• His statement is laughable. He’s actually making an argument FOR marriage equality, not against it. He’s saying that straight people aren’t going to marry gay people, so marriage equality won’t have any effect on his life. If that’s his justification for opposing same-sex marriage, then his side has already lost the battle. The phrase, “If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex.”, comes to mind.

  • I just posted this on their Facebook page:

    …to explain the nature and public purpose of marriage—what marriage is and why it is such a significant factor in maintaining civil society and limiting government.

    Unless you can prove that allowing same-sex couples to marry will be harmful to a civil society, all of your arguments amount to hyperbole. Common sense would tell you that promoting monogamous long-term relationships is beneficial to society… regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple involved. I’m not quite sure how the third marriage of two-time adulterer Newt Gingrich, or the fourth marriage of non-procreative Rush Limbaugh helps maintain a civil society. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

    I’m also not sure how you can make a claim of limiting government, while at the same time wanting the government to disenfranchise its own citizens based on your own personal beliefs. Those two positions cannot exist at the same time.

  • David in Houston commented on the diary post The Full Insult of “Children Need a Mother and a Father” by SteveBoese.

    2012-11-02 17:25:33View | Delete

    It goes beyond that hateful rhetoric. They’re talking about children having a right to their “biological” parents. So in the process of demonizing gay people, they’ve also denigrated any heterosexually-headed family that doesn’t have a biological mother and father. That would include families that have adopted children. Families that have a step-parent. Families that are [...]

  • The most interesting thing about that interview was how John Stossel wasn’t buying any of Brian’s “the sky is falling” rhetoric. By the end of the interview, Brian was in an absolute panic. He said something inane like, “The state should support what’s true and good and beautiful.” Yeah, great rational legal argument there, Brian. No doubt every single marriage that includes opposite-sex couples is true, good, and beautiful… including the half that actually end up getting divorced.

    He also implies that marriage is solely a religious institution. So why isn’t Brian trying to ban non-religious straight couples from getting married? Do the words “homophobic hypocrite” ring a bell?