NOM BLOG

NOM's Peters Responds to Sen. Portman Announcement

 

NOM's Communications Director Thomas Peters was interviewed by Politico to respond to the news that Sen. Rob Portman has chosen to abandon his view on marriage:

A spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage on Friday slammed Sen. Rob Portman, who has announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his long-held opposition to the issue.

“What Mr. Portman is doing is shrinking the size of the GOP tent,” charged Thomas Peters, a spokesman for the socially conservative NOM, in an interview with POLITICO. “I think it will have huge consequences if he chooses to run again.”

Peters, speaking with POLITICO at CPAC, said that opposition to same-sex marriage unites religious and social conservatives on both sides of the aisle, and also resonates with demographics that include parts of the Latino community.

...Peters charged that if Portman has presidential ambitions of his own, the new stance on gay marriage will torpedo those hopes.

“As far as Sen. Portman and presidential chances, I think he can say goodbye to those,” Peters said. He added that while it’s too early to say what impact this policy shift could have on a 2016 re-election bid for Senate, “we can say that every time a Republican has come out for gay marriage, he ignites the grassroots.”

Ryan Anderson has also responded at Heritage's blog.

114 Comments

  1. zack
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Geeze no wonder people think the TEA party id irrelevent...the guys who roslde tgeir coattails keep abandoning their principles. This is rediculous.

  2. zack
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Typo: is, rode*

  3. Will Fisher
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    OT: Whoa! Where did the blog post about the music acts for the March for Marriage? While I disagree with NOM and its mission, I love The Lee Boys! I think I might go just to hear them perform; they rocked at Bonaroo. Ultramontane not so much.

  4. Richard
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Senator Rob Portman and a slew of young conservatives at C-PAC, today make their stances known. And they all support marriage for gays. With just days to go who will be next?

  5. CRSmith
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Shame on him. I don't understand how such decent politicians can flip flop around about gay marriage all time. It's like they don't stand for anything. And why, of all things, is it that they have to cater to the gays instead of to the good people they represent. I've been praying that when the Supreme Court finally decides this it will strike down the whole idea of gay marriage everywhere, and put us back to when things were normal.

  6. Will Fisher
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    @CRSmith: Even if SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of DOMA and Prop 8 (a big if), SSM would still be legal in 9+ states, as before. The only way to rid this country of SSM would be a constitutional amendment, which just got one vote harder (unless you primary Portman out of the Senate).

  7. Richard
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Peters is very wrong. Senator Portman is talking directly to the young, socially progressive (gay marriage) conservatives I mentioned before. A refrain mentioned by a number of the participants interviewed on NPR this morning: stop equating the issue of abortion with gay marriage. They were clear; gay marriage is an issue they support. Now, if you're not happy with this take it up with them.

  8. Randy E King
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    "stop equating the issue of abortion with gay marriage"

    Of course; everyone should just abandon every winning argument in opposition to the imposition of their wicked designs.

    Goony-ga-ga marriage was fabricated by Goony-ga-ga's for the sole purpose of destroying this nation from within.

  9. Bobby
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Beautifully written.
    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html
    How sad the so called "pro marriage" group attacks a man for supporting his son.

  10. Bobby
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    And all little Tommy Peters can do is whine about it. What a horrible person Tommy is. And as for CRSmith, I can only hope she is not a parent. SHe would not know decency if it hit her in her ft head.

  11. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    A RINO is born. What, we throw out principle b/c our son is gay? That's letting emotion dictate our actions. How very two-year-old. Of course, that's what we're dealing with.

    ♫ F e e l i n g s . . . ♫

  12. Randy E King
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    As everyone can see the only argument Goony-ga-ga's have in support of their demands for special consideration are emotional ones; arguments designed to cloud the issue and mask their true intent.

  13. Richard
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Barb, you would have stabbed your son at the alter as God commanded. Perhaps the saddest post I've ever read on this site.

  14. OldKingBlog
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    Barb: A spot on comment! I'm honored to have you among us!

    Actually, folks Richard is very wrong. There is no such animal as "socially progressive conservatives." Real conservatives of any age support normal marriage. All lil Richie's post shows is that he has NO understanding of political philosophy; progressivism (another word for Marxism) and conservatism are both incompatible and mutually exclusive, with only conservatism geniunely capable, when implemented, of creating a good, stable society.

    I also think its time we real conservatives petition Brian to ban lil Richie and Bobby-poo from this site. They clearly have NOTHING to contribute.

    Brian, at the very least, how about a tab or buttom that will allow posters to approve or disapprove of comments from other posters? Then, when the "disapprove" count reaches a certain value, it's sayonara to that poster! Think about it!

  15. Richard
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    OKB, "Ah, sarcasm, the grumpy man's wit."

  16. Richard
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    Food for thought. On numerous other blog sites there is great discourse under way in anticipation of SCOTUS and its hearings on Prop 8 and DOMA. Why such fear here? One could be reminded of the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. Do any of you access sites contrary to your positions?

  17. Richard
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    More food for thought. What are we to make of the evidence that more and more previously conservative, anti-gay marriage politicians, organizations, businesses and theologians are changing their tune and are now in support of gay marriage. This is an established trend. Even Rubio really spoke to state's rights rather than in opposition to gay marriage. Can one name any supporter (of note) of gay marriage who as since changed his/her mind?

  18. Randy E King
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Yet; here you are, Richard, accusing your victims of the crimes that you yourself are guilty of.

    You refuse to give precedence its proper weight, refuse to discuss the merits of Amicus Briefs in opposition to your demands for special consideration, refuse to acknowledge biological fact, and insist on fabricating straw-men out of thin air by declaring noted arguments in opposition to inconsequential without ever having establish them to be so.

    Wait until a Republican, who honestly supports this nations history and traditions, comes to power and see for yourself how quickly your "supporters" switch sides.

    Momentum may be on your side for the time being, but truth is still with the opposition.

  19. leviticus
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    Society should be getting help for people who make bad lifestyle choices. Parents shouldn't be condoning their behavior.

  20. bman
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Ricahrd->What are we to make of the evidence that more and more previously conservative, anti-gay marriage politicians, organizations, businesses and theologians are changing their tune and are now in support of gay marriage.

    One thing "to make of it" is that its the great falling away predicted for the last days.

    As follows:

    2 Thes 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

    2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

    From a Christian perspective, a great falling away is expected to occur in the last days before Christ return.

    The shift you describe seems compatible with that prediction.

  21. Robert
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    Barb, you would advocate a public policy that harmed your own kids, and their kids???? Really????

  22. Robert
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Rubio, Portman, they're all trying to plot an exit strategy from the mindless hatred of the anti-gay marriage position. For Portman, it's his gay son; for Rubio, it's state's rights.

    What a sinking ship (ark?) these religionists have created here at NOM!

  23. Bobby
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    http://gawker.com/5990818/fred-phelps-gay-former-westboro-baptist-church-member-says-maybe
    Will any NOMers be next?

  24. Randy E King
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby,

    You queers claim everyone is on board; except those who are, but show you in the proper light.

    Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx...all Gay!

  25. Randy E King
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    Why don't these miscreants cheer Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, Luis Alfredo Garavito, Randy Steven Kraft, Wayne Williams, Elmer Wayne Henley, Arthur Gary Bishop...

  26. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, OldKingBlog :)

    It's widely accepted that decisions based on emotion are seldom sound. The results of these decisions often lead to negative consequences for future generations. Such is the nature of pseudo-marriage.

    It's also common knowledge that disagreements among adults are perfectly OK. Incapable of intelligent debate, and lacking a cogent argument, pseudo-marriage supporters must necessarily resort to name-calling.

  27. Bobby
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Barb - Name calling? What do you call the terms "RINO" and opposition". You people would be comical if you were not so pathetic.

  28. FemEagle
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    The FACT is, 41 states have banned SSM. That's the "trend", if there is one. A few turncoat monkeys jumping into the SSM barrel means squat. The vast majority of citizens in the vast majority of this country have already decided the SSM issue for their states. The gay "marriage" craze is already losing steam and credibility. Minnesotans have changed their minds about the issue. And they won't be the last.

  29. Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:53 am | Permalink

    I think Portman's attitude is symbolic about how people's views on sexuality is mostly about keeping their egos bloated and their comfort level high. Portman has a son with a homosexual problem. Instead of encouraging his son to investigate why he developed such a problem and resolving it, and maybe having to face what possible personal history and family issues there may be buried in his history, it's all much easier for Portman to irrationally lie to himself that his son was "born this way."

    Americans don't like to face they have psychological problems, especially related to sexuality - they prefer to beat their chests and think everything they feel and think is always right.

    That's the thrust of the homosexuality agenda and why it appeals to so many ignorant people, including young people. All these demographics are too immature or self-centered to reflect deeply and intelligently about their minds.
    Cave people like to wield their clubs around and shout that they have no problems.

  30. Tom
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 2:28 am | Permalink

    The only reason why some polls & some people are changing their minds to support gay marriage (i.e. the radical gay agenda) is because they don't want to be labeled as anti-gay or homophobes by liberals & people like Richard & other supporters for the radical gay agenda.

  31. Robert
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    There's nothing wrong with being gay, Alessandra. Science has already proven that. There is something seriously defective about homophobia, which can be treated with therapeutic talk sessions. Get to the root of your problem, and you'll be fine.

  32. Randy E King
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    @Robert,

    "There's nothing wrong with being gay, Alessandra. Science has already proven that"

    Science has proved no such thing! blatant bald-face-lies like that only proves how desperate you are.

    Authentic science has proved that there is no "Gay" gene, that the use of the rectum as a semen depository is extremely hazardous to ones health, that children do best when raised by committed biological parents, That they do not know the reason why people adopt a same-sex sexual lifestyle, that people who engage in abnormal sexual acts have shorter lives...

  33. Richard
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Tom, you used the terms "anti-gay and homophobes" not I. Is this how you see yourself?

  34. OldKingBlog
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Earth to Richie: A comment RE your statement "...you used the terms "anti-gay and homophobes" not I. Is this how you see yourself?" You obviosuly have a probelm with reading comprehension. Tom's point was that'e how YOUR side views anyone who disagrees with your fruity agenda.

  35. Tom
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    @OLB - "frutiy agenda" lol

  36. Tom
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    @Robert - sorry , but gay people will never be normal, no matter how much they think they are.

  37. Tom
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    @Robert - so what you are saying that is a "choice" to be gay & NOT being born gay like your side always argues that it is.

  38. Tom
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Disregrad post #37.

  39. Marc Paul
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    @Alessandro: "and maybe having to face what possible personal history and family issues there may be buried in his history, "

    No one knows what makes you gay, but professionals in the field agree that is not abuse, or poor parenting. You are the reason Republicans are a party of the old generally.

  40. Marc Paul
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx...all Gay!

    Wow Randy, a keen historian and constitutional lawyer? You rock.

    But none of them old be recognisable in any modern sense as gay. What you are implying is that some scant evidence or rumour is enough to put someone in that category but if I say I am an openly gay man, somehow thtat is different, just a behaviour, no such thing as gay.

    Can't have it both ways Randy.

  41. Randy E King
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    @Marc,

    Define "Gay" in a manner consistent with its use by plaintiffs own "expert" witnesses on this subject; keep in mind that Federal Appellate courts have already noted that "plaintiffs on expert witness cannot even agree amongst themselves upon the definition of the word "Gay",,,"

    I prefer to refer to sexual deviants as Goony-ga-ga's; as opposed to the vulgar, but accurate, Pervert.

  42. peter
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    All hail the lascvious King!

  43. Marc Paul
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Also Randy, the Courts need only consider that a group shares a defining characteristic for the need for higher scrutiny. That characteristic is being attracted to the same sex. That's a sufficiently clear legal definition.

  44. Randy E King
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Shared characteristics that are immutable, innate, and consistent with this nations history and traditions.

    The fact that a bunch of people like to smoke the same cigar does not qualify.

  45. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Portman abandoned principles, ideals to support a sodomite son.
    "The truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it."
    The truth is, anatomically and physiologically man was made for woman and woman made for man. Therefore, homosexual behavior is aberrant.
    Another truth is that marriage is possible only between heterosexual couples.
    And the last truth:Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

  46. Chairm
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    Sure, as a father (and grandfather and great grandfather etc) I can empathize because it is normal to desire to protect one's kids (regardless of their ages).

    Yet the truth matters. There is no such thing, in reality, as a marriage comprise of just one sex. Not even a father's love and protective impulse can turn the falsehood of "same-sex marriage" into a truth.

    The marriage isue is not the gay issue. The SSM campaign's gay emphasis does not change the truth of marriage. But it can harm society be obscuring that truth.

    Sadly, the SSM advocates pose as the spokespeople for the gay identity group and so they slavishly work at making this about, well not justice but rather "just us".

    That is what the story of Portman instructs.

  47. Robert
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    GOP politicians know they have to plot their exit strategies from the hatefest against gays: it doesn't win votes anymore and decent people turn away from such politics. Expect to see more Portman-type stories on a regular basis moving forward.

  48. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Chairm, now the picture is complete. I am sorry that you so fear the world around you, the awakening of America's respect for its gay brothers and sisters, the new opportunities for loving, committed gay couples to join together in marriage and the wealth of love and care that can now be bestowed upon the children of gay couples under the auspices of a family with all the rights and responsibilities the government can give. You are of the older generation, the least likely to be able to understand or appreciate all this. I do not wish you ill-will but a change is taking place and you will never be able to accept it.

  49. Son of Adam
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Robert, the vast majority of Republicans who turn their backs on natural marriage are no longer holding political office or running for it. And those Republicans who endorse redefining marriage for the purpose of promoting adult fetishes who still hold political positions are for the most part voted out of office. It seems to me that Republicans who betray marriage do so more for money than political advancement.

  50. Randy E King
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Respect for Perverts, Richard?

    I could no sooner respect Perverts than fear them. Their is nothing respectable about an individual that gains position of trust under false pretense only to turn around and use said trust as an excuse to impose their ill-defined ideology on a unsuspecting nation.

    Perverts are incapable of creating a natural family within the construct of their depravity; only willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.

  51. Chairm
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    Richard, only a few days ago you spoke of yourself as an individuaal of a certain age and you did so for te sake of claiming wisdom on your part -- or at least useful knowledge accumulated over the years.

    But here you reverted to the hippy generation's blather about the supposed wisdom of inexperienced and gullible youth. You abound in stereotypes and imagine yourself the arbiter of which cliche is the right cliche at any given moment. Your comments are steeped in hypocrisy.

    Well, in substance, your comment invoked the abuse of youth by facists and communists whose «cultural revolutions» purposefully sought toindoctrinate rather than educate, chanted the mantra of inevitability of a totalitarian role of Government, and villified all dissent and opposition ... because Reason is upended for the sake f identity politics.

    Your blather is not unprecedented and sometimes all it takes is for the wisdom of the ages to be spoken forthrightly and the ugly spell of obscurism is broken.

    This has already begun on abortion and on divorce. The hippy generation will be repudiated but with authentic education and authentic experience. Hard lessons are hard to ignore, Richard, and cliches you odder illustrate that you have learne very little despite your pose here.

    Best for you to deal with the content of comments rather than resort s readily to propagandic misrepresentations. In short, it is time for you to grow up and behave as a man.

  52. Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Individuals who state "I'm Gay" could simply be effeminate, which is not "Gay". They could have experienced female rejection, and therefore think they are not 'man' enough. Unlike animals, humans have imagination. Humans are very teachable, they can convince themselves (in fact, that is why we send children to school) of almost anything - becoming criminals, becoming rebellious, becoming sadistic. True "Gay" behavior is sexual. It is physical, and not a matter of imagination. Otherwise, it becomes a religion of sorts with its dogma, its converts, its political outreach, its fund raising, etc.

    Until homosexuality is defined in scientific terms, anyone can claim "I'm Gay", and no one knows what that really means objectively. Being "Gay" is known ONLY by a raise of hands.

  53. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Comment too long, Chairm, I advise you to let go of your fear and anger. My impression is that you still live in a world threatened by the Soviet Union, The Red Scare, Mao and the 60's. My statement above is truth to me and millions of others. It is not truth to you and millions of others. But your fear is that this is changing, and it is. Your issue is with the way things are, today. Fight the good fight but try not to be irascible; some older people can become that but it's not necessary.

  54. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, is any of what you say different for straights (heterosexuals)? Please explain.

  55. Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    Richard: Hey, we were never asleep:

    you mention an "awakening of America's respect for its gay brothers and sisters,"

    We have respected the rights of those who claim to be gay brothers or lesbian sisters. That does not imply SSm. Respect has nothing to do with claimed sexual orientation.

    If you didn't notice this, YOU were asleep. Awake!

  56. Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Richard is now a psychiatrist! "...I advise you to let go of your fear and anger."

  57. Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Richard: The answer to your question is your question is nonsensical - circular reasoning. You answer, instead: Who is 'straight'?
    'Heterosexuals' is a word mathematically to name a remainder - those who are not 'homosexual'. That's its only usage. Marriage has nothing to do with either. Marriage has to do with biology, not rhetoric.

  58. Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Richard: Calm down, your comment will appear at some point.

    No one can look at YOUR fears, but we could name some possibilities. One fear, for instance I could claim you feel (and fear is an emotion) is that your number of SSm states decreases over time. It's such a small number (and about Democrat controlled States), your fear could be in recognizing that is a small proportion, and that it could not represent a monotonic trend. You are making a mathematical extrapolation, based on personal preferences. Your social movement has one single chance before it is squashed. I would be fearful too.

    For sure, I believe you are afraid to debate Chairm, so you go off into ad hominem arguments. We see this all the time on these comment threads. All i have to do is point at your past comments.

    Calm down, don't try to answer so many comments. "Haste makes waste". But then, you really don't care. Your purpose is to filibuster.

  59. Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    @AlessandrA said: "and maybe having to face what possible personal history and family issues there may be buried in his history, "

    Marc Paul said: No one knows what makes you gay, but professionals in the field agree that is not abuse, or poor parenting. You are the reason Republicans are a party of the old generally.
    ==============
    Please don't project your complete ignorance on the subject on everyone else. Many psychologists have unveiled myriad factors that combined produce a homosexuality problem in people, that is the inability to establish wholesome intimate relationships with the opposite sex, such as they were born to do. These factors do include personal history, trauma (especially sexual trauma) and abuse/exploitation, culture, social conditioning, and other deformations of their psychological and emotional dynamics.

    Most Americans are too ignorant to understand any of this, so they tell themselves that homosexuals were born this way.

    If you are too ignorant to understand why a person develops an addiction to gambling, you can only explain it by saying the person was genetically determined to gamble. "Born this way" is the explanation to everything for the stupid.

    People who normalize homosexuality are simply ignorant and they like to pretend everyone else is too. That's why they are incapable of doing research, they must stick to their "gay gene" superstitions, instead of facing they are wrong and admit that their normalization of homosexuality is deeply wrong as well.

  60. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, calm down...again. In your instance, your fear seems to be with terms and their usage and meaning. Words matter. If asked to identify your sexuality (and you chose to answer) what are the terms you could use? And could not anyone (gay or straight) subsume the stereotypical behaviors of the other sexual identity out of a fear? In short, do you deny the existence of homosexuality (gay sexual identity to the rest of the world)!

  61. Posted March 17, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Richard, calm down...again. I would sing you a lullaby, but cannot. Words matter, agreed. Therefore compose your sentences in proper English, or get lost. Who made you my psychiatrist? (This is how I am when calmed down. It's called Science.)

  62. Randy E King
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    @Little Man,

    Personal religious animus is the only reason why you would no accept Richards lies and truth. Therefore; your personal opinion is herby deemed unacceptable.

  63. Chairm
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Richard, your comments strongly suggest that you fear being anything but indiscriminate. Yet you discriminate between SSM and other one-sexed types of relationships. You are committed to that which you fear so much.

    On the other hand, it is simple justice to acknowledge that society may discriminate between marriage and non-marriage. The historical and anthropological records provide an abundance of evidence of the essentials of this type of relationship. Reason explains and justifies special treatment of this type of relationship. The truth about marriage guides me to acknowledging that the marriage idea as worthy of its preferential status in our society, as ever.

    Marriage is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. as a foundational social institution of civil society).

    The SSM idea? It is a conceptual mess.

  64. Chairm
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Folks who administer this blogsite: you really need to do something about the comment filter/moderation. At the very least, please explain the guidelines for what gets through and what will not get through.

  65. Will Fisher
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Alessandra, what Psychologists? Drs. Cameron and Nicolosi?

  66. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, please provide for all of us the documentation in marriage ( in ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, MD, D.C., IA, WA) that stipulates that marriage must 1. Integrate the sexes, 2. Provide for responsible procreation and 3. Combine the two into something labeled the foundational institution of civil society. One and two are pretty discriminatory. Civil Society is wonderfully enhanced by the marriage of gay and straight couples. Wouldn't you agree?

  67. Son of Adam
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Why isn't keeping marriage between only two people "pretty discriminatory?" Face it! This is only about the political supremacy of gay identity politics.

  68. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    SoA, keeping marriage only between two people is discriminatory to some. But in the states mentioned above, the populace would appear to be fine with this as long as the couples can be gay or straight. I think most people see this as justice and equality. The politics are behind us. All is well.

  69. Chairm
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Richard, you have now confirmed that you are fearful of being anything but indiscriminate.

    Is the legal requirement for integration of the sexes (the bride-and-groom requirement) discriminatory? Is the provision for responsible procreation (consent to the marital presumption of paternity of which the sexual basis is complementarity) discriminatory?

    Well, sure, to the extent that society may discriminate between marriage and non-marriage.

    On the other hand, why discriminate between the type of relationship you have in mind for SSM and the rest of the one-sexed scenarios that are not marital and not SSM? You have yet to justify this discrimination.

    Yet your comments continue to belie your fear of being anything but indiscriminate.

  70. Robert
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    "....keeping marriage only between two people is discriminatory to some..."

    No it's not, not in the least. Every person can realistically form a couple. And since the purpose of marriage is to solemnize and legalize commitment, two people can commit better than three. Plus, there is no constitutional infringement based on "numbers in a group." That's not the case when the government favors straight people over gay people, for no discernible reason.

  71. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, the host of possibilities you imagine for marital pairings is your nightmare and in this I have no stake. This is now and always has been your issue. You carry a fear that I don't share. You refer, again, to your essentials for marriage. They are not mine and they are not legally recognized at all in ME, NH, etc. I now believe, metaphorically, that you are blind to the existence of gay marriage. Like LM and his refusal to accept the existence of homosexuality, you refuse, too.

  72. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Continued...Because you have shut yourself off from the reality that is, you can only imagine that which fits your ideal. The problem for you is more and more "light" is shining through and, in time, you will be forced to acknowledge that which you despise. I refer you again, to post #66. It is the pure light of reality. It is tangible. It is good and in my eyes, I see it clearly.

  73. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    Robert, my reference was not to me but to others (Chairm I think is one) who support multiple spouse marriages.

  74. Randy E King
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    "Every person can realistically form a couple"...seriously...?

    I guess coming from an individual that believes in "Gay People" it would make sense, to them, that one makes two.

    Wouldn't two couples make a couple of couples?

  75. Ash
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Richard, respond to the content of Chairm's posts, and give the "open your eyes to reality" talk a rest (if only for a moment). You went on and on for days about "elevating the discussion," but now you can't respond in any meaningful way to Chairm's points.

  76. Robert
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    I was afraid it might be too complicated for you Randy. I'll try again: every person realistically has the opportunity to join with a separate and distinct other person, to form a couple. Did that help? Too many syllables, still?

  77. Robert
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Ash, no one can respond to Chairm's points, because he makes no sense. That's why he's, um, not a key player in the anti-gay marriage vanguard. Can you imagine a Chairm amicus brief at the Supreme Court??? They'd be in stitches!

    I can see Scalia: "well, it looks like English, but...."

  78. Randy E King
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    Yes Robert, two is a couple, but I still do not understand how one could be a couple?

    In other news; one of the briefs I was reading noted that the proposed change in marriage law does not address how other types of relationships could be omitted from consideration without enshrining into the law the exact same unconstitutional discrimination plaintiffs claim only applies to them.

  79. Chairm
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Well, Richard, I see how your comments have descended into madness.

    Readers will note that the bride-and-groom requirement expresses integration of the sexes. As does the marital presumption of paternity the sexual basis of which is complementarily-sexed and expresses the provision for responsible procreation.

    Of course, marriage is a bedrock social institution of civil society. Marriage law merely serves to promote, rather than to obscure, the marriage idea -- its core meaning, its essentials. Not only do statutes often refer to this, very often judicial precedents have relied upon this. Yet Richard has supported the abolition of what makes marriage, marriage.

    Readers will also note what Ash observed. There has been a stubborn refusal to address the substance of the pro-marriage argument I have presented. Those readers who have also read some of the various amicus briefs (on both sides) will recognize this argument in its various facets in the words presented to the US Supreme Court. That ought to shame the SSMer comment known (currenty) as Robert, given his odd ad hom attack.

    Wherever this argument has been presented in state courts, it has prevailed over the same sort of ad hoc sophistry presented here by Richard and Robert and other SSMers.

  80. leviticus
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    I feel bad for anyone that would have a sodomite. Why a responsible parent would change their values and beliefs to accommodate this kind of thing is beyond me.

  81. Will Fisher
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Chairm, you speak of complimentarity and integration as if its purely a sexual thing. The reality is that its much deeper (involving personality, economics, etc)
    Leviticus, that you equate a consensual romantic relationship with gang-rape shows your animus. All you have to do is observe the lopsided attendance of young conservatives at CPAC at two presentations there (Jimmy LaSalvia: hundreds vs Brian Brown et al: about 30) to see that your goose is cooked. Even the Lee Boys don't want to seen with you guys.

  82. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Chairm, based upon your last post, my observations of you are now spot-on. I told you you have blinders on. The mere existence of gay marriage and the lack of any requirement of the type you think is absolutely necessary to be considered marriage drives you insane. I note reality; you cling to a dream. You will not accept the very real existence of legal gay marriage. That is your fight to wage, not mine.

  83. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    Chairm, you remind me of an elderly gentleman with whom I spoke in the lead up to the successful gay marriage vote in Maine. He expressed his belief that marriage was from God. I asked him to describe his wedding (many years before) and he obliged. I asked him if he remembered signing a civil document issued by Maine that allowed him to be married, al-be-it, in his Church. He said no and from then on refused to believe the state had anything to do with his marriage. I could not convince him otherwise. There are nine so blind as those who cannot see. See post #66 again.

  84. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    None so blind as those who cannot see.

  85. Paul Mc
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Leviticus: "I feel bad for anyone that would have a sodomite. Why a responsible parent would change their values and beliefs to accommodate this kind of thing is beyond me."

    Because knowing a gay person, especially a son or daughter, transforms ones understanding of sexuality, of what it means to be human, justice, integrity, fairness, freedom, equality - it up-ends your world. All the good stuff. It enables you to leave behind ignorance and fear. You know, all the bad stuff. Yippee!

  86. Paul Mc
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Alessandra: "Many psychologists have unveiled myriad factors that combined produce a homosexuality problem in people"

    Which psychologists? E. Mberely and J. Nicolosi, C. Socarides - they just don't count as professionals in the mainstream. Name on paper peer-reviewed published in mainstream journal that does not also refer to a combination of genetic, biological and environmental factors. (Environment to include in-utero crucially).

    But by all means please go ahead and retain your false beliefs. You seem to have so many it would be a shame not to let this one stay too.

  87. Paul Mc
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Charim: "Wherever this argument has been presented in state courts, it has prevailed over the same sort of ad hoc sophistry presented here by Richard and Robert and other SSMers."

    State Courts in CA. overturned Prop8. Much mention of the unique attributes of opposite sex marriage. No avail.

  88. Paul Mc
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Randy, there is still time to file an amicus brief on Gooney-ga-gas. I strongly urge you to do so. I believe it will help the case for equal marriage. After all, the ability to call something by another name other than the conventional one is a key deliberation is it not?

  89. Paul Mc
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Little Man: "Until homosexuality is defined in scientific terms, anyone can claim "I'm Gay", and no one knows what that really means objectively. Being "Gay" is known ONLY by a raise of hands."

    Isn't that the point? That anyone can call themselves gay and it is only up to that person whether they consider themselves gay or not? I agree there are behaviours and there are orientations. Neither is something the Judges will consider - only whether there is a defining characteristic - there is - to be attracted to the same sex and whether is it immutable (not open to intentional change - it isn't).

  90. Paul Mc
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Randy: it is difficult not to ad hominen all over the place. Are you a geneticist too? Science can only state that a gay gene (a single controlling switch if you like) has thus far not been found.

    it may still be found. There may be multiple genes. There be hundreds that control sexuality. There be other as yet un-thought of factors.

    But is simply unscientific to say there is no gay gene, it's proven.

  91. Son of Adam
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    You know why no one has ever found a gay gene? It is because there are thousands of ex-gays who testify to their change that the media completely ignores. There are also hundreds identical twins in which one is gay and the other is straight. THAT is why no one has ever found a gay gene.

  92. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    SoA, your credentials, please.

  93. Paul Mc
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Yes, SoA: and all of them are employed by so-called 'ministries of hope' etc in order to shore up their castles built on sand.

    If you rely on preachers to interpret scientific findings then it's not surprising you will make statements such as: "There are also hundreds identical twins in which one is gay and the other is straight. THAT is why no one has ever found a gay gene".

    Genes may have epigenetic or polymorphic expression. Having a certain gene does not mean it is expressed. It is simply impossible to rule out or rule out what genes may be involved. But the best evidence points to a combination of genes, hormones, early (in-utero) environmental factors.

    But I am loving the fact that the fundie-cristo-industrial complex is so hung up on the single gene scenario. The world moved on mate.

  94. Posted March 18, 2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Paul Mc:
    And that is why I call Homosexuality or Lesbianism or either type of same-sex marriage, a R E L I G I O N.

    Make some slight edits in your paraphrase to illustrate:

    "Isn't that the point? That anyone can call themselves Christian and it is only up to that person whether they consider themselves Christian or not?"

    Even the Mormon leaders (TCJCLDS) established polygamy in Utah (but still between both sexes), when it was a territory, based on their religion. In spite of religious liberty, they simply were not allowed to join the USA, unless they gave up the "trios" (polygamy). They themselves, per their religion again, denied polyandry. So, each society adopts their form of marriage, depending on their religion, ideology, or past experiences (ethics).

    According to their testimony, people of homosexual or lesbian persuasion group and organize themselves in the USA. Their movement, at present, has all the characteristics of a religion (including prophesy), and are trying to convince the government to take their view of marriage and make it the view of the nation.

    That is a revolutionary attack, a religion or ideology camouflaged as a political and legislative movement for "equality", based on purchasing power. (Well, we have marriage equality already, and we don't have to capitalize it: marriage is for everyone who qualifies, and note that this pertains to the individual, not the couple).

  95. Posted March 18, 2013 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Richard: Your credentials, please. (not Matador credentials)

  96. Son of Adam
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    In other words, Paul, gay activists have moved on from one discredited lie to another lie that is more difficult to disprove.

  97. Posted March 18, 2013 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    The "best evidence" is not Scientific "evidence", unless it is evidence of sloppy science. Didn't you study the definition of Science, of Philosophy of Science?

  98. Ash
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    "Their movement, at present, has all the characteristics of a religion (including prophesy)..."

    Great point, Little man, lol. I guess I'm not the only one who gets religious vibes from SSMers when they prophesy and claim that our pictures will be in the history books, and so on.

  99. Chairm
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    Will Fisher, I was asked for the legal requirements that express the core meaning of marriage and I provided those in brief.

    The marital type of relationship is a public sexual type of relationship. Even SSM rhetoric concedes the point through the gay emphasis; even SSM argumentation confirms the point via the complaint that the bride-and-groom requirement is unjust discrimination based on sexual attraction.

    So it is yet another example of the confused comments of SSMers here that you claim that my providing the legal requirements that reflect the essentials of the marital relationship is somehow a misplaced focus on the sexual aspect.

    Your gay emphasis is misplaced, yet you push it at every turn. Why make it about just that, above all else, Will? Without that gay emphasis what would your complaint come down to, anyway?

    Further: the word is complementarity, not complimentarity. This is not about compliments.

    And moreover: My comments clearly explain that the marital type of relationship is not "purely a sexual thing". That you propose otherwise means you have not been paying full attention to what is actually written here.

    I will also note that the marital type of relationship is comprehensive: it is not merely an emotional union but also a bodily union. It is a volitional union, yes, but it would not be comprehensive if it did not also have its bodily aspect.

    Your own SSM argumentation concedes this point. Your latest comment affirms the point.

    However, there is no one-sex-short scenario in which there can be bodily union. This is understood, again, in marriage law in which integration of the sexes is manifest on multiple levels and not merely the "purely sexual" level.

  100. Chairm
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Richard, your ad hoc attacks are now based on stereotyping via age. Yet there are many younger than I who have made and continue to make these very arguments. There are many younger than you who do so, as well.

    Focus on the content of the arguments, Richard, and you might yet learn something even at your ripe old age.

  101. Chairm
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    And, Richard, read, I mean actually read with eyes open and a cleared head, comment #69.

    SSM = the Specious Substitution for Marriage.

    We were discussing the arbitrariness of the SSM imposition. You depended on legal requirements being abolished so as impose the conceptual mess that is the SSM idea. You have repeatedly conceded as much in your comments here and elsewhere.

    I will not hold your ill-temper and your "youth" against you. You might yet do better. I think you could. Maybe you should think so as well.

    And thank you for "elevating" the public discourse to the level of a child crying "Me, Me, Me, it is all about Me!" In your recent ad hom attacks you managed to reinforce the observation that for the gay activists this is not really about justice but about "just us".

  102. Chairm
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Paul Mc, the name is Chairm (not Chairm).

    In the state of CA the state government failed to present these arguments. Thank you for giving opportunity to point that out.

  103. Chairm
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    Astonishing, Paul Mc, you managed to undermine the legal reasoning of the CA state court that jumped the gun and rushed to impose SSM months prior to the legitimate ratification of the CA Marriage Amendment.

    You said: "That anyone can call themselves gay and it is only up to that person whether they consider themselves gay or not?"

    Then you said, in contradiction, that neither sexual behavior nor sexual orientation "is something the Judges will consider - only whether there is a defining characteristic - there is - to be attracted to the same sex and whether is it immutable (not open to intentional change - it isn't)."

    Identity politics is not intrinsic to the marriage idea but it sure is intrinsic to the SSM idea as promoted by the leading voices of the SSM campaign in court and everywhere else -- including in the blogosphere such as in comments sections at the NOM blogsite.

    Gay is a group identity. It is not a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility to form the union of husband and wife; nor is any other group identity. So why your gay emphasis? That does not translate into a gay requirement for those who'd SSM, as you openly concede is the reality.

    Another point you affirmed and which is observed in all the SSM rhetoric that abounds: you understand the union of husband and wife to be a type of relationship that integrates by sexual attraction (both male sexual attraction and female sexual attraction). And you do so because you are pressing for a revision in the law to treat this integrative type of relationship as if it was actually segregative on that very basis -- either male sexual attraction or female sexual attraction.

    Plainly it is segregative by sex for it definitively excludes either bride or groom. But even on the gay emphasis -- SSM is designed for a type of relationship that is segregative by group identity.

    The pressing of group identity as a basis for lawmaking on eligibility to marry was repudiated in the US Supreme Court decision, Loving.

    Thanks, Paul Mc, for inviting this answer to your segregative viewpoint.

  104. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, with you in mind, I am also reminded of the unfortunate Japanese soldier (WWII) who hid, for years, in a remote cave on some remote South Pacific Island. Upon discovery, he wondered aloud if the war was over. Chairm, like Don Quixote, you tilt at windmills. Chairm, you and I have never been discussing the supposed "arbitrariness"' of gay marriage. I tell you again, you have tunnel vision. Those of us who celebrate reality, realize that gay marriage exists, 9 states and D.C. celebrate it, too. The law, in support of this, exists. "Rage, rage against the dying of the light" (Dylan Thomas) if you must Chairm. Just know that a greater light shines bright.

  105. Chairm
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    "Gay marriage" such as it might exist, exists arbitrarily via the SSM imposition.

    Your reflection in the mirror is not me here in the comment sections. Rage as you will. Misrepresent as you will. Be the over-the-top drama queen as you choose. But it would be best if you focussed on the substance of what has been argued rather than on the shiny surface upon which you have projected much.

  106. Randy E King
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Your penchant for accusing your victims for the crimes you yourself are guilty of is a sight to be seen.

    Your premise is completely dependent upon belief in the unseen; yet you accuse your nemesis of fighting windmills because it can reference well over two-thousand-years of recorded human history, biological fact, the laws of nature, and natures God in defense of its understanding of life.

    And your defense; you like to masturbate against same gender companions.

  107. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, well, you at least acknowledge, ab-be-it with a shudder, that gay marriage exists. This is the point I have tried to convey in almost all my posts. This is reality and you, clearly, detest that reality. You are entitled to do so. You can also beg for change and castigate everyone who disagrees with you. But as I've told before, the proverbial horse is out if the barn.

  108. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, I have no rage; why would I? I could not be more pleased that gay marriage is here to stay. You and Randy are angry at reality and those who acknowledge it. Randy says I am dependent on the unseen. How foolish. Tell him what you told me. Gay marriage exists. Is this fact not the substance that we argue? You want to label with ridicule this fact. Fine, go for it. This is what I mean by "tilting at windmills".

  109. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, the other point I try to make with you is that the need to be acknowledged in your beliefs comes off as desperate sometimes. I'm sure you would say the same of me. The difference is that gay marriage exists and there is confidence that it will continue. This scares you but, as you might imagine, it doesn't scare gays. Gay/straight marriage is law. The next phase of it comes next week. Why isn't that your focus?

  110. Chairm
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is the union of man and woman. It is not one-sexed.

    The reality is that the SSM campaign has attacked the marriage idea and has pushed a specious substitution, the SSM idea.

    The reality is that the imposition of SSM has been arbitrary wherever it has occurred. This forewarns that it would be arbitrary wherever it might be imposed in future.

    The reality is that no SSMer has managed to justify the SSM imposition. Likewise, no SSMer has managed to justify the gay emphasis they depend upon to press for the pro-SSM revision.

    When forthrightly challenged to apply the standards of argumentation that they use against the bride-and-groom requirement of marriage, SSMers demonstrate that the SSM imposition transgresses what they have been demanding: that law be justified.

    There is a conflict of ideas. The SSM idea is a rejection of the marriage idea. The SSM idea is promoted with a gay emphasis that is irrelevant to SSM law, as imposed. Meanwhile, the marriage idea has long-existed in our laws and has done so concurrently with non-marital types of arrangements in our laws. There is no justification on offer by SSMers to treat the type of relationship they have in mind as superior to the types of relationships that populate the non-marriage category. This is because they have offered no justification for treating the gay subset of non-marriage as superior to the marital type of relationship itself.

    Yet they insist on both aspects of the SSM imposition in rhetoric and argumentation. That is the reality to which Richard has referred, blithely, as pleasing him so very much.

    He has shown himself fearful of being anything but indiscriminate, except when it comes to demanding favoritism for the gay identity group.

    And, Richard, the supposed advocate of SSM who'd raise the public discourse, has now descended into repeated ad hom attacks and dodges of substance. That is the reality exposed here on the public record.

  111. Chairm
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    I have said that SSM has been imposed arbitrarily. This is the reality to which Richard thinks is a revelation to me. He might pause and think again before wasting another pixel dodging the actual disagreement.

  112. Richard
    Posted March 20, 2013 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Chairm, it's time to stop whining. Votes are taken, judges rule, laws are changed and gay couples get married. You think it was all an unfair set-up. So what? The courts have ruled; the people have voted and the courts will rule again. SCOTUS will put its stamp on it all and then we move on. Your very first statement is the cause of your undoing because it is fundamentally wrong. Therefore everything else you say is wrong by definition. Reality is your enemy.

  113. Chairm
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 2:45 am | Permalink

    You, Richard, have confirmed that the imposition of SSM is arbitrary and unjustified -- if your own comments are to be taken at face value.

    You've had ample opportunity to justify what you demand and have failed to do so. Indeed, when given the opportunity to justify your gay emphasis, which is all you base your demands on, you failed to provide the enlightened and lively discussion you had posed was needed here.

    So you ought not fault others for observing that the imposition of SSM is arbitrary.

  114. Posted March 23, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    "SCOTUS will put its stamp on it all and then we move on. "

    That's not reality - that is merely an opinion (educated guess), and prophetic to make it a matter of excess imagination.

    Reality doesn't even know you.