Kent Jones, a guest on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," branded the MRC's Culture and Media Institute a "usual suspect" in the fight against gay marriage.
Dubbed the "matrimonial recreation correspondent" by Maddow, Jones mocked conservative arguments against gay marriage during a report of George Takei's (Mr. Sulu for the Trekkies out there) scheduled appearance on the "Newlywed Game" alongside his spouse, Brad Altman.
Jones noted that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Iowa "didn't cause the apocalypse" and called Takei and Altman's appearance on the game show a "little marital victory," before launching into the "Star Trek" jokes:
Once again "Star Trek`s" George Takei boldly goes where no one has gone before. Takei and his husband Brad Altman are going to be the first same-sex couple on the new "Newlywed Game" hosted by Carnie Wilson. Mr. Sulu, Prop 8 on the starboard bow, fire proton torpedoes.
Of course, any time gay people get to do anything they never got to do before, the usual suspects make the usual noises. Huffed The Culture and Media Institute, quote, "They`re trying to use TV and the movies to set the gay agenda and make it mainstream."
Yes. Imagine that kind of thing in the mainstream.
Jones' CMI quote came from a September 17 Associated Press article that cited Dan Gainor, the MRC's vice-president of business and culture, on Takei's appearance.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Let the people vote.
September 22, 2009 - 14:53 ET by sevenWe vote against gay marriage.
So you're for states that approve gay marriage?
September 22, 2009 - 18:12 ET by chronicThe younger generation is strongly in favor of allowing same-sex marriages. All the arguments against same-sex marriages won't matter in a few years when it is nationally accepted.
Just like racism and the Civil Rights, some people are so fearful of change that they believe their own lies. Once people are allowed the same equallity as all citizens, then our country will be closer to the America that Jefferson dreamed about.
Confusion
September 23, 2009 - 08:13 ET by KC MulvilleYou may be right, in that young people may drive the vote to allow gay marriage. But let's not confuse the result for the argument. The argument is bad. It may win, for emotional or rhetorical reasons, but it's intellectually poor.
The argument for gay marriage is shallow. It's simply a broad appeal for equality, skipping over the details. But the details do matter.
Why do they argue to young people? Why can't they convince more experienced citizens? Surely you can't believe that it's because young people are more morally innocent, freed from the prejudices of the past. You might as well argue that young people are closer to their "inner child." No. These arguments only work on the shallow-minded. That's why young people are more likely to fall for them. That's why they target young people, because young people are the only ones shallow enough to accept shallow arguments.
As a practical matter, they may actually win, especially since the media promote the shallow argument and never broadcast any other.
You may be right. The push for gay marriage, wrong though it may be, might actually win because of the cynical manipulation of young and impressionable voters. But don't pretend that victory makes it right. It's a bad argument.
The sanctity of marriage?
September 23, 2009 - 14:14 ET by chronicAs Chris Rock said Marraige lost all sanctity a long time ago. When there are shows like "Who wants to marry a millionaire" and celebrity marriages that barely last longer than the movie the couple is promoting.
The argument for gay marriage is shallow. It's simply a broad appeal for equality...
An appeal for equality is a bad thing? The Golden Rule is an appeal for equality. If marriage is simply to build a family, than all sterile people should not be allowed to marry by your logic. Or even older people past the age of reproducing are banned.
Why do they argue to young people? Why can't they convince more experienced citizens?
Young people are still forming their opinions and more likely to listen to both sides. Not like the people here that are so sheltered from the "liberal" side that you become regurgitators of Rush, Hannity, and Beck instead of thinking for yourself.
Well, if Chris Rock said it ...
September 23, 2009 - 19:35 ET by KC Mulville"Marraige lost all sanctity a long time ago" ?
I deny that. But even if true, why bother then? If marriage doesn't mean anything, then why do gays feel affronted by it? By your very concern over it, you contradict the idea that marriage has no sanctity.
An appeal for equality is a bad thing?
Your rhetoric is disingenuous. When I say that the argument for gay marriage is simply a broad appeal, you try to turn it into a supposed rejection of "equality" in general. That's obviously not what I was doing, and your attempt to make it sound that way is fairly easy to reveal.
I'll give you an example of the same. Suppose you say that "George Bush trampled on human rights in the name of security" and I reply that "Security is a bad thing?" You'd be correct that I was twisting your words. But that's exactly the same formula you used above.
Young people are still forming their opinions and more likely to listen to both sides
Quite the contrary. Young people tend to follow the opinions of those around them, which means that critical reasoning is trumped by group dynamics. Young people lack the experience, comparatively, to evaluate arguments on their own weight.
One thing I admit I don't understand ... what's the fun in coming to a website to simply insult people? Do you imagine that you're Zorro, fencing with your opponents and winning by slashing Zs across them, intellectually? I mean, is that really all that much fun?
KC you argue very well
September 24, 2009 - 10:47 ET by chronicIt's people like you that makes me come to this site. Sorry if I ranted a bit, reading some of the posts will do that. However, you stay polite and cordial in your arguments and I concede some of the points you make.
If our politicians argued like this, I think they would accomplish a lot more. I disagree with your view on this issue, but I did not mean to offend you as a person.
That is why I think that marriage as a religious union should be seperated from the government recognizing same-sex couples with the same rights and benefits provided to married couples.
Fair enough for me
September 24, 2009 - 11:27 ET by KC MulvilleI can respect that. So, let's have a little fun.
These are all the same basic question: When two people come to the courthouse to "get married," exactly what are they doing?
Mind you - even though I'm an ex-Jesuit, I don't believe that we should discuss marriage in civil society from a religious point of view. Religions can always sanction marriages however they want. But since this is a civil question, it always has to be dealt with as a non-religious issue.
As it is, however, I assert that the connection between marriage and family has always been there, long before organized religions got anywhere near marriage as an institution. Family is of the essence of the contract.
I pause for reply ...
Good questions
September 24, 2009 - 13:52 ET by chronicI think marriage is a tool used to help build the American Dream. Denying that to people based on their sexuality is wrong to me. Marriage has been so trampled upon with cheating Senators, celebrities, and others that the arguement for protecting the sanctity of marriage should have been raised long ago.
The contract is between the couple and the government that the couple is commited and will share their lives and possessions with eachother (unless noted elsewhere in the prenup, but then why get married if you don't trust the person).
Parenthood and marriage are completely seperate as you don't have to be married to have a child. The support government provides for parents should be different than marriage.
Marriage is more about sharing property than a love contract. Not saying I agree, that's just the way it's become. You don't need to be married to prove your love to a person. But you do need to be married to share insurance, make hospital visits, own property together.
On a persoal note, my brother got married this June and it was the best wedding I've ever been to. It was a small ceremony, but such an intamate feel to it. It was my parents, the bride's parents, siblings and spouses (1 baby) and my girlfriend and I. Something about being able to have a ritual of exchanging rings or smashing a glass that I feel everyone should be able to experience. If nothing else, all commited couples deserve the same rights from their goverment.
Anthropology says ...
September 24, 2009 - 15:40 ET by KC MulvilleWell, that might explain why the two people want to commit to each other. It doesn't explain why the state would get involved. Marriage isn't just a commitment between two people. It's a contract enforced by the state. Why, do you think, does the state get involved?
It has nothing to do with the American dream. We had marriage a long time before America came along.
Anthropology has the answer. When humans evolved, at some point, the brain grew too large to make it through the birth canal. Nature adapted. Most of human development was postponed until after birth, which means that for a long time, children couldn't take care of themselves. Humans adapted again; mothers put their own lives on hold and took care of children. But by doing that, she couldn't provide for herself at the same time. Humans adapted to that; fathers provided for the whole family. Naturally, the system depended on females trusting that the males would stick around and take care of their responsibilities. How could a female ensure that the man stuck around? Humans adapted to that: a female wouldn't consent to sex unless she had a contract, enforced by the (clan, tribe, empire, nation-state, etc.) government, that the male would fulfill his responsibilities.
That's how marriage developed. Without children, marriage makes little sense. Think about it - why would some societies allow a man to have multiple wives, but not women? It isn't mere sexism, although sexism was surely a part of it. The answer is more practical. Marriage was a method to ensure that fathers took care of their responsibilities. But if a man was willing to take care of multiple women and their children, well after all, that's what marriage was about, right? Men taking care of women and children? We may think that's screwy, but it makes sense to other societies because that's what marriage is about. King David had plenty of wives. Solomon had hundreds. Why not? They took care of their responsibilities. That only makes sense if you remember that this is how most societies, including ours, understood marriage. Marriage is a contract that demands that fathers take care of the mothers who bear them children.
If you want to "tell the world" that you love someone, great. Rent a billboard. Why get the rest of us involved? Why would the state care who you loved? Why would the state enforce a contract based on whose body you like to fondle? We don't care. If marriage is just about how you feel about someone else, you're wasting our time. But if marriage is about family, meaning children, then it makes perfect sense. Marriage is a contract that the state enforces; you have to take care of your responsibilities.
Same sex partners can't have children together. Biology says so. Therefore, if marriage is simply a public declaration of love, the state has no reason to enforce any contract about responsibilities- there aren't any.
That's why I say that the argument for gay marriage is shallow. It presumes that marriage is merely a statement of love. And if that's all it is, why shouldn't equality be applied, and allow everyone to love? Well, you'd be right ... if marriage was merely a statement of love. It isn't. If that's all it was, the state wouldn't bother to get involved. The state is only involved because of any children that they bear together.
Difference between parenthood and marriage?
September 28, 2009 - 14:44 ET by chronicDo you think there's a difference between marriage and parenthood?
Your explanation for how marriage has evolved sounds pretty accurate. I don't think women had much say setting up marriage contracts. I think your evidence of why polygamy is usually male dominated demonstrates how little voice women had in the matter.
Marriage should be enforced by the state for all its citizens, not just the ones that have children. If marriage is only to create children there is the problem of sterile people not being allowed to marry. Or elderly past the age of childbearing. Also what do you mean by David and Solomon taking care of their responsibilities? Parenting is more than just providing income and food for the family. It is teaching your children how to survive in this world and hopefully live a good life.
Marriage is not just a statement of love, because it is exactly as you stated a contract between a citizen and the government. It is also beneficial for the government to have it's citizens married, because it will hopefully make them happy. And happy citizens are more productive and less likely to commit crimes. So why would a government want to exclude a group of people from this mutually beneficial relationship?
I think your rebuttal to my arguments were a little weak this time. It seems that we agree on what marriage is, just not who it should be for. So if you can explain to me why it makes sense to refuse same-sex couples the rights of married couples? If marriage is only for parents, then the government is providing unneccessary priveleges to couples without children? Marriage is more like a contract of a small business and the government gives you a few kickbacks as a reward. Can't anyone open a business in the land of possibilities?
It was hard to avoid...the joke about "boldy going where
September 22, 2009 - 14:56 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltno man has gone before" immediately conjured up images of Maddow and...well, you take it from there.
Jones noted that the
September 22, 2009 - 15:12 ET by Dan The Man 2Jones noted that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Iowa "didn't cause the apocalypse"
What some of these people dont understand is if the differnt states want to lets homosexuals have "marriages" then taht is up to the individual states. We cant help the mental disorders the voters in those states have. The problem comes with attempting to make it cross state lines and be legal in other states that dont want to recognize such marriages.
And I wonder what this clown and Maddow have on allowing multiple persons or animals or object or children whether they be related or not in on the "marriages". The whole idea of a homosexual "marriage" is the exclusion and if we take this to the logical conclusion then how can we exclude anyone or thing?
The Watch Day 15
I didn't realize whole states felt the same on this issue
September 22, 2009 - 18:30 ET by chronicWe cant help the mental disorders the voters in those states have. The problem comes with attempting to make it cross state lines and be legal in other states that dont want to recognize such marriages.
Everyone from IA and MA is probably not a fan of your post. When the news channels show the election result maps, you realize that the red and blue is to show the way the majority in that particular state voted (not the entire state).
The issue is not about polygamy and beastiality(?) but same-sex marriages. To try and fling that other stuff is just a smear campaign. A lot of people on this site seem Christian, so you should know that Jesus was the one to accept outcasts and embrace the leper. Actually seeing homosexuals as humans might open your eyes to the ridiculousness of this issue. Stop oppressing people for being different.
chronic
September 22, 2009 - 21:48 ET by Tugboat PhilTo not mention what will be the next step in the "changing" of marriage is to ignore recent history. The abject disdain for tobacco started with airline customers wanting a seperate section of the plane. Women wanting to serve on Navy ships has lead to women essentially being in combat. Wanting to "free" all the mentally insane patients in state hospitals has given us the majority of homeless on the streets.
People in this country are never satisfied with the status quo. No sooner is one court battle won than someone else wants to push it a step further. Making same sex marriage legal is not allowing anyone to do anything they can't already do. It is changing the legal definition of the word marriage.
If you think there aren't people in America that want to change the legal definition ofthe words, "consenting" and "adult," then you are either naive or not thinking clearly. I didn't just say that homosexuals are pedophiles, but expanding the definition of marriage to the result that you want does NOT mean the game is over.
The "victory" in Iowa and other states is merely signalling everyone else with a sexual desire that deviates from the norm, that the field is open for play. If this post is around in another 30 years, you'll see what I mean. Last I checked, no one had provided the definite proof that homosexuals are genetically different than other humans. They can already get legally married in all 50 states...with someone of the opposite sex.
Gun Control - The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
outstanding, phil
September 23, 2009 - 01:37 ET by konoWell-articulated rebuttal, concisely tying together a swarm of related tragedies that have been foisted on us by Liberal incrementalism.
If only life was stuck back in the 50's...
September 23, 2009 - 14:02 ET by chronicI'm not sure I understand your point about smoking on airplanes, women serving in combat, and changes in mental institutions. Are you saying that it was better when people could smoke on planes, only men fighting, and electro-shock therapy was a cure all.
Yes, change has to be made in small steps. Your point about homosexuality being illegal is a good point about how society has become more tolerant of people that are different from you. Changing legal definitions is what legislation is all about, and I cannot figure out why everybody is scared to allow all people the benefits of marriage.
The seperation of church and state should require that government acknowledge unions of couples regardless of sexuality. If you truly believe that same-sex marriage is against your religion, that is up to your church and your personal belief. It is wrong for the government to exclude a group of people based on their lifestyle, when they are not hurting anyone.
Jesus did not accept an
September 22, 2009 - 22:21 ET by Dan The Man 2Jesus did not accept an unrepentant sinner into Heaven, He as God said one was not to have sex with animals or lie with a man as one would a woman. You like all liberal tools convieniently forget who wor what Jesus is and what He wants from us. And I could care less if I have fewer fans in Iowa or Massachusettes.
No the issue is about changing the definition of marriage, and saying it is oppressing homosexuals by not recognizing their "marriage". So if we are changing the definition lets go whole hog and really change it. But, you deny the argument and call it fallacious.
Remember at first homos did not want to petition for marriage only the legal rights to each other property andcivil bonding not equal to marriage. Well first they wanted to decrimialize homo behaviour and then they got homo behavior normalized in the psychologyand then they wanted to make it normal in the eyes of adults then kids. Criminalize referencs crimes against homos, thought crimes. In Europe they do this regularly.
No it is a slow decline and in Holland there is a political party that has seats in government that wants to legalize raping minors. NAMBLA so to speak.
Iowans didn't vote for gay marriage.
September 22, 2009 - 22:33 ET by nkviking75For the record, the only Iowans who have had a chance to vote on gay marriage are on the state Supreme Court. In order to vote on it, two successive legislatures would have to pass a constitutional amendment before it would be submitted to the voters. With a Democrat dominated legislature, that process couldn't even start until 2011 at the earliest. OR next year we have a once in a decade chance to vote for a constitutional convention.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
So its like Mass was passed
September 22, 2009 - 23:03 ET by Dan The Man 2So its like Mass was passed before the leg oked it? IRRC Mass supremes said it was against the const of the state and when the legislature got around to it they passed a law saying it was ok.
Will this be a remake of...
September 22, 2009 - 16:55 ET by jdlybrand..."Where's the Strangest Place You Ever Made Whoopie?" episode?
We already know the response.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley