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.
Jonathan Wolinsky on May 9, 2012 @ 10:26 am wrote: “When it comes to issues of gay marriage at the state level, I'm always confused as to why the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (which does apply to the states) doesn't allow for gays to marry.”
That is the issue to be decided by the Supreme Court (one day). Unfortunately, it’s not as cut and dried as you think. I don’t want to go into a lengthy Equal Protection analysis, but suffice to say the outcome is hardly a “slam dunk”.
I believe there is a good public policy argument for legislative enactment of gay marriage, or civil unions, but the constitutional argument for requiring it is doubtful.
Mark in Athens on May 9, 2012 @ 10:34 am wrote: “Going back even further, I always wonder what part of ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ is difficult to understand. Not to mention all that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness stuff.”
Just remember all that is from the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution. The difference? The latter is part of our law, indeed it is the supreme law, the former is not (although its text does contain “words to live by”.)
Michael Pettengill on May 9, 2012 @ 10:44 am wrote: “I want a definition of a ‘man’ and a definition of a ‘woman’ that is absolute and that can not be challenged in any legal sense.”
You just put your finger on a real life case which demonstrates the problems and absurdities of these kinds of amendments. There was a case before a Texas court where a trangendered man (“he” used to be a woman) wanted to marry another woman. No, the court said. It doesn’t matter what “equipment” you now have, you were born female so you remain female, and Texas doesn’t allow same-sex marriages.
Then, of course, the other shoe dropped.
The same court was later faced with the case of a trangendered woman (“she” used to be a man) who wanted to marry another woman. Bound by the precedent it had established, the court had to allow the wedding of two anatomically female partners!
You can’t make this stuff up.
aaburns.59@veri... on May 9, 2012 @ 10:45 am wrote: “I wish Diane would have followed up and had Maggie answer --why people have a right to vote on my ‘civil’ rights.”
That’s easy, because all civil rights are the product of such a vote, even those enshrined in the Constitution. The real question is how that vote should be conducted.
In a republic laws are supposed to be enacted by elected representatives: Congress on the Federal level, Legislatures on the State level. We the people choose who those representatives are, so in that sense we “vote” on civil rights.
The problem here is that the vote was held by direct vote of the population (actually, only a minority of the population), exactly the kind of “pure” democracy the Founders opposed. Yet we see Republi-Cons (who normally denounce “democracy” in favor of a “republic”) rushing to embrace this process when it serves their purposes!
BradW on May 9, 2012 @ 10:48 am wrote: “Loving v. Virginia redefined marriage to allow interracial marriage across the land overturning antimiscegenation laws passed at the state level.”
Actually, it can be argued that Loving merely returned marriage to its “traditional” definition, and that the antimiscegenation laws were an attempt to change that definition by narrowing it. Moreover, Loving merely stated that you can’t pass such laws to engage in racial discrimination: one of the core reasons the 14th Amendment was passed. I am doubtful Loving is a precedent for requiring gay marriage, since it would involve broadening the definition beyond the “traditional” one, and anti-gay discrimination is not a core 14th Amendment concern.
Please note: I am merely discussing legal precedent, and the likely outcome in the Supreme Court. I am not stating what I wish would happen.
andred87 on May 9, 2012 @ 10:52 am wrote: “This would never have been approved by the previous, Democratic legislature.”
Ah, but remember, in the 2010 elections the Tea Baggers swore they were only interested in economic issues, and wouldn’t touch social questions like union busting, abortion, contraception, equal pay for women, or gay rights.
And now they want us to re-elect them because they’re so “trustworthy”!
Blair Unger on May 9, 2012 @ 10:53 am wrote: "If the sanctity of marriage is so important, what are your guests stances' on divorce? Isn't divorce a far greater threat than same-sex marriage?"
Ah, but that would involve taking away rights from the heterosexual majority. There's no political capital to be gained there.
(Though, I believe Ms. Gallagher is consistent, and opposes divorce too.)
cocoleal on May 9, 2012 @ 10:53 am wrote: “. . . real gay and lesbians don't have a spell or their brain don't work right....even religious people could change their mind if they have this explanation.”
Wishful thinking, I’m afraid. The argument has been tried, and anti-gay bigots simply compare homosexuality to alcoholism, and argue that an “affliction” shouldn’t be the basis for a right.
You don’t seem to get the fact that behind all the fine words, and ad hoc rationalizations, opponents of gay marriage just find the whole idea “icky”, and wish gays and lesbians would just go away!
joycooke on May 9, 2012 @ 10:56 am wrote: “Is there a voice for the polygamists? . . . . A definition, by definition, has a boundary.”
There is sound, objective, evidence that polygamous marriages have harmful results, enough to justify banning all such marriages even if there are occasionally a few successful ones. There is no such evidence of harm from gay marriage (and mounting evidence that no such harm exists). Thus there is sound public policy reasons for prohibiting the former, but not the latter.
And if laws are to remain unchanged simply to preserve a “definition”, then what are we to do with laws abolishing slavery, segregation, or changing the institution of marriage by giving women equal rights? (Originally, women were regarded as little more than their husband’s property.)
As one legal commentator observed: it’s a poor argument to retain a law merely because it’s been around since Henry the Eighth!
Pmcclurejr on May 9, 2012 @ 11:23 am wrote: “This debate seems to be more violent on the gay side.”
Care to provide some proof for that assertion? I’ve heard of cases of gay bars being bombed, gay men and women being shot, beaten, and left for dead, and various other examples.
I’ll agree that neither side has a monopoly on violence, and such acts should be condemned no matter who does them. But blame the perpetrator, not the cause.
“I still have problems with people are born gay, because I have not seen a hard scientific study proving that.”
- What difference should that make? There is no “hard scientific study proving” people are born Jewish, does that make Anti-Semitism right?
suzEE on May 9, 2012 @ 11:28 am wrote: "Shouldn't churches that persuade their congregations how to vote lose their tax exempt status?"
It's a little more complex than that, but the simple answer is: the IRS is reluctant to enforce the prohibition of electioneering. It's only done so a few times, and in very extreme cases.
Patsy Nomore on May 9, 2012 @ 11:33 am wrote: “Churches are destroying our Society and our Country.”
Correction: members of some religions are, and they don’t all go to a church.
Nick Armstrong on May 9, 2012 @ 11:34 am wrote: “. . . 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.”
Maybe you just haven’t looked very hard. I can’t say whether there are any anti-gay atheists, but there are anti-abortion atheists. Nat Hentoff is one.
Neither the religious nor the irreligious have a monopoly on either virtue or vice.
gary k on May 9, 2012 @ 11:43 am wrote: Insisting that people should give up strongly-held beliefs is obviously not going to work.”
That’s not the issue. As an old joke goes: if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t enter into one.
The issue is whether people have the right to impose their beliefs on others. At one time it was a strongly-held belief that only Christians could be trusted to serve honorably in government. Thus, religious tests were imposed to insure that only the “religiously correct” could serve. Our country was founded in direct denial of that belief. It’s right in our Constitution: no religious test shall be required. (Article 6, Paragraph 3.)
We can’t stop people believing that only “Bible based Christians” should be President (and therefore they prefer Santorum to Romney), but we can make it clear that such conduct is not approved, and we can keep people from forbidding Mormons (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, etc.) running for office.
libertarians r us on May 9, 2012 @ 9:40 pm wrote: “I see the new Obama/democrat road side bomb for another divisive issue has been planted. As a libertarian I say freedom is always good when it comes to personal rights. The problem is how easily you fools are played by a sinister president. Anything to get votes!”
Wow! Even for you that’s a masterpiece of bombast, contradiction, and illogic. (And that’s saying something.)
Let’s see if we can “suss out” what you’re trying to say.
You believe freedom is always good for personal rights. Presumably that means you support the right of two “persons” to marry, even if of the same gender.
But you condemn the President for coming out in support of gay marriage.
Gee, you’re quite the “sinister”, divisive, bomb thrower!
And what about all the Republi-Cons who support measures like this which divide America into two groups: straights who can marry those they love, and gays who can’t? Do you think they are acting purely on principle, or just to “get votes”?
(And if the answer is the former, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you - cheap!)
Ciao.
There are numerous studies that have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom. This includes mammals and close relatives of humans such as the chimpanzee. In addition, attraction and arousal (in terms of brain activity) are not fully in our control. However, neither of these facts sway those who feel that evolution and science don't have merit - something I find odd because these are the same people who usually ask for evidence from the other side though show no evidence and defer to their faith for their point of view.
Nevertheless, you are correct in that things have got heated on both sides of the debate. Though, I doubt that there has "been more violence on the gay side". If we look at physical abuse and, in some cases, murder that homosexual people have had to deal with because of their sexual orientation it seems likely the alternative is true.
Note: this was in response to commentator who said they had yet to see any evidence that homosexuality was something people were born with. Further, they stated that the "gay side was more violent" in terms of this issue.
I do not drink alcohol for religious reasons and, even if my faith was in the majority, I would not advocate for making it illegal. Other people drinking wine, beer, or mixed drinks does not make me want to drink alcohol. In my younger days, I acted out of obedience to my faith's prohibition of alcohol and, now, I have no desire for alcohol. I don't believe that banning gay and lesbian marriage or civil unions for heterosexual couples will result in an increase or decrease in homosexuality. And, as far as gay and lesbian marriage weakening heterosexual marriage, I find that premise simply baffling and silly. Really? A gay married couple is going to influence my marriage outcome? No. If Christians are so concerned about strengthening marriage, why not focus on developing spiritual virtues such as honesty, forgiveness, humility, compassion, integrity, etc. which are the bedrock for the success of any relationship.
Dear Clayton,
And here is a link to the topic of homosexuality in animals:
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Let’s try getting it to basics. Sea turtles hatch out and make a dash for the ocean, never seeing their parents, never having a chance to learn about gender, then live a mostly solitary life until it is time to breed. How do the little boy turtles know they are little boy turtles, and the little girl turtles know they are little girl turtles? Sea turtles are but one group of the millions of species that are not and cannot possibly be taught their gender or the proper gender roles and sexual orientation. Then how do they know?
The obvious answer is it is programmed into them, and programmed into their brains. What possible reason is there to think it is any different for us? We are more complicated animals, but animals none the less.
For those wanting to say humans are not animals, then what are we? Plants? Minerals? Bacteria? No, we look like, act like, are built like and have the same physiology as animals, ergo: We are animals!
It's rather telling how every caller supporting DOMA or against Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in the past few days does so while quoting scripture.
Questioning why Civil Union isn't enough rings back to the era of “Separate But Equal”. Why was segregation wrong if they are given the same resources. They get half the bus, what more did they want? Ironic now, how the black community sees no hypocrisy in voting to deny civil rights to minorities.
The same book they quote over and over has almost nothing to say on homosexuality, though does condemn it once. However, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, speaking about social welfare, justice, and treating people with compassion.
The Bible has no qualms with slavery, whether this is servitude, or sexual slavery. They lay out over and over rules and guidelines for slavery, including selling your daughters into sexual slavery. I think most people would agree that ending slavery in our country was a good thing, however.
The Bible requires killing/stoning people for any number of offenses, including: working on the sabbath, touching pig skin, encouraging the questioning of Christianity, planting different crops next to each other, wearing clothing with two different fibers. These are able to be overlooked in favor of cherry picking from a 2000 year old book to justify current political positions.
Priests, bishops, and pastors have decided to jump into politics; using their pulpit to follow an agenda not consistent with the bible; just as imams in Afghanistan use their mosque to spread a dogma not consistent with the Qu'ran, taking advantage of illiteracy. The Catholic nuns are being chastised for wanting the church to focus on the poor, and those in need; while the bishops want to pursue a political agenda around gay marriage and abortion.
Don't try to keep us from getting a blood transfusion, getting contraception, working on Sunday, or restrict our diets because of your book of parables.
benburrito on May 11, 2012 @ 12:55 am wrote: “Questioning why Civil Union isn't enough rings back to the era of ‘Separate But Equal’ ”.
While I support gay marriage, and am happy to refute bad arguments against it, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with bad arguments made in its favor.
The issue of segregation is quite distinct from the issue of gay marriage, and the ‘Separate But Equal’ comparison does not work, for reasons too numerous and complex to go into here. But I can raise one basic point: The separate schools struck down in Brown v. Board of Education were anything but equal.
White schools were often modern, and had the latest conveniences, including heating and air conditioning, well equipped science labs, and Olympic swimming pools. In contrast, the Black schools were frequently little better than broken down shacks, lacking even windows! In short, the claim of “equality” was a cruel joke.
Whatever your feelings about Civil Unions, the same cannot be said. In most States where they were created, or proposed, they would grant exactly the same legal rights as marriage. Only the name would be missing. Thus the segregation analogy doesn’t work.
Let me reframe in a different way. Civil Unions don't always grant the same rights and protections as marriage. What if back when inter-racial marriages were being considered, if states had told those couples that they could have Civil Unions but not marriage.
They would in many people's minds be given most of the rights as those with marriage, and even in other places rights on parallel with marriage. Even then, you have a group of people that are being told their commitments, their relationships are not on par, equal, or as valid as their counterparts. Civil Unions are not looked upon by society the same as marriage. So they are looked upon by many people as something less than marriage, which is more what I was attempting to argue.
Thanks for the thoughts, I had to trim out a bunch to fit under the 2000 character limit.
benburrito wrote on May 11, 2012 @ 4:22 am: “Let me reframe in a different way.”
PART ONE
I’m afraid the new analogy doesn’t work any better than the old one. Read the case that struck down the anti-miscegenation laws: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The issue there was that the law prevented Whites and Blacks from marrying (though, interestingly, they could each marry members of other races, just not each other). Those laws were struck down, in part, because discrimination by Whites against Blacks (a legacy of slavery) was a core concern of the 14th Amendment, not because of any “separate but equal” issue. The rights of gays to marry simply isn’t part of that core concern, and it’s doubtful if it’s even covered by the 14th Amendment at all. (Only the Supreme Court can answer that question.)
Furthermore, your entire argument is premised on a false assumption. While it is true that in some jurisdictions Civil Unions (or Domestic Partnerships, etc.) provide less rights than marriage, and therefore are not “equal”, in other jurisdictions they provide exactly the same rights. Most people who argue for Civil Unions as a compromise on the marriage issue are referring to those kinds of Unions: identical to marriage except for the name. The psychological question of what people are “told” by use of that alternative term doesn’t raise a constitutional issue.
Again, as a matter of public policy, which results in legislative action, I completely agree that marriage is the preferred approach. But when you invoke “separate but equal” you are talking about the Constitution, and application of desegregation decisions to this debate is not as simple or as automatic as many suppose.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
By the way, if you want to understand Brown v. Board of Education, may I suggest the book Simple Justice by Richard Kluger. It’s probably the best work on the history of the fight that led (over decades) to that decision, and of the people involved. It’s also a great read!