Same-Sex Marriage: North Carolina, President Obama and Voters
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-09/same-sex-marriage-north-carolina-president-obama-and-voters
North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. Turnout was moderate but a half-million people had cast early ballots. Ahead of the vote, both sides waged intensive lobbying efforts. Former President Bill Clinton came out against the measure. The Rev. Billy Graham supported it. North Carolina is now the 30th state to approve putting a ban on same-sex marriage in their state constitution. But polls show a growing number of Americans support same-sex marriage. Support is higher among younger people. Publicly, President Obama has remained on the fence. Diane and her guests talk about the politics of defining the term "marriage."
Guests
Brian Brown
president, National Organization for Marriage; executive committee member, Vote for Marriage North Carolina.
Michael Cole-Schwartz
communications director, Human Rights Campaign.
Michael Dimock
associate director, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Maggie Gallagher
president, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy; editor, www.MarriageDebate.com; head of the Culture War Victory Fund; author of the forthcoming book "Debating Same-sex Marriage."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The guest on the phone in the beginning of the show said this new admendment did not effect how companies can administor benefits to their employees. The next question should have been what do we do with companies that discriminate against individuals benefits becasue they are in a same sex relationship. If that couple is married a company could not decide on a case by base basis.
Hi, I've only been able to listen a little, but I want to be clear that the majority of North Carolinians did not vote . So the majority did not approve the amendment
I will be married 26 years this month. My husband decided six months ago that he did not want to be married any more. With all this talk of defense of marriage I was shocked to learn that my husband could end our 26 year marriage with no effort. There is nothing I can do to stop the divorce or request counceling; so what are people fighting to defend?
I haven't heard anyone in the media talk about the wording "between ONE man and ONE woman" emphasis on the word "one". Is there a voice for the polygamists? There is a TV show called "Sister Wives" currently showing happy families of men with more than one wife. Our debate cannot be based on whether the people involved are nice, happy, responsible, good parents, well meaning, good citizens, etc etc. A definition, by definition, has a boundary. As the boundary opens up, the original word should be changed.
Agree again with Mark,
and would like Ms. Gallagher / the organization to address the facts of nature - gender, sexuality, fertility, are not uniform absolutes, nor is reproduction restricted by them in this modern age, and anyway - what a basis for legal, social and material discrimination.
We criticize Muslim countries for basing law on theology (sharia law), but we design our own laws around religious tenets if we use the Bible as their basis.
Excellent point, PattiM! That's such a good analogy about a person believing in Christ not wishing to make it illegal to not believe in Christ.
The state should not define in any way the social custom of marriage or even use the word "marriage". It should only define the legal civil relationships between individuals. What those legal relationshipd are should not be influenced in any way by want any religious organization uses to define "marriage".
What we define today as marriage and the family has had variation across a continuum of definitions through known history and most likely moreso during the undocumented millions of years of years of our historyas humans.
Hello Diane, I am a longtime listner anda first time emailer.
I am very concerned about the gay marrage issues in this country,
I would like to get feedback from both of your guest on todays show (05/09/2012) if that is possible.
I understand why there is a upset within the gay communities across the nation, gay marriage rights and I would like to as a very optimistic gay man living in South Florida why no one has made the "what I believe" as a valid point, is that if we as the gay and lesbian citizens of this Country can not get the same healthcare benefits and other legal rights that are provided for in a heterosexual marrage, why has there not been a referendum that would exclusely deny any legal protections to the heterosexual population that is based soley the union of marriage.
Ill take any comment your guest can make during the show.....
Thank you
Michael...123
Hello Diane, I am a longtime listner anda first time emailer.
I am very concerned about the gay marrage issues in this country,
I would like to get feedback from both of your guest on todays show (05/09/2012) if that is possible.
I understand why there is a upset within the gay communities across the nation, gay marriage rights and I would like to as a very optimistic gay man living in South Florida why no one has made the "what I believe" as a valid point, is that if we as the gay and lesbian citizens of this Country can not get the same healthcare benefits and other legal rights that are provided for in a heterosexual marrage, why has there not been a referendum that would exclusely deny any legal protections to the heterosexual population that is based soley the union of marriage.
Ill take any comment your guest can make during the show.....
Thank you
Michael...123
Let's first say that this is my opinion. By the dictionary I have from my high school days, a marriage is a civil union. The use of the term marriage in the gay discussion just bring out a fight. I have witness events where the "gay community" protested in church by screaming where the speaker could not be heard and beating people over the heads with signs. This debate seems to be more violent on the gay side. Using the word marriage is an example where "I want a fight". I have no problem with same sex couples having legal protection under the law equal to a mixed couple.
I still have problems with people are born gay, because I have not seen a hard scientific study proving that.
Shouldn't churches that persuade their congregations how to vote lose their tax exempt status? Political proselytizing is not uncommon here in the Northeast. A friend from CT was actually was handed a list of "approved candidates/issues" at Sunday Mass.
NC-Tom
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/218519-anti-marriage-gro...
Wow, and the story's widely covered. Wish the DR Show had found/addressed that one.
Churches have RITES.
Citizens have RIGHTS.
Churches are destroying our Society and our Country.
"Greed is good"."Praise the Lord,and Pass the Ammunition". SICKNESS
Dianne, earlier in the show one of your guests stated that there will be mixed feelings about marriage in any religious group. Yet, my experience as a vehement anti-theist/atheist has shown me time and time again that he would be hard pressed to find the sort of obtuse bigotry exemplified by the "marriage defenders" in any non-theist community. History has shown us that the fear of homosexuality is a symptom of specific religious doctrines. I find it laughable, almost as laughable as Maggie Gallagher's assertion that you can care for and respect your gay neighbors and still deny them rights, that we continue to defend religion.
This is a controversy that will NEVER be addressed to everyone's satisfaction. The interesting thing is that we say that we believe marriage is for men and women only. And that seems to be what was originally intended. However, the greatest threat to marriage is not homosexuality. The greatest threat is that the institution of marriage is coming unraveled, and has been doing so for many years. It would seem that this trend is going to continue. What we need is to make the requirements for marriage more difficult than they currently are. I think the greatest problem is that couples who barely know one another are marrying. The couples I know who have had long marriages always had one thing in common: they basically grew up knowing one another. By the time they were ready to marry, they knew what the person they were going to marry was REALLY like! Just because someone looks good, and seems good, that doesn't mean that they are. Another suggestion I've heard is that couples planning to marry really need to know each other's family well. Being a "childhool sweetheart" usally addresses knowing the families well. A family with problems could lead to everyone being affected by the same problems. Alcoholism is one example that I personally know of. Drug abuse is another. Really, you need to have a good idea of what you are getting into.
But the current controversy is about same-sex marriage. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for this. If the world should last another thousand years, it will still be argued. Insisting that people should give up strongly-held beliefs is obviously not going to work.
It seems silly to me that people insist that they are not against civil unions, just for keeping marriage a religious institution. In that case, we should eliminate ALL state and federal benefits attached to marriage and recognize only civil unions. There are actually a fair number of churches that performing same sex weddings (including, but not limited to, UU, UCC, Religious Society of Friends, some progressive sects of Judaism...). What about their right to have those marriages legally recognized? What about churches that refuse to perform weddings between opposite sex couples of different races or religions? There is no way we would ever allow a state (rather, allow a state again) to deny the right to marry to an opposite sex couple based on race or religion. I would like to ask those against same sex marriage to stop looking at it as a "right to marry." It is a right to be by your partner's bedside when they are in a hospital, it is the right to be make legal medical decisions for your partner, the right to share your employment benefits, the right to file taxes jointly, the right to have legal protections for your family, the right to social security and inheritance in the case of your partner's death, and the list goes on. That is what a marriage is. It is a set of legal rights, and denying someone access to those rights based only on the fact that their paired genitalia does not look like yours is denying a human right. It is, frankly, an embarrassment to this country.
I will state it plainly: most of these advocates are dishonourable cowards.
This is for the simple reason that most of them claim that marriage is primarily there for procreation, and also believe that certain sex acts are wrong regardless of consent, and because that gay people (as these same advocates like to remind us) are a very small minority in this country, but they are the focus of their attention, since they are too afraid of rebuking the rest of us.
The small gay and lesbian population means that there are probably many more marriages between straight people who aren't interested in having children than there are gay marriages, and certainly many, many, more straight relationships in which the participants perform most of the same sex acts as do gays and lesbians...but these advocates are strangely silent about them, almost as if they're much more comfortable striking out against a minority than offending the population that's doing most of the sinning and the non-procreating.
I'd feel better if all ballot and other measures against gay marriage added the words "All non-procreating marriages are hereby annulled, and no oral or anal or manual sex for anyone, ever" to prove their sincerity, and (well, this is actually primary) to make sure they wouldn't pass, ever.
Same sex couples are cohabitating and raising children (wow, who knew!). Whether or not they have sex with each other is not the point, they are a family unit. Our whole existence is built upon "free will" and "freedom of choice". You have the right to choose how you want to live your life as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of your neighbors. And here's where religion gets in the way. The Bible says to rebuke your brother (or sister) when they do wrong (and hello everyone, the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination). Do you really expect Christians to give up their religion and change their minds on this issue? Having faith is a "good thing", why would you hold that against them? But the Bible also says to take the log out of your own eye before removing the splinter from your brother's eye. There is no one fit to judge us except God (him/her) self. Of course if you're an athiestic gay person, this will only inflame your intellectual prowess all the more. Marraige (in one form or another) is a tradition that is as old as the first two humans who got together and produced a child. Traditionally speaking it has been associated with producing "blood" heirs. Wealth and property were passed to legitimate heirs, bastard children got nothing. Gay couples cannot produce children that carry the genetic material of both parents (though I'm sure science is working on that!). It's going to be hard to change a tradition as old as marraige (one man, one woman), when your only argument is that it needs to be changed to accomodate a group of people in this Country who like to have sex with their own gender. And that kind of sex is not procreative in any way. Gay and marraige are two words that mean completely the opposite of each other. Gays need a new strategy to get equal rights, marraige is not going to work anytime soon.
I'll agree with conservatives on one thing: polling doesn't matter. It's always a long way to Election Day.
Oh and speaking about lies, Mr. Brown starts the show with a big one: his claim that amendments like this are merely about stopping "activist judges". If that were true, they would simply state that marriage need only be between a man and a woman, instead of saying it can only be between a man and a woman.
The difference?
These amendments also prevent the Legislature from changing the law.
As I said earlier, the opposition to gay marriage consists of two groups: the deceivers (like Mr. Brown and Ms. Gallagher), and the deceived.
Why is it constitutional to legislate religious beliefs?
The past year there has been so much religion-driven legislation it is scary.
Are these "religious" people afraid they will not be able to follow their own beliefs unless it is against the law not to?
OR are they trying to force everyone to follow their religious beliefs?
Either way it seems to be against the precepts of the first amendment of the constitution.
Where is my religious freedom when the religious majority is allowed to legislate their beliefs?
I am allowed to believe what I choose but not allowed to practice my beliefs because other religions have legislated their beliefs.
What a screwed up mess our once-great nation has become.
It is a big smokescreen to keep away from addressing the true problems we face today.
People often forget that the majority opinion is not equivalent to the most moral stance. History is riddled with the majority of people approving of slavery, being against interracial marriage, and having bigoted views. The issue in North Carolina is no different - just because the majority of people in North Carolina feel that same-sex marriage is wrong does not mean that this is the morally correct position.
To mrbvlo, writing on May 9, 2012 @ 12:10 pm:
PART ONE
Thanks for providing a collection of deceitful arguments against gay marriage.
How does allowing gay people to marry “infringe” on anyone’s rights? Does the fact that Jews can get married outside of the Church “infringe” on the rights of Christians? Does the fact that Blacks and Whites can marry “infringe” on the rights of racists? (Many of whom invoke the Bible in support of their views.)
And what of the rights of those religions that support gay marriage? (Reform Judaism and the United Church of Christ, among others.) Doesn't this amendment infringe on their religious freedom?
The Bible also condemns the eating of pork, and the wearing of garments made of mixed thread. Should we pass constitutional amendments banning that too? And what about the Biblical command that anyone doing work on the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) shall be executed? I don’t see a demand that those passages be enacted into law. (Talk about your “cafeteria Christian”!)
As for “tradition”:
1) Monarchy was an age-old tradition. We abolished it. Slavery was an age-old tradition. It’s gone too. Religious tyranny, censorship, torture as punishment, and a host of other evils were age-old traditions, and we’ve done away with all of them. Merely because something is “old” doesn’t make it good and worth preserving.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
2) The definition and nature of marriage has changed wildly over time. Polygamy was once the norm, now it is not. Marriage was once devoid of love: it was an arranged institution primarily for procreation, and/or for political alliances between families. (Ironically, it was the Catholic Church that championed the idea of companionate marriage: marriage for love.) So, stop pretending marriage must be “flash-frozen” in the form of a 19th or even 20th century institution. (As you noted, today wealth and property are not limited to “legitimate heirs”. Why don’t we go back to denying “bastards” any rights? And let’s not even bother to mention divorce!)
As for whether gay couples can produce children - how is that relevant? The “marriage is only for procreation argument” only works if marriage is limited to fertile couples who are both ready, willing, and able to have children - and actually do! How about an amendment requiring that?
(We all know the answer: heterosexuals will never agree to limiting their rights. Limiting the rights of others? That’s just fine.)
You definitely are not arguing based on fact, reason, or truth. You are either one of the deceivers, or one of the deceived.
I'd like to know if the conservatives would support a constitutional amendment that makes divorce illegal. In the marriage ceremony the two participants swear before god to stay together for life, surely divorce goes against their god's will.
Personally, I woul be embarassed to get on the radio and demand that everybody has to believe my religious beliefs, especially using the same vocabulary and logic used to justify the worst forms of Southern racism fifty years ago.
It is necessary to legislate purely religious beliefs because they are not based on evidence and reason and what human beings desire for themselves and others. Because the precepts based on religious beliefs often make no sense, or are positively bad for one, there is always the temptation to force people to follow them because only the threat of punishment (in this world or some notional next) can induce others to obey.
That is to say, there are many cases in which the resort to force, much like the resort to raising one's voice or being overly passionate, is used as a substitute for evidence and rational argument.
'Shut up!,' he explained.
I am also stunned to hear yet another silly diatribe about elites, given that so much of this nonsense has been whomped up by wealthy TV preachers with private jets and six or seven houses.
But then, I was amazed to hear that so-called experts have not an earthly idea what a margin of error is in polling data.
The good thing is, sooner or later the old guys are gonna win. The Constitution, demographics, and he simple logic of capitalism guarantee it.
Your trad families are stressed because of the ways that markets work. Of course you have to complain about gay marriage, if you paid attention to that, you would find out that there is a big, central and absolute contradiction between your faith and your economics.
I am also stunned to hear yet another silly diatribe about elites, given that so much of this nonsense has been whomped up by wealthy TV preachers with private jets and six or seven houses.
But then, I was amazed to hear that so-called experts have not an earthly idea what a margin of error is in polling data.
The good thing is, sooner or later the old guys are gonna win. The Constitution, demographics, and he simple logic of capitalism guarantee it.
Your trad families are stressed because of the ways that markets work. Of course you have to complain about gay marriage, if you paid attention to that, you would find out that there is a big, central and absolute contradiction between your faith and your economics.