Wooten Makes the Case for Gay Marriage

In his Thinking Right column today, Jim Wooten says:

It’s ironic that the nation is so health conscious — New York City bans trans fats in restaurant cooking — and yet so little attention is directed to the crisis affecting children casually brought into the world by unmarrieds. Their chances of having a healthy life are far slimmer than those of adults dining out. Our priorities are skewed.

And it is ironic that in a society that supposedly values the institution of marriage and children growing up in a family structure, that it also denies the right of gays and lesbians to get married. Statistics tell us that there are clear benefits to individuals and to society for people to get married. According to the 2000 Census, one-third of lesbian households and one-fifth of gay male households have children. So, if it is so beneficial to socieity for heterosexual couples with children to get married, why would it not be beneficial for society to allow gay and lesbian parents with children to get married?

From the outside looking in, it seems to me that heterosexuals are the ones who are “casually brining children into the world” without getting married. Many gay couples embrace the institution of marriage and actually want to get married and have children. Allowing gay people to get married is actually very conservative and family values oriented if you think about it and take religious fundamentalism out of the question. Hey, let us get married, and many of us might actually move to the suburbs and start voting for Republicans!  Mary Cheney already does.


  1. rugby_fan says:

    I believe it was Andrew Sullivan who said, what is more conservative than encouraging individuals to start families and settle down with someone.

  2. SkylerA says:

    I agree.

    The “True Conservative”, which are the ones I like, would argue that lmiting who can get married in a society is placing more governmental control into people’s lives.

    The right-wing nut Christian evangelical’s currently run the GOP, imposing more limitations on people because they believe we should all be Christian. Wedging issues like gay marriage to divide people, instead of working on solutions for problems, like oh say…Healthcare?

    I miss the days of True Conservatives, the ones that want Government out of our lives, and allow people to choose who they want to marry or what religion they want to practice.

  3. DougieFresh says:

    I would like to see government out of the “marriage” business altogether. Marriages should be entirely in the realm of whatever religion you subscribe.

    The government should only enodorse various forms of legal bindings, which do not have any form of sexual requirement or suposition. Basically, they would be the equivalent to business partnerships. This would allow even retired people, who have no desire to raise children or even have sexual relations, share assets and a household.

  4. John Galt says:

    If you accept the argument that gays can enter into a so-called marriage, then you must first accept the argument that they are born that way. I simply can’t accept that people are born into sin like that. It’ s a freewill choice, no different that picking white or wheat.

    “Gay marriage” is not marriage. It’s a ploy to get businesses to pay for their partners’ health care.

  5. rugby_fan says:

    I do not know if homosexuality is a choice or not.

    I do know I never made a choice to be straight.

    And every Christian dogma agrees that we are born into sin. Thus if we accept the statement that homosexuality is a sin, we could be born in that manner.

  6. DougieFresh says:


    That is by the standards of your religion. Are you suggesting that the US government act solely in accordinance with the beliefs of your religion?

    If you do, then what if the chosen religion is Islam, Jahova’s Witnesses, or Mormonism? Would you then think basing laws on religious dogma as a good idea?

  7. LiveFreeOrDie says:

    I concur that government should get out of “the marriage business” altogether.

    Consider the Constitutionality of “marriage licenses”… which were only created to prevent blacks and whites from marrying each other. The government is granting you permission to enter into a legal contract?!?! I’m pretty sure that right of contract is something we’re endowed by our Creator with.

  8. Tommy_a2b says:

    to rugby_fan

    I am sorry you never made the choice to be straight. When I hit puberty and saw women I said mmmmmmm one day I want me some. That is the day I chose to be straight.

  9. hankreardan says:

    john Galt,
    I knew John Galt you are no John Galt. The real John Galt would not talk like that. My friend was a more freedom loving person than you.Please quit using name for the sake of liberty and freedom.

  10. ColinATL says:

    John Galt, you said:

    If you accept the argument that gays can enter into a so-called marriage, then you must first accept the argument that they are born that way.

    I totally disagree with your underlying assumption here. Why does being gay have to be biological in order for you to accept marriage for same-sex couples? Accepting a religion is a choice, but we don’t dare discriminate on that basis, right? Can’t something be so fundamental that, choice or not, we accept that it is personal, unchanging, harms no one, and that we shouldn’t discriminate on that basis?

    But if you don’t agree with me there, let me ask you, why would anyone ever CHOOSE to be gay? Seriously, at what point would you think, “Hmmm, those gays and lesbians got it good in this world, I want to be just like them.” Sure, maybe you think it might make you instantly more fashionable, but I certainly didn’t get that from my so-called choice.

    In the end, marriage is good for straight couples, and would be good for gay couples for many of the same reasons. Seriously, other than religious or visceral aversion to the idea, same-sex marriage is a win-win for everyone.

  11. ColinATL says:

    PS – Decaturguy got the smack down from Erick in a post above. Bad Decaturguy, stop stirring the pot! 🙂

  12. John Galt says:

    Our nation’s laws are indeed based in part on the beliefs of my religion. It’s called the Judeo-Christian religion and tradition. Read the Ten Commandments, and the writings of our Founding Fathers. Their writings are rife with references to the Judeo-Christian God.

    Homosexuality is a sin, but that is not the same as original sin. As adults we make choices to sin, and when we do we are supposed to confess those sins and work on sinning no more. God doesn’t make homosexuals any more than He makes mass murderers.

    Those who claim that homosexuals are born that way are making the same false argument that, for example, alcoholism and obesity are “diseases.” The rationale behind it is that you are not at fault for your actions.

  13. hankreardan says:

    John you use to be such a good man. What happen to you , I will have to talk to Dagny, you are no longer welcome to sunday tea with us, The John Galt I knew loved freedom and did not care what went on in your bedroom.There should be no government marriages for anyone , There should only be contract law between you ,your lawyer and your God if you have one.
    Please let the real John Galt go since something has taken over his body (my guess a Southern Taliban).

  14. Jason Pye says:

    Our nation’s laws are indeed based in part on the beliefs of my religion. It’s called the Judeo-Christian religion and tradition. Read the Ten Commandments, and the writings of our Founding Fathers. Their writings are rife with references to the Judeo-Christian God.

    It’s funny that none of this is in the Constitution.

  15. John Galt says:


    You are correct – that is not in the Constitution. But it formed the basis for their belief in the individual (though I think they would cringe at what Robert Bork refers to as “hyper-individualism; the belief that every group is entitled to special “rights.”)

  16. DougieFresh says:


    Thanks for pointing out why so many otherwise conservative people have little desire to vote for Republicans. Religion needs to be kept as far away from government as possible.

    The founding fathers rightly referred to it as ambiguously as possible. Your line of “reason” is not something that will sell to the American public, and rightly so. As someone who has never casted a ballot for a democrat in my life, I might reconsider that prohibition if mainstream republicans adopt your point of view.

    You just have to look no further than to the middle east or no further back than the Salem Witch trials to see what happens when religion mingles with government.

  17. Decaturguy says:

    I’m not sure I understand, Colin, how did I get the “smackdown” from Erick? I don’t think he was referring to me. I didn’t say anything “partisan” at all. I actually believe that if you took away Republicans anti gay stances, gay people would vote just about like the rest of the country, about 50-50. And based on the comments to my post, many “partisan” Republicans agree with me.

  18. RandyMiller says:

    I know they’re many on the left and right that are against gay marriage, even domestic partnerships. But I just can’t buy the sanctity of marriage arguement anymore, especially seeing the number of divorces in our society.

    Skyler brings up a good point; that true conservatism is less government in our lives in all aspects. If anyone caught “Mr. Conservative”
    on HBO last October and like Barry Goldwater, (a true conservative) the man was, in everyway, a true conservative. He abhored the government telling people how to run their personal lives. And that’s just the point here with gay marriage, it’s a personal life.

  19. Jason Pye says:


    I don’t agree. The early Christians were collectivist in nature (ie. “they had all things common” in the Book of Acts).

    The Age of Reason brought us the advancement of the individual (which I am thankfully for).

  20. Decaturguy says:

    Basically the only argument anyone can come up with against gay people getting married is that according to their religion, homosexualiy is a “sin.” And since that is their religious belief, therefore, they want to see the power of big government used to impose their religious belief in the laws of this country.

    On the other side is essentially a conservative argument that the government should not be involved in such basic personal decisions such as who you can love or who you can get married to. That when two consenting adults choose to live their lives in a sort of union, the government has no business interfering with it.

    It basically comes down to a choice between freedom and big government imposing religious beliefs.

  21. As a heterosexual, non-religious, unmarried but cohabitating American I would like to see the government out of the “marriage”business. Contracts, civil unions, whatever you may want to call them, I do think that my partner (of ten plus years) and I should be able to enter into a union that is recognized for legal and medical purposes.

    The idea I’ve never been able to wrap my (admittedly pea-sized) brain around is how gay marriage destroys families and heterosexual marriage. That’s some serious marketing by the radical right.

  22. rugby_fan says:

    John unfortunately your last argument was incredibly flawed.

    First off, the constitution is for all intensive purposes derived exclusively from Montesquieu, Locke, the Magna Carata &c., not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

    As I said before, I have serious doubts that initial attraction is a choice.

  23. bird says:

    John Galt,

    Please change your name. Ayn Rand, who created the character you named yourself after on this board, would never stomach the injection of the government into this debate or hardly any other debate. It is a special affront that you want the government to enforce religion. The idea is small government, not a bigger government as long as it is Christian.

    And Ayn Rand was notably polyamorous. But you are her fan?

  24. SkylerA says:

    John Galt:

    As a Political Science/Sociology student you learn several things. Where did you get your education?

    The Founding fathers were dietest, not Christian.

    The Constituion also gives us the ability to choose our religion, Christian or Buddhist.

    IN the past year or so, Overwhelming scientific research has inidicated that Homosexuality is congential, layman terms you’re born with it. Plus, if you believe, as you stated before that we “do not know if you’re born with it”, why start limiting the activities of people that we do not yet understand? They did that in the early 1900’s with Mentally Handicapped people…

    Also, It shouldn’t matter. This is the United States, Home of the Free, Land of Liberty, ..

    Not Home of the Heterosexual Middle Class Christian Conservative. And the last time I checked, Jesus was not a middle class Republican.

    Read the Constitution, the Federalist papers, and some Thomas Jefferson/Benjamin Franklin works and then lets talk. Until then, please refrain from showing your ignorance.

  25. John Galt says:

    My position on the marriage issue is formed by more than my religious convictions. I believe there is a necessary role for government in establishing law that sets moral parameters, whether or not the citizens choose to respect said parameters. That is why I support, for example, laws prohibiting the use of marijuana and cocaine, a ban on abortion on demand, and a ban on marriages between same-sex couples. Our laws, or lack of them, regarding the “social issues” send a message to our citizens and the world. Go ahead and split hairs if you choose on the religious beliefs of the founders, but there is a role for government on the social issues.

  26. rugby_fan says:

    There are/were certain governments in Europe that feel it necessary to establish laws that set moral parameters.

    Why is it the government’s job to establish morality? isn’t that directly contrary to the concept of free will?

  27. rugby_fan says:

    Why is conservatism in America no longer about reducing the amount of government, but reducing the amount of freedom individuals have?

    It is truly appalling where conservatism has now gone.

  28. hankreardan says:

    people like you want to give the government this power because you assume they will protect your views of morallity. What do you do when your group is no longer the largest voting bloc. What happens when there are prayers in school but it is for the sun god.What do you do the laws go against hetro and for homosexuals.One day you will regret giving the government that power, the day when the people in charge do not see eye to eye with you and the outcome is not what you want but your view is now the one that is immoral,

  29. SkylerA says:


    I couldn’t agree more. Conservativism as we know it no longer exists, its just a bunch of right-wing evangelical nuts trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

    John Galt:

    You’re right, the Government does have a role on isses like Abortion and “Same Sex” Marriage,….STAY OUT OF IT!!

    Let people make decisions for themselves that are in line with their own values, not the values of selective majorty. This is America, We like to think we have the ability to make our own decisions, not have people like you make decisions for us.

  30. LiveFreeOrDie says:

    I believe there is a necessary role for government in establishing law that sets moral parameters, whether or not the citizens choose to respect said parameters.

    There’s a good reason that was left out of the Constitution.

    I think you’ve forgotten the role of our government.

  31. Michael C says:

    To say one group should not have the right to voice their concerns to the government is troublesome.

    Rugby, Christians have just as much right to voice their opinions in our self determined government as anyone else. Be careful in calling for others to be silenced, because someday you may find yourself in the same boat.

    We set laws on morality everyday. Murder, limiting abortion, and liquor sales are all laws of morality.

    Everything needs to be put on the table of debate, nothing should be prevented or kept as far away from government as you guys seem to to want Christianity to be.

    I am a Christian and I believe homosexuality is a sin. I never made the choice to be straight, it is designed by God that way. But it is at this point that most Christians fall short because they forget even though homosexuality is a sin it is no greater than the sins we commit everyday.

    Christians have failed to accurately portray their beliefs. We have a marketing problem. We have on the surface existed as an exclusionary group, and not a welcoming one as we should be. I believe this is beginning to change.

    Brennan Manning said, “The biggest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That’s what an unbelieving world simply finds UNBELIEVABLE.”

    This statement is very true and every Christian should take it to heart. But Christians have allowed ourselves to be stereotyped as self righteous, morally superior, better than you, etc. We are not perfect and fall short of the glory of God just like everyone else.

    Christians have and are persecuting homosexuals. Exploiting and damaging Christianity in the process. Southern slaveholders did the same thing to slaves back in the 1800s. Its unconscionable.

    God has the grace to forgive but many Christians do not. This is not to say I condone homosexuality, as I said before I believe it is a sin, but a sin no greater than any of my own.

    Christians have some work to do, but they have a right in this country to voice their opinions just like anyone else.

  32. Adam Fogle says:

    Gay marriage is a lost cause for the GOP and, until we can flush out the theocratic wing of the party, it will unfortunately remain on the agenda.

    It’s sad because the more moderate, Goldwater conservatives who are the true heart of the party could mostly care less about this issue and would rather just let the people decide and move the hell on to more important matters.

    But this is the mess we got ourselves into by bringing in the theocratic crowd… I guess that’s what happens when you make a deal with the devil – pardon the pun.

    I feel bad for guys like Jack Kingston, who are all around great representatives but have to defend the anti-gay marriage “crusaders” or face political turmoil in their districts.

    If anyone saw Kingston on Bill Maher a few months back, he was a hit and had a great outing. He was funny, witty, and generally came off as the better man on every issue (granted that isn’t hard when placed next to Maher and Alec Baldwin).

    But then Maher brought up gay marriage, and Kingston had to give the cliche, “marriage is between a man and a woman.” He looked like a fool and Maher slammed him – again, pardon the pun. You could tell he would rather just not discuss it, but again, he must defend theocrats lest he upset his constituents.

Comments are closed.