As I mentioned in the Morning News, last night’s Hardball featured a gay-marriage discussion between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage (the group behind the shamelessly fear-mongering “Gathering Storm” ad) and Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, and here it is:

First impressions: Maggie Gallagher is more eloquent than I imagined, and Joe Solmonese was less eloquent than I wanted.

A key point left unaddressed is brought up by Gallagher’s repetition of the idea that “redefining marriage will change marriage forever.” This is true, and pretending it isn’t is unwise. The question is whether this disruption to the existing idea of marriage is threatening enough to deny equal rights to an entire class of citizens, and the answer is unequivocally no.

Yes, granting marriage rights to same-sex couples will “change marriage forever,” just like the civil rights movement changed public transportation forever, and the suffrage movement changed democracy forever. This is called progress, and protecting the (unfair) world that the marriage-is-only-between-a-man-and-a-woman folks have grown accustomed is in no way so pressing a concern it mandates denying equal rights to an entire group of Americans. (In other words: wrapping her brain around the new realities of 21st-century life is Ms. Gallagher’s job; it is not the government’s job to perpetuate injustice just to keep her and her ilk comfortable.)

David Schmader—former weed columnist and Stranger associate editor—is the author of the solo plays Straight and Letter to Axl, which he’s performed in Seattle and across the US. His latest...

217 replies on “Regarding Last Night’s Hardball”

  1. @48: Your poor grasp of history and lack of understanding of civil law and its evolution is hilarious, to say the least.

  2. 47
    It is not ingrained in their identity. They cravenly demand approval for their private intimate decisions from the rest of us because they have doubts about it themselves. They seek to copy the institution of marriage and hope some of the glitter will rub off on them.

  3. @45 – OK, who taught those gay penguins at the zoo? And I’ve heard from someone who breeds sheep that they had a gay ram, and I swear I haven’t even met the ram! It wasn’t me! There have been numerous “sightings” of gay wildlife, and nobody taught them. Of course it doesn’t mean the end of existance. There are still plenty of straight animals (even humans) to keep the species alive. And in case you haven’t noticed, humankind is in no danger of going extinct anytime soon.

  4. @50
    Validate what?
    If it is set it needs no validation.
    If it is a choice, and a poor one that leaves you with self-doubt, then you crave validation from others.

  5. 51
    Glad to brighten your day.
    What other cultures have had gay marriage?
    Greeks? Sparta institutionalized homosexuality in the barracks but they did not marry.
    Who?

  6. @ 54, then straight relationships need no validation through marriage either.

    Boy, do I feel sorry for the loser who has to use multiple sockpuppets because he’s afraid of using just one anonymous identity. I guess i would too if I was just 1/100th as ignorant.

  9. @50
    What about the folks who flop into and out of homosexual behavior? What about BiSexuals? Did they not get “set”. Or are they just choosing to (or not to) engage in the behavior.

    And if homosexuality is biologically “set” why can homosexuals reproduce and function heterosexually if they choose?
    A racially black human cannot choose to be white. A blue eyed person cannot choose to be brown eyed for awhile.
    If homosexuality were an innate biological trait the defining characteristic of it would be inability to be heterosexual. But all ‘homosexuals’ can function as heterosexuals if they choose. They CHOOSE not to.

  10. @55: Constantine banned it specifically in Rome, there was affrerement in France, Civil Brothership rites in the old Catholic Church, civil unions in the Balkans prior to the 1900s, the Boston Marriage and so on and so forth.

  12. 56
    57
    For legal protection for the children heterosexual relationships usually produce. Do homosexual relationships produce children? When they marry it copies the form of marriage but there is no functional purpose.

  15. @61: No, sex is how we reproduce. Sperm doesn’t care if you’re all hot for the lady or not.

    Heterosexuality is ultimately useless since it has no bearing on one’s ability to reproduce. It’s a choice you make.

  16. 64
    Historically marriage equated to child production. Also not that long ago women did not work out of the home as much and marriage protected their interests. If you are suggesting that childless couples lose marriage rights that would be an interesting debate.

  19. 65
    Sperm doesn’t care if you are hot for the lady but it cares a lot if you deposit it in a vagina or a man’s anus.

    You seem to be confusing heterosexuality with romance.

  20. @ 69, that is the most retarded thing I’ve ever read. That is why your side is losing.

  21. Loveschild, I’ve always wanted to respond to you with logic and clarity. Others have done better than I could ever have done. And to no avail.

    So I’m going to take the low road:

    Go fuck yourself with one of Jesus’ petrified turds, you illiterate moron. It’s the best you’ll ever get.

  22. According to our Slog trolls,

    (1) a Muslim doctor should be able to refuse in vitro treatment to a Christian couple because he finds them morally objectionable;

    (2) homosexuals choose to be homosexual but heterosexuals do not choose to be heterosexual; and

    (3) constitutional democracy in 1776 was a stupid idea because history showed at that time that nations were meant to be ruled by kings or emperors, not ignorant farmers.

    Thanks for playing Slog troll!

  23. 44 Can you point to me the scientific studies that attest that this is a condition people are born with?

    Also while I really would like others on my side to post here and rebuff the confusing statements made here, I’m going to side with those opposite to me here in asking you to please use a recognizable handle to post here. It identifies and makes your arguments more comprehendable.

    Can we also stop it with the name calling and the profanities? We can disagree and express ourselves without having to result to such vulgarities.

  24. @73,

    I know I said I was done (and I have no desire to stop using vulgarity when responding to you, its the only language that makes sense when dealing with your ignorant ways)

    Can you point to me the scientific studies that attest that heterosexual behavior is a condition people are born with?

  25. Our long suffering is nearly over. Because of the precedent being set by pharmacists and doctors who choose their unholy belief that they are fit to selectively serve only those whom they feel are worthy, this right will be extended to all workers. The day is close when city light workers can question you about who you are and then decise if you are worthy to have your electricity turned on. It is the natural outcome of god’s law that all workers must honor their conscience ahead of their job duties, and the christianists have paved the way. hallelujah! Of course heterosexuality exists for no other purpose than begeeting offspring – once a couple has chosen the path of heterosexualism and produced no more than two children they should be sterilized and divorced in the interest of the preservation of the species. Because self-avowed heterosexualists choose their unholy passions and refuse to control their copulation and give birth 9 months after whenever they are bored, they are destroying god’s great gift of planet earth with overpopulation and must be stopped. Repent heterosexualists! Seek your unholy passion no more! Yet still they choose their life-denying sexual acts when they could just as easily – nay even more easily – choose to quench their passions with members of their own sex, and save the species and the planet from certain destruction. Over 90% of veneral diseases are trans.itted from one heterosexualist to another, yet they will not listen nor use protection, rather they keep producing the endless stream of unwanted babies who litter our streets, our detentions, our courts, our prisons, and our welfare system. How selfish are those who wickedly affirm their selfish heterosexualist interest in a moments cheap pleasure yet cause a lifetime’s grief. Woe unto them and theirs. The lord’s day of reckoning is nigh!

  27. @63 – there are plenty of instances where same sex mating behavior, which can even result in life-long pairings, occurs in species that otherwise reproduce sexually. While it is not the norm, it is still predictable. Why should humans be any different?

  28. Loveschild, I’d love for you to sit on my face and fart out my seed after breeding you up your sweet ass. I’d also like for you to let me nurse on your oh-so-sweet titties after a night of sweet lovin’ in whatever hole you want me to put it in.

    I got a big tongue baby, and I’d like to eat you so deep that you were reduced to just vowels to express the love I was giving you. I’d get you wetter than you’ve ever been before – and I swallow.

  29. Hatesadult,

    Please stop. If you want to disagree with Loveschild’s posts, then just do so. Your posts aren’t furthering the discussion. If these posts were directed at me I wouldn’t appreciate it, and thus I am guessing (without consulting her) that she doesn’t appreciate them either.

    I am asking you with the upmost respect to stop, please.

  30. So the NOM tagline is “”Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

    1) why does the right gays and lesbians have to live as they choose exclude the right to be wed? Is marriage not a part of living?

    And, 2) how does a gay or lesbian getting married redefine anyone else’s marriage? Do you not choose your own vows? Does your marriage change because your neighbor got married as well?

  31. Their response to: “Are you a bigot?” (does anyone ask it that way?)

    Re: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists?…”

    No. I believe people who seek to enforce their own point of view by denying rights to others are bigoted. You are allowed to believe what you want, and that is not infringed upon by civil law, even when such law allows fpr, say, gays to marry.

    Considering that you believe mothers and fathers both matter to children, what does gay marriage have to do with ensuring children have their own parents? How will prohibiting gay marriage return absent parents, or provide surrogates for those children who are living under a single parent or within a foster family or are orphaned and homeless?

  32. Re: Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage.

    Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions when they engage in discriminatory behavior, like refusing to provide a service to someone because they’re gay. How is denying service to a gay couple different from denying service to a mixed-race couple, or to a couple that belong to a fringe faith?

  33. Re: Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.

    1) Schools teach kids that families come in different structures and sizes because this is representative of American demographics, and hence it is to prepare children to expect that homes other than their own may not be exactly the same. How is this a bad thing.

    (Do schools teaching young children talk about intimacy at all?)

    and 2) Since gays can already adopt or seek surrogates and donors, disallowing marriage is not going to change this. If anything, by refusing matrimonial legitimacy to the household, it will hurt the children by providing further cause for discrimination in schools by their peers, not to mention deny these kids legal benefits of living in under a married couple.

    Or is it a part of your agenda to strip gays of the rights to raise children as well?

  34. Re: When the idea that children need moms and dads get[s] legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.

    1) Exactly how is the idea that children need parents of both genders, or their own biological parents, being stigmatized? Exactly how is banning gay marriage going to change this? Heck, and how is legitimizing gay marriage, which will increase the number of those married, going to do anything but strengthen a “marriage culture”?

    2) If getting parents to raise your own kids is your primary agenda, why so much focus on banning gay marriage? Wouldn’t your efforts be better focused on encouraging straight parents to keep and raise their own children?

    3) The idea that children ideally should be raised by their own parents is noble but not always realistic. Many children are abandoned by one or both parents. Sometimes parents are too dysfunctional or too unhealty to effectively raise children. For such cases, wouldn’t it be better to provide as many alternatives to homelessness or foster care as possible, even if they do not meet your exacting ideals?

  35. Am coming to the debate late because I live in a different time zone.

    @13 – That is correct. In fact, I used to live in a Muslim country, and there, couples would go through two separate ceremonies. The religious ceremony was held in the home, and would not be completed unless a non-Muslim agreed to convert to Islam. The civil ceremony was performed at city hall and didn’t mention religion.

    @14 – What does in vitro fertilization have to do with gay marriage? I didn’t know being married was a requirement.

    @28 and @59 – I find this whole argument offensive. It could be implied that you are inferring “Oh those poor black folk, they’d be born white if they only could. They don’t have a choice.”

    I live in Africa and can tell you skin lightening products are a thriving business (seem to have a public advertising presence third only to cell service providers and food products). I find this very disturbing not only because they are bad for the health, but also because of the self-directed racism they represent.

    My point here is that self-loathing and hiding/trying to change who you really are is self-destructive, whether you are non-white or gay. There is something in human nature that makes us want to show ourselves for who we really are. When someone is being openly gay, that is his (or her) behaving in a healthy way, even though it exposes that person to risk from bigots.

    If black-skinned people could change their skin tone and features and straighten their hair (and yes, people DO), would you suggest they should in order to “pass”? I believe you would find that idea offensive.

    I find the idea equally offensive that a gay person should try to “pass” as straight. Some left handed people can “pass” for right handed. Does that mean their leftiness is a “choice?” Your argument is full of holes, but you still keep trotting it out again and again.

    @48 – There wasn’t an institution of marriage for same sex couples because marriage wasn’t about love, it was about family alliances and property transfer. As marriage becomes more about love, it will change as an institution. Whether you like it or not.

  36. So if a doctor refused to treat a woman because she was wearing gold, pearls or had braided hair that would be okay because he’s just following his beliefs?

    1 Timothy 2:9
    I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

    1 Peter 3:3
    Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

    If a woman is against gay marriage because of her Christian beliefs, is it okay for her to have and wear gold, pearls, fancy dresses, and braid her hair?

  37. 76
    True.
    Wiki is a great place to get loaded up on all the homosexual advocacy propaganda parading as science you can stomach.

  38. @ 87, yeah, that’s EXACTLY all that’s there.

    You obviously have no clue what science and psychology are all about. You have nothing to stand on but your poor widdle feewings, so you can’t even pick just one handle to use, even though your anonymity is assured.

    Sucks to be you.

  39. @86 – Do you expect people to be rational and consistent when it comes to religion?
    hahahahahaha!
    Most people treat the bible like a 12-step meeting. “Take what you like and leave the rest.”

  40. 89, We have a bunch of ala carte Christians. They pick and choose through the Bible, and the process seems to be, “What can I use to attack people I hate?”

    “The bible says homosexuality is wrong!!!” We must outlaw homosexuality!!!”

    “The Bible says wearing gold and pearls is wrong!!! That one means that I have to give up something!?! Um, we can pretend it doesn’t say that, right?”

    The Bible says women must be silent, and must never teach or hold authority over men!!! Um, well, you know, I’m sure God won’t mind if we break that rule, because it affects ME!

    But the one about homosexuality? I’m not gay, so we must enforce that one!!!!”

  43. 90
    91
    Why do you care what kind of Christians they are?
    Are you thinking about converting?
    And more importantly, why clog slog bitching about all the obscure Biblical verses Christians don’t obey?
    The Christians don’t care and the rest of us really don’t care.

  44. 83
    You didn’t address the concern.
    Will schools teach that two men married are just as good as a man and a woman?
    Or just that “(sh)it happens”.

    Will they teach that polygamy happens in American families?
    Will they teach that a man and six women is just as good as a man and a woman?

  45. 93, Did someone force you to read my posts? If someone is going to use the Bible against me, they should at least be living it themselves.

  47. 84
    Again you did not address the concern.

    Many children are taught that the ideal family structure is a married dad and mom.

    This teaches them to postpone having children until married.
    This teaches them to do what it takes to make their marriage work and avoid divorce.
    This teaches them not to have children with someone you are not married to.

    If someone tried to tell them a 15 year old girl can be just as good a parent as two married mature adults they are prepared to know better.
    If someone tries to tell them dysfunctional marriages or divorce do not have a negative impact on children in the family they know better.
    If someone tries to tell them extramarital sex is harmless fun they know better.

    But now the schools will be required to teach them that two men can get married and that will be just as good.
    If these children respond that they have been taught that a man and a woman married is the best family structure-oh no– they get sent to the counselor for brainwashing-oops, I mean ‘sensitivity training’.

  48. 97, Do you believe that there is only one ideal family situation for everyone, no matter what the circumstances? Should anyone not fitting into your definition of ideal be left out?

  49. 98
    You are avoiding the question.
    Reread 97, if needed have an adult help you understand it.

Comments are closed.