Columns

A Revealing Contradiction

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement
134421834

Liberals display a revealing contradiction in their attitudes toward marriage. With male-female couples, they tend to treat marriage as an outmoded, irrelevant institution—supporting trends toward non-marital cohabitation, and shrugging at the 40 percent of American babies who now arrive to unmarried mothers.

Hollywood even honors “courageous” couples who raise their children without the benefit of matrimony, illustrating the lyrics to the old song saying “we don’t need no piece of paper from the city hall keeping us tied and true.”

But when it comes to same-sex couples, liberals treat marriage as essential–suggesting no relationship can be complete without it. Why should marriage be essential for gays, but dispensable for straights? Could it be that unions producing biological offspring have permanent consequences even without marriage licenses, but same-sex connections need governmental sanction to confer a sense of long-term importance?

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (22)

Leave a comment
  1. William H  •  Oct 16, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Another fantastically stupid observation, Michael.

    The option and the freedom to choose is essential.

    But you don’t have to do it, and couples that don’t feel the need to marry shouldn’t have to. There is no contradiction here.

    Do you even think these articles over, at least for more than the 60 seconds it takes to type them?

    • Caleb C  •  Oct 17, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      Michael obviously took longer to write this than William H did to write his comment. Typical liberal vitriol, all emotional hat and no reasoned cattle. I think this piece points out an interesting contradiction that together with others (see protecting civil rights vis-a-vis abortion) show a Left that is prone to tying itself into intellectual knots in the name of secular humanism and feel good policy.

      • Charles Almon  •  Oct 25, 2013 at 11:28 am

        No contradiction,
        Marry if you want, or don’t.
        Gay or straight.
        I find conservatives just make thing up and then
        argue WHAT THEY JUST MADE UP

    • Cristian  •  Oct 19, 2013 at 10:33 pm

      Right on, Michael! If marriage is non-consequential, then why do gays want to marry? If marriage is so miserable and in bad shape, why would they want to join others in ending up the same? It’s because of politics. Gays want to appear “equal” in every respect. The elephant in the living room is the obvious nonsense of gay marriage. These “marriages” would truly be sterile. Without heterosexuals–provides others of their inkling–gays would seize to exist. Lastly, the pathetic retort to those of us who oppose gay “marriage” is non-sense. ‘If you don’t want to marry, then don’t.’ I wonder if these same people would use that logic for areas that they consider important.

  2. Vinesh  •  Oct 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Michael

    Why do you allow comments that showcase your inability to think logically, to be displayed for all to read?
    You do a good job of muting dissenting voices on radio, and thereby self proclaim yourself to be the ‘best debater’ on radio. You might want to consider doing something similar for your website also.
    Else, it is too easy for everyone to see the hypocritical stances you have to take, simply by virtue of being a Republican.

    • Vomiting from Vinesh  •  Oct 18, 2013 at 6:36 pm

      Another example of what the above poster described as all liberal vitriol ‘hat’ and no reasoned ‘cattle’. He is a Republican; therefore, he is wrong…and Medved should be embarrassed about what he writes? Funny, funny troll!

      • J  •  Oct 21, 2013 at 11:58 am

        Your name is “Vomiting from Vinesh’…and yet you are criticizing someone for “vitriol”?

  3. Ed Norton  •  Oct 18, 2013 at 5:29 am

    Michael:

    Correct! Whether your view of humanity and society causes you to want it to improve or evolve; this liberal view is highly illogical and unscientific.

  4. Tim  •  Oct 18, 2013 at 7:45 pm

    The more I read liberal nonsensical rants and inflammatory responses I find a common thread in all of them. When in doubt, can’t find the words or the facts….call them a republican….ya..that will gettem or like William H and Vinesh…just ramble….

  5. Kathleen  •  Oct 19, 2013 at 8:25 am

    Right on, Michael. Male – Female marriages are non essential but gay marriages, essential and “sacred.” Why? As you point out, offspring are the key. Gay marraiges want to be valdated by the government. Straight marriages usually produce children which make them important and consequential, and hence more valid.

    • Charles Almon  •  Oct 25, 2013 at 11:29 am

      This is a civil right issue.

      Period.

  6. Mike  •  Oct 19, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Contrary to what a responder above suggested, I commend you Mr Medved on your courteous and professional treatment of guests on your show. You and Mr Prager are the absolutely best examples I’ve ever heard of treating dissenting opinions with basic regard we should extend to all fellow members of our species. You have no peer when it comes to engaging members of diametrically opposed belief systems in a way that encourages them to bring their worldview in to the light of day so that we, the listeners, can understand why they believe what they do. I’ve had my now adult children listen to your broadcast with me when they were adolescents to hear examples of linear reasoning well delivered. My eldest son, now married in his twenties, still listens to you. Thank you and keep up the good work.

  7. Susan  •  Oct 19, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    I would have to agree with Mike on his assessment of both Prager and Medved. They both treat guests with opposing views with the utmost respect, even pointing out areas of agreement if it can be found, but always forcing them to look at logic and facts. This is usually inconvenient for liberals, and usually at that point is where the caller can only respond with emotion (usually anger), because the only other option left for them is to acknowledge that they’re wrong on the issue. That is a very difficult admission for the highly “educated” liberal.

  8. Tom Shannon  •  Oct 20, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    I’m a loyal listener of both Prager & Medved, and I completely agree with Mike & Susans assessment of both men. They are hands down the best conservative voices out there today! It would serve the Republican Party, especially those in office, and those planning on running for President in 2016, to make what these men have to say very seriously

  9. Chad  •  Oct 21, 2013 at 1:04 am

    As of right now I am a democrat, I, also, support gay marriage but I don’t rely on my political party for my point of view, so I don’t know where the idea that Dems consider marriage essential for homosexuals. In fact, the reason I support gay marriage is because I don’t believe in denying any people equal rights. How does denying gays the right to marry equate to equal rights violations? It violates equal rights in that if a same-sex couple isn’t married a hospital isn’t permitted to release information pertaining to the well-being of a patient if the asking party or visitor is an immediate family member. Additionally, there have been reports of a member of a household dying and their same-sex partner having to pay taxes to assume ownership of the deceased property (the case I am referencing occurred in Michigan). I don’t care if it is called a same-sex union to afford them equal civil protections under the law and to appease the right so as to protect their definition of marriage.

    • Charles Almon  •  Oct 25, 2013 at 11:29 am

      Conservatives make it up as they go along.

  10. Chad  •  Oct 21, 2013 at 1:05 am

    isn’t an immediate family member*

  11. Mike A  •  Oct 21, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    Like Chad, I believe all citizens should enjoy the same rights. It’s been said that if we allow same-sex marriage, what’s to prevent siblings, parents, or close relatives from asking for the right to marry? I think Mr. Medved even stated years ago that it opens the door to someone wanting to marry their pet duck. But this only betrays a rather tired ignorance of human sexuality, as it equates homosexuality with things like incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. As it stands today people, those things are illegal, whereas homosexuality is not. The 14th Amendment guarantees all lawful citizens the same rights. Thus, since one of those rights is the right for two people to be issued a Marriage license by their State, that right should be afforded to any form of “two people” who are not engaged in an illegal relationship (such as incest, bestiality, pedophelia, polygamy, etc.)

    I think it’s clear that the psychology underlying those who wish to prevent gay marriage is rooted in religious belief. Thus, since I do not support the injection of religious belief into civil law, I support overturning laws which bar same sex couples from receiving a marriage license and all the rights that license grants them.

    One note, I am a registered Democrat, but my view has nothing to do with that status. In my view, it’s simply a matter of law and human nature, not politics.

  12. Tom Shannon  •  Oct 21, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    I pulled this CNSNews.com …

    “As CNSNews.com previously reported, Christie vetoed a bill passed by the New Jersey legislature last year that would have allowed gays to marry, but supports a ballot measure to let the people of New Jersey make the final decision. New Jersey is one of four states that allow members of civil unions to receive spousal benefits, but not legally wed.

    Marriage is a foundational institution that should be defined by the people, not judges or politicians, an expert on marriage said Friday at the Value Voters summit in Washington.

    “If [marriage] is going to be redefined [Christie] wants to make sure that it’s something that the citizens of New Jersey do themselves,” said Ryan T. Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and Free Society at The Heritage Foundation.

    “I think Governor Christie wants to respect the democratic process,“ Anderson replied. “He’s trying to resist our activist courts in redefining marriage for the state of New Jersey or having the legislature, realizing that the legislature in New Jersey has already voted to redefine marriage and he vetoed that, saying that no, that if we’re gonna redefine the fundamental institution of civil society, it shouldn’t come from a small handful of legislatures, nor should it come from an even smaller handful of judges, it should come from the citizens themselves.”

    I agree with Gov Christie on this. Instead of the redefinition of marriage imposed to states by activist courts, it should by a ballot measure by the states and voted on by the people of that particular state. Here’s some facts … 13 states & DC allow same-sex marriage, which were imposed by the courts. Same-sex marriage has been passed by ballot measure in three states, and they are … Washington, Maine & Maryland. Moreover, in California, propostion 8, which was a ballot measure where the people of California, voted down same-sex marriage by 52%. And then had it overturned by the court. So much for the will of the people. If the will of the people can be overturned by the court, then what’s next ?

    • Mike A  •  Oct 21, 2013 at 7:33 pm

      Tom – we have State and Federal court systems precisely because the “will of the people” sometimes runs contrary to the State and Federal constitutions. As it stands in the USA, the judicial system acts as a checkpoint on the will of the people. I don’t need to remind you that for quite some time in the USA, the will of the people favored some very prejudicial laws and practices. It took the constitutional knowledge and lawful authority of the judicial system to overcome that will. One note, it’s my observation that many people use the word “activist” to describe any judge or panel of judges who decide a case contrary to how they wished. Hopefully you can understand the difference between a clearly one-sided activist who stretches the law to an extreme end, and a judge or panel that rules in a way you wished otherwise.

      In any case, the debate here is simple: Does the constitution require states to issue a marriage license to *any* two people who seek one, and who are engaged in a lawful relationship? The US Supreme Court essentially said “yes, it does”. Thus, the door is open for individuals in the many states which bar two people of the same gender from obtaining that license to petition their state government for a change to the applicable law(s). I suspect you’ll see this continue to happen in state after state, and I suspect most will ultimately strike those laws down.

      In my experience, people often cover up their real views on such matters by claiming “state’s rights” are being trampled, and the “will of the people” is being rejected. When in reality, these people are clinging to older views rooted in community tradition and religious belief. My guess is you have a personal aversion to homosexuality because of the way you were raised, where you live, and your religious views. As such, State’s rights and Will of the People are tools you’re using to make subjective beliefs appear to be objective observations.

  13. Charles Almon  •  Oct 25, 2013 at 11:27 am

    There is zero contradiction –
    just the freedom FOR EVERYONE to have the SAME civil rights.

  14. Rufio  •  Dec 27, 2013 at 2:09 am

    The same emotional comments are made time and time again. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality. Please spell out a definition of marriage if it isn’t for one main purpose. .. the creation and raising of children. Michael is spot on here. This isn’t even a religious argument. This is so fundamental that it’s the basis for our existence. The only way that Homosexuality can even survive or continue is on the backs of heterosexual relationships. It’s stunning how political emotion can make even the most simple, basic, and essential practices look foggy. The practice of Homosexuality isn’t blocked for anyone. Practice all you want, but the push on the majority of people is wrong. It takes rouge judges like those in Utah to strike down what the majority of the state is trying to protect. The act of one judge intervening to undermine the popular vote is a bad move for all Americans. Do you really think one judge should have the power to undermine the popular vote? If so, what happens when the political winds change? I guarantee you’d be arguing that it’s too much power. Bad move.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead - Michael Medved's Premium Content

Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get Medved weekly movie reviews, columns, and special offers delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn