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.
Religious beliefs should never be used for legislation. Fact is if I wrote words and said God told me to write this for all to follow it would be said that I am crazy.
Hence, either crazy people wrote the Bible or times have changed.
You can believe whatever you want but it should never be enacted into law and should never be forced down the throats of people who disagree with one religious teaching or another.
I say times have changed a lot since those fellows wrote the Bible - or they were crazy men to say God told them and these are the words of God.
The narrow discriminatory definition of marriage as argued by one of you’re guests as being the union between a man and a woman is as selective as the original definition of “All men are created equal”.
In practice “All” related only to white men. After an agonizing struggle for equal rights the definition of “All” has been corrected to mean “All” without acceptation to race and gender.
And now we will add sexual preference as a qualification for marriage.
I am passionately Christian. HOWEVER, I do not attempt to defend the integrity of true marriage on any religious grounds -- because it isn't necessary!
Humankind of all times, all societies, all traditions -- whether religiously based or not -- have never accepted a same-sex relationship as a marriage. This is true even in societies where same-sex relationships have been accepted for what they are -- ancient Greece, e.g.
This universal understanding of what a marriage is needs no other support than simple, candid observation of nature. But let's face it: candid observation is a short suit in the LGBT hand.
If we stop the LGBT brainwashing, and let the people decide with minds cleared of the LGBT fog, we will find that people will still hold that marriage is, by all nature and reason, a title belonging to couples committed in a true conjugal union.
Hi
I gave birth in europe tow times. To two big babys, in hospitals
I had two midwifes plus my doctor at each birth thank god
Midwifes were wonderfol and my doctoe let them do their work and helped when nececery
Thank you wonderfull show
Sarah
Why aren't reply comments displayed as such, hanging from the comment they are replying to?
if u keep pushing the gay referendum on people then people will react adversly. u need to spoon feed them a little bit. its like they want the entire country to be like san francisco. and they also want to teach L.B.T.G. lesbian, bisexual, trans, gay curriculum in elementary schools. the one panelist was right. u need to look at how u have defined marriage and if u need to change how u define marriage. all of this is really being forced on people. i'm all for gay people doing their thing and everything but u run the risk of galvaninzing the extreme religious right like that crazy racist preacher in florida. Heck I cant wait for the first gay-american president but u run the risk of having those racist preachers with racist teachings join the ranks of other racists. these people already feel as though there are too many hispanics and arabs running around now u are forcing them to redefine marriage. i'm just afraid that old school americans cant take all this and its all coming at them way too fast. there are some states that are getting $100-$334 million in extra tax income because they have passed gay legislation as early as 08' or prior. now this forces the hand of other states because everyone is in a budget crisis these days. once again u r forcing alot on traditional white americans and they are not being spoon fed properly. if all this keeps up with all the gays and hispanics and arabs and all the referendums, and all the unemployment, then people are going to go crazy. states are already dissenting from federal laws with such things as hispanic deportation and planned parent hood and such. the federal government is literally telling states not to do this and some states are doing it anyway. its all too much at once. spoon feed them. they cant take all of this. This country is still way too racist for this much gayness. no more tim mcveigh's please.
Mountainwomon, all legislation reflects beliefs, religious and otherwise. Because people have beliefs, religious and otherwise, and our democracy is based on the power of the people to elect the legislators they feel best represent who and what they are as the people.
If you so despise and discriminate against religious belief, you have the right to vote for candidates who you think will legislate from that bias.
Meanwhile, our Constitution -- remember? -- in the first clause of the First Amendment, protects religious rights: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."
Yes. look at nature for the answer. Most new mothers in nature have to ban the males from the nesting area since the males will kill the offspring.
Look at human history and see that according to the Bible men are supposed to marry many women all at one time (polygamy) but since times have changed this is no longer acceptable.
Look at all the unwanted children who have an absent heterosexual parent and check out the statistics of where these children end up (jail).
Obviously it is because of gay marriage that so many millions of children live in one-parent households, 'cause the Bible tells us so.
The Bible also tells us not to eat pork and 'fish of the sea that have no fins' and specifically states that if a person curses at their father or mother they should be stoned to death.
To take these writings literally and force everyone to follow them is unconstitutional.
How can one religious belief be forced on all of us? By misinformation and deceit.
Jesus said to love one another - not just this person or that person but one another. All these extremists seem to not be following the one commandment Jesus gave - Love One Another. So sad that if He were to walk on this planet once more He would not recognize these people as His followers because they hate so well their love is shadowed by their hate.
@MaineCoon
I am sorry but the Roman Emporer Nero was married to a man in a public ceremony and lived with him openly. The Roman emporer Elagabalus was married publicly to a man as well, it was not unitl 342 ad the Christian Roman Emporer Constantius II outlawed same sex marriage in the Theodosian codes. Same sex marriages or unions were openly debated in ancient Greece, Aristotle praised a same sex couple who lived their whole lives together, maintained a home and were buried together. I will concede the Greeks did not apply the word marriage to these unions. I will also point out the Roman edict in 342 ad banning same sex marriage does mean it was practiced up until that point.
In the modern world same sex marriage is legal in Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland. And is currently being legislated in Italy and Ireland.
As far as it being a fad as it has been suggested, applying that hasn't other legislation that righted wrongs proven that a shift in belief was more than a fad. Women's right to vote, child labor laws?
Peter said that the only reason for marriage is to reproduce and raise children. What about all the couples (heterosexual) that chose to not have children? Should their marriages not be recognized? He made it sound like that they should not.
I really learned a lot from this show. I never really realized how important equal rights for gays were to our country, until this show.(I have for my friends sakes, but not my country’s) Our progress will be affected every time we deny humanity to another group; our society will suffer from its cruelty, fears and need for control. Only when all individuals are free and unoppressed by others will we be a healthy society. Gay Marriage should be a federally guaranteed institution, reflecting the values and principles of The Constitution so that we may go forward in strength and truth. And yes, I am heterosexual, but for a true interpretation of our Constitutional rights, I do say, the fight for equal rights for gays must be realized as important for all of us. We can no longer sit by and think it does not affect us. The speakers bring up a good point when they address how many Americans don’t pay enough attention to this. Until I had a gay friend pushed out of an advocacy group recently, I had no idea people were capable of such cruelty. Of course I spoke out and will continue to.
No one can say that the Diane Rehm show is biased. I don't like bigots either, but luckily sticks and stones my break my bon...
The Family Research Council rep made several unsupportable statements. One was that some research shows that children with hetero parents are happier or more successful than children from other parents. That is unsupportable because THERE IS NOWHERE NEAR AS MUCH reliable evidence for alternative parenting as there is for the roughly 2000-year-old Judeo-Christian, Westernized hetero parenting model. Who ever shouts loudest gets heard. Second, the rep also stated that marriage has always been hetero. Not only was he factually incorrect, but if that would be true, then it would be an argument AGAINST hetero marriage because of the history of war, starvation, overpopulation and violence provided by that hetero model of parenting which the Council advocates. Additionally, there are two many successful non-hetero "marriage" cultures around the world to list here... Third, the rep stated that voters always vote against same-sex marriage. Of course. Any good student of history knows that the disenfranchised face frustration when using dominant social pathways to equality, so they, for example do not vote reliably. On the other hand, those who vote and see their ways progress believe in the system and do not question it, failing to see that some of their progress comes at the severe expense of innocent others. As a veteran, I believe there can be no harm to the military if homosexuality is decriminalized when the focus is on Mission and not on dividing the ranks. I am amazed that the Host of the show didn't point out these things. As a Catholic, I cherish marriage, but I cannot argue against others joining for a lifetime of happiness with the same rights, privileges, and protections enjoyed by traditional marriage. It is inhumane. I cannot imagine Jesus demagogueing against the freedom and happiness of others.
You have done neither this discussion, nor the reputation of your program, any service by including a representative of an organization formally designated as a "hate group" - which the "Family Research Council" is - by the Southern Poverty Law Center (as are such allied groups as "Focus On the Family" and the "American Family Association").
Allowing Sprigg a free pass on one of the many lies these organizations continue to promulgate, to wit, that "studies" show that children do better in heterosexual-coupled homes than in those of same-gendered parents is unconscionable. There are NO such studies from ANY reputable science-based organization; in fact, such studies reach the exact opposite conclusion.
As for the definition of the word "family," here are the first four from Merriam-Webster:
1: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head: household
2a: a group of persons of common ancestry: clan; b: a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock: race
3a: a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation: fellowship; b: the staff of a high official (as the President)
4: a group of things related by common characteristics: as a: a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds; b: a group of soils with similar chemical and physical properties (as texture, pH, and mineral content) that comprise a category ranking above the series and below the subgroup in soil classification; c: a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
Finally, the Bard himself perfectly described an overwhelming number of those who scream the loudest and the shrillest about the “ho-mo-sexual agenda” with the line “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (Hamlet: Act III, Scene II).
Mr. Keegan
Mr. Keegan, you're missing the point. It is a religious argument, not a logical argument. You cannot fight belief with facts. Every time that I've discussed same sex marriage (or any cultural alternative) with conservatives and poked (black)holes in their arguments, they always fall back on....parts of the Bible. Their contradictions and backtracking always end up in the Book because this is a, dontcha know, Christian nation. I am Catholic, married, and a father. Nothing in the Bible has ever instructed me to limit the lives of others if they live to do good, including a same-sex couple who wants to bring up a beautiful human being. That is what I think Jesus would approve of. I have trouble believing that Jesus would have picked only parts of the Book for his arguments because it is the overall message of the Covenant that he would have professed: do good on Earth.
Re: Littlescrub: And that, there, folks, is an example of idealism at its worst. A casual willingness to sacrifice the innocent for one's ideals and "standards".
So the Church should either give up her own ideals in exchange for the State's, or give up the funding it uses to place children in adoptive homes? Need anyone remind anyone that Catholic Charities serves thousands of children who would otherwise be sucked into the already overburdened foster care system. And you would have them renounce their faith or renounce the children they've committed to serve?
It's easy to sit back and snort out righteous indignation over the internet, but the fact is that the Catholic Church, along with countless other religious organizations with similar ideals, has been the last two millenia's largest organized front in history committed both to high ideals and the actual caring for innocent.
Personally, I second Simcha Fisher's summation of the whole mess:
"I’m not surprised that political activists want to punish the Church for her ideals. But to sacrifice children for the state’s ideals? Shameful."
(src: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/high-ideals-and-grunt-work/)
Mr. A J North, I would die for your right to speak. The Council needs to be heard, if not least so the rest of the world can know that we still have those kinds of notions in existence. Not listening to the Council is like going to the doctor and not telling the doc that you have a pain somewhere, that it is why you are at the office. If the doc doesn't know something's bothering you, how can he fix it? We need to know that the Council represents ideologies so we can deal with them before they run amuck.
Conservatives always say that the definition of marriage is set in stone and cannot be changed. Words are fluid. What about the definition of "voter" in the United States? In 1800, for example, it was a white, male land-owner. It gradually evolved to include those who didn't own land, those who are women and those who are black.
In addition, conservatives claim that if homosexuals can marry the institution itself is harmed. How exactly? Am I now an illegitimate child? Are my parents, married 55 years no longer married?
the gentleman deliberately obfuscates on the definition of marriage. in fact through most of human history there has been gay marriages in one form or another. current research does not show families with biological fathers and mothers are better. that is simply untrue. the research shows stable two parent families do better. gay or straight. in many studies children of gay parents are more well adjusted.
same sex marriage in the church has been proven in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches up to the end of the 15th century. There are Latin missals and Greek Liturgies for same gender marriage up to the 15th century. Africa Asia the Middle East North and South America have long well known traditions of same sex marriages.
Why doesn't anybody ever challange these falsities and deliberate falsehoods from the "christian" right.
Acutally, isafakir, you are the one obfuscating on the definition of marriage. Look at the following, an article purportedly making the case for gay "marriage" in history, and see just how quickly it slithers from same-sex "marriage" to same-sex "civil unions" to same-sex "relationships." You do understand, do you, that these are not the same thing?
The article ends up showing not a single instance of gay "unions" of whatever name that was held to be the equivalent of a true marriage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/ns/technology_and_science-science/t...
An the same in the past when I've also had my nose rubbed in a number of sites on the alleged history of same-sex "marriage," which their handlers were sure would give them their perfect "aha!!" moment. The fizzle of a wet firecracker couldn't be any more pathetic, as every one of these sites failed to show a single instance of any historical same-sex relationships being regarded as the same as a real marriage.
You think it makes no difference that there is not, nor ever has been, a person who does not owe his very existence to the union of male-female?
"[D]eny humanity," rici? Oh please! Are those in a business partnership being denied their humanity because they are told their partnership doesn't qualify as an LLP? Am I denying you your humanity if I point out you aren't an attorney because you didn't pass the bar exam? or that you aren't eligible under a program for free pap smears because you're male?
We're not talking about the humanity of persons, or their human rights. We're talking about a type of relationship and whether it qualifies as a marriage!
No one but NO ONE has some "right" to unilaterally redefine marriage -- which is a social institution and subject to society's definition -- to comply with one's individual predilections.
jconway, Nero was a despotic autocrat who did exactly as he pleased, indulging some truly egregious and shocking whims that no one could say "boo" to. That you would cite Nero as an example of same-sex "marriage" shows only how desperate you are!
And your "Elagabalus"? Same thing. Have you actually read up on this monstrosity? Here, try this:
http://bookofbastards.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/the-roman-emperor-elagaba...
Now, where's your evidence of any same-sex relationship in history being socially accepted on the same basis as a true marriage?
And I'm not falling into your "change" trap, either. Not all changes are fads. But person of even medium intelligence can easily see the marks on same-sex "marriage" of a transient fad, not a true change that rights a wrong.
The actual wrong here will be righted when that little child of the Emperor's New Clothes calls out to expose same-sex "marriage" as a fraud.
if marriage is love, adult relationship and a civil right issue, and not for the producing and raising children for the future of society, then civil rights must apply to all non traditional marriage; such as polygamy, brother-sister marriage, child bride marriage (respect for other culture), man-boy marriage. All these relationship can claim their rights for dignity and legalization. As political rights were applied for all, not just for African Americans, then the marriage rights must extend to all. As human sex is use for adult recreation and relationship building, not for procreation, then society will have to accept this new multicultural-sexual bonding, or will it?
It is impossible for the gentleman from the "Family Research Council" (and I use that title loosely, Im sure quite a few of us have a better name for it), could only be more wrong if he had blatantly suggested that all homosexual people should be stripped of their rights if not outright rounded up and put in concentration camps.
Simply by lifting the words "gay" or "homosexual" from his arguments and by re-inserting "interracial" when it comes to any of his points regarding gay marriage any person with two neurons to rub together would see that these are the exact same arguments that bigoted elected officials used to justify barring couples who just happened to not share the same color of skin from getting married.
It's the same thing, and yet somehow one isn't justifiable and yet the other is.
Utterly insane and completely devoid of any moral standing.