The Right Opinion

Will Democrats End Marriage as We Know It?

By Ken Blackwell · Aug. 2, 2012

When the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in Congress in 1996, the vote was bi-partisan and overwhelming. In the House, the tally was 342-67. Only the farthest left of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted against it. A majority of Democrats supported marriage. In the Senate, the vote was even more lopsided and bi-partisan, 85-14. Again, most Democrats backed marriage. In both houses of Congress, the DOMA passed with such strong margins that President Clinton could clearly see the measure had better than “veto strength.” That is, if he had vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress could have passed it over his veto. That would have required 67 votes in the Senate and 292 votes in the House. Bowing to the inevitable, Clinton signed the bill.

Now, President Obama has refused “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed” if he disagrees with them.

He announced early in his administration that he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He has done everything he can in the last three and a half years to dismantle the law. It is a process not unlike termites eating away at the foundations of a house. Until just a few weeks ago, he apparently hoped that the law would collapse as he systematically undermined its foundations. It didn’t. So President Obama, prompted no doubt by Vice President Biden’s blurted out support for counterfeiting marriage, has “evolved.”

Even the most committed advocates of evolutionary biology would deny that you can see evolution proceeding in just sixteen years. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama’s position on marriage has changed. Or, more accurately, we might say his true position has come out. In 2008, he told Pastor Rick Warren that he believed “marriage is between a man and a woman. And God is in the mix.” Which one moved?

Democrats have announced they will put same sex marriage in their platform when they meet in convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. This, in a state that voted last May to sustain true marriage. North Carolina voters joined 31 other states in backing true marriage. The vote was a stunning 61%-39%. That was up from the last reputable public opinion poll which had showed 55% supporting marriage to 39% opposed.

North Carolina’s marriage referendum was part of a nationwide pattern. True marriage typically does better at the ballot box than in public opinion surveys. Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida are battleground states this year. In Ohio in 2004, 62% of voters backed true marriage. That helped to carry the Buckeye State and the election for George W. Bush. In Wisconsin in 2006, 59% of voters backed marriage. Every county in the Badger State except ultra-liberal Dane County (Madison) voted for marriage. And that was in the same year when Nancy Pelosi’s liberal cohorts swept into office. Florida saw marriage voters break the 60% threshold to lock marriage into the state constitution.

If the Democrats' platform embraces this radical proposal, they will be voting to end marriage, not change it.

If you say a man may marry a man, and a woman may marry a woman, then on what principled basis can you say three men may not marry? George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley advocated polygamy at the Newseum in 2008 – and was wildly cheered by the mostly liberal audience. As a professor of constitutional law, Turley knows that same-sex couplings will lead to polygamy – “and I’m for that,” he says.

In every statewide referendum on this issue, black and Hispanic voters provided an indispensable source of support for true marriage. These voters reject the idea that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. The mantle of civil rights must not be seized by those who would deny Americans their civil right of marriage. In order for this to remain a civil right, there must be true marriage left in society.

Mae West once said: “Marriage is a great institution, but I’m just not ready for an institution.” It’s too bad Mae West is not sitting on the Democratic Platform Committee.

She had a keener understanding of true marriage than many of today’s evolved politicians.


Sean Crane in Oregon said:

"If the Democrats' platform embraces this radical proposal, they will be voting to end marriage, not change it."

So if two people that love each other are allowed to marry, than suddenly no one will be able to get married? This statement makes no sense, just because a man loves another man doesn't mean that a man and a women will suddenly not be allowed to get married. Christians will still be able to get married in a church, and other religions will still continue to have their marriage ceremonies and atheists will still continue to have their civil marriages. Nothing will change.

"If you say a man may marry a man, and a woman may marry a woman, then on what principled basis can you say three men may not marry?"

Because while there is substantial evidence that polygamy is harmful to a family, even on that does not have children, there is no evidence that shows that two married men or two married women are harmful to a family.

"In order for this to remain a civil right, there must be true marriage left in society."

Since marriage IS a civil right, (It provides federal benefits and is therefore unarguably a civil right) it must be provided to all of Americas citizens without fail.

-all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Dioneikes in Colorado replied:

Hate to point this out to you but you a4re so full of crap your breath smells. You are trying to go against 20,000 years of human history with the " it's okay for two guys or two gals to marry." Not to mention that biology is against your beliefs, and even God himself called what you propose "An abomination in His sight." Marriage was instituted by God among humans for purposes of procreation among the human race, hence a man and a woman are rightfully partnered. But there is no way that homosexuals or lesbians could ever reproduce with each other, therefore your specious belief is doomed to extinction. If two males ever were able to reproduce with each other, that would be the first *sshole baby in the world. Thanks be to God that'll never happen! Go on ahead with your lifestyle though, you're the one who has to answer to the Almighty for your actions and beliefs. Otherwise just don't be expecting me to accept it - It ain't happening, and it never will.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Sean Crane in Oregon replied:

Biology is not against my beliefs, if it was homosexuality would not be exhibited in over 1500 species of animal, Gods own creation, Nature, exhibits homosexuality. Politics is never determined by the Bible in the first place, the Bible is not law, and you are forcing your Religious beliefs on the entire nation, it is you that is forcing yourself into the private lives of others, not the other way around. And you are right, it is homosexuals that will have to answer to God when all ends, so who gave you the right to judge them, who gave you the right to deny them their pursuit of happiness, when their pursuit of happiness in no way hinders yours?

Mathew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Maybe you should solve divorce first. Divorce happens for about 50% of married straight couples, and the Bible calls this adultery, and Corinthians tells us that Adulteres 'will not inherit the kingdom of God' and yet only about 3.8% of Americas population identifies themselves as homosexual, so why are you so concerned with the few when you could deal with the bigger problem?

As a Christian you should want to lead all to the love of Christ and bring them to Christianity, if you don't than you are just a bad Christian. Do you really think that by fighting against Homosexuals you are showing the love of Christ? You only serve to Drive them away from God, and other with them, it only serves to make them look at Christians and think "I want know part of that Hate."

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Sean Crane in Oregon replied:


Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Dioneikes in Colorado replied:

Well Sean, let me point out the fallacy of your argument.
You start in your original post spewing something the Founders wrote in the Declaration, "Pursuit of Happiness". I don't think that the Founders ever would've though that that phrase could be so misconstrued. When they called it Pursuit of Happiness, that meant the right to own property! Because happiness came from being able to own land, and dwellings. You Fudgies are allowed to own houses and property are you not? Ergo you are equal. I don't think that the Founders intended that certain phrase to mean "alternative fudge packing lifestyle. You Giblets really know how to spin the system to wank about mistreatment.

Secondly - you spoke about Divorce. The decree of dissolution of marriage was instituted by Moses due to humans being humans and the hardness of the human heart. Christ said "Treat one another as you would be treated." Divorce skyrocketed with American's under Liberal urgings started to abandon their faiths to live ... as they said in the 1960's "If it feels good do it". However our Founders also stated the the Constitution was for a MORAL and Virtuous people, once those pillars had decayed, Freedoms would go also. And whaddaya know, look at the usurpation of the law that continually happens. I've already defended your right to live and believe as you wish by virtue of my 20 years of active duty in the Armed Services. So don't look for me to change my beliefs for you!

Thirdly - Even Satan can quote scripture, so your Master has taught you well! My Master (God) plainly said " It is an abomination in My sight for a man to lay with a man as he would lay with a woman. It is also an abomination for woman to lay with another woman." Christ also said "Love the sinner, hate the sin." "Love the sinner" doesn't mean that I want to take long warm showers with you either.

Lastly - I REALLY despise the way your kind has twisted the First Amendment around to where you think "Freedom of Speech" only applies to you Giblets (GBLT's) and everyone else is supposed to shut up and "go along". No, I can't see it and your small segment of society will be in for a rude awakening sometime in the future. You would've been better served to stay behind closed doors with your conduct, than to want to bring it out into daylight. All you've done is to really piss a majority of people off!

You have no standing here Chumley!

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Howard in Colorado replied:

SoL; How in any way shape or form can you think that the only basis of the Pursuit of Happiness in which our founders talked about, is that of owning property. Where, anywhere, does it say or suggest that? But you really do show your own ignorance, as I have seen you do nothing but use derogatory slurs and bashing to try to make your point. You are a Radical, and nothing more. By the way guess who else are Radicals; KKK members, Neo-Nazis, Jihads, etc.

Now please, inform me how he is bringing his sexual tendencies out from behind closed doors? Is he forcing any person to be at his wedding? To watch as he lays with his partner? Is he forcing you to change your person beliefs? No. He isn't. He is asking to have the same liberty that you have, not to impose on your liberty in any way.

You say you served 20 years in the military? Well I am damned grateful that I never served with you, as a person of your intolerance and ignorance would have just gotten people killed.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Dioneikes in Colorado replied:

@Howard - you're an idiot! I am not being racist, and if you knew your American history, other than the Progressive Liberal revisionist drivel that passes for American history you would see that my statement is correct. But that would require a little work on your part and you are only willing to do the bare minimum. So find our what Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson both said about "pursuit of happiness".
As far as never having served with me, I can say the same about never having to have served with you, it sounds to me like you've drank waaaaaaaay too much of the Liberal koolaid and have bought into the "Inclusive Line". I merely exercise my right of freedom of choice - which is given under the first amendment "freedom of expression". That right also includes whom I wish to associate with.

A radical? That's what was said about the Founders so I'll bear that epithet proudly in conjunction with Patriot. It is sad to think you you're being such a sellout that you would allow one group to speak their piece, but try to label another group. You sound like a typical liberal hypocrite.

Please don't bother to reply as you would only try to justify an untenable position. And as far as him bringing his beliefs out into the light, that is self evident. Did I offend your sensibilities with my choice of terms? Sometimes freedom of speech means you have to grow a thicker skin! Is he forcing me to come to his wedding, NO but the friggin government is trying to force celebrating him down our throats by having the Gay pride crap being mandatory. They wanted to be able to serve, so Clinton got the DADT passed so they could serve. Next they decided that wasn't enough, they wanted to be able to swap spit in public, so Obutthead got DADT repealed. You're being a veteran should realize that this would be undermining good order and discipline, but I forgot, you drank the koolaid.

So go back and really study up on your history, then maybe you can get back to me. Take the Constitution 101 course through Hillsdale, I have and its a good course - you could even ask them about the Pursuit of happiness and owning property.

Friday, August 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Dioneikes in Colorado replied:

Here is the proof that my statement about property is what the Founders meant by pursuit of happiness. " He drafted a declaration of rights for the committee that emphasized the natural state of liberty, the rights of Englishmen, and American legislative independence from Parliament. Adams listed among these "natural rights ... First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." Adams argued in other writings that property, being the basis of a just society, CREATED HAPPINESS. THIS IS WHAT JEFFERSON MEANT BY, AND HOW THE OTHER FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD, THE PHRASE "LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PUSUIT OF HAPPINESS" IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE." - The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Founders - Brion T. McClanahan Ph.D. Copyright 2009.

Any questions?!

Friday, August 3, 2012 at 8:11 PM

PH in DE replied:

"Since marriage IS a civil right, (It provides federal benefits and is therefore unarguably a civil right) it must be provided to all of Americas citizens without fail. "

Without getting into the argument of civil rights, marriage IS provided to all American citizens without fail IF the two people are: of age, are unmarried, are consenting, and are of the opposite genders, as required by the DEFINITION of marriage. That some people choose not to decide to marry but to be involved in another relationship entirely does not take away those people's ability to marry someone of the opposite gender, as required by the word marriage.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 3:22 PM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

"So if two people that love each other are allowed to marry, than suddenly no one will be able to get married?" -- Marriage is not just an institution for any two random people; it takes exactly one man and one woman having sex to create a child. Marriage recognizes and socially protects a particular type of sexual relationship, namely, the only one that can create new human beings. Children require special investment of care and nurture by both a father and a mother, so most societies provide special incentives to encourage men to remain with the women they impregnate, and to ensure that mothers can expect financial support (by their spouses and extended families) while they perform the monumental task of keeping little human beings alive and training them to be good adults. Certainly the parents cannot do this alone, but theirs is the primary responsibility.

Jesus said in the New Testament that divorce was not originally part of marriage, but because people were wicked and sinful, divorce was permitted in the case of adultery. (Abuse and addiction are also valid reasons for divorce.) People who support traditional marriage (like Chick-Fil-A's Cathy, for instance) are not simply talking about preventing same-sex marriage from gaining acceptance. They also want to stem the tide of divorce, as well as cohabiting before marriage. This requires education, a change in perspective, to understand that what is right is not always easy, and it requires some sacrifice of personal ambitions, but that it is ultimately best for everyone. However, changing the definition of marriage so that it is just an official recognition of (or approval of) whatever sexual relationship people happen to prefer at the moment, will end the nature of marriage as a 'peculiar' institution, with its own exclusive characteristics. [I'm not using 'peculiar institution' in an antebellum Southern sense.]

Not even in Ancient Greece, where homosexual male relationships were thought essential to military effectiveness and social cohesion, were such relationships called 'marriage.' In fact, men were expected to marry women for procreation, AND to have same-sex relationships outside of marriage. If the sex of the participants in marriage no longer matters, then marriage is no longer anything 'particular', and there is no longer any reason to limit it to two people.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Emma in California replied:

I will never vote for a Democrat again. This is the straw that broke the camel's back. I will support marriage and family values until the very end. There needs to be change in America and this change is to support American values. Progress to American values can be wonderful. You are completely incorrect to use the Founding Father's words to twist them into your own agenda. They would be rolling in their graves if they saw what was happening in America right now. Take your foot out of your mouth.

Saturday, August 4, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Sammy in Kansas said:

I don't know what Bible you are reading when you make the comment "To top it off, not all Christians believe the same thing about the Bible, its words on homosexuality are actually quite unclear and easily debatable." Mine is quite clear on the matter and do you think it's a coincidence that the verses pertaining to your perverted activities are right next to the verses on beastiality? Quite clearly it states both of these activities are an "abomination".

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Sean Crane in Oregon replied:

I would rather not have to win this argument for the upteenth time, but heres a sumerized version:

The only real reference to homosexuality is in Leviticus, the 'a man shall not lie with another man as he would a women' verse that everyone likes to quote, while leaving out the verses in Leviticus that say we should stone women that have sex before they are married and children that are disobedient. However Jesus said in Luke 16:16 "The law and the profits where in force until John" This is why Christians can eat meats such as pork without it being a sin. After John the baptist came and began his preaching there is no further true reference to homosexuality. You may notice that there are verses that do say 'homosexuality' problem with that is that there was no word that meant anything similar to 'homosexuality' in the ancient Hebrew language and the word that they have translated to 'homosexual' in some Bibles actually more closely translates to 'sex abusers.' Verses such as the one in Romans, that speak of those that go 'against their nature' can be shown to mean that if a straight man has sex with another man he is a sinner because he went against his nature, same as if a gay man has sex with a woman he is a sinner because he went against his nature.

I now however have to head to bed, I have work tomorrow, I was hoping to come here and find new arguments against homosexuality that I hadn't heard before and maybe learn something, but it was all the same useless arguments as usual that boils down to 'It goes against the Bible'

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM

India in GA replied:

Sean, let me preface this comment by saying that I am in no way trying to condem you. I am fully aware that--just like every human, except one -- I am a fallen sinner in need of salvation.

I take it from some of your comments that you may be a Christian, or at least that you believe in a loving God. However, you are twisting scripture to justify a sinful behavior.

You are right, the bible does teach against hypocritical speech and actions, i.e., concentrating on the others sins of others while ignoring your own sins. But the bible also says, 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt'; and "It is better to heed a wise man's rebuke than to listen to the song of fools." So here it goes...

First, here is the verse in Romans that I think you are referring to above(Rom 1:26-27): "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;"

---so far, your agument holds water. But then Paul continues:

" and the men likewise gave up NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were consumed with passion FOR ONE ANOTHER, MEN COMMITTING SHAMELESS ACTS WITH MEN."

This passage makes it clear that "relations contrary to nature" are homosexual relations.

You said above:

"You may notice that there are verses that do say 'homosexuality' problem with that is that there was no word that meant anything similar to 'homosexuality' in the ancient Hebrew language and the word that they have translated to 'homosexual' in some Bibles actually more closely translates to 'sex abusers.' "

The New Testament was written in Greek, a language which had plenty of ways to describe homosexual acts (malakos and arsenokoites, for example). I think we can safely say that Paul was indeed talking about homosexuality, wherever a translation renders the word.

In the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, I have found no scriptures that use the word "homosexual". The text is more explicit, saying "If a man lies with a man as with a woman". This sin is always listed in a littany of very specific sexual sins, ALL of which would fall under the rather vague heading of "sexual abuses". I believe the very reason that the bible gives such explicit descriptions of each sin is so that we would not feel free to interpret 'sex abuse' in any way that suited us, depending on our sexual appetites.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

rippedchef in sc said:

@ Sean-
Please produce some evidence as to "homosexuality in nature".Show me two male anythings having actual anal sex or two female anythings having actual oral sex and I'll vote for gay marriage.You are a victim of your own choices and expecting anyone here to support them or in anyway feel sorry for you is just silly.You and you alone are held responsible for your life choices and when you've taken your last breath you'll find out if you are right or wrong.Most people here think you are wrong but nobody will know for sure until death or the Rapture so arguing about it and having all the name calling and inflammatory speech really is immature on both sides.I would implore my fellow respected Patriots not to take part in the Liberal "who can type the nastier stuff" contest,we all know what we are dealing with so why play the game??Just my .02

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 12:56 PM

BNS-GA in Atlanta replied:

There are tons on youtube !!!!! Rams, Penguins, Goats

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

rippedchef in sc replied:

not "humping for dominance"-actual coitus-none

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Sean Crane in Oregon replied:

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 9:16 PM

BNS-GA in Atlanta said:

I don't think the Democrats will end Marriage as we know it but the Supreme Court will. You can't have marriages in some states and when you cross into another state to visit or work you are no longer married. That is crazy. So they will need to disolve all gay marriages or make all the laws about individuals and not couples. No more Joint tax filing. No more Marriage SSI benefits. That would solve the problem.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Jordan in Tennessee said:


You stated, "Sodom and Gomorah where not destroyed for homosexuality, point to me where homosexuality becomes a reason for its destruction. It was destroyed for incest, orgies, and because the people wanted to rape angels."

Go read Genesis 19 on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and pay particular attention to verse 5 and 6:

19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom —both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? *Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them*.”

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.

Clearly, the bible specifically mentions its wickedness.

Then skip to verse 12:

"The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

That answer your question?

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

Let's introduce a twisted bill to your home state that declares all Progressives must enter into same sex marriages, only. After several generations of fornication, there will be no more Progressives---Hey now!!! Doma should be reinstated with POTUS 45 Mitt Romney, son of George. Good blog K.B.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM

rippedchef in sc said:

just as I thought from Sean-pure garbage-all opinon,no proof.Just like "born gay" , "global warming"-and "the big bang"the issue is settled right??No proof,no scientific method,just PC garbage from cowards

Friday, August 3, 2012 at 8:13 AM

pete in CA said:

It is obvious by the numbers in both houses that even democrats believed in DOMA. It is also obvious by the number of democrats who are now considering changing their position that they have no foundation of moral beliefs, but are willing to sell their souls for just one more term in power.

Saturday, August 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Emma in California said:

Thank you for this Blog.

Saturday, August 4, 2012 at 7:58 PM

countrygirl in Texas said:

I'm not sure why, but nobody seems to be mentioning what to me is one of the biggest reasons to view homosexuality as abnormal/detrimental - apart from religious reasons. The public health implications are huge. I won't even go into AIDS, as it is spread now by those who aren't homosexual and the gay lobby has built up their defenses against that argument (though "thou dost protest too much" sure comes to mind when they scream about it!). But the statistics on several major health issues bear out that "men who have sex with men" have a drastically increased rate, not just risk for, some ugly illnesses. It is NOT natural; biologically it is actually traumatic to the participants. And as others have pointed out, there is not any factual example of it in nature. Just Google in something about diseases in homosexuals for examples if you're doubtful.
And if we admit that homosexuality is not natural, and actually harmful (to the participants, not to even get into its harm to society) then we can't really just blithely sail into endorsing it by granting it status on par with heterosexual, childbearing couples.
If two same sex people want to have a warm, special and exclusive friendship, and grant each other all the privileges of next-of-kin, it's not difficult to do that, legally. My Grannie had a cousin who was in a friendship like that way back from 1945 through the death of one of them in the 70s. It was different, but nobody (in a small rural community in a very conservative part of the country) ever gave them any grief about it. When the one was in the hospital, the other spoke for him, and when he died, the other inherited everything.
And then, one of my pet peeves is hearing how some military "spouse" can't have all the privileges he thinks the hetero couples are getting. I'm a military Mom - I don't get one iota of information on my kids' whereabouts or welfare from the military, even though they aren't married and don't have a spouse to give that info to, because I'm a Mom, not a spouse. I and the other moms have to make friends with a wife to get info on homecoming ceremonies and the like, because our kids can't get to the internet or a phone to tell us, and we don't automatically get told. Should we apply for marital status so we can get that privilege? I don't get to see my kids when they're about to deploy either, even though they don't have a spouse, but I don't go looking to turn the whole of human history upside down because of it.

Monday, August 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM