Why Supporting Marriage is Not "Anti-Gay": Rep. Quigley and I Have a Heart-to-Heart


I don't expect any gay marriage activist to appreciate this exchange, but I did. Gay parents can be good parents, just as single moms and dads, or remarried parents can be good parents. That doesn't mean we should abandon the idea, or the ideal that children should be loved and cared for by the man and woman who made them--or the idea that this is what marriage is for.


  1. Ken
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Maggie - This is where you make your leap of logic. No one is abandoning anything. You speak about marriage equality as if it's an effort to delete heterosexual marriage from the law. This is why people criticize you for being disingenuous. I'm glad that you acknowledge that gay parents can be good parents, that's more than most of your allies are willing to do. But then you somehow try to suggest that the children of good gay parents will be harmed if their good gay parents legally marry. That's why your argument falls apart, why your true motivations are questioned and why people find your rhetoric so offensive. 

  2. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Ken -

    You're missing the point; just because some people believe that gay caretakers can adequately raise a child does not mean that we should encourage this scenario. Every child in a gay environment is deprived of at least one of his her real parents, and every child in a gay household is deprived of a substitute for a mom or a dad. Changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals would hold homosexual couples who adopt children on even par, of equal value, with families where moms and dads are married and bring up their offspring. The latter relationship is the ideal; it is the union that has created and perpetuated stable societies over the centuries.

    These are societal issues, not individual issues. That is, although my marriage might not be directly damaged by SSM, the institution of marriage will be irreparably damaged as the stabilizing force that it has been for all of civilization. SSM leads to more out-of-wedlock births, children stripped away from parents, and child poverty.

  3. Lefty
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Do you think a child has a right to his or her own mother and father, Ken -- yes or no? Should our society uphold that as ideal?

  4. Alan
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Mike Brooks -- "SSM leads to more out-of-wedlock births". Are you saying that preventing gay parents from marrying actually *decreses* out-of-wedlock births??? This has to be the most preposterously illogical statement ever! Another ridiculous remark is that we should "not encourage this scenario" (of children being born to and raised by gay parents. Do you honestly think that marriage discrimination with prevent gay people having children?? The only way you will prevent this is by making it illegal for a child to be raised in a SS household -- one wonders how willingly NOM would espouse this if they could.

    Stop scapegoating gay people for heterosexual marriage's problems; stop implying gay people make bad parents; stop exaggerating and outright lying (man-woman marriage has NOT existed for 'all of civilization'); stop making illogical statements (SSM does not lead tol children being 'stripped from their parents'); most of all, stop cloaking your bigotry in lies and distortions.

  5. Barb
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Beautifully done, Maggie.

  6. Don
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Real marriage and homosexual "marriage" are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist.

  7. Ken
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    No, I'm not missing the point. The point is that you disapprove of gay people and are desperately trying to justify why your personal bias should be enshrined into law. Are you really suggesting that same-sex marriage will lead to child poverty? The truth is that many gay couples who adopt are rescuing children from their incapable, irresponsible, neglectful or abusive biological heterosexual parents who for some reason you insist on placing on a pedestal simply because they spent ten minutes making a baby. 

  8. Ken
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Alan - Why can't you follow their logic? They oppose out-of-wedlock births and single parenting which is why they don't want married same-sex couples adopting babies born to single unmarried girls. It's common sense isn't it?

  9. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Alan -

    Marriage is the institution that is valued by society because it promotes children being raised by their moms and dads and makes parents responsible for their offspring. SS "marriage" breaks this link between marriage and procreation as homosexual couples do not procreate. When marriage is no longer associated with procreation, then more people will have children out of wedlock. So, no, preventing SSM won't stop the out-of-wedlock birth rate, but legalizing it will accelerate it; we need to be going in the other direction.

    As I said; all gay households with children have a child that has been stripped from at least one of his/her parents. That's a travesty. Our first step for these children is to try to give them what they've lost: a married mom and a dad. Giving them to a gay couple should be a last resort; while it is a better alternative than an orphanage, it introduces the element of gender confusion, sexual confusion, and makes it tough for a heterosexual child to develop stable heterosexual relationships, lacking a role model for such relationships.

    Kids deserve a mom and a dad. I think it should be illegal to conceive a child that will intentionally have one of its parents taken away from them, be that for a homosexual couple or a single person.

    Man and woman creating offspring and taking responsibility for them is older than civilization itself.

  10. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Ken -

    When the link between marriage and procreation is destroyed via SSM, yes, more kids will be born out of wedlock to single moms, many of whom will not be able to support them. Many will end up impoverished and/or on governmental support.

  11. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Ken -

    How sexually demented are you that you think the only link between a parent and child is the sexual act that conceived the child? Were your parents really that bad (I know that it's common for homosexual children to have unusual parental relationships)?

    I don't even know where to begin about how special the relationship between a parent and his.her biological offspring is. It's a bond beyond words, a love that is unequaled by any non-blood relationship. That's why parents go through such trouble to have their own kids before resorting to adoption; adoptive "parents" are not equal to biological parents. Not even close.

  12. Ken
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    "When the link between marriage and procreation is destroyed via SSM" 
    But it isn't Mike! That's baseless rhetoric. So every argument that's built on it goes out the window. You're so desperate to justify your anti-gay bias that you'll denigrate every single adoptive parent in the world. You either really think  kids should live in unhealthy, impoverished or neglectful environments rather than experience the evils of adoption or you're so wrapped up in trying to make a case for your predjudice that you're no longer able to think rationally or distinguish right from wrong. 

  13. Ken
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Lefty: I believe every child has a right to good, decent, competent and loving parents. I can't imagine being naive enough to believe that all people capable of sexual intercourse fall into that category.

  14. Don
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Permalink


    Homosexual "marriage" is not a right so every argument based on that premise goes out the window.

    Besides, it's a moot point. The homosexual "marriage" agenda is going down the tubes all across the nation.

    You don't have homosexual "marriage" in California. You don't have homosexual "marriage" in Maine. You don't have homosexual "marriage" in Maryland. 31 states expressly forbid homosexual "marriage" in their constitutions.

    You are whipping a dead horse.

  15. Alan
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Don, you crow too loud. Gay marriage didn't exist ANYWHERE a decade ago. Now, it's the law of the land in many European countries, Canada and Argentina. It is a right several US states. The trend, despite setbacks, is toward marriage equality. Nearly half of Americans live in States with gay marriage or a civil union arrangement. Of the nine latest polls, NOT ONE puts the anti-gay marriage toll above 50%. This is a seismic shift in just the past couple of years. Despite all the lies, distortions and money that fly out of NOM's supporters, gay marriage inches forward. every single victory is a stepping stone and another nail in the coffin of anti-gay bigotry. Gay Americans, their families and their supporters will never, EVER stop until full marriage equality is across the whole of the nation.

    As we approach Easter, Don... let's watch this 'dead horse' resurrect itself...!

  16. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Ken -

    If you call a union between people of the same gender - a combination of genders that is absolutely, positively incapable of procreating - yes, you have completely dissociated marriage from procreation.

    Many people in society still look at unmarried people having children as an anomaly and unfortunate; selfish or irresponsible and setting their kids up for failure, because the kids do not have the commitment between the parents that the kids will have a mom and a dad. Legalization of

    SSM says affirmatively that marriage is no longer an institution for procreation; it's for any people, any number of people who decide they want to be called "married."

    What's worse is that straight men do not like to be associated with being homosexual; if homosexuals are allowed to marry, many straight guys will not want to marry, because it's a "gay" thing; it also provides them an excuse for not getting married. Think that's crazy? Then you don't know many straight guys.

    Society needs marriage to make sure kids have moms and dads. SSM destroys marriage.

  17. Don
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 6:11 pm | Permalink


    Allen doth protest too much methinks!

    Is it not fact that homosexual activists failed to keep Prop 8 off the ballot in California?

    Is it not fact that homosexual activits failed to defeat Prop 8 as they said they would?

    Is it not fact that the plans of homosexual activists to have same sex marriage legislated into existence in Maine failed?

    Is it not fact that the "done deal" of legislating homosexual "marriage" into existence in Maryland failed?

    Is it not fact that homosexual "marriage" has failed every time that it has been put to a vote of the American people?

    Is it not fact that 31 states constitutionally prohibit persons of the same sex from obtaining a marriage license?

    Is it not fact that the European Union Court on Human Rights explicitly ruled that homosexual "marriage" is not a human right?

    Your agenda is failing. Homosexual "marriage" is biting the dust big time. You're losing by every objective measure. You've spent millions here in the U. S. and are going backwards anyway. Now Republicans are taking up the defense of DOMA. Dude, your agenda is toast!

  18. Don
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 6:26 pm | Permalink


    I am not crowing, the facts are crowing.

    Your most recent attempt to implement homosexual "marriage" was in Maryland. You failed in that most recent effort.

    Just before that, you sought to implement homosexual "marriage" in Maine. You failed in that next most recent effort.

    Before that, you sought to keep Prop 8 off the ballot in California. You failed in that effort.

    You then said that you would defeat Prop 8 at the polls. You failed in that effort.

    Now you still, to this very hour, can't marry someone of the same sex in California.

    The European Union Court of Human Rights explicitly ruled that homosexual "marriage" is NOT a human right in the European Union.

    You have suffered a string of ever-increasing losses and your most recent attempts to implement homosexual "marriage" have suffered the biggest loses. The margin of victory for traditional marriage in Maine was larger than the margin of victory of Prop 8.

    Homosexual activists have spent millions upon millions of dollars in places like Maine and have nothing to show for it.

    The trend is toward the eliminiation of the homosexual "marriage" agenda and no matter what you throw into the fight, you continue to lose more and more.

  19. John Noe
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Well put Mike, we all appreciate your insight. Just think of the injustice that would happen if SSM became the norm across the country.
    (1) It would be a grave injustice to single people. All of these years they accepted unequal yet fair treatment when married people received benefits not available to them. Society always justified this with the claim that we were promoting procreation and the incentive to bring children into society. As you point out SSM destroys this. SSM is a stab in the back to single people everywhere. While the homosexual activists claim they are fighting an injustice, in reality they are sticking it to single people. Perhaps that is why they are making the absurb claim that SSM does not affect your marriage so there is no harm, while never mentioning the harmfull affect on singles.
    (2) SSM promotes wrongfull sexual desires over children. As you pointed out it would be sick of society if we told children you do not matter, we are more interested in the sex drives of certain adults.So happy that countries like Hungary put childrens rights above so called gay rights.
    (3) Perhaps worse of all, is that SSM normalizes homosexual conduct. What was onne abhorrent behavior that causes disease and AIDS is now praised. SSM allows it to be promoted in the public schools. Our children are being lied to in the public schools to appease sexual deviants. They promote their behaviour with total disregard for the kids.

    My favorite homosexual hyprocrisy from the homosexual activists is the gay teen suicide story. The one where if we do not promote SSM then their will be more gay teen suicides. We would be guilty for there death. However if the homos go into the public schools and promote their agenda and some kid is converted and later on gets AIDS they feel no guilt about what they did to the child.

  20. John Noe
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    To Alan:

    As much as i admire Mike Brooks and his superb posts I will add one more point to your question in post #4 and hope my good friend Mike does not mind.

    You wrote the following: Do you honestly think that we can stop homosexuals from having children? Of course not. Human history has shown time and time again that despite good attempts upon society to promote proper behavior, humans due to selfish reasons will deliberately make bad choices. We as a society winessed against the dangers of smoking. Should we have stopped this because some smokers said people are going to smoke whether you like it or not. Yes they smoked anyways but society continues to do the right thing in constantly witnessing against this bad conduct.

    As Mike pointed out when homosexuals have children anyways, they selfishly and deliberately deprive children of a natural mother and father. By NOM supporting traditional marriage we are saying to society let us still do what is in the best interests of children first over adult sexual desires. SSM changes marriage from children to sex desires. Only a bad government would want to promote that for its society.

  21. Anna
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Lefty asked-
    "Do you think a child has a right to his or her own mother and father, Ken -- yes or no? Should our society uphold that as ideal?"

    Ken's answer-
    "Lefty: I believe every child has a right to good, decent, competent and loving parents. I can't imagine being naive enough to believe that all people capable of sexual intercourse fall into that category."

    Ken's response confirms the truth of Maggie's statement.

  22. John N.
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    Listen carefully to what this congressman says and how he misses the most important point. He talks about no matter what your gender you can love your child and teach them how to ride a bike. Case closed right? Wrong.

    If it was me talking to that congressman I would ask how does a woman be a father and a man be a mother. SSM relationships deprives children of the four following scenarios.
    (1) If lesbian the father/ daughter and father/son relationship. Allowing lesbians to adopt deprives sons of the father fiqure they need and the loving protective father relationship. Sons need their father and girls need their daddies. That is the way we humans are. SSM destroys this.
    The girl is going out dressed like a slut. The mother may not notice but the loving protective father says young lady you are not going out dressed like that.
    This does not happen in a SSM relationship.
    (2) If it is two homosexual men who adopt a boy and they are sexually active, the boy will be sexually abused. If it happens to be a girl who is going to set the example for her as she attains motherhood. Once again SSM destroys this.

    This congressman just does not get it.

  23. Don
    Posted April 21, 2011 at 3:41 am | Permalink

    Homosexuality is not normal. It is abnormal. How can there be a normal family with abnormal parents? There cannot be.

    "Destroy the family, you destroy the country." - Vladimir Lenin

    Normalizing the abnormal, in terms of family, destroys the family and destroying the family destroys the nation.

  24. Connie
    Posted April 21, 2011 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Maggie you do such a good job in explaining this, now if the closed minds would open!

    Ken & Alan, (consequence) Do you know what consequences are? Do you know of any consequences in situations of your life you've paid for or of this society? Can you think of any?

    Why can't we give the child in the beginning of life the right to have a mother and father or mom and dad first before we loose him to another do what most are doing lost society or what gains and please ourselfishness not what is right? Then we'll see what kind of consequences we'll have to pay for later, maybe the ones that started will be dead and gone, then they won't have to see what kind of consequence came out of the decision.

    Lets keep it like it started in the beginning man and woman! Like you got here more than likely, if not I'm sorry for your pain if any of missing out!

    I strongly believe a child needs to have both man and woman constantly in their life from beginning to end.........alpha and omega!

  25. CHans
    Posted April 21, 2011 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    Many of your arguments have been repeated, so I will respond to them generally:

    To the claim that homosexual marriage "deprives" children of their birth parents: absolutely absurd. I was adopted and do not know either of my biological parents. Do I feel deprived? No. I was still raised in a loving environment in which my interests and talents were nurtured. If you really think the blood I have running through my veins is more important than the people who give my heart a reason to pump it, you have a skewed sense of value.

    As for homosexuality being "abnormal": it is found in hundreds of species outside homo sapiens. As something found in nature, you can't exactly argue that it's unnatural.

    To add to that, normality is VERY difficult to define and is hardly biconditional to there being 2 married heterosexual parents. There are more important factors.

    Since this final argument is specifically from Don, I will address you individually: the failure of a society to recognize the rights of a minority is not evidence or even rationale for the claim that they don't have said rights. Blacks were deprived of rights, and failed to do much about it, up until several decades ago. By your argument, their failure before then was evidence for them not having those innate rights. You can see, I hope, the absurdity of claiming that the tyranny of the majority is the path of righteousness.

  26. Posted April 21, 2011 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Maggie is a close minded bigot who refuses to look at the mountains of evidence that children do well in LGBTQIA families as well as straight families.

    There are far more problems in authoritarian male led households that lead to really bad outcomes for children.

    Children deserve loving parents, and that's what they need, genetic parents are no determiner of success and they can be disastrous.

  27. Barb
    Posted April 21, 2011 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Gemma, I stopped listening when you resorted to name calling.

  28. Posted April 21, 2011 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    She has a problem with gay people she's admitted it openly... she claims she doesn't now.... but she's an out and out bigot just like the klansman she's emulating..

  29. Don
    Posted April 22, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Gemma Hentsch:

    Don't you have to go find an apple for Snow White?

  30. John Noe
    Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Ah look at Gemma rant in post #26. Talking about male dominated households. This is why feminists support SSM. It goes along with their philosophy that men are useless and that society does not need dads.
    Feminists and lesbians preach that two moms are better parents than one man/one woman households. If we men said this of course we would be accused of sexism.
    Gemmas contempt for fathers and the desire to push dads out of the way shows itself in comment #26.