Gary Bauer weighs in gay marriage, Barack Obama and California

Our colleague Dan Morain chatted up American Values'  Gary Bauer Tuesday about gay marriage and Barack Obama's letter stating his opposition to a California ballot initiative (John McCain supports it). Morain points out that two other states will have similar measures on their fall ballot -- Arizona and Florida. While polls show California pretty safe for Obama and Arizona similarly so for McCain, a gay-marriage fight in Florida could have scale-tipping consequences.

Bauer, founder of the conservative Campaign for Working Families political action committee, said he hasn't decided whether to donate to California's "incredibly important" measure. "If the pro-same-sex marriage forces cannot win in California and Florida, it means that the people of this country still are resistant to radical social change," Bauer said.

Bauer said he was "somewhat heartened when Barack Obama said … that it should be a state decision" but that given Obama's recent statements opposing the California measure, "the idea that he is agnostic about this question doesn’t hold up any more."

"It is a major difference between the two candidates," Bauer said. "Before it is all over, we’ll have a great debate on tax policy, on foreign policy and on this fundamental question of what is the status of marriage."

Bauer said that John McCain and Barack Obama "did not seem far apart a few months ago" on gay marriage. "Now they are quite at odds with each other. It is something that voters in other states are looking at. When you have a significant number of other states that have voted to preserve marriage, it is the sort of thing that could hurt Obama."

Most significant: Obama "has very much been making a play for evangelical voters, suggesting that there would be no reason that an evangelical should vote against him. It becomes harder to make that case."

-- Scott Martelle

Photo provided by American Values

Comments

[Dale]

"Preserve marriage"? What does he mean preserve? Preserve it as the often-dysfunctional, half the time temporary institution that it has become in the hands of those who've always had this right and generally take it for granted? Or does he mean preserve it as the religious institution mistakenly steamrolling over the separate, secular, civil institution? Either way, like rotting vegetables it is not something this great country of ours should "preserve" any longer. Happy independence week everybody!

[Chris Troy]

LOL. THIS GUY is talking down Gay Marriage? He looks more queer than John Boehner, and THAT'S not easy!

[Oregon4Obama]

he can make a case to evangelicals and gay rights movements.....

Its called the separation of church and state......

I am a follower of Jesus and I know that homosexuality is a sin, but I cant force people who dont believe to be denied other human rights......marriage has been happening in other countries even before the bible was present.....people in japan, china, russia, south america were getting married and they diddnt have Jesus' teachings......so why should people be denied marriage rights????

My sister is a Lesbian and I cant tell her that she is less of a human being or she deserves less freedoms and protection as I do because of her choice in sexuality......

Faith also means that you are secure enough in your faith to follow the ways of Jesus or your chosen diety, and not force it into laws or into peoples lives......

You may not agree, but people have a right to get married to whom they please

[kb]

just like you have a right to be gay--fine why do i have to be forced to accept gay marriages and slap GOD in his face...My marriage was in front God and Family ...weather you like it or not its a sin...i not anti gay my son is gay and if and i love him to death, if he wants to join with another man ... fine he won't slap god in the face, he said he would call it a union.....i've been married for 26 years and i don't its fair for the gay people to throw this in our faces what you do in you own home is fine, why do we have have gay parades? we don't sraight or bi parades. Why ....because you fell in love with a person of the same sex... that your business... i not a judge i'm a concerned mother , who has a gay son and by throwing this in people faces its only going to make being gay harder ......

[mkoch]

kb - because allowing gay marriage does not FORCE you to do anything at all. You don't have to marry gay. However, forbidding gay marriage RESTRICTS others from living their life the way they choose.

Allowing gay marriage, however, DOES restrict you from FORCING your religious values onto other people - which, incidentally, is illegal in the United States.

If you really believed in God, I'd suggest you might let him worry about being slapped in his face. I hear he's pretty good at defending himself.

We don't have or need "straight" pride or parades because straight people have all their rights nicely in place, all of society reflects positive heterosexual imagery, and most heteros have not been persecuted or jailed based on their sexual preference.

I'm straight, married, have sons and don't see how gay marriage threatens anything at all. Except bigotry.

[Craig Brant]

KB needs to turn the other cheek.

[mwf]

No one has yet come up with a valid argument as to why marriage "needs" to be protected. Sanctity and all.

I do, however, think people are tired of:

- America having the highest divorce rate in the world
- Children being murdered and abused at the hands of mommy's new boyfriend
- Children being schlepped from mommy's house to daddy's house

I also think homosexuals are TIRED of heterosexuality being shoved down our throats:

- women in scantily clad 'whorish' outfits to sell everything from soda to wrenches
- Republicans that vote for the 'sanctity of marriage' but are having homosexual affairs (Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Richard Curtis, and countless others known and pending)
- late night television ads for call in 'personal' services by again, 'whorish' women asking the public to 'treat themselves'
- heterosexual couples holding hands, kissing and groping each other in public places

And we are REALLY sick of the heterosexual hypocrisy that they have cornered the market on monogamous, stable, loving relationships. (again, I refer you to the divorce rate)

If you SERIOUSLY want to "protect marriage"

- Stop committing adultery
- Stop impregnating women BEFORE you marry them
- Stop using the church for your 'marriage' where you promise 'until death do you part'
- Stop divorcing

[kb]

Like i said i not turning anything and lets leave God out of it for a minute, men on men is perverted. But, that okay to throw in me and my childen faces NOT who you lay with that your business keep it to yourself... GOD will judge and i cant say what that judgement will be if any.... you said i threw my regi beliefs in you face.... your throwing you sex practices in mine NOT. Married with a GAY son that i love to death his grown and does not throw his sex practices in anyone face....NOT GOING for it just like you have right my children and i have rights....fight for yours ....i going to fight for mind....

[tinytim]

You guys are using sloppy definitions and equivocating badly as a result. There are two types of marriage right now, religious marriage and civil marriage (when I say religious, I mean private and decided by the people immediately effected, like a community or church) . Religious marriage is a private issue that is decided by a community. The government was no say in this area and it is in this arena that all people are allowed to exercise their rights to freedom and privacy. There is no law preventing gay couples, straight couples or polygamist couples from standing in front of a church and "marrying in the eyes of God and the community."

Civil marriage, ie marriage regulated and endorsed by the government, is an entirely different affair. By the very fact that it is legislated by the the government, it is legislated by the people. It is not a private matter, it is public, very public. It also has nothing to do with rights, it's a matter of privilege. Conventional wisdom in this country for the past two hundred years has been that heterosexual couples serve as the cornerstone of society and thus it is to the government and society's advantage to take measures to encourage and preserve these associations. And thus we have heterosexual marriage regulated and endorsed by the government. The simple fact is that no one deserves tax breaks and financial benefits just because they're sharing their bed with someone else. Society chooses to levy these benefits for certain groups because it is believed to have a positive impact on society.

The homosexual agenda has never bothered to argue how homosexual marriage benefits society. They have merely contended that their private relationships are their business, which they are, then turn around and demand privileges and endorsements from the public. It's a non sequitur fueled by sloppy definitions and equivocations. Until the homosexual agenda makes the necessary and basic argument that it is in society's interest to give them privileges for their relationships, there is no compelling reason to "legalize" gay marriage.

[kb]

to Criag----this is your sloution for the problems you listed above......GAY MARRIAGE, your joking i hope....everything you just listed are things people do regrardless what sex they are. Heterosexual people where i live LA, believe it or not are sick to death of hearing about gay and what they want, the whole world has to turn around to accommdate your sexually practices
some people don't like to talk about this openly because they dont what to seem like bigots..... i not a bigot, but call me what you will, i will fight for children's rights and mine.

[Jerry]

Bush suckered a lot of folks into voting for him (I'd say he won the elections but that's debatable!) by milking the gay marriage/abortion non-issues. In the words of Ronald Reagan, are you better off now than you were 8 years ago, given that this failure of a president had such strong sentiments regarding the above. If your neighbor is gay and in a stable relationship, do you think Jesus loves him or her less than you (especially if you beat your wife)? It's the economy, the war, the environment, dependence on middle eastern oil, educational system, etc. that matter here. The founding fathers were fearful of the influence of religion in government; why is that? THINK! WAKE UP!

[Melissa]

Tiny Tim,

I will tell you how it benefits society. Marriage is, in part, a protection for children. If children are being parented by two parents, but they are only legally tied to ONE parent because the parents are not allowed to be legally married and allowed to be the LEGAL parents of the children, then if something happens to the legal parent then they lose both parents. They have no legal parent. They cannot protect their relationship with the non-legal parent. That hurts society. There are only two answers to this issue...allow the parents to marry and thus become legal parents to the children, or stop allowing gays and lesbians to parent. That isn't going to happen (and should not) so really it is imperative to society to allow children to have legal ties to both their parents.

This is in addition to a million other rights that married people get that unmarried people don't get. But the issue with protecting kids is really the biggest societal issue in my opinion.

[mkoch]

kb, I can't make much sense out of your post. How is gays getting married throwing their "sex in your face" anymore than straight marriage is throwing their "sex in your face".

Your definition of perverted is your own. Myself, I think worshipping a dead carpenter is a bit perverted, particularly when you idolize his tortured body on a cross. But I'm open enough to allow you to find whatever you like as perverted.

tinytim, you do a good job of breaking things down, but lose it when you start assuming marriage needs to prove itself as beneficial to society. It certainly has a historic value, but marriage was always an economic force first. It was created to legitimize ownership and guarantee succession. It now exists as a human right.

That noted, the societal value of homosexual marriage is the same as for heterosexuals, short of reproduction. The values are social stability, increased fidelity, decreased disease, happier participants, economic stability and security.

You can certainly argue those points, but until it's tried on a large basis, we won't really know, will we?

[Dave Pullin]

What a wonderfully general purpose argument TinyTim makes.

It boils down to:

"Society" (specifically me and the people who agree with me) don't think you (people who disagree with us) are as good as us. You and/or what you are doing is inferior to us and/or what we are doing. Your actions don't support to our goals ("society"). But you are not being discriminated against; we are being privileged. Until you make the case that you are as good as us, you should continue to be 'not privileged'.

It's a really good argument. It works well against blacks, slaves, women, homosexuals, jews, immigrants, non-landed-gentry ... "them", whoever they are.

[Greg]

Please stop making foolish arguments about "you have to the right to marry anyone you wish". No you don't. You can not marry your close relatives, your pet pig, or your favorite guitar, or have more than one spouse for that matter. Thomas Jefferson envisioned and tried to develop rules to allow states to determine these matters. (Although Mr Jefferson long ago put us up for adoption) It boils down to this: If "your" state doesn't allow something you want you are free to move to another state or try to change your state. Just don't say everyone has the "right" to marry anyone they want. You just sound ignorant. Clearly if you knew your history you would know our founding father's did not believe homosexuals had the "right" to marry someone of the same sex. But they also had the insight to allow states to decide and COMPETE for citizens. Now if we could get the federal govt to give the power back to the states we would have some competition in govt. IMHO, the only way out of this mess that liberals (both Dems and Reps) have caused.

[Bot]

Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

[P.Diddy]

Tinytim- Way to nail this argument down in a few brief paragraphs. It couldn't be more logically stated.

Dave Pullin- Not too bright, are you big guy? I want to hear how in your "through-the-looking-glass" world society can even exist if it were populated by gays? Oh that's right, they can't pro-create! Doh!

[GHalley]

The comparison of homosexual marriage to society treating other minorities poorly is completely wrong. Blacks, jews, etc can have children. Homosexuals can't. Since society from the beginning of time was based around the protection of the family unit it is very logical to treat marriage as sacred.

Homosexual marriages are by definition a major change in our view of the purpose of society, and thus the purpose of life.

People who hold strongly to a conservative view of society should rightly object to homosexual marriage. It is a logical conclusion, not based upon religion, just on common sense and values. And it is not discriminatory in the same sense as how jews, or black, or females have been treated previously.

If the rights were not already available to domestic partners, than you could make an argument that society was being discriminatory to homosexuals, but I know the Californian rules and they are not discriminatory in any manner.

Secondly, what Obama is objecting to is a popular vote on the issue. It seems in a democracy, the people should ultimately decide the laws, not the judges. I could see him opposing such a ban if it was from the legislation or the judges, but he is not supporting a vote by the people on the issue. This is extremely non-democratic.

I think he made a major mistake. He no longer appears centrist, but has moved left. Why did he feel it necessary to make his opinion known in this matter?

Now, if this post gets through the moderator, I ask all of you who attacked KB or GB to answer these clearly, logical arguments. This is exactly what Obama and McCain has asked the people of America to do -- to present arguments stripped of the ideological emotion and present them logically in a manner everyone can accept. Using these rules, the only reason to accept Obama's decision is because you want to remake the core of society. Personally, I may object to certain things, but overall, in my personal life, I like society and don't want to remake it. Obama right now is the wrong type of change for me.

[Dr Pepper]

Excellent point Tiny Tim--I couldn't have said it better.

Dave Pullin, replace the word "gay" with "poligamist" and suddenly we have an entirely different argument. Every day we (as a society) make decisions on who gets privileges--it's a necessity of a world with finite resources. I'm not against gay marriage because I believe it benefits society; however, I am against picking and choosing what things we'll tolerate. If we're going to tolerate gay marriage, then shouldn't we tolerate poligamy and beastiality? Shouldn't a man be able to marry his 3 girlfriends or his sheep?

[Jack thought]

Barack Hussain is never consistant. We never know where he stands or what he believes in. To make him president - never.

[Joe Opinion]

Not to worry, if you don't like what OB Hussain said today, just wait for tomorrow and it will be different. This is called change, and he is embrassing it with everything he has.

Change today, and change again tomorrow.

A change a day keeps the questions away.

[Sam]

Gay marriage cost Gore and Kerry the presidency. Obama has chosen to be part of that illustrious group. Most states have voted to keep traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Obama just threw away the votes of millions of Americans–black and white. The brother does not know how emotional the issue is! But then, Democrats never learn.

The more I look at Obama, the more I see... McGovern!

[Dale]

1. Actually reading the May 15 California Supreme Court decision (just the first 15 pages because the full 172 is too much) will answer most of these questions. I challenge you, no DARE you to read it. It's all explained in perfect English and with eloquently simply logic. All the arguments, all the reasoning. The world changes, and you can either live in the yesterday of your own mind or keep with reality. The ruling is available on the Internet.

2. kb, the vile tone of your words is heartbreaking. If your son knew how you felt...well, if he had even one ounce of self respect he'd tell you to go to you know where. You should be ashamed of your mean-spirited self. Who I sleep with is no one's business, it's a tiny part of who I am in my community, so why do YOU fixate on it? Now that is perverted. How would you like it if everyone you knew reduced you to nothing more than your sex life? It's creepy. Is it just because it's different than you? Why do you even care? You have a right to be uncomfortable with things, that's natural for anybody toward anything new to them, but honey you're going to have to get used to this because gays are not going to the proverbial back of the bus just to make you more comfortable ANY MORE. I hope you one day know how it feels to have other fellow human beings speak about you the way you do about gays.

3. All of you "slippery slope" arguers are showing your limited capacity. This has nothing to do with brothers marrying cousins, cats marrying dogs, or grandmas marrying tables. What we are talking about is one thing only: two consenting adults in love who want to legalize their committed relationship, and who happen to be of the same gender. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you understand? Or do you need a chart? Geez, try to stay focused.

4. In the end, no matter what you naysayers argue it will eventually be lost. Gay marriage is here whether you personally approve or not. Prolong the fight if you must but in time you will be seen for exactly what you are. Boy, you'd think people have bigger fish to fry than stopping couples in love from getting a marriage license at City Hall just because THEY disagree. Unbelievable.

[Jessica]

My argument is, no one should be withheld from the right to marry. ALTHOUGH, I feel this marriage issue is getting out of hand. Marriage is too highly valued in American society, and is being used to hurt unmarried families, both of different-sex and same-sex relationships.

In Florida, people are trying to pass a ban on gay marriage and a ban on the legal recognition of marriage-like arrangements unmarried families are in, ie: domestic partnerships. Florida doesn't want to recognize the over 8 million unmarried individuals residing there. This is ridiculous. If you live in Florida, please, vote No for Amendment 2.

If you're talking about Gay Marriage on a federal level, it's just gotta happen. Allowing individuals in same-sex couples will not and has not denied any other couple from marrying.