In CNN guest column, Dobson mischaracterized same-sex marriage debate, suggesting public support for constitutional ban
SUMMARY: In a commentary on CNN.com, Focus on the Family's James C. Dobson criticized senators who voted against a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage for "turn[ing] their backs" on the "most basic social institution" and mischaracterized the debate to baselessly suggest that there is strong public support for the amendment. But while some recent polls indicate that most Americans believe same sex marriage should be illegal, that was not the issue before Congress.
In a June 28 guest commentary posted on CNN.com, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson mischaracterized the same-sex marriage debate to baselessly suggest that there is strong public support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Criticizing senators who voted against the constitutional amendment for "turn[ing] their backs" on the "most basic social institution" of marriage, Dobson disputed the significance of "trumped-up polls" from the "liberal press" showing public opposition to the amendment by touting "the 19 states in which voters overwhelmingly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman." In fact, while some recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans believe same sex marriage should be illegal, that was not the issue before Congress. Rather, Congress specifically faced the question of whether to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. Contrary to Dobson's claim, on that issue, the most recent polls show that a majority of Americans agree with those senators who voted against the constitutional amendment.
Dobson also repeated his comparison of efforts to ban gay marriage with the abolitionist movement to end slavery. Dobson previously argued that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey."
A June 13-14 Fox News poll found that 48 percent of respondents thought the gay marriage issue should be decided at the state level, while 38 percent thought it should be decided at the federal level and 13 percent said they didn't know. Additionally, an ABC News poll released June 5 asked, "Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it against the law for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage?" Forty-two percent said the Constitution should be amended, while 51 percent said the issue should be left to the states. A May 8-11 Gallup poll found that 50 percent favored the amendment, 47 percent opposed, and 3 percent were unsure, but even that poll showed support for a constitutional amendment declining in recent months, down from 57 percent in a poll conducted March 18-20.
From Dobson's June 28 CNN.com guest column:
Rarely has there been a greater disconnect between members of the Senate and the American people who put them in power. With the help of the media, which laid down "cover" by claiming voters didn't care about marriage, 40 Democrats, one Independent and seven Republicans turned their backs on this most basic social institution.
Let's examine the claim that traditional marriage lacks support in the court of public opinion. As it always does when conservative issues are being debated, the liberal press produced a series of trumped-up polls indicating the issue was of no interest nationally. However, there was another "poll" that the media completely ignored. In fact, there were 19 of them. They represented the 19 states in which voters overwhelmingly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Not one state has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals. Support for the family has been affirmed in every instance.
[...]
So where does the [marriage] issue go from here? Time will tell. It took William Wilberforce more than 30 years to bring about an end to Britain's slave trade in the 1800s. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of a protracted victory.
If the battle to protect marriage takes even five more years, liberal judges and activists will have destroyed this 5,000-year-old institution, which was designed by the Creator, Himself. Even now, they are close to achieving that coveted objective.
On what troglodyte planet?
If God thinks like Dobson, then He is not God, and we need not worry.
get the next guest editorial on CNNs web site? Dobson should put down the old testament and read the US Constitution. Then either shut up and be humbled or move to another country where they like intollerance. It's unbelievable. If God is a bigot, I'll gladly go to hell.
Choose Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. If Heaven is populated by cretins like Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and Ralph Reed...yeeesh.
they actually make me feel ashamed to be human sometimes. Then I rmember that they aren't quite humans. They have abandoned reason for blind faith.
I belong to a secret society that goes back 5,000 years that hates marriage. We've been waiting a long time but we have the ability to achieve our goal finally! Dobson is just another in a long line of self righteous pigs who think they are intelligent enough to know what the "creator" thinks.
This 5000 year old institution, that Dobson's says was "designed by the Creator, Himself [sic]", has been quite tollerant of "group marriage," slavery, selling "little girls" to "daddies" who had raped them, killing a man to steal his wife, surrendering a wife or daugter to fend of sexual preditors. For much of this tradition, a husband owned his wives just as he owned his donkeys, to do with as he wished. Is this the Intelligent Design for marriage that Dobson seeks to defend?
Surely a few same-sex marriages is not going to cause this fine tradition to crumble any time soon.
the 'bible' is!
Dobson should pray to Jesus to help him overcome the hatred that is destroying his soul. With all his politicking, though, he probably doesn't have any time left for prayer.
Why does the gay community want the word "marriage" so badly, anyway?? It is obviously true, as James Dobson points out, that overwhelmingly the US public does not want same sex marriage as a law. It has been voted down in every state it has been brought to the voters, and not by small margins! IMHO the general public is more willing to give them "civil unions" to allow all the same financial "rights" they seek? Maybe their goal isn't financial but political and simply want to tear down another religious institution. It's pretty obvious how much they fear organized religion. When you see the way they yell and scream names at any religious leader who "dares" speak out against their "cause". You'd be very hardpressed to find any arguement against someone who is anti-same sex marriage where the person isn't called some kind of name. Dobson is called: troglodyte, Bozo, cretin, bigot and "sad little man" from 5 different posters (up to this point)in this one thread, I could imagine how many he is called outside this "box". I don't think I heard anyone called a name by Dobson. Hmmmm, who has the hatred? I, for one, can see who has the hatred and it isn't coming from Dobson!
to find any arguement against someone who is anti-same sex marriage where the person isn't called some kind of name. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since every argument I have heard against same sex marriage is identical to the arguments they made against miscegenation laws. The arguments are a search for codifying bias as law. It all seems simple to me. If there is no compelling reason to take a right available to the majority from a minority it shouldnt be done. I see no compelling reason why gays should NOT be allowed to marry that is not religious in nature and we do not DO our laws according to religious beliefs. If we did adultery and making graven images would be against the law in fact the first amendment would not be applicable at all. Your baseless assertion ( do you ever make any other kind) that gays have some anti religious agenda seems belied by the FACT the Episcopilians recently elected a gay minister as a leader in their church. What business is it of yours what people do if it does no harm to anyone else? If you didnt KNOW gays were getting married somewhere how would that effect you? YOU want to make YOUR OPINION, law and demand EVERYONE be bound by it. I just dont see why that should happen. As for the majority opposing it that seems to be true. In the 50's and probably 60's the same could have been said about miscegenation laws especially in the Southern States. Much of the Bill of rights was created to protect minorities from the vaguaries of the opinions of the majority. Miscegenation laws once declared unconstitutional were accepted by the majority and now I doubt there would be ANY states that would enact them as people got over this particular bias.
" I see no compelling reason why gays should NOT be allowed to marry that is not religious in nature and we do not DO our laws according to religious beliefs. "
Then why are we NOT allowed to murder? That is against a law of religious belief! Oh, you follow some religious laws but not all. YOU "pick and choose" which religious laws YOU wish to follow and then YOU tell the nation to follow them too!
" If we did adultery and making graven images would be against the law in fact the first amendment would not be applicable at all. "
Ahhh, so you think adultery is ok? More true liberalism, no wonder you don't like Dobson.
" What business is it of yours what people do if it does no harm to anyone else? "
What are you talking about..."no harm"?? Aids is the number one killer in the gay community! You are advocating the transmission of the number one killer in the entire world (within that social group) and claim it does no harm to anyone.
" YOU want to make YOUR OPINION, law and demand EVERYONE be bound by it. I just dont see why that should happen. "
YOUR OPINION is no more important than mine. YOU want EVERYONE to be bound by YOURS, but when a differing opinion is stated YOU can't allow it!! True liberalism at work.
You see, gay people want to have the same rights as married folk....to be able to visit loved ones in hospitals, to be able to pass on their possessions after death, to be able to provide for those they LOVE.
But then when one is a conservative, Love is a dirty word.
LL-look up the word bigot in the dictionary. It is to cling to a belief despite evidence to the contrary. If I call Dobson a bigot, and others call him something worse, it's because what he stands for is hateful, exclusionary, religious bigotry that divides the citizenry. The gay community probably just wants to be left alone like everyone else. Unfortunatley they are denied certain rights that others enjoy. Thanks in part to people like Dobson. I liken Dobson to a member of the Klan in the old South who fought to keep blacks out of the same schools their kids went to. The right to be a bigot stops when it infringes on the rights of others. What's more despicable is he uses God to promote this hate. If you think we hate him, so be it. I try not to hate anyone but am not perfect. I hate the haters.
is clear that this is a very cloudy issue. The majority of Americans are against "same-sex marriage" and bans have overwhelming passed in states where the issue was on the ballot, and yet it is not an issue that demands a constitutional amendment. However, because State passed laws are frequently struck down as they go through the court system, many probably believe a constitutional amendment is the only way to preserve the wishes of the majority of Americans. Civil Unions, "spousal" rights, etc are ok, but marriage through the ages has been a religious rite and should be left to states or individual churches to define.
IF the government didnt give special rights to married people. Tax breaks, inheritance rights and many other perks denied those NOT married.
filed separately, we could save some taxes (because of our individual incomes, etc), not much, but some. I can will my property to anyone I wish (inheritance). I have no problem with health care benefits, SSI benefits being handled for same sex couples that enter into a binding contract (Civil Union, if you wish). If a state (or church) votes to allow same sex unions, I have no problem with that, just as long as we are not forced to observe those if our state (or church) does not vote to recognize the same. I just get so tired of everyone screaming about "rights" and very few addressing the "responsibilities" that we have to insure those rights.
If something is done legally in one state another must consider it legally done and cannot ignore it so your state WOULD be required to recognize the legality. You can pretend there are no legal advantages to being married but there simply are. I cannot speak for the gay community on this one. If they were able to make their unions equal to a marriage in a legal sense without there being any religious rite involved that would be good enough for me. I still see no reason to deny to a minority what is available to the majority though. What is the compelling reason? Other than a religious beliefs argument what argument is there? Can you point to some concrete damage that will be done society? If not what is the proble with allowing gays to marry just like heteros?
So Oscar and James Dobson have a reason to be worried. Laws aren't for morality, they are toprotect liberties. The states who have implemented these bans have denied rights to individuals based on religious beliefs. This is wrong and is irrelevant if the majority wants it or not. This is why we live in a republic and not a real democracy. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Read the constitution, if nothing else, just read the preamble.
Marriage is NOT a political agenda, and you have to wonder about this tearing down of religion crap someone has spewed.
Exactly HOW is it going to tear down religion?
No wonder there are such divisions in America with such lame uninformed people running around making comments with NO basis in reality. Not one bit of reality in their thinking.
Remember too twit that at one time the American people OVERWHELMINGLY supported slavery. Make that right too?
It's just the mindset of the closedminded who are terrified of things they don't understand and want to kill. NO it is NOT overwhelmingly supported and as the years go by people like you will be shown for the closed minded bigots they are.
Gay marriage will be legal throughout the U.S. within our lifetimes. Get used to it.
Some people, I swear.
Oh and yes Dobson is a bigot, a troglodite, a racist, meanspirited and has absolutely no Christianity in him at all. IN fact I would be willing to bet he studies the taliban in order to see how to set up a Christian Taliban and destroy the constitution, the declaration of Independence and make the Buybull the law of the land.
People like you would love to see America destroyed just so you could put gays and liberals into concentration camps. Get rid of the 1st, and4th Amendment and for that matter any part of any law that doesn't give the priests the ultimate power to put people to death who don't conform to their standard of religion. Try moving to Iran and see how religion that controls government is.
You'll love it there.
James C. Dobson's commentary regarding gay marriage pointed out that in many states, the majority of people do not approve of gay marriage. He wrote:
"In Mississippi, traditional marriage was approved by a whopping 86 percent majority. Other state votes registered similar wide margins: Nevada (70 percent)...." [etc.]
I'm sure these statistics are accurate, as Mr. Dobson is a meticulous professional.
However accurate they may be, they are irrelevent to the issue. The right to establish a household with the partner of your choice should be a basic civil right, not a matter of popular vote. Defining homosexual marriage as BAD is a religious decision. My layman's understanding of our Constitution is that religious decisions are PERSONAL and none of the government's business.
The Great Moral Majority has a right to teach their children that spiritual marriage must fit their church's criteria. They do not have a right to pass legislation concerning the private bedroom conduct of two consenting adults who live down the street. If God ends up condemning gay people to hell, that decision is beyond the American legal system.
Satisfying though it may be to ram our religion down the throats of our neighbors, we need to remember that doing so sets a precedent in which our neighbors have a right to ram THEIR values down OUR throats.
Why is "mind your own business" such a difficult concept for Americans to grasp?