The Diane Rehm Show

Thank you for having such an informative and civil discussion on this controversial issue. So seldom do you have a chance to hear opposing views on this issue where all parties are respectful and allow the listener to hear both sides of the issue. I am always impressed with your show it is one of the few places where I feel I can hear both sides of an issue fairly and respectfully. Thank You!

While this issue is split at the state level; Canada, Mexico, almost all of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, and South Africa, to name a few countries, all recognize same sex marriage at some level.

Much like the death penalty and other human rights issues, our country is backwards compared to the rest of the developed democracies.

Considering that anti sodomy laws were on the books in many (mostly southern) states until the Supreme Court struck them down (in 2003!) that makes us more like Saudia Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, which still outlaw homosexual acts.

It is 2012, people. Why is our country still so backward and ruled by bigotry?

I am sorry, but if you are against gay marriage you are a bigot. If you don't like gay marriage don't have one. Your children are not going to turn gay just because it is an option. It doesn't work like that. Marriage is a civil right with serious legal consequences and it should be protected at the federal level. Marriage is a legal and civil institution. It has nothing to do with religion and religion should not influence civil rights. We should not create a special type of marriage just for gay people because some are concerned with semantics. Why don't you change what you call your religious institution? Marriage for all, Matrimony for straights only.

I am straight but I am in an interracial relationship which was illegal in some states until 1967. These issues seems uncannily similar to me. Once again, why is our country so backwards and bigoted?

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

The results are a joke. 4.4 million voted in the 2008 election, only 2.1 million North Carolinians came out for this conservative hate mongering fiasco. November results would have been considerably different, and these laws will be gone in the next 5 years, the xenophobes are becoming extinct.

Simple solution: Outlaw marriage, making any legal relationship a civil union. Marriage could then be returned to its sacramental roots.

The argument that heterosexual marriage creates some wonderland for children is patently specious as evidenced by the divorce rate, issues in blending families, and existence of domestic violence. It also insults and demeans single-parent households occurring through death, appropriate divorce, or choice. This heterosexual marriage argument is no more than wistful yearning for an imagined past--living 1950's family sitcoms; a historically-developed facade masking human sexual proclivities and basic survival needs. (Consider arranged marriages.) Heterosexual marriage guarantees nothing. If the will of the majority outstrips what's right, then we're in deep trouble. When some can be discriminated against then any can be ...and will be. I thought we all learned better in grade school.

Unfortunately the argument in NC wasthat an amendment was necessary to prevent judicial action that could overturn the existing statute barring gay marriage. Since judges are elected in this state it was my argument that if you don't trust your state judges then you should elect new ones rather than use the state constitution. I voted against the amendment

Unfortunately the argument in NC wasthat an amendment was necessary to prevent judicial action that could overturn the existing statute barring gay marriage. Since judges are elected in this state it was my argument that if you don't trust your state judges then you should elect new ones rather than use the state constitution. I voted against the amendment

Dear Pmcclurejr,

Please try this as a starting point for the "hard scientific studies" about the biological basis for the development of sexual orientation, and it turns out that it is not just gays being born that way, but also heterosexuals being born that way! I think you may find it quite interesting. The article references specific scientific studies, where you can get the data in peer reviewed publications to read for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

I've never signed into a service to comment like this before, but I felt strongly enough after today's broadcast to do so. The piece on "Same-Sex Marriage" began with Mr. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. Mr. Brown had more than twelve minute of time to push an anti-gay marriage agenda, followed by a discussion between three more contributors of varying opinions over the next 45 minutes. I think it's outrageous to give pundits like Mr. Brown a national forum to spread their poisonous agenda - never mind that Diane made an attempt to poke his arguments full of holes. This is no different than giving white supremacists a national platform to push their hateful racist agendas - giving balance to two sides of an issue is not ethically or journalistically responsible when one of those sides is morally repugnant.

Here in NC, churches were telling their members to vote yes to support the marriage amendment. A friend of mine walked out of St. Leo’s service after the priest issued such a request.
At one time, NC did not allow marriage of blacks and whites, or certain sexual acts and this was justified by religious beliefs - the bible - certainly not bigotry - right? It seems too many churches are still teaching prejudice instead of religious tolerance & social justice. AND your guest was incorrect when she said that the marriage amendment could not be compared to NC law against black and white marriage. NC is now limiting the freedoms and rights for those who are not heterosexual.

"North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. "

Correction, while the margin was "overwhelming", the number of North Carolina voters who approved it wasn't. In fact only 34% of the registered voters participated, which means the amendment passed by about 20% of qualified voters.

To put this in perspective: to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a two-third vote by each house of Congress (290 Representative and 67 Senators), followed by ratification by majority vote of three-fourths of the States (38). If North Carolina followed those rules this Amendment wouldn't even have come close!

The hypocrisy in all this is that Republi-Cons support this exercise in direct democracy, the very thing they normally condemn by crying "America is a republic, not a democracy". But then, expecting consistency from the GOP is a fool's errand.

mnemecek on May 9, 2012 @ 7:57 am wrote: “. . . a major concern of these folks is that they do not want to have their children raised in an environment that makes homosexuality a normal situation.”

So what? There are plenty of people who don’t want their children “raised in an environment” that makes Black equality “a normal situation”. Should we repeal the Civil Rights Acts? There are also plenty that don’t want their children “raised in an environment” that makes religious freedom (or even toleration) to be “a normal situation”. Shall we repeal the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

“The counter to that is that in the eyes of the federal government, sexual orientation is not a protected class so it is perfectly legal to discriminate both personally and professionally on that basis alone.”

- So what, again? I’m not arguing that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. In fact, I don’t believe there is, though there may be a constitutional right against Amendments like this one that impose a disability on one particular group. See, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

The issue I am raising is simply one of public policy, not constitutional law: there are no valid reasons to oppose gay marriage, just a collection of phony arguments and false statements.

meangreen on May 9, 2012 @ 8:39 am wrote: “Companionship marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage as you stated the Catholic Church stated.”

As ususal, you excel in missing the point. In “olden days” marriages were largely based on materialistic concerns: wealth, political standing, alliances, and (yes) procreation (but only in the sense of a breeding farm). The Church championed the idea of companionship: marriage for love.

Yet, now the Church wants to limit that concept to heterosexual love, but can it truly be done? Do you really deny that gay people have the same need for love and companionship as straight people? Or do you contend that only heterosexuals should be allowed to exercise their inalienable right to “the pursuit of happiness” by marrying for love?

When faced with that dilemma the Church suddenly abandons the idea that love makes a marriage (or, at least, tries to downplay it).

It’s a little like those Founders (Patrick Henry was one) who believed there should be no religious test for public office, except a requirement that one believe in Jesus. He didn’t get his way. Why? Because a majority of the Founders recognized that for religious freedom to truly be a matter of principle it must be universal. Religious freedom only for the “approved” faith isn’t freedom at all.

Similarly, to argue for the principle of companionate marriage for one group of people, but deny it to another, is a denial of the principle.

moriel on May 9, 2012 @ 9:04 am wrote: “I have never heard a gay marriage advocate explicitly deal with this question: Every year, on Yom Kippur, Jews read a section of the Torah that deals with forbidden sexual relations. . . .”

Too easy.

First, the Torah is only binding on Jews, and even Jewish Law states that it must be subservient to the civil law of the nation Jews are living in. So, if a State authorizes gay marriage, that takes precedent.

Second, we don’t live in a theocracy. The Constitution forbids laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There are plenty of religions which have no problem with gay marriage, and some that support it. (Reform Judaism and the United Church of Christ being two.) North Carolina has just infringed the religious freedom of members of those faiths.

So, unless you want laws banning cotton/polyester blends, forbidding the consumption of pork or shell fish, requiring the death penalty for working on the Jewish Sabbath, and mandating our military commit war crimes and genocide (it’s in the Bible, look it up), then the only “logical position” is to recognize that Biblical morality cannot be imposed by the government, and leave the question between each of us and our god (or gods).

Sheron Fraser B... on May 9, 2012 @ 10:15 am wrote: “The North Carolina law is a backlash against a massive reach beyond rights to cultural hegemony by those fighting for gay marriage over and above the recognition of civil unions. . . .”

Hogwash!

First, you obviously don’t even know what the word “hegemony” means. It refers to predominate power of one nation over another, and thus doesn’t apply.

Second, you might just as well argue that civil rights laws constitute “hegemony” by Blacks over Whites, or the laws forbidding religious discrimination are “hegemony” by non-Christians over Christians.

“cultural history defines marriage, as a religious institution and between a man and a woman.”

- Really? Then what do we do with people who were married in completely civil ceremonies, or married atheists?

America is not a theocracy. While we should have no laws which prohibit people from freely exercising their religious beliefs, neither should we have any laws which impose those beliefs on others. North Carolina just violated that principle.

(Oh, and in case it escaped your notice, the State also rejected your precious "middle ground" and banned Civil Unions. Now there's an example of "hegemony"!)