The Washington Post's Election 2012 blog:
House Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that he believes same-sex marriage should be legal — and the No. 3 House Democrat appeared to go further than President Obama in suggesting that a national policy, rather than a state-by-state one, is needed on the issue.
... “If we consider this to be a civil right — and I do — I don’t think civil rights ought to be left up to a state-by-state approach,” Clyburn said. “I think that we should have a national policy on this.”
... In Monday’s MSNBC interview, Clyburn drew a comparison between the gay marriage debate and the debate over interracial marriage.
“I will remind you that in my lifetime, it was illegal in some states — this state, one of them — for black and white couples to get married,” he said. “I think that we have seen in many churches that call themselves fundamentalist and Christian teach a theological tolerance of slavery and servitude.”
29 Comments
This is good marriage news! Thanks, NOM.
We certainly do need a national policy, we need to make sure that all states respect marriage as meaning the couple is allowed and approved to have sex and procreate offspring together with their own genes, to make sure that no state ever tries to enact eugenic screening restrictions or enforce sterilizations or contraception or force them to use engineered improved gametes. And we need to make sure that states don't give marriage to couples that are prohibited from conceiving offspring together.
Together those would prohibit same-sex marriage nationally, and preserve basic human rights nationally. No state could denigrate equal rights by declaring reproductive rights to be held equally by a same-sex couple.
Hopefully, such a move with inspire minorities who've always voted on party lines to take a good long look at the Democratic Party, and its non-stop assault on provident living, self-reliance, the natural family, right-to-life policies, motherhood, fatherhood, etc. and admit they are all about entitlements, anti-religion, anti-Constitution, Big Government, Big Debt, govt. dependance, eugenics, and ultimately, slavery.
This is a good thing for conservatism, if they do this.
>>Clyburn drew a comparison between the gay marriage debate and the debate over interracial marriage.
Huh?? What comparison? The interracial marriage debate involved 1 man and 1 woman, each having complimentary reproductive organs. Their union has the potential to lead to the creation of offspring. The only difference between their union and the "acceptable" unions in those days really only amounted to a difference in the amount of melanin in their skin.
Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is totally different. It involves either 2 men or 2 women. Their union has no potential to create children from their relationship.
These are not comparable debates on this point alone and, as we've seen in the video "The Problem With Same Sex Marriage", there are many other points in this debate as well. Comparable? Hardly.
http://www.frcblog.com/2012/05/the-problem-with-same-sex-marriage/
It keeps getting worse and worse for the Democrats.
Dennis Prager said today (and if you've never listened to him, please do; he might change your life): the difference between the fight for the right to marry by Blacks and gays comes down to this:
Blacks people are the same as White people; men are different from women.
Sometimes things are that simple.
Yep, David. This is actually quite unfortunate for Obama. He thought the hard part was over when he endorsed ssm. But now it seems that some in his party are trying to push him over the edge by coercing an endorsement of forced ssm nationwide. We all know that's what he wants to do anyway; but I think he prefers to ride the "leave it to the states" wagon.
Here's an idea: Why doesn't the House try to find a way to ram this down the throats of Americans like it did the immensely popular Obamacare Bill?
I'm beginning to think that the Democrats don't want to win in November.
Interracial marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with same sex unions. Outlawing interracial marriage was a RESTRICTION put to legal marriages, as is the restriction of multiple marriages (polygamy) today. Not allowing same sex unions to be married is not a restriction – it is an IMPOSIBILITY! All the organs of the human species must be present to be married (or the symbol of such organs, by the presence of a man and woman). Because becoming married is becoming the human-species in its completed form. Same sex couples can't get married even if we wanted them to.
We have a national law but no one chooses to enforce it. And if you really think about it, the states that have chosen to redefine Marriage either by legislative action or by judicial activism are violating are in violation because their laws directly conflict with Federal Law. Now I'm all for states rights, but if the government has a law in place that blankets the entire country then there isn't much the states can do.
For example, medical marijuana is legal in several states but illegal at the federal level. That means at any time, federal agents can waltz into those states and crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries because Federal Law supercedes state law.
No, it's very comparable, and useful to remember what band on interracial marriage were intended to do. They were called anti-miscegenation laws because they literally tried to stop "mixing the genes" of white people and other races. The question was "should we let people create offspring with someone of a different race" and that is the same question now "should we let people create offspring with someone of the same sex."
No, we should not, it would be too expensive and dangerous and lead to big government regulation and intrusive tests, and undermines the basis of equality and liberty and human dignity.
@John
Well john...people of the same sex cannot create offspring. Don't mean to sound like a smart mouth but yeah.
And I would like to point out to the good congressman that Interracial Marriage was but a small battle in the much greater Civil Rights movement. What the left is trying to is make gender irrelevant in everyday life, to blur the lines between manhood and womanhood, fatherhood and motherhood. Whenever I'm asked "how does it hurt you", I always refer to that.
Zack,
What federal law are states that permit same sex marriage violating?
@ John Howard
John it would still be helpful for me to hear a simple definition of what marriage is for you, before any country, government, laws (or even words) existed. Outside of all this political and laws stuff.
Bravo, Mr. Clyburn!
To all of my fellow NOM supporters please watch the video made by FRC from comment #3. It is must see TV.
Thank you Dan for providing this video.
Loving v Virginia & Perez (its twin California case) are the anti-miscegenatioist cases that overruled such laws trhe congressman equates to same-sex "marriage.
Concerning the Loving analogy as has been employed. I would draw peoples attention to the
argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision
Hernadez v Robles.
"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."
Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382
Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.
Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage.
@Zack, we can still approve and allow same-sex couples to conceive offspring, even though it is not possible and might never be possible. There are researchers working on creating eggs from men and sperm from women using their stem cells and trying to coax them into developing as if the person was the other sex, perhaps in a bath of hormones or by implanting them in an ovary or testicle to develop. There are many ways same-sex couples could attempt it, but all of them should be prohibited with a federal law limiting creating people to the union of a man and a woman's unmodified sperm and egg.
The whole question is whether we should allow labs to make babies for same-sex couples, just as the whole question 50 years ago was whether we should let interracial couples make babies together. Same question, because marriage means approving and allowing a couple to make babies, but very different issues involved in deciding it.
@Good News "John it would still be helpful for me to hear a simple definition of what marriage is for you, before any country, government, laws (or even words) existed. Outside of all this political and laws stuff."
Well, there were still fathers and brothers and informal social structures that would approve and allow people to have sex and make babies together, and prohibit other people from having sex with them, and demand that they stay faithful and protect and support their spouse and the children they have together.
@Bruce
Are you not familiar with DOMA? The law that says marriage in the united states is between a man and a woman? I understand that it also said that states aren't required to recognize the marriage laws of another but what these legislators and judges have done is create a conflict with the federal government.
Continued: Of course...that doesn't mean I oppose state's rights. If you really think about it, these states that have choses to recognize same-sex marriage legally are in fact conflicting with DOMA-the federal law which supercedes state law-which is why it's being litigated.
Zack,
Of course, I'm familiar with DOMA, but states which permit same sex marriage are not in conflict with DOMA which defines marriage as a man and a woman for federal purposes only. If what you say were true, opponents of same sex marriage would've brought a claim to invalidate those marriages long ago.
@ John Howard
I understand your concern for the creation of babies. And I do believe that that is what is really at the heart of this whole issue and fight for 'marriage'.
But I do think defining natural marriage is very important as a foundation. I know all you attention is on the baby making part of it but hear me out. Two people can be married and not have babies, what makes them married?
A father can be married to his daughter.
A mother can be married to her son.
A sister can marry her brother.
A Chinese woman can marry an Indian man.
A black can be married to a white.
A man can be married to many woman.
Etc. etc.
These marriages are possible because there is a man and a woman union happening.
These marriages do not take place very often because they are outlawed (the country puts restrictions on who will be allowed to be married – not because they cannot get married but because if they did not outlaw it, they could get married. (And they could have babies “all by themselves”.)
A man and a man or a woman and a woman do not have all the physical and chemical parts to get 'married'. It is not a restriction on marriage, or an outlawing of marriage in this case. They cannot get married simply because it is impossible for them to get married. If our society takes the word marriage to name same sex unions, the traditional true marriage will still exist and be as unique as ever, but there will not be a word to uniquely name it. And so it will not be able to be signaled out by name to our growing children and others as being something different.
All the new science advances and different family combos and baby possibilities will not change that this unique union, 'marriage' will continue to exist (we have to name this thing, to be able to distinguish it clearly from the rest).
And the other fight. The one of limiting these new technological possibilities for having babies (a subject that I get the impression you know a lot more about than the average person, who would have his hair stand on his head when learning what's in store for us if we don't put limits to it. By as you say putting restrictions on how people can and should have children.
Hello, Good News. I've been trying to keep up with Mr. Howard for a while now. I think what he has been saying is that, at some point, it may be possible for two people of the same gender to create a child. His weblink is available. We all have full access to the information he is presenting. Thank you, Mr. Howard, for making fully available your research and commentary.
@Zack
You misunderstand DOMA. It only says the federal government can't recognize same-sex marriage. It doesn't prohibit states from recognizing it, and that's in fact one of the arguments in defense of DOMA's constitutionality. I could find you at least 20 quotes to that effect if the moderator would let me post them, but here's one: "If some state wishes to recognize same-sex marriage, they can do so" -Sen. Nickels.
@Good News "Two people can be married and not have babies, what makes them married?"
Being approved to make babies. If they aren't approved and allowed to have sex and make babies, they can't be considered married, it is very important that we don't let anyone think that they are separate issues, that we can prohibit marriages from having sex or making babies.
Illegal marriages, such as brother-sister marriages, are immediately declared void when they are discovered. The approval to have sex and make babies is withdrawn, and they might face jail time if they knowingly married.
We can approve of two men or two women conceiving offspring together, by declaring them married. The details of how they might do it or whether they can do it are irrelevant, marriage is all about the approval of the concept of offspring. But we shouldn't do that, we should instead prohibit them from conceiving offspring together. It's not some "other fight" it is the same fight. And the limits are not hard to figure: we should prohibit all attempts at creating a person except joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman. That needs to be done ASAP, there is no reason to wait. It is the first step to preserving marriage.
You guys are confusing holy matrimony with civil marriage.
Holy matrimony is a church supported religious concept that defines a relationship between a man, a woman and God. It is one type of marriage. But there is another type of marriage, and that is the legal contract between two people that the government regulates and records. That is a civil marriage. Both are valid types of marriage. You don’t need a religious ceremony to be married in this country, and marriage is far more than an institution for procreation. You can get legally married if you’re 90 years old. Or if you’ve gotten a vasectomy or hysterectomy and can no longer have children. You can even get married if you’re lesbian or gay person in state that allows gay marriage. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage, except that some people get them both.
For those of you who think same-sex couples can’t have kids, think again. They do it all the time. Look around, they’re all over the place. They’re your neighbors, your colleagues and relatives. Same-sex couples can have children from previous heterosexual relationships, they can adopt kids, and they even get pregnant. Two women and a small bottle of sperm from a donor can produce children who are biologically related to each other and to each of their birth moms. Viola! Cross adopt, and you’ve created a nice, concise, loving family unit. The only question then is, will society give those children of same-sex couples equal rights to those of children of heterosexual couples. THAT’S what gay marriage is all about: Getting equal rights for their kids. And that’s why you’ll eventually lose this fight – because lesbian and gay parents will NEVER stop fighting for equality for their families. They’ll fight to their last breath, and if they never win equality, then more homosexuals will be born and grow up to fall in love, have kids and carry on with the fight for marital equality. What parent wouldn’t? That’s why marriage equality is inevitable. Because parents, even lesbian and gay parents, love their kids enough to never give up the fight for equal rights.
You are confusing nonmarriage with marriage. The lack of either a bride or a groom indicates the type of relationship is not marital.
We are discussing marriage and the law that recognizes this social institution. You are talking about a specious substitution for marriage (i.e. S.S.M.).
Marriage, at minimum, is the type of relationship that unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. It is not less than that. It can be more than that. But not less.
You mistakenly seek to make marriage mean less and less.
Then you skip off into fantasy land when you said:
"For those of you who think same-sex couples can’t have kids, think again. They do it all the time."
There is no one-sexed scenario that can procreate without going outside of that type of arrangement. You know that is true. Yet you fantasize and pretend you are dealing with reality.
You meant something else by the phrase "have children". The mere presence of children in a household does not qualify a relationship nor a domestic living arrangement for eligibility to marry. Adoption does not bestow marital status. This is so for two-sexed scenarios; why would you fantasize something different for one-sexed scenarios?
There is zilch that marital status would do for children whose caretakers are adults of the same sex. You know that but pretend, again, something else is reality.
Your falsehoods are piling up. You said:
"THAT’S what gay marriage is all about: Getting equal rights for their kids."
The only reason that SSM advocates drag children into the spotlight is to draw attention to the neediness of the adults. The spotlight is on the adults; the advocates drag children into the edge of that spotlight but the kids are still on the shadowy margins.
Your emphasis on gay this and gay that is irrelevant to the meaning of marriage. But it very relevant to the SSM campaign's goal of gutting marriage of its core meaning and then pouring into the hollowed out thing the primacy of gay identity politics.
You fool no one with your empty rhetoric.