred. I don’t need to back up what I said, everyone with a brain KNOWS where “Marriage ” originated.

  • http://www.facebook.com/adrian.vance1 Adrian Vance

    This has nothing to do with “civil rights.” It is a public health issue. I lost a business partner to AIDS and where I had been tolerant I am now totally opposed to homosexuality.

    See The Two Minute Conservative at: http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

  • Kathy

    No one is entitled to every and all gov benefits … I can’t access WIC, Affirmative Action, veterans benefits or Welfare. Nor many other gov benefits to numous to mention. Am I being discriminated against? You bet! And it’s very understandable and reasonable that I don’t receive these benefits … I DON’T MEET THE CRITERIA. Neither do same-sex couplings meet the criteria for marriage benefits.

    “When you have laws that make same-sex marriage a protected class, then the government has a compelling interest to normalize that CLASS, and must declare anything in opposition to the governments position hate speech.”

    Is government now going to impose and mandate that an aberrant sexual appetite, supersedes, and trumps the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of conscience? Citizens should not to be force by gov to validate and affirm, through our tax dollars, or gov schools behaviors that we find offensive, and have proven to be medically harmful to those engaging in such …. and which has historically been proven harmful to society at large.

  • Kathy

    Across the county we see conscientious objectors of same-sex marriage being litigated, intimidated and prosecuted for daring to stand for their deeply held and fundamental right of conscience. In DC, Illisnois, and other places across the nation, Catholic charities and adoptions have been forced to shut down for refusing to allow unmarried and homosexuals to adopt. In another instance a Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremonies on its own premises. And I could go on … the point being … None of this social engineering is done in a vacuum. Legalizing same-sex marriage is a moral point of view of it’s own, and placing it in law makes demands on other citizens and society to validate and affirm that law, or be prosecuted.

    As Dr Jennifer Roback Morse stated in her excellent article “Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Civil Society” … http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2008/oct08/same-sex-marriage.html (And this doesn’t thump the Bible) …
    Once governments assert that same-sex relationships are the equivalent of marriage, those governments MUST defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes, and restrictions of freedoms.

    It’s insane!! And I think, a danger to liberty, freedom and the fundamental right of conscience.

  • Kathy

    If LGBTQ
    is innate, why are there multitudes of ex-LGBTQ? Skin color is
    innate … you don’t see any ex-people of color. It’s just ridiculous, and
    idiotic to compare a sexual behavior to an immutable racial
    characteristic. We are talking about a sexual behavior here people!! Has
    everyone gone completely insane over this issue? There is NO
    “creditable” scientific evidence that LGBTQ is innate. Saying that
    science points to this aberrant sexual behavior is an inborn, innate
    characteristic that cannot be changed is maliciously false. And even if
    it were so … SO WHAT!! … Men and women may have been born with the
    compulsion and appetite to be extremely promiscuous, or obese. But that
    doesn’t mean others should be forced though government coercion to
    validate their behavior. I mean that’s just common sense. It’s so
    frustrating
    that so many just can’t seem to see the difference between a behavior
    and skin color.

    PROOF …

    Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) …http://pfox.org/default.html
    Demolishing the idea that ‘there’s no such thing as an ex gay’
    http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2011/12/demolishing-idea-that-theres-no-such.html

    Youtube alone is full of former
    LGBTQs …
    http://bit.ly/Y3xFFU

  • Ed

    Then I want to Marry my Turtle…both of them. Give me one damn good reason why I shouldn’t be able to!. No where in the law does it say marriage is to be between 2 humans. Let’s go Bernie, I am waiting.

  • Larry who blasphemes liberalis

    Two fallacies that the Big Media (nor Mr. Goldberg address):

    1. Every law and court decision on “domestic partners” or “civil unions” always limits it to “couples.” WHY? Having “divorced” these institutions from the pattern of the biological unit of sexual reproduction, there is no defensible reason to limit them to “couples.” Likewise these “marriage-like” institutions also preclude near-relatives. Again, WHY? As Jeremy Irons has recently pointed out, there is no chance of incestuous offspring in a same-sex union. Ergo, it is either “one man + one woman” or “any number of anybody.” In over 15 years of asking this question, not one person (even in the hard-liberal SF Bay Area) has been able to defend the middle ground of same-sex unions but limiting them to two people not near-relatives. Want to try, Mr. Goldberg?

    2. Despite all the vitriol targeted at Christians, remember that all of human history and cultures around the world did not have same-sex unions, be it in Australia, China, India, Africa, or pre-Columbian America. Thus, this isn’t “Bible-thumping.”

    Further, trying to equate this with laws against interracial marriage fails a very different test: the mating of two people of a given ethnicity guarantees a person of that ethnicity. Mating two homosexuals (OK, a homosexual and a lesbian) does not guarantee that the offspring will be homosexual.

    And since Mr. Goldberg chose to write about Justice Warren’s statement “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…”, be it noted that same-sex unions do *not* contribute to our survival since they can *never* (no matter how perfectly the biology works) reproduce.

    It goes back to the same basic point: marriage is based on the pattern of the biological unit of sexual reproduction. Period.

    I could go further, but I would be accused of blaspheming liberalism — uh, accused of hate and bigotry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mormons-Are-Christian/1086620691 Mormons Are Christian

    There has been a concerted 25 year effort to “brainwash” the American people to portray homosexuals as “victims” and to treat opponents of “Gay Rights” as
    Nazi/KKK-like “bigots”. An entire book (After the Ball: How Americans will Conquer their Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s) was written by an advertising man and a media psychologist to concoct a propaganda campaign only Josef Goebbels could admire. You can read an abbreviated version of the strategy written in 1987 called “The Overhauling of Straight America”.

    Among other things, the authors said that Sodomites must be constantly and persistently portrayed as “victims” to elicit Americans’ natural tendencies to protect the oppressed. For that reason, the pedophiles in the “Gay Rights” movement must stand down from visible participation in the movement — at least until low-hanging
    fruit like “marriage” and military service were achieved — because nobody would consider a pedophile to be a “victim”..

  • Brian

    March 27, 2013

    THE MISSING ELEMENT

    This is the email I sent to Bill O’Reilly this morning.

    O’Reilly:

    The conversation between you and Megyn Kelly yesterday (on The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News) regarding same-sex marriage was the dumbest pile of crap I’ve heard in years. Megyn thought she was busting the reproduction argument by pointing out that if reproduction is the key, couples over 55 as well as homosexuals would have to be excluded from legal marriage. How typical of a lawyer!

    We live in a lawyer-driven society, and daily we see evidence that a clever lawyer can prove anything by argument, then turn around and prove the opposite, without blinking an eye.

    The missing element in all your arguments is the fact that homosexuality is NOT NORMAL! The need for reproduction of the species is probably behind the fact that overwhelmingly most men are attracted to women, want to make love to them, marry them and have a family. There is a miniscule percentage of men (what is it, one per cent, three per cent?) who want to have sexual relations with other men.

    Over the past 50 years or so, out of courtesy, consideration or whatever, the heterosexuals in our society have declined to describe homosexuals as abnormal. It’s like calling them freaks, which no one wants to do. We did not want to hurt their feelings—after all, they are our sons and daughters, neighbors and co-workers, brothers and sisters. Homosexuals took advantage of this attitude and moved our society to accept the idea that homosexuals are actually perfectly normal—just people with a different sexual orientation, or preference. Homosexuality, for purposes of establishing this, was compared with left-handedness and color blindness. But it is much different. Accepting those differences does not carry the implications for our society that is presented by acceptance as “normal” of homosexual behavior.

    So O’Reilly and Kelly—stop and think about it. It is NATURAL for a man to be attracted to women, and for a woman to be attracted to men. If a man and a woman are over 55, there is still that attraction. That’s the way we are. That’s who we are. Cut out all the clever lawyer arguments (even if they are conceived by clever lawyer Sotomayor) and face the facts. Homosexuals are freaks of nature. We don’t know why they are the way they are. Maybe we will discover this some day. In the meantime, we can be nice to them, but we must not let them dominate our society.

    Brian Saint-Yves
    Phoenix, AZ

  • DB

    So you are saying that there are some illogical relationships when associating marriage to the entitlements of the state/union. Instead of suggesting that these entitlements should be reevaluated or that marriage is not an appropriate concept to tie to these entitlements, you propose to destroy an existing entity (marriage) and create in its place a new concept camouflaged by the same word. You scare me Bernie. When a government is capable of purposefully changing the core definition of our language for the benefits of its entitlements, I believe that law and free speech and freedom from ideology cannot exist?

    Extra note: There is a lot that is absent in your discussion. But I particularly find it interesting that gender is irrelevant. Procreation of a union of two men always requires an outside third party whose womb and body is enslaved and at risk for 9 months.

  • Ed

    For the people who say “Let the States decide”…You can’t kick it to the States, because we have Federal laws that say
    we must acknowledge certain state laws, i.e. Marriage, Driver’s licenses….
    so if say…CA accepts Gay Marriage, then ALL states will have to
    acknowledge it eventually because that is where that will go, IF you
    take it down that road. So forget it. We MUST have a Federal definition
    of Marriage (I quite frankly feel they shouldn’t have the word
    “Marriage” in ANY of our Federal or State laws, as it is a Religious
    sacrament that has been hijacked…. “Separation of Church & State” anyone? Isn’t that the cry?

  • Ed

    You can’t kick it to the States, because we have Federal laws that say we must acknowledge certain state laws, i.e. Marriage, Driver’s licenses…. so if say…CA accepts Gay Marriage, then ALL states will have to acknowledge it eventually because that is where that will go, IF you take it down that road. So forget it. We MUST have a Federal definition of Marriage (I quite frankly feel they shouldn’t have the word “Marriage” in ANY of our Federal or State laws, as it is a Religious sacrament that has been hijacked…. “Separation of Church & State” anyone? Isn’t that the cry we hear all day long???

  • pumped_up_kicks

    You want to know why most Mormons are worried about the government redefining marriage? It isn’t because they hate gay people. It is because the last time the government redefined the definition of marriage, Mormons got screwed over, imprisoned, invaded, and had their property confiscated for not following along with the federal government’s definition of marriage. The feds said you have to perform marriages like we tell you to, or you’re not a real religion, and we will throw you in prison. And for the people who say this could never happen, that’s super comforting, since it has before. So if you want to know why the Mormons in California voted against gay marriage, they weren’t scared of gay people. They were scared of the feds. — Larry Correia

  • shield1

    Homosexuality is an act. Race is a physical appearance. To justify an act by comparing it to appearance is comparing apples and oranges.
    If marriage is a blanket ‘right’, which its not, then what is to stop brother and sister, mulitple partner marriages, etc?

  • Stimpy

    Maybe we can get the Supremes to decide that marijuana isn’t devil weed, and has some justifiable medicinal value? I know I’m off topic but isn’t that, and the war on drugs, a bigger issue to most of us? I see this as a libertarian issue and another thing that most conservatives will be on the wrong side of.

    • Starr

      Stimpy, I see this as a libertarian issue also, which is why, although I am not opposed to gay marriage, I have a problem with forcing people (bakers, photographers, etc.) to violate their conscience and religious beliefs to accommodate gay marriage. Judicial rulings that gay rights trump religious rights are a slippery slope. But, yeah, I too think that keeping marijuana illegal is stupid and pointless, although I personally do not use it. I would like to see US Supreme Court definitive rulings on both issues.

  • Iklwa

    I see the “debate” as part of an on-going effort by leftists to destroy the fabric of American society.

    This effort began when leftists entered the education system.

    I have recently heard that the queer question has mysteriously become more accepted over the last thirty years. This is the direct result of propagandizing children in the education system and just waiting for the old, Bible thumping bigots to die.

    As our older population passes away, those positions controlling opinion will be filled by more and more folks who were raised in the no winners, anything goes, non-judgmental, politically correct environment foisted upon us by those who claim the moral high ground…while attempting to justify behaviors morally, physiologically, psychologically and socially known as unnatural.

    The entire liberal movement is an attempt to normalize deviant behavior. Liberals know they are abnormal (or abnormal behavior appeals to their desire for instant gratification without the associated guilt), they congregate and find ways to justify their aberrant actions so they can legislate their “normalcy”.

    I don’t care if blacks marry whites or Vulcans marry humans. I do not want my children taught that a man can marry a dog and not be embarrassed. It makes no sense that marriage should be sought by those incapable of passing along their genetic material to progeny. After all, marriage was instituted to protect children’s’ birth rights…specifically the right to inherit their parent’s property through direct linage. Children adopted by homosexual couples can now pass inheritance through legal means already in place. It makes no sense to me that after having achieved Civil Unions allowing all rights and privileges of those in holy matrimony, they should also want the title applied to that institution.

    I do find it strange that those who most loudly advocate “separation of church and state” so adamantly pursue the title associated with holy union…unless the goal is really the corruption of American society.

    You tell me.

    PS You can pass along the bit about “direct linage” to Bill if you want.

  • Iklwa

    I see the “debate” as part of an on-going effort by leftists to destroy the fabric of American society.

    This effort began when leftists entered the education system.

    I have recently heard that the queer question has mysteriously become more accepted over the last thirty years. This is the direct result of propagandizing children in the education system and just waiting for the old, Bible thumping bigots to die.

    As our older population passes away, those positions controlling opinion will be filled by more and more folks who were raised in the no winners, anything goes, non-judgmental, politically correct environment foisted upon us by those who claim the moral high ground…while attempting to justify behaviors morally, physiologically, psychologically and socially known as unnatural.

    The entire liberal movement is an attempt to normalize deviant behavior. Liberals know they are abnormal (or abnormal behavior appeals to their desire for instant gratification without the associated guilt), they congregate and find ways to justify their aberrant actions so they can legislate their “normalcy”.

    I don’t care if blacks marry whites or Vulcans marry humans. I do not want my children taught that a man can marry a dog and not be embarrassed. It makes no sense that marriage should be sought by those incapable of passing along their genetic material to progeny. After all, marriage was instituted to protect children’s’ birth rights…specifically the right to inherit their parent’s property through direct linage. Children adopted by queer couples can now pass inheritance through legal means already in place. It makes no sense to me that after having achieved Civil Unions allowing all rights and privileges of those in holy matrimony, they should also want the title applied to that institution.

    I do find it strange that those who most loudly advocate “separation of church and state” so adamantly pursue the title associated with holy union…unless the goal is really the corruption of American society.

    You tell me.

    PS You can pass along the bit about “direct linage” to Bill if you want.

  • Iklwa

    I see the “debate” as part of an on-going effort by leftists to destroy the fabric of American society.

    This effort began when leftists entered the education system.

    I have recently heard that the queer question has mysteriously become more accepted over the last thirty years. This is the direct result of propagandizing children in the education system and just waiting for the old, Bible thumping bigots to die.

    As our older population passes away, those positions controlling opinion will be filled by more and more folks who were raised in the no winners, anything goes, non-judgmental, politically correct environment foisted upon us by those who claim the moral high ground…while attempting to justify behaviors morally, physiologically, psychologically and socially known as unnatural.

    The entire liberal movement is an attempt to normalize deviant behavior. Liberals know they are abnormal (or abnormal behavior appeals to their desire for instant gratification without the associated guilt), they congregate and find ways to justify their aberrant actions so they can legislate their “normalcy”.

    I don’t care if blacks marry whites or Vulcans marry humans. I do not want my children taught that a man can marry a dog and not be embarrassed. It makes no sense that marriage should be sought by those incapable of passing along their genetic material to progeny. After all, marriage was instituted to protect children’s’ birth rights…specifically the right to inherit their parent’s property through direct linage. Children adopted by queer couples can now pass inheritance through legal means already in place. It makes no sense to me that after having achieved Civil Unions allowing all rights and privileges of those in holy matrimony, they should also want the title applied to that institution.

    I do find it strange that those who most loudly advocate “separation of church and state” so adamantly pursue the title associated with holy union…unless the goal is really the corruption of American society.

    You tell me.

    PS You can pass along the bit about “direct linage” to Bill if you want.

  • STIXNSTONES42

    HOW IS A LESBIAN MARRIAGE CONSUMMATED?

  • ARJ127

    Perhaps you should research the religious convictions of the framers of the Constitution. You’ll find that most of them wouldn’t be described as Christians in today’s sense. Perhaps you should follow this link:

    http://atheism.about.com/od/godlessliberals/p/Constitution.htm

  • Stimpy

    Why shouldn’t gays have to deal with divorce and alimony? This trend toward acceptance of gays seems fair and altruistic … but maybe it shouldn’t be an easy road to take. I was offended that the liberals in CA were making it against the law for Psychologists to provide any kind of counseling to avoid that road. That sounds like a militant, and not a civil rights, agenda to me.

  • JBubs

    Bernie, here is a non-religious argument in 5 sentences for the defense of marriage. It shows the idea of “same-sex marriage” to be fantasy:

    The reproductive system is the only bodily system that requires another person to complete it. Only the union of two physically complimentary persons complete the reproductive system. Because this union can produce children, society has an interest in protecting it through law. Without the complimentary differences between men and women, the concept of marriage would not exist. Therefore the definition of marriage is necessarily limited to the union of a woman and a man.
    To answer the question “what about a 50 year-old man and woman getting married” (presumably with no intention of begetting children), three sentences suffice:
    Not every marriage produces children. The law has no power to require that a marriage leads to children, its power is limited to protect marriage. Therefore a marriage that produces no children is equally protected by law.
    Am I missing something?

    • ARJ127

      You say “Not every marriage produces children. The law has no power to require that a marriage leads to children, its power is limited to protect marriage. ” Correct. So why discriminate against same-sex marriage? Defending marriage can take many forms. Some of them are – providing affordable psychological and marital counselling, health care and so on.

      • JBubs

        Hi ARJ127, and thanks for responding. I made 2 arguments, each conclusion beginning with “Therefore…”. However, the strength of the second argument is dependent upon the weight of the first, so I am afraid that makes your comment out of context. If you will consider the weight of first argument, you will find the answer to your question regarding the second. Semper Fidelis.

  • turtl2

    Bernie: Looks to me like you start right out with a debatable premise. Who says it makes any sense for convicted felons to have any rights until they’ve paid their debt to society, if they ever do?

  • Rub G.

    I think we should define exactly what marriage is, before making other determinations. Everyone has an idea about it and no one, to my knowledge has ever addressed this prospect…
    If marriage consists of the blessing of God upon a pair bonding… Then perhaps government really has no place making any laws about it. Maybe the government should just stick to what it does…. Civil Unions. The government should get out of the marriage business… I mean… Who are they to impose upon our culture, one way or another? Are they going to make rulings on what exactly Hip-hop or Classic Rock are? Who are they to tell me how I’m supposed to revere marriage… Or anything culturally, for that matter? The governments, state or federal, should limit their powers to Civil Unions only. That would satisfy all, wouldn’t it? Let individuals make their own personal determination. Sad, perhaps that it has come to this… But let’s just keep marriage rules in the private sector where they belong…

  • kayakbob

    Dear Mr. Goldberg,

    Most of your columns tend to make me ‘think’ about an issue or situation in a different light. That doesn’t mean I disagreed before, then changed my mind. It just means you articulate a perspective that is often food for thought. But on this one I will remain in staunch disagreement.

    What could be wrong with two consenting adults wanting to be committed to each other and responsible to and for each other for the rest of the their lives together? Nothing…in a vacuum.

    The problem is we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in a world with consequences..often of the infamous ‘unintended’ variety. For one, I am thinking about raising children. I think kids have enough to deal with today without having two daddies, or two mommies thrown at them – long before they are ready to sort that out in their own heads.

    The arguments I hear about ‘fairness’ make one big, and incorrect, assumption – EVERYONE involved is a consenting adult. The kids are not consenting and not adult.

    If the ‘state’ is going to define ‘marriage’, shouldn’t it define it in the context of the best situation for ‘marriage’? That is one man and one woman. Sorry. Redefining ‘marriage’ to be ‘fair’ opens the door to all sorts of other relationships somebody decides is ‘fair’ simply because they want it to be. I have no doubt some disturbed person will use that same argument to pronounce a man should be allowed to marry a boy….or an animal. “absurd”, you say? Think again.

    My disagreement with gay marriage isn’t about the two people involved really. It is about the complicated realities that come along for the ride.

    Keep ‘em coming though,
    Kayakbob

  • Jimmy Stewart

    Goldberg there is a difference between black people and slavery than “Gay Marriage.” Your ethnicity is that you are born that way. Homosexuality is a lifestyle chosen by individuals. What America is now saying is that we will approve of hedonism under the guise of “freedom.” Just sick that even you are falling for this deception. Leave marriage alone it’s been fine for thousands of years!

  • Jim Pell

    So, soon convicts in prison will be able to marry their cellmate. Is that “the essential thrust of the position”?

  • John

    Marriage was and is intended for males and a females. (that’s a period)
    Sorry Bernie but comparing homosexuals to convicts or blacks is lame.
    For those of us still clinging to our guns and our bibles, homosexuality is, as it has been since the writing of the old testament books, an abomination to God.
    Don’t expect us to accept something, clearly defined in our bible as a sin, as anything other than a sin.

  • Mr. Conservative

    Bernie – Did you read Dennis Prager’s column like I suggested? It really does refute all your arguments. Please go read this – http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=4bd9a8e1-d2e3-4e27-8ff9-13225099eea5&url=why_a_good_person_can_vote_against_samesex_marriage

  • Ed

    Rush, I love him, but he’s wrong about giving it to the states to decide
    (if he truly said that). We have Federal Laws that force other states
    to acknowledge other states (certain) laws, i.e. driver’s Licenses,
    Marriages…. Gay marriage will have that same protection. So that statement is…silly.

  • Guest

    Rush, I love him, but he’s wrong about giving it to the states to decide (if he truly said that). We have Federal Laws that force other states to acknowledge certain other states laws, i.e. driver’s Licenses, Marriages…. Gay marriage will have that same protection. So that statement is…silly.

  • http://twitter.com/MamaImp Connie Elliott

    It strikes me that we’re talking about several different things that all go by the name of “marriage”. First is an institutionalization of the human need to pairbond. Next is the cultural institution. After that is the religious sacrament. Lastly is the special legal, contractual arrangement to which people assign one another something like 450 different priorities on property rights.

    I won’t speak to culture. Sometimes, it shifts. As for the sacrament, churches should be able to marry whomever they please. If the government gets involved in regulating a sacrament, which one will be next? The confessional? The bris?

    The purpose of the law is to ensure the security of person and property. Get government out of anything that could be mistaken for a sacrament. Ensure that religion can’t be interfered with by the State. Likewise, stop calling this contractual arrangement “marriage” and let individuals secure their persons and property with whomever they please.

  • FloridaJim

    Step by step the progressives remove God from America. Removing God remove the accursed 10 commandments which point us to sin, the life of humans is full of sin and the liberals don’t want to judge anyone ergo-no sin, no judgment.

    Oddly, these same people are environmentalists who believe they, not God, controls the environment. There are many contradictions in a liberal.

  • Ed

    WAIT! HOLD THE PRESSES!!…. Beyonce! (aka “BaddieBey”) has stated she is FOR “Gay Marriage”…..the decision is MADE!, for the children of the world!, everyone go back to your homes….. Next Fake cause please!

  • Ed

    Bernie, the height of hypocrisy/ immorality is making excuses for ones self. YOU don’t believe in a moral authority, So this is why your stance on “Gay Marriage” is such. It fits into your situation at this moment (Even though The gays are lying about their true motives in this particular case, they have you all fooled, it’s amusing to watch you all take the bait).

  • Craig

    Bernie,

    Thumping the Bible here. God told us to go forth and multiply. Two issues here, there are many more:

    1. Economies need customers to grow, babies grow up to be customers. I think you can connect the dots.

    2. The Muslims do not believe in this non-sustainable union. If we as moral infidels don’t wise up, the Muslims will simply out populate us and vote Shariah Law into power in all lands. Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi suggested that Islam would dominate the world without firing a shot. Well you can connect the dots here too.

    We all need to wise up and not fall for the straw arguments you offered.

    Respectfully

  • LennyPincus

    Well said, Bernie.

  • Ed

    Its funny….. i JUST read. Bill O’Reilly (only the head line, not Bills rant, thats all i need to read) and now I figured YOU out….. your tongue is so far up his butt, you can tell me if he peppered his eggs this morning. Both of you are acting like clowns, the case was made, yet all you can say is opponents of Gay Marriage have no case. You dont WANT a case. I stated mine, the ulterior motives are clear. YOU DONT WANT THERE TO BE A CASE….period. I’d like to rename what YOU do… how is that? lets call it….BS.

  • Tim Ned

    Bernie, would you have written this article ten years ago?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Ryan/100000772975435 Jack Ryan

    Homosexual marriage equality is this year, next is polygamy. Black Africans and all kinds of Muslims practice polygamy. Are we as a nation going to tell these people they can’t keep their marriage customs here? Next it is the issue of female genital circumcision, Sharia law. These issues are tearing Europe, Britain apart. Why can’t we defend our laws, our culture? Why must we change?

  • Ed

    You people need to LET GO of the “God Angle”. You are playing into their hands. They want to “Piss in the face of Christ”

    (Ref:Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition,which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content. )

    That is what this is all about. If it wasn’t, as i said 10 times, they would accept “Civil Union with equal rights of marriage”. The whole argument is a Sham.

  • joe jones

    i agree that dennis prager is one of the smartest men around. i, also, almost,always agree with him. i, also, believe that bernie goldberg is one of the smartest men around. i, almost, always agree with him. both would make great presidents. i have to disagree with bernie on this one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paperpushermj Matthew Jacobs

    Why are you letting someone else determine the nature of the debate Mr Goldberg? This whole tempest in a tea pot ignores the crux of the debate. Namely a Marriage License, States issue many many License every year and have every right to establish what qualification need to be met in order to obtain that License. In the case of Marriage there are certain requirements such as age,numbers and relationships between applicants. Requirements are by their nature discriminatory

  • Ed

    Bernie, you go off on a false premise, so every thing you
    said after your correlation between felons and gays is…well…. ridiculous. By
    “Felons”, I assume, you mean felonious Men wanting to marry Women?, or vice
    versa? you didn’t SAY gay felons!. Your comparison is silly. Now the truth…. I
    know gay people, I’ve been around them my whole life. If you ask them to be
    honest, you will learn that this whole “Gay Marriage” fight, is not really
    about “Gay Marriage” per se, it’s about beating down the Roman Catholic Church. If you grant “Gay Marriage” tomorrow, they will STILL be fighting the fight, forever. As every homosexual has informed me- “the term “Civil Union” (with all the rights of marriage) will NOT be expectable… why? Because like I said, it is NOT about that. Homosexuals want everyone else to accept them 100%, and their activity to be considered 100% mainstream activity. This of course will never happen, it’s impossible. No one on Earth is granted that, not the Jews, the Blacks, the Asian, the Irish, the pedophiles, the bestiality people, not even the Boy Scouts! (which by the way, when I was a kid, thugs were trying to beat THEM up as well, and no one seemed to care). Now the reason the Homosexuals avoid going after the Muslims (or any other faith that is against homosexuality) is not unlike why a Lion doesn’t usually attack an elephant. Christians are all about redemption and forgiveness. They are pacifists in nature, and generally speaking- non-violent (yes, yes, we have militant Christians as well as militant Homosexuals, lets speak in general terms) but why don’t homosexuals go after Muslims with their … “crusade”?, because if they
    find out your gay, they are basically told…..off with their head! (so-to-speak).
    By the way….Why don’t women’s rights groups attack OTHER countries for THEIR medieval treatment of women? Why is the “Good fight” seem to only be fought here? In the USA? Where they are treated the best?……same reason. I say, I don’t care WHERE you want to “Stick it”, just leave my “Deck of Cards”
    alone, let’s not make Hoyle reprint all the Pinochle cards. “Civil Union”
    terminology is the way to go, with all the same rights as marriage. Do that, and their true colors will come out, and I assure you, it’s not that of a rainbow.

    • Ed

      It has been said (truth or not) that on the Island of Samoa, staring directly into the eyes of another Samoan can be considered an act of aggression. In the East, the simple showing of the sole of ones shoe, is quite offensive. I ask you…. When someone comes to America, why is it the endeavor to break and change all rules, laws and beliefs? yet here, WE are taught that when we go abroad, we must be submissive and respectful to their culture? Why is that?. Our culture is- Marriage…Man…Women. Cloaking your TRUE motives behind points such as “wanting to be with your lover on their death bed in a hospital” is a joke, and every level headed person knows it. Its insulting to our intelligence.

  • Michael

    @fb821f932f249c0c42e1f517c3002023:disqus He didn’t say homosexuality was a civil right. He said marriage was a civil right and as such should not be denied to any persons. But then what do we say to polygamists? Is their plight any different and if so why?.

  • moronpolitics

    Wow!! People convicted of rape, murder, bank robbery and a host of other felonies can still marry but gays cannot. Is this supposed to be a logical argument because Bernard thinks that being “Gay” is not as serious a crime as those others? That is the only reason that this could be considered somehow logical. Otherwise he is comparing Apples and Crowbars. Wait. That would mean he is a TOIDI backwards.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1560111594 Robert Blum

    ‘Marriage’ should have remained within the confines of ‘the church’.

  • http://www.facebook.com/haaseline Douglas Haase

    Putting felons into a tribe of less desirables makes me sick Bernie…I guess we will be the next group trying to rights and things from the government , seems to me if we can live with the crime this government has done with fiscal tasks , we should be able to live with Gay marriage and giving criminals a break….he who is without sin cast the first post!!!!

  • wally12

    Bernie: Your article and nearly every discussion and blog on marriage for gays keep stating that the question is marriage and equal rights. Most people and politicians don’t understand the basic problem. The main problem from my point of view is the use of the word marriage, The word “marriage” was defined and coined thousands of years ago as the union of a man and a woman. It has been and continues to be used as that definition by many religions. These religions and their followers have exclusive right to the definition. You, me and any government have no business to redefine the word. Yet, many people still refer to that word and all it does it tick other people off. Why can’t you and the politicians recognize that the word marriage is not to be redefined? Civil unions are a different matter. These are unions that can be allowed by governments. All that is required is a law establishing it. If fact, it could be accomplished even though the majority of the voters don’t want it. A prime example was Obamacare. If the gays want to have a union, it is fine with me and I think it is acceptable by many religious people. However, the gays must not use the word “marriage” to define their union because it is not their right to do so and neither is it the governments right. It also is acceptable for the government to provide the same tax deductions for gay union couples. I believe that adopted children are better served when the parents include both a man and woman. However, there is reason to allow gays to adopt since having parents who love, provide protection and training is better than being stuck without any parent. If the government does allow civil unions and the benefits that traditional married couples enjoy, then they also should single people the same benefits in terms of taxes and the right to adopt. After all, a single person can be a part time parent now by being in the Big Brothers and Big Sisters organization. There is no good reason that a sinle person couldn’t be allowed full time adoption.

  • Random_acct

    If the supreme court allows SSM under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment this will be a huge mistake, and one that will further divide this country for many years to come.

  • Random_acct

    The absurdity of attempting to use the Fourteenth Amemdment as legal cover for gay marriage is highly cynical. The supporters of that Amemdment (passed in the 1860s), had no intention of this being used for this purpose, and I’m 100% certain that if you could ask them now, they would all be horrified that there was now an attempt to do this.

  • Barbara

    Many black ministers disagree with you, Bernie. I know you would call me a “Bible thumper”, but God is the ultimate source and He is far wiser than us. From abortion to gay marriage, the moral fabric of our society is at stake.

  • Random_acct

    Bernie, you are going off the deep end. Just because people in their 50s and 60s and beyond who get married don’t have children doesn’t negate the general rule. Gay marriage has no value to society. Thus, government should not grant it special status as it performs no valuable purpose. To equal this with civil rights due to skin color is absurd. Tell me how many major civil rights leads were pushing for gay marriage in the civil rights heyday of the 1950s and 1960s? The answer is none.

  • Thomas_More

    Bernie, I never thought I would see you drinking the Koolade of leftist, Godless, social engineering. You cannot argue rationally that 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian thought (not just actual religious practice) is the NOT bedrock of the core beliefs of these States United. Homosexual marriage is simply an oxymoron that interestingly the even greatest (even pre-Christian) minds, Solon, Aristotle, Plato, Galen, etc. never thought worthy of discourse because is so completely violates natural law, it would not enter the conscious thoughts of classical period intellectual. Bernie, even YOU have allowed your mind to be muddled by the New-speak and politically correct discourse of the forces that seek solely to destroy religion and tradition. I think you need to read Kupelian’s, The Marketing of Evil….because you seem to have gone to market and filled your shopping cart to the brim with it.

    • http://twitter.com/tuckman_andrea faxxmaxx

      Well said

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mormons-Are-Christian/1086620691 Mormons Are Christian

    There has been a concerted 25 year effort to “brainwash” the American people to portray homosexuals as “victims” and to treat opponents of “Gay Rights” as Nazi/KKK-like “bigots”. An entire book (After the Ball: How Americans will Conquer their Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s) was written by an advertising man and a media psychologist to concoct a propaganda campaign only Josef Goebbels could admire. You can read an abbreviated version of the strategy written in 1987 called “The Overhauling of Straight America”.

    Among other things, the authors said that “Gays” must be constantly and persistently portrayed as “victims” to elicit Americans’ natural tendencies to protect the oppressed. For that reason, the pedophiles in the “Gay Rights” movement must stand down from visible participation in the movement — at least until low-hanging fruit like “marriage” and military service were achieved — because nobody would consider a pedophile to be a “victim”..

    • Random_acct

      The left specializes in victim-hood. It’s absurd to argue that gays are somehow vicitms.

      • Ed

        I wish they cared for the Boy Scouts that get beat up on the way to their meetings (just for wearing their outfits). that’s a common occurrence, always was. But for some strange reason…..no one cares. Maybe THEY need a “Ribbon”? for… A-WARE….NESS????

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Biff-Wellington/100001958679931 Biff Wellington

    No, Bernie. Fuck gay marriage.

  • wyatt81

    If you believe marriage was originally created and instituted by God, then it is between a man and a woman. If you don’t believe that, then you can change and justify basically anything based on feelings, cultural consensus, prevailing opinion, emotional pressure, or anything else. And it can just as easily be changed back based on those same criteria at any time. If marriage is a human created institution, then you can do whatever you want with it. If it is from God, then you are, in the final analysis, rebelling against Him.

  • DOOM161

    Your thoughts on homosexuals don’t marry too well with your belief that the human species gradually evolved, developing traits to better ensure the survival of the species.

    And why do very few people on your side argue for equal rights to polygamists, pedophiles, and people that would prefer to marry animals? They also claim to be born that way. If you want to draw the line there, that’s fine, but you can’t oppose certain groups’ rights under the guise of equal rights.

    • Random_acct

      That’s right. They will not address that point.

  • ivannavi

    To me the institution of marriage has been the essential foundation that has allowed for continuation of the human species. That being that a man and woman can unite to bring forth another human being. In addition, the commitments associated with the bond of marriage have also been codified for 1000’s of years.

    Now individuals of the same gender and sexual orientation, who physiologically could never conceive and carry to term a human being without the assistance of a sperm or egg donor, or surrogate, are demanding the right to be called married. To this I say no. To do otherwise would be a total violation of our species.

    What I do support and demand for them is their right to a civil union or contractual arrangement. Which should grant them all the legal rights accorded individuals of different genders who choose to marry as has been done for 1000’s of years.

  • moronpolitics

    If homosexual behavior is so ordinary and proper and nothing any right thinking person wouldn’t be proud to admit they do then why did the press insist on referring to a recent Supreme Court nominee as a “Softball Player” instead of a “Lesbian”? I don’t know anybody among us non Ivy League educated people that insisted on referring to her that way, We just said “What do you think about that B*** D**** Obama wants to put on the Supreme Court?” It was the intelligentsia who insisted on talking about her as a Softball Player,

  • Wheels55

    I neither support nor protest against gay marriage. It just isn’t my business in any way. I don’t know why government has to give us permission to marry anyway, as long as two humans are involved.
    Legally, pick someone close to you to name as the person to speak on your behalf in case you cannot do so for yourself. For taxes, declare an otherwise unrelated person living with you as your relationship partner (marriage or not) and you can file a joint return. Making this a national issue creates victims where there does not need to be.
    Now let’s all go find something else to whine about, like out of control government spending or careless foreign affairs.

  • hihoze

    Bernie & Readers: What ever happened to Article V our our U.S. Constitution? Do we really want to be ruled by a Presidential King or 5 out of 9 Supreme Kings or 535 Mini Kings? Does anyone remember “We The People”? Rather than allow 325 million citizens be ruled by a King or collection of Kings or Counts, what do you say we discuss it among ourselves and vote on it? Let’s put this debate through our Constitutional Amendment process so 120 million citizen voters can decide for themselves and avoid 50% of us endlessly cursing and calling the other 50% ugly names. Is that such a radical idea for We the People….you know we Americans?

    As to Bernie’s case against states doing the right thing, let us not forget the Dred Scott decision or the Run Away Slave Act that the Washington DC’vers enforced over the righteous outrage by the abolitionists and free states. We have a Constitution that Empowers Bernie, you, me, our next door neighbors, our local and distant friends and relatives and all of our fellow citizens from coast to coast. Yes, mores do change over time but isn’t it time for all of us to debate it in our own towns, cities, counties and member states of our Union? Or….do we really want to live day after day in polarized courtrooms, spitting hate filled divisive names and intolerable gloating at one another by deferring to 5 out of 9 lawyers, appointed by elitist rulers and DC’vers to decide? What do you say we re-distribute the power from the elitist DC’vers who control a Nation State to We the People who make up our Union of diverse States? After all we are a constitutional Democratic Republic that we still proudly call our United States of America.

  • jack

    Bernie; Read what God did to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah! If we allow gays to promote their stuff in America, God will bring an end to our culture. He made the female for the male – not guys with guys.

    • ARJ127

      Hey Jack Thanks for posting. Your post proves the point that the whole anti-gay marriage movement is based on religion. The state has no obligation to promote religious viewpoints.

  • moronpolitics

    Well, if that doesn’t make sense to you, then you have completely lost the ability the think. What “makes sense” to you is what people who attend the same parties as you and went to the same schools where you all “think” the same way believe “makes sense”. Forgive me if I don’t waste time trying to revive your long dead ability to reason. Maybe you should have a short talk with a four year old or two that haven’t been “educated” yet. If my blue heeler had thumbs and a working voice box it could produce a more intelligent blog than this thing has become.

  • morefandave

    Et tu, Bernie?

  • GailWehling

    That is untrue. If it was that casual they would not have infiltrated all of the major denominations. Some have give in and marry them(or do some kind of civil service) for them. My church has so far been able to resist. The Gays feel they have every right to be married in any church. They are trying to force an obligation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jhornburg01 Justin Hornburg

    The analogy to race is compelling to me. Help me understand this. Could Earl Warren’s words in Loving be used to create a right to a 4-party marriage between one man and three women? And, if so, do we care? Polygamy is expressly outlawed, yes?

    • ARJ127

      Polygamy is a choice. Homosexuality isn’t. Race isn’t a choice either. That’s the difference.

      • Random_acct

        That has not been proven (the homosexuality is not a choice).

        • ARJ127

          Random – go back and do some reading. You’ve missed the memo. Do you think that anyone would willingly choose to be gay and suffer the discrimination that accompanies it?

          • Random_acct

            Do you think someone would “choose” to steal if they knew the difficulty that accompanies that habit? Homosexuality at birth has not been proven. Even if it did get “proven”, all people are born with certain inclinations in terms of bad behavior, but this does not make it right to act out on those inclinations. For example, some are born with horrible tempers. Is it fine for them to have a temper tantrum every time they get angry?

          • ARJ127

            Stealing is for personal gain. Who one falls in love with isn’t. There’s been a lot of research done on homosexuality. Go and read some of it. Maybe, you’ll change your mind.

          • Random_acct

            How about my point on bad tempers that some have at birth?

            There is a good reason why homosexuals have a disproportionate incidence of mental health issues. And please don’t reply that this is because society rejects them. The Netherlands, where gays have been widely accepted in society, also experience this phenomenon. It’s sad.

          • ARJ127

            Anger management? That’s a result of bad parenting. Go read the scientific literature.

          • Random_acct

            No. I don’t think you understand the point. Each one of us have certain negative proclivities inherent in us from birth. In Christianity, it’s called sin nature. Just because one is born with a “gay gene” does not mean that they are morally correct to act out on that inclination.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jhornburg01 Justin Hornburg

        Polygamy is a choice? What if I am in love with 2 women and they are both in love with me and each other. Why is there any more choice in this matter than two gay men who love each other.

        • ARJ127

          Justin

          You’re talking about not getting your priorities straight. It;’s a different topic.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jhornburg01 Justin Hornburg

        And if homosexuality isn’t a choice, what about Anne Heche? Gay or straight? Was her relationship with Ellen a choice?

        • ARJ127

          I’m talking scientific findings. You’re talking mixed up actress.

  • Thomas

    The bigest problem is that it turns anyone who believes, by there faith this is wrong. Will be turned into a bigots and it also leaves them open for law suits and maybe even they might be arrested for a hate crime. This will also marginalise Catholics and they will become the next KKK. Give unlawful rights to Gays and you turn Catholics into crimanals. I guess it’s time for catacomes in America???

  • Churchill4President

    Bernie both you and your benefactor Bill O’Reilly are sellouts. Anyone that supports sodomy in any way shape or form will have to answer to God one day. Anyone that puts love of the world before godly morals and principles is doomed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/coachv222 Michael Vollmer

    If same-sex marriage becomes recognized as a fundamental civil right, then churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious organizations that do not perform same-sex marriages will face legal punishment under civil rights laws.

  • Juan Motie

    Wait a minute! If the S.C. says homosexual marriage is now the law of the land I can see massive lawsuits being filed against churches which refuse to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies. After all, it would be the next logical step in the homosexual and the left’s agenda of delegitimizing anything that smacks of moral value in America. You know bernie, we all have to be equal … equally immoral.
    It IS funny to watch the illiberal left go so bonkers over this issue of homosexual marriage, yet these same leftist creatures turn around and embrace islam, the so-call “religion of peace”! What these fools of the illiberal left are embracing is the most hateful anti-homosexual and anti-women “religion around! I guess that puts the lie to the lefties claiming they favor “civil rights” for all …

  • Moebius

    I’ve responded to Bernie on this false comparison below, but to put it in a nutshell the gays-can’t marry-but-felons-can argument makes a false juxtaposition, and confuses a judgment against an individual with a statement of the meaning of a term.

    Look at it this way; there are arguments for (and against) first-cousin marriage, but the argument that it’s unfair that they can’t marry when murderers can is not one of them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bubba.grittsburgh Grits Burgh

    Gay marriage is a vehicle that progressives will use to persecute Christians, just as Obamacare is being used to attack the church. To parahrase Erick Erickson at RedState, Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to bow to government coercion to treat as legitimate something which is morally abhorant. In some places this is already happening.

    • Random_acct

      You are absoluty correct. Passage of SSM will be the opening for intimidating those churches and schools that have a moral issue with homosexual acts. I have yet to hear this argued before the supreme court. It is a big issue and the harassment of Chrisitian churches and schools (and even Jewish ones) by the government and by radical leftists is next.

  • n2sooners

    Why are both sides arguing about how much control the government should have over every aspect of our lives and no one is making the argument that the government has no constitutional authority to define or redefine marriage at all. The problem is we have let the government into our bedrooms and our religion by letting them control marriage and we have done so for so long that we don’t question their constitutional authority to do so.

    We shouldn’t be arguing that the government should accept our definition of marriage, we should be arguing that the government doesn’t have any business legislating marriage at all and all benefits tied to marriage should be declared unconstitutional. Marriage should be between two people and God, not two people and their government.

    • ARJ127

      I can agree with your post except for the phrase “two people and God”. There’s no tangible proof of God. There’s only faith – which is a belief in something without any rational reason to believe in it.

      • n2sooners

        You are welcome to believe what you wish, but marriage has traditionally been a religious ceremony. Those who weren’t religious didn’t bother with marriage. Marriage is now being usurped by those who aren’t religious and being turned into something it never has been with the help of the government. If the government had never overstepped it’s authority and taken over marriage, no one except the religious would care about it.

  • Michael Babbitt

    The Gay marriage/but convicts-can marry-comparison is a non-sequitur – no relation to the issue at hand. That’s just an appeal to emotion.

  • teamfrazzled

    Dana Loesch has the superior argument that gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible- with lawsuits already stacking up to get government to effectively rule that religious freedom doesn’t include any right to actually live in accordance with those religious beliefs. A Methodist church sued for refusing to host a gay wedding; a bed-and-breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman sued for refusing to rent out a room to a gay couple ue to her beliefs -in spite of giving them names of other ones where that would not be an issue; a Christian photographer successfully sued for turning down a job as photographer at a gay wedding; a local city law defeated THIS time around requiring all churches within city limits to perform gay weddings-and many more. Is the list of lawsuits stacking against the religious likely to decrease with gay marriage? Get real. Gay marriage will mean religious freedom is a facade, empty words, that government will protect this right and not infringe on it -an empty promise. The left has only been increasingly successful at using the force and power of government to regulate it, interfere with it, and punish those who cling to their religion. The founders are spinning in their graves.

    • Tess

      That is because there is a concerted effort to reduce “religious freedom” to “freedom of worship”. People of faith will be allowed to worship on Sundays…and then be forced to keep their faith at the door when they leave. There will be public pressure to keep faith a private matter and out of the public square. Which is basically the rights they have in communist China. People on the left are going to chip, chip, chip at religious freedom until it is rendered meaningless.

      • ARJ127

        One day religion itself will be seen as meaningless. It’s the human delusion that there’s a light at the end of the tunnel.

  • donottreadonme

    Wrong direction Bernie! It is about forcing others to recognize and declare as normal, an abhorant behavior.

    “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness. ” – George Washington

    If the meaning of marriage is changed to make someone feel good, then the changes will continue in that, and other things, with no logic or reason, except to gain more power. Either the words have meanings or there is chaos.

  • rwmofo

    Just to clarify where I’m coming from, I’m conservative. But if we make rules that essentially mandate: “Everyone can get into the pool – excepts gays,” then that seems bigoted to me. I don’t give a crap about other heterosexuals’ personal lives. They don’t affect me. Same position on gays.

  • Mike Pechner

    Dear Mr. Goldberg, as always your position on this absolutely correct and your insight on this matter is enlightening and makes perfect sense. So much so, if your were a lawyer, you could probably be one of the attorneys defending gay marriage before the Supreme Court. Having read those comments here from others who are on the wrong side of this matters don’t understand that THIS is a Civil Rights issue. Plain and Simple. Period! Of course most conservatives and Bible thumpers will disagree but at the end of the day, Gays should have the same rights as others and not be EXCLUDED from an institution that EVERY else has a right to participate in. While this may seem absurd, a gay man and a gay woman can marry and not PROCREATE and it is perfectly legal in all 50 states! So why not two woman or two man? The argument against gay marriage is no different then the rights denied African Americans for so many years. If marriage is so darn important to Heterosexuals why does half of the unions end in divorce?

  • Jenn

    I disagree Bernie. I respect the rights of others to do as the wish with who they love however, I believe Marriage is an issue of morality and I personally believe we are tearing the moral fiber of our country and history as a whole by saying SSM deserves the same recognition as traditional marriage. We are simply hurting our youth and degrading our faith. Other countries are already experiencing the fall of their basic rights. In some ways I seem SSM as a challenge to our rights to freedom of religion. It’s a fine line

  • Brian

    It’s another move on the chessboard for the homosexuals. In all the years I had friends that were gay, I noticed that they thought a lot about, and were clearly interested in—sex. I don’t recall any discussions I heard among them about—love.

    • ARJ127

      Maybe they weren’t really your friends.

  • Mr. Conservative

    Dennis Prager wrote a column that addresses all these issues. I urger you to go read it. Here is the link. http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=4bd9a8e1-d2e3-4e27-8ff9-13225099eea5&url=why_a_good_person_can_vote_against_samesex_marriage

  • Brian

    This is the email I sent to Bill O’Reilly this morning.

    O’Reilly:

    The conversation between you and Megyn Kelly yesterday regarding same-sex marriage was the dumbest pile of crap I’ve heard in years. Megyn thought she was busting the reproduction argument by pointing out that if reproduction is the key, couples over 55 would have to be excluded from legal marriage. How typical of a lawyer!

    We live in a lawyer-driven society, and daily we see evidence that a clever lawyer can prove anything by argument, then turn around and prove the opposite, without blinking an eye.

    The missing element in all your arguments is the fact that homosexuality is NOT NORMAL! The need for reproduction of the species is probably behind the fact that overwhelmingly most men are attracted to women, want to make love to them, marry them and have a family. There is a miniscule percentage of men (what is it, one per cent, three per cent?) who want to have sexual relations with other men.

    Over the past 50 years or so, out of courtesy, consideration or whatever, the heterosexuals in our society have declined to describe homosexuals as abnormal. It’s like calling them freaks, which no one wants to do. We did not want to hurt their feelings—after all, they are our sons and daughters, neighbors and co-workers, brothers and sisters. Homosexuals took advantage of this attitude and moved our society to accept the idea that homosexuals are actually perfectly normal—just people with a different sexual orientation, or preference. Homosexuality, for purposes of establishing this, was compared with left-handedness and color blindness. But it is much different. Accepting those differences does not carry the implications for our society that is presented by acceptance as “normal” of homosexual behavior.

    So O’Reilly and Kelly—stop and think about it. It is NATURAL for a man to be attracted to women, and for a woman to be attracted to men. If a man and a woman are over 55, there is still that attraction. That’s the way we are. That’s who we are. Cut out all the clever lawyer arguments and face the facts. Homosexuals are freaks of nature. We don’t know why they are the way they are. Maybe we will discover this some day. In the meantime, we can be nice to them, but we must not let them dominate our society.

    Brian Saint-Yves
    Phoenix, AZ

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.planchon.56 David Planchon

    Since gay marriages have been happening since the beginning of time, the question really is, should they be legally recognized,, allowing for insurance coverage. benefactorships.?

  • Loren Smith

    Bernie, I do agree with your analysis even though, like another respondent below, “it’s not for me.” I see no downside in permitting equivalent marriage. The real tragedy is that government got involved in the marriage business in the first place. Why not have “pairage” (a legal status) and “marriage” (a religious one with exactly the same legal rights as pairage)

  • Fernandez

    Why not polygamy then? The State obviously has a role in promoting marriage and children. Who’ll fight the wars? Who’ll pay into Social Security? Gay marriage is just the latest of the Progressive’s assault on marriage. No fault divorce, lessening the stigma of adultery, ‘Great Society’ programs that encourage illegitimacy. How’s it all working out? Society stopped valuing marriage, so why not let anyone or anything do it? Why have marriage at all?

    Should we start calling day, ‘night’ because blind people can’t see light and that’s unfair? Participation medals at the Olympics? Everyone must have everything they want to the point of absurdity. Being gay is different. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing you can do about it. I’m sorry your so bothered by it. Embrace your diversity. I’m happy to vote for civil unions, equal treatment and full legal benefits for your partners, but marriage shouldn’t be dumbed down. For the 97% of us who aren’t gay, marriage is vital to the continuation of society and should be strengthen. It’s important for the 3% who are gay as well. It’s the 97%’s children who’ll foot the bill for the whole Ponzi scheme we got going.

    Was there any religion in that argument? (And the infertility of the man and woman is irrelevant. The law presumes that they are fertile, leading to such notions as the ‘Octogenarian Mother’ in the Rule Against Perpetuities. The reason is obvious, in previous centuries knowing if someone was fertile or not was a guess. In the future, and present, age may be irrelevant in reproduction.)

  • Keith

    Also, why has this suddenly become an outrage? A contentious civil rights debate? If this was so right, why wasn’t this debated by the great moral thinkers of millenia past?

    I could ask the same question on how it is that publicly-funded birth control has also suddenly become a civil right and that opposition to it amounts to a war on women. Where were women before Obamacare’s mandate? Back in the stone age?

    The problem is this: the Left keeps inventing new civil rights and then says the Right is divisive, radical. The Left is the group pushing for all of these new, “visionary” changes to our culture, but the conservatives are the radical loons.

    Dennis Prager has a great editorial on his website defining what’s wrong with gay marriage, and it doesn’t use a single religious argument:

    http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=4bd9a8e1-d2e3-4e27-8ff9-13225099eea5&url=why_a_good_person_can_vote_against_samesex_marriage

    • twin130

      Keith, had not seen this but it’s a great article, will share. So easy for people to take the attitude that anything goes, sure why not, nobody wants to stand in the way of two people who love each other. Nobody is bothering to take the time to consider that there are unintended consequences here and the negative impact on society and most importantly, children.

    • CharlieFromMass

      Wow.

      I think Dennis Prager should be president. Or at least get his show syndicated nationally. He is honestly one of the smartest people in the public square today. Principled, but fair, reasonable, and most importantly, intelligent.

      Thanks for linking that, Keith.

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.rawl.7 John Rawl

      Good points! I agree. And I like Prager too.

    • moronpolitics

      It’s the old ratchet racket. They keep insisting that progress is always to the left, always more lecherous pleasure seeking that those who don’t need to work to secure a decent lifestyle for themselves and possibly help their progeny to do the same are obsessed with. Just like we constantly hear about a college education costing a quarter million or more for each kid when major state universities are under 10 grand a year. And have you looked at the cost of maintaining a brace of polo ponies? Absurd !!

    • Doyle Perry

      Right on, Keith. And it all started in the ’60s, when the demokkkrats realized they would never get elected to national office again if they didn’t change their 160+ year old image as racists. So, they started rewriting history, to claim republicans had always been the racists and, as you say, inventing “civil rights” to claim they were now the civil rights advocates.

  • preepree

    If you allow gays the right to marriage you might as well give polygamists the right to marriage … isn’t that the next logical step? Once the government expands the definition of marriage beyond the union of one man and one woman, all other unions can be justified.

  • http://twitter.com/Melvin_Udall_ Melvin Udall

    It was said nearly a century ago that if one tells a big lie long enough people will believe it. The left is proving that true today by turning otherwise wise conservatives into fools thinking with their hearts. I’m embarrassed for my country.
    Marriage has been known for centuries (at least) as one man, one woman. Suddenly overnight (by historic standards) a group *demands* the complete redefining of that word and conservatives are jumping on board? No interest in the social implications. No interest in the motives. No interest in the realities. This is conservatism now – athwart history yelling “hit the gas”? When marriage is redefined *in any way* equal protection *demands* it be open to polygamy (at least), effectively ending the institution recognized by the government and people for centuries. It is impossible to tweak it to mean something new without it being completely open.
    As to rights, *nothing* prevents gays from calling themselves anything they want. As to the *benefits* of marriage, those benefits are possible with civil unions, which were rejected by the left with the “separate but equal” lie.
    The entire point of the gay marriage movement is to *force* acceptance, allowing leftists to use the law to persecute the religious, add to the immigration deluge, and who knows what else. Every public school and charity will be assaulted by those claiming their constitutional rights are violated by any religious person who openly states they disagree with gay marriage, or who denies them services, admittance.

    Blacks struggled for centuries to be recognized as human beings. Comparing the fight for “marriage” to civil rights involves a gross and offensive ignorance or denial of history.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mormons-Are-Christian/1086620691 Mormons Are Christian

      There has been a concerted 25 year effort to “brainwash” the American people to portray homosexuals as “victims” and to treat opponents of “Gay Rights” as Nazi/KKK-like “bigots”. An entire book (After the Ball: How Americans will Conquer their Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s) was written by an advertising man and a media psychologist to concoct a propaganda campaign only Josef Goebbels could admire.
      You can read an abbreviated version of the strategy written in 1987 called “The Overhauling of Straight America”. Among other things, the authors said that “Gays” must be constantly and persistently portrayed as “victims” to elicit Americans’ natural tendencies to protect the oppressed. For that reason, the pedophiles in the “Gay Rights” movement must stand down from visible participation in the movement — at least until low-hanging fruit like “marriage” and military service were achieved — because nobody would consider a pedophile to be a “victim”..

  • potvin

    “Is Gay Marriage An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”
    It’s time will never come because there is no such thing.
    Marriage is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.wray.37 Ed Wray

    I have read and listened to Bernie for years. It just stopped. O’Reilly is next. Give a common sense guy enough rope today and he or she will commit suicide. Bernie just did so.

  • Bob

    There’s a major flaw in the precedent you cite. No one is arresting gay couples for cohabitating or claiming to be ‘married’. They aren’t being forced out of Virginia or any other state to my knowledge, certainly not in California.

    This is all about putting a government stamp of approval on activities that are already going on. That’s why this isn’t a
    ‘civil rights’ issue, no one is having any ‘civil right’ trampled on outside of a few edge cases. There are no separate gay drinking fountains or laws banning gays spending the night in city limits.

  • http://www.facebook.com/coachv222 Michael Vollmer

    As many rational commentaters have accurately pointed out throughout this debate; if you separate children from the marriage rational, then there is no reason to prohibite consanguinous marriage.

  • brad ghorn

    Bernard, you made a sort of strange argument when you question whether or not this issue should be put up for a vote? The issue is being put up for a vote: the nine members of the supreme court are voting on this issue. The question to me is whether the vote should be given to the American people or to the supreme court.. I personally think it is better for Republicans if the Supreme court decides this issue because I believe it will be a losing issue for Republicans for as long as it continues to be an issue. Once the issue became supported by more than 50% of the people it became a winning issue for those in favor. I believe this is why Obama came out in support of the issue. 50% support is critical for issues like this in this country.

    • http://1389blog.com/ 1389AD

      That isn’t the rule of law; it’s the rule of the mob. Anything you can get a majority vote on gets enacted immediately with no further thought.

      The upshot of mob rule is read in the Scriptures on Good Friday: “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!”

      • brad ghorn

        Perhaps you are then arguing that democracy is mob rule. I would not consider your average American to be part of a mob. I believe that the average American is good, decent, and fair. We have a constitution. I value the constitution. I do not value the supreme court when its members hold themselves above the constitution. Amending the constitution is the best way to protect the rights of the citizens of this country. Diminishing the constitution diminishes the rights of the people of this country.

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    I’m not opposed to gay marriage, Bernie. However, what I am opposed to; is the Federal Govt.’s intrusion into it. Under the 10th amendment, whether or not gay marriage is legal; is a State’s right to decide.

    And for those who say, “well the Constitution was 225 years ago”, like
    it is out of date or something; our Founding Fathers recognized that
    they didn’t know what the future would hold. That’s why they wrote
    Article 5.

  • Chet

    So “marriage” has become a civil right. When did this happen and where in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers is it addressed? I much have missed that part of each.

    • Anthony

      in the 14th amendment … glad i can help, Chet.

      • Keith

        Wrong. “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” guarantees equal treatment of people, not their behaviors. There’s a light year of difference there, the losing sight of which will have all sorts of unintended repercussions.

        • Kathy

          Exactly right Keith!!

          The propaganda campaign by radical homosexual activists has done an amazing job of deceiving people into thinking a behavior is now the same as an innate, intrinsic immutable characteristic. … such as skin color, and race. What a masterful deceiving job they’ve done. Skin color and sexual behavior have NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING in common. And is deeply insulting to many people of color.

  • http://www.facebook.com/buz.chertok Buz Chertok

    Your example of marital unfairness which uses the currently permissable marriage of hererosexual imprisoned criminals as the lever to emphasize the impermissable marriage of ‘free’ gays is totally irrelevant, You might just as well decry the curent prohibition of marriage of giraffes of any sexual persuasion–free or imprisoned.using the same silly example.

    • ronnie

      The only thing silly around here is your argument Buz. Prisoners are human beings. Gays are human beings. Giraffes are not. Put your Bible down long enough to think about it.

  • Little River

    I think we should redefine marriage so only gays can get married and then ultimately expand it so men can marry their goats, women their horses, and then pass a law that immediately dissolves all marriages where the couples are heterosexual. This would end all the confusion.

  • woulddragon

    Mr. Goldberg, I can understand your argument’s points, and accept them up to a point. That point is one that BOTH sides in the case(s) now before the Supreme Court rather conveniently overlook: outside of us humans, approximately 95% of all life on Earth are composed of males and females which can “have relations” with each other and produce offspring. I concede determining the gender of most plants may be problematic for most folks (who is able to determine which parts of a rapeseed plant are male and which are female?), and I’ll even concede that organisms such as amoebas, mushrooms, worms, etc. may not be able to tell us if they be male or female (or both). However, when it comes to creatures like insects (and other arthropods), fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, anyone who is unable to tell the difference between males and females of any creatures may need to take a course in basic anatomy.

  • http://twitter.com/sobierayrich Richard Sobieray

    Homosexuals have long argued that they are a victim of genetic makeup, rather than a choice to be homosexual. Justice Kennedy asked the wrong question about children. Are we to assume than children who are not inclined to be homosexual will be damaged by having no right to choose?

  • Christine Tuthill

    I also disagree. When the Supreme Court legalized abortion – which was illegal according to the legislators and people of some states – it was going to be “safe, legal, and rare”. That was how it was sold. Now we are killing thousands of babies a year and there is untold damage to women and to the fathers of those babies. Young women in their teens and pre-teens are getting pregnant. Sexual relations are easier and more casual for both men and women because there are no consequences. Respect for the family has disintegrated because we no longer respect parents who can kill their children. As we proceed into “legalizing” marriage for gay partners…has anyone given a thought to what the discussion will be 30 years from now. None of us knows the consequences to children and to families of what we are trying to do in order.,…in my opinion…to offer the word “marriage” to a civil union of gay partners. Can we not acknowledge, before plunging headlong into the feel good position of saying that “we were the generation that legalized marriage and made it a “right” for all….that we don’t know the consequences of our actions? How do we do all of this and still maintain the repect and dignity of women and of men as individuals? And of children, who deserve parents who not just love them, but can guide them to be whole human beings? I can certainly guide a boy and raise him. But I am in no way a role model for him to become a man. And he deserves that role model. Yes, I know we have parents who are less than adequate in marriages that are troubling. I know we have marriages in which one of the parents are deceased. But because all people cannot rise to the level of good and decent parents and role models for their children does not mean we should eliminate that as a standard of parenting. Let’s look beyond our own selfish desires.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002489593480 John Probst

      you are partially correct, BUT Catholic and other Religious Right opposition to birth control is a major reason that abortion is far too common, painful and expensive

    • Leo

      72% of black kids grow up without a father. An increasing number of white kids grow up without a father. Have you even thought about that or does your Bible forbid you from any serious thought?

  • PeteyBoy

    Bernie ~ You are right again. I am a ‘traditionalist’ that looks upon homosexuality as odd, or unnatural behavior. Simply put, it’s not for me. However, I feel that gays have the same rights as all Americans. Being gay doesn’t hurt anybody. To think so is ridiculous. No matter how strong conservatives and evangelicals may feel about outlawing homosexuality, they are NOT going to chase gays from the public square. I may not agree with the gay lifestyle, but I will defend to the death to uphold their rights in this country.

    • Jen

      What conservative or evangelical ever said they were going to “chase gays from public square?” You have fallen victim to the uninformed, headline reader crowd. PeteyBoy. That sounds similar to the accusation that Republican’s want to ban birth control. INSANE!

  • Skipper

    Bernie, if you don’t care what the Bible says about homosexuality, then it may be seem reasonable to promote gay marriage. On the other hand, if you do care, then promoting gay marriage is no different than promoting adultery. Both are considered to be sins by God. And it doesn’t necessarily stop there. If you don’t care what the Bible says, then all sorts of abominable behavior probably follows.

    • Patrick H.

      Dave, the law of the land is the Constituion of the United States, not the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, or any other holy book. No matter what one might feel about homosexuality or gay marriage, you can not just religion to justify making it a law of the land. Period.

      • http://twitter.com/MissoulaHome Kris

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

        Sorry Patrick- the founders were clear on this- they stood with God when the Constitution was created- today many find God just too inconvenient and push Him aside when it suits them, but if one looks at the Founders and how this nation was created- they were CLEARLY with God- period!

    • James

      Skipper … in a civil society the Constitution rules not the Bible. Fundamentalist Christians are not unlike Fundamentalist Muslims when it comes to gay marriage. Strange bedfellows, huh?

      • Keith

        Strange indeed, especially when you fail to acknowledge the huge difference between christians and muslims in this area: One advocates their execution, the other does not.

    • Moppie

      Skipper….and if you think that abominable behavior isn’t already IN our society, you have another think coming! Of course they’re sinful BUT they’re still practiced in some parts of our society! The Bible is there to guide us but some people follow satan instead! God will prevail when we have our judgment day!

  • GailWehling

    A Civil Union should be enough, If it is done right. I do not understand why the gays are hung up on the word marriage. Should we throw our bibles in the street or will the Court do it for us????The bible says marriage is between one man and one woman.

    • EdR

      I agree, Gail. Why not remove the word “marriage” from all the laws, change it to “civil union,” and let the churches do marriages. That way, it is then up to the church to decide what it believes, and can act accordingly. I have no problem with gay and lesbian people being happy, and entitled to the same rights my wife of 38 years and I have, but respect my marriage, and don’t create a new”civil right” that doesn’t exist.
      .

      • GailWehling

        Amen, 53 yrs married here. I agree with everything you said. If the powers that be do not believe in the bible, then why are they sworn into office using a bible?????

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Boone/695677833 Stephen Boone

          After all, Jesus Christ said “My kingdom is not of this Whitehouse” or something like that. And “Blessed be the BLATHERERS for they shall never hold the Whitehouse”. And, yes, I know that Mr. BERNARD GOLDBERG has a 99.9 percent possibility of being Jewish, but I like to get into the “spirit” — not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of the last two Tea Party meetings I attended wherein it not only began with a prayer, but a prayer that went on at some length about our Lord and Savior Jesus the Messiah along with some mention about the possibility of His Promised and Anticipated Second Coming, which might obviate this whole political thing by setting up His Glorious Kingdom here on earth although, obviously, NOT IN THE WHITEHOUSE.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Boone/695677833 Stephen Boone

            This is where all the numskulls say Amen and “What’s the matter with that? Our Lord told us to …. Oh NEVERMIND.

          • GailWehling

            Are you having a case of the blathers Stephen?

      • Ed

        I agree, good idea, but the reason that wont work is because of what I stated above-

        “If you ask them to be honest, you will learn that this whole “Gay Marriage” fight, is not really about “Gay Marriage” per se, t’s about beating down the Roman Catholic Church. If you grant “Gay Marriage”tomorrow, they will STILL be fighting the fight, forever. As every homosexual has informed me- “the term “Civil Union” (with all the rights of marriage) will NOT be acceptable… why? Because like I said, it is NOT about that. Homosexuals want everyone else to accept them 100%, and their activity to be considered 100%
        mainstream activity. This of course will never happen, it’s impossible. No one on Earth is granted that, not the Jews, the Blacks, the Asian, the Irish, the pedophiles,the bestiality people, not even the Boy Scouts!”

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Boone/695677833 Stephen Boone

        And while we are having this discussion, let’s announce that the Democratic Party is now the only party in the country allowed to nominate a Presidential candidate, OK? That should save millions of dollars now spent making believe than anyone else will ever hold the Whitehouse and we can sit around and have potluck suppers and talk about Jesus during the fall every four years. oh I almost forgot….. YOU IDIOTS

    • Patrick H.

      Like I told Dave, the law of the land is the United States Constitution, not the Bible or any other holy book.

      • http://twitter.com/MissoulaHome Kris

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

      • Bernie

        EXACTLY, Patrick!!!

      • Jen

        Where in the Constitution does it say homosexuals need to call their unions MARRIAGE????

        • Patrick H.

          Nowhere, BUT the 14th Amendment does say in Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
          jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
          State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
          shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
          States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
          property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
          jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So if the government is going to offer civil marriage to heterosexuals, it also must do the same to homosexuals. Either that or abolish civil marriage altogether.

          • Kevin Roe

            Gays are not denied protection of the laws. Let them have civil unions and the same rights as married couples. Leave true marriage to exist between a man and a woman.

          • Jen

            I still do not understand how homosexual marriage fits here. Sorry. Homosexuals can have a civil union with all the “benefits” of marriage that can be recognized in every state. Why do we have to redefine marriage between a man and a woman? Why does homosexual ‘s union have to be called a marriage? What is next? What else are we going to redefine?

          • Patrick H.

            It fits because if the government is going to offer civil marriage to heterosexuals, it must offer it to homosexuals. Also, it’s been determined that “separate is not equal”.

          • Random_acct

            Again, this amendment, which was passed in the 1860s, was never, ever intended as legal cover for gay marriage. You know that. Anyone who is honest knows this too. Furthermore, if we could bring back to life all those who voted for this amendment now, they would be horrified to see that such a cynical attempt was being made to use for justifying SSM.

      • ARJ127

        Nicely put, Patrick. I wish that more people here understood that.

      • Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui

        Wrong. The Law of the Land is described in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Otherwise…the rest of the Constitution is only the mechanics.

        And that law is “Natural Law” as defined and taught to the Founding Fathers by the writings of Burlamaqui and John Locke.

    • Moebius

      By neuterizing the meaning of the term “marriage” we will be further sterilizing it and making it less attractive.

      Think of it. What sounds more meaningful? To refer to “our parent” or to our mother and our father? To refer to “our sibling”, or to our sister or our brother? To refer to “our spouse” or to our husband or our wife? To refer to “our offspring” or to our son or our daughter? Face it, for our close relationships the gendered terms convey more meaning than the neutered terms do. What would people think if we were asked to always refer to our “sibling”, or our “parent”, or our “offspring”, or our “spouse” when we are referring only to one of them? Or what would people think if we were asked to refer to both brother and sister as “brother”, or both mother and father as “father”, or both son and daughter as “son”, or both husband and wife as “husband” (on the grounds that because the gendered terms spring from when women weren’t considered equal therefore the feminine terms are “sexist” and imply inferiority)?

      Is there any reason to think that by neuterizing the term for the relationship between a man and a woman which we have called “marriage” we would be any less sterilizing it and removing it of its meaning? Let the sterile term “civil union” be the all-inclusive term for all committed unions and reserve the term “marriage” for opposite-sex couples, and let gays and lesbians choose a term from their history which positively celebrates that they are man-man, and woman-woman, and use those terms to specifically refer to two-man unions and two-woman unions.

      Eventually the culture will evolve separate terms for these anyway. Trying to neuterize the term marriage is actually an attempt to force culture into minimizing the importance of even noting gender in our closest relationships. It won’t work, but trying to make it work can have negative consequences. By asking for the term “marriage”, gays and lesbians are actually trying to mimic heterosexuals, not celebrating their relationships for what they are.

      • GailWehling

        I am not Catholic, but to me I joined in HOLY Matrimony. Has all been perfect?? Of course not. When I took my vows I had to memorize them. It was a requirement from the Pastor and I have never forgotten one word. This is an age of many divorces, in the gay world it will most likely be the same. Culture change!!! Morality change!!!!

    • CharlieFromMass

      Because that would allow everyone to win partially and lose partially.

      Like too many “religious” people, die-hard securlarists and advocates on either side, cannot, or will now, see grey. Only black and white.

      As lawyers, the Supreme Court SHOULD be be seeing grey. That’s what lawyers are trained to do, as well as see black and white.

      It would also be common sense…we can NEVER allow that to happen.

      • GailWehling

        Hummmmm! Very interesting!!!

    • Ed

      Gail, they are “Hung up” on it because their battle is NOT for “Marriage”, this is all a “Red Herring”. it is to literally “Piss” in the face of Catholics who staunchly and publicly disagree with their lifestyle (All you young folks- Google Andres Serrano). This is why they refuse “Civil Union” even if it were to cover them 100% as if they were married. Wake up.

      • http://twitter.com/hbear2 Gail Wehling

        Ed, Catholics are not the only faith that are against Gay Marriage. Evangelical Protestants are even more against it because the Bible speaks out in the old and new testaments against homosexuality. Can’t quite see your Red Herring as solely Catholic.

        • Ed

          Well, you know the answer but I will play along…. Homosexuals despise ALL faiths that take a stance against their lifestyle. But history has shown (and you know this) that Christians are an easy target, AND the chosen target, for now, are the Roman Catholics. Homosexuals will not stop once they get the right to change the definition of “Marriage”, and make no mistake, that is what they are trying to DO , not be able to enjoy the benefits of a marriage by way of a “Civil Union”, but change the definition, and as I said, as an act of aggression, to further their attempt to mainstream homosexuality. There is NO argument there, that is fact. Otherwise they would accept “Civil Union”, clear headed people know the game being played. And furthermore, they will never attack the Muslims, well, not yet anyway, because their laws regarding homosexuality is quite different…. can you guess what the Quran says about how to handle Homosexuals?? Hmm? the gays don’t have the Balls (no pun intended) to take on the Muslims.

          • http://twitter.com/hbear2 Gail Wehling

            Love your thinking. You had me laughing at the end. Thank you!!

          • Ed

            no offense taken….i laugh at most posts myself…. we are all laughing at each other…a sad time in the world

          • http://twitter.com/hbear2 Gail Wehling

            It is indeed a sad time in the world. The whole gay issue is a shocker in my world. I was brought up knowing nothing about this Gay business and now it is so openly flaunted. I am happy my parents are not alive to know about it. I miss them but Heaven has to be better. You are a keeper Ed—said by an old fisher lady.

          • Ed

            fry this snapper light please! ;-)

  • http://twitter.com/YTICBT DUH

    “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ ….and woman !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dave

    Whenever anyone wants a right bestowed on them, they always point to the struggles of civil rights. If we were wrong about denying civil rights to blacks, the same argument must apply to this, right? Well, Bernie you may be for gay marriage, and I respect your opinion, but please respect mine. Over the last several decades I have seen a disturbing moral decline in this country. I believe that marriage is between a man a woman. I also believe the healthiest environment for children comes from being raised by a loving mother and father. I’m not a raving lunatic about it, but that’s my feeling. Oh, traditional marriage and family values are so passe.

    Also… if two people love each other how can you morally stop them from entering into marriage? Well, how about cousins, siblings, etc. don’t they have “civil rights” too?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002489593480 John Probst

      Civil Union fine; adoption, no

      • ARJ127

        So you would prefer that kids be adopted by alcoholic dysfunctional heterosexual partners than healthy sane gay partners.

        • Ed

          AH!…so when YOU think of Heterosexuals, YOU think “dysfunctional alcoholics”, when you think of gays, you think “healthy sane”…. you are I’ll.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002489593480 John Probst

          why not screen out BOTH??

    • Bernie

      The state has a “compelling interest” in preventing cousins, siblings, etc from marrying. There is no such compelling interest with adult gay people.

      • Moebius

        “There is no such compelling interest with adult gay people.”

        How do we know this when we have no long-term examples in history to tell us one way or another?

        “The state has a “compelling interest” in preventing cousins, siblings, etc from marrying.”

        Really? What IS that compelling interest, and once same-sex marriage is legal, can the argument for that “compelling interest” still be made? Think about it.

        • ARJ127

          There’s no compelling interest because gay partners can’t have children with compromised genetic backgrounds (inbreeding). I thought that with a little contemplation, it would come to you. Apparently not.

          • Moebius

            See below. With same-sex marriage, new questions have to be raised regarding that commonly given answer.

      • http://www.facebook.com/coachv222 Michael Vollmer

        Bernie, in your piece you argue that using procreation as a rational for marriage “makes even less sense.”

        If that is the case, what could be a compelling interest to prevent consanguinous marriage?

        Either procreation is an important factor for the rational for marriage laws or it is not.

        Obviously marriage involves more than just procreation (eg property and financial matters); but to deny that children are a foundational rational for marriage laws is not possible if we continue to limit consanguinous marriage.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mormons-Are-Christian/1086620691 Mormons Are Christian

        George Washington understood the impact on our civilization’s future. He had homosexuals drummed out of service … http://cnsnews.com/news/article/george-washington-drummed-out-soldier-infamous-crime-attempted-sodomy
        …. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

        …. and Jefferson wrote legislation to punish homosexual acts by castration. http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/bill-64

      • Ed

        Im no Bible thumper! but WOW Bernie, I cant disagree more!. Facts show that (and please dont side the exception over the rule here) raising a child with a Mom and a DAD is clearly as designed and beneficial to the child!. I believe your “Buddy” Bill has even agreed with THAT (that though im sure he flip-flops from time to time), not that I care. (PS- this is the one and ony time I ever disagreed with you) All actions have consequences, I cant WAIT, to see the consequences of THIS action…… I cant WAIT! (Stay tuned).

    • http://twitter.com/mfsasso Mike Sasso

      First cousins ARE allowed to marry, in approximately half the states. (And guess where they are. Nope, they’re not all down south! Lots of northern states let cousins marry.)

  • http://twitter.com/YTICBT DUH

    In the United States of America a convicted felon in prison for robbery, rape, murder or a whole bunch of other crimes is allowed to marry — but, except for a handful of states,………. shoudn’t be allowed either !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Tim in California

    Bernie: For a guy who I agree with just about 98.7 of the time, I veer off with you on this one. As a conservative-agnostic, I have no religious grounds for my opposition to gay marriage. And, hear me out, my objection is very mild, and it’s one of the Conservative stands I’d be willing to sacrifice to win over more libertarians to our cause… However all things being equal, a child is far better off with a mom and a dad. A married couple will never be more than either, TWO DADS or TWO MOMS. That’s my argument in a nut shell…. kids need a mommy and a daddy….

    • Moppie

      Tim, in a loving relationship any child will thrive…..whether there are two Mommies, two daddies or a mommy and a daddy. We’ve all seen some pretty screwed up kiddos from “traditional” marriages. All they need is love, being cared for, having their needs met, and the more people who love them the better. It’s society trying to prove it won’t work which makes the union difficult. Yes, Tim, I’m straight as an arrow but have gay friends and family who are thee most loving people I know. Make it a civil union so they aren’t being discriminated against when it comes to things we take for granted, like making financial decisions or health decisions when a loved one is in the hospital or having money taxed as the woman in NYS who is now in court fighting that very thing. How they choose to live their lives is between them and their God….who are we to judge them. God will do that. Lest we forget, the Bible also says, Jesus said, let ye who is without sin cast the first stone!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002489593480 John Probst

      THANK YOU THANK YOU Tim!! The RR Zealots refuse to allow themselves to make excellent SECULAR arguments on several of these social issues

    • bernie

      Tim

      Ideally, I’m with you. But most black kids don’t have a mom and dad at home. Neither do a growing number of white kids. kids may need a mommy and a daddy but millions and millions don’t. If we’re not going to punish all those single moms who had kids without husbands, why should we punish gays?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6VDL3C4WJ7HIMZND3DFBWJAHRY Bill

    If everything can be defined as marriage, then nothing means marriage! Can one marry a donkey and call it a marriage? Why not, don’t we want all to feel equality?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002489593480 John Probst

      i would marry by cats and dogs so ObamaCare would pay my big vet bills

    • Bernie

      If there comes a time when enough people want to marry jackasses, then we can have that discussion. But not until then.

      • sonnyboy1

        My sister married one.

  • http://twitter.com/MissoulaHome Kris

    Bernie- I have to disagree- and my reasoning could take a trip down the religious paths- but I won’t go there (though I fully agree with God’s position on the matter…).

    My take on it is one that Justice Kennedy took: that it’s just too early to tell what the ramifications are to this thing. We just don’t know if it’s good or bad and it’s not a good idea to experiment and see what happens- it’s too big to take that risk and too many lives are at stake. Roe v. Wade took this route- and even Justice Ginsberg has said it was a bad decision and one they may take another look at just because it was not done properly. The better course is to just let it be and see how it goes for a time while data is gathered to make an informed decision- and I believe the 9 are trending this way- based on the questioning yesterday. The other question is whether the SCOTUS should even hear this case as this is a state matter- not one for the 9.

    The Gay Marriage decision is one that ventures into uncharted waters as Kennedy said, and we just don’t know what’s out there- good or bad. The bench is not supposed to create new law- the states or the federal Congress does that- NOT the bench (back to Roe v. Wade), and it is not a good idea that we have activist judges that bend to the will at any particular time of day- regardless of pressure.

    The Constitution just does not provide for that…

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002489593480 John Probst

      it is all about adoption; no way the 14th amendment was supposed to be exxtended this way

  • bucknelldad

    I’ve never known Mr. Goldberg, who I admire, to write such ignorant rubbish. He disappoints. Comparing gay marriage to the civil rights struggles and landmark court cases — even to the 14th Amendment, which was enacted shortly after the Civil War to deal specifically with ending segregation (as was its remnant, Loving v. Virginia that appropriate overturned an insidious ban on interracial marriage). There is simply no legal basis for a federal court to overturn the popular will of state on this issue. The Court should vacate federal court decisions and return this to California. They are capable of dealing with it, as are other states, including the 9 who have legalized same-sex marriage.

    • bernie

      The Court may do just that. I just wish those opposed to gay marriage would be more honest. For most of them (you? bucknelldad) opposition comes from religion — not from reason.

  • Dennis

    I have long held the position that there is no reasonable argument against allowing gays to marry. I also am, unlike the extremists on both sides of this issue, willing to allow people to have their opinions about this matter and not be labeled as bigots or any other ridiculous epithet. What I really want is to get this gay marriage issue resolved so we can stop letting politicians of both parties use this as both a wedge issue and a distraction for the impressively bad job they are doing, especially the Chicago Con Man sitting in the White House. Gay marriage is not a significant issue when compared to the real problems we have. Please, let’s put this to rest!

  • Jen

    Wow Bernie, I disagree. But then most times when you bring up anything that remotely involves religeon I find myself shaking my head at your comments. Being homosexual is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT

    • bearmountain

      100% correct..

    • Moppie

      …but in most cases it isn’t a “choice” either! You could see it in young children way back before a family would even admit there were people in our society, let alone in their family who were gay!

    • Bernie

      i didn’t say it was. i said marriage is a civil right. and it is. so if you can marry, and some felon can marry, why can’t a gay person marry? let me guess: because the Bible says so.

      • Jen

        Bernie-take the Bible out of it then. How long has marriage been around? Why do we have to change the definition of something our country had lived by for so long? If this is about equality and love then why can’t homosexuals have legal civil unions? Marriage is between a man and a woman! What is next? What else are liberals going to decide is a civil right and have the Supreme Court seal it? I am so sick of this. Why is homosexual marriage even such an issue right now? I think there are a few other important issues going on right now in our suffering country.

        • twin130

          Jen, perfectly said. I am sick of this too. I am sick of traditional values being attacked in the name of “rights” and “victims” and “tolerance”. Where is the tolerance for traditional values? Where is the tolerance for Christian beliefs? Why are people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman made to feel as though they are bigots or haters or just not with it? The judge got it right when he said whats the rush – marriage has been in existence for thousands of years, between a man and a woman. Why rush to change this? People can love whoever they want, they can have civil unions, give them the tax breaks and whatever else they are complaining about. But leave marriage alone.

          • http://www.facebook.com/john.rawl.7 John Rawl

            You got it, dude. My sentiments exactly.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mormons-Are-Christian/1086620691 Mormons Are Christian

          We should be concerned with the continued thriving of our
          Western Civilization. Marriage has reflected the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British
          social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

          Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality

      • Jen

        You said that homosexual marriage is a civil right.

      • http://www.facebook.com/john.rawl.7 John Rawl

        Bernie, I don’t have a problem with government-sanctioned civil unions, but “marriage”, I think, is a religious institution and its “rite” is sanctioned by God. And I ain’t an evangelical, I’m a Christian who happens to be Lutheran.

    • moronpolitics

      Who cares what you think? You probably think litterbugs should be allowed to reproduce. Oh, wait. Reproduction and the continuation of the species and culture don’t have anything to do with marriage. Marriage is a set of privileges which any two (a temporary restriction) people who want those privileges have a natural right (i.e. “God given”) to have because, after all, SOME groups of two people can get those privileges and the fourteenth amendment says that there cannot be any difference between one group of two people and another. Or something like that. After all, when the civil war ended they realized that after more than a million people died to give two men the right to **** each other in the *** they had to make sure that uh, um.. check back in a week.

      • Jen

        I can see why your name is moronpolitics. Go watch some more tv. Your comment is typical. It makes no sense and you had to add your*** crudeness. Obama voter, right?

        • moronpolitics

          for crying out loud Jenny baby. It’s called satire. You know? One of those half goat half man things? Ooops. I done did it again.

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.rawl.7 John Rawl

      Jeez, can’t you at least spell “religion” correctly? You make all of us that don’t agree with same-sex marriage look like idiots.

      • Jen

        Typo–calm down.

    • http://twitter.com/MamaImp Connie Elliott

      Anybody remember the 9th and 10th Amendments? Those rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are in no way denigrated. Those powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the Several States or to the People. What people choose to do in their private lives, so long as they harm no one else, is none of our business and the 9th Amendment tells us that we have no business saying that it’s not a right.

    • ARJ127

      Being human is aright. Some humans are homosexual.