I Was WRONG About Same-Sex Marriage [+videos]

SorryBy John Zmirak. President Obama, and each of the Clintons, has made a public statement parallel to my own on this volatile topic, so I stand in illustrious company as I say it: I wish to reverse my previous public statements on same-sex marriage. The progress of law, the statements and actions of gay advocates, and the movement of public opinion have rendered my old views repugnant to me, and I now I offer a full and public retraction. Thanks to the hard work of Apple, Walmart, and the national media, I have changed my mind on same sex marriage.

I now oppose it.


Less than two years ago, I wrote that conservatives and Christians probably ought to chalk up the legal battle for natural marriage as lost, and offer a “grand compromise.” Instead of relying on valid, truthful, but unpopular arguments from nature, tradition and the well-being of children to stop the progress of same-sex marriage, I thought that we should switch to arguments from freedom of association. We should agree to allow same-sex couples in each of the 50 states the benefits of the tenuous, temporary sex contract that “marriage” had become in the wake of no-fault divorce — but only if we received two important concessions in return:

1. Laws permitting “covenant marriages” in each of those states, granting couples who wished it access to the protections that covered marriage and the family circa 1940 — when divorce was hard to obtain in most American states, and only for provable cause such as physical abuse, abandonment or adultery. The same arguments from individual liberty that would permit same-sex couples to obtain flimsy, secular marriages must allow couples to contract more durable bonds, if they chose to. The state that would enforce the gay contract (a) should be willing to likewise enforce “covenant” contract (b).


2. Repeal of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — which otherwise would impose a crushing burden on religious believers in particular, violating their freedom of association.

I thought that such a compromise might end the legal battle, and even strengthen marriage, provided that:

3. Christian churches rallied to defend marriage within their own denominations. As a Catholic, I thought that my church could light the way by tightening up its own treatment of marriage — demanding extensive religious instruction for couples who wanted to marry in church; insisting that wherever “covenant marriages” were available they must contract them; and making annulments (Catholic declarations that a marriage had never existed) much, much harder to get.

Well, wasn’t I a prophet?

As things turned out, the Supreme Court instead of the voters will dictate same-sex marriage, as it dictates everything else of importance in our democracy. The only question remaining is how many Republican appointees will vote like Democrats. So Christians and conservatives have no horse to trade.

Nor do many libertarians — with honorable exceptions such as John Stossel — really seem to give a hoot about freedom of association. At least when it comes to Christians trying to run religious schools or make a living in peace, rather than pot dealers grooving with their clients.

Nor does my own church seem likely to tighten up the sacrament of marriage — not when powerful cardinals such as the head of the German bishops’ conference are threatening schism if they don’t get approval for de facto Catholic divorce.

So I was wrong about everything. Let’s pause to analyze why. I think the central reason is that Americans are not nearly as concerned about real liberty as they pretend to be. People are not switching their opinions on same sex marriage because they have suddenly realized that freedom of contract is implied by a view of human freedom that they consider sacred.

Far from it. Instead, they have been convinced by a two-decades-long barrage of TV programs and Facebook status updates that gay couples aren’t “gross” and “weird,” but “charming,” and “sometimes really funny.” Meanwhile, Christians and others who object to such sexual practices are no longer normal and sensible, but “bigoted” and “mean.” So Americans want the government to promote, using its full coercive power, the presumed interests of the charming funny people at the expense of the scowling killjoys.

Once the moral status of homosexual behavior has been surrendered, it’s easy, if you don’t think too hard, to smoosh together the moral objections to that behavior with the old-time visceral loathing that racists felt toward “race-mixing.” And how concerned should we be with the rights of bigots, anyway? They should be reluctantly, barely tolerated, so long as they don’t frighten the horses. And the state really should protect their kids from imbibing their hateful views.

To abandon the argument on the moral merits of homosexual relationships, as I foolishly advocated, is to freely accept the position of disenfranchised crank in today’s America. And given Americans’ very tenuous grasp on the meaning of freedom, such a position isn’t safe.

So I think we should support “religious freedom” bills as a last-ditch firewall against gay totalitarianism, though this issue is not just about religion; but it’s much more important for those who value marriage to rally their forces and try again to convince the public of the meaning of natural marriage. Our opponents started selling their argument three decades ago, and they’ve largely succeeded. That’s proof that effecting a fundamental change of mind on core issues is possible. So is the growing acceptance of pro-life views among college students. It’s past time that we launched a counter-offensive of real truth and real love. We have the advantage of nature and reason on our side, and every day, we have fresh evidence of what same-sex “marriage” does to children and to a free society.

We will probably need to launch a campaign for a constitutional amendment to ratify the truth about marriage, at least as a focal point. That might seem quixotic, but remember how quickly things change: Ten years ago, Democratic candidates didn’t feel safe advocating same-sex marriage. Now Indiana pizza makers cannot feel safe opposing it. To assume that this change is irreversible “progress” is simply to surrender, and hope for toleration inside a poorly-defended ghetto.

To put it briefly and starkly: In the fight against gay totalitarianism, we need to get back to critiquing the “gay” part. It’s an easier sell. Too many Americans have a soft spot for totalitarianism. (See “I Was Wrong About Same-Sex Marriage”, originally posted HERE)

____________________________________________________________

#HitlerReacts To Denied #GayWeddingCake

By Louder With Crowder. Listen, here at LouderWithCrowder.com we hate comparisons to Nazis as much as the next guy. Especially Hitler. But this recent deal with bakeries, pizzerias and religious freedom has created a line in the sand. When people want the government to be able to tell its citizens exactly HOW they should do business… or be allowed to put them out of business… that’s the definition of fascism. It’s that simple? Where do you line up?

(Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

  • Pingback: I Was WRONG About Same-Sex Marriage [+video] - Dr. Rich Swier()

  • llanfair

    Here’s my take. If gay people want to live together that’s their problem. But gays have gotten out of hand now. First it was gay marriage. Then adoptng children both of which I find to be ridiculous and cruel on the child.
    I also find it preposterous that the law has recognised gay marriages ..and don’t give me crap about the 14th amendment.
    Now they want to close Christian churches that oppose gay marriages .. What next? The US law makers are letting loose anarchy if they do not get their act together immediately.

    All this fuss about a gay wedding cake? What has this world come to!

    It’s like demanding for a halal cake! And making a federal case of it!

    Gay people will soon be more of a threat than the terrorist in the US.

    Go ahead and share an apartment together but do not publicly demand rights that do not belong to you.

    Give him an inch and he’ll demand a mile.

    • Freedom Barbie

      I feel this is just the theatrics of the puppet masters as they work ferociously behind the scene taking away other freedoms that we won’t see until martial law has officially been declared.

      • llanfair

        And by then two thirds of the military will consist of radical Muslims my friend.

  • Mike Gunter

    You give an inch they take a mile! The same with MUSLIMS. Somebody better stop them or the US will be ruled by sharia law!

    • gator86

      Right, that deadly alliance of gays and conservative Muslims will bring us down.

      • Flayer

        Until the stooges on the Left are brought down by the very folks they allied themselves with: Muslims. Because they will go after them when the coast is clear. The only reason Muslims align themselves now with the Leftists is that they both have in common the destruction of our Constitutional Republic and the love of totalitarianism.

        • Kent2012

          gatorinsky69er is trolling again…

    • llanfair

      Absolutely!

  • gator86

    Covenant marriages? Leave to the so called christian right to demand marriages that they cannot leave too easily. After all, the states where they predominate have the highest rates of divorce in the nation while the lowest divorce rate is in Mass., where gay marriage has been legal for a decade. Seems that gay marriage is encouraging straight couples to stay together longer.

    • c69101

      How many of your married ma. fruitcakes got blown up by the punk muslims you embraced also? Fricken kook!

      • gator86

        I am a married Pennsylvania straight man. Who, or what, you are married to is an open question.

        • c69101

          No such thing as a straight freak monkeyboy! Do the country a favor….go find a tall building in your cesspool of a city and jump off of it!

          • gator86

            I love to read the kind and encouraging words of a true Christian. Your parents must be so proud that have raised such a hateful little prick.

          • c69101

            Oh by the way monkeyboy, just because your boyfriend did a bruce jenner….that does not make you a straight anything! Find that tall building in that cesspool you live in yet?

          • gator86

            Does mental illness run in your family? Please, don’t reproduce. We have enough defectives running around. No need to add to it with your damaged offspring.

          • c69101

            Hi gayyyytor 8 6 men, yes, I`m sure there are a lot of defectives running around your little gay town.

          • gator86

            Your obsessions with gay men is telling. I guess if a straight man like me can support marriage equality it is possible that a gay one like you would oppose it.

          • c69101

            Hahahaha…straight like you?! With a name like gaytor?

          • gator86

            And your name is c69101? Try to not be such an idiot.

          • c69101

            Ummm give you a hint gaytor….zip code maybe? Not gayyyytor!

          • gator86

            So, that is not your name. Imagine that, someone using something other than their name to comment here.

          • c69101

            Oh gaytor, don`t be mad. Just cause your got found out.

          • gator86

            I just marvel that there are low life offspring of siblings who mate like you running around still. You got your ATV and your guns and some cousins or sisters to fool around with and you are happy as a can be.

          • c69101

            GAAAYYYTTTOOORRR!

          • c69101

            2015 gay mens PA. twister champ GAAAYYYTTTOOORRR!

          • c69101

            How come you and your little men don`t have a picture next to your proud gaytor name?

          • c69101

            You could all be on something safe, like a merry go round!

          • gator86

            I am glad to be able to entertain your tiny little mind. Don’t you have some probation officer to report to?

          • c69101

            Is that how you meet dudes gaytor? Bet you are always frisking them huh?

          • c69101

            Flash your badge and say assume the position don’t you?

          • c69101

            GAAAYYYTTTOOORRR the PA. mens probation officer!

          • c69101

            Well darn it. Like to stay and chat, but gotta run gaytor. Don`t you be abusing your position and badge too much now gaytor.

          • Flayer

            How DARE you complain about incest. In fact, that’s kind of a pejorative word. Let’s find another term, then have a parade.

          • c69101

            Be proud of your gay lifestyle choices! Isn`t that what your kind says?

          • c69101

            GAAAYYYTTTOOORRR!

          • c69101

            GAAAYYYYTTTOOORRR!

          • c69101

            Do all your boyfriends and you get together for big PA twister competitions?

          • Amanda

            Soo . . . if heterosexuals are called straight, does that mean homosexuals are crooked?

            P.S.Can you please make up your mind whether you’re going to refer to alligators or gays?

          • c69101

            Just as soon as you try really hard to make since you moon bat!

          • c69101

            Dang sure ain`t any alligators in PA pal!

          • gator86

            Don’t you have some paranoid delusions to comment about? Isn’t someone coming to take your guns or force you to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

          • Flayer

            No but you may be forced to bake a cake for Hitler or the joys of bestiality. IF you accept the premise of the state telling you which activity you must engage in, that is.

          • Flayer

            How is it “unequal” when any single unrelated adult male can marry any single unrelated adult female. Why stop at “unrelated” or “adult” or “single” while claiming “equality”?

          • gator86

            That argument is less than stupid.

          • Flayer

            Thanks for that brilliant and incisive response which you obviously thought about and analyzed to the best of your ability.

          • gator86

            And letting any black man marry any black woman and any white man marry any white woman is also not unequal, right? After all, they can still marry anyone of the same race, right?

          • Flayer

            It is equal. I can’t marry my brother, even though this might profit us in inheritance laws. First of all I’m already married and second of all he’s my brother, regardless of the fact that no,children would be born of our union. But mainly being gay is not what is the issue. It is the behavior that is wrong. Some men and women have a difficult time with their vows of marriage (hello Bill Clinton) and are serial adulterers. Are we to have a parade for adulterers? Is it a “lifestyle choice” that needs to be define downward to normalcy? If not, why not? Or the age of consent? That is also regulated by government. Perhaps you believe that it is perfectly ok for a 14 year old boy to enter into a sexual relationship with a 50 year old man? After all, it is really only arbitrary. Any why not have open discussions about it in 3rd grade classrooms? Nothing to be ashamed of…

          • gator86

            You can keep phucking your brother if you want, but you cannot marry him. And no, I do not agree that you should be alloed to have sex with a 14 year old. I realize that your typical tea party trailer park dweller would prefer this, but there are compelling governmental reasons why you should not be permitted to give into this urge you have.

          • Flayer

            What are you on about? I definitely do not think that I should be able to marry my brother or to have any sexual activity. Nor do I believe in pedophilia.or same-sex marriage. I have not met a TEA Party advocate who is for these things however TEA Party stands for Taxed Enough Already and is all about a smaller government, lower taxes and personal responsibility.

          • gator86

            You posted about being able to marry your brother as if that has anything to do with two, unrelated adults, being able to marry one another. And the tea party stands for knowing nothing about government or even about the fact that right now in our history we pay less of a % of our income in taxes than at any time in the last 80 years. In other word, the Tea Party movement is based on a lie. If they want personal responsibility, then why do they oppose the ACA which is all about people taking responsibility for healthcare? Why do they oppose allowing two adults wanting to take the legal responsibility for one another than a marriage creates?

          • c69101

            gaytor 8 6 men. Is that what your name means monkeyboy?

    • Amanda

      Are you suggesting we leave marriage wide open for mere convenience and make divorce easy for petty mishaps? Marriage is a tradition that requires the man and the woman to stay together for life for the the benefit of the children and society. I’m sorry that many people are not properly informed of what is expected of them in marriage, but we can and should change that. We have the internet now, making information accessible to many, let’s make sure they get that information. If we are going to marry for love, then let’s do that, just understand that love is more than mere feelings, it is also a choice and sacrifice.

      • gator86

        We let those in the marriages decide what reason are good enough for them to leave the marriage. Frankly, it is none of your f’ng business if two people marry or if they decide to end their marriage.

        • Flayer

          No it is not. But it becomes the STATE to decide how to divide the assets and dispose of the children. So either you want the state in or you don’t.

          • gator86

            Actually, the parents get to decide those issues and it is only when they cannot that a Judge is forced to. That is how disputes are settled in this nation; they go to court. When two business partners decide to go their separate ways and cannot decide on the disposition of assets, they go to court to have the court decide.

          • Flayer

            Exactly: the courts.

          • gator86

            And if not the courts, who?

          • Flayer

            You made my point about eventually running to the STATE to solve your marital problems. You said the state had no business in your marriage, yet you want it to regulate it.

          • gator86

            Not capable of answering the question, are you? Who decides child custody, child support, spousal support and who gets what out of a marriage if the Courts do not? You would prefer, perhaps, a physical conflict between the parties? Do you feel the same way about two business partners who have irreconcilable differences? They have to resort to Court to resolve their differences? If you are going to eliminate the mechanism by which every civilized nation on earth allows married couples to resolve the issues when they decide to split, you have to provide an alternative. You have one?

          • Flayer

            You are still making my point. Either you want the government involved and regulating and defining marriage or you don’t.

          • gator86

            And you are still refusing to explain how two parties who cannot agree on the terms of ending their relationship can resolve that dispute. Do you think that parents should support their children or do you want the state to do that? Do you think a spouse who convinced their spouse to stay home and out of the workforce for thirty years has any obligation to support that spouse if they end the marriage or do you think the rest of us should? Do you think that two people who worked together to build wealth should have to share it or should the person who put their name on everything get it? You keep responding with these trite comments which say nothing. I am beginning to think that you really have to clue how to answer.

          • Flayer

            I am for strong traditional marriages and a healthy society.

          • gator86

            Good for you. So, when two men or two women want to marry and create another stable family, you are for that, right?

      • Flayer

        And not called “holy matrimony” for nothing.

        • gator86

          It is not called holy matrimony in any law in any state. That is a religious term. Has no relevance to state recognition of marriages.

          • Flayer

            Until the gay bullies force religious organizations to marry homosexuals or engage in any activity that they do not believe in, such as forcing a diocese to provide abortions or birth control, under threat of prosecution or fines. And don’t tell me it hasn’t happened. The Boy Scouts were not permitted to have their jamborees on public land, even though they paid for it, because of their stand on openly gay scout leaders. And that wasn’t even a religion. So if I’m Jewish I MUST bake a happy birthday Hitler cake or cater an Aryan Nation party or face prosecution? Matrimony has ALWAYS been regulated. It isn’t a fundamental right anywhere in our Constitution, anymore than a driver’s license is a “right.”

          • gator86

            Just like the Catholic Church was forced to allow their members to remarry after they get divorced, right? There is no movement and no possibility that a law could force churches to marry anyone. That is a red herring that you folks raise, knowing full well you are lying about that possibility.

  • gator86

    The author must not have a very strong commitment to his marriage if he want the government to be able to dictate to him that he must stay married in the absence of abuse or adultery.

  • ONTIME

    Co-opting the word marriage is a gay mistake, the term civil union will tone down the rhetoric and the gays will have a legal term to lean on. The Christians and other religious organizations are tradition based, you can break a law but breaking a long held tradition is like pouring boiling water over your head…The word marriage entails hetrosexual terminology and furtherance of the human species, not so with the homosexual side in number or in thought. The lgbt militants are only causing more resistance and shooting themselves in the foot, it has become the “stupid is as stupid does” syndrome for the gay ranks…

    • Flayer

      But they are demanding that churches comply with what is now “legal.” Look for a political pressure to take away IRS charitable status from churches that do not marry homosexuals. What is legal is not always what is moral, nor is moral necessarily legal. We all know this but making something legal usually implies moral or good.

  • v steve

    Jews Control Culture:
    Rachel Tiven is head of Immigration Equality.

    Susanne Salkind and Michael Schwartz are Associate Directors for the LGBT Lobby Group, Human Rights Campaign.

    Keshet is a National LGBT Jewish Lobby.

    Joe Biden recently praised Jewish leaders for growing the Homosexual agenda due to their control of Hollywood and the Media.

    • disqus_9HmfSLuBjV

      What is your point here…

      • v steve

        They control the Culture.

        When it comes right down to it, they Are Guilty of the ruination of America. Among other things they are behind all things homosexual.

        They are without patriotism and without decency.

        • Flayer

          Yet it was the Greeks who promoted homosexuals, no? So why not go after them?

          • v steve

            Greeks are not in the U. S. Government in controlling positions making laws. And then there are the Jewish lobbies.

          • Flayer

            So is the Congressional Black Caucus. Perhaps you’d like to go after Blacks, too? My Congressman is bought and paid for by the Muslim Bros., yet he’s pro-gay all the way.

          • v steve

            I’m not going after anyone. I just want to expose their Freedom Hating agenda.

            The Jewish Lobby rules supreme in the realm of political control. Lobbies such as AIPAC, ADL, and the American Jewish Congress (AJC),
            No Lobby is Feared more or catered to by politicians than the Jewish Lobby. If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media.

            Most distressing, we now have a Jewish Caucus on Capitol Hill, of which, the Zionist puppet in the White House continually caters to. The “tribe”marched into the Oval Office with their demand that Obama declare himself “Pro-Israel.” He did!

            Of course you all ready know this.

        • Flayer

          You seem to know a lot about Jews. Where did you learn so much about them? Local mosque, or elsewhere? How do the Orthodox vote? What is their stand on homosexuality? What does the Torah say about homosexuality? What is the percentage of Jews in the USA?

          • v steve

            I know very little about them.
            Elsewhere and a Jew who has converted to Christianity.
            I know nothing about how Orthodox vote.
            You may ascertain by turning to top Jewish authorities today that the Babylonian Talmud, the written form of the Tradition of the Pharisees, is the sole authority of the so-called “Jewish” religion, or Judaism.
            It doesn’t matter what their percentage is in the USA. What does matter those in congress in controlling positions.

          • Flayer

            There are a lot of Catholics too. Do they bother you as much?

          • v steve

            Only those who bow at the alter of the Modern Day State of Israel, so far.

    • Flayer

      And you don’t have to be Jewish to be an a**hole. There are NO goyish gay groups?

      • v steve

        Free speech and facts have nothing to do with being a a**hole. There are many Goyim gay groups.

  • henryknox

    I don’t care who people have as a significant other. The only thing I care about is that the gov’t stays out of it. No gov’t forms, no gov’t handouts and no more marriage check boxes on gov’t forms. Keep the gov’t out of the bedroom and boardroom.

    • Flayer

      The state has an interest in strong families and should encourage it. Homosexual marriage is so rare, has a higher rate of divorce than the general population and throws more kids into care than is necessary. Children do BEST in strong, married families with a father and a mother. THIS is what we have on our side and no amount of prevarication can change this fact. The best response is to say, “What do you have against children growing up in the best circumstances? Even if they are gay don’t you think they should have the benefit of a healthy family life? Do you dislike children? If not they why not wish and promote what is the BEST for them?” Put them on the defense, in other words. Remember that Doce & Gabbana, the darlings of the fashion world, that is, until a few weeks ago, came out in defense of children growing up in healthy, normal families and in opposition to gay marriage and children brought into gay marriages. Apparently D & G grew up in a loving, stable family with a mom and dad,and believed that it was good for all children. Now they are targeted for destruction.

      • henryknox

        It is a mistake to think you can selectively promote something through gov’t. It always becomes corrupt. If heterosexual families are better then they will flourish without the gov’t distorting the market. Don’t be swayed by greed, keep the gov’t confined to it’s constitutional limits and we will all be better off.

        • Flayer

          Yes, but the problem is that those who want to do without government interference will run to the state at the moment things start to go wrong. They will have to make decisions, monitor and enforce the disposition of the issues of that marriage (the children), make decisions about the disposition of the estate, the alimony and so on and so forth. If I could be GUARANTEED that the state would not interfere in either end of it then ok. However I am against having it both ways with some – they want to be “left alone” until things go wrong then they want the full force of government (and my money) to solve the problems that they created.

  • bohdanknianicky

    What the gays do behind closed doors is their business. Now that they are a protected species, they have become FASCISTS. Once in office they write the agenda for us to follow. They legislate (Prop 8, etc.) what we should do. They have the same freedoms we all do. Why dozen;’t the media talk about the gays walking into a Muslim bakery for a cake. The Muslims throw them out. This is a phony narrative pushed by the liberal media.

    • Flayer

      In Prop 8, the voice of the people was overturned by a single, gay federal judge. So, what was the point of having a proposition on the ballot, one wonders.

  • Flayer

    It NEVER was about “tolerance.” It went from tolerance to acceptance to demand to special rights to normalization to admiration to coercion to the official demeaning of anyone who opposes to teaching the glories of it in public schools.

  • Martin Keyser

    Although I think there should be something that gives gay couples the same “rights” as straight couples, for example, visiting in the hospital,
    it should be called something other than “marriage”. And, I think your reference to Hitler is apt. If I was asked to make a swastika cake I should have the right to refuse. There are lots of bakers out there. Let a Nazi baker make it, not a Jewish one.

  • JosephinaAngelina

    Hitler was a scream. Good job, Crowder! Laughing at these fascists is a good way to fight back.