Sexual Orientation and Public Policy
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-25/sexual-orientation-and-public-policy
Wedding bells rang for more than 800 same-sex couples in New York yesterday. New York became the sixth and largest state to allow gay marriage. Activists say it could be a belweather for other states. A recent Gallup poll shows 53 percent of Americans support allowing gay couples to marry. That’s double the percentage 15 years ago, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Now President Obama has called on Congress to repeal the law, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. On Friday, he certified the end of the Pentagon policy preventing gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. A panel discusses A panel discusses recognition of gay couples and changing public policy.
Guests
Lanae Erickson
deputy director, Third Way’s Social Policy & Politics Program
Michael Dimock
associate director, Pew Research Center
Peter Sprigg
senior fellow for policy studies, Family Research Council
Mary Bonauto
director, Civil Rights Project, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The fact is marriage needs more requirements than a license to begin with, parenting classes for one thing.
The only way to defend marriage is to outlaw divorce, and we old enough remember how well that worked.
Could be the best thing to do is take away all the benefits of marriage from straight couples - that would equalize things a bit.
It is wrong to disallow one group of persons from the benefits and rights of a partnership no matter what you call it, marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or whatever else you can think of.
The federal government needs to give equal benefits and equal rights to everyone and that is just not the case at this time.
Could be the federal government is unwilling and unable to keep its nose out of the state's rights to legislate for the people.
Still, it seems odd to allow people to vote on minority rights issues - if the people had voted on civil rights do you suppose it would have passed?
Peter said that children of heterosexual parents are happier and more well adjusted....
I would like to know where these statistics came from.
The Family Research Council contributes to this discussion in the same way that neo-Nazis contribute to discussions of Judaism. I am dismayed to find that the Diane Rehm show is giving a platform for the hate speech of the FRC.
What damage could same-sex marriage possibly do to an institution that heterosexuals haven't done already?
How can people believe that one group of citizens can vote to limit the rights of another group of citizens? What part of "all men are created equal" don't these people understand?
If public recognition of marriage is about having and raising children, then it seems opponents of gay marriage should also oppose marriage between any groups unable to have children, such as seniors or infertile people.
Somebody better call this guy out about marriage being about propagating the species. Marriage (in society) is an economic arraignment. If we go with his standard, then Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be allowed to marry for the 4th time. Infertile individuals should not be allowed to marry. If they are found to be infertile after marriage, then their marriage should be annulled, and the fertile one of the two should be allowed (or forced) to pick a new mate.
By his standards rapists that get their victims pregnant should marry them, and raise happy children (of course they need to pay 50 shekels to the dad as per the bible).
I have been trying for 20 years to come up with an argument against homosexuality that is NOT based in some religious belief or another. Given that all opposition to homosexuality is fundamentally religious, it strikes me that any law restricting homosexuality in any way is a violation of the first amendment non establishment clause.
Those of us who are not religiously delusional are being denied our constitutional rights not only to marry whom we chose, but to benefit equally from all federal and state programs that favor married individuals. .
Peter Sprigg is wrong. Marriage historically was about polygamy (read the Old Testament), property (remember dowries paid to the bride's family) and politics (ruling families married their children to one another to create or strengthen alliances or increase property holdings.) The Catholic Church abolished a married priesthood so the priests' property would stay with the church and not be inherited by his family.
And I can't say I see much sanctity in drive-thru Elvis weddings in Las Vegas...
I don't mind him being on the show, if someone calls him out, but they so far have just let his statements stand, and to this point are just ignoring him. They need to address him directly.
very lopsided panel. We have two people who are talking numbers and stats and another going unchallenged on his cliched anti-gay marriage arguments. Why is there no one on the show show calling out the stupidity of the "marriage is for reproduction" or "changing the definition of marriage" arguments?
You'd be shocked to know that hes actually misrepresenting a report that was put out. At least Al Franken jumped all over his mistake once he made it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/sen-al-franken-focus-on-the-fam...
Addressing Peter Sprigg’s public purpose/definition of marriage serving the function of providing a optimal environment for children I would have to say this is an argument for gay marriage NOT heterosexual marriage. In looking at equality, which is a major goal of a society, it can be seen that there is more equality in a gay marriage than a heterosexual marriage and this equality is the healthiest environment for a child. I have seen way too many women in my community that have been held victims in abusive male/female relationships; this is horrible for children. It has become the American standard and is caused by women being “less than”. The courts, society, law administration, all these entities still hold women as less than. This ideal American nuclear family this Sprigg is portraying does not yet exist. Perhaps by allowing equality in ALL aspects of American life we can create an environment of healing for heterosexual couples, create a healthy, truly equal society. Accepting homosexual relationships will enhance heterosexual relationships.
Can this man from the Family Research Council ever tell the truth. He's claiming that allowing gay marriage is forcing faith based groups out of the adoption business, because the government would force them to allow gay couples to marry.
The government can't tell a religious organization what to do. But a religious organization that accepts federal funds must meet certain standards.
I don't think the government should be giving $ to religious organizations anyway, but if Catholic Charities doesn't want to allow gay couples to adopt, then they only need to give up their federal funding.
Sprigg did it again. Women in the military are more at risk of assault from straight men than anyone is at risk of assault from a gay service member. He's just making stuff up.
Way to go for the last caller (Sloan?) calling Peter Sprigg out on his gross misinformation.
Peter Sprigg asserted early in the show not only that best parenting practices require two heterosexual parents but that they require biological children.
As an adoptive father with a wonderful wife and a wonderful one-year old, I'm deeply troubled by this anti-family stance. Not only does his narrow view of family exclude gay and lesbian parents, it excludes all adoptive families -- or at least casts them as 'second-rate' families. Mine is not a second-rate or almost family. How this sort of anti-family position can possibly fall under the name of 'family council' is astonishing.
-Craig from Grand Rapids, MI
I take issue with the guest who stated that service members do not support the repeal of DADT. As a soldier I speak from personal experience when I say that a majority of soldiers I serve with (of all ranks) know that they currently serve with gay and lesbian soldiers, and support them. As a result most do support the repeal of DADT, especially the younger soldiers.
I do not claim they are comfortable with the lifestyle, or support it, but there is a difference between that and supporting your fellow soldiers.
This debate on the definition of marriage is leaving out the biggest point - the benefits given through marriage.
Same sex couples are not allowed to visit their loved ones while in hospitals, not allowed to pass on their property to their partner (even legal wills have been overturned in courts) as well as tax benefits and many, many other benefits not given to non-married couples.
Interesting show. I am pro-gay marriage, but I would have liked to here more perspectives on the show. I felt like all the callers were so supportive of marriage that it painted a skewed picture of how diverse the viewpoints are on this issue.
Early on the gentleman from The Family Research Center said the current definition in place of one man one woman, has existed throughout human history. Should we ignore the fact that bisexuality was at the very core of Sparta's culture and early Celtic tribes? Or even the fact that early Christians were one man and as many woman as possible. His general sweeping statements I hope and pray are becoming as ignored by the majority of the general public as they were by the other panel members today.
@DianeFan: I completely agree, woman are more likely to be victims in the military, and have been for so long that it's hardly recognized anymore. This fear of same sex attractions causing problems is proposterous and seems to be just another excuse with no basis.
thats what i'd like to know also. i took statistics in college and i learned one thing. lol. that u can make numbers mean virtually anything.
Mr. Sprigg just trashed a US Marine who commented about sexual attitudes in his unit. What gives Mr. Sprigg the authority to do that? What branch did he serve in, at what rank, and when? If he did, I thank him for his service to our country. If not, he should shut up and not criticize someone who did.
Marriage, a Marred Institution
The topic of "same-sex" marriage is one that requires a serious discussion; specifically, the relevancy of its title, definition, and origin. Did mankind institute marriage? According to the Bible, the institution of marriage originated from the Creator (Genesis 2:24). Mankind simply obeyed God’s command. In order to debate a change of this institution, one needs to go to the source (the Creator). What were the parameters of marriage (again, refer to Genesis 2:24). God is the Creator; He is both the originator of marriage and its definer. Oh, by the way, He is also the Creator of mankind.
Now, let’s walk this through. God created man and woman. God institutes marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24). Now, if we’re all in agreement, then any change to the institution of marriage must have the Creator’s consent. Any changes in the definition of marriage without the Creator’s consent, is not recognized by the Creator. Why, because the Creator has said that the words that have gone out from Him will not return to him void (Isaiah 55:11).
So, if this is true, legalization of "same-sex" is NOT recognized, and the individual is still in their sin. Therefore, in the Creator’s eyes, any marriage between anyone other than a Man and a Woman is not a marriage at all, no matter what the politicians, courts or judges may decide. The decision is not theirs to make because man does not have the authority to change the Creator’s law!
For more information, read Leviticus 20:13, Hebrews 13:4, and Psalm 119:126.
Craig,
It just proves that the name his organization uses is just to soften and misinform the public what the agendas of the organization actually are. I have biological children and I am in the midst of an adoption as well. I will say weathering the scrutiny and education requirements that adoptive parents must face adoptive homes are better prepared both privately and publicly. Maybe the Family Research Center believes that loving homes are no place for children when they can be institutionalized until adulthood.
I just pulled up Mr. Sprigg's bio on the internet. Nowhere does he list service in the US Armed Forces. Allowing him to insult a US Marine on the show is a travesty.
Ever heard of a fad? Understand how fads work? that fads do have power to sweep along an entire populace? Until . . .
Re-read The Emperor's New Clothes for one glimpse of how fads inevitably end. What gives a fad this transient power to sweep up a populace? Try Fear: the fear of not being socially "in." Haven't you seen how LGBT advocates drive this fear by whipping those who don't go along, with their relentless taunts of "bigot," "hateful," "out-of-step," "denying 'rights'," and the whole rest of that vocabulary.
Look at the other brainwashing techniques the LGBT advocates are using to drive their crusade. Prime example is the battering-ram efforts to drive from the human understanding the central and most foundational principle of marriage, the capacity by nature for committed conjugal union and reproduction. No amount of simulating and posturing can conceal the fact that a same-sex couple is categorically disqualified.
(This in contrast to heterosexual couples who for whatever reason are childless, because they are capable of conjugal union and the fact of their being childless does not affect the basic marriage principle. Do you know what the philosophical term "accident" means?)
This LGBT fad, too, will pass. Watch for that child at the end of the story who, with all ingenuousness, calls out, "There's no marriage there -- this gay 'marriage' thing is a fraud!"
called it ferried not married
"hey are you guys ferried"
works on so many levels
wow, i must be one of the handful of social conservatives who listen to this show...never heard one conservative caller; or perhaps they were not allowed on air.
whoever supports gay marriage must also support consentual incest marriage and polygamy or be a hypocrite. i never hear one comment supporting that from libs, wonder why? they contribute just as much to society as gay couples.
the argument against infertile couples is ridiculous; the vast majority of marrieds who choose to have children do. we are talking populations here not individual cases. sorry people, never in this world will two eggs or two sperm make a baby, so gays will NEVER create a child together.
i happen to agree with outlawing easy divorce and so would most social conservatives. haven't we seen enough damage from what this has done? if that is an example then it makes the case against gay marriage stronger not weaker.
the new york times published an op ed by a gay person who stated the 'open secret' of many gay couples is that they are not monogamous but no one wishes to talk about it because it would erode support. in that article the gay couples are quoted as saying 'straight marriages could learn from our arrangement'.
quite frankly i don't care how gay people choose to live their lives but how society acts does involve me.
that poor guy was totally outnumbered. good for him to try and stand up for the rest of us.