On PBS, CNN's Toobin Insists We'll Have 'Gay Marriage' In 50 States Within 10 Years, Slams Obama for Cowardice
On Monday, PBS talk show host Charlie Rose decided to discuss the passage of a "gay marriage" law in New York with two New York Times reporters and a writer for The New Yorker -- not exactly a divided or diverse panel. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin (also with The New Yorker) predicted to Rose that we're less then ten years out from the Supreme Court proclaiming "gay marriage" must be recognized in all 50 states:
The question I have is, when will the Supreme Court arrest the issue, because I don't think they are in any rush to do it. I think at the end of the day they will say that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. You can`t have one kind of marriage for straight people and one kind of non-marriage for gay people. But I don't think they are in any rush to do that and I think it will maybe be five years or maybe be ten years, and at that point the whole country will have it.
As with Roe v. Wade, he said, states would not be allowed to ban it. New York Times reporter Nicholas Confessore felt Gov. Andrew Cuomo has done something "gigantic" for liberals here:
This is a guy who spent post of the last six months cutting spending, cutting budgets, avoiding tax hikes, displeasing the base of his own party, but pleasing from the poll numbers, the vast majority of New Yorkers who have watched Albany overspend in their minds.
And so for a guy who had not really demonstrated his credentials with some liberal, this is a gigantic thing for him. He could, I am not being trite here, but he could fire half a state workforce now and he would not have a ton of blowback from the base of his party because this is such a huge thing for everybody and a huge victory for him and gives him enormous capital on the left to allow him to be a fiscal conservative in a state that hasn`t always been.
Then this one-sided conversation turned to gay New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney expressing patience with the "evolution" of Obama on "gay marriage," but Toobin found Obama's failure to go left disgusting:
ROSE: What about the gay community and their attitude about Barack Obama?
ADAM NAGOURNEY: I mean, I think the big -- I mean, to me, that is a big question here, I think you saw, I thought you saw Barack Obama -- I mean if I am reading the stories right I thought you saw Barack Obama, quote- unquote, "evolve." And I am one of those people who believe based on some knowledge, as much as you can know I do think he probably never did have a problem with gay marriage and changed his position when he wanted to run for president and Senate and that`s the way the world works when I saw those stories about him evolving I saw him go in a direction I thought he would go.
TOOBIN: Can we be a little bit cynical? I just think, you know, frankly, Obama's position is pretty appalling here, I mean, you know, all of us sitting around saying, well he obviously believes in same sex marriage. Well, if he believes in same sex marriage say it! I mean his position on same-sex marriage as we stand now is exactly the same as the defendants in the Proposition 8, you know the people who were on the other side from Boies and Olson, people who have been excoriated.
So you know what side is Barack Obama on? I mean, I think, 'you know, well he can`t do it yet.' I mean this is a guy who has made his name as a conscience driven politician, we if he is a conscience driven politician, let`s see what he thinks.
NAGOURNEY: I think he can do it now. I mean, you cut me off before I finished, I think he can do it now. You make the argument, you can make the argument when he ran for president in 2008, as a black guy running for president like coming out in favor of gay marriage that would be like, [makes pow noise], but I think he can do it now, I don`t understand what he is doing now.
PBS -- once again, a channel run by liberals, for liberals. Conservatives just have their views described as "appalling" without any chance of rebuttal.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I don't understand why Toobin
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 06/30/2011 - 11:31pm.
I don't understand why Toobin is so hot for gay marriage. He didn't even honor his own.
versus
Submitted by Tjexcite on Thu, 06/30/2011 - 11:59pm.
Gay marriage vs Sharia law.
Both work by stealth to get in one step at a time and it will be fun when the two opposite particle of matter and antimatter final battle for supremacy.
Toobin must be smokin' . . .
Submitted by rickbren on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:06am.
. . . some wacky tabacky. . .
I think he means 57 States.
Submitted by ant on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:10am.
I think he means 57 States.
Since when?
Submitted by apf2 on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:20am.
Since when did marriage become a Constitutional right? Since it's a right why must I get a license to do it? Does that mean that I can demand the government provide me with a suitable spouse? I guess then being queer will be mandatory...
Actually, that is a really
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 1:10am.
Actually, that is a really good point about licensing. The federal government has no business interferring in those matters unless the States go too far in limiting your rights. Marriage is not an enumerated right, however, it is covered under the 9th amendment. All your natural law rights are preserved under the 9th amendment, marriage and parenting being some of them. So yes, marriage is a Constitutional right via the 9th amendment.
On the other hand you just opened up a can of worms with that argument. Just as States have the right to license gun ownership (2nd amendment), hence they can determine reasonable limits such as felony convictions, mental health findings, etc. they also have the right to license marriage to place reasonable limits on them as well. The gay marriage argument centers around the idea that States are unreasonably limiting marriage licensing and hence it becomes a matter for the SCOTUS to get involved.
What the SCOTUS has to keep in mind and it hasn't been properly argued much less accepted is that the Law is a reflection of society's values and therefore we, the people get to decide via our legislature what is acceptable or not. The whole point of Republican government is a legislator representing the "will" of his constituency. Self governance can only exist as long as those who exercise power are in restraint to the "will" of the people. There is a fine line between fascism and republican principles, it's called intergrity of the representative.
The government definition of
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 10:57pm.
The government's definition of marriage doesn't restrict any private relationships, so I don't even see it as a 9th amendment issue in the first place.
A same-sex couple can still make all of the contracts they want outside of an government sanctioned marriage, none of their contracts will be seen as null or void. The only thing a marriage would entitle them to is government benefits and the possibility of discrimination suits against employers who don't treat their relationships the same as other relationships as far as spousal benefits are concerned.
That's why the phraseology of a 'gay marriage ban' is really dishonest, because a ban is a restriction of private behavior, and nothing of the sort is going on against gay couples. If anything its a restriction on the behavior of others who might disapprove of gay relationships. (In other words, the libertarian argument for gay marriage is bunk)
The only way a same-sex marriage case is even possible is with the 14th amendment, not the 9th amendment. However, a gay couple would have to prove that restricting marriage is a form of illegal discrimination, and I think such an argument has a large number of problems.
So Toobin forsees that not
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:55am.
So Toobin forsees that not all States will willingly accept gay marriage and must be forced into it via the SCOTUS because like citizens in California outright rejected gay marriage via a referendum (Proposition 8). So much for consent of the governed. That he actually contrasted this to abortion pretty much seals the deal that Toobin is a Fascist and choses to reject the democratic process.
Fair warning to the SCOTUS and other government officials, if you think you can force an unwilling population to accept your values then you better be prepared for years of violent acrimony. This is a States Rights Issue, don't make the same mistake you made with abortion. Just look at what happened with abortion clinics and docs. In the end, your elitist values while forced on an unwilling population are still rejected and the State legislatures are methodically limiting abortion. The same will happen with gay marriage, count on it. Instead of incrementally getting your position accepted by the population by a democratic process which would be the natural/organic means, you force people into direct opposition. It's a pretty foolish tact when via patience you would have had majority support, as it is you have guaranteed a dug in opposition just because you are doing things against people's wills. It's called human nature.
As far as the 50 states in 10 years, ask the Feminists how it went with the ERA.
Primary Obama
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:14am.
If that's the way he feels, Toobin should come out and support candidates to run against Obama. The panic on the left over Obama's dwindling reelection chances should make them consider primarying him. How about the Clintons? Bet they're talking about it.
____________________________________________________________________________
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Ever Notice Something?
Submitted by Tenebrous on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:23am.
Liberals are becoming more and more acrimonious and apocalyptic in their predictions. You mean Obama isn't enough for you guys, even though he's far more liberal than Bush was conservative (after year two of his first term at any rate)? Is there some kind of deep, unspoken unease here? I think so. I think they recognize that Obama is as good as it gets and they are fearful of the widespread opposition that he's aroused. No matter what they do, they can't get Palin off the stage. Then comes Cain, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Allan West, Rand Paul and so on -- these people are getting all the attention. The tenor of the budget debate has shifted to "how much to cut". They are losing the battle of the will -- which they always do IF we can hold their feet to the fire long enough, because in the end liberal is just another word for baby, and it's time for their 2 o'clock nap.
Visions and Principles blog
→ Who's Toobin who?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:51am.
"You can`t have one kind of marriage for straight people and one kind of non-marriage for gay people."
Well, Jeffrey, I'm pretty sure there's one kind of copulation for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals.
Marriage is neither constitutional
Submitted by johnsonl on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 9:13am.
nor a right.
I thought liberals were so well educated and so much smarter than conservatives.
The true issues are property rights and insurance benefits.
Jeff Toobin lecturing on any marriage related topic?
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 2:21pm.
That's like holding a wine tasting party as an AA session.
Boobin' Toobin
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:05pm.
TOOBIN: "You can`t have one kind of marriage for straight people and one kind of non-marriage for gay people."
And for that matter, if government can't make these distinctions, then it cannot prohibit blood relatives from marrying.
TOOBIN: " . . . Can we be a little bit cynical? I just think, you know, frankly, Obama's position is pretty appalling here, I mean, you know, all of us sitting around saying, well he obviously believes in same sex marriage. Well, if he believes in same sex marriage say it!"
Obama declared before he became President that he doesn't advocate same sex marriage. So, Toobin is calling the President a liar.
TOOBIN: " So you know what side is Barack Obama on?"
We've always suspected, and we know he's a liar, but it's refreshing to hear his supporters concede it.
TOOBIN: "I mean this is a guy who has made his name as a conscience driven politician, we if he is a conscience driven politician, let`s see what he thinks."
We've been seeing what he thinks for 2.5 years, and if his performance is "conscience driven," we need a new driver.
So You're Saying There Is No Gay Conservative View?
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:09pm.
And what about the views of conservatives who happen to be gay, like GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans? What about the views of straight conservatives like Phil Hendrie who would tell you that can't do any worse than gay marriage? Are they somehow not conservative simply because they don't see what the big deal is in regards to two dudes butt-f***ing each other? Sounds like you need to come up with a Chewbacca defense to get around that one.
Why the idiot question?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:11pm.
Oh right...you're trolling.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)