Obama Says ‘I Do’ to Gay Marriage

The president changes his mind on gay unions. Again.

After President Barack Obama finally gave his explicit support to gay marriage in May, The New York Times claimed it was the culmination of “a wrenching personal transformation on the issue.” If so, Obama changed back into the person he was in 1996, when he was a political novice running for the Illinois Senate. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he told a gay newspaper back then, “and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

Running for re-election two years later, Obama already had learned the value of reticence regarding touchy social issues. “Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages?” a questionnaire asked. Obama’s response: “Undecided.”

Evidently the wrenching decision Obama had to make was not whether he thought gay couples should have a right to marry but whether he should say so out loud. The fact that it took 16 years reflects the gradual evolution of public opinion on the question, which ultimately made it thinkable for him to tell ABC News “it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

The immediate impetus for that affirmation was the fallout from Vice President Joseph Biden’s unguarded comments about gay marriage three days earlier, which drew unwelcome attention to Obama’s studied ambiguity on the subject. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying [each other] are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden said on Meet the Press. “And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

Obama did—or at least, he was aware that many voters did, which is why he had been careful to avoid endorsing “gay marriage” as such. Instead he advocated a “strong version” of “civil unions,” one that would give gay couples “all the rights” of straight couples, except the right to call their relationship a marriage.

Obama understood that the name really does matter to some opponents, mainly because they conflate civil marriage—the legal arrangement recognized by the state—with “the sacred institution of marriage” (as Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney calls it), which is defined by religious traditions that date back a lot further than marriage licenses. As Obama put it in a 2007 presidential debate, “We should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples.” 

The leery people Obama had in mind included not only older swing voters but also crucial parts of his base: Seven out of 10 black voters supported California’s ban on gay marriage in 2008, as did most Latinos. At the same time, Obama did not want to alienate gay donors or young voters, who overwhelmingly support gay marriage. Hence his “evolving” views on the issue, which seemed to be driven by polling data.

While recent polls asking for a simple yes or no find support for gay marriage as high as 53 percent, surveys that give people additional options suggest opinions are more complex. In a February New York Times/CBS News poll, 40 percent of respondents supported “legal marriage” for gay couples, up from 22 percent in 2004. An additional 23 percent favored “civil unions,” while 31 percent said there should be “no legal recognition at all.” An August 2010 Fox News poll had similar results.

Obama’s support for “strong” civil unions straddled two positions that together account for more than 60 percent of voters (and an even bigger majority among people apt to vote for him). By contrast, “no legal recognition” for same-sex couples clearly has become a minority position—a fact that Mitt Romney, who talks a lot about protecting marriage but very little about fair treatment of gay couples, may have to contend with as he repositions himself for the general election.  

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Given his leftist leanings, Obama should have been in favor of gay marriage consistently during his entire political career.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Actually, given his leanings, he should have been in favor of having gays put on a train and shipped to a camp of some sort. Like all of the regimes he admires.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Well, yeah, but he's saving that stuff for his second term, if not beyond.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And he'll only have non-leftist gays put on those trains, Guard. Along with all the other non-leftists he can have dragged through the streets first.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Nah, I mean once you have absolute power you can stop worrying about their donations. I expect the switch will be flipped on them.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Like Boortz said yesterday, for the moment Obama is afraid of the electorate; if he gets re-elected, he will be fearless.

    It's a shame all politicians are not afraid of the electorate, every moment of their miserable terms in office.

  • ||

    It's a shame all politicians are not afraid of the electorate, every moment of their miserable terms in office.

    Maybe if more of us owned guns they would be.

  • Harvard||

    Flash this link to your congressman at the end of your rant.

    http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the.....e-anything

  • ||

    Naturally the article's writer, and the commenters wring their hands over all of that.

  • ||

    with nothing more than money and a little online savoir faire, you can buy extremely powerful, deadly weapons—Glocks, Berettas, PPKs, AK-47s, Bushmaster rifles, even a grenade

    Wow. So it's, like, a gun store? Scary.

  • T o n y||

    Neal Boortz. So much is explained.

    Rightwing talk radio is bad for the blood pressure dude.

  • ||

    On that we can agree.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Boortz is all I listen to, Tony. I sure as fuck don't listen to left-wing radio, which contains Rush-clone Ed Schultz, one of the most truly hateful creatures in existence.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Okay, I cop to listening to Walter Williams when he subs for Limbaugh, but not Limbaugh himself, who should roast in hell with Ed Schultz.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    BTW, Tony, if you don't recall, I'll remind you:

    I used to be so far to the left, it would make you look like John Ashcroft.

    Thing is... I grew up. You haven't.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, and I never found out why you, as a gay man, have some kind of specialness when people wish you death by AIDS compared to wishing the same for straight people.

    Who also die of AIDS.

    Years ago, some religious nut went around plastering pay phones and other flat surfaces with stickers claiming AIDS was "God's revenge on homosexuals".

    Guess who ripped off or covered up dozens of them.

    Go on, guess.

    Wrong... it was me. And I still would, if anyone did shit like that again. Haven't seen any lately, though.

    Consider it an unpaid, selfless public service gig. And I was glad to do it... voluntarily.

    Your turn, Sprinkles.

  • T o n y||

    It's rather rude to wish anyone death by any means, but no amount of squirming will unpin you from your own words, which were the essence of homophobia. An apology would be big of you, but it'll never happen, as a rightwing radio zombie never apologizes, only ambles aimlessly searching for more brains to eat.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Bullshit. I don't practice homophobia.

    You, OTOH, practice bigotry against straight people.

    Still want to see the link, though. I don't recall saying it, but if you show it I'll cop to it - and still consider it to be a non-issue.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The USSR didn't ship gays to camps. It merely sporadically imprisoned them in mental hospitals.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'll bet there are still USSR apologists on our soil, to this day, who would *ahem* and turn the subject back to "tax cuts for the rich" or some other leftist shit.

  • Harvard||

    [The USSR didn't ship gays to camps]

    And how much work do you think you'd get from one with a limp wrist?

  • Tman||

    By contrast, “no legal recognition” for same-sex couples clearly has become a minority position—a fact that Mitt Romney, who talks a lot about protecting marriage but very little about fair treatment of gay couples, may have to contend with as he repositions himself for the general election.

    This may the biggest nothingburger of a political issue possible, but for some people there is a difference between “no legal recognition” and "fair treatment of gay couples".

    I'm nit saying these folks are right, by the way, I'm just saying that even in CALIFORNIA for godsakes people voted to keep marriage between a man and a women. That doesn't mean they necessarily want to treat gay couples "unfairly".

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Who knew that California - populated overwhelmingly with leftists - would be so hateful and bigoted against gays?

    The irony is topped with salty ham tears.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    The prevalent minorities in California don't really appreciate our sweeter, swishier brethren. So once it's an individual issue, and not part of a package deal, it tends to lose a lot of 'traditional' support.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I was told by a local gay activist that, unless I devote my life to push for gay marriage, it must be due to some deep-rooted religious-bigotry sentiment.

    After patiently explaining that I have no such sentiments, and that I really don't care either way on the issue, she proceeded to unleash paragraphs of hateful bile and more curse-words than I use in an entire year.

    I wonder if she knows Tony.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Was she hot?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hells, no. She looked like 1970s-era Ed Asner.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I thought you said she wasn't hot.

  • ||

    Did she at least have rack like Ed Asner?

  • SIV||

    Did you invite her out for a Chick-fil-A sandwich?

  • ||

    Did you invite her out for a Chick-fil-A sandwich?

    I hear the drag queens love it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I don't see any reason [DRINK!] for the left to bitch about Chick-Fil-A. Personally, I don't see all the hype in favor of them as being sensible, either. Never have liked their food.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I was told by a local gay activist that, unless I devote my life to push for gay marriage, it must be due to some deep-rooted religious-bigotry sentiment.

    You should have asked her, "Have you seen the statistics on divorce? Do you have any idea what couples who get divorced have to go through? Why would you want to put up with that shit?"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Never got the chance. I was too busy being told I should quit my job and protest for "social justice" full-time.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    But it feeeeeeeellllllsssss wrong.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow, Tony's really late for this thread.

    Meh, he'll catch up, calling all of us knuckle-dragging, classless incest-loving breeders with too much money.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Whoa, there, pard! I may be a knuckle-dragging, classless, incest-loving breeder, but I am NOT a communist.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I see what you did there, Guard.

  • Mo||

    Civil unions are legal in CA, which means that there is legal recognition.

  • Tman||

    But not marriage! Everything must stop until gays can use that word!!

    Yawn....

  • Fluffy||

    If it's no big deal, you should have no problem letting the gays have their way.

  • Tman||

    I don't. They can marry all they want as far as I care.

  • Fluffy||

    Great, then we agree.

  • Mo||

    Romney is against civil unions which provide the benefits of marriage, which is exactly what is legal in California. He supports a constitutional amendment preventing states from creating them.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Sorry Jacob, the definitive article about Obama and gay marriage has already been written.

    In it you'll learn that despite appearances, Obama isn't a generically craven politician who's opinions are determined by polling data and focus groups. Rather, he's a deeply principled grandmaster strategist playing a chess game in dimensions you can't even perceive. It's called 'leading from behind' when you wait for a slim majority to approve of a position before announcing your own support in order to brilliantly sway fence-sitters just waiting for a confident voice to show them the way.

    I mean, that's the only reasonable explanation, because otherwise gays would have to be deeply insulted by Obama's crass political hedging with their Constitutional rights. And anyone who voted for him (or planned to) would have to feel like idiots for being fooled again by another power-hungry empty suit.

    But they don't. Because, y'know, leadership. Hope. Change. etc.

  • T o n y||

    Gays have a choice between the party whose leader just became the first president ever to endorse gay marriage, and the party that believes gays should, at best, stay hidden in airport bathrooms where they belong.

  • wareagle||

    Obama has endorsed nothing beyond a position he finds politically expedient for the moment. In fact, the highest ranking official to EVER be unequivocally FOR gay marriage was Dick Cheney.

    Romney, meanwhile, has repeatedly supported civil unions, which I find only semantically different from marriage, but which is a huge step forward from Obama '08. But that's okay, Tony; authoritarian boots never lick themselves. You keep at it.

  • T o n y||

    I have never expressed an interest in licking Dick Cheney's boots.

    My sense is that Obama has been for equal marriage rights for a long time. It's also my sense that he's actually not a religious person, though he pretends to be.

    I'll make sure to have my smelling salts handy the next time a politician takes a politically motivated position in public.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "My sense is that Obama has been for equal marriage rights for a long time."

    And what exactly has he done about that except talk?

  • T o n y||

    What exactly can he do about it, except talk?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "What exactly can he do about it, except talk?"

    So you admit it's impotent rhetoric and a "gays choice" for Obama on this topic serves no purpose.

  • o3||

    marrage is a state issue.

    obama doesnt defend DOMA, has ordered the military to retain qualified gay servive members, and has extended federal health benefits to domestic partners of federal employees.

  • wareagle||

    you are hopeless, tony. Obama pissed on you in '08 without equivocation. He offered this weak tea change of heart AFTER the NC referendum on gay marriage, and absolutely nothing he says on this can be codified.

    My sense is that Obama has been for equal marriage rights for a long time.
    that's an opinion based on nothing. There is absolutely no evidence to support it and plenty for refute it.

  • T o n y||

    Your concern is so terribly sincere, I'm sure.

    Gay marriage is probably not in my top 10 policy concerns. See o3 above. Best president for gay rights ever. What more could I possibly ask for in a country half full of religious bumpkins?

  • ||

    Obama and the Dems held the entire government for 2 years and didn't bother to repeal DOMA, DADT, or do anything else for y'all. Then election time rolls around and he gives you some sound bites. But yeah, greatest president for gay rights.

  • T o n y||

    Dems neither had legislative carte blanche nor unlimited political capital in those 2 years--this is a GOP talking point and beneath you.

  • ||

    I truly hope your faith in Obama's position is well founded, but I think he's a politician and just catering to y'all so you'll pony up the cash.

    But hey, thanks for the compliment.

  • T o n y||

    He's done more for gay people than I ever expected. But that's to an extent due to public opinion shifting faster than I expected. It's all gravy as far as I'm concerned. As is Republicans' sudden realization that gay bashing won't win them anymore elections. Since that's settled, I can focus my attention on graver concerns.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    My sense is that Obama has been for equal marriage rights for a long time. It's also my sense that he's actually not a religious person, though he pretends to be.

    He's secretly on our side! He only drones brown people to win over his enemies!

  • tarran||

    He is secretly on our side! It's his corrupt and venal ministers who cloud his vision with their lies who are the source of our miseries.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, but you lick Obama's boots, Tony, which is just as bad as liking Cheney's boots.

    Obama should have had a consistent position from Day One of his political career on this issue, given that he's a leftist.

    Then again, "gay marriage" is a waste-of-time issue. Just get a civil ceremony and get the legal paperwork done, and you've got all the goodies of those dastardly "breeders" who get the permission slip, which is totally unnecessary and a mere bureaucratic formality.

  • T o n y||

    I prefer equal rights. What's it to you?

    If you ever were a liberal then you are case in point that listening to rightwing radio actively makes people stupid.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That WOULD be equal. You just keep focusing on the Holy Grail called a marriage license.

  • wareagle||

    if people haven't already, shouldn't that article be the point in which Andrew Sullivan was marked off of their lists of serious individuals.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you've got a gay marriage? you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

  • o3||

    somebody else like the judge who married them?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Polygamy is still illegal

  • ||

    Even though Obama has been shit on gay issues, Tony shows up to spit shine his shoes. Film at 11.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Has anyone ever seen Tony and Andrew Sullivan in the same room?

  • o3||

    o3|7.24.12 @ 1:00PM|#
    marrage is a state issue.

    obama doesnt defend DOMA, has ordered the military to retain qualified gay servive members, and has extended federal health benefits to domestic partners of federal employees.

  • ||

    marrage

    The institution which detracts from the perfection or wholeness of two persons?

  • o3||

    you cant have marrage w/o rage

  • ||

    obama didn't do jackshit against DADT until a lawsuit by log cabin REPUBLICANS forced his hand

    that's not rhetoric. it's fact.

  • o3||

    the military took several years to conduct, analyse, then publish their survey of all branches.

    like 2/3rds of active duty said retaining gays would make no diff in their unit.

    then DADT was eliminated

  • ||

    It's almost like that study was started under a different president. But it couldn't be cause BOOSH hatez teh gayz.

  • o3||

    bush needed moar cannon fodder

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The understanding of marriage as a "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony", Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), can not be traced to a purpose of discriminating against homosexuals (unlike laws banning gay teachers and gay soldiers). Indeed, the concept of sexual orientation itself did not exist until the late 19th century. See J. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality 10 (1995); J.
    D’Emilio E. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America 121 (2d ed. 1997) (“The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions“), cited in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 at
    568-569 (2003)

  • Fluffy||

    The understanding of marriage as a "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony", Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), can not be traced to a purpose of discriminating against homosexuals

    It doesn't have to be.

    I'm not a big fan of the rational basis test, because to me it seems like just an excuse to keep unconstitutional laws on the books if you can convince the justices you had a "good enough reason" to act unconstitutionally.

    But we're stuck with it because it's the current state of the law, and it doesn't say laws that discriminate are fine as long as discrimination wasn't the primary intent of the law. It says that laws that discriminate can only be upheld if an adequate rational basis for the law can be offered by the state. That would mean that a law passed in all innocence could fail the rational basis test if that test was retroactively applied to it.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But we're stuck with it because it's the current state of the law, and it doesn't say laws that discriminate are fine as long as discrimination wasn't the primary intent of the law. It says that laws that discriminate can only be upheld if an adequate rational basis for the law can be offered by the state. That would mean that a law passed in all innocence could fail the rational basis test if that test was retroactively applied to it.


    That would depend, in part, if the original, historic purpose of this understanding was legitimate.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but if you don't want to redefine the definition of marriage, the only possible explanation is hatred of homosexuals.
    Even if you support civil unions with equivalent legal status, giving same sex couples all the same legal protections as opposite sex couples except the use of the word, you are a hopeless hater.
    Not only that but you are racist since you support separate but equal.

    The only possible way to prove that you are not a racist homophobe is to not only voice your support for redefining marriage, but actively join in the effort to change it.

    Otherwise you deserve to die.

  • wareagle||

    so you have met the activist whom FIFY referenced upstream, I see.

  • sarcasmic||

    Every activist I've met was like that.

    They start with appeals to emotion (faaaaaairness! equaaaaaaaaaaality!), if that doesn't work they try false dichotomies (either you support same sex marriage or you hate homosexuals), and if that doesn't work they unleash the ad hominems (homophobe! racist! bible-thumper!) to shut you up.

  • T o n y||

    All I would ask of you is that you explain why a separate-but-equal situation is superior to plain equality. Clearly you're very concerned that only straights have access to the word "marriage," which more than implies that you think gay couples should, in fact, be viewed as lower-class citizens. What's the practical justification for this opinion?

  • sarcasmic||

    Like I said.

  • T o n y||

    Seems like you're the one whining and lashing out. All I asked for was an explanation. You hold an apparently illogical opinion on this matter, and I'm curious about how you justify it.

  • sarcasmic||

    You hold an apparently illogical opinion on this matter

    I have not given my opinion.
    All I have done is pointed out your fallacies.

  • Fluffy||

    But, but, but if you don't want to redefine the definition of marriage, the only possible explanation is hatred of homosexuals.

    What is your reasoning, if it's not that?

  • sarcasmic||

    What is your reasoning, if it's not that?

    I'm not allowed to point out the fallacies in the activists' arguments and just leave it at that?

  • T o n y||

    It certainly can't be the case that you, a freedom loving libertarian, want to impose your particular religious worldview on the rest of us.

    So we can assume your reasoning is as you have stated many times: you think gay activists are obnoxious meanies, and therefore fuck their equal rights.

  • Metazoan||

    Well, I would actually (this is odd) agree with Tony in that genuine equality is both superior and more straightforward. I see no reason to oppose it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony, all you're doing is confirming what I said.

    You should quit while you're behind.

  • T o n y||

    I have a rational opinion on this issue; you have an opinion you won't even bother to defend. Who's behind?

  • sarcasmic||

    I have a rational opinion on this issue

    You have a string of fallacies.

    you have an opinion you won't even bother to defend.

    You have a straw man that I won't bother to defend.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm not allowed to point out the fallacies in the activists' arguments and just leave it at that?

    But you haven't even done that.

    But even if you had, I'll be blunt and tell you that if I ask you your reasoning for something and you decline to say, I get to guess. Don't like my guess? Give me your reason.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How many of us on here have brought religion into the gay-marriage issue, Tony?

    Not nearly as many as you claim, is the answer.

  • T o n y||

    There has never been found a good secular reason not to support full equality. You are trying, but you are failing. It's almost as if rightwing radio has turned your brain into zombie mush, requiring you to oppose "leftists" no matter what.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I also oppose most "rightists", Tony. Ignore that to your own detriment.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    History shows that the historic reason for understanding marriage as a "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony", Murphy, 114 U.S. at 45, is not to oppress homosexuals.

  • T o n y||

    Yet that happens to be an outcome of such discrimination.

    How many other rights should be subject to a "holy" test, btw?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It is just a mere side effect of meeting the historic purpose.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You should never be so unlucky as to meet people like that, wareagle. Nasty, hateful, spiteful leftists are just as bad for society as the worst of the worst* of the right-wing.

    *which is a tiny segment of said demographic, despite what Lawrence O'Donnell says.

  • ||

    Because marriage hasn't been redefined throughout human history?

    (Note: I don't believe the state will ever get out of the marriage business so my ideal solution is that "marriage" is reserved to religion and everything the state gives that little piece of paper to is a "civil union".)

  • sarcasmic||

    I roll that argument in with the ad hominems.

    "So you would not let different races marry and still allow men to beat their wives? You woman hating racist! Nothing you say matters because you're racist! Racist! Woman hater! He's a racist! He hates women!"

  • ||

    I don't think it's an ad hominem to point out that the government has consistently defined marriage to suit it's purposes, only to change their minds down the road.

    But I could be wrong, it's been known to happen.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is used as an ad hominem by implication.

    "People didn't want races to intermingle out of racism, so obviously if you don't want to redefine marriage now it's because you're a homophobe.
    "And a racist one at that.
    "Now prove you're not by endorsing same sex marriage.
    "PROVE IT!"

  • ||

    Ahh, I see.

    Well why don't you prove you're not a racist homophobe then huh?

  • o3||

    even sar cant prove a negative

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Which is why, stOOOpid, it's a bad idea for leftists to toss words like "racist" and "homophobe" around without due cause.

    It's like when women lie about rape or other sex-related crimes - it diminishes the victims of TRUE attacks.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Or people might wonder what is wrong with racism or homophobia.

  • Metazoan||

    It is curious, though, why anyone would really have such strong opposition to including homosexuals in marriage outside of religious reasons.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is curious, though, why anyone would really have such strong opposition to including apples in citrus fruit outside of vegetarian reasons.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    +fruit

  • ||

    Exactly. Why spend so much time defending your argument from a religious perspective of marriage if you're trying to gain legitimacy of the word in a religious sense?

  • triclops||

    Why do we have to pretend Obama has been for gay marriage the whole time, and was just lying to us until it was politically safe to come clean?
    Why do we have to play dumb? Just because we cannot call out politicians on their lies?
    For fuck's sake!

  • triclops||

    *hasn't* not has

  • triclops||

    You know when nerds try to fix their favorite movies or shows continuity errors, or other mistakes?
    Like the Kessel Run in Star Wars being named in parsecs? Or why it was a good idea to hide Luke Skywalker with his own family, and not even change his name?
    It is the same thing as what the biblical literalists do, trying to find a way to make sense of the Bible.

    This is all Andrew Sullivan is for Obama. He literally spends every thought he thinks about his dear leader trying to find ways to turn mistakes into brilliant maneuvers, and craven calculations into brave stands.

    He is the most pathetic of Obama apologists.

    I wish someone would feed him insanely false info about Obama doing something like molesting a child, just so that we could see Sullivan go into apologist mode for a while before it is exposed as a ruse. It would be amazing.

  • Nate||

    Why is the government involved in marriage is beyond me.

  • triclops||

    same reason the church is; interfering in it gives them power.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Which is why gays should do an end-run and avoid the entire marriage license/permission slip trap entirely. Take the church AND the state* out of the equation.

    *both of which should be walled up, never to intermingle.

  • T o n y||

    What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Marriage will never be devoid of legal entanglements. Can you structure an opinion along those lines, which is to say addressing the reality of the universe you live in?

  • triclops||

    It makes a lot of sense, but will never happen.

    Reality and sense do not always align, Tony. Otherwise your belief system would not exist.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I see Tony ignored my sensible "keep church and state" argument.

  • triclops||

    This is what I always tell my lesbian sister and her lesbian friends. That argument means almost nothing to them, no matter how much sense it makes to me.

    It just goes to show you that gays are just as unconcerned with freedom as many conservatives.

    Equality of shackles for all!

  • T o n y||

    It's simply a question of living in the real world vs. daydreaming about utopia. How much freedom is actually gained by engaging in the latter activity?

    This is not an academic exercise, but a question of actual freedoms and rights in the real world. Why do libertarians feel entitled to treat every single political or social question as an academic exercise?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why do leftists feel entitled, period?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The only thing he's done is trot out stuff that would endear him to his base who have all but abandoned him for sucking so badly while in office.

    This is merely pandering.

  • brushtom||

    your concept is right. i think this way too. thanks for explaining it well.
    new era snapback hats
    polarized oakley

  • Live Free or Die||

    If I was the Grand Poobah, I would make all marriages civil commitments, with all the rights now accorded to marriage. Leave marriage cermonies to churches, mosques, hippie communes, etc. Marriage now is a weird mixture of church and state. I've yet to hear a rational secular reason to oppose gay marriage. Commitments should be "shall-issue" for any consenting adults, regardless of gender.

  • شات عراقنا||

    thank you

  • tipuasher||

    Great kindly keep it up
    http://freefacebookcoins.info

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement