Not a Profile in Courage

Gay MarriageEvery now and then, rarely to be sure, a profile in courage comes to our attention.  Somebody who does something brave, and when we hear about it, we know this is a person of great character, that this is someone who knew all the risks, but spoke up anyway.

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio is not such a person.

The other day, as you may know, the senator changed his position on same sex marriage.  He had always been against it, his opposition stemming from his religion, but now he is for it.

What changed his mind was that the issue hit home.  His son is gay.

So it is understandable how Senator Portman’s evolution came about.  He wants his son to be happy.  That pretty much sums it up.  But his change of heart, and the fact that as a Republican he spoke up about it, while noteworthy, is not courageous.

Senator Portman is one of those good Christians who thought same sex marriage was just plain wrong, until it wasn’t — until he wanted to show compassion to his son.  Too bad the senator was never all that concerned about compassion for other people before he started thinking about his son.  If he had a change of heart  before he knew his son was gay, if he had spoken out before so many others — including conservative Republicans — had done the same thing … that would have shown courage.

The most vocal opponents of gay marriage in this country are devout Christians.  The Bible, they say, tells them that homosexuality is wrong so how can gay marriage be right?

But no one is saying the Church has to condone gay marriage.  No one is suggesting that ministers or priests have to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies.  Religions set their own rules.  That’s how it should be.  But the broader society, the secular culture, has no obligation to follow those rules.  We don’t live in a theocracy, thank God, despite the wishes of many good Christians.

My pal Bill O’Reilly and countless others who see themselves as traditionalists are fond of saying this is not a civil rights issue.  Why not?  If heterosexuals can marry and gays cannot, then one group has a greater right to pursue happiness than the other.  Doesn’t that make it a civil rights issue?

Bill and the others say if we allow same sex marriage, by what logic can we prohibit Lenny from marrying a goat or Joey from marrying as many wives as will have him?  Fair enough.  But societies are allowed to draw lines. We do it all the time.

No serious person is arguing that if we forbid people from shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, that prohibition inevitably would lead to laws that silences other speech. If we ban citizens from possessing surface-to-air missiles is the next step a law that bans all guns?  Some gun extremists may think so, but they’d be wrong.  So are the people who think gay marriage will lead to man-goat marriage.

Laws change when attitudes change.  If at some point society thinks polygamy is a good idea or human-animal marriage is an idea whose time has finally come, then we can re-visit the issue.  Until them, I would advise those worried about such things to calm down.

And I have never been able to figure out how my heterosexual marriage would be adversely affected if two gay people got married.  The answer we get from some conservatives is that the culture would be adversely affected.  Kids should have a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers.

Ideally, there may be something to that.  But millions of kids in America only have one parent these days.  No one is proposing legislation requiring couples to stay married if kids are involved – or laws forcing people to get married if they produce a child.  Besides, this concern for kids, to some extent, is a charade.  Many opponents of gay marriage would be against it even if gay couples signed a pledge, punishable by death, not to have kids.

Reasonable people may disagree on the issue of gay marriage.  Not all critics of same sex marriage are bigots, that’s for sure.  And for same sex marriage proponents to throw the word around loosely is unfair.  But let’s not pretend that many opponents are not bigots.  Many opponents just don’t like gays.  The saddest part is that many of them like to think of themselves as good, religious people. GAY MARRIAGE OPPONENT HOLDS SIGN IN PROTEST OUTSIDE STATEHOUSE

When we look back, we will see what history has written on this subject. And I’m betting that history is on the side of gay marriage.  If you don’t believe me, try this experiment: ask anyone younger than you how he or she feels about the subject.  They’re the future, after all.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

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

    You learn all you need to know when you shake Portman’s hand: Nothing there.

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

  • moronpolitics

    The amount of blather piled on one side of an issue doesn’t mean that side is correct. Marriage has been an institution between a man and a woman for thousands of years before written history. It is evidenced in Cro-Magnon and other ancient human drawings and burials. GEESE and several species of primate other than man have long term mating between pairs of one male one female. It was and is primarily about reproduction, the continuation of the species and in humans that includes culture as well as physical reproduction. Because of the absolute primary importance of these bonds, pairings that follow the same model also receive certain honors and privileges. The Greeks and Macedonians both praised homosexual “love” between men as the highest form of attachment but NEITHER HAD GAY MARRIAGE. Heterosexual Marriage is modeled after the union that continues the species, not pleasure, companionship etc. Homosexual marriage honors instead sexual congress. My father in law and brother lived together because of financial problems and a health issue for 20 years, neither was gay and no one would say they should have the various privileges married couples receive however if they had jumped in bed and touched each others’ genitals some would say they should. That is the clearest evidence of what “gay marriage” is based on. Sorry, it’s not the same thing. Pleasure and continuation of the species are not of equal importance.

  • The Man from Scene 24

    “Fair enough. But societies are allowed to draw lines. We do it all the time.”

    It sounds like we’ve already done that Bernie, and we said no.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1423818379 Donna E Turner

    The problem with gay marriage is the problem with the “I want it now” society we have become. It has been proven that children who grow up with gay parents tend strongly to homosexuality as adults. Marriage, as an institution, provides for the stability of the children who are brought up under its benefices; provides stability indeed for the continuance of the culture itself. America is in the process of tearing itself apart. We have already seen the result of the attacks on family life and marriage that have taken place over the last 40 years, and it has become a nightmare that we cannot wake up from. I, for one, will never accept gay marriage, because homosexuality has only been deemed perfectly correct and upstanding by the psychiatrists of Western culture, and I believe their theories are not only mainly incorrect, but also dangerous when applied as policy for living.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KA4VTVHA4FR2AFENJMHN7VGZ64 Eric Cartman

    Because there is a long history linked between homosexuality and pedophilia. And what the sheep don’t realize is that they are making the path for the pedophiles who now want the same rights as gays do. 6 years ago this wasn’t a problem. Why all of a sudden does it matter NOW? Is it because Obama came out for it?

  • sheila0405

    What about this stat? The divorce rate for married self identified Christians is about the same for society at large.

  • sheila0405

    The state’s interest in issuing a marriage license is to protect the parties involved. The couple must give honest answers to the questions on the application, such as whether or not one is truly single, with either no previous marriage or a legal divorce if previously married. It is designed to prevent either person from being defrauded. The state has a compelling interest in seeing that any legal contract is valid, in case there are legal questions which arise down the line.

  • sheila0405

    The federal government needs to stay out of the marriage business. Individual states have parameters on marriage, which govern things such as how long one has to procure a marriage license prior to the ceremony, fees charged, what the official marriage certificate includes, etc. etc. Our nation has been well served by local oversight of marriage up to this point. I’d like it to remain a state issue. The problem that I acknowledge is the issue of parity. If a legally married gay couple moves to a state which holds gay marriage as illegal, there can be issues of property rights and inheritance. All states recognize the validity of marriages from state to state now, except when a marriage is a gay marriage. That strikes me as unfair. I also admit to not knowing the best way to address this. I believe in limited government, so I’m not sure I want the Feds to insist on forcing parity in all 50 states. We are in a quandary.

  • RO

    You know Bernie? Sometimes you are so off the mark that I wonder why I agree with you so often. If you read through most of these comments, you will find that there is a general consensus of “live and let live.” Most people are not opposed to civil and legal partnerships. They just don’t like the “marriage” label. It doesn’t take any psychobabble or legaleeze to figure out that besides being an ages old tradition of being between a man and a woman, marriage is a sacrament to many,
    the meaning of which is not to be trifled with. Must traditionalists ALWAYS lose something to have another group gain something? Let’s just call it a “legal partnership” for gays and “marriage” for heteros and be done with it. Fair is Fair!

  • I Hate Fascists

    Who the fuck is Sheryl?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joel-Wischkaemper/100000008210596 Joel Wischkaemper

    I believe the displays Mr. Wimberly speaks of are a problem. I don’t think those displays are anything that the mass of homosexuals agree with and so I dismiss them, and am not worried about them.

    Marriage.. tying the knot, and that tying the knot brings a lot of peace to a lot of people. If Gays want that, why in the world would I disagree? If they contrive a religious organization that performs marriages blessed in the eyes of God, I don’t object to that either. Are the positions of any of the heterosexual churches correct? They would seem to be, and when we get to where we are going when we die, we are most certainly going to find out. But not until then, and we might as well leave it alone until we do confront the maker.

    Do I like the sexual behavior of the participants at the Madi Gras in New Orleans? No. Do I like the behavior of some of the people in the Gay Parade in San Francisco? I have never watched, but I don’t think I would care for it. And that is a good way to do it.. not watching those things which offend me. And a good way for all of us.

  • twin130

    All
    Americans have the right to live as they choose, and love who they choose, but
    noone has the right to re-define marriage for all of us. Decades of social
    science confirm that children do better when raised by a mother and father
    joined in marriage. We shouldn’t place the desires of adults over the needs of
    children. While not every married couple will have children, every child needs
    a mom and a dad.

  • twin130

    They’re the future? The Me Generation that is being brainwashed on a daily basis by liberal college professors, state-run news media, left-wing Hollywood superstars and a pop culture that says anything goes?? Perhaps a few words from Mark Steyn: ” the Pope’s thinking – that there are eternal truths no-one can
    change even if he wanted to – is completely incomprehensible to the
    progressivist mindset. There are no absolute truths, everything’s in play, and
    by “consensus” all we’re really arguing is the rate of concession to the
    inevitable: abortion’s here to stay, gay marriage will be here any day now –
    it’s all gonna happen anyway, man, so why be the last squaresville daddy-o on
    the block? We live in a present-tense culture where novelty is its own
    virtue:But to the modern secular
    sensibility truth has no splendor: certainly there is no eternal truth; instead,
    it’s eternally up for grabs. Once upon a time we weren’t cool about abortion:
    now we are. Soon we’ll be cool about gay marriage. And a year or two down the
    line we’ll be cool about something else that’s currently
    verboten.

    A societal institution
    that predates the United States by thousands of years is being fundamentally
    redefined, and elected politicians are entirely irrelevant to the
    process.
    Civil unions, if you must, but marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Sometimes political parties fight the wrong battles. This is one of them. Leave gay and lesbians alone and let them marry. Them getting married isn’t what’s wrong with the country right now.

  • NotADividerAndNotANotUniter

    Not true – marriage has meant a male-female relationship across the globe since God created man, and then woman. Do you really think that ‘just because a simple majority of young people, today, think the definition should be “changed” to accomodate their mentally sick friends’ that society should do their bidding. That’s like saying we should eliminate nuclear weapons because a simple majority of young people support eliminating them. Society can not change it’s beliefs and need based on polling people who watch Jon Stewart. Your blanket comment against Christianity, particulary southern Christians of course, here is absurd – you ‘use’ them as a rug to be beaten clean in the wind when you feel like it. Face it, you only think Portman was not ‘courageous’ because he did not support male-male marriage prior to his sons’ announcement. Is in not also courage to speak against being gay? The contrapositive of your argument is also true so you, and all who follow you or think the same, are in a logical dilemma. Also, it is not the Republicans who brought up this social issue – it was the Democrats arguing for it, and orgainizations such as Human Rights Campaign – yet, the ‘made-man, mafia media’ continues to crucify the GOP for inventing this argument to ‘persecute’ the so-called gays – that is absurd. Besides, marriage as you correctly say, is a religious ceremony – not something the government has to bless and give it’s OK. Don’t come crying to me when more sons announce – it’s because of men such as yourself who do no speak out against this mental sickness that they choose to go gay or whatever they want to call themselves. [See Queer Nation pubs., note 'Dike's on Bikes' TM - "they" use that language Bernie - kind of like blacks calling each other 'Nig-er' but whites can't use the same term - a clear hypocrisy]. ‘Profiles in Real Courage’ would have men speaking to their children and not allowing the media to brainwash them into thinking this flagrant violation of natural law and alternative lifestyles are acceptable by a majority of adults. Finally, institution after institution in this country have nearly been destroyed by gay men – the Catholic Church, The U.S. Army, the Boy Scouts of America – nobody wants them because they have been predators and seek to ‘grow their community’ and you can’t face that fact – tough. Bottom line – if parents and society ‘support’ it, there will be more of it. END

  • FloridaJim

    If homosexuality is wrong then it is still wrong when it occurs within your family. When suddenly you are confronted with an “outed” child it must be difficult but the difficulty is not whether they should have a “right” to marry but share benefits, in my mind.Equality in marriage ,is not for homosexuals only sharing benefits. The powerful homosexual lobby joins with liberals in making marriage a civil rights issue only because it adds more power to the discussion , who can deny a civil right?

  • BrianFruman

    The issue is how this will be abused for me. From an actuarial standpoint and government benefit standpoint. Can you file federally as a married gay couple? The answer should be yes (equal protection under the law) and the civil rights issue. However states issue marriage licenses so let the states decide on the moral side of the issue I have no problem with that. My only issue is if benefits start be issued to gay couples and the possibility of widespread fraud. In other words people that are not gay somehow use this as a means to get more out of the government. Adam Sandler did a really funny movie about this Chuck and Larry in which they pretend to be gay to receive domestic partner benefits.

  • burkanuck

    “When we look back, we will see what history has written on this subject. And I’m betting that history is on the side of gay marriage.”

    Really Bernie? Not much of a historian, are you? Not a single society in the history of man has survived its devolution to the point of accepting homosexuality as equal with heterosexuality. It is ONE OF the signs a society has reached the point of no return. There have been numerous, Greece, Rome, just to name the most powerful. Like it or not, it is an easily verifiable historical fact. The history isn’t even on the side of homosexuality let alone gay marriage.

  • Dhr

    I am a fiscal conservative and totally support gay marriage. I thought Republicans believed government should not be involved in the personal lives of citizens. When did they stop believing Pythias?

  • DOOM161

    When is the equal rights crowd going to embrace the rights of polygamists and pedophiles to marry whoever they want? Until you do, you’re no less bigoted than those that don’t embrace homosexual marriage.

  • potvin

    Exactly right!
    The term “civil union” is fine but never call it marriage.
    Why do they(bumites) insist on calling it marriage?
    Then they can say, look at us, we’re normal.
    Well, you’re not normal and so-called “gay marriage” will never be the truth until the end of time.
    Let’s start calling black white and up down. It’s the same damn thing.
    Let’s call good evil and evil good, dark light and light dark. Why not?

    • TRONRADIO

      That’s all spot-on. God created marriage, not man or woman. Man or woman can call it what they wish. When all said and done, God wins the semantics game.

  • Ted Crawford

    This must be seriously problematic for the Progressive pundits! It has been their mantra that when a Republican makes a different decision it’s “flip- floping” when a Democrat does it, it’s “Evolution”! Now that both Clinton and Portmen have changed their positions on the same issue how are they to spin this ! ? ! ?
    For Conservatives it’s far simpler, both of them are hypocrits, plain and simple!
    Portman joins the ranks of Christie, McCain, Graham, ETC. as fiat Conservatives and therefore marginalize themselves!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1775150241 Bonnie Thomas Usrey

    This is a very thoughtful and interesting article. But I have a Gay son, and I am a Christian, and I am not for Gay marriage because I want my son to be happy. Alcohol and drugs make some people happy, and Pedophilia makes the perpetrator happy, but not the victim. Some women are “happy” that they have the choice to abort their baby, and it certainly makes the irresponsible sperm donor happy. But the baby is a victim, and will never have the opportunity to pursue happiness.
    Just because it feels good, does not make it right. I don’t expect everyone or even the majority to agree with my beliefs, based on the Bible. Non-Christians don’t have the same moral compass. Nor do I try to force, or be an activist for Public policy to change because of my beliefs. In fact the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on Judeo/Christian values, and most of our great Universities were founded by Christians. Just because the Progressives have infiltrated them and turned them into bastions of propaganda for their Progressive agenda, indoctrinated our children and taught them it is “cool” to be Gay, Transgender, or whatever, does not make it right, nor is it what the founders of the University and the Country had in mind. The Leftists appear to be “winning” like Charlie Sheen was “winning” in his psychotic state. But the loss of a moral compass in our country is a sad and tragic event, evidenced by School Shootings, Columbine,, Sandy Hook. Mothers killing their children with no “guilty” verdict (Casey Anthony) Atheletes killing the Mother of their children, with no guilty verdict (OJ Simpson) God is weeping. When sin becomes culturally acceptable, in all its deviant manifestations, the Nation will not not prosper or survive. The rest of the Nations will have no where to flee or no Beacon of Hope to look toward as a World Leader. Some day we will all be weeping and wondering what we have wrought. With my son, I love the sinner and hate the sin, but accept and love him as he is. But if my son were a rapist, I would not suddenly decide that I am FOR rape.

  • mcweijun

    When I found out my daughter was gay, I thought my life was over. Then I realized I’ve never had much of a life anyway. So I’ve got that going for me!

  • Tim Ned

    I say let them marry. Let them bury their only son, if that is possible, like I have. Let them drag their spouse and daughters out of the abyss of grief like I have. Give
    them the opportunity to get down on their knees and pray to God, if they believe, when they see the doctor start CPR on their spouse during delivery. Give them that opportunity to see their children drive off alone for the first time after getting their driver’s license. Portman wants his son to be happy? Welcome to the party pal!

    By the way, I married the best women on earth 36 years ago.

  • http://www.facebook.com/april.carter.10 April Carter

    As always, you make a great and fair argument. I am inclined to agree with you ….I still have issues that would take too long to explain but I think in time you will see ( now that gay marriage is for sure going to be common) gay marriages will be pointedly different than what people expect…watch. Again, you make a fair case and you could sum it up that as long as it is accepted by society than that is where the line is made. Under other circumstances, the left has forced society with such social engineering by using the courts. While before voters wouldn’t approve of gay marriage ( California as recent as 2008), the trend is going the other way. You are right that by asking the young generation on how they feel about this issue – you will hear an almost unanimous “yes.” This concerns me. Why? If it were a natural evolution of thinking then so be it…but it isn’t. Schools-primarily public schools but surprisingly even in some catholic schools- have focused heavily on the issue. Young kids consciences are being tested often in school of the pain and unfairness that homosexuals endure. Forget the innocence of youth issue for now and realize that this why college kids often go straight to this issue when asked which political affiliation they are. Not always, but often. It wasn’t just college and high school ( or the recent big celebrity that talked about it), this has been planted on their brains since 2nd or 3rd grade. So when you wonder why people thought this was the main issue in the last election ( and why Obama FLIPPED on the issue), this is why. This isn’t right,

  • supie

    bernie wants to be all things to all people… “his” opinion here is a re-hash of so many other peoples opinions over the past few months and years… nothing is original… bernie, why don’t you and charles krauthammer go on a mediteranian sea cruise and have some type of slobbering love affair…. the two of you have been angry you know what for months now…. move on, for goodness sake…

  • Ken08534

    Just the other day I came across another ‘Profile in (non) courage’ – Sen. Robert Byrd, a few years before he died, spoke with CSPAN about his change of heart regarding his vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It seems Byrd was cool denying equal rights for colored people UNTIL his own grandson died in a car accident, the is occurred to him that colored folks love their grandchildren just as much as he loved his, and that convinced him that colored people should have equal rights….

    Google it – it’s on YouTube.

  • Iowa48

    “But societies are allowed to draw lines. We do it all the time.”
    That is the contradiction in your argument which settles the argument.

  • Sheryl

    Excellent column Bernie! In Mexico, all couples – straight and gay – are legally united by Civil Union. A church ceremony (marriage) is completely optional and symbolic. Since the term “marriage” has religious connotations, it should be a matter of religious choice, not a matter of law.

    And on a more practical level, if conservatives ever hope to win another election in the US, they better learn to keep their intolerant views on gay marriage (and a few other things) to themselves.

    This is a perfect example of why so many conservatives have moved into the Libertarian column, myself included. Libertarians are basically conservatives, minus the religious fanaticism and bent for nation-building.

  • nono524

    I am against gay marriage because it violates Natural Law and God’s Law as I understand it, and because throughout human history the union of one man and one woman has always been the ideal.

  • http://www.TheWirelessWizard.com/ Scott Goldman

    While I understand the arguments here I think that you’ve missed an opportunity to address a larger question: Why is government involved in “marriage” in the first place? In a society that is supposed to be based on individual freedoms (although one can certainly debate the direction of that trend recently) isn’t it up to the individuals to decide if they want to be a couple or not? And if they do want to be a couple aren’t the entitled to the same governmental rights as any other couple?

    In essence, civil unions should be afforded to any two people (please – let’s leave the absurd and extremist argument about animals out of this) who are not blood relations. Deciding who is “married” is a different issue – one that should be determined by the couple’s church or synagogue. And, if they don’t practice a religion and don’t care to be “married” then they should still be afforded a legal “union” by law, which would give them all of the rights – medical decisions, social security benefits, etc. – of a traditional male/female couple.

    Furthermore, if they want to refer to their civil union as a “marriage” that’s up to them. Being married – let’s say for the moment that it’s a step beyond the civil union – shouldn’t give couples any more *legal* rights than a civil union. Ultimately that would allow people within their own religious or social communities to determine their own rules about marriage while leaving the legalities out of the equation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

      You hit the nail on the head – I’ve been saying this for years. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are for the state to handle. Marriage should be a matter of your church, synagogue etc of choice. Legal rights should be the same.

  • difilipo

    Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years, and legally, in many parts of the world. Yet NO proponent of “marriage equality” will a stand up for it, including Bernie. Gay marriage has no history, legal or otherwise, anywhere in the world. Yet the media has been effective in convincing a growing number of morons that if you oppose what the entire planet has opposed forever you are intolerant, but if you dare sugget that you must also include a practice which HAS been supported in history then you are making a ridiculous argument and you should wait until the media warms up to the idea and then tells the rest of us it’s okay. And so it’s clear that this isn’t really about equality. If it was we wouldn’t care whether or not people WANTED polygamy. The concepts of fairness and equality do not require there to be a DESIRE for the right. The bottom line is this: As long as we continue to give legal recognition to marriage there will be discrimination. The question becomes: what discriminiatory definition minimizes the extreme perversions of the practice? The answer to that is the traditional one. The other alternative is to remove any and all economic and legal incentive to marriage. Either way this is just one more example of the break down of cultural mores. Welcome to the liberal utopia we have voted for.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

      Personally I don’t know why anyone cares about polygamy. Between consenting adults that should be between them and God.

      The opposition to homosexuality and your implication that it is a perversion is nothing more than the “ick” factor at play. It isn’t up to you to decide what constitutional rights people should have – legally, between consenting adults, they should be the same.

      • difilipo

        Where do I oppose homosexuality? And it is you, not I, that have implied homosexuality is a perversion, either that or you can’t concieve of any other kind of relationship that would qualify as a perversion. I am simply exposing hypocrisy of the movement and the pitfalls of redefining marriage. You have predictably assumed that I must also be a bigot. You’re just proving my point.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

          I don’t know who you’re talking to but I wasn’t talking to you. When you get done hating fascists, you might fit in some time learning how to read the comments.

  • Buzzer

    The final words spoken in every marriage ceremony are ” I now pronounce you man and wife”. I’ve never been to a so-called gay marriage but I’m certain that those concluding words are not used. Is it “man and man” or “woman and woman”? The vows that are taken by the participants include the words “till death do us part” so I assume that gay people seeking to be formally joined must aver similarly.Then again, after being ‘bonded’ how do they refer to each other. Does one gay man refer to the other who has participated with them in the ceremony as
    his ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ and does a gay woman do similarly?
    Logically and reasonably, such individuals are ‘Life Partners’. and they should ‘plight each other their troth’ and utter the words ’till death do us part’ to each other and the officiating individual, in conclusion, should pronounce them “loving partners for life” because that is what they are since it is anatomically impossible for them to be married just as it is anatomically impossible for them to procreate no matter how much they would like to do so or, for that matter, how little the youth in our midst cares about it.

  • Joel

    “But no one is saying the Church has to condone gay marriage.”

    That is true today. Yet one can only imagine what the future holds. Once the state institutionalizes gay marriage, would a church be subject to discrimination lawsuits were it disinclined to provide services? I don’t know, Bernie. But it’s something to consider and it’s also a point that weighs on the side of civil unions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

      Churches are not subject to the same rules as the state.

  • MarioG

    Nice try, Bernie. You are proof that you can tale a liberal out of his liberal environment and get his brain working again in some semblance of sanity, but you cannot take all liberalism out of the liberal. What you are describing as a civil rights issue is the freedom of gay people to form legal domestic partnerships with the same rights as heterosexuals. What you are erroneously confusing that with is the word marriage, which has always been defined throughout history as the legal committed union of one man and one woman. The civil rights of gays is hardly impeded by declining to re-define the word marriage.

  • Tim in California

    Bernie – Good observations. As a conservative – agnostic, I find myself ideally looking at marriage between a man & woman. If you ask me for my vote, I’d say no to Gay marriage. Yet, if the vote tally went against my choice, I’d accept it and move on. Call it, “ambivalently” against gay marriage… BERNIE does point out the fact that it’s just about unanimous, that the younger generation is not only okay with Gay marriage, but they enthusiastically support it. My two college age (middle of the road politically) daughters will vote Democrat as long as the Democrats lead the way in supporting gay marriage and choice in abortion… (not mentioned in Bernie’s article, the the other half of why the youth vote will never go with the GOP)

  • rlpincus

    Well done, Bernie.

    To the patriot responders:

    To say that the legal construct for people getting married is to have and protect children is completely insupportable. First off, you legally block any man or woman who is incapable of having children from getting married? Should marriages end when childbearing years are over? Should divorce when children are involved be illegal?

    To insert God into an argument about this is equally ridiculous. Just look at the hundred of thousands of fundamentalist Christians who have ignored what their God joined together and ripped their marriages asunder–divorce for those of you still confused. Spare everyone the moral hypocrisy.

    BTW, why is it that Christian patriots are so obsessed with bestiality? Methinks thous doth protest too much.

    Rather than questioning the courage of a guy like Portman, we should revel in those “aha” moments when folks get a little bit smarter.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

      Bam!

  • Tim

    My daughter’s God Father is gay (he’s proud to call himself her ‘Fairy God Father’, and I’m happy he is). I respect his opinion on this subject, which I think I can correctly summarise thus: why take ‘marriage’ from Church-going folk? What’s wrong with civil union, as long as its legal and affords exactly the same rights as re-married ‘hetros’ like you (referring to me). Let’s get this subject safe to 1st base before we get too excited about a home run.

  • Johnny Deadline

    Couldn’t agree more with Molledar and less with you on this subject, Bernie. Who do human beings think they are redefining marriage? Just as our Constitution doesn’t evolve from government but rather natural law, so it is with marriage. As has been noted for millenia, marriage is the union of two biologically compatible individuals. You can’t redefine marriage just to suit those that believe that it is “unfair” to gays and lesbians. I for one am not about to believe that God’s gift of marriage is unfair because it excludes those that redefined His gift of sexual relations. This is one slippery slope I hope we are smart enough to avoid.

  • digitalPimple

    BTW.. Asked groups of “kids” 17-18 that don’t go to church and have very open gay friends in high-school. They almost all oppose it. They felt different generally when they were 12 years old. Coincides with the level of maturity of your arguments on the subject.

    Right outside a major city BTW.

  • sonnyboy1

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
    light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for
    bitter. Isaiah 5:20

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

    Portman has no core principles! Because his son is gay, doesn’t mean that he had to change his stance against gay marriage! He might be popula r now with the gay community but he surely lost just as many votes in the straight community!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

    Did you just beam in from the 50′s?

    • http://twitter.com/TonyTurko Tony Turko

      “He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the heat of dispute.”
      ― Friedrich Nietzsche

  • woulddragon

    Mr. Goldberg, I’ll agree with you on this point: we all should calm down when the subject of same-sex “marriage” comes up in conversation. At this point in time, the atsmosphere surrounding that particular issue is just a bit overheated. I’ll even agree that if two women/two men want to marry, then more power to them. However, setting aside the religious/theological arguments regarding homosexuality, there is one angle in this argument that many have overlooked: the argument from Nature itself. Due to space constraints, I think that we can returne to that particular angle at a later date…suffice it to say that I very much doubt that I, or anyone else for that matter, will ever see, say, Rex and Fido “doing the ‘Wild, Whoopie Thing’” any time soon. If that makes any sense at all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

    Fantastic column Bernie. Govt should get out of “marriage” altogether and provide civil unions or domestic partnerships for all consenting adults. Marriages can be for churches, synagogues etc. We cannot give legal rights to one without including the other and the federal govt getting involved with DOMA was absolutely wrong.

  • http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com/ JLM

    .
    What a poorly and weakly reasoned argument — fuzzy at best. Silly at worst.

    I have no problem with whatever position Rob Portman takes or why. I accept fully that his motivations are the love of his son and his desire for him to be happy. I would expect most parents would feel similarly.

    The issue is the simple definition of a word.

    Gay persons can have whatever unions they desire and they can contract for rights and privileges and duties that are tantamount to marriage but it is not a marriage.

    Again, gay persons can enter into a contract with each other which is identical in all respects to the common law definition of marriage thereby obtaining each and every identical right, privilege and duty of marriage.

    Marriage is a union — consecrated by God and the Church or by civil authority — between a man and a woman to provide the moral and legal framework to raise a family.

    The 97% of the world that is not gay is entitled to the simple, clear and honest definition of what is and what is not a marriage.

    It is time for the discussion to wind down based on reality.

    JLM
    http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

    • I Hate Fascists

      The phrase “sanctimony of marriage” keeps popping up in this space, I think he means “sanctity of marriage”, but sanctimony certainly applies in your case. Gay persons in fact do not have equal rights. Hence the upcoming SCOTUS hearing on DOMA. No one wants or needs your sanctimonious holier than thou preachings on marriage or anything else.

      • http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com/ JLM

        .
        What a brilliantly reasoned and insightful comment.

        The gay community does not apparently want “equal” rights, they want superior rights. They desire not just to be accepted but to be anointed and applauded. They want to be treated as a protected class as if they were naturally rather than behaviorally characterized.

        A black person is black before the entire world by nature and cannot hide or modify that nature.

        The simple truth of the matter is that 97%+ of America is not gay and therein lies the majority view, the main stream view and the weight of society.

        To suggest that the entire world should change the definition of marriage to assuage the views of such a minority is just nonsense.

        Having said that nobody should go out of their way to make anyone feel bad but reality should have a place at the table.

        JLM
        .

        • I Hate Fascists

          Aaaaawwww! You stuffy old man you! I’m going to report you to Reince Priebus!

          • http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com/ JLM

            .
            I am Reince Priebus.

            JLM
            http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

          • I Hate Fascists

            Reince, that’s a dog name, not a people name. How come you right wingers all have dog names? Mitt, Newt, Tagg, Trig, Rover?

          • http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com/ JLM

            .
            Haha, another great and wickedly smart comment. Well played.

            You cannot insult me, friend, by comparing me to a dog. The more I learn of people, the more I like dogs.

            I wish I were the man that my Lab thinks I am — she of the unending tail wag and undeserved pure adoration.

            As to the right wing, how can one even get out on the wing these days when there are 97% of the folks who are in the same group?

            You, my friend, are a silly goose. Tastes like chicken when properly marinated and seasoned.

            JLM
            .

          • I Hate Fascists

            Well you should hook up with Linda Besink then! She wants to marry her dog too! Your wedding song could be Me And You And A Dog Named Boo!

        • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

          ROFL, speaking of well-reasoned!

          Gays want superior rights? Source please? Anointed and applauded? Hardly – howabout just left alone?

          Since 97% of America is not gay, therein lies the majority view, the mainstream view and the weight of society? I was under the impression America was set up to protect the minority, not overrun it.

          You clearly have no clue how many people support gay marriage. Even if you don’t agree with the concept, you are not entitled to your own facts, which include implying some 3% of people who are gay are the only ones who support it.

          What reality is at your table that doesn’t involve making someone else feel bad? “Some of my best friends are gay?”

          • sheila0405

            You understand, of course, that many evangelical Protestants are teaching that gays want to rule America, right? “Gays want to adopt children to make more gays. Gays want to have their lifestyle elevated. Gays want to have their agenda taught to little children in schools, in order to brainwash them into possibly turning gay themselves.” And, finally the biggest myth “Being gay is a lifestyle choice, not a birthright” (Notice the comment about being black vs being gay. Christians are scared to death that they will somehow devolve into a nation of unbridled debauchery if gays obtain the right to marry. Never mind the fact that marriage stabilizes society.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/KA4VTVHA4FR2AFENJMHN7VGZ64 Eric Cartman

            “Gays want superior rights? Source please? Anointed and applauded? Hardly – howabout just left alone?” — You are very misguided, easily gullible and easily manipulated, too. Jews slowly transform any moral society to —> depravity via the technique known as incrementalism
            (i.e., they push the envelope in tiny baby steps, year by year…
            moving it towards utter filth; this takes about 5 generations i.e., 100
            years). Incrementalism is the vehicle of Cultural Marxism.

            CASE IN POINT: Imagine if gay marriage was promoted in the 1930′s? And
            suppose every newspaper in America pushed it. What would happen?
            People would burn the newspaper factories down, riot, etc. Game over
            for the Jews.

            So the Jewish elite wait 60 or so years, that is, after their Cultural Marxism has literally transformed most American minds to at least being open to the idea of gay marriage.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

        I like “sanctimony” better ROFL

      • burkanuck

        “No one wants or needs your sanctimonious holier than thou preachings on marriage or anything else.”
        And you think anyone is interested in yours? hahahahaha!!!!! That’s rich.
        If it weren’t for your other idiotic comments I would have assumed that was satire.

    • molledar

      You nailed it, JLM. One thing that has to be pointed out is that it IS in government’s best interest to protect traditional marriage as a societal stabilizer (as you mentioned, the “moral and legal framework to raise a family”). It may be pragmatic/practical to get government out of the “marriage business”, but I’m afraid the good reasons for government being interested in marriage (indicated above) would get thrown out the window. On the other hand…if government at any level legally approves same-sex marriage, it will only be a matter of time before churches are sanctioned for denying the celebration of same-sex marriage inside its walls. Mark my words.

      • http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com/ JLM

        .
        We are a country whose very existence is attributed to the existence of rights granted by God — not rights granted by men.

        On our currency, it says — In God We Trust. And there is nothing wrong with that and much right.

        The religious and civil foundation for marriage is and always has been identical. They both create a legal distinction which is identified, embraced and recognized by both religious and civil entities.

        Why not?

        We were founded as “one nation under God”.

        The current secular thinking is unsound both from a practical religious and civil perspective.

        We are looking for a complex answer to a remarkably simple issue.

        Civil unions — by which persons may memorialize any contractual arrangement they so desire including mimicing marriage — can take place without having to bastardize and change the millennium long definition of marriage.

        Common sense is not very common when dealing with this issue.

        JLM
        http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joel-Wischkaemper/100000008210596 Joel Wischkaemper

      In the history of mankind, that definition is way to restricted. In the ancient world, the definition would be a laughable thing. In the Modern World, tolerance makes the definition verge on the bad side of definitions.

  • digitalPimple

    Bernie,

    Your entire argument falls flat because you make the broad assumption is it based on some kind of religious affiliation of some kind. Sure there are some but no where near the amount to make up 50% of the country.

    This assumption is made by the Gay community endlessly to stomp out opposition and to attack people of faith whom they seem to blame entirely for every imagined problem they have.

    BTW I hear Rob Portman is now for deficit spending. His wife just admitted she grossly over charges on her credit cards when he’s out of town.

  • Gloria

    So simple. Let each state decide. This is not and should not be a Federal issue. If the majority of voters in a state want to sanction the word marriage for homosexuals, then so be it. If they can find a church or religion to perform the ceremony, then so be it. In my state, I would vote against it due to my religion’s teachings, but I am wholeheartedly in favor of civil unions which protect those legal rights exactly the same as married heterosexual couples. So if it passed in my state, so be it – no skin off my nose. Much ado about nothing. So simple. Leave it to the states.

  • http://twitter.com/scorpia31 Linda Besink

    My nephew is gay and my sister’s niece is as well. We love them and want them to be happy, and there’s nothing stopping them from making a life with a person they love and who loves them. But they don’t get to re-define what true marriage IS.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

      Because you know that God defines “marriage” as between a man and a woman, implying that it’s about biology not emotional attachment. Well, good for you.

      That argument, unfortunately, will never end – which is why we should take govt out of the “marriage” business and leave it to churches, synagogues and mosques – oh wait, they like gays even less than you. Never mind that.

      Govt can do civil unions and domestic partnerships for ANYONE and leave “marriage” to religious institutions that choose to participate.

  • I Hate Fascists

    So now the Big Red Hate Machine has decided it doesn’t have a policy problem, it has a messaging problem! And now here are Portman and Goldberg embracing gay marriage! So is this a policy shift or just hype? Well we know you don’t have a policy problem, so it must be a transparent attempt to position yourselves as … THE BIG RED LOVE MACHINE!!!!!. Seriously folks, does anyone believe the BRHM would actually lower itself to accommodate voters when it should be the other way around? To that end the more insidious strategies of voter suppression (aided and abetted by Scalia and the SCOTUS boys), as well as genetic engineering of the Electoral College to maximize right thinking Real American Patriot votes while trivializing liberal Anti-American votes, continue apace. Write about that Bernie!

    • concernedcitizen

      You’re crazy, go see a psychologist or something.

  • Cheryl

    First of all, I agree with Bernie that Rob Portman is not brave for coming out in favor of gay marriage. Brave would be to say that he loves his son, but stands by his principles. It’s understandable when someone changes a policy decision because of personal issues, but certainly not brave. As to gay marriage, there is an easy solution to this problem. The state should sanction civil unions for EVERYONE for tax and legal purposes. Then if a couple wants marriage, let the churches offer marriage, which is a religious rite. The state can decide what constitutes a family for legal purposes in offering tax benefits and other legal protections according to the needs of society. The church can decide what constitutes a marriage in terms of their own religious tenets. Some couples will have both unions and marriages, some just unions. Many hetero couples will have only unions, if they are not religious, and many gay couples will choose to be married if their church allows it. This solution is simple, fair, and respectful of everyone’s rights and beliefs. I can’t believe that this solution is not being widely discussed, and people are still arguing and moralizing about the meaning of the word marriage.

    • Bernie

      Cheryl

      Very smart post. Thank you. Never thought about it that way … but now I will.

    • http://twitter.com/scorpia31 Linda Besink

      Very cool take on this.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

      Exactly

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joel-Wischkaemper/100000008210596 Joel Wischkaemper

        YES!

      • Debdeb

        Interesting again. But this new fluidity of marriage is just the kind of business that the government likes. Self appointed boundaries. Control of ideology. And above all else the future opportunity to generate more money. Maybe “Until death do us part” will eventually become “until five years later when the costly marriage license renewal occurs” .

    • Tim in California

      Yes Cheryl… good take and thoughts…..

    • http://www.facebook.com/april.carter.10 April Carter

      I swear I thought the same thing!!!

    • Miriam

      Cheryl, you have articulated my position perfectly. Legal unions for state purposes, marriage as a religious rite.

    • burkanuck

      Unfortunately Cheryl the whole point of “gay” marriage is to legitimize it under law, it is NOT simply about being able to marry. Your solution is perfectly logical, could be easily implemented, and should satisfy all parties but because the real reason for this push is the actual title “marriage” it is a pipe dream. The gay lobby will not be content until this title is given to their unions…period.

      • sheila0405

        If every couple, gay and straight, were subjected to the same legal definition of the union, I don’t see the gay lobby getting upset. It’s about equal protection. If heterosexual couples were to now be identified as a civil union or domestic partnership, everyone would be in the same boat at the start. Then, couples are free to pursue any religious rites they choose. There are churches which will bless a gay couple in marriage. I don’t see the issue, here.

    • sheila0405

      Well said. I like unions for legal issues. The problem is with DOMA. Federal law trumps state law. Legally married gay couples cannot assign spousal benefits if they work for the federal government.

    • Debdeb

      Cheryl, Interesting. I agree. France has been using your logic for decades. A state civil service is the only way to be married. The state does not recognize church services. If you are religious in France you must have a civil service to be legal, you can then have a church service if God is present in ones life.

  • Seattle Sam

    If your son told you he was a Wicken, would you (out of compassion for him) renounce God?

    • sheila0405

      It’s “Wiccan”, not “Wicken”. Sheesh!

  • Seattle Sam

    Marriage has a definition. It has had the same definition for thousands of years. Gay marriage is as much of an oxymoron as four-sided triangle.

  • Michael R. Wimberly

    You make some very powerful arguments that tell me I am wrong opposing gay marriage. I see noting wrong in State sanction Gay Unions. Marriage is a label that Is not theirs to claim. Society can and does differentiate by labels.

    I cannot wipe away the visions created by choice of the Gay community here in Houston & Nationwide. For years they orgy celebrate With Gay Pride Parades. A display claiming identity of every deviant Sexual variation one can think of acted out by the participants publically on our streets. Once shunned by politicians they now flock to actively join in high profile participation. In my 46 yr banking career I worked with many gays and know discrimination was not practiced. My middle name is from a gay friend of my mother and father with whom they worked with in the 30′s and that friendship continued until Ross died.

    Buy Gays want to be legitimized by claiming Marriage as their right? Legal or Civil Union Ok – Marriage NO!

    • Ken Heyl

      So what we have is an issue of semantics, not civil rights? I don’t think so…
      I have a great hetero marriage. Blessed in the eyes of the church, legal in the eyes of the state, great in so many ways…
      I have gay friends, and I simply cannot deny them the legalization of their unions. It should be called marriage because, as you display in your response, semantics are important.
      Either that or change the legal definition to “union”. For you and your wife, me and mine, and our gay friends as well. It won’t change our marriage…
      But that’s a lot of work for nothing–just call it marriage and get over it.
      And as far as the “public display” is concerned, I’ll bet what will happen is that these “orgy celebrations” will diminish as their civil rights are realized.

      • sheila0405

        The orgy celebrations do not represent the majority of gays in this nation. Those seeking marriage are in long term relationships, and live out their lives as taxpaying citizens, like the rest of us. It’s always a few who make it harder for the many.

  • Canuck

    Should two brothers be allowed to marry? We certainly don’t have to worry about inbreeding problems. Should two non-gay men be able to marry for access to the others workplace benefits? Not yet? Too weird? Or do we just what until activists have convinced enough of our children that anything goes?

  • Kala

    Bernie, your arguments are all mixed up. You allow that the “church” (but it’s Christians) can not condone but then ridicule said Christian for being true to their beliefs by assuming because we take the Bible at face value we want a theocracy. You’re incorrect. We are capable of drawing that line.

    • Patrick H.

      Hold it Kala, first off Bernie said, “many good Christians”, not all. Also, he didn’t say because you take the Bible at face value, you want a theocracy. He said you want a theocracy because you wanted to use the Bible, your holy book, to dictate the rules for all 300 million plus people in this country instead of the Constitution whether or not they’re Christian.

      • Bernie

        Thank you Patrick. Exactly!

      • digitalPimple

        Spoken as a true activist. If you understand the law, how it works and the constitution you would understand that we are a republic, and not a democracy.

        • Patrick H.

          I do understand we are a republic and not a democracy, but I also understand that the Constitution is the rule of law in this country, not the Bible or any other holy book!

  • john g

    I think you are being unfair to Portman.

    Whether he came to it on his own or his son’s sexuality played a part, it’s a decision he clearly made for the right reason; because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. That is the most courageous change. Cynically doing it a few months before an election like someone else I could mention is the type of change of heart that takes no courage.

    It does take courage to risk alienating yourself against your party and the voters who have supported you based on your prior position to change your mind on something for no other reason than your heart tells you its the right change; regardless of how your heart came to that conclusion.

    • Jeremy Robbins

      Way more comments than there were last night (when I ‘promised’ myself, I would respond to this topic). I haven’t read all the comments, so what I have to say could be a little redundant.
      First, of all, I like what the comment above ^ ^ had to say. Cut Portman a little slack; however, I can’t help to be a little skeptical about his motives for flip-flopping. I think, for a politician, when making a decision or reversing a previous decision, if they sense there will be any political gain, then that is usually a deciding factor. Eg GOP is currently, busily trying to redefine itself….so if that was any motivation for Portman, then no-it wasn’t so brave.
      Secondly, I’m queer; & I regard marriage as a union between one man & one woman. I have no qualms about that. My parents are married, my grand-parents, their parents before them…aunts,uncles,friends….basically the whole place I know as home, & the community that produced me, has been fortified & enriched by traditional marriage. Just because I do not fit into that mold, does NOT compel me to change that mold! This is a terribly unpopular attitude for a gay man. The same question asked by heterosexual couples,”does gay marriage affect my relationship with my spouse?” could be asked a homosexual: “Does the fact that Jack & Jane are married, in anyway, diminish my happiness?” Why no! (atleast, it shouldn’t)
      The issue is so convoluted & complex. It’s hard to find a starting point for one’s argument. Marriage today is in a shambles!!! It is laughable to think that a homosexual couple is a threat to the sanctity of marriage…..Really??? Sanctity? I think infidelity, addiction, laziness, fornication, fickleness, & piety have a lot more to do with the disintegration of marriage than gay lovebirds.
      This messy, messy topic we’re discussing today (I truly believe) is a result of the decay of traditional marriage in general. Everyone’s bewildered & not sure of what to think, because the ideals of traditional marriage are so sadly far from the actuality.So, the “Sanctity of Marriage”? None of us have a right to defend or pretend about that!
      I think the problem would best & neatly be solved not by pushing forward, but by pulling back. At some point in legislative history, marriage was recognized, managed, confiscated if you will, by the government. Government has adulterated our idea of marriage. Marriage is a church thing. I wonder….(& I wish I was more clear-spoken about these things), but couldn’t that be in violation of the thing that says “Congress shall not pass any laws affecting the establishment of religion”? I don’t know…..just a thought
      Basically, ‘marriage’ is a church thing. The government should stay out of marriage altogether, BUT should recognize a domestic partnership (& none of that incest & besitality BS – that’s ridiculous)(do people really buy that?!)
      Again: I don’t fit the mold, but FINE! No reason to re-shape the mold. No such shape exists. But apart from the lack of evidence that any divine/holy/shared union exists on either side of the fence, the sincere requests of queer couples who want equal rights, should be granted. It’s not fair[I'm thinking of the plain things like visitation rights, shared benefits, pensions, etc] No special rights, just equal rights; but not observed by the government as a marriage, which the government shouldn’t be in the business of doing anyway.
      If a straight couple is in love with one another, & want a shared life, committed to home & family, then that’s wonderful; but why would anyone need a seal of approval from the government? If a gay couple wants the same thing, then go for it! No one is stopping you; but why would they wrestle & rabble-rouse to this extent over semantics?! As rose by any other name, people…
      Ugh….I hate this……
      Basically, I hope that both straight & gay couples would have equal rights under the law, but the government should be out of the business of defining marriage altogether. To straights: focus on the sanctity of your own marriage! If you can’t do that, or have given up, then you don’t get to defend it. To gays: Get over it. Go play house, but find a new word for it. You’re “creative”….
      Bernie, I hope you read this. I like you (more than O’Reilly). I know my thoughts were scattered, but I’m glad I shared them (I rarely say anything about the topic). I hope they help you or anyone in forming their opinions; but I gotta go. I got dishes to wash.

      • I Hate Fascists

        Bernie won’t read this, Jeremy, and neither he nor Portman nor any other right winger gives a rat’s tail about you or any other gay person. It’s all hype, part of their campaign to rebrand themselves as Those Wild And Crazy Lovable Fascists.

        • Patrick H.

          Are you kidding me? Bernie has been in favor of gay rights even when he became a conservative years ago as evidenced by his writings. So this is not opportunist of his writings.

          • I Hate Fascists

            Fair enough. I believe my statement applies to the vast majority of right wingers in general, because they are a miserable, hateful bunch. But if that doesn’t apply here, then my apologies to Mr. Goldberg.

          • Patrick H.

            *rolls eyes* So essentially branding all of your opponents hateful and miserable. That’s a show of liberal tolerance.

          • I Hate Fascists

            Can you name one that is not hateful and miserable? I doubt it but if you can for every one I’ll name at least 10 that are. Here are a few for starters: Bachmann, Palin, Cruz, Paul, Broun, Gohmert, Inhofe, Boehner, McConnell, Romney, Ryan, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry …

      • sheila0405

        I call it jumping on the band wagon.

  • Rick

    Why can’t Rob Portman’s son be happy unless he can call his relationship “marriage”?

    • John Daly

      Wouldn’t you take offense if someone asked that of you?

      • http://twitter.com/scorpia31 Linda Besink

        Only if I wanted to marry my dog.

        • I Hate Fascists

          And do it dog style? Move over Rover!

        • I Hate Fascists

          BTW Ever notice how many right wingers have dog names?Reince, Mitt, Tagg, Trig, Newt, Rover (Nordquist), Rush?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joel-Wischkaemper/100000008210596 Joel Wischkaemper

            I don’t know.. my dogs are named Linda and Linda 2.

          • Stimpy

            Those are Viking names.

        • John Daly

          Are you honestly equating a gay person to a different species? Are you proud of that post?

  • molledar

    Problem is that we as a society have forgotten the definition of marriage as has been understood and accepted for millenia. Until just recently, marriage has been universally understood as a union of two, biologically compatible individuals. The failure of so many heterosexual marriages and the rise in children born out of wedlock has blurred the true purpose of marriage (procreation) and the sacrifice involved in maintaining it.

    Here’s a shocker: It’s really got nothing to do with religion. Religion throughout human history has accepted the societal norm of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It did not define it. Nor is homosexuality something which started in the past 30-40 years. It’s been around just as long as marriage itself.

    Also, no civil right is limitless. Just as you can’t yell “fire” in a theatre, there are “rights” which can only be extended to certain members of society. I don’t have an issue with civil unions for purposes of sharing one’s property/wealth, etc., but please don’t try to define it for what it isn’t, a marriage.

  • I Hate Fascists

    Stick upyr? Did you scream?

    • I Hate Fascists

      That’s in reply to DUH

  • John Daly

    I apologize if this ends up displayed twice. It didn’t seem to take the first time…

    I’ve always had trouble with the ‘sanctimony of marriage’ argument. As far
    as I’m concerned, a straight couple that gets married on a whim and gets
    divorced a few weeks later hurts marriage far more than a committed,
    loving, gay couple ever could.

    And like you said, Bernie, my marriage isn’t affected by other people’s marriages.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

      I think it’s “sanctity” but I like your version better ROFL

      • John Daly

        lol. Good catch. Glad you knew what I meant. ;)

    • Ted Crawford

      Of course and there is absolutely no sound reason that Danny Dim Wit shouldn’t be allowed to marry the plastic doll he just purchased from the local bookstore either! Now that we have resolved that, what institution of civilization shall we marginalize next? Private Property, Resonable Privacy, Personal possesions? What the heck they are all over rated anyway!

  • http://twitter.com/YTICBT DUH

    evidently you have never been accosted/approached by a gay. Give them an inch? A teacher sucking on your ear in a class room a guy putting his hand up your back? I have seen them bold .. you have seen them meek. Well if stick upyr means anything to you … go ahead … legitimize them and their waysand be your kids next Councilor, Troop leader, and as your boss… a new thought on getting ahead? You sir have just lost a follower. -Christian but not the only reason

    • John Daly

      Oh brother. Is it your contention that heterosexuals don’t suck ears and touch backs?

    • HistoryProfBrad

      Thank you for demonstrating such a Christ-like attitude. It is one thing to defend your point of view. It is quite another to no longer “be a follower” because he disagrees with you. Sorry, but your attitude sounds a lot more like the Pharisee than the Publican.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/KA4VTVHA4FR2AFENJMHN7VGZ64 Eric Cartman

        Thank you for demonstrating such a typical brainwashed victim-like attitude.

    • Bernie

      Because we disagree you no longer want to read my columns. Got it. You have made my point — about religious based intolerance.

      • Canuck

        Should two brothers be allowed to marry? We certainly don’t have to worry about inbreeding problems. Should two non-gay men be able to marry for access to the others workplace benefits? Not yet? Too weird? Or do we just what until activist have convinced enough of our children that anything goes.

        • John Daly

          What does incest have to do with being gay? What does marrying for the sake of workplace benefits have to do with being gay? You could have just as easily used brother/sister and male/female roommates as your examples. Being gay doesn’t further complicate either of those issues.

      • joe jones

        well put, bernie.

    • shatwood

      You just got GOLDBERG’D, Bro!

    • Patrick H.

      You’re nuts. Enough said.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

      buh bye!

    • I Hate Fascists

      Stick upyr? Upyr what? It sounds very romantic! Did you scream?