The American Spectator : New York-Style Marriage

Text Size

New York-Style Marriage

By W. James Antle, III on 6.27.11 @ 6:09AM

Ready for delivery.

After days of being just one vote away, the New York state legislature passed a bill late Friday night allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law, prompting Philip Klein to quip, “So a lot has changed since [the] current NY governor’s dad ran the ‘Vote for Cuomo Not the Homo’ campaign.’”

A lot has changed indeed. As recently as the 1990s, the belief that marriage was anything but a union between a man and a woman was a fringe position. A huge bipartisan congressional majority passed and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act when it looked like judges might rule differently in just one state. Same-sex marriage was considered an oxymoron, not a blow for equality. When given the chance, blue states were as likely as red states to vote it down.

New York is now the biggest state where marriage is legally considered a unisex institution. This is the result of democratically enacted legislation, not judicial fiat. Though supporters have yet to prevail in a single state referendum, more than half of the six states that have full gay marriage (not just civil unions) have now arrived at that destination by the legislative process rather than judicial imposition.

While vast pockets of resistance remain in the black and Hispanic communities, the Democratic Party is trending inexorably toward an embrace of this new definition of marriage. Barack Obama is sure to be the last Democrat nominated for president who even nominally opposes the idea. The Republican Party has been divided on the issue between opponents who are sincere but strategically inept and party elites who need social conservative votes but care nothing about social conservative concerns.

For now marriage is likely to become another red-blue debate, a basic social institution that means something completely different depending on state residence or where one sits along the political spectrum. In the long term, however, the momentum is decidedly in favor of New York-style matrimony. The Obama administration has withdrawn its support from the Defense of Marriage Act; courts are buffeting California’s Proposition 8 on the grounds that some constitutional amendments are less constitutional than others.

How did we get here? The plain fact is traditional marriage was under assault long before same-sex couples began demanding state sanction for their relationships. For millions, marriage long ago ceased to be a promise made before God and community for man to take care of woman until death do us part, for man and woman to take care of their children until they are old enough to take care of themselves.

In its place is a half-meant promise to live together until man and woman are sick of each other or no longer have sufficiently enjoyable sex, with children fitting somewhere alongside who gets the Prius as a priority.

For all the rhetoric about the “freedom” to marry, marriage is in fact a constriction of liberty, the imposition of obligations that last a lifetime. While the ideal of marriage remains attractive, for many its obligations do not. And over time, various social circumstances undergirding traditional marriage changed. Women ceased to need men for their economic support. Illegitimate children no longer had to be differentiated from legitimate ones. Religion, morality, and tradition became a matter of personal taste. To many, marriage is simply state recognition of their affections, a Good Housekeeping seal of approval on their relationships.

Once marriage was separated from its reasons for being, denying gays — whose relationships were increasingly destigmatized — state recognition of their affections seemed to many well-meaning people to be arbitrary and more than a little cruel.

But even in today’s society, severing marriage from its last links to biology will have its consequences. After the initial euphoric rush down the aisles subsides and the backlog of license applications clears, most New York gays and lesbians will likely enjoy the social status their new right confers without ever exercising it. For as the gay libertarian writer Justin Raimondo has argued, “That’s because [gay marriage supporters] have never explained — and never could explain — why it would make sense for gays to entangle themselves in a regulatory web and risk getting into legal disputes over divorce, alimony, and the division of property.”

It will be mostly heterosexuals marrying under a new set of rules where biological parents waiving all rights to their children is as much a part of marriage’s basic design as connecting parents and children. Perhaps that’s appropriate, since heterosexuals have made the new definition of marriage thinkable.

Nevertheless, supporters of New York-style matrimony remain confident that this innovation is relevant only to about 3 percent of the population. For everyone else, all the benefits of traditional marriage will remain intact. We can have our wedding cakes and eat them too.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (170) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 6.27.11 @ 6:45AM

On the same grounds argued for same sex people to "marry," it will be argued that multiple people should be allowed to "marry." In other words, legalized polygamy and polyamory. Of course, that will lead to lowering the age of consent (which is a stated goal of the gay community) to as low as 12. Don't think it will happen? It's a matter of when, not if.

Timothy L. Pennell| 6.27.11 @ 7:25AM

You're on the right track. This is what Liberals do. They get one thing, that always leads to another. Remember the Smoking Bans. They started out small: You had to smoke at the back of the plane, or in the smoking section of the Restaurant, or just in the Bar. Now you can't even smoke OUTSIDE.
They got Emergency Leave, so people wouldn't lose their jobs, if a loved one got sick. Now, they're demanding they get PAID, for that time.
Everything they do, is INCREMENTAL. They resemble the Muslim Terrorists, in their patience.
So, now we have Gay Marriage. If 2 consenting Adults wanna get Married? Well, by God they should have the right!
What about Brothers and Sisters? Can they get Married? Fathers and Daughters? What about Mothers and Sons? What about 3 people? What about 10?
I would say that it's coming, but, the truth is, the way this is written, it's already here.

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 8:47AM

When a word (in this case "marriage") can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything.

florin| 6.27.11 @ 6:14PM

Doesn't Cuomo have a live-in mistress...maybe he doesn't believe in traditional marriage only a perversion of traditional marriage...who knows what will come next...

Legacy America | 6.28.11 @ 11:55PM

Clever and sagacious.

lydia | 6.27.11 @ 8:52AM

I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
Shouldn't issues of marriage be left up to the church? Why is the state or federal government involved whatsoever?

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 9:03AM

Popeye Doyle,
"Now I'm gonna bust your ass lydia for those three bags and I'm gonna nail you for picking your feet in Poughkeepsie. "

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 9:21AM

She has a good point though. Why IS the state involved at all? Marriage should be a promise before God.

SharpRightTurn | 6.27.11 @ 10:43AM

While I believe there may be a case made for the state to get its hand out of marriage ---certainly that case is stronger now --- there is at least one reason the state has been involved in marriage: to secure the perpetuity of the state and society by nurturing real marriage.
In real marriage, there is volume, stability, and procreation. These things sustain a society through numbers and secure families.

It is completely impossible for so-called gay marriage to do the same. If only for that reason, the state has no right to redefine marriage for everyone based on the immoral whims of a few.

florin| 6.27.11 @ 6:19PM

a man having sex with another man or a woman having sex with another woman is unnatural - we were created 'male and female' and the male and female bodies were formed to complement each other. A key fits into a lock...a key does not fit into another key nor a lock into another lock...it's just common sense...before long, every kind of unnatural action will be made legal and acceptable...I don't believe homosexual men and women should be discriminated against but neither should they impose their disordered sexual desires on society...the majority of them don't but, as usual, the vocal minority intimidates until they get their way...it's time for the silent majority to stand up and say: "enough!" - who would have thought that the killing of human babies in the wombs of their mothers would be made legal...the next step is for the killing of babies outside the womb to be made legal...unless the silent majority stand up and say: "enough!"...

canuckistani| 6.27.11 @ 11:46AM

From a civil standpoint, much of the opposition has dissolved.
The old arguments included childcare, but with the advent of female breadwinners, the law has been stuck in a timewarp trying to figure out how to endorse paternal rights as much as maternal rights. With two mother and two father scenarios, the law will finally be updated, hopefully.
End result: net benefit.

Next were the elements surrounding shared benefits, pensions and the rights of "next of kin".
These laws were also put into place in a different time, i.e one-income households and the absence of modern guardianships as extensions of the religious "one-body" theory.
These laws too will need to be updated and dragged into the 20th and then the 21st centuries.
End result: net benefit.

Finally, for gays to see marriage not as the province of, their word, "breeders", but an aspirational goal for them likely bodes well for the institution of marriage going forward. In spite of all of the rhetoric and fear-mongering about the "gay lifestyle", it is ironic the cause moved to a classical monogamous relationship bound by law and by some denominations, by God.
End result: net benefit.

It is remarkable throughout history when a marginalized group is accommodated under law, society generally either is not negatively affected or actually improves.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 12:56PM

I think you confuse civil unions and marriage. Civil union laws have been proposed across most states, but gays want nothing of them. What they wish for is a state derived re-definition of a religious institution. I think you really miss the enitre point of thier actions. New York essientially has redefined a private institution (marriage). The question is when gay activists will begin suing private organizations (churches) on the grounds of discrimination. This is the entire point of the gays actions.

Susan| 6.27.11 @ 1:57PM

Purple Lips, they already have. See eHarmony, et. al. Christian schools are being forced to reinstate openly gay teachers and mentors. A commissioner at the EEOC (Chai Feldblum) has said that between religious liberty and sexual liberty, she sees no case in which religious liberty should win. I.e. one of the commissioners on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believes churches should be forced to hire homosexuals. And in spite of the very first, numero uno, Alpha right in our Constitution to guarantee freedom of religion, the courts are agreeing with her.

Chris| 6.27.11 @ 11:18PM

Untrue. Civil unions -- or domestic partnerships -- exist in only 8 states, including 3 states that passed them just this year. Marriage equality in 6 states. in 36 states there is no legal format protecting gay couples. In fact, civil unions/DPs are constitutionally banned in 18 states. Most gay people would accept civil unions, many including me and my partner are in them, if they did not conflict with federal ERISA law and provided the federal rights provided via marriage -- and they were transportable state to state as marriage is. Imagine being married/civil unioned in one state and having no legal relationship to your spouse in the neighboring state -- could you live with that? Would you regard it as fair -- or even decent -- in any way?

Senior Chief| 6.28.11 @ 11:55AM

This is such a BS statement. The state (community, tribe, whatever you want to call it.) as ALWAYS been involved in marriage! Besides making a promise before God (at least for who choose to go through some sort of religious ceremony), the parties involved also enter into a legal agreement with each other. Its the state that enforces that part of the agreement. So if one decides to walk away from his/her commitment to their spouse, one has certainly broken their moral promise before God. But its the legal arm of the state that will come after you.

So let's be honest here. Its the state recognition of their 'marriage' that homosexuals want. They want the recognition and legitimacy that heterosexual marriage has.

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:36PM

Lydia:

28 year old doctor. Youre probably drowning in debt.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 2:37PM

Maybe not, maybe not. I wonder how many cougars now have "dates"?

mames| 6.27.11 @ 9:20AM

I demand that me and my beloved sheep, Bah, be able to live openly and proudly as a married couple. Just because some do not understand this love does not mean it is not normal. We would also like to join our dear friends Shirley and her German Shepherd, Grunt, in a group marriage. Because we cannot have children we should be allowed to adopt like anyone else. For those who think this would be unhealthy for the children well you just don't understand that love comes in many forms. We demand that you all come to your senses.

Forcefully,

Karl, Bah, Shirley and Grunt

Don't think it can happen? Well when you allow sick, perverted homo behavior to be endorsed as "marriage" we are already down the sodomy road whether the anus is human or not.

BTW all you women who adopt out your babies DONT they may end up in the arms of some truly sick "parents".

Scott| 6.27.11 @ 4:24PM

Wow...classy. Funny that some of the same terminology was used a few decades back to describe the "sick and perverted" interacial marriages.

Alan Brooks| 6.27.11 @ 9:04AM

Democratic-like e-lected, you sez?
weel, you caint say it's them New Yawk judges legislatin' from the benches.

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:38PM

Correct:
Even though I dont agree with the vote, at least it was democratically done, unlike in MA, and IA. NY, NH, VT and CT did it the right way.

PJ| 6.27.11 @ 9:44AM

Deviations beyond SSM is already happening but not in this country yet as far as I know. I remember couple of yrs ago a British woman marrying a dolphin. (Yes, you read it right!) Whether it was legal or not who cares. She went through a ceremony that in her eyes was a serious event. See: http://www.ynetnews.com/articl.....3,00.html.

Alan Brooks| 6.27.11 @ 11:02AM

thank God it was a dolphin and not a snake-- it would have made one hell of a honeymoon.

PJ| 6.27.11 @ 12:17PM

It depends what type of snake, ie poisonous or not. Some women do enjoy a little nibble down there!!!

Drunken Sailor| 6.27.11 @ 12:21PM

From a country that gives us "The Jedi Church" http://www.jedichurch.org/.

Should we be surprised?

k962| 6.27.11 @ 11:28AM

You are right on the button with that prediction!

Jack fromWi. | 6.27.11 @ 6:39PM

Bring on the Muslims. They can't be any worse than the way we are headed. They least have some respect for the natural law. It isn't about marriage it is about forcing the rest of us to accept the preverse as normal. They want us to offer up our children to this insanity. It is time to expel. New England, New York, New Jersey Delaware, DC, northern virginia. Miami, San Franciso, LA. and Seatle. Let them go their way and we go ours.

Chris| 6.27.11 @ 11:24PM

Don't forget MD, HI, CO, Madison, Milwaukee, Iowa, Minneapolis, the rest of California, Las Vegas, Philadelphia and it's suburbs, the rest of South Florida, Chicago and it's suburbs, Oregon, etc. etc. You can have all the hillbilly places. I wonder what you'll say to your gay child or grandchild in 10 or 15 years. (Oh and look up the spelling of Seattle.)

Dante| 6.27.11 @ 8:56PM

Wow! Usually the commentators on TAS aren't this Neanderthal in their thinking, especially in presumptive conclusions about gay agendas, lowering of age of consent, polygamy, etc.

Why is it so easy for you to criticize what you don't understand and to label what you dislike? Far smarter in individuals than you, and mostly those in the sciences and at the high end of our legal profession, though not yet most of our politicians, are slowly but surely coming to realize that all arguments against Gay Marriage from the “historic precedent” or “natural order” of things vis-à-vis reproduction are neither constitutionally sound nor meaningful in an evolving society where what once was may not necessarily be there tomorrow. Somehow so many of you can’t make the connection between that historic truism with the evidence brought about because of the Women’s Suffrage and Civil Rights movements, not to mention the Supreme Court ruling outlawing inter-racial marriage itself.

I can understand why you are angry; it’s not easy to see change you don’t want happening all around you and knowing, with whatever time you have left on earth, that there really is nothing in the long-run you can do about it. Many who grew up in the white supremacy industry felt the same way all the way to their graves. I bet a lot of atheists do too. (I am not one of them, thankfully.)

But your discomfort is not justification for wanting to disallow the same rights you have to others.

What most of you fail to understand is that the legal definition of marriage is as easily changeable as the definition of anything. What matters, however, is that those who are committed to marrying legally however they choose, and/or raising a family, do so in the most loving and giving way possible. If you focus your thoughts and attention on promoting that kind of communal living you won’t have time to cry in your soup about the fact that someday before long, everyone of the age of majority across the land will be able to marry whomever they please and not be condemned for doing so. Hopefully, then you won’t still be in the minority.

Petronius| 6.27.11 @ 10:17PM

Been waiting for this one. Marriage is not a right like the following post referring to weapon ownership and self defense which is Constitutionally protected. UnConstitutional limits on our Freedom began long before most of us drew a breath. But the marriage contract is voluntary and so is approval! Federal Judges took away my right to freely associate, (or not), and gave it to minorities who can invade my life any place outside of my house. They don't have to accept me at all, not that I care. Perversion used to be a crime. When Your judges overturned Our laws against sodomy, they didn't ask us. When women got the vote, they inflicted prohibition on the nation. After the spillage of alcohol there was much fall of blood. So I will review this once more. The problems of our society are caused by a hand full of behaviors; predation, perversion, parasitism, ignorance, and indolence: and one circumstance; stupidity. And I, along with the rest of the White middle class am paying the entire cost for the detrimental effects of the lot, in treasury, property, and blood.
Now back to marriage and personal relations. Quickie divorce made state social services mushroom. Illegitimacy doubled down on that. Then came "gay rights" and it's own STD. Well I'm the poor devil who got the bill for these messes. The taxes confiscated to pay it represents good living that I Earned and didn't get.
New York and the other states which are too far gone to be American anymore say perverts can marry. So go there and stay there. Get married. Spawn another auto immune disease. But no group or individual, and this includes government at any level, has a Right to My approval. You shall have it Never!!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.27.11 @ 6:56AM

After the first few financial settlements are awarded in divorces they will simply start living together.

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 9:22AM

And this is what has led to the state we are in. Marriage is too easy to enter into and too easy to get out of. When a person (usually the woman) can end a marriage for any reason, or really no reason at all, there is no such thing as real marriage.

Michael Ejercito | 6.27.11 @ 10:59AM

Should not couples be required demonstrate their need to marry before they are issued a license, much like how prospective pistol owners need to demonstrate their need for a pistol before being issued a pistol permit?

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 11:06AM

You should not have to demonstrate a need to get a pistol permit, only competency in handling a pistol (or any firearm).

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.27.11 @ 6:56AM

This should be interesting, 636 comments yesterday alternating from scripture thrown as insults to insults thrown at scripture all over “evolution.” (Evolution is an amazing topic; everyone gets to examine the same evidence, see the same results yet argues vehemently as to the “cause,” yet no one ever changes their mind.) The only real consensus yesterday was ancillary, and provided insight as to the justification mechanism that produced the Salem witch trials.
Today we will do “gay marriage.”
Good job on the article III, your assessment of the causes, circumstances, and ramifications are spot on.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.27.11 @ 9:29AM

Michael,
I threw no insults.

I merely extended the hand of Christian fellowship as Christians are supposed to do.

I'm content to study evolution facts that have come to light through study.
See,
I'm one of those Christians who believes that God is STILL creating an even more rich tapestry of life across the growing cosmos.

Though it is MASSIVE understatement...I believe this life is merely "kindegarten" for me....hopefully on the way to a master's degree somewhen/where.

I think most of us here would posit that red-ants don't usually design computers and software.

By the same token, I don't for a moment think I can even imagine the scope of God's plan across the universe.
One thing I have learned is humility. "What is man that Thou are (even) mindful of him?"

The wonderful thing in my life is to have KNOWN that He loves fellowship with his creatures, and has an eternal sonship/daughtership relationship with each of us who choose to be "in the family" with Him.

Yeah, I sometimes get discouraged. I think of the BILLIONS of so-called "wasted " or murdered lives.
Then...
A quiet whisper in my mind: "Ken, they are safely in my hands. Whatever pain and/or curtailment they experienced in "kindegarten" will be merely a "learning experience" on their way to full fellowship with me.

"Further, Ken, the only ones that CANNOT enjoy that eternal fellowship...are the ones who REFUSE my love and turn their backs on my love.

"...those folks will remain in outer darkness, because I have given them free will...and they chose the darkness."

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:09PM

"Im one of those Christians who believes that God is STILL creating an even more rich tapestry of life across the growing cosmos."

"And God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it, for He ceased from all His work on it, which God had created to bring forth." Gen. 2:3.

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:06PM

That's rich coming from the King of insults, Michael. If I recall, you said I was demented because I dare to call myself a child of God saved by His Grace and dare to stand on the Word of God.

Too bad you see quoting God's Truth in order to blow to smithereens the lies of Darwinism.
Pity you choose to believe a lie and call good evil and evil good.
Pity you view Bible believing Christians the way that you do. Your attitude represents the haughty Papal Inquisitors who put us to death for centuries because we stood on the Word of God rather than buy into phony doctrine.
You live to breath out insults toward Bible believing Christians. And live to take my stand against you and your ilk.

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:27PM

"Too bad you see quoting God's Truth in order to blow to smithereens the lies of Darwinism"... as insulting.

Con Chef (NB) | 6.27.11 @ 7:16AM

Go figure. New York is now the California of the Northeast. And people are fleeing it in the same record numbers. You know its bad when people from New York consider places like Western PA to be as conservative as Dixie. Yet another state I hope implodes under the weight of its idiotic nanny state. Michigan is the other one that needs to be swallowed up by the Earth.

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:44PM

MI is actually on the right track. Go a bit further SW from MI and I think youll find IL is the next state to implode. It is clear what is killing states like NY, CA and IL. Wealthy liberals and govt employee unions. MI lacks wealthy liberals and the state budget in 2011 is smaller than in 2000. MI has a GOP gov, GOP majority in the Legislature and GOP congressional majority. Two awful senators though.

JP| 6.27.11 @ 7:16AM

Now that the fireworks are over for awhile, we can look closely at how the bill was put together. Namely, how strong are religious protections. The Govenor says, don't worry about it. But at some point one wonders if the Right for Gays to Marry will morph into a duty for all churches to marry them.

Otherwise, Antle is correct in his assessments. The hetro world gave up on marriage some 30-40 years ago. No one but "fringe" Catholic kooks (me being one) believes in the sacremental nature of Holy Matrimony.

Darin| 6.27.11 @ 8:05AM

Churches WILL be impacted despite what the law says. Gays will want to be married in churches, and pastors who refuse because it is against God's law will become targets and branded "intolerant." The only way for churches to avoid this is get out from under the tax exemption clause. Once they are independent of the government, the legal system will afford them greater protection. Forcing tax-paying churches to perform something prohibited by their religious beliefs would be in direct violation of the First Amendment as it would be a direct attack on their exercise of religion.

DaveS| 6.27.11 @ 11:29AM

Whch means the exemptions were meaningless fodder in the first place and acted only for vote cover.

PJ| 6.27.11 @ 12:55PM

Darin,
I totally agree with your stated points.

Susan| 6.27.11 @ 2:05PM

I disagree. Private individuals and companies are being sued for not servicing the homosexual community and losing. The churches won't get any more shelter than these entities once they give up their tax exempt status. Homosexuals long ago said their mission was to push religion into the closet and make people of faith as ashamed of their beliefs as the gay community was made to feel for their behavior. They've made great strides.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 2:39PM

But, one hears nary a peep about Islamic "marriage" from these courageous civil rights bullies. It is only Christian marriage that they wish to re-define.

TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 6:20PM

That's because Christians (and not talking CINOs) won't go gunning them down or blowing up their workplaces.

RCV| 6.28.11 @ 12:43AM

No, it is only civil marriage by the state that is being defined.

Rick| 6.29.11 @ 11:28PM

You mean like Catholic Churches are forced to marry divorced people? [For the intellectually chanlleged, they aren't.]

IMHO, the most important side-effect of same-sex marraige is that it'll disprove the ludicrous fantasies of those of you who are mere bigots. Like interracial marriage, it represents inclusiveness, but most people won't choose to indulge it. In 10-15 years, the protests on this and many other web sites will seem strikingly embarassing.

Still a believer| 6.27.11 @ 12:02PM

I'm right there with you in the kook aisle. I just can't swallow the legitimacy of marriage between people who define themselves, first and foremost, by their genitalia. It's a SACRAMENT, not a CONTRACT.

SETH Chodosh| 6.27.11 @ 4:20PM

How about atheists who wish to ensure the state-sanctioned benefits of wedded bliss..WE all don't buy into the fairy-tale of a "divine" hocus-pocus myth, ya know...!

TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 6:23PM

Why do atheists always feel the need to insult those who believe in God by calling their religion a fairy-tale? All it does is start pointless arguments. You have your beliefs (or lack thereof), and we have ours.

RCV| 6.28.11 @ 12:45AM

Isn't a law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman "defining [people], first and foremost, by their genetalia"?

Nick| 6.28.11 @ 7:01PM

RCV,

No...it is codifying a tradition that goes back millennia.

Marriage is not defined by our reproductive organs. It is defined by what these organs do, when used as designed and intended: Help in the creation of children.

I notice you didn't take up my challenge, down at the bottom of this thread. Why not?

RCV| 6.29.11 @ 2:08AM

Nick, I think one can indeed support gay marriage and still see rational bases for supporting existing bans on marriage between parent/child, brother/sister etc: both genetic defect concerns as well as concerns that relate to weakening proscriptions against child molestation within families by holding out the prospect of covering up the abuse by a later marriage.

The polygamy issue was resolved a long time ago in Reynolds, and I think the recent experiences with polygamous relationships would support a legislative ban on the practice. I personally don't feel particularly strong either way on polygamy - it was praciced in biblical times, and in more modern times in many different societies to the apparent satisfaction of those societies.

More importantly, though, as a matter of constitutional Equal Protection analysis, neither the ban on close genetic marriage or the ban on polygamy discriminates against any cognizable class or group.

As a Matt

Nick| 6.30.11 @ 12:58AM

RCV,

I think you're dodging.

I specifically made adulthood the standard. As in, "Who are you to say what two adults do in the privacy of the bedroom."
Or, "Who are you to deprive two adults, who are in love, their equal rights?"

Vasectomies and tubal ligations would address the "genetic defect" objection. Adulthood addressed child abuse.

From what I read, Reynolds dealt with his claim that it was his religious duty to have multiple wives. I never brought up religion. So, I find this argument specious.

If an adult male wants to marry two, or more, women (or vice versa,) for what ever reason; what right does society have to forbid it? Because, as Reynolds stated, monogamous marriage has existed in common law "from the earliest history of England"?

Well, guess what else has been established in English common law like monogamy? The fact that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN!

Redefining marriage opens up all of these cans of worms.

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 7:18AM

Funny how when real citizens are allowed to vote on homosexual marriage, they repeatedly turn it down by large margins. It's only when soulless judges and other scum politicians pass these laws without citizens voting that they are passed.

The jerk Cuomo proudly stated that "the people have spoken". Well, no, they haven't. Some people obviously have, but the majority have not.

The law in New York and other states may allow homosexuals to marry, but they violate the laws of nature everyday.

Darin| 6.27.11 @ 8:12AM

Even in California (proposition 8). Even when supporters of Proposition 8 are attacked physically and financially (which is still happening today). A deviant fringe wants gay marriage and will use any and all tactics at their disposal. They display nothing but hate and brand any who oppose them as haters. The media has been in their camp for years, and the powers-that-be in all 3 branches of government lack the moral courage to stand up to these bullies.

vitadMD| 6.27.11 @ 8:12AM

Indeed, few people know how this was done... with arm-twisting, thuggery, and of course millions of $ in a legislature notorious for corruption and little desire for representation. If this was truly about "equality" and "rights" they would have gone the route of civil unions, which the majority is probably comfortable with. That would have been a compromise, respectful to both marriage, predicated upon a biological reality, and equality.

mames| 6.27.11 @ 9:26AM

And what is so wrong about men shoving their penis in other men's asses and then in their mouth? And what is wrong with sphinchter muscles giving out at age 50 because too many things have been shoved up that exit? Its just normal for them! :) Forget the religious arguments the physiology arguments are more than enough.

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 7:56AM

I want to marry my computer. When will the discrimination end and I be allowed to? It's not right that I can't. I love my computer. We want to be together foreeeeeeever.

mames| 6.27.11 @ 9:27AM

Try greasing up the USB port, that's normal for some, right?

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 9:40AM

Ewww. :-)

Big J| 6.27.11 @ 7:56AM

So this is the most pressing issue the "law makers" in Yankee Land have to deal with? Wow! They must really have their stuff together up there.

Shouldn't issues of marriage be left up to the church? Why is the state or federal government involved whatsoever?

Oh, I forgot. The state knows best.

Thank God I live in Texas.

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 8:06AM

No doubt in Texas this decision would be left to the populace. As you say though, in the northeast, scummy politicians ALWAYS know best, don't they?

Darin| 6.27.11 @ 8:14AM

Sadly, much of this started in Texas with the Lawrence decision inventing a "right to privacy." I think it was in 2003. At the time, it was said the ruling would lead to gay marriage, and shortly thereafter the Massachusettes judicial system forced the state legislature of the state to legalize gay marriage (when judges make rather than interpret laws, you have a dictatorship, not a representative republic).

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 9:24AM

"Shouldn't issues of marriage be left up to the church? Why is the state or federal government involved whatsoever?"

Exactly!!!

PJ| 6.27.11 @ 9:56AM

I won't get into it in detail because there are books & articles defending w/reasons why the state should be involved in sanctioning heterosexual marriage. 1 basic reason that I hope you agree is that the heterosexual marriage institution has a stabilizing, calming effect on the population---> something governments are always looking for.

Generally, married men are less violent & more stable too.--> a major benefit to any society! Sorry single guys, but it's the truth.

Toady| 6.27.11 @ 12:56PM

Marriage licenses were instituted after the Civil War to prevent white people and black people from getting married, not for the reason of "stabilizing" the population.

Prior to that, people got married in their church and that was the end of it.

There's no reason you should need government permission to enter the most basic of human arrangements.

TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 6:32PM

If you're not religious why go to a Church to get married? That'd be a civil union, same benefits without abusing a word that was meant exclusively for those with a religious preference regarding the sanctity of such an act.

Marriage was never meant to be something as simple as a man and woman legally joined for financial benefit. The entire experience, from blessing in the church before God, to the act of love-making, to the birth and raising of children, and holding to your oath "Til death do us part"; THAT is marriage. Everything else is stealing the word and replacing the phrase "civil union" to make people feel better about it.

grant1863| 6.27.11 @ 12:14PM

It's all about the benefits isn't it? Financial, health care. I still like the 2 hetro guys in Vermont who were going to get married and just date other women. I think one has health insurance and the other doesn't.

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:46PM

Two hetrosexual men in Ontario tried to do the same thing and were prohibited by a court. The court said they were making a mockery of same sex marraige

SETH Chodosh| 6.27.11 @ 4:04PM

Because marriage has financial responsibility and fiscal security purposes, as well..and those are regulated by the State...I am so sick and tired of this lame. worn -out question...almost as much as those inane morons who are wondering if this means that that they can marry their sheep/computers/ sisters...go right ahead.. ya know ya want to, anyhow

BRAVO, GOVERNOR CUOMO...!

AND.. my prayers to The Goddess, to save us from the idiocy of The Right Wing Nuts...

Redstateboy| 6.27.11 @ 10:14AM

Thanks Big J for stating it correctly. I am a refugee from the People's Republic of New York... the highest taxed, most Nanny-State, bloated bureacratic, one of the highest non-job State in the Nation - where people are leaving in droves.. Hell! they're even losing Congressional Representation... but Boy! You can Marry if you're Gay...!! Is Liber-ulism not the Stupidest thing that's ever come down the pike or What?!!!??

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 11:08AM

Someone once said that the best way to make sure something fails is to implement it as quickly and as fully as possible, without resistance. Then when it fails, there is no one to blame but the folks who implemented it.

VRWC| 6.27.11 @ 8:38AM

i'm just waiting for attacks on "heteronormativity" to go increasingly mainstream as more states legalize this. kindergarten kids can't grow up to be a part of the oppressive patriarchy after all.

gay marriage supporters' favorite analogy is interracial marriage, and it'd be considered bigoted to continually refer to a parent's race as though it necessarily had a meaningful impact on how they were raising their kids. by this logic any suggestion that mothers and fathers generally have distinct strengths in parenting, or even that gay couples raising kids should closely involve an opposite-sex role model in their life, should be considered hate speech.

i'm sure even a lot of SSM supporters consider this doomsaying or "slippery slope" but i don't think it's very easy to disconnect gay marriage from the feminist insistence that gender has no real meaning whatsoever. especially when even young conservatives buy into this reasoning for fear of being called sexist

VRWC| 6.27.11 @ 8:39AM

false analogy, i should say

signage | 6.27.11 @ 9:00AM

it is not right, and I have to say

Jim Hlavac | 6.27.11 @ 9:01AM

And here I go again -- there is this fear that somehow allowing gays to "marry" by any name -- that is, get the legal protections for property, inheritance (we leave our wealth to our nieces and nephews, not our kids, true) and a slew of other things is going to do a blessed thing to heterosexual marriages -- it's just not true. And there are already many denominations which bless gay relationships (where is their religious freedom then if they are denied this privilege?) -- and it is doubtful that rational gay folks are going to sue, say, the Catholic or an evangelical church to bless our unions, just like no Jew sues the Catholic Church or evangelical denominations to marry them, nor do Catholics insist they can marry in a synagogue -- each will go to its own kind. Will there be some crazy gay folks? (we got Frank, you got Pelosi, right?) Sure -- we are not a uniform block of people all thinking alike. Some gays are socialists, some, like me, are very conservative on every issue -- there is no "gay" position on the IRS I assure you.

What you all have to realized however, is that there are many gay couples whom have been together for 10, 20, 30, 40 even 50 years -- and we have legal issues related to the homes and businesses we own, and insurance, and whatnot -- and more amazingly, perhaps unknown to you -- is that young gays are definitely seeking committed relationships, while older gays are less likely to do so -- for we older gays had to deal with other issues, like our very smooching and hand-holding being outlawed. But gay couples turn to commercial law to solve the legal problems, so they're recognized in all 50 states anyway, and we want to be in family law -- if family law is Title II, then give us at least Title II 1/2.

This is not "redefining" marriage -- it is expanding liberty and practical legal steps to a group long excluded. Marriage is still about commitment -- and no gay person ever has received the support of anyone to enter relationships (there are no fairy tales for fairies, as it were, and yet here we are) -- and hetero couples have the entire society and tradition on your side, and still manage to louse it up. But don't blame us for what ails the institution. No hetero ever got a divorce, nor could they, by saying "On the other side of town there's a gay couple!)

Liberty for all must include us, and we do not deserve to be just hounded and harangued forever -- and calls for the recriminalization of gay love are ludicrous -- if such a thing comes about we shall demand to be arrested and jailed -- and you will pay the billions of dollars required to do so -- are we really going to go for a police state against us again? No. You will perhaps call this punishment, and we will call it the weirdest club med devised by the folly of man.

More to the point -- why are there gay folks? How can it be that the exact same percentage turns out gay all over the world no matter which society, what politics, what religion predominates in a nation -- the existence of gays cannot be an American political position. Could it be because there are 106 boys born for every 100 girls? Could those extra six be the gay guys? Yes, that's us.

We gays have been saying, now for decades, only we are gay -- not you folks. Not any hetero will "choose" to be gay, just like we don't choose to be gay. I was 10 when I knew I was different, and by 15 or so I began to realize this might be a problem. This is true for all gay folks, we all knew from the earliest moment of puberty, this is what we keep saying, why do you not believe us? The "choice" argument falls flat when so many come to the same conclusion, we're gay -- and when you look at gays physically there's a difference (visit a gay bar and see the slight, sissy, effeminate men by the dozens,) and now, study after study shows that we react to drugs differently, our brain waves and electrons fire differently -- how much more proof do you need?

Think of it this way -- gayness is a brain wiring issue, like autism -- so put us on the autism scale and be done with it. Weirdly, the lesbian to gay man ratio is the same as the female to male ratio for autism.

But to insist I kiss a girl is nuts, I simply have never done it, will never do it, have no idea how to do it. Yes, no one wants a gay son, but well, here we are. No one wants an autistic kid either, but there they are.

But we are not anti-family or anti-church or anti-anything -- we are embedded in our families -- and one reason it got better for us is first we went to our moms and dads -- and my 60 member extended family loves me and I love them and they know, and this is true for all gay folks now -- first our families learn of this reality -- then we beg our churches to deal with it.

But we will not relent in our demand for acceptance as just whom we are. We are stuck with this -- and if reality is a conservative virtue, rather than the pie in the sky socialist nonsense, than it is odd that conservatives are in pie in the sky mode when it comes to thinking we are going to change and marry the girl of your dreams.

Let us be, include us, deal with us -- and stop chasing away the already 30% of gay folks who vote Republican already, and invite us to help you stop the socialist nonsense. We pay taxes, and we own businesses (mostly because we were fired from so many jobs it was easier to go on our own way.)

And remember Barry Goldwater's admonition in 1993 -- "you don't have to like it, but gay American deserve full constitutional rights including the right to marriage and military service."

But if you keep chasing us away from the Right, then me and mine will take our family votes with us -- my family will not vote for someone who is going to excoriate me forever, this I assure you.

Yes, this won't be easy -- but work with us -- not against us -- and save the nation as a whole, while including us as you can. It our nation as much as yours -- we are ready willing and able to assist in this resurrection of this nation from the socialist behemoth, if only you would ask. This I tell you.

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 9:39AM

Yawn

George S| 6.27.11 @ 9:41AM

Pure sophistry. Nothing you have written counters the main argument against gay marriage: what specifics rights are denied to people who are not married, regardless of orientation? Rights area not created by ceremony, they are God given to free men at birth.

Now of you are talking about legal benefits and privileges, the same can be given by the state via civil unions. People who marry are given those privileges because marriage is a healthy condition for a free state, governed by Judeo-Christian philosophy, and thus it is good public policy to encourage marriage by offering enticements such as tax advantages and estate protection. These can easily -- easily!!!-- be granted to homosexual couples apart from a religious or legal ceremony.

Marriage is a fundamental building block to a Judeo-Christian culture. A Judeo-Christian culture is a fundamental building block to a constitutional republic. Destroy the sanctity of marriage and what comes tumbling down? Do you disagree?

darcy| 6.27.11 @ 12:39PM

The homosexual community are mere pawns -- if not active participants -- in the Marxist program to destabilize the Judeo-Christian culture that underpins our Founding liberties. Of course, the attempt to legalize homosexual marriage could not have been sprung on America in 1960; first the groundwork had to be laid to devalue traditional marriage: no-fault divorce, the pill, and creating an atmosphere based on the leftist bogeyman that "patriarchy" stifled a woman's freedom and her true value was calculated based on her earning potential, while her maternal contributions to society were disdained.

This infamous law in NY, decreed at the hands of thorough-going moral pygmies -- in the name of the people -- is but another mile-marker along the road to tyranny. Do not for a moment think that a people so lacking in moral virtue will bat an eye when what remains of our Constitutional protections evaporate altogether and whole communities are frog-marched off to forced labor camps and their properties confiscated to satisfy the need for the central government to exert its power.

From whose home will the resistance come? In what families will the moral courage to beat back tyranny be found? As traditional families become marginalized further -- and their Christian beliefs criminalized (which must happen in order to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry) -- who will remain to transmit our nation's Founding principles when worship of the state supplants worship of God?

cowgirl| 6.27.11 @ 10:02AM

If what you say is true, then why is the city of San Francisco a complete and utter mess? I know it is a mess, I grew up 35 miles from the city and knew it well. It was a beautiful city and now it is a disaster. It is devoid of kindness, morality and hospitality. It is mean, immoral, unethical and down right unpleasant. Please explain it to me.

JP| 6.27.11 @ 10:46AM

" and it is doubtful that rational gay folks are going to sue, say, the Catholic or an evangelical church to bless our unions, "

You are either naive or a spindoctor. For that is exactly where this issue is headed. Stay tuned...

Rick| 6.29.11 @ 11:46PM

Like divorced people sue the Catholic Church for not marrying them? You are an idiot -- especially since the NY law specifically states that it will recinded if the religious protections are ruled unconstitutional.

DaveS| 6.27.11 @ 11:32AM

What is the State's interest in all manner of sodomy? None; therefore, it should always deny these goofy arrangements

jd| 6.27.11 @ 12:08PM

I agree with you that homosexuality IS a malfunction of the brain. American psychiatry thought it a mental illness until a small panel of "psychiatrists", the MAJORITY of whom were gay, decided it was not a mental illness after all. No conflict of interest, huh?

I know of no genetic study that 100% confirms a "gay" gene. The jury is still out on that fact, although certain elements of our culture accept it as scientific proof.

I am against homosexuals marrying, because the definition of marriage is a Judeo-Christian one that does not support it. No politician or judge will ever be able to give legitimacy or respect to homosexuality period. The homosexual lobby and its supporters will never be able to convince me that a male body can naturally carry a child in the womb. Once it can do THAT then there will be no difference between man and woman, and the definition of marriage can then be discussed.

Drunken Sailor| 6.27.11 @ 12:29PM

If all you state is the case then why was not the homosexual community satisified with "Civil Unions" that have all the same legal ramifications of marriage? Nope, they had to attack the marriage because they did not want their union to be viewed differently. Hello, look in a mirror, it is different. I want to be rich and good looking but had to settle for just good looking. Give me a break.

Toady| 6.27.11 @ 1:03PM

Jim Hlavac;

Your complaints regarding legal benefits are entirely on target and also apply to single people in general. The solution is for the law to treat everyone equally - that is, as taxpaying individuals instead of as couples. I think government should stay out of the marriage business, as it did prior to the Civil War, but a revamping of our tax code and benefit system would solve a lot of the inequalities.

Frederick the Pretty Good| 6.27.11 @ 1:06PM

First, let me say that I am a lifelong conservative. Second, that I don't understand homosexuality or ever really propose to. But, folks, we live in a world that is full of hatred, war, and suffering of every kind. Not that there is no good in this world, but the headlines are full of stories of people doing terrible things to each other for whatever reason or cause. At the end of the day, is it really such a horrible and catastrophic thing if two people want to commit their lives to each other? That they want there to be just a little more love in the world? That they want to be treated, in the eyes of the law, like any other citizen? Seriously? We're going to tell two people who have made a life together that they can't legally commit to each other? The homosexuals aren't going to go away. You can't wish or pray them away. You can burn them at the stake, but still, there they'll be. I know what the Bible says - but it's not for any of us to judge them. They are, however, our fellow American citizens, our brothers and sisters, our co-workers, and our friends. They are as much a part of this nation as any of us, and we all will succeed or fail together. Doesn't it make more sense to allow two people, regardless of their sex, to commit to each other in the eyes of the law instead of continually denying them something so simple?

Bill| 6.27.11 @ 1:40PM

Two people who have made a life together CAN commit their lives to each other legally.

If the couple is a homosexual couple, one CAN visit the other in the hospital. One homosexual CAN inherit from his homosexual partner.

Those bugaboos, offered as sops for those who have scrupulous reservations about thousands of years of tradition so enduring that we've forgotten how to define it so as to exclude people other than a man and a women, are false in the sense that they represent lawful forms of discrimination that should be prohibited. The state hasn't put these bars in peoples' way by law; people have done so by UNIVERSAL custom and practice.

We ought to have some respect for such long-standing practices. It's not as if we're talking about slavery for Christ's sake.

Joseph Dooley | 6.28.11 @ 2:00PM

Your entire comment is non sequitur. The issue is and has always been the definition of marriage. I see you have little to say on that. If you have no moral standard to uphold, join the Libertarian Party.

Joseph Dooley | 6.28.11 @ 2:03PM

Gays have been allowed to marry since marriage was invented. Sexual preference is not an immutable trait. Meredith Baxter and Jim McGreevey, both gay, have been married and have had children. They were not forbidden to marry. Opposite-sex marriage is everyone's right.

mames| 6.27.11 @ 9:37AM

Rational gay folks? They shove things up a exit designed for the expulsion of human waste and they can be considered rational? They are anything but rational as they defy the very law of human anatomy. And they actually try to rationalize it!

One cannot separate social conservatism form fiscal conservatism without it resulting in full blown socialism.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.27.11 @ 11:14AM

Yeah, Mames,
and it still smells like feces....just like communism.

MST| 6.27.11 @ 9:56AM

While vast pockets of resistance remain in the black and Hispanic communities, the Democratic Party is trending inexorably toward an embrace of this new definition of marriage.

This is a good point. Despite black "leaders" who for some reason think that gay people are natural allies of African Americans, many blacks, and to a lesser extent, Latinos, are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Personally, my philosophy is "life and let live." I don't care what gays do or don't do. However, I am deeply offended when gay people compare their movement to the civil rights movement. Were gay people ever lynched from trees? Forced to sit in the back of the bus? Denied the right to vote? Made to drink from 'gay only" water fountains? Gay people constantly boast that they are well-educated and affluent; if this is so, how can they be "oppressed' at the same time?

Many gay people can "pass" for straight, but unless I wear gloves and a burka, I can't pass for white.

David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 10:17AM

The whole point of "gay marriage" (and yes, it is an oxymoron and therefore nonsense) is to legitimize homosexuality, by force if necessary. With the power of legal recognition of the equality between straight and gay couples, institutions such as churches will be forced to buckle under or face the consequences. Fortunately, 29 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting "gay marriage", and these are the states that are for most part growing in population, in contrast to dying states such as NY and MA.

Redstateboy| 6.27.11 @ 10:20AM

Thank God we in Tennessee voted to Amend our State Constitution instituting that Marriage... in THIS State; is between a Man and a Woman.
and the vote was 83% for it!!!!

Ed| 6.27.11 @ 12:07PM

Ohio did the same thing a couple of years ago. I dread the prospect though, of the Feds overturning these State Constitutions.

darcy| 6.27.11 @ 12:43PM

It will bring a civil war -- and the feds will lose.

RoboBobo| 6.27.11 @ 10:32AM

Wonderful article, I'm glad more people are realizing the truth - our true religion is the state. Are psuedo-religions are mere flavoring. It was cruel to withhold the seal of approval from gays - given what marriage had become.

As far as turning back the clock, I mean where the state is subservient to the people, rather then the other way around - there is no chance.

Who would spearhead such a move? Conservatives? Oh heck no - that bunch has patriotism way above religion. Oh they say - their religion and their love of country never comes into conflict - gee I wonder why that is - could i be because their religion is defined by the consensus culture? DING DING DING

And liberals? Oh heck no, they are in the bleeding edge of admitting their faith traditions are, and must be, subservient to the state.

So - basically you have a few oddballs who believe something different, the occasional Ron Paul, out there in the wilderness...

I loved your words - loved them, just ashame the won't make any difference.

martin j smith| 6.27.11 @ 10:34AM

Onthing to bear in mind is this: What will the 2012 election be about ? The economy or Gar Marriage or Evolution. Oh I know these topics can boil the blood of many posters. However, the LEFT is very clever at changing the subject--so don't let them do it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Redstateboy| 6.27.11 @ 11:23AM

martin j smith... that is actually a very incisive point.. Liber-uls.. can not make an effective argument about their economic policies - since it's all too apparent they Suck! So - according to you... they may attempt to BS the guillable with Social issue paranoia?? Is that what you're suggesting?

Dave Williams| 6.27.11 @ 10:40AM

....and what is so terribly wrong about allowing gays to be just as miserable as the rest of us? :-)

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 11:11AM

heh heh!

leftcoast| 6.27.11 @ 10:44AM

The last line of the article says it. It is all about benefits. Large percentages of gays abound in the gov't workforce, due to politically correct and affirmative action hiring practices. However, the hiring of a gay person does not include health benefits for a "partner" as it does for traditional married people. If gay marriage is now allowed, the health insurance companies will be forced to extend coverage to gay partners as well. If you thought there was budget problems before, just wait a couple years and the budgets will really be exploding due to new coverage mandates.

Derek Leaberry| 6.27.11 @ 10:45AM

Every Republican who votes for or endorses sodomite marriage should be bounced from the party, including the Republican scum in the New York State Senate who supported Andrew Cuomo. Any "conservative"(aka David Brooks, David Frum, Philip Klein, Aaron Goldstein) who supports such degeneracy should bounced from the conservative movement.

darcy| 6.27.11 @ 12:49PM

Exactly so. Supporters of sodomite marriage, endorsers of the latest cultural sickness, are not conservatives, whatever else they may be.

JakeL| 6.27.11 @ 10:53AM

Reading through the comments, I'm struck by one thing - the backwards logic. For example, the thought: same-sex marriage is an attempt legitimize homosexuality.

Let's say, we don't know what homosexuality is - legitimate or illegitimate, what say you???
Convince me.

The fact that you can't speak your opinion, kind of shows your position has already lost.

The reason you can't speak your position out loud, is because your need to be part of the culture, not outside it, is so strong, it overrides everything else.

The common culture of America has accepted homosexuality - being led by liberals, as it often is, and that fight is obviously already over.

Now we have a fight over the word marriage. I'll grant you it once meant the union of a man and a woman, and now it simply means the union of any two adults. That's english -meanings of words change.

But the good news is, the word same-sex marriage, is going to mean one thing, and a dual-sex marriage, will mean another.

I doubt many gays will claim to be in dual-sex marriages, because frankly that would be ludicrous. The redefinition of words will stop soon enough, on this point.

As for restoring the importance of marriage - and I'll grant you its not that important. After the initial flurry of same sex marriages - you'll find that gay society doesn't have any unusual commitment to marriage. There is no trend towards rebuilding the importance of marriage.

For the same reason you can't take an unpopular stand and risk being labeled a bigot - we aren't going to do a lot of things that require internal strength and fortitude, we simply lack that characteristic as a society.

And from this article and the responses to it - I see no evidence of individual strength of character.

If you are against homosexuality, state it. Be clear.
If you are for polygamy, state it.

As for me, I'm hoping polygamy is the next thing legalized - but I seriously doubt you are correct that it will be. It's not a liberal cause - liberal's are against polygamy because they associate it with polygyny - and do not think in terms of polyandry.

But, I rather favor the thought that adults can decide to do what they want - when it does involve only adults (over the age of 18). We certainly don't need felony convictions handed out to alternative families - which is still the law today.

Gary| 6.27.11 @ 11:41AM

I accept the fact that homosexuality EXISTS, just as I know birth defects, disease, etc. exist. I do not accept the fact it's normal, preferred, or some glorious thing to be admired. "Gay Pride?" What the hell is that? What's to be proud about? The gay lifestyle? What is that? Are all gays alike with limp wrists? They are born gay, and also are born with this lifestyle? Is this an achievement to be lauded. Should I be proud to be straight? What silly foolish pandering.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 1:04PM

The Gay bohemian culture is dead. Gays now are fighting over a bourgeois institution (marriage) that not even the bourgeoisie believe in. All the bourgeosie left through the exists long ago. Over 65% of couples under 35 co-habitate.

And don't believe for a second that men who perform voilence to each-other every night want to nurture "caring long term relationships". Good grief, metrosexuals can be so dense.

naio| 6.27.11 @ 11:02AM

State Senators James Alesi, Roy McDonald, Mark Grisanti and Stephen Saland... they lost my vote

C Smith| 6.27.11 @ 11:03AM

God hates all sin, but one sin He hates most; the one that hurts us most.

k962| 6.27.11 @ 11:27AM

The Churches that didn't endorse the law are already
being demonized as "haters". I predict the next step
will be the gay persecution of churches that won't marry them, inspite of what is in the NY law!

Gary| 6.27.11 @ 11:34AM

Yeah, well in MY book, they ain't married, in any sense and if I ever have the misfortune of being introduced to these so called "married" gays I will tell them to their face I don't consider them married and the government of NY and the the rest of the lefty states don't control me. Let's hear it now for polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc.

Bladerunner1954| 6.27.11 @ 12:10PM

That's next, of course; I can't wait to add a 30-year-old hot blonde to the stable! Yeah baby!!

jtintokyo| 6.27.11 @ 11:36AM

I am no "Progressive" but I strongly support the rights of people different from me (I am a happily married heterosexual) to join in a sexual union that suits them. The quicker Republicans get over such nonsense, the more quickly they will realize those portions of their agenda that matter. Otherwise, pursue your moronic cultural biases to the determent of what is important to all Americans!

Russ Neal | 6.27.11 @ 11:43AM

The true significance of this law is the final severing of any connection between the moral Law of God and the laws of our country. It is a willing and conscious placing of our nation in opposition to God on the part of the American people. The people belive opposing God to be an inconsequential act. We will see.

bill glass| 6.27.11 @ 11:52AM

So, changing a word's definition is simple...vote it through the legislature and have the gov. sign it? That's all there is to it? Something's very wrong in our culture when over 5000 years of civilization is turned over.

Bladerunner1954| 6.27.11 @ 12:00PM

Headlines you might have missed:

"Homosexual Marriage Legalized in New York State, Divorce Attorneys Swoon!"

Joe D.| 6.27.11 @ 12:20PM

This was a stupid article. We have a serious problem here. And it is getting worse as Darin pointed out. There is more to it including shuting down people who oppose their sick perverted lifestyles. You and others have not helped these people but hurt them. This, will in the end, not make them happy. It will not until we who know and share the truth are silenced.

Derek Leaberry| 6.27.11 @ 12:27PM

It would appear with the comments that some conservatives wish to conserve Western Civilization and Christian values and some "conservatives" not only endorse radical individualism but have a great contempt for Western Civilization and Christianity. So be it. The time is now for a civil war within what loosely is considered conservatism.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 12:59PM

I wonder if Gaydars sales will go up? I hear store owners in Iran can't keep them on the shelves. They're selling like outcakes all over Iran!

Oldefarte| 6.27.11 @ 1:08PM

What a display of immorality:

http://youtu.be/g5Y5b7oHhJg

drgene| 6.27.11 @ 1:12PM

Gay "marriage" is an oxymoron.
It also represents the triumph of arbitrary nominalism in America: remember Bill Clinton
sophistry on the word "is" and Obama's on the word
"hostilities" vs "war".
The hypothesis that marriage is a human "right"
is ludicrous: all of human history testifies to the
fact that marriage has a series of pre-qualifications --that exclude habits of sexual perversion,infidelity,parental irresponsibility,
addictions(drug,gambling) and make demands
on both "spouses":minimum age, manifest
freedom/self-control,sexual potency, true
understanding of the purposes of marital life
(not only/primarily for babys or sex) et al

The MSM has propogated the view that gay persons have a Civil Right to marry--akin to the Civil Right of Mexicans to invade/migrate to USA,
the Civil Right of all women(autonomously) to
Own the foetus in their uterus. From whence come
these Civil Rights?

Logically, if all of us have a Civil Right to marry--we must embrace the right to polygamy,incestual
marriages,adult/child marriages, man/beat marriages etc.

Nominalism is not merely a philosophical
form of irrationality, but a destructive disease if it becomes a pillar of social life or law.

Tomorrow I think I'll marry my beautiful dog to . .

Pete Kent| 6.27.11 @ 1:17PM

The popular media has treated the imposition of gay marriage on the people of New York by its new Governor and legislature as something to celebrate, a great advance for society.

Sadly, I see it as yet another example of how the people's liberty is being subjugated to the will of the legislative/governing elites. This trend has been apparent since the passage of TARP, ObamaCare and FINReg. The will of the people be damned.

If, gay marriage is such a fundamental right, something so evident as having the support of the society, then why not put it to a vote of the people?

Using the legislature to pass this bill instead of seeking a popular vote was an act in contravention of liberty and Cuomo and his craven legislature have shown themselves to be the Fascist Progressives they are. And the "amen chorus" in the media that is willing to celebrate this abrogation of the people's power have once again shown its hand as the handmaid to the malign.

petekent01 (on twitter)

DRed| 6.27.11 @ 2:06PM

Um, the NY state constitution doesn't permit referendums.

Dennis| 6.27.11 @ 1:25PM

I marriage means whatever anyone wants (can I marry my cat?) then why divorce? Just leave one partner and take up with another and so on. If our society abandons this most basic family unit then why is sacred? Alreadys liberals are turning The Word of God on it's head, saying it means something just to suit their vile agenda. Sodom, we're on our way to join you....

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:35PM

""Once marriage was separated from its reasons for being, denying gays -- whose relationships were increasingly destigmatized -- state recognition of their affections seemed to many well-meaning people to be arbitrary and more than a little cruel.""

This is the money shot.....hetrosexuals have devalued marriage to the point that anyone can now marry anyone for any reason.

gary siebel| 6.27.11 @ 1:36PM

The problem is that, by insisting on arguing the marriage debate on religious grounds instead of secular ones, Repubs made it impossible for people who might otherwise be allies to join the cause.

The RW blew this big time. They can't even argue the Prop 8 case very well. They are like those retards who prosecuted OJ.

I voted for Prop 8. I am totally a secularist, yet the judge who found against Prop 8 impugned my vote by declaring that most people voted for Prop 8 because they didn't like homosexuals. That allegation alone was sufficient to remove him from the case, but the pro -P8 attorneys were too retarded to jump all over it (they still are). I voted for P8 because I want a consistent philosophy of rights to guide our laws, rather than continual readjustments because we may or may not feel sorry for somebody.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right. That is a demonstrable point, and it is secular.

Furthermore, by insisting to argue on religious grounds rather than secular ones, the RW is unable to use some of the best ammunition against what will be the next wave of attack. Homosexuals well claim discrimination the same as against black people because they will claim to have been born that way, same as black people, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support the claim, and the theory of evolution -- natural selection, the thing the RW continually attacks -- insists that a truly homosexual gene would not be able to reproduce itself, and hence eventually disappear.

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:40PM

MA has had gay marriage since 2004. How many same sex marriages are there per year? I had read that Ontario, which has had same sex marriage since 2003, had 13, yes 13, same sex marriages in 2008.

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:48PM

""The homosexual community are mere pawns -- if not active participants -- in the Marxist program to destabilize the Judeo-Christian culture that underpins our Founding liberties""

CORRECT, which is why the left says that marriage is outmoded, irrelevant and oppressive. Unless it is gay marriage, then it is the most important thing in the world

Anommynous| 6.27.11 @ 1:59PM

"Perhaps that's appropriate, since heterosexuals have made the new definition of marriage thinkable."

Bingo. It's tough to defend marriage when it no longer means anything. Let's eliminate no-fault divorce, for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Eduardo| 6.27.11 @ 2:07PM

Well, this is just making things a bit easier for me to depart from this world. I'm 55 but sometimes envy my 83 year old mother who doesn't have long to live. The societal degeneration and debasement will continue and I'm not sure I'm up for the next step down, whatever that might be. So when I take my leave, it may be with relief to be outta here. I do feel awful bad for my kids, though. Wife and I try to raise them with values but soon they will see us decent people as fanatics trying to resist a tide that is inexorible. Over and out.

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 2:34PM

When contemplating whether or not something is natural, you have to ask yourself, if everyone did it, would the species survive? Clearly homosexuality is not something that is natural.

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:21PM

"Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:5-7.

I don't care what "some Christians" say, and if you call yourselves Christian condone Homosexuality, you are no Christian!
God will throw you into Hell if you are practicing this lifestyle when you die. His Words, not mine.

It doesn't matter (Michael Hauschild) that it is now "legal" according to the state.
It is an abomination to God.

Jaded Warrior| 6.27.11 @ 3:44PM

As a heterosexual sympathetic to gay rights but opposed to gay marriage, I have long tried to reconcile my opposition with what I feel is a fundamental tolerance towards others. I've noticed a similar track in many others I speak with; we harbor no ill will towards gays, but find ourselves not being won over by extending the term marriage to same-sex unions. I think for myself, it comes down to how this issue is being debated.

In many respects, this is a rediculously easy argument to win. If same-sex unions met the definition of marriage, they would have been included from the start, and the current debate would not be taking place. Gay marriage has gone to the voters in 33 states, and every time has been voted down. When asked why, the single largest reason given is that it redefines the meaning of marriage. When asked, advocates point to how gay marriage strengthens the institution, how 50% of traditional marriages now end in divorce, how laws once prevented marriage between people of different races, and how fundamentally unfair it is not to include them. But I've never seen any advocate attempt to answer the question. And I think that absence explains the unease with my acceptance of the concept.

Bottom line, I have a problem with any agenda being promoted that has to rely on muddying the waters and evasion, especially one so profound. I would actually welcome this debate, since I think advocates are doing themselves a disservice by ignoring it. Point is, marriage has been for 5000 years a heterosexual institution. It is the fundamental social unit of our overwhelmingly heterosexual species. And, therein lies the crux of the debate. It is a debate on redefining a term. No single adult in this country today is excluded or prohibited from marrying. It is when you get to just who (or whom) they can marry that the debate insues. When I discuss this with friends, they reply that again, gays can't marry who they want. But we heterosexuals place limits on ourselves as well when it comes to those allowed to marry. Brother and sister? Nope. More than two heterosexuals? Sorry. And why? Because of how we define marriage.

Eventually, this all gets to definition. Ask most people today what marriage is, and they're liable to say, "it's when two people who love each other get together." Well, that's not it. Love is an aspect of marriage, but not a definition of it, and in fact, is rather recent. Recall the English musicians of medieval times extolling the virtues of romantic love. Reason was that love in marriage was then considered something new. But love needed not be present for marriage to retain its definition (and I'm not recommending a return to those days).

I always considered a good definition of marriage to be a formalized commemoration of the male/female duality that allowed for procreation to exist within the union itself. Marriage is not better than other institutions, but in that regard is more special. That's a very politically incorrect statement to make, but it's easy to justify. Married couples interested in families set upon making them right after taking vows (aside from the fun entailed). When some learn they cannot conceive, their disappointment is palpable, and the special nature of conception in the union itself becomes apparent. This isn't to say that adoption or going outside the union is worse (and I say this as someone who was adopted). But the special nature of procreating in the union itself cannot be denied, and is measured by the extent of that disappointment when it occurs.

Bottom line to all this - gay marriage does fundamentally redefine marriage. But, okay. And if that is the case, have that debate. Who knows; maybe society is ready for it. Advocates may celebrate their win in NY, but for the majority of the country, and I would venture to say the world itself, they have yet to make the case. And continuing to evade and obfuscate, and hoping to redefine the debate as one of fairness is not likely to win them over. Personally, I would be open to a debate conducted with a sense of positive arguments that don't seek to deny history or the wishes and desires of so many yet to be won over. And if the debate is conducted as such, and advocates can marshall an argument that includes a cohesive line of thought that can address the redefinition issue, I could be persuaded, as I think many holdouts as well. I've yet to see it though, and I don't think advocates are doing themselves any favors by holding it back.

Derek Leaberry| 6.27.11 @ 3:44PM

You are exactly right. All moral truth comes from God and He has made it known that homosexuality is dishonorable and sinful.

John | 6.27.11 @ 5:18PM

Marriage = Man + Woman. Got it!

Gerry T. Neal | 6.27.11 @ 5:33PM

Marriage is a universal social institution because human beings are a sexual species. In saying so, I am not using the adjective "sexual" in the sense of "enjoys getting pleasure from sexual intercourse" but in the more fundamental sense of "is divided into two sexes which must unite for reproduction to take place". When we define sexuality that way it becomes apparent how the oxymoron "homosexual" is actually a verbal attack upon the basic nature of sexuality. Much like how "gay marriage" is an attack upon the basic nature of the institution of marriage.

If people wish to fornicate with members of their own sex, as long as they are willing to keep it within the privacy of their own bedrooms, I see no reason to persecute them for it. If they wish to pretend that they are married, I do not think that in itself is going to hurt anyone else.

The rest of us, however, should not be forced by act of law to pretend that what they are doing is anything other than a rejection of the basic nature of human sexuality and a game of make-believe that mocks one of the most sacred institutions of human society.

Slacker| 6.27.11 @ 6:17PM

After they finish celebrating, the gays will realize they really didn’t win much of anything. They can have faux marriages. So what?

The real fun is in antagonizing traditionalists. Observe the silly and self demeaning behavior at any gay pride event. It is clearly all about trying to make traditionalists uncomfortable.

But, the game always works because conservatives play along by expressing disapproval or quoting scripture. The conservative response to the gay marriage question should be to fall down laughing.

Bill| 6.27.11 @ 7:08PM

Yes, homosexuals will soon tire of the "gay marriage" shtick, about the time their definition of marriage gains general acceptance.

The reason is that gay marriage won't make them any more acceptable to great majority of people, and they'll need to cast about for some other burr to plant under society's saddle in order to get the attention that must substitute for acceptance of them.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.27.11 @ 7:34PM

Alright then, I hope everyone has vented all the evolution, gay marriage bile they have built up for a while. Everyone feel better? Got all those issues resolved? Most importantly have all the judges and voters reversed their decisions? Has the MSM apologized for being biased? Send out your thank you notes, re-subscribe to the NYT, and send the RNC a hundred bucks.
Now where were we before the “Margie’s” pissed off anybody with a degree and halted any young person’s consideration of joining a church. May I remind you we are not standing at the Pearly Gates, if St. Peter faults me for enlisting gay people or women having made the abortion decision in order to save the dual bastions of Christianity, democracy and the USA, so be it.
The SoCon’s will be the end of us, why AS provokes them and causes this bloodletting I have no idea. Despite the circular firing squad many participated in no one here can rationally expect Obama to be re-elected. The economic situation will be so dire that only the entitlement black constituency will support him, the question is not whether he will be elected the question one should seriously consider is who will be the democrat’s nomination.
So why my critical narrative to those of you who argue needlessly over issues you can neither refute as to legitimacy, or reverse in the politics of reality. God will sort us out, all that indignant pity does not seem to be playing out in those huge electoral states, and as I said we are not judged at the ballot box.
If you continue to berate each other you will pull the Republican candidates to the center, we do not need Romney or Huntsman representing some mythical middle. We need as far right as we can get. Most of you suffer from “Republicanitis,” you compromise when you are winning and you would rather self-flagellate than practice self-control. We have a chance to save the country provided we do a Palin, Bolton or a Bachmann. The Tea Party, that wonderfully silent, omnipotent force is a grassroots giant. They (me proudly) want simple things, less taxation, more personal freedom, and smaller government.
Those of you that want more laws to legislate behavior, are so ignorant that you break rule two (more personal freedom) AND rule three (smaller government). We do not need more behavior modification and we certainly do not need more govermental agencies to impliment and enforce more repressive laws. You are all going to have to paste a copy of the Tea Party Contract on your refrigerator and read it every morning before you face the world and the dilemma we are in. Specifically, if you are posting here remember other than a few pathetic trolls; we are united until the weak and shortsighted start an irrelevant unwinnable and fruitless argument.
We have work to do. We are the stewards of our Kingdom here on earth; we are all God’s children. Those of you that condemn your fellow citizens for their failings or faults will certainly be forgiven, but the “hell on earth” coming is up to us to resolve, we need someone to help not someone to blame.

W| 6.27.11 @ 10:51PM

Michael, well said. We have to keep our eye on the prize: defeating obama.
Gay marriage is part of the new democrat stimulus plan. New York will collect more fees for marriae licenses, and lawyers will have more work for pre nuptial agreements and divorces.

Joseph Dooley| 6.28.11 @ 1:57PM

Your own rant was more cathartic to yourself than anything else commenters have said here. Congratulations. God forbid people passionately defend the basic tenets of civilization.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 4:10PM

Thank you.

DaveS| 6.27.11 @ 7:51PM

At least you have the knack of being brief.

Marc Jeric| 6.27.11 @ 9:00PM

Our new vocabulary under Mullah Obama:
1) Marriage is whatever one wants it to be;
2) Costs of divorces will plumet due the millions of new divorces;
3) Costs of Social Security will skyrocket, as will those of Medicare, Medicaid, and the medicine in general;
4) New goverment departments and agencies and boards will multiply, with thousands new bureaucrats to be hired;
5) New dictionary definitions will sprout, requiring new editions of all standard works.
6) Teachers unions will prepare new textbooks.

POST American| 6.27.11 @ 10:44PM

The 'Big Boys' using their tried and true, absolutely
'fave' formulas for cultural destruction as POST America crumbles
into NAFTA a-MAL-game-ation, and onward
into Globalist-RED China receivership.

"----Ye shall be as gods.
Ye shall not surely die---"

Now, where did we hear that before?

Nick| 6.27.11 @ 11:28PM

To all the liberals and libertarians out there trying to change the centuries old definition of marriage:

Please explain, with logic and reason, why it is wrong to invent rights for members of the same gender, rights that only a man and woman enjoy in the state of a licit marriage; but, it is not wrong to deny marriage rights to a man and his adult daughter, or to a woman and her adult son, or to a man and several women, or several men and several women?

You can't be against father/daughter "marriage", et al, and, concurrently, be for the latest abomination that occurred in New York. Not without being intellectually dishonest, that is.

John II| 6.28.11 @ 12:03AM

Or, as George Weigel puts it in the current NRO:

"Gay marriage” in fact represents a vast expansion of state power: In this instance, the state of New York is declaring that it has the competence to redefine a basic human institution in order to satisfy the demands of an interest group looking for the kind of social acceptance that putatively comes from legal recognition. But as Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and others argued during the days before the fateful vote on June 24, the state of New York does not have such competence, and the assertion that it does casts an ominous shadow over the future. For if the state in fact has the competence, or authority, to declare that Adam and Steve, or Eve and Evelyn, are married, and has the related authority to compel others to recognize such marriages as the equivalent of what we have known as marriage for millennia, then why stop at marriage between two men or two women? Why not polyamory or polygamy? Why can’t any combination of men and women sharing financial resources and body parts declare itself a marriage, and then demand from the state a redress of its grievances and legal recognition of it as a family? On what principled ground is the New York state legislature, or any other state legislature, going to say “No” to that, once it has declared that Adam and Steve, or Eve and Evelyn, can in fact get married according to the laws of the state?

And now back to "Father of the Bride" (the superior 1950 version), in which the primly liberal Spencer Tracy shows that he had no idea where his persuasion was taking us.

Nick| 6.28.11 @ 6:52PM

Hi John II!

Thanks for the quote. Mr. Weigel definitely puts it more eloquently than I did.
And, as we can see from the response, this argument cannot be refuted!

Father of the Bride! Ha-ha!
Good one.
God Bless.

bobmontgomery| 6.27.11 @ 11:56PM

What I would like to know is why Democrat Catholic politicians who routinely, fervently, openly and publicly mock the church and it's teachings, are not excommunicated.

John II| 6.28.11 @ 12:27AM

They are--excommunicated, I mean. For reasons of prudence, I suppose (and I no longer consider it prudent, but as a garden-variety Roman Catholic I have no authority in such matters), the excommunication is not imposed "ferendae sententiae" (after a formal proceeding and public announcement).

But the so-called Catholic politicians who continue to support abortion and same-sex "marriage" and the rest of it are excommunicated automatically, or "latae sententiae." We're supposed to pray for them. And THAT's the really hard teaching, considering all the really serious intentions that need our prayers. I mean, we're required by charity to pray for colossal jackasses as well as for our children and for sweet Aunt Minnie who's dying of cancer.

And now back to "The Jeweller's Shop" (1990), in which Burt Lancaster rounds off his career with a role of sure-enough depth, based on a play by Blessed John Paul II.

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 7:27AM

THE CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS OF THE UNITED STATES DO NOT NEED TO BE EXPOSED TO DEVIANT SEX WELL WISHERS. NEXT, THE SAME SEX GROUPS WILL NEED YOUNGER TENDERS FOR BROWN SEX!

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 7:34AM

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN SAME SEX SEX. NEXT, THE SAME SEX GROUPS WILL WANT TO PUT BROWN SEX IN MOVIES EVERY FIVE MINUTES LIKE A TAMPAX TAMPON COMMERCIAL. BROWN SEX IS NOT THE WAY TO GO.

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 7:36AM

THE ANTICHRIST WANTS YOU TO THINK BROWN SEX IS FANTASTIC.

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 7:38AM

BROWN SEX CAUSES RECTAL ABSCESSES.

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 7:41AM

BROWN SEX CAN CAUSE A RIPPED CONLON.

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 7:45AM

SAME SEX GROUPS HAVE A NEAR EPIDEMIC OF SYPHILIS AND GONORRHEA IN THE THROAT.

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 7:58AM

SAME SEX GROUPS THINK IT IS OKAY TO HAVE A GAY ORGY. NOW MORE "CRUISING" IN THE ATTEMP TO MAKE A FAST SEXUAL ENCOUNTER WITH AN UNKNOWN PARTNER HE WOULD NOT EVEN RECOGNIEZE THE NEXT DAY. WHERE IS THE LOVE?

Joseph Dooley | 6.28.11 @ 1:46PM

There is no moral law as far as secularists/atheists are concerned. Neither are they convinced of the secular benefit of perpetuating the M/F identity of the nuclear family core, which constitutes the deepest roots of civilization. Their simple-minded argument begins and ends with "fairness." Unless a deep change of philosophy can be affected, they are truly lost, and so are we.

simon templar| 6.28.11 @ 3:45PM

Antle, you jackasses have just swung the door open to the essential destruction of western society. Congratulations. Now, hold on to your seat, pedophilia is next. Polygamy and beastiality around the corner. Damn what the majority of Americans believe and want..this is a crankrocracy not a republic....the minority mob rules.

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 4:30PM

SOME PEOPLE JUST DESIRE TO BE NASTY - UNCLEAN-DIRTY-SOILED-MORAL BLEAMISH,AND A FILLED MIND OF SUPERNATURAL DEMONIC THOUGHTS. BROWN SEX WILL DOUBLE OR TRIPLE BROWN SEX IN THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

that dorsey| 6.28.11 @ 4:42PM

THE SAME SEX COMMUNITY CAN NOT WAIT TILL YOUR PRECIOUS CHILDREN TURN LEGAL AGE TO PERSUADE THEM INTO LICKING AND SUCKING HOT DOGS AND SUCKING AND LICKING ON THAT BANANA SPLIT. THESE WORDS ARE MEANT TO GRAB YOU AND GET YOU TO REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR KIDS FUTURE.

RetUSA1/75| 6.28.11 @ 8:01PM

It must be a drag, knowing that if you copulate with your same sex, that your seed dies. It is dead. Forever. Same sex for personal pleasure perplexe's me. As abortion. Same sex pleasure is an abortion of the mind.

weddingdresses | 6.29.11 @ 5:26AM

android mid | 8.14.11 @ 4:35AM

the most important side-effect of same-sex marraige is that it'll disprove the ludicrous fantasies of those of you who are mere bigots. Like interracial marriage, it represents inclusiveness, but most people won't choose to indulge it

Chiropractor San Francisco | 9.13.11 @ 7:58PM

This is good and all but the republicans aren't really helping

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|80 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|111 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|48 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|89 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|48 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|13 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

What Does Consequence-Free Sex Cost Us?

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

IRS Sued for Wrongly Seizing 60 Million Medical Records

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Marital Spectator

New York-Style Marriage

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (170) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 6.27.11 @ 6:45AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 6.27.11 @ 7:25AM

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 8:47AM

florin| 6.27.11 @ 6:14PM

Legacy America | 6.28.11 @ 11:55PM

lydia | 6.27.11 @ 8:52AM

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 9:03AM

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 9:21AM

SharpRightTurn | 6.27.11 @ 10:43AM

florin| 6.27.11 @ 6:19PM

canuckistani| 6.27.11 @ 11:46AM

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 12:56PM

Susan| 6.27.11 @ 1:57PM

Chris| 6.27.11 @ 11:18PM

Senior Chief| 6.28.11 @ 11:55AM

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:36PM

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 2:37PM

mames| 6.27.11 @ 9:20AM

Scott| 6.27.11 @ 4:24PM

Alan Brooks| 6.27.11 @ 9:04AM

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:38PM

PJ| 6.27.11 @ 9:44AM

Alan Brooks| 6.27.11 @ 11:02AM

PJ| 6.27.11 @ 12:17PM

Drunken Sailor| 6.27.11 @ 12:21PM

k962| 6.27.11 @ 11:28AM

Jack fromWi. | 6.27.11 @ 6:39PM

Chris| 6.27.11 @ 11:24PM

Dante| 6.27.11 @ 8:56PM

Petronius| 6.27.11 @ 10:17PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.27.11 @ 6:56AM

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 9:22AM

Michael Ejercito | 6.27.11 @ 10:59AM

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 11:06AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.27.11 @ 6:56AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.27.11 @ 9:29AM

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:09PM

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:06PM

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:27PM

Con Chef (NB) | 6.27.11 @ 7:16AM

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:44PM

JP| 6.27.11 @ 7:16AM

Darin| 6.27.11 @ 8:05AM

DaveS| 6.27.11 @ 11:29AM

PJ| 6.27.11 @ 12:55PM

Susan| 6.27.11 @ 2:05PM

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 2:39PM

TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 6:20PM

RCV| 6.28.11 @ 12:43AM

Rick| 6.29.11 @ 11:28PM

Still a believer| 6.27.11 @ 12:02PM

SETH Chodosh| 6.27.11 @ 4:20PM

TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 6:23PM

RCV| 6.28.11 @ 12:45AM

Nick| 6.28.11 @ 7:01PM

RCV| 6.29.11 @ 2:08AM

Nick| 6.30.11 @ 12:58AM

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 7:18AM

Darin| 6.27.11 @ 8:12AM

vitadMD| 6.27.11 @ 8:12AM

mames| 6.27.11 @ 9:26AM

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 7:56AM

mames| 6.27.11 @ 9:27AM

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 9:40AM

Big J| 6.27.11 @ 7:56AM

Larry| 6.27.11 @ 8:06AM

Darin| 6.27.11 @ 8:14AM

daddio| 6.27.11 @ 9:24AM

PJ| 6.27.11 @ 9:56AM

Toady| 6.27.11 @ 12:56PM

TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 6:32PM

grant1863| 6.27.11 @ 12:14PM

emo| 6.27.11 @ 1:46PM

SETH Chodosh| 6.27.11 @ 4:04PM

Redstateboy| 6.27.11 @ 10:14AM