CBS: The Vanishing Opposition to Gay Marriage

Photo of Kyle Drennen.

Still Shot of John Blackstone, June 15 On CBS’s "Sunday Morning," correspondent John Blackstone reported on the beginning of legal gay marriages in California starting Monday: "Even for people used to earthquakes, the California Supreme Court's decision last month to legalize same-sex marriage was a jolt. But even as gay couples make plans to wed this week...Opponents say tradition should and will be restored."

Blackstone went on to talk to one such opponent: "Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage is confident Californians will vote to again ban same sex marriage. On the ballot, in November...Brown says the state supreme court improperly overturned the will of the people. In 2000, California voters approved a measure declaring that only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California."

Out of a total of 8 minutes and 50 seconds of coverage during the show, 2 minutes and 14 seconds was given to highlight opponents of gay marriage. By Sunday’s "Evening News" the total coverage had shrunk to 2 minutes and 35 seconds with 27 seconds given to opponents. Total coverage on Monday’s "Early Show" was 5 minutes and 12 seconds, however, time given to opponents of gay marriage was only 41 seconds, with no mention of Brown or his organization.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

During the coverage on all three shows a new CBS poll was touted as showing an increase in support for gay marriage nation-wide. On Sunday, Blackstone reported: "A CBS news poll conducted this month found that a majority of Americans, 58%, support some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, but many still don't want that to be called 'marriage.' 28% approve of civil unions. 30% of allowing gay couples to marry. The highest number since CBS News began asking that question in 2004."

On Monday, "Early Show" co-host Julie Chen proclaimed: "Same-sex marriage remains a hot-button issue throughout America. But it seems that tolerance for it appears to be growing. According to a new CBS News poll, 30% of Americans now accept same-sex marriages. However, 36% favor no legal recognition of gay marriages at all." Of course, looking at those numbers it is clear that 70% of Americans are opposed to allowing actual marriage for gay couples.

One of the most controversial statements made during the CBS coverage was made by actor George Takei to Blackstone during the "Sunday Morning" segment: "I know that people can change because I grew up in -- behind the barbed wire fences of American internment camps. That was in my lifetime. And here I am now, a popular actor -- supported by many, many people throughout the country. America changes. America is made up of decent people, fair-minded people."

Chen interviewed Takei and his partner on Monday’s "Early Show": "Among the same-sex couples getting their marriage licenses this week are long-time partners, George Takei and Brad Altman. You no doubt remember George Takei, who played the role of Mr. Sulu on "Star Trek." Gentlemen good morning and congratulations."

Here are the full transcripts of the segments:

SUNDAY MORNING

06/15/08

9:00AM TEASER:

CHARLES OSGOOD: For the last century or so, Father's Day and Mother's Day have been special days, one for him, dad, and one for her, mom. But something has happened over the last several years and it's hit the nuclear family more like a nuclear explosion to some people, who liked it better the old fashioned way. In our biggest state the culture shock is about to be felt full-force. John Blackstone will be reporting our "Sunday Morning" cover story.

GAVIN NEWSOM: What a day in San Francisco! What a day in California!

JOHN BLACKSTONE: Even for people used to earthquakes, the California Supreme Court's decision last month to legalize same-sex marriage was a jolt. But even as gay couples make plans to wed this week-

JOHN HAM: I look good in white! It's okay.

BLACKSTONE: Opponents say tradition should and will be restored.

BRIAN BROWN: There's something unique and special about mothers and fathers. It's that simple.

BLACKSTONE: Later on "Sunday Morning," the shaking in California that's sending shock waves across the country.

9:09AM SEGMENT:

CHARLES OSGOOD: Starting tomorrow, you can expect to see more California cars with signs that say, 'Just Married.' But if you haven't been paying attention to a recent legal development, you might be surprised by who some of these June newlyweds are. Our cover story is reported now by John Blackstone.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Do you, Kevin, take this woman Impumei to be your lawfully wedded wife.

KEVIN: I do.

JOHN BLACKSTONE: In the cheery rotunda of San Francisco's City Hall, always a great place for a wedding-

WOMAN: I now pronounce you husband and wife.

BLACKSTONE: It's a moment of calm -- before the storm. Tomorrow this grand old building will reaffirm its place at the epicenter of the same-sex marriage debate with what's likely to be the very first legal gay wedding in California. Performed by San Francisco's Mayor, Gavin Newsom.

GAVIN NEWSOM: I don't know what the big deal is at the end of the day to allow people to be treated fairly. My gosh. What more American value is there than that?

BLACKSTONE: But American values have generally viewed marriage as joining a man and a woman. 30 days ago in California, that all changed. Gay couples cheered and began making wedding plans.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN B: I don't know the details of the ruling, but I think we're getting married pretty soon.

BLACKSTONE: When in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage. When the ruling takes effect at one minute after 5:00 tomorrow afternoon, California becomes the only state besides Massachusetts where it's legal to marry someone of the same sex.

NEWSOM: What a day in San Francisco!

BLACKSTONE: Mayor Newsom energized the same-sex marriage movement in 2004, throwing open city hall to more than 4,000 gay weddings. When the state supreme court finally ordered the ceremonies to stop, couples still waiting in line for licenses were crushed.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN B: God Dammit!

BLACKSTONE: The marriages were declared void, and the court battle began, that has now ended with victory for same-sex marriage.

NEWSOM: There are thousands and thousands and thousands of couples that want to see their lives affirmed. The fact is we're going to be fine. This is all going to be okay.

BLACKSTONE: For many gay couples, that's an understatement. Some of the more high profile marriage seekers include Ellen Degeneres who publicly came out on TV more than a decade ago.

ELLEN DEGENERES: So, I would like to say right now for the first time, I am announcing I am getting married.

BLACKSTONE: She announced her intention to wed actress, Portia Derossi.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: How often have you done this.

GEORGE TAKEI: Actually, it's my first attempt.

BLACKSTONE: Actor George Takei, best known as Mr. Sulu on "Star Trek," plans to wed his partner of 21 years, Brad Altman. First of all, tell me what it was like around this house the day the supreme court decision. Were you waiting for that? Was that something you were anticipating?

GEORGE TAKEI: We did know about it, we were anticipating it. And all of a sudden, Brad fell down to the floor. I mean, he got down on his knees. And I said -- you know, with my mouth full of food, what are you doing? And he -- he was on his knees, and said, 'George, will you marry me?' And I said -- 'darn it! I meant to ask you. You beat me to it!'

BRAD ALTMAN: I just want to be part of the mainstream American society, which I am, but I don't want to feel like I'm a second class citizen that I can have a domestic partnership but I can't have a marriage.

BLACKSTONE: A CBS news poll conducted this month found that a majority of Americans, 58%, support some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, but many still don't want that to be called 'marriage.' 28% approve of civil unions. 30% of allowing gay couples to marry. The highest number since CBS News began asking that question in 2004. But opponents of same sex marriage say marriage is much more than a word. It's an important concept with only one meaning.

[Footage of angry protestors]

BRIAN BROWN: And by definition, marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's based on the complementarity of male and female.

BLACKSTONE: Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage is confident Californians will vote to again ban same sex marriage. On the ballot, in November.

BROWN: Now, what's going to happen in the interim? Likely all of the effects we've seen from around the country. Parents being told they have no say in what their kids are taught in school, and that johnny needs to be taught that it's the same exact thing to grow up and marry Jimmy as it is to marry Mary. That there's no distinction at all. That's what the law now says.

BLACKSTONE: Brown says the state supreme court improperly overturned the will of the people. In 2000, California voters approved a measure declaring that only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California. But California does recognize domestic partnerships, arguing against same-sex marriage, the state attorney general said domestic partners have the same rights as married couples just under a different name. The state supreme court, however, ruled that separate but qual is not equal. The only other state that allows gay marriage, Massachusetts, issues same-sex licenses only for residents. Since California has no residency requirement, gay couples from across the country are expected to head west, and then go home to an uncertain legal future. Right now, 44 states have constitutional amendments or laws banning same sex marriage. Eight states do provide some spousal rights to same sex partners. But only New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN C: Ann can I talk to you?

BLACKSTONE: In California, some local officials are resisting. The clerk in Kearn County Ann Barnett dodged a reporter's questions about her decision to stop all marriages in county offices rather than perform any gay marriages. Even the most ardent supporters of the new law say it's going to be -- well, different. Contra Costa County Clerk, Steve Weir. This is the application for a marriage license?

STEVE WEIR: That's it.

BLACKSTONE: And so which parts of this-

WEIR: Have changed.

BLACKSTONE: Have changed.

WEIR: Well, instead of bride and groom, it's 'Party A' and 'Party B.'

BLACKSTONE: That's not very romantic.

WEIR: But I will be 'Party B.'

BLACKSTONE: Weir plans to be the first in line at his own office Tuesday morning to marry his long-time partner, John Ham.

JOHN HAM: I'm doing it for the ceremony, I'm doing it for the public ritual which I believe in.

BLACKSTONE: For the 18 years Weir and Ham have been together the closest they got to a marriage ceremony was a staged photo taken after too many cocktails. So, did you do that as a joke, or-

HAM: I look good in white! It's okay. I was just waiting for the time when you could just do it like everybody else does, and -- in the world. And you just go down to the city hall or to the county clerk's office, get the paperwork done and not make anything different or special. You know, some people in the world want it to be different. They want to be able to point that finger and say, you know, oh, there goes those gay people again, you know, making a spectacle of themselves. No, it's just like anybody else.

BLACKSTONE: But it's not like anybody else, says Brian Brown. To him, gay marriage is an attempt to normalize something that isn't normal at all.

BROWN: You're not just saying we're opening up marriage to these people. You're fundamentally redefining what the nature of marriage is, that marriage is the union of a mother and father, a husband and a wife, that ideal is what is worth protecting and again, I think that's a common sense idea. There's something unique and special about mothers and fathers. It's that simple.

BLACKSTONE: George Takei however, sees a world that's more accepting.

GEORGE TAKEI: I know that people can change because I grew up in -- behind the barbed wire fences of American internment camps. That was in my lifetime. And here I am now, a popular actor -- supported by many, many people throughout the country. America changes. America is made up of decent people, fair-minded people.

BLACKSTONE: But when the weddings begin again in California, some decent people will see only indecency. Though, that's not likely to diminish the joy for those who thought marriage could never be theirs.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN D: I now pronounce you Jet and Annie, spouses for life.

 

EVENING NEWS

06/16/08

6:20PM SEGMENT:

RUSS MITCHELL: With same-sex marriages set to begin tomorrow in California, a new CBS poll out tonight shows Americans split on whether same-sex couples should even have the right to marry. Couples planning to take the big step are wondering how long the opportunity will be available as John Blackstone reports.

JOHN BLACKSTONE: For three years, Jason and Adrian have described themselves as engaged.

JASON HOWE: These are the reply cards.

BLACKSTONE: Now at home in Los Angeles, they are finally sending out invitations to a wedding.

ADRIAN: And this is society's recognition that we're family.

BLACKSTONE: They have set a date and even built a wedding website, but the ceremony they're planning isn't in California. It's in Spain. They started making their plans before California legalized same-sex marriage.

HOWE: We didn't do this because we wanted to have a wonderful wedding on the Mediterranean or whatever. We did this because we couldn't do it here.

BLACKSTONE: Jason, who works for a gay rights' organization, didn't expect California law would change so quickly. Now they'll get married in California as soon as they get home from Spain, and something they thought would be largely symbolic will now have the force of law.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: With this ring, I thee wed.

BLACKSTONE: Four years ago the gay marriages that filled San Francisco's City Hall were a symbolic challenge to the state law banning gay marriage. But last month when the California Supreme Court declared that law unconstitutional. Gay couples started making wedding plans and the ripples are going right across the country.

DAVID CRUZ: The development in California is huge nationally speaking. Unlike Massachusetts, California doesn't have a law that limits who can get married in the state.

BLACKSTONE: But the marriages that can legally begin at 5:01 PM tomorrow could end just as abruptly in November when a constitutional amendment to again ban same-sex marriage will be on the California ballot. Opponents of same-sex marriage are confident that Californians will vote to again define marriage as only for a man and a woman.

[Footage of angry protestors]

BRIAN BROWN: You can't just say, well, why not just two males, or two females. Why not then three or four? I mean you've done away with the essential meaning of marriage.

BLACKSTONE: But for Jason's mother Joanne, marriage seems exactly the right thing to do.

JOANNE HOWE: This is the beginning of something special and right and liberating.

BLACKSTONE: What is liberating for some, however, is certain to offend many others. As California rewrites the rules of a beloved institution. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco.

 

THE EARLY SHOW

06/16/08

7:00AM TEASER:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And rush to the alter, starting today, same sex couples in California will be allowed to get married. Is America ready to say 'I do' to gay marriage?

7:12AM TEASER

JULIE CHEN: Well, up next, later today California opens its doors to gay marriage. We'll talk to Mr. Sulu from "Star Trek" about his wedding plans.

7:15AM SEGMENT:

JULIE CHEN: Same-sex marriage remains a hot-button issue throughout America. But it seems that tolerance for it appears to be growing. According to a new CBS News poll, 30% of Americans now accept same-sex marriages. However, 36% favor no legal recognition of gay marriages at all. And starting today in some parts of California, same sex couples can get married legally. CBS News correspondent John Blackstone has more.

JOHN BLACKSTONE: The figures atop the wedding cakes in West Hollywood, California tell a story of dramatic social and legal change -- and big business.

TOM ROSA: Wedding consults have jumped dramatically. I mean, I would say our business has probably tripled in the last couple of weeks.

BLACKSTONE: Businesses all over the state are trying to grab a piece of this lucrative new wedding market.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We can do yellow gold, we can do white gold, we can do matching sets.

SUSAN WILCOX: It means an economic boom for California.

BLACKSTONE: On its website, the state tourism board is marketing California weddings to gay couples across the country.

WILCOX: We're hopeful that this is going to bring people to California to renew their vows or solidify their commitment to a significant other.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Diane Olsen, would you marry me?

BLACKSTONE: Two of the plaintiffs in the case that overturned California's ban on gay marriage are set to be married in Beverly Hills at 5:01 today, as soon as the ruling becomes effective. And in San Francisco, Dell Martin and Phyllis Lyon, both in their 80s and together more than 50 years will be married by Mayor Gavin Newsom. He energized the push for gay marriage in 2004 when he opened San Francisco City Hall to a flood of illegal gay weddings.

GAVIN NEWSOM: The idea that I'd ever be associated with the idea of same-sex marriage, you've got to be kidding me. It never even occurred to me five years ago. But, you know what, I believe in the principle of equality and I believe it's the right thing to do.

BLACKSTONE: But many others, of course, believe it's the wrong thing to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN B: Marriage is between an unmarried man and unmarried woman. It's clear.

BLACKSTONE: Citizens in Kern County lined up to tell the board of supervisors they were happy that county clerks stopped performing all weddings rather than perform any gay weddings.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN C: This is a slippery slope we're stepping. If we fall in the abyss, this is the first step and it's downward from here.

BLACKSTONE: More than a million Californians signed the petition to put the issue to a vote in November, a constitutional amendment that would again ban same-sex marriage. But between now and then, the state is bracing for a rush to wed. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco.

CHEN: Among the same-sex couples getting their marriage licenses this week are long-time partners, George Takei and Brad Altman. You no doubt remember George Takei, who played the role of Mr. Sulu on "Star Trek." Gentlemen good morning and congratulations.

GEORGE TAKEI: Thank you very much and good morning.

CHEN: Good morning. So when is the big day, George?

TAKEI: Well, tomorrow's the big day when we get our license at long last. And-

CHEN: No wedding date yet, George?

TAKEI: Oh, we have a date. But it's going to be in September. And we wanted to give ourselves some months to go through the delicious anguish of planning for it.

BRAD ALTMAN: It takes a lot of work to plan for a wedding, Julie. A lot of work.

CHEN: Tell me about it, okay. So Brad, I understand you are the one who proposed to George. Tell me when you did it and how you did it?

ALTMAN: Well, actually George was watching TV and the news flash came on and I dropped to my knees and I said, 'George, will you marry me?' And George said-

TAKEI: Darn it, you beat me to it.

CHEN: You were going to do the same to Brad.

TAKEI: I had my mouth full of sandwich then. So I couldn't quite do it then.

CHEN: Now the two of you have been in a committed relationship with each other for 21 years. Why is it important now to call it marriage?

TAKEI: Well because it is a marriage. You know, they can find other names for it, but separate but equal just doesn't make-

CHEN: Doesn't cut it.

TAKEI: Oh yeah.

ALTMAN: I don't want to be domestically partnered to George Takei. I want to be married to George Takei. And beginning today in California, I can legally marry George Takei. I'm the happiest guy in California today because I get to marry George.

TAKEI: Well I'm the second happiest then.

CHEN: Brad, let me ask you, how much of this is about making a political statement and how much of this is simply about declaring your dedication and devotion to one another?

ALTMAN: Well, it's not about a political statement. It's about legally in California, the California Supreme Court says that everybody is equally entitled to marriage. And this is the first time -- George and I have been together for more than 21 years through good times, bad times, through sickness and health. And finally we can legally marry each other and I'm just thrilled.

CHEN: George-

TAKEI: And to us, it's about love, you know? But it's the climate we're going into that makes it political. But for us, it's love. And we get to make it a marriage.

ALTMAN: That's right.

CHEN: George Takei, Brad Altman. Thank you and best wishes.

ALTMAN: Thank you.

TAKEI: Thank you.

CHEN: You're welcome.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The opposition isn't

The opposition isn't vanishing, it's just not reported, or if it is reported, it's done in a way that twists arguments.  There are plenty of reasons to oppose gay marriage, and plenty of reasons to do so without having a religious belief that is against it.

"And to us, it's about love, you know?"

And this is ultimately the reason why traditionalists feel there is a slippery slope (one of the arguments against gay marriage).  If that is the case, then why isn't there marriage between 3 people who love each other?  Or an adult and a minor (look at NAMBLA's goals) who love each other? 

In 2004 when 11 states had propositions on the ballot that reaffirmed marriage between a man and a woman, all of them passed overwhelmingly!.  The opposition isn't dwindling.  It's being overrun by unelected judges and under-reported or mis-reported by the MSM who is all for gay marriage.

Darth Dutch

"And to us, it's about

"And to us, it's about love, you know?"

All you need is love

I love my mother, but guess what?

As Pee-Wee Herman used to say, "But I wouldn't want to marry her!"

 

"Do you, Pee-Wee, take this fruit salad to be your lawfully wedded wife?"

Yes, and love does not make

Yes, and love does not make a family, as the libs and gays think it does. I love my freinds but they are not family. I love animals but they are not family. I love my country but it's not family. etc. etc.

Although I'm totally

Although I'm totally against any court legislating from the bench. I do think we have bigger fish to fry than being concerned about people getting married. In the list of priorities...this ranks low. However, this is a great example how the democrats get laws in place. They say things like "Every vote should count" then via the court system. Over-ride the voters.

Anyone here heard any news on the progress of our border walls for our "Home Land Security"?

Just asking....cause I haven't.

 

I disagree, the more we

I disagree, the more we allow the court to become tyrants the less influence we the people have. We need to spank the courts, and spank them hard.

how exactly can we "spank"

how exactly can we "spank" the courts?

There are some options

Recall for elected judges. Impeachment for appointed or elected. Continue with referenda, as California pledges to do. Maybe it's even time to think about a Constitutional Convention to re-emplace restrictions on courts overturning legislation because a judge doesn't like it.

No way was the Constitution written to give judges the power to overturn the express will of the people, excepting to enforce the Constitution. Even then, judicial oversight should only apply to specific, enumerated aspects of the Constitution.

The media paints a deceptive picture

This issue is not just about gay marriage anymore but people are mad about activist judges.

We are mad at the judges giving us the finger after we leave the ballet box and telling us our vote doesn't count.

You could say being a conservative living in liberal California our vote doesn't usually count

but this time I think it will.

Power to the People

The only thing vanishing on

The only thing vanishing on Gay marriage is the peoples right to vote against it.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

TAKEI: "...And here I am

TAKEI: "...And here I am now, a popular actor"

Mr.(?) Sulu has transported himself back to 1966.

I read about the guest list

I read about the guest list for Mr Sulu's wedding.  Mr Chekov is going to be the best man, Lt Uhura is going to be the maid of honor, they even invited Mr. Spock.  Captain Kirk wasn't invited.

The nerdy Trek fanboy wants to go just for those reasons.

 

"I don't want your 'us or them'..."  --  The Cure

not exactly

What happened was he went on the Howard Stern show, everyone loved him because he's so honest, and his career skyrocketed (Howard even hired George as show announcer once they switched to Sirius). The thing we like about George is his honesty and his great sense of humor (they prank George all the time). Most fans, like me, don't particularly care that he's a homosexual who has lived with a boyfriend, Brad, for years. Anyway, it's 2008, and George Takei is making plenty of money in acting and his other business ventures, which include a bank.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

George NOT a horse-toothed jackass

Sarc- I'm an ex-Howard fan, but only b/c I don't feel like ponying up for Sirius. I fondly remember George when he was a frequent guest on Howard's show on K-Rock radio here in NYC area. He does have a great sense of humor, and always came across as pretty much unflappable, even vs Howard.

BABABOOEY! 

That old ploy, eh?

The "internment camps" comment by Mr. Sulu is the ever-present ploy of likening the "gay rights" struggle to that of civil rights in the 60s, or suffrage for women in the 20s. Liken homosexuality to skin color or gender-- if people buy it, you've won the argument.

But do you know of any former black people (and Michael Jackson doesn't count)? Former women (transexuals don't count because chromosomes can't be changed surgically)? Yet, there are former homosexuals. Check out Exodus International if you want more info on that.

I'm really sick and tired of this ploy, but it seems to be working on so many mush-minded folks. When a lie gets repeated enough times, it starts to sound like truth.

Don't fall for it. Homosexuality is the only "protected class" that is defined by desires and behavior. Gender is not that way, nor is race. Homosexuality is not morally neutral!

It seems to me that the best

It seems to me that the best argument for homosexuals is that their preference is a genetic mutation that hinders them from procreating. Perhaps it is a mental disorder? Either way, it should be a discouraged choice or a malady they should be more interested in curing. So, basically homosexuality is controlled or uncontrolled perversion of love unfit to be recognized by the institution of marriage. It's a slippery slope indeed. If I were either born with or decided upon a perversion of love(sexual or romantic) with children, farm animals, polar bears, or perchance my neighbor's mustang convertible, would the leftists embrace it and seek to protect me from any scrutiny?

children, farm animals, polar bears, or perchance my neighbor's

children, farm animals, polar bears, or perchance my neighbor's mustang convertible

You have actually considered soiling your neighbor’s Mustang convertible?  Well ... okay.  I would stay away from the polar bears, though.  They aren’t as cuddly as the MSM makes them out to be. 

On second thought, perhaps you should attend church this Sunday.  From your post I believe the Good Lord has some serious work to do with you.

 

"How many legs does a dog

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
--Abraham Lincoln

Likewise with gay "marriage".  It is simply another attempt by the left to redefine a term to fit their worldview, and to hell with us eeeeeeeevvvvvvviiiiiillllllll right-wingers.  Next, there will be an attempt at the Federal level to force all States to recognize this California law, citing "good faith and credit" arguments, etc.

Notice the ABSENCE or DISREGARD of a ballot box in any step of this process.

if state popular vote

if state popular vote determined everything, jim crow would have lasted for years beyond what it did. just something to think about as it relates to civil rights.

This is truly a sad day for

This is truly a sad day for America.  I weep for this great nation of ours.  Truly sad. 

This is a distortion of marriage, this is an attack against the institution of marriage. 

and just wait and see.  You know, Liberals always claim that this is between consenting adults, right?

Well, in some European nations, like Holland, a consenting "adult" when it comes to sex can be a twelve year old boy or girl. 

The only woman in our Supreme Court has actually given speeches pushing for the consensual sex age to be 12 in America. 

While I do believe that many homosexuals have convinced themselves that this is all about love, there is a militant, evil gay movement, that uses these confused, emotionally destroyed individuals to push their homosexual agenda.

It is not hard to find quotes from hateful, militant gay groups who have publicy acknowledged that the only reason they want homosexuals to be able to marry is to undermine and destroy Western, Christian culture. 

Let us also not forget that groups like the ACLU are full of lawyers who have been caught with homosexual underage ponography, and let us not even talk about the Elephant in the room, the fact that the disgusting "priest" scandals-the majority of "priests" who abused the children were homosexual. 

Let us love and be charitable to homosexuals, but we must hate their sin. 

and we must speak out against gay marriage and the activist judges who are taking away the right of the people to vote. 

It never ceases to amaze me, these same Democrats who don't mind activist judges to overide the will of the people, will constantly preach to everyone that every vote counts....

I guess every vote counts if and only if that votes agrees with the Liberal agenda. 

Truly a sad day for America.  :(

Adam eating the forbidden

Adam eating the forbidden fruit was the sad day IMHO, fut...

today is just the same old Satan-as-usual:)...

Do you really think that

Do you really think that stopping gay marriage will be the salvation of the sacred institution of marriage?

Let's take a look at the sacred institution of marriage.  We live in a country where half of the marriages end in divorce.  We live in a country where total strangers are encouraged to get married on television for the sake of winning a million dollars.  We live in a country where "swingers" and "swappers" hold parties to have sex with each other's spouses.  We live in a country where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator in a bathrobe at 3:00 in the morning and have the marriage dissolved by midnight the same day.

And yet the biggest threat to the sacred institution of marriage is letting gays in on it?   Seriously, I will be incredibly impressed the day these "ProtectMarriage" groups take the millions that they spend in court cases to prevent gay marriage and use that money to address the multitude of real problems that are already happening to the sacred institution of marriage.

Not only will I be impressed.  I might actually start respecting them and quit mumbling "Hypocrites" under my breath.

 

"I don't want your 'us or them'..."  --  The Cure

stopping gay marriage will

stopping gay marriage will be a must, along with tackling the divorce rate and these other ills you mention - the Catholic Church has a fantastic growing program for all of it called "Retrouvaille" that works wonders for restoring marriages back to health...

Thanks to the lost boomer generation the institution of marriage is certainly in SOS mode right now - but it will get the help it needs - after all it's God's institution - our model for the church in general - and He will remain faithful to it...

and as you celebrate these constant attacks on the institution I'm actually pretty enthused...energized...these gay marriage attempts get the sorely needed spotlight on marriage in general...

realism

Pointing out the alleged shortcomings of a reality or an institution does not invalidate it. An old Jewish guy said, "let marriage be held in honor and the bed undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Many before us have believed that there is a God; that He ordained marriage; that He desires it to be honored and that He will judge the people who defile it. It's appropriate to warn homosexuals and the frivolous that they are making a mistake.

In my hiearchy of concerns, homosexual marriage ranks about...

...147th or so.

Friends, I hate to say it, but we have far more pressing problems facing us as a nation than whether or not two guys (or girls) marry each other out in California.

At the end of the day, are any of you really affected by this?

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

why yes, we are! and your

why yes, we are!

and your salvation is my top priority... 

thanks for asking:)

RD - It's not the marriage but how it came about

I believe most of us who don't think it's a good idea but support civil unions, wouldn't have a problem with it if it were a law made by the people.

The grave concern here is not whether Gay people can get married or not, it's that the Courts are thwarting the will of the people for no good reason. They are imposing their beliefs on everyone else and they are not elected and it's not right.

If you don't care about this then you won't care if they make new law to do away with the 1st and 2nd amendments either. It's all related. The courts are way out of control and need to be reined in. It's very important.

"...it's that the Courts

"...it's that the Courts are thwarting the will of the people for no good reason..."

The view is that despite whatever the public might vote, equality before law despite sexual orientation is a priority. So, say in the 1950s in which Southern populations would not vote to give Blacks equal rights, would it be appropriate for the Justice system to override the "will of the people?" Of course it would. A similar case is presented with gay marriage.

Sometimes, in the same state, the will of the people is thwarted

To the sound of deafening silence, as this cartoon illustrates all-too-well. But I still have a money-headache today when thinking about all of this...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

"So, say in the 1950s in

"So, say in the 1950s in which Southern populations would not vote to
give Blacks equal rights, would it be appropriate for the Justice
system to override the "will of the people?" Of course it would. A
similar case is presented with gay marriage."

Then don't put it up to a vote if you're only going to change it by judicial fiat because you didn't get the result you wanted. In fact, why vote on anything? Just let the all-knowing Supreme Courts of the land, state and federal, decide everything. You know, like a court system that gave us the Dred Scott decision.

Marriage is not a civil or constitutional right treshan

if it is then you have to allow it for everyone regardless of whether they are sexually intimate or not. Mother-daughter, Mother-son,Father-daughter, Father-son, sister-brother,friend-friend, Aunt-niece, etc etc etc.....

Many people never find a permanent sexual life partner. Why should they be discriminated against?  Why do gay people get special rights over all these combinations?  

Treshan. 

Treshan.  Giving homosexuals the "right" to marry actually puts gay males at a financial disadvantage over lesbian couples.  Yes, I'm saying it's sexual discrimination to allow them to marry.  It only looks funny on the outside.  But when you look at the divorce and child custody laws, it actually works to the detriment of the gay male. 

http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/liberals-conservatives-can-agree-oppose-gay-marriage-18561

The problem is that the radical wing of the gay left simply hasn't thought about this issue enough.  Furthermore, they're parroting a patriarchal religious tradition when they should be opposing it.  Someone's leading them all around by the nose, and it sure isn't the "evangelical right."

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Dee, sometimes, courts thwarting the "will of the people" can

Dee, sometimes, courts thwarting the "will of the people" can be a good thing (although I am not saying this is one of those times.)

There is such a thing as the "tyranny of the majority."

As you noted, suppose the majority of the people in this country decide that they do not want private citizens owning guns?

The majority is not always right.

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

RD - but the people can't decide against the constitution

without an Amendment to it. There is no constitutional right to Gay marriage.

Constitutionals amendments take more than a simple majority for good reason. Our founders knew what they were doing. Many of our judges don't.

So a majority of people would never be able to overturn gun rights, or any other rights, only a radical court that didn't follow the constitution does that.

Dee... ...and thank God

Dee...

...and thank God for the foresight of our forefathers....

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

Dee, I agree to a point.

Problem is, there really is no constitutional right to heterosexual marriage, either-just as there is no constitutional right to vote in a national election.

However, there are numerous rights we have enjoyed over the years, many of which we have lost, that were not specifically laid out in the Constitution.

As one who is more libertarian than most, I usually apply the template that, if what someone does is not a threat to the life, liberty, or property of someone else, then it should not be illegal.

I firmly believe the founders of this country felt similarly.

While many may oppose the idea of "gay marriage" on moral grounds, such marriages do not infringe on the rights of others in any way.

Personally, I am not a supporter of gay marriage, as the institution of marriage was set up mostly to protect the children who would be products of said marriages.

Children are not really an issue in gay mariages.

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

RD Children are the whole point of marriage

There is no constitutional right to heterosexual marriage but there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it. It's a law made by the people. People can make laws, not judges. Like I said before, if it's a right then you have to extend it to all other possible combinations including Father/daughter, sister/sister etc....

Marriage is all about encouraging the best (not the only) family structure. The best thing for children (all other things being equal) is to have a mother and a father.

Civil unions could provide Gay people with all the "rights" they need in terms of insurance and other things without discriminating against other non traditional families. There are many families made up of a Mother/Daughter/Grandson for example. A civil union could recognize that as well. Some people never find a permanent sexual partner and they shouldn't be discriminated against. Gay people shouldn't get special rights

RD,

RD:  While many may oppose the idea of "gay marriage" on moral grounds, such marriages do not infringe on the rights of others in any way.

I myself do not oppose the idea of "gay marriage" on my own personal moral grounds.  

See my link. 

Such marriages actually do infringe on the rights of others. 

See my link on that also. 

RD:  Children are not really an issue in gay mariages.

They aren't?  Are you sure?  See my link.  Gay marriage actually serves to expand the bureaucracy; not reduce it. 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Update on previous links (This one's for you 2, Cureboy)

The old talking points are old.  Time for an original idea or two.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david61.htm

“[Heterosexual] marriage is the first, and the greatest guarantor of human equality in history. It is the only civil rights institution that eliminates all natural and culturally-imposed social, economic, physical, and gender disparities of men and women. It is heterosexual marriage which forms the whole cloth of the human race.”  -Usher

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Okay, well I don't have a

Okay, well I don't have a clue who David R Usher is. But I don't think I agree that the issue of gay marriage is being furthered by feminists who want, I'm quoting now "at least six
incomes: the earnings of two mothers, at least two sets of child support
orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements."

If these wild and wacky feminists wanted the aforementioned six incomes, they would be able to swing that right now by simply living together and they wouldn't even need to be legally married.

I couldn't go on much further after that...He pretty much lost me there.

But unless they're brainwashing me in my sleep, I'm pretty sure the feminist agenda hasn't been influencing me in this matter.

 

 

"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure

Cureboy,

I notice you're reacting emotionally to the content of the article in the same way many liberals accuse conservatives of emotionally reacting to gay marriage.   How come you're not broad-minded enough to consider the potentials that Mr. Usher is pointing at here?

CB:  Okay, well I don't have a clue who David R Usher is.

So you're saying you only agree with people you know?  What about the content?  Did you skim it or actually consider the content?

CB:  But I don't think I agree that the issue of gay marriage is being furthered by feminists who want, I'm quoting now "at least six
incomes: the earnings of two mothers, at least two sets of child support
orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements."

Crazy isn't it?  Why. . .no one in their right mind would just walk up and demand entitlements like that from the government, would they?  That's why you lobby for it. 

CB:  If these wild and wacky feminists wanted the aforementioned six incomes, they would be able to swing that right now by simply living together and they wouldn't even need to be legally married.

How?

CB:  I couldn't go on much further after that...He pretty much lost me there.

Of course.  You believe in agenda driven groups such as "big oil" and the "military industrial complex" but "big feminsim" is just plain silly.   

CB:  But unless they're brainwashing me in my sleep, I'm pretty sure the feminist agenda hasn't been influencing me in this matter.

Depends on how old you are.  Maybe you were raised on it like I was.

QUOTE:  "With profit options and sexual freedoms like this, who would want to marry a man in California, except for perhaps another man? Those who imagine this will not happen in large numbers should recall that nobody thought the divorce revolution would result in a 50% divorce rate and the massive marriage-absence problem that has left the federal deficit wildly out of control.

California has now gone into the business of state-sponsored serial polymory. The parallels to the FLDS case in Texas are astonishing – only the sexes are reversed. However, instead of have a few religious nuts running a small sect, we have an entire state becoming one under color of Constitutional law"

Thus, the polyamory-pets-pedophile argument has already taken the first step.  It's no longer a hypothetical.

But sadly, our friend Cureboy is too narrow-minded to consider it.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

You're right. It does make

You're right. It does make me emotional. Especially when people make that argument about pets and pedophiles, where two consenting adults are not involved. And I don't think polygamy should apply either as an analogy, because it is not a scenario that implies monogamy or that whole "Forsaking all others" bit.

That bit about "I don't have a clue who David R Usher is". I admit that was a childish remark and I apologize for that.

But absolutely, two women living together (without being married) could have the six-income dream. If they both had jobs and if they both had children from seperate men and both men were paying child support. However, I'm not sure they'd qualify for welfare in any case (Most people who have even one job don't qualify for welfare)

But you're right. I don't believe in a "feminist" agenda...Just like, I'm assuming, that you don't believe in a "big oil" agenda. So please don't consider me the only inflexible and unyielding person on the planet.

 

"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure

no they are not. how

no they are not. how convenient that 1)those who purport the "sanctity" of marriage also forget the "sanctity" of a 50% divorce rate. 2) those against gay marriage want the gov't out of their lives in so many other ways. but they conveniently want to step into the private lives of other individuals.

we fight divorce too:)! but

we fight divorce too:)! but we never gets any press on that either dammit...

it's almost like the MSM loves to ignore us...?

and it's almost like we should set up a news bias busting web site for it...

but no we like government control when it comes to morality - and if we can ban immoral second-hand smoke and Jesus from graduation then we can sure as hell ban gay/ped/animal sex!!!

so who's with me? pitchforks everyone!!! the beast is loose...

Amen, RD

People want to talk and think about sex, and it's tiresome for me. Homosexuals actually express a desire to be monogamous and "conservatives" (who'd previously decried "the gay lifestyle") go apoplectic as I yawn, loudly.

And it's not like I'm any more capable than the rest of you of even imagining a number the size of 45.5 TRILLION, or was it $60 TRILLION... I think about buckets of sand & entire beaches, and it makes my head hurt. Oh, and just as a point of comparison, the CIA says the entire world's GDP is $65 TRILLION. But there's homos gettin' married!!
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

you could care less about

you could care less about ped marriage then...?

murder laws no big deal? theft?

let's get some liberty going dammit

Hallucinating

Won't help. RD has given you a dose of reality, and you don't like how I seasoned it. Deal with it.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

 When I saw

 

When I saw hallucinating in the subject line, I just knew it was you sarc, I wonder why?

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Because I apparently cause a lot of people

To hallucinate? I mean, see above. I call 'em like I see 'em, and if that's not a hallucination, then someone's got vision/reading issues! Anyway, my main issue isn't with trying to make TM any less nutty. Instead, it's with the pending monetary fiasco financial "journalists" (and I use the term loosely!!) seem to want to ignore, despite its size. 
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

It's a big joke now

 but the left won't be digging it when sharia law takes over, muslims are prolific homos but they don't go for it in public.

But the left digs sharia law

It does seem ironic that the left runs from Christianity as if there is some kind of call for a Christian theocracy, and then they turn around and defend sharia law which by definition is an Islamic theocracy.  At some point they may wake up and realize that Christians will not cut your head off for being gay.  By then it will probably be too late.

..it's very telling

..it's very telling actually - I would venture to say the left fears Christ way more than sharia law - which makes perfect sense - considering where they get their daily marching orders:)...

That's right

That's right, the devil himself.

bingo:)

bingo:)

Truthie, where are you getting ped marriage from?

No one is advocating that. However, in the early days of this country, many people became parents at far younger ages than is considered permissable today. Given that life expectancies were less than half of what they are now, this is entirely understandable.

And as far as murder and theft goes, you clearly are wholly unfamiliar with libertarian philosophy.

Both Murder and theft are a direct assault on the life, liberty, and property of others. As such, they are strictly forbidden among libertarians.

Libertarians believe in the freedom of the individual. Period.

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

No one is advocating


No one is advocating that.

RD you dont get out much do you? There are groups advocating just that or at the very least legalizing pediphelia. The recent mormon groups advocating multiple wives are practicing pedephia marraige with children of 13 and 14 pregnant. In the Netherlands there are groups running teh country advocating such also.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

He meant nobody in this thread, which was 100% correct

Unless you count the hallucinations, which looked a lot like an attempt to evade a certain non-sexy, possibly even fiscal, topic...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Sarc if he meant that then

Sarc if he meant that then he should have said so or clarify it. I saw it as a remark including the whole of the world. Words are powerful.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I disagree, it was beyond obvious

I mean, look where it started...A hallucination from TM which had nothing whatsoever to do with what I'd just said, to the point that RD, who wasn't hallucinating and seems to be a logical person, asked the hallucinator a logical question: "WTF?"
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Ok time to stoop low. 

Ok time to stoop low.  This comment from one who beleives in Ron Paul when it was beyond obvious Ron Paul is a wacko and had no chance in getting the GOP nod much less the POTUS.  Yep, I believe in aliens from outer space will come down and make Obama mesiah more than that.

The clarification is needed.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Only

For the dimwitted, as I showed...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Sarc, I agree.

This country is literally teetering on the brink of financial ruin, yet so many seem overly consumed with concern over who George Takai, along with others like him, is choosing to spend the rest of his life with.

Normally, I would attribute this to skewed priorities. However, in this case, I think it is something more.

We have to get beyond sticking our noses in the private lives of others who are harming no one.

This whole issue is beginning to remind me of homeowner-association Nazis, who think they should be able to use the force of law to prevent others from doing what they please, merely because they don't like what said people are doing.

Damn, whatever happened to the concept of freedom? 

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

RD

"consumed with concern over who George Takai, along with others like him, is choosing to spend the rest of his life with"

This is a common framing of the issue from the left.  At face value, it sounds quite reasonable.  However, this is not the issue.  The issue has to do with expanding the timeless, trans-cultural definition of marriage, from the very foundation of the world.  It also has to do with a transgression against tranditional long-held religious beliefs, again, pretty much held by all religions until very recently.  Right now, CA law would require me to acknowledge George Takai and his live-in-lover as spouses, but deeply held convictions say otherwise.  The term "marriage" has always referred to the special relationship between a man and woman.  This relationship is "set aside" among all others precisely because of the sacred procreation of new human persons that proceeds out of it.  All of us here are the product of this relationship between man and woman (whether they were formally married or not).  I'm sorry for rambling, but I just don't know how much more commonsensical it can get.  Have we lost our minds?  Is there lead in the pipes causing us to go mad?  No one here cares what George Takai does in the privacy of his home.  But to "get married" is to publically and legally declare what he is doing.  Unfortunately, this is now a 100% public issue, not a private  one.  Pope John Paul would beg to differ with you -- he felt that the institution of marriage is the most important issue of our times.

"Entered by man and woman: The complementarity of the sexes is essential to marriage. There is such widespread confusion today about the nature of marriage that some would wish to extend a legal “right” to marry to two persons of the same sex. The very nature of marriage makes such a proposition impossible."

-- Pope John Paul II

Well put

lotr,

Well put.  RD does not seem to see that a sacred tradition that has held mankind together for countless centuries is being spat upon by those who force their beliefs on us, which we have no recourse to argue against as we are seen to be homophobic.

No, not homophobic, but protecting the true definition of "marriage".

expatriot

Marriage, the most intimate of relationships, being the utter foundation of any society. 

Stability (and growth) in marriage ==> Stability (and growth) in society.

Marriage is not a private matter -- it is public, by definition.  Persons get married in the company of witness, proclaim their marriage to the world, and demand governmental acknowledgment of it.  It is public.  And we have every right and duty to oppose any radical reconfiguring of its primordial form and purpose.

Exactly

To try to change the institution for a social experiment is damaging to all of society.   This experiment in CA will be short lived once the referendum is put on the ballot and the court is overturned.

CNN Radio News No Better

I was listening to CNN this morning on the radio and they did a report on gay marriage here in California and there was ZERO mention of dissenting points of view on gay marriage.  There was ZERO mention of the controversial way in which it was legalized by the courts.  There was ZERO mention of the upcoming constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  In fact it was just the opposite.  The reporter lauded this as a "new era" for homosexuals and played a quote on how this is an issue of "human rights."

Folks, this is not journalism anymore, this is propaganda.

Thats right Dave, welcome

Thats right Dave, welcome to NB 

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Well djd... You do

Well djd...

You do realize according to the msm there are not any opposing voices about any of this...in Ca., let alone the rest of the country!

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson