LGBT

Mr. Roper, RIP: Majority of Americans Now Support Gay Marriage

|

For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change.

 More here.

The relative speed with which gays and lesbians have achieved a general level of cultural equality and acceptance is not only stunning but a strong sign that the U.S. is populated by generally decent people who respect individual rights. At the time of the Stonewall riots and Boys in the Band, homosexuals were accorded virtually no respect either in courts of law or in courts of public opinion. Throughout the 1970s and '80s and even well into the '90s, when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law to forestall recognition of gay marriage, being openly gay or otherwise alternative in your sexuality carried significant risks in the workplace and on the streets.

That's largely changed, as underscored by Gallup's most recent findings. Change always comes too slow and too reluctantly for those who need it most, but I'm glad that my kids are growing up in a country where literal and figurative gay bashing are on the decline.

Reason on gay and lesbian issues.

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: White House Reporters Bemoan Lack of Access, Leon Panetta Scolds a Leaky CIA, Humanities Professors Swear They Are Necessary for National Security

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.

  1. Fuck.

    1. no, ur the foamy discharge not the actual act

  2. Fuck you Gillespie! DOMA was meant to protect the rights of states!

  3. Are the 47% homophobes or are there 47% of Americans who have no problem the same-sex marriage but worry about expanding entitlements of any kind?

    1. Homophobes.

    2. Of the 47%, 75% are homophobes, 10 % think the government has no business defining marriage, and 15% are gay men who don’t want to get tied down by the old balls and chain.

      1. ha ha *snort* ha

  4. One can oppose the redefining of marriage and support the extending of legal protections to same sex couples.

    1. But yet you refuse to extend those protections to single persons like myself. You’re a singlephobe!

      Also, putting two jays in “majority” seems kind of gay.

  5. One can oppose the redefining of marriage and support the extending of legal protections to same sex couples.

    Separate but equal protection, of course.

    1. Right. When whites drink from this fountain we call it a fountain, when blacks drink from this same fountain we call it a water-providing thing.

      1. in an effort to go green and get students to stop buying bottled water, colleges are installing “hydration stations.”

      2. This distinction has always bothered me. It’s like, we’ll give straight folks the deeds to their homes, but gays will get “Certificates of long-term habitablity”. What the Fuck.

  6. I can’t look at any poll results without thinking of Frank Luntz’ furry, sweaty skull cap and wondering how it would interpret the results.

    1. Fuck you Frank!

  7. If a majority of Americans supported government funded embryonic stem cell research would you support it too?

  8. leave the definition of marriage to religious institutions and allow gay couples civil unions – this ain’t rocket science

    1. But civil unions aren’t good enough for them, they want actual marriage.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

      1. And until states stop calling civil union a marriage, gays should be able to be legally married.

        1. My wife and I got a license from our town hall then had a JP do the ceremony at a local park all without ever using a bible yet now we’re married. I agree the word marriage should just be tossed out unless people want to do something official at their church AFTER the actual union has been done by the state rep.

          Then again, I can’t see why people aren’t allowed to form said union without approval from the state.

          1. Because the state doesn’t want Johnny to marry his mom and make mutant babies.
            This was from back when society frowned upon having children out of wedlock. You knock up a woman then you do the right thing: marry her and support the child. Nowadays you knock up a woman and the last thing you want to do is marry her. Do that and she will be ineligible for state aid. Better if you just live together and lie about it.

      1. I support civil unions. I used to support gay marriage. Marriage is a largely religious institution, while civil unions are what the state should be concerned with (if anything.) There is no way to have legal gay marriage without infringing on 1st amendment religious freedom. There’s been at least a couple of cases where gay couples have sued churches over their refusal to allow them to use church property for wedding receptions.

        I know this is a small minority of the ‘lets shove it down their throat’ variety of gays, but they are there.

        Civil unions, one man – one woman, two men, two women, one man – three women, one woman – 12 men, it’s all good and people can still practice their religion however they like.

        I’ve always thought that the laws against polygamy were in conflict with the first amendment anyway…

        1. Sure there’s a way to balance gay marriage and the 1st amendment. No Church is required to perform a gay marriage. There, it’s settled. Next?

          That being said, Civil unions for all, marriage if you want to go to the church (or other institution of your choice), but that’s not the state’s business.

          1. I think the vast majority of the public would go for this. Among my gay friends, 90% of them would be perfectly happy with this as well. There’s the 10% who are looking for some show of acceptance from this, and I’ve tried telling them that you can’t legislate acceptance from people.

            The gay marriage fight here in california has actually made my opinion of gay activism go down. Too angry, too ‘shove it down their throats’. I think they actually have hurt their cause a bit.

            Eventually the 90% will get what they want and need. The 10% will probably never be happy.

            1. I think the ratio is more like 70-30.

            2. “The gay marriage fight here in california has actually made my opinion of gay activism go down. Too angry, too ‘shove it down their throats’. I think they actually have hurt their cause a bit.”

              Reminds me of that Onion article: Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

        2. I know this is a small minority of the ‘lets shove it down their throat’ variety of gays, but they are there.

          The “lets shove it down their throat” gays don’t bother me – you expect that kind of response from an interested party.

          What bothers me more are the “lets shove it down their throat” libertarians like Gillespie, a man who I increasingly think of as “Mike Malloy with a perm”.

    2. Unless they can, through the courts, impose their redefinition on the oppressive Christians who hold marriage to be a sacred union between a man, a woman, and God, then it just isn’t good enough.

      Those dirty Christians are bigots who need to be punished through the courts.

      1. I agree, an attempt to redefine marriage through the courts is government imposing its will on religion. Government can legalize civil unions, marriage is a religious matter.

        1. Unless the courts say that churches should be forced to perform gay marriages, I don’t see how it is government imposing anything on religion. What about religions who want to do gay marriages (they do exist). Isn’t a law defining marriage as one man, one woman also the government imposing its will on religion if religions aren’t allowed to define marriage however they want to?

          I agree that the ideal situation is to have civil unions for everyone and let marriage be defined by religious or other private institutions. But I don’t see any chance of that happening, so I think that the best likely scenario is to re-define civil marriage and let churches, etc. do whatever they think is right.

        2. You’ve got it backwards.
          By defining marriage as a man and a woman, religion is using government to oppress homosexuals.
          It’s all about malicious intent and hatred against homosexuals.
          They have been oppressed by religious fanatics for eons, and now they will have the chains lifted from them by redefining marriage.

          That is why getting the government out of the marriage business is not good enough.
          Marriage must be redefined with the backing of government force.

          Only then will homosexuals shed the shackles of intolerant religious bigots.

          1. “By defining marriage as a man and a woman, religion is using government to oppress homosexuals.”

            Religion reinforces the existing desire for the institution of marriage, dumbass. Don’t be so confused.

            “It’s all about malicious intent and hatred against homosexuals.”

            Yes, of course, anyone who doesn’t bend to your will is motivated by malicious intent and hatred.

      2. obviously the many states who recognise gay marrage have a diff view

      3. What about atheists that get married and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? Should they no longer be allowed to get married because God isn’t in the mix?

        1. At least in the US, the number of atheists who believe “that marriage is between a man and a woman” must be vanishingly small, if there are any at all. There is no reason for them to believe such a thing.

          1. Why not?
            I’m an atheist and I believe such a thing.

            Husband + wife = marriage

            What’s so radical about that?

            I don’t have a problem with two men or two women shacking up and playing house. Doesn’t bother me one bit. But calling it a “marriage”? I don’t think so.

            Which one is the husband and which one is the wife?
            Husband is male and wife is female.
            Doesn’t make one better or worse than the other, it’s just a recognition of their being opposite sex.

            It is what it is. Marriage is a husband and a wife.

            Can’t have same sex marriage because then it is no longer marriage.

            Call it something else.

            1. You must be one of those dictionarians, who believe the holy oxford descended from the sky to hand out the english language as it was meant to be interpreted. As it is written, so shall it be defined, for ever and ever.

              1. Using the force of government to change what words mean doesn’t seem to me like what freedom loving people do.

                1. *face-palm*

                  By the way, I’m totally creating a meme to redefine atheism to mean believing in the God. Na na na na na, now you’ll have to pick some other word for your beliefs.

                  1. You can redefine whatever you want.
                    I could care less.

                    My problem is with using the coercive force of government to redefine marriage.

                    I couldn’t give a shit if same sex couples go through a ceremony at the local Unitarian church and call it marriage.

                    I do give a shit when they use the coercive power of the state to force me to recognize that as something called “marriage”.

                    I think it is utter bullshit that same sex couples don’t have hospital visitation rights and such.

                    You libertarians are supposed to oppose using coercion to get your way.

                    So much for that.

                    1. Who is being coerced? If any church is forced to perform a same sex marriage, that is a bad thing, I would certainly agree. But expanding the legal definition of marriage is not coercing anyone to do anything, unless you consider changed in any law for any reason to be coercive.

                      Your argument only makes sense if you are proposing getting rid of all legal marriage (which I would also prefer, but ain’t gonna happen). Otherwise, it is just an expression of your preference and by the same reasoning, miscegenation laws should never have been repealed/thrown out either. Plenty of people didn’t accept the legitimacy of interracial marriages and were forced to accept them in the same sense as you are forced to accept same sex marriages.

                    2. The only effective result of government recognizing sam sex marraige is in the contractual allowances that come with marraige.

                      You’re just hung up on what its being called.

                    3. sarcasmic, you’re right. They are wrong.

                      Authentic libertarians oppose gay-i-fying marriage the same as authentic libertarians oppose illegal immigration.

                      No one who claims to be libertarian supports any kind of group supremacy over the individual and certainly no authentic libertarian supports expansion of government.

                      Those who support gayifying marriage and who support illegals are libertines and not libertarians. They pal around with libertarians because they do not fit in with leftists and rightists, both of whom are statists and seek to restrict liberty in one manner or another.

                      Libertines are confused, tend to be those who possess mediocre IQs and tend to be the weak links of libertarians attacked by leftists and rightist.

                      Support for gay marriage and illegals comes down to the same thing, expansion of government paid for through income taxation and debt — in short theft against the defenseless individual.

                      End both income taxation and welfare and then persons might have consistent thought from which to defend and espouse position.

                      Political Homosexism is Racism, a race for group spoils of collectivist political privilege that comes at the expense of the defenseless individual.

            2. I’m not even agnostic. …not sure I’m a believer either–I’m what you might call “cautiously optimistic”.

              My understanding is that marriage has a basis in anthropology. It’s universal. There have been cultures where people married their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters. There have been cultures where men married men and women married women. …but there’s never been a culture that didn’t have marriage.

              It would seem to me then that marriage must be adaptive. I can understand certain atheists defending the sanctity of heterosexual marriage on that basis.

              It’s not an argument I buy into, and I don’t remember seeing that argument made. I can see how someone might argue that, though.

              I don’t want to go all Godwin here, but some of the major atheistic political movements of the 20th Century were entirely hostile to gay people and their rights–presumably on that basis.

              1. Fucking words…how do they work!!

              2. “There have been cultures where people married their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters.”

                Don’t confuse Greek Mythology with actual cultures.

                “There have been cultures where men married men and women married women.”

                Lots of definitions have been tried. Not all experiments proved to be equally useful.

                “…but there’s never been a culture that didn’t have marriage.”

                There will be if gays get their way. Polygamy will be next. Then group marriages. Celebrities and other attention seekers will demand other variations, marrying family members and such. Woody Allen will be socially rehabilitated. Demands will be made to lower the age of consent. It won’t be long before it will be the case that when a stranger tells you that they are married, you will have to ask twenty questions to find out in way they are married. At that point, the institution of marriage will be effectively dead.

                1. “At that point, the institution of marriage will be effectively dead.”

                  Isn’t that the goal?

                  1. “At that point, the institution of marriage will be effectively dead.”

                    Isn’t that the goal?

                    It is for those progressives who just don’t like any kind of obligation, responsibility or stigma placed on them. It’s also the goal of any radical trying to tear the existing culture out by its roots in order to rebuild society from the ground up.

                    Gays I don’t think want to destroy the institution, just to be viewed as normal. Letting gays redefine the institution will lead to its destruction nonetheless.

                2. Oh no! Slippery slope! Dogfucking! Polygamy! (why is it that polygamy should be illegal among consenting adults again?)

                  1. If gays get their way, what legal argument would you use to prevent further redefinitions? Incestuous breeding would still hold up as would no sex between adults and children. And redefinitions involving other species and inanimate objects would be non-starters, at least at first.

                    If gays get their way, most of the arguments for the current definition would be swept away and, if for no other reason than to get attention in our attention-whoring society, the definition envelope would be rapidly pushed until marriage could mean almost anything.

                    why is it that polygamy should be illegal among consenting adults again?

                    Go ask the liberals who gleefully pounced on the Fundamentalist LDS.

                3. “Don’t confuse Greek Mythology with actual cultures.”

                  There’s no confusion about it.

                  Zoroastrian culture practiced next of kin marriages–and they were commonplace.

                  The reason the crops wouldn’t grow when Oedipus was king wasn’t because he was married to his mother–it was because at that time being married to your mother was one way (the holiest way) to be an observant Zoroastrian.

                  Don’t look at the Greek texts directly–look at what’s being assumed in the Greek audience.

                  Zoroastrians didn’t bury their dead either–and the Oedipus Cycle closes in a situation where the gods won’t let the crops grow because the King won’t let Antigone bury her brother.

                  …because the rite of exposure (not burying the dead) was the Zoroastrian way. And the gods won’t suffer follower of Ahura Mazda as a king of Greeks.

                  It isn’t just from the Greek sources either. There’s evidence throughout their history. It’s a historical fact. Next of kin marriages weren’t just something that the Zoroastrian aristocracy practiced either.

                  Everybody knew somebody who was married to their mother, father, brother or sister.

                  I should say the widespread practice of next of kin marriages isn’t something that was just limited to Zoroastrian culture either. There have been others. All well documented.

                  Incidentally, the only time I ever thought a classroom might erupt and lynch a professor? Was in the Zoroastrianism: History and Practice class at UCLA. It was a night class, so people from the local community were there taking the class for kicks. And Westwood happens to have a big Persian community, many of which are Zoroastrians whose parents fled Iran during the revolution of 1979.

                  Probably half the class were practicing Zoroastrians–you haven’t lived until you’ve seen a professor tell his class that half of them are the product of generations and generations of inbreeding! …and then proving it to them beyond any doubt.

                  1. Probably half the class were practicing Zoroastrians–you haven’t lived until you’ve seen a professor tell his class that half of them are the product of generations and generations of inbreeding! …and then proving it to them beyond any doubt.

                    That’s funny. Where did they find that Prof.’s body again?

                  2. @ Ken Shultz
                    The reason the crops wouldn’t grow when Oedipus was king wasn’t because he was married to his mother

                    It was because the gods were pissed that someone murdered the former king and hadn’t been made to pay for the crime. The entirety of Oedipus Rex involved the search for Laios’ killer so revenge could be taken. The fact that he married his mother just ties him into a prophecy and implicates him as the murderer.

                    How on earth you pull Zoroastrianism out of your ass and apply it to that is beyond me.

                    1. “How on earth you pull Zoroastrianism out of your ass and apply it to that is beyond me.”

                      I’d love to take full credit for it.

                      Are you suggesting that the plot centering around a next of kin marriage and the rite of exposure is just a coincidence? How are you gonna defend that?! That this just happened to be two practices their arch-enemies, the Persians, were renowned for?!

                      Are you suggesting that Sophocles’ audiences at the time wouldn’t have been aware that marrying your mother and leaving the dead to rot in the sun–were Persian practices?

                      Understanding the Oedipus Cycle requires an understanding of Greek angst regarding Persia at the time–just like understanding The Manchurian Candidate and “The Crucible” require an understanding of the Red Scare.

                4. Cats and Dogs living together….boo fucking hoo.

                  Institution of marraige has been dead since the first divorce. Some people just think they’re special.

            3. “It is what it is. Marriage is a husband and a wife.”

              Except it isn’t anymore. Marriage has already been redefined. It’s too late. Marriage does now, in fact, include same sex couples. You don’t have to use the word if you don’t want to, but your personal definitions of words don’t affect reality.

              1. “Except it isn’t anymore. Marriage has already been redefined.”

                If so then why isn’t that new definition accepted by society outside the politically correct fringe?

                Why does the redefinition of marriage fail every time it is put to a vote?

                Words mean what society deems them to mean.

                Using force of government to redefine a word seems very un-libertarian to me.

                1. But if my definition of marriage includes gay/same-sex marriages, aren’t the laws which define marriage as 1 man 1 woman also using government force to define marriage and impose a definition on me and everyone else who agrees with me? It goes both ways.

                  Again, I would prefer it if government would stop defining marriage at all and replace civil marriage with civil unions or some contract based system. But that is not going to happen.

                  1. “Again, I would prefer it if government would stop defining marriage at all and replace civil marriage with civil unions or some contract based system.”

                    I’m with you there.

                    “But that is not going to happen.”

                    Neither is marriage going to be redefined. Not yet anyway. We need one more generation to be indoctrinated into Political Correctness by the public schools first.

                    Then it will change.

                2. apparently you’re not in the majority anymore then. We’ll see when it comes back up for vote. I think you’re just angry your “specialness” might be reduced.

                  Frankly, I’d like to eliminate the word marraige altogether because it seems to go to some people’s heads.

                  1. I think you’re just angry your “specialness” might be reduced.

                    Frankly, I’d like to eliminate the word marraige altogether because it seems to go to some people’s heads.

                    Your enthusiasm for eliminating what you are calling another’s desire for specialness (I really like that pretzelized formulation) is really your own desire to be perceived as normal. You should honestly face your own self-loathing rather than muck with society’s most fundamental institution.

          2. If that’s true, then the case against gay marriage is merely reactionary.

            If that’s true, then people against gay marriage are just trying to impose their values on everybody else–and that’s all it is.

            1. The case against gay marriage is the preservation of the status quo.
              The burden of proof is on those who want to redefine marriage.
              The fallacy of it all is that the burden of proof has been switched.
              The case for redefining marriage is “prove why it shouldn’t be redefined”. That and “if you oppose redefining marriage then you’re a hater”. Burden of proof and ad hominem. Double fallacy.

            2. The people against redefining marriage aren’t trying to impose anything. How is not changing the definition of marriage an imposition?

              It’s those who want to redefine marriage who are making an imposition.

              1. “The people against redefining marriage aren’t trying to impose anything. How is not changing the definition of marriage an imposition?”

                Because where society has changed–you’re trying to keep things the same.

                Because you’re trying to stop people from doing what they want to do.

                1. “Because you’re trying to stop people from doing what they want to do.”

                  No I’m not. I’m asking that it be called something other than marriage because it’s not marriage.

                  I’m asking that the coercive power of government not be used to redefine what marriage means.

                  The best solution is to get the government completely out of the marriage business. Then it doesn’t matter how people define it because there is no threat of violence behind the definition.

                  Hello?

                  1. Except it is marriage now. Too late.

                    1. “Except it is marriage now. Too late.”

                      Except that you are wrong. You can keep saying that, but every time it goes to the polls society says no.

                2. “Because where society has changed”

                  Who said it has? Gay activists and their media allies? The political class which lives and works in large urban centers were population density allows every freak and weirdo find kindred souls with which to form a subculture? Why should society bow to the demands of a sliver of the population?

                  1. You really think that cultural attitudes about gayness have not changed radically over the last 20-30 years?

                    1. “You really think that cultural attitudes about gayness have not changed radically over the last 20-30 years?”

                      To the point where married people are ready to give up their ability to say “I’m married” and have it communicate “I am shacked up with a member of the opposite sex”?

                      No, I don’t think so.

                      Does that mean that those who oppose the redefining of marriage hate homosexuals?

                      No it does not.

                      Though that is the argument.

                      “You don’t want to redefine marriage, therefor you hate gay people. The only possible way to prove that you don’t hate gay people is to support the redefining of marriage.”

                      To which I say “get bent”.

                    2. You obviously don’t understand the contractual issues with being “married” in our current society. Changing every document to satisfy your (and other fundies) prickliness is not practical.

                      To which I say to you “get bent”.

                    3. I would rather be right and impractical than wrong and practical.

                      Expediency has cause more harm than good.

                    4. You really think that cultural attitudes about gayness have not changed radically over the last 20-30 years?

                      Lots of attitudes have changed about a lot of things. I don’t take it as given that Americans currently want marriage redefined. There is no question that the promotion of homosexuality and the savage attacks on anyone who opposes the gay agenda has suppressed public opposition and taught people to give the “correct” answer when polled, but the privacy of a voting booth changes a lot of things and suppressed and unexpressed opposition becomes a reservoir of political will which can be tapped or which can explode.

    3. Agreed.

      But so long as the state refers to what you’re calling a civil union a marriage (all who marry legally go to the courthouse to get a marriage certificate, not a civil union certificate), marriage should be granted to them.

      The key is completely separating religion from the state linguistically, not insisting that even though they call it the same thing, it’s actually different.

      Words mean things.

  9. If you want to get married, go to church. If you want a domestic partnership, married or not, go to the state.

  10. Geez, another chink in Ron Paul’s formidable armor. Oh well, queers were never a part of his core constituency anyway. And everybody knows he never wrote all that racist stuff that somehow got into his newsletters for 20 years. Hey, Ron Paul is still the great libertarian hope, gay marriage or no gay marriage!

    1. Max, where the hell are your from anyway?

      1. Max has made his last post|5.18.11 @ 3:52PM|#
        Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

        Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

  11. Do

    not

    care.

  12. Vhen vill ve be ahhllowed to have us many wives?

    1. why? so more than one can drive u insane?

  13. Majority of Americans support entitlements too.

    Oh yeah where is the support for polygamy from Reason? You either are for the idea that people who want to marry can, or you are not.

    I only think Slate has every addressed the whole polygamy thing and they actually said stuff about the foundation of marriage being between 2 individuals only and its crazy to link the 2 together!

      1. Polygamy, while insane (who the hell would want 5 wives nagging them all fucking day long), is more natural than gay marriage and has a history perhaps longer than ‘traditional’ marriage.

        Civil unions as a way to contractually bind people together, and remove any ‘incentives’ for marriage from the state and problem solved.

        1. Gays wouldn’t have any problem with conservatives if they wanted a fair tax system that would revert to a flat tax where there is no credits for children or marriage, but that’s the problem, they are leftist morons who want the current tax system and to become a federal protected class to force their beliefs on everyone.

          1. There are some conservatives who would fight any removal of tax credits for marriage as well.

            Entitlements and government involvement in all aspects of our life really fuck up everything it touches doesn’t it? Kind of like immigration – open borders good, open borders with government largess bad.

            It seems a lot of problems could go away on their own if we get the government out of them.

            1. Entitlements and government involvement in all aspects of our life really fuck up everything it touches doesn’t it? Kind of like immigration – open borders good, open borders with government largess bad.

              It seems a lot of problems could go away on their own if we get the government out of them.

              Amen.

          2. Yup. Gay people all think the same way about everything.

          3. You have the fight down, exactly, Chase.

            All libertarians should oppose queer marriage.

            The Homosexism Movement seeks money. They want the status of marriage so that they qualify for survivor death benefits through Social Security; and of course, once having marriage status, they would qualify for any benefits conferred upon their spouses.

            The “gay marriage” war has nothing to do with private preferences or tolerance or rights. It’s all about extra political privileges sought merely over a bizarre, but rather harmless sexual fetish.

            No sexual fetish should provide the basis for securing extra political privileges, which is exactly what homosexists seek.

            While no man or woman should concern himself or herself with what adults do in their private lives — with Private Homosexism, all should be alarmed at Political Homosexism.

            For Political Homosexism is another kind of Racism, that is, living by racing for the spoils of collectivist political privilege that comes at the expense of the defenseless individual.

            1. See my comment above. So the fuck what if a lot of gay people are liberals. That has zero to do with whether gay marriage ought to be allowed.
              There are gay conservatives and libertarians, you know. Gay is not a political movement, and if it wasn’t for cunts like you, more might be willing to consider another political orientation.

              I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that someone who calls himself “always right” is an asshole and is wrong a lot.

              1. HA HA HA. You amuse Zeb. Mere words have triggered you into a trance rage. Look at you go!

                Look at how I am your marionette master. I pull your strings and you dance.

                Show exactly anywhere, point-for-point, in any of my writing on Reason.com where I have been wrong.

          4. Gays Conservatives wouldn’t have any problem with conservatives gays if they just wanted a fair tax system that would revert to a flat tax where there is no credits for children or marriage

            … but gays don’t. Gays want the stamp of approval from society. Activists aren’t demanding changes to the tax system. They are demanding a redefinition of every societies’ most fundamental institution so that gays can feel more normal.

            they are leftist [conservatives?] morons who want the current tax system and to become a federal protected class to force their beliefs on everyone.

            It is gays who are trying to become a protected class. What reality do you live in?

  14. Marriage long preceded involvement by the church…What do silly God bothering neo-paedophiles in skirts have to do with people wanting to marry….nothing.

  15. Oviously one of the signs of the apocalypse. How many times have you seen a “God hates fags” sign? What? Did the message not sink in?

    Hellfire here we come!

  16. Since no one else is going to ask, “WTF is a ‘majjority’?”

    1. It’s like the magi, from the BIBLE. You know, wise people, movers, shakers, deciders.

  17. But seriously, the whole issue is tied up in the word “marriage”. It’s preganant with meanings government shouldn’t even give lip service too. We should start calling marriages “waddles”.

    So when are you two getting waddled?

  18. Please stop calling “same-sex marriage” “gay marriage.”

    Thank you

    1. Why? I sort of see your point, but I think that the meaning is clear. Marriage is generally presumed to be a sexual pairing, though I suppose it doesn’t have to be.

      How about “sex-blind marriage”?

      1. How about SGLBTG marriage? (Straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) 😉

        No, not enough?

        How about SGLBTGTS-M/P marriage? (straight, gay, lesbian, transgender,transspecies – monogomous/polygamous)

        1. Hey, don’t forget about us!

      2. Why? I’m glad you asked.

        “Gay marriage” is ambiguous. Reason doesn’t want to be ambiguous does it? Maybe it does. A little ambiguity can go a long way in framing an issue.

        I’m not against gay marriage. That is to say, I do not support banning a gay from getting married. In fact, they shouldn’t even ask if a person is gay in the marriage license application.

        I do not however, support same-sex marriage.

        See? Ambiguous.

        1. Just like they shouldn’t ask a person if they are related to their future spouse.

        2. The “gay” in gay marriage modifies “marriage”. Does that help?

          1. Nnno, not really. That doesn’t even entirely make sense. Anyway, it can still mean more than one thing. Is a marriage between a gay man and a gay woman a gay marriage? Is a marriage between a straight woman and a straight woman a gay marriage?

  19. I’ll be happier when the majority believe it’s none of the state’s business whether you’re married or not.

  20. I must not have paid attention to Three’s Company because I do not recall that Mr. Roper was afraid of similar things.

  21. I really wasn’t expecting such vile commentary on such good news. Marriage is regulated by the state, and until that changes it must be offered to same-sex couples as well. Civil Unions do nothing to address the overreach by government. Marriage or civil unions should not be regulated by the government, but until that changes we cannot deny same-sex couples a right given to heterosexual ones. So disappointed in this thread of responses.

    1. “vile” commentary? Overreact much?

      Actually civil unions do address the overreach by the government. If a national right to a civil union was established, what exactly (besides name) would be different than marriage?

    2. This makes no sense. If a civil unions law gives same-sex couples exact equality under the law — the exact same rights as married hetero couples — then how are you denying anyone any rights?

      The difference is that a crucial minority of voters will go ballistic over calling it “gay marriage”, but are OK with calling it “civil unions”, and thus by being cognizant of their prickliness about the word “marriage”, you can achieve equality under the law.

      1. If a civil unions law givesrights

    3. I’m a bit taken aback myself at the parade of strawmen on display here; I have yet to see any rational, defensible arguments against gay marriage. They all boil down to “because I think it’s icy.”

      1. Here we go again; that should be icky, not icy. Depending on spell check while not using the preview function is a pretty good sign that I’m too tired to be trying to comment, or even function, competently. Must sleep now.

        1. I think the icky factor is what’s at the bottom of a lot of it.

          The Culture War stopped being about logic decades ago–to everybody who doesn’t have a dog in the fight anyway.

          It became a tit for tat between the combatants. You give fundie children an abortion without their parent’s knowledge or consent? The fundies will push for prayer in public schools and intelligent design.

          The fundies push for laws and propositions banning gay marriage? And the other side in the culture war pushes to tax churches…

          Personally, I can’t think of any way that gay marriage affects me–other than the fact that I don’t want to live under a government that arbitrarily discriminates against people.

          But I have seen gay rights people do a lot of antagonistic stuff, only to stand around and look bewildered at why the religious right retaliates. I’ve seen people on the religious right stand around and look bewildered after LGBTQ retaliated against them for their antagonism too.

          The first rule if you want to get out of a clusterfuck: Let go of whatever you’re hangin’ onto. Neither side really wants to get out though–it’s their reason for existence. It’s sad really.

          People who define themselves as the opposite of their enemies just end up doing whatever their enemies tell them to do–and that works for both sides.

          1. Nuke the culture war from orbit. Its the only way to be sure…

            1. It would be nice if people at least started to recognize it for what it is.

              It’s an excellent argument for vouchers in my book: the reason fundies push for intelligent design in public schools is because the government teaches their children evolution.

              So why can’t we give the fundies vouchers for less money than it costs to send their kids to public schools?

              I think part of it has to do with the teachers’ unions, but I think part of it also has to do with people not wanting to pay to teach fundie children things they don’t believe in through vouchers.

              …meanwhile, fundie parents are forced to pay for other people’s children to learn about sex and evolution in public schools.

              Again, Clusterfuck City! How ’bout we all pay for our own children, and then we don’t have to suffer that aspect of the Culture War?

              1. Nah, we need to worry about everyone else’s kids. Our own are fucked so we better try again on someone elses.

              2. Ken,

                You gave a perfect summation of how government creates conflict that would otherwise not exist.

          2. People who define themselves as the opposite of their enemies just end up doing whatever their enemies tell them to do

            Sure. There are no actual disagreements amongst people, only mindless reaction.

            Nations maintain militaries for the express purpose of not having others redefine their cultures. Those nations which cannot defend themselves militarily eventually lose their cultures. Same principle here except that those attacking the culture are doing so from within.

            It isn’t just “fundies” who don’t want marriage redefined. Your cavalier attitude toward the culture war is just a result of the fact that you support those who are currently winning – the radicals who are attacking the existing culture. If those pushing back start to win, my guess is that you will start caring.

            1. “Your cavalier attitude toward the culture war is just a result of the fact that you support those who are currently winning – the radicals who are attacking the existing culture. If those pushing back start to win, my guess is that you will start caring.”

              You know nothing about me, so just for the record, I stand up for people’s rights no matter how unpopular.

              I stood up for the FLDS, when they had their children taken away.

              I stand up for the rights of fundamentalist Christians around here just as often as I stand up for the right of gay people–not to be discriminated against by our government.

              I think that mostly comes from my fundie upbringing. If I want the government to protect my rights regardless of whether they’re unpopular, then I need to stand up for the rights of unpopular minorities now.

              Because growing up as a fundamentalist? Was being one hell of an unpopular minority!

              1. I like how apocolypso sees culture as a zero sum game. Its good culture vs. bad culture. Time to break out the guns.

                1. “Its good culture vs. bad culture.”

                  Nope. It’s two cultures competing for dominance. The would-be supplanting culture is trying to impose itself through manipulation by the media, the entertainment industry and the political system. It is not a nature evolution of the existing culture, but an attempt at a hostile takeover. The promotion of homosexuality is only one part of the war.

                  Once again, a sympathizer with the hostile takeover is attempting to downplay its significance.

                  “Time to break out the guns.”

                  It’s precisely because I don’t want violence to ensue that I want to see the hostile takeover thwarted. Incidentally, that hostile takeover includes what every self-respecting should oppose – a ruling elite imposing its will upon the individuals of society.

      2. Then maybe your personal feelings were getting in the way of your reading….

        Civil unions were supported on this thread, not because commenters think gay marriage is ‘icky’ but because it is a way for gay couples to get the rights they need without infringing on others 1st amendment rights. So in summary – gay people get what they want without forcing religious people to accept them.

        Is that so hard?

        1. It’s hard to understand because it’s bullshit. The government can no more force a church to perform gay marriages than it can force a church to ordain women. The fact that some idiot somewhere might try to file a lawsuit against a church over this means nothing. Anyone can try to file a lawsuit for any delusional reason they like, a fact which neither validates nor invalidates any law or policy. Extending the right to obtain a civil marriage certificate to same sex couples has no effect on the First Amendment rights of anybody, period.

          1. from a NJ news article: http://www.nj.com/news/index.s…..ch_gr.html
            The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled Monday that a church group discriminated against a lesbian couple when it denied them the right to hold their civil union ceremony on beachfront property the group owns but has advanced as a public space.

            The division found that Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster had probable cause to claim that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association’s rejection of their bid to rent the boardwalk violates the state’s antidiscrimination law. According to a press release from the LGBT civil rights organization Garden State Equality, the opinion was based on the boardwalk pavilion’s being “public” by nature of its historic use as open to everyone without restrictions.

            1. There have been quite a few of these.

              There is a large segment of the gay population that just wants the simple rights that any committed couple should have.

              But there is a sizable minority who just want to push acceptance and use the state to enforce it.

              Usually when I hear someone say that civil unions aren’t enough, it MUST be marriage, that’s a tip-off that they belong to the acceptance crowd.

              Using the state to force others to accept you is very uncool.

            2. While I think the government is overreaching in that case, it is not in any way at all comparable to forcing churches to perform same sex weddings. It’s more akin to the Civil Rights Act in that it is creating a special class of private property it refers to as public accommodations and imposing conditions of business on the owners. Not pretty, but also not imposing acceptance on churches as churches; it addresses the particular church in its role as a property owner, not in its role as a religious institution.

              1. “it addresses the particular church in its role as a property owner, not in its role as a religious institution.”

                Bullshit. The NJ attorney tried to force the Boy Scouts of America to accept openly gay scoutmasters. There is an ideologically driven use of the government in NJ to force the acceptance of homosexuality on groups which do not accept it.

                The argument that the BSoA must accept homosexuality because they are allowed to use government land has been made in other contexts. It’s all just a pretext.

                1. I have zero tolerance for government interference with anyone’s right of association and oppose any attempt by any branch of government to impose any set of values on private organizations. We’re in agreement on that. I’m a libertarian, not a liberal or (shudder) a “progressive.”

                  1. I have zero tolerance for government interference with anyone’s right of association and oppose any attempt by any branch of government to impose any set of values on private organizations. We’re in agreement on that.

                    Cool. Some common ground.

          2. Extending the right to obtain a civil marriage certificate to same sex couples has no effect on the First Amendment rights of anybody, period.

            Maintaining the current definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has no effect on the Constitutional rights of anybody, period.

            1. Once again we’re in agreement; nowhere have I tried to make that argument.

              1. Sadly, others frequently do. The word “rights” has been misused so frequently and for so long that I fear its legitimate meaning may never be recovered.

  22. In defense of Mr. Roper, technically he was a guy who was trying not to let his homophobia cross the line into discrimination…

    Actually, if anything, Mr. Roper was practicing reverse discrimination. The premise of the show was that Mr. Roper would only rent to Jack because he thought Jack was gay. Because he wouldn’t rent to heterosexual couples in the same unit unless they were married.

    Jack has to pretend he’s gay if he doesn’t want to suffer discrimination. Mr. Roper wasn’t necessarily discriminating against gay people in his renting practices–he was discriminating against unmarried heterosexuals.

    That was the joke. He was so out of it, he thought he was being a prude–but…

  23. Whoop de do. However, in the future, marraiges will be prohibitively expensive due to government licensing costs skyrocketing.

  24. We need to see the methodology of the polling, both for sampling accuracy and to see the operational definition of words as well as if the question were asked in an unbiased manner.

    Most politically-oriented polling is fraught with bias that renders such public opinion polls false.

    Shame on Nick and Reason for accepting the results uncritically.

    1. I wouldn’t believe these polling results no matter what the alleged methodology. I’ll believe that a majority of Americans support redefining marriage when there is an actual vote on the issue. So far, when put to voters, voters have resoundingly endorsed the current definition. The political currents are changing. The political class is being challenged and radicals are trying to lock in changes before the backlash hits. Publishing rigged polls to convince reluctant politicians to take action would be nothing new. Just look at the ongoing attempt to queerify the military. A phony survey of people associated with the military cooked to provide a fig leaf for the radicals. An attempt to reinforce “gay marriage” through the navy was backed-off of when pushed back against.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if, as has been the case in other polls, there is a big discrepancy between the results for different age groups. Young people are being systematically indoctrinated to accept homosexuality and to believe the gay self-narrative that portrays them as victims of an oppressive society. But indoctrination is not destiny. Just as young people’s political views change when they earn their first real paycheck, so too do their views change when they discover that their children, their precious little bundles of joy in whom they have invested their hopes and dreams, are being taught how beautiful butt-fucking and carpet munching is. Suddenly, all the indoctrination gets swept aside as reality hits like a slap in the face.

      1. So in your world anal sex and oral sex are exclusively homosexual activities? Because the boredom of that might make me a bitter asshole, too, I guess.

        1. I admit I was trolling a bit there, although many parents who discover their children are being indoctrinated to love the ghey do see it in that kind of graphic way.

          Parents invest their hopes and dreams in their children, their legacy. I have never met any parents who dreamed of having their children grow up to be homosexual. I have met a few who have recited the standard “I just want my child to be happy” line after their kid has come out to them. Some of them even say it without wincing.

          1. I sympathize with those whose children have become gay teens and gay adults.

            In our more vocal, open “society”, such parents have banded together to assert somehow that their kids are normal, that they haven’t given rise to abnormal humans.

            Yet, those parents who do so merely are trying to feel normal about themselves. That recent social phenomenon has arise because of media.

            A sexual fetish however harmless never is going to be normal no matter how hard many try to make it so through decreed laws and through propaganda.

          2. For the record I’m a straight married woman with three grown children. The public schools they attended had no pro-gay agenda, yet even without so-called indoctrination they all are strongly in favor of gay marriage, including my son the Marine. And I can honesty say that I wouldn’t have cared one way or the other if any of them were gay. I don’t look at my kids as potential providers of grandchildren for me; their reproductive choices are entirely their own. Since their value to me is independent of their willingness to be incubators on my behalf I fail to see why their sexuality should matter to me.

            1. Except that “their sexuality” is not at issue.

              For those homosexists who are not gay, i.e., who are supporters of gays, in the end, their argument comes down to this:

              I like gays. I have gay friends. My child grew up to be gay. C’mon, there’s nothing wrong with them.

              Let’s give them the same welfare privileges (tax breaks, Social Security survivor death benefits) that married people get.

              Why should we do this? Because they’re my friends, my family.

              ***

              And such argument is no basis upon which to have laws to govern interaction among individuals in a country.

              No one should get rewarded for sexual fetishes or for marriage or for pumping out kids or for a whole host of individual choices.

              The issue is should persons pay income taxes to fund Social Security so that others qualify for survivor death benefits merely because of a sexual fetish — homosexism.

              The issue is expansion of government by conferring privilege to an organized group based on a sexual fetish.

            2. “yet even without so-called indoctrination they all are strongly in favor of gay marriage”

              “I can honesty say that I wouldn’t have cared one way or the other if any of them were gay”

              They didn’t need to be indoctrinated. They have adopted your values which include acceptance of homosexuality. Most American people and most American parents don’t share your values, yet their kids are being taught to accept homosexuality as normal.

              Nice touch, by-the-way, adding the “my son the Marine” part to your proud “I’m so wonderfully gay positive” story.

              1. People who have read my comments– on any issue– forr any length of time are already aware that I have a son in the Marines; I threw that in there as a nod to those folks, not as a gratuitous reference to bolster my street cred. And while I’m sure that my attitude influenced my kids’ opinions, that’s hardly the whole story; each of them has at least a few issues about which we are in complete disagreement. And pride? Eh. My only real point was that you’re making broad assumptions about whole groups of people when, in my experience, nobody is really that easy to pigeonhole. I’m a middle-aged clerical worker in a blue collar town, a married woman and mother of three. Any guesses about my life and my politics made on the basis of that demographic information would almost certainly miss the mark. I suspect that’s true of a significant percentage of people.

  25. I don’t care whether it is called marriage or a civil union, and I don’t give a shit about social security payments (it’s not going to be around by the time I retire anyway).

    I do, however, want to the right to visit my partner in the hospital if something were to happen to them. I do want the right to inherit their property, or have them inherit mine. There are a host of legal rights that marriage breaks to couples, and I don’t see a valid reason why those rights should be denied.

    Also, since when is a tax break something bad? I thought Libertarians supported lower taxes.

    The rest of the anti-homosexual marriage/union arguments I am going to totally ignore since they seem to be based on dislike of “ick” factors and an apparent fear of anything beyond the most vanilla sex.

  26. The relative speed with which gays and lesbians have achieved a general level of cultural equality and acceptance is not only stunning…

    Annoying “Will and Grace” show goes off the air, acceptance of gays follows soon after.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.