opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
25 Nov 2015

What might have happened if a few of the 1,500 concert attendees in Paris' Bataclan theater had guns? The … Read More.

18 Nov 2015
Anti-Liberty Politicians

After a terrorist attack, it's natural to ask: What can politicians do to keep us safe? One thing they could … Read More.

11 Nov 2015
My Trump Problem

Sometimes I like Donald Trump. He makes me laugh when he mocks reporters' stupid questions. Sometimes he's smart.… Read More.

The Gay Marriage Debate


Six states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. Most so-called liberals are happy about that. Most conservatives are not. As a libertarian, I think all consenting adults who want to commit to a life partner ought to be treated the same way.

To air this issue on my Fox Business show, I invited Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage ( and David Harsanyi, libertarian columnist at The Blaze (

Brown says gay marriage threatens marriage between a man and a woman. I asked him to explain.

"Marriage is a public good," he said. "When you redefine marriage, you redefine it for everyone. In states that have redefined marriage, we've seen serious consequences, ranging from what is taught in schools — kids in first grade in Massachusetts are taught that it's the same thing to grow up and marry a boy or a girl — to what happens to religious organizations or organizations that just believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. ... You see Catholic Charities' adoption agency essentially being forced out of being able to adopt kids because the state said it is discriminating."

Whoa. Those are three separate points. I don't see a problem with the first: If they redefine marriage to include gays, that doesn't diminish my marriage. And if kids are taught that gay marriage is OK, so what?

"They're being told that their parents' views are essentially bigotry," said Brown.

It's another reason we should have school choice.

On his third point, if a state tells Catholic Charities they may not honor their beliefs and limit adoptions to straight couples, that's a problem of Big Government, not gay marriage.

Harsanyi says he has a way around the whole fight.

"It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be, gay or not. It should get out of the business of defining marriage at all and let people engage in ... a private relationship."

OK by me. Who needs the government's sanction anyway?

"When you're getting married, you are not thinking, 'Wow, the government has endorsed this relationship.' That is not very romantic."

I pointed out that marriage involves many legal issues, including alimony, child support, hospital visitation rights, inheritance and adoption.

"Within five minutes of my idea coming to fruition, a whole industry would be formed with prefab legal documents that would just allow you to have the sort of relationship you want with the parameters you want legally," Harsanyi said.

You'd work it out as a private contract. Some hospitals would say we allow same-sex couples; others would say no.

"More than that, I would say in the contract that my spouse is allowed to visit me in the hospital."

Brown was unconvinced.

"The state's interest in marriage is that this is the institution by which we create stable families where the kids can be connected to both their mother and their father. ... In states that have gone this direction, we see things like attempts to recognize three parents, because there is a biological father and two mothers."

Again, so what? I don't care if there are three fathers and six mothers. If it's a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents, that's great.

"Deconstructing marriage is a very bad idea," said Brown. "We see the rising rates of divorce and unwed motherhood. There is a direct correlation. If you look at any social indicators — children raised without mothers and fathers — you see higher rates of incarceration, juvenile delinquency that cost the state money."

Sorry, but I still don't see what divorce and unwed motherhood have to do with gay marriage. It's mostly straight people who are doing the divorcing and unwed mothering.

"All of that ... started long before anyone brought up gay marriage," Harsanyi said.

"The state should support what is true and good and beautiful," Brown countered. "And it's true and good and beautiful that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Men and women are unique and special."

I still don't get his argument.

And I definitely don't want the state to decide what is good and beautiful.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at




28 Comments | Post Comment
I've been saying the same thing for years. "Marriage" is a religious concept. Civil Unions are the only thing the state should be involved in. And they should merely represent a contractual relationship for sharing assets/liabilities and being otherwise responsible for each other. If you have a Civil Union and also a religious marriage, fine. But the two could be completely independent of each other. You could have Civil Unions between siblings. Or good friends in their golden years. These wouldn't be "marriages" but legal unions that would allow people that are close to each other to financially and medically look out for one another. No impact on the definition of marriage whatsoever. Odds are that people that get married in their church would also want a legally binding Civil Union, but the opposite isn't necessarily true.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Maggie Hanson
Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:02 PM
Re: Maggie Hanson
Absolutely. Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments and is none of the governments business.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Frank
Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:39 AM
I agree. Personally I think we should adopt the European model. You get "married" in a church but still need to go to city hall to have a civil union performed. You can opt to go strictly with the civil union approach and forget about "marriage". Failing that, the ideas in the article about having privately drafted contracts make a lot of sense. Get rid of joint tax returns and treat everyone as an individual for tax purposes. No more "single", "married-filing jointly" or "married-filing separately". You file as an individual and are done with it. Your private contract could spell out how mortgage interest deductions, child deductions, etc. are to be divided.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Aardvark
Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:47 AM
I am a strong libertarian leaning conservative Christian, and while I can agree with this in theory, the reality is that gay 'marriage' however it happens, with or without state sanction will not be the end of it. What will come next is "marriage" to animals; sheep, horses, dogs, etc. This is the slippery slope will find ourselves on.
And if you do not think it's possible for what I have just described to happen, just stop for a moment and consider: 100 years ago, in 1911, the society that inhabited America by our standards were stodgy and stiff. Things were done in secret that are now done in the open. People are having sex with animals now more or less in secret, but "tomorrow" they will want the sanction of "marriage".
If there's not a line drawn in the sand now, it will get worse and worse. I for one do not want my children or grandchildren being taught in school, it's ok for Johnny to marry his dog.
Comment: #4
Posted by: charliegirl
Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:39 PM
We can no more alter the elements of Marriage than we can declare "Na" without "Cl" is Salt, Hydrogen without Oxygen is water...1) Marriage has existed before the state, 2) Marriage is a Sacrament and therefore the authority for such a thing is outside/above the authority of the state. 3) The state recognizes marriage as it pertains to property rights, inheritance, parental responsibility and so on, but the state has no authority, nor do the voters have any authority to alter its constituent components; how arrogant to think we do! Just because we all agree to call a dog's tail a leg, does not make it so. The state can set up or recognize a civil union, if it so chooses, to achieve a similar conveyance of rights but do not ask the state or judges or the voters to contort Truth. Libertarians of all people, should recognize these facts.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Ted
Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:44 PM
Re: charliegirl

Gay marriage will not lead to government sanctioned bestiality. Animals cannot give their consent, and will therefore have trouble entering into a legally binding contract.

This argument is ridiculous and offensive.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Sara
Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:03 PM
Re: Maggie Hanson
Why does this idea never get any traction? All "marriages" should be civil unions. It can still be performed by the minister/rabbi/Pope/High Priestess of All Things Slimy and Icky, I don't care. The marriage part would be receiving the blessing of the church, whatever church you go to. The important part for gay couples are the contractual benefits and it is a huge benefit to society as well, because it will keep (many) gay domestic disputes out of court where judges can take bad law and make it even worse. I would also support a mandantory prenuptial agreement. If you don't want to divide your things up now, then just sign a document that says you'll throw yourself on the mercy of the court and your spurned mate. Since 50% of all marriages (MOL) end up divorced, doesn't it make sense to have the discussion about how things would be divided if you should be part of that group? The real benefit is that you would find out a lot about the person you are about to union with before it happens. Even custody could (should!) be discussed prior to the union. This would give both potential parents an idea about what they are going to be living with once they have kids. This would also make divorce, should it become necessary, much less expensive in many cases, since everything has already been decided. One potential hiccup that I see coming down the tracks, is the issue of multiple partners. I know many people would have a moral issue with that, but is it better for an NFL player to have 5 kids by 4 girlfriends and one wife and 4 of the kids be illegitamate or for him to union with all five and support and raise all of his kids? I'm not worried to much about the beastiality running amok. I just don't think there are that many people with a penchant for farm animals. I could be wrong.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Jeff Williams
Thu Sep 1, 2011 7:27 AM
Why not a marriage between hundreds if not thousands? Why limit the marriage just to twq persons. Why not marriage between a son and his father or mother, between sisters , between brothers? If all one wanted was legal rights, why would it matter as previously mentiioned. Just because an animal can't talk, it can be trained to answer yes or no to the question of marriage. A marriage is between one man and one woman.
Comment: #8
Posted by: GeraldWells
Thu Sep 1, 2011 10:53 AM
I have strong libertarian leanings, and all this stuff about signing contracts sounds great. However, what about the children, who have no say in these sorts of contracts, even though they might be affected most of all? Children should be protected from contracts that can harm them, such as contracts specifying any sort of "marriage" other than that between one man and one women.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Garedawg
Thu Sep 1, 2011 12:10 PM
Just because bestiality marriages might be RARE, that doesn't mean it is not a problem in a society to acknowledge every numb-nuts, crazy-pants "relationship" out there as "marriage".
For that matter, gay marriages are pretty rare. In states where it is legal, just try to google and see how many actually are filed for every year -- it's a handful. In The Netherlands where gay marriage has been legal for over 14 years, fewer than 10% of all gays and lesbians have gotten married (while 90% of straight Dutch people have married). I don't think "rare" is a good standard for whether something is acknowledged or not, unless you want to use that standard against "rare" gay marriages too.
Consent is also problematical -- lots of marriages in lots of cultures ARE NOT CONSENSUAL....I know Asian and Middle Eastern, Amish and Orthodox Jewish people who have ARRANGED marriages. These are not illegal. By that standard, I don't think you can ban bestial marriages.
However, I think the far greater threat is polygamy: there are hard core groups of polygamists who are chomping at the bit to force society to acknowledge their relationships and give them big tax benefits (they'd have LOTS of deductions with 5 wives and 14 kids!).
In the long run, all these "permutations" that Mr. Stossel thinks are so cute would create a situation of chaos -- when marriage can be "anything", then it is frankly NOTHING -- just a palsy-walsy, "best friends with benefits" temporary hook up. And that's bad for children, and bad for women, and bad for society.
Confession: I'm not a particularly religious person and I am not a Christian, nor a conservative -- just an average middle of the road, Midwestern Democrat. But I can see that demeaning marriage by saying ANY relationship is a marriage, or to quote Judge Vaughn Walker, "a woman is no different than a man, and offers no unique or special contribution to either a marriage or to childrearing", is an affront to commonsense and common decency. That is BEYOND religion -- it's about intrinsic human morality that transcends all specific religions and political orientations.
If special interest politicians, eager for money and support and liberal "creds" from powerful gay lobbyists, really believe there is massive societal support for gay marriage -- PROVE IT. Let the people vote. But they won't. Because they know what the answer will be.
Comment: #10
Posted by: GrrllyGrrl
Thu Sep 1, 2011 12:18 PM
I completely agree with this. I am gay. I am married to my partner or 16 years, 7 of them married. We are both buddhists. We were married by a justice of the peace. I had friends that were pressuring us to have a christian priest conduct the service. I resisted this because to us being married was about our commitment to each other... it had nothing to do with religion, even our own. However there are governmental benefits that we should have that other married couples are bestowed that we do no benefit from. And we should... those benefits are not religious benefits....
Comment: #11
Posted by: Dale High
Thu Sep 1, 2011 1:09 PM
(1) Marriage predates religion. We should not turn over to religion something they did not invent and do not own. (2) There are two concepts that often get run together. There is CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage. CIVIL marriage is essentially what several people here advocate under the rebrand of "CIVIL unions". Religious marriage is how you are connected within your faith group. You can get married by your church, but it's not legal if you don't file your paperwork with the state. That's why the officiant says "By the power vested in me by the state of ___." You can get married without a church as well. (3) There is no slippery slope to beastiality for 2 reasons (a) animals aren't interested in marrying people, once we see them protesting on capital hill then you can get worried, and (b) the basis for any legal contract is consent. You cannot force someone into a legal contract. Slippery slope means no stopping point, and there's two roadblocks right there. (4) there is no harm to children in same sex marriages. The ACTUAL data on the subject shows the kids are doing just fine compared to traditional family forms and in fact some of the data suggests lesbians are BETTER parents.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Jasondab
Thu Sep 1, 2011 1:21 PM
Re: Maggie Hanson
Christians and "believers" have no clue. Marriage is about a support system. And yes, two men or two women living together is technically a family. Look it up. That is, if you read anything other than a bible. In my family, my husband has been my support system since a greedy corporation decided a little extra profit was more important than the individual. And, if it weren't for my husband (I'm in DC, it's legal here), Christians, Republicans, Libertarians, and homophobes would be supporting me (the individual) because there are laws that require the government to lookout for my welfare when employers decide they need to make a little more money. With that in mind, so-called Christians and homophobes should be fighting mad for marriage equality because, in the end, you're supporting a gay guy. Wake up!
Comment: #13
Posted by: John Ruff
Thu Sep 1, 2011 3:51 PM
I just love these names thrown out --bigot, homophobe, etc.-- against anyone whose conscience on this issue comes from a conservative religious viewpoint. The more i read blogs, the more I see where the real "intolerance" is. People say things like, "If you read anything other than the Bible . . . " What nice, civil words to use against folks who you've never likely met before. It's the ad hominem attacks being used by libertarians and those on the left that I'm really getting sick of. I like Brian Brown simply because this country seems to keep getting more and more absurd as to what is normal by the minute.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Scotland
Thu Sep 1, 2011 9:07 PM
Re: Frank

I am a Protestant, marriage is not a sacament.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Gus
Fri Sep 2, 2011 3:18 AM
Stossel, you have come along way. Yes, I guess you could say that "marriage" is religiously defined as another commenter said. And that is how it was originally defined, between a man and a woman. And so it is defined between a man and a woman. The problem with defining it otherwise is using taxpayers money to benefit men trying to marry men and women trying to marry women. Another huge problem that my Mother explained to me is that if you start letting marriage include same sexes then what stops anyone from marrying anyone and trying to get entitlements from us. Do you understand? This is absurd. Let`s quit trying to be so intellectually smart. We are over analyzing this. Your guest is correct. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Trish Roy, Kosse, TX
Comment: #16
Posted by: Trish Roy
Fri Sep 2, 2011 2:49 PM
Re: Jasondab

What data? The only data out there has been funded by the LGBT lobby.
Comment: #17
Posted by: QuestionAssumptions
Fri Sep 2, 2011 7:32 PM
Re: Trish Roy Stossel, you've come a long way. I usually agree with many of your topics that you discuss. However, your way off base on the definition of marriage. The government or anyone else does not have the right to redefine the term marriage. Some of this thinking may have evolved by Clinton in his question of what is the definition of IS. How dumb is that. If the word marriage has been defined for 2000 years to mean between a man and women, it must remain. Get over it. If the government makes a ruling that two of the same sex may enter into a civil union, we need to accept it or vote them out of office and attempt to overturn it. The reason that many gay's want the term marriage is that they want their relationship to be recognized by a religion and some clergy are willing to set their own standard. This does not confirm it. Only God can do that.
Comment: #18
Posted by: wally
Sun Sep 4, 2011 11:04 AM
Mr. Stossel is known for questioning assumptions, myths, and "conventional wisdom." However, he has yet to challenge the assumptions on which gay marriage proponents make their case. Those in favor of gay marriage see it as a civil right, since they claim that homosexuality is inborn, hard-wired, and immutable--or as Lady Gaga asserts, they are "born that way." But is that really true? According to the American Psychological Association, there is no conclusive evidence and no consensus in the scientific community about the causes of a given sexual orientation (see It is simply a matter of subjective experience. Indeed, "sexual orientation" is a rather murky field of inquiry. Bisexuality is a prime example of how fluid sexual preference can be. Also, some have left gay lifestyles. (Interestingly, the LGBT lobby demands recognition of their experiences but discounts the experiences of those who have left homosexuality). Mr. Stossel also seems unopen to the possibility (asserted by Mr. Brown et al) that perhaps homosexuality is neither beneficial nor benign for the individual or society at large. Homosexual behavior and the gay sex scene are relatively more risky than heterosexual behavior. Should society encourage it by endorsing (even celebrating) it and saying that it is in all respects equivalent to heterosexual behavior? And, other than LGBT-backed research and "The Kids Are All Right" movie, are we really that sure that children being raised by same-gender parents is in the best interests of the children or society at large? The LGBT lobby wants to change norms that have been around for a long time. It would seem that the burden of proof is on them. But, if you ask for proof these days, you get howled down as a bigot. Instead, we are told to drink the Kool-Aid. Truth-seekers like Mr. Stossel should consider doing a thorough analysis of the Kool-Aid before it's too late.
Comment: #19
Posted by: QuestionAssumptions
Sun Sep 4, 2011 4:40 PM
Yeah, let us discuss gay marriage!!!

That is the most crucial problem that our country faces today!

Who F_ _K whom and is it legal? MUCH MORE INTERESTING QUESTION!

People PLEASE!!!!
For everybody who gets all worked-up about “gay marriage problem”, please open your eyes and see that those politicians are playing you like a broken record!!!!
While you spending your time explaining to everybody why should (or should not ) gay people be allowed to get married, those politicians can quietly do their dirty work : get their bribes(oops lobbyist money) give kick-backs ( tax breaks) Raise their income (Budget deficit)Tax you up to in-yen…
So, Please, next time when some politician start to talk about gay marriage…. Why don't you tell him: “Mind your own business” I AM THE PEOPLE, YOU ARE MY SERVANT!!! It is not YOUR place to tell ME whom I should marry… go and DO SOMETHING USEFUL !!!!”
Comment: #20
Posted by: OBAMALAND
Sun Sep 4, 2011 8:43 PM
re: Frank's "Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments" comment. If you truly believe marriage is none of the government's business, then stop accepting all the benefits that government provides to you just because you're married. Stop filing joint tax returns, don't accept the death benefits when your wife dies, pay your inheritance taxes when she dies, etc.

As for children, heterosexuals have been screwing up children for years. And you're concerned that lesbians or gays are going to do it better than you do?

John Stossel's argument about having multiple parents is already the reality, thanks to divorce. And if marriage was what kept families together, then divorce wouldn't be a reality, right?

The truth is, marriage is just a word. It's nothing more than that. The true glue is the staying power of the people involved in that marriage, how they conduct their lives, how well they can compromise and how much they truly care for the other person. How dare anyone tell anyone that their love isn't real, isn't true, isn't worth what someone else's love is?
Comment: #21
Posted by: JT1962
Mon Sep 5, 2011 3:06 AM
Re: Maggie Hanson
Sorry, but you're wrong off the bat -- even more so is Frank: marriage didn't become a sacrament of the Christian church until the early 13th century. Unfortunately for your "religious matter" idea, marriage had existed for just a little bit of time before that, and was, as often as not, a matter of "invite a priest if you want to -- and if you remember."
Marriage is ultimately a life-stage event, in which the community recognizes and confirms the new status of the married couple. In simplest terms, they're no longer available, and they've formed a household. In more recent terms, and in keeping with its long history, marriage is a contract -- these days between two people, in earlier days between two families. It was mostly about property and, in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, about paternity -- you didn't want anyone else's kid inheriting your stuff. You might think about the fact that until the early 19th century, only the wealthy bothered with a formal ceremony. Peasants just moved in together, announced "We're married," and the villagers said "Cool! Let's party!"
Governments enforce contracts. Churches can't. So can we please drop the "get government out of the marriage business?" nonsense? Government is our institutionalized version of the community -- we're no longer living in villages of maybe 200 people, so we have to have something that can cope with the needs of a "village" of 300 million, even if only barely. (And as far as "private contracts" are concerned, who's going to enforce them?)
And as for government defining what's "good and beautiful" -- what are same-sex relationships? Something you wipe off your shoes? I can't believe Stossel bought into that line of BS. He was much too easy on Brown, whose comments are no more than misrepresentations piled on outright fabrications with a dressing of alarmist (and completely unprovable) predictions.
Oh, and PS -- Catholic Charities were not "forced" out of the adoption business. They chose to close down because they didn't like the strings that come with taxpayer money. They did the same thing here in Illinois when we passed the civil unions law, and you know what happened? Non-sectarian agencies stepped right in and took over care of the children -- and the $30 million a year from the state that went with it. Catholic Charities is perfectly free to continue to offer adoption services -- with their own money.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Hunter
Mon Sep 5, 2011 1:23 PM
Re: charliegirl
Marrige is between consenting adults, the day Johnny's dog tells me that he wants marry Johnny I'll entertain the notion. Until then don't try the its a "slippery slope" argument with me. What if a line was drawn in the sand 50 years ago and we never allowed different races to marry each other? Here's the solution: No one should need the state to give its blessing for people to wed. Everyone wins and loses. Churches that don't want gay marriage are free to practice however they want without fear of litigation for not allowing gay couples to marry in their church and gay couples can 'marry' each other with or without a church or state's permission. And once again we see why libertarianism makes to much sense to be implimented in real life.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Dallas
Tue Sep 6, 2011 2:23 PM
Let's not forget that humans are moral beings, not dumb animals, created in the image of God. Homosexuality is a moral issue even though the LGBT has done a very effective job with the constant propaganda in making it a political / civil rights issue. Homosexuality will always be immoral, just as heterosexual relations outside of marriage are immoral. God has outlined His will and blessed marriage between a man and a woman. His authority is higher than the State or any politician. Those are the rules and all humans will be accountable to Him regardless of their choice of philosophy. John Stossel is obviously very unlearned in the area of morality. A complete vaccum seems to exist in his mind for him to write that gay marriage is a 'so what?' issue.
Comment: #24
Posted by: sblue
Tue Sep 6, 2011 2:30 PM
There is nothing that is good or beautiful about engaging in demeaning sexual acts that do not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person.
Comment: #25
Posted by: N.D.
Wed Sep 7, 2011 4:40 AM
John, I find it absolutely amazing that you cannot comprehend what you are promoting. Something is truly missing in your reasoning abilities. Surely you have studied civilizations of the past & the choices their rulers made leading to their downfalls as great nations of the world. Humanism, immorality, debauchery [Synonyms: vice, depravity, libertinage, libertinism], & lack of high standards in their laws were key factors in their country's failure to strive to be the best which led to their defeat. I assume, as a Libertarian, you believe the philosophy of anything goes as long as it does not impact your freedoms. What Libertarians do not realize is that you and your loved ones eventually will be greatly impacted. God's holy law of marriage between one man and one woman was, among others things, for the precise reason to protect mankind from disease & hurting children. I assume you believe that government need not bother itself with the concept of doing everything it can to encourage the citizens to strive to the higher plane of holiness. Our laws are based on Biblical laws - for good reason! The Biblical standard is the optimal. Do you not realize that these same homosexuals demanding we legitimize homosexual marriage also are pushing the raping of children to be lawful? Respectfully submitted.
Comment: #26
Posted by: USA_cityonahill
Wed Sep 7, 2011 6:33 AM
"Do you not realize that these same homosexuals demanding we legitimize homosexual marriage also are pushing the raping of children to be lawful?" - That is 100% FALSE. Where do you get your information? Do you actually know any gay people? I find it completely crazy that some people equate raping children and animals with consensual sex between two adults. How? Seriously, where is the logic??? How are 2 women or 2 men choosing to be in a monogamous committed relationship the same as raping a goat or a 6 year old? There is no slippery slope. I find it incredibly creepy, all these folks equating consenting adult sex with bestiality, pedophila, incest etc. What is going on with your sex lives that you find them remotely similar?
Comment: #27
Posted by: mljb
Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:21 PM
I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination and I do not consider myself a Republican or Democrat. I tend to agree that much of this debate is caused by politicians attempting to cater to society's ADHD mentality. Many times politicians provoke a "hot button issue" in order to keep the general population from noticing what they are really doing. The only reason for "legal marriage" in today's society is Government benefits. (Tax breaks, social security/death benefits etc.) How about we kill two birds with one stone... We eliminate "legal marriage". This would help the Government get back some of that "oh so intelligently used bailout money (can you smell the sarcasm) by getting rid of the "marriage tax cuts" which would in essence help the deficit. It would eliminate the Government being able to dictate who can marry whom. A civil union would be unnecessary as well. In today's society, you can name anyone your beneficiary for life insurance, wills hospital visitation etc. whether you possess a marriage certificate or not. You can buy a house together whether you are gay straight, married or single or even if you want to move in with your dog, (I cannot believe that was brought up.) For those who believe marriage is a religious and sacred right, get "married" in a church in front of God and everybody. Legally though you would be no different from any couple walking around today. This way those who believe in the sanctity of marriage are happy because their union has been "blessed by God" and those who simply want to be together forever are able to do so no matter what your sexual preference is. As a society, we depend on the government entirely too much. Maybe we should begin to "cut the cord" and promote the dissolution of all legal marriage.
Comment: #28
Posted by: LDM
Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:13 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
John Stossel
Nov. `15
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 2 Dec 2015
Stephen MooreUpdated 1 Dec 2015
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 1 Dec 2015

11 Jul 2012 Budget Insanity

23 Jun 2010 Guns Save Lives

29 Feb 2012 Prohibition