Same-sex marriage: For some a beginning, for others an end

Thursday, April 09, 2009

With both Iowa and Vermont legalizing same sex marriage within the last week, we wanted to take a step back and talk about the future of gay marriage in the United States. What is the next step for the gay rights movement, and which state will be the next one to let same sex couples marry? Or are these court decisions the spark that will mobilize those opposed This morning will be present both sides of the argument. We'll begin first with Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project and representing the other side of the conversation is Maggie Gallagher. She is the President of the National Organization for Marriage.

Here are two of the PSAs released by the campaigns:


Matt Coles and Maggie Gallagher

Hosted by:

Katherine Lanpher and Femi Oke

Comments [12]


This just in... there is no such thing as sexual immorality. Go have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want. There's still that little restriction called statutory rape and most people find bestiality disgusting, but that's pretty much the only sexual immorality we can agree on these days. SEX WITH WHOEVER!! Go for it!!!! If it feels good, DO IT!!!

Thank goodness all these fetters of morality are falling away. They were so restrictive and boring. I'm going to tell my daughter that she can date a boy or a girl, or both. All children should think that way. I'm going to let them experiment with their sexuality, buy them condoms, and even give them advice. Yeah!! Sex!!!

Gee, I'm so excited about the future of our culture. God must be really, really pleased.

May. 09 2009 12:19 AM

@jen brister, the "gay relationships have more domestic violence" argument has some weight, but many sociologists believe this is because gay couples -- particularly in urban inner city neighborhoods -- have such a major stigma against being gay that they're less likely to seek out help. When admitting you're gay to your family, neighborhood support system, church, etc. will bring MORE instability, not less, you're much less likely to tell someone that you need help. Sadly, these things haven't been studied and proven conclusively, but we can't let conservatives use this as a reason to keep gay people unmarried. We need MORE community support, not less.

Apr. 18 2009 12:18 PM

Domestic partnerships and marriages are not the same thing. Separate is never equal, have we learned nothing from the past? Second, throughout history it has been the states who first grant rights to minorities and then the federal government who later steps in after a significant number of states change their laws. We saw this with women's voting right and with sodomy. Thus, even though homosexuals in California have the "same" rights as heterosexuals, we need to get this issue to the federal level, where California's domestic partnership is NOT the same thing. For example, in the case of heterosexual marriages, U.S. citizens can marry non U.S. citizens who are then granted citizenship. This does not apply to homosexual couples, which means the non-U.S. citizen must apply for citizenship separately. This can be very difficult to get (I'm not sure of the statistics), but many non-U.S. citizens that I personally know have been denied citizenship.

Apr. 16 2009 06:01 PM

just a quick note re: the 2nd "psa". it's most certainly not a psa, and is actually a comedy bit from the jimmy kimmell show. the logo in the lower right corner is a rather large clue.

also, the youtube of the auditions for the scary nom ad is quite humorous.

Apr. 13 2009 11:24 AM

'im gay and i voted yes on 8. we dont need it.'

That is true. The issue with homosexual marriage does not have anything to do with descrimination. It has everything to do with the worth of genders. It is no fable that science and research and experience have proven that children need and want a mother and a father who are faithfull to each other and willing to sacrifice for their children. As we saw in Claifornia, which is one the most liberal states, the majority of voters know that this is true.
The fact that civil unions legally include homosexuals proves that this is not a disrimination issue.

Apr. 12 2009 10:51 PM
jen brister

@Tamara - I would love to hear your statistics about homosexuality being at higher risk for domestic violence. Oh, you must be talking about all the violence against gays. That's the only thing I can think of that would make your comment in any way plausible.

Apr. 10 2009 09:35 PM

im gay and i voted yes on 8. we dont need it. per california family code 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.

its the same thing people. leave it alone. stop making the gay community look like a bigger bunch of jerks than it already is.

Apr. 10 2009 08:20 AM
Michael Sheehan

Maggie Gallagher's position that the interracial marriage ban was about one race oppressing another. Has not "traditional marriage" been about one gender oppressing another? The institution of marriage has not been static. Women were property(and still are in some religious cultures). The very idea of any civil marriage (as distinct from a religious-only ceremony)is relatively new (19th century). The people who oppose same-sex marriage are really beginning to look like the dinosaurs who opposed interracial marriage, civil rights legislation, abolition of slavery etc. The bronze-age book they rely on for guidance becomes less relevant every day.

Apr. 09 2009 11:20 AM
Jeff O'Connor

So Maggie Gallagher is afraid that the legal recognition of same-sex marriages will result in a world where discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation will be considered "a bad thing;" children who don't know who both of their parents are - bastards in other words - will be as socially acceptable as legitimate children; and heterosexual couples will form unions for purposes other than "seed 'n breed."

By all means, give this woman all the airtime she wants - she's the most eloquent speaker against her own position I've heard in a long, long time!

Apr. 09 2009 08:35 AM
Joseph Dwyer

In relation to same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church is a key organization behind most of the social conservative movements in America. For 2,000 years they have been way behind on almost every social or other change including the recognition that the earth revolves around the sun. In 2009 the Pope went to Africa and announced that condoms don't help to prevent AIDS. Not surprizing that the Church is against same sex marriage. It's just a shame that they can still influence so many people. Signed a former Catholic

Apr. 09 2009 07:16 AM

Maggie Gallagher's statement was that the purpose of marriage is for children to know their mother and father. Maybe we can we keep infertile couples and older folks who are unable to have children from getting married. I think that would be a great idea(sarcasm), go Maggie Gallagher.

Apr. 09 2009 06:38 AM

Oh, no! The second guest's comments about racism really rankled me! She said that "we don't let racists... [do a number of things in public life]." But that's not true! In particular, the Catholic churches here in Yonkers still seem to be ~90% racially segregated. What's it like in the boroughs of NYC? I'd love to find a more racially integrated church. Seriously!

Apr. 09 2009 06:36 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.