Quinn trivializes same-sex marriage effort, claiming: "[G]ays never wanted to get married until ... about five years ago"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Radio host Jim Quinn claimed that heterosexual opponents of Proposition 8 are "guilty straights" and suggested that "gays never wanted to get married until ... about five years ago." In fact, same-sex couples have brought court cases to overturn bans on same-sex marriage for decades.
On the November 19 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Rose Tennent said of the nationwide protests that have followed the passage of a California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage: "[T]here are so many people at the events that aren't gay." Co-host Jim Quinn replied, "Yeah, they're guilty straights," to which Tennent responded, "Guilty straights -- there we go." Earlier in the broadcast, Quinn stated: "[G]ays never wanted to get married until what -- about five years ago, we started to hear about this? ... [T]his is all -- this is a purely political act." In fact, same-sex couples have brought court cases to overturn bans on same-sex marriage for decades.
According to the website glbtq.com, the first court case challenging a ban on same-sex marriage was brought in Minnesota in 1970. Two men applied for a marriage license and sued the state when their application was rejected "on the sole ground," in the words of the Minnesota Supreme Court, "that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner." The court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage in its 1971 decision. Numerous court cases challenging same-sex marriage bans have been brought since then, including cases in the 1970s, the 1990s, and the current decade.
As Media Matters for America documented, Quinn previously said: "The only thing that -- the only thing that gay marriage produce -- well, gay marriage doesn't produce anything that the state has an interest in. Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us." Quinn later added: "So why don't they charge gay men, especially, higher premiums? Because they're engaged in an activity that will have an impact on that -- on the health care system."
Talkers Magazine lists Quinn & Rose on its "Heavy Hundred" list, which it describes as a list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." According to the show's website, it airs on 18 radio stations and XM Satellite Radio.
From the November 19 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:
TENNENT: You know, Elton John weighed in on all of this, and I thought it was interesting what he said. He said that -- he said, "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership." Hey, that's what we've been saying all along, isn't it?
QUINN: Good grief, the voice of reason.
TENNENT: He said, "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." Now, see, this is interesting, because if that is -- you know, and this has been my argument all along. If there are the same rights -- equal rights within a civil partnership -- why are they going after marriage?
QUINN: Because it -- that's one of the basic underpinnings, one of the basic legs of Western civilization --
TENNENT: Right.
QUINN: -- and Judeo-Christian civilization.
TENNENT: They break that down --
QUINN: Right. Break it down, deconstruct it --
TENNENT: And you've broken down society.
QUINN: Exactly. Exactly. This is a purely -- the whole marriage issue is -- gays never wanted to get married until what -- about five years ago, we started to hear about this?
TENNENT: Yeah.
QUINN: No, this is all -- this is a purely political act.
TENNENT: See, he, actually, John -- Elton John distanced himself from the protesters and all the protests that are taking place in all the cities across the United States. He said, "What is wrong with Proposition 8 is they went for marriage."
[...]
TENNENT: This fringe that is out there -- and they're mobilizing, although they're seemingly bigger than a fringe, but they are still a fringe.
QUINN: Oh, yeah.
TENNENT: They are a fringe.
QUINN: They're very visible; loud.
TENNENT: And they're embarrassing to even other homosexuals in this country. They are. Their behavior, I think it's --
QUINN: Well, they've managed --
TENNENT: -- reprehensible. I really do. What?
QUINN: They've managed to fill the streets, though, with angry people. They get people all worked up about this stuff.
TENNENT: Yeah. And some of the people that are joining them aren't even necessarily gay, either -- you know --
QUINN: Oh, no. They're --
TENNENT: -- there are so many people at the events that aren't gay.
QUINN: Yeah, they're guilty straights.
TENNENT: Guilty straights -- there we go. So, Jim, I got a question for you. All of this -- like, later today, I hope, or possibly Friday, I wanted to go over some of the appointments.
Off topic, but on the straight and narrow... Where's today's (Friday's) threads already?!?!
I just don't get the hysteria over gay people, never have, never will. And it blows my mind what with all the crap going on in this country right now; from fading companies and falling economies, to overseas wars and terrorism, and a whole host of other issues that directly impact our lives and our families.
And we worry about Steve marrying Bruce. Incredible.
Thomp.Steve and Bruce1ace are getting married?
If it's at Bruce's place I wonder if I could get an invitation.
It's to be the biggest event in 2009. You are all invited
I'll be there. With bells on. Really. I just bought a new outfit and it came with a hat with bells.
Hopefully the festivites will be in Philadelphia. Where are you two registered?
Well, that could be a bone of contention, WK. If we're not exchanging our vows here in the city of brotherly love, then the whole things off! I'll keep you posted . . .
"Where are you two registered?"
http://www.cafepress.com/mmfa
also registered at---
That's the last time Bruce1Ace trusts Tommy with a secret. Congrats, you two !
Is there anyone or anything these creeps aren't afraid of?
Devils, gays, Mexicans, commies, welfare recipients, feminists, public schools, minorities.
My God, most third grade school girls have a bigger pair than this pair.
mr. quinn? guilty qeen?
Peachy qeen.
“If there are the same rights -- equal rights within a civil partnership -- why are they going after marriage?”
Because, stupid, just about every federal, state and local law that pertains to marriage uses the word “marriage” or “married.”
You really want to extend equal rights with civil unions? Then you can change every single mention of the words “marriage” and “married” in every single law in every single state and every single county. Otherwise, you’re looking at an extension of equal rights that's full of loopholes and prone to a ****load of legal battles.
And what about private industries like insurance, medical, legal and financial? What good is a “civil partnership” if a private company can choose not to treat it like a marriage?
IMO, civil unions are nothing but a costly legal problem in the making.
There are people who listen to this and say, "By golly I'm well informed..now." Ready to do the right thing, the right way.
Bring your own crutch and get in step.
):(
So, guilt ridden people who fsvor the rights of gay people to marry each other are nothing but a bunch of outside agitators...a term I seem to recall was applied to white civil rights workers in the South during the sixties. Sure, gays never wanted the right to marry and black people never wanted civil rights until those damn outside agitators arrived... Sure...
Yes Irony101
My "husband" * of 6 years and I, never wanted to get married until people like YOU interfered. We were happy just taking care of our house, walking the dog together, working, having romantic nights together, making chicken soup for each other when we were sick, (working in equal rights groups), etc. Now we have to be a married couple :)
*I put that in quotes because even though I think of him as my husband, in my state we had a nasty bit of legislation (that was 80% lies) that stripped us of that chance and also removed my health benefits that my husband's employer gave me.
Exactly! I distinctly remember hearing my parents use that very argument during the Civil Rights movement. "The colored folk were content until Martin Luther King came along and got them all stirred up".
I guess bigotry sounds the same in all generations.
OT but, I am a bit confused about this whole gay marriage issue and will try to put my thoughts best as I can. If any of the terminology is wrong, I apologize.
What does the homosexual community want?
Marriage license issued by the government?
Same rights given to a heterosexual couple?
Social/Religious/Logical acceptance that marrying a person of same sex is as good as marrying one of other sex?
I personally am OK with first two of above but it appears a lot of people have problem with the first question. That could be because they think only heterosexuals can get married. Religiuos people may have objection because according to their interpretation of their religion, only a man and woman can get married. The same religious people have no problem with divorce and I do not know why.
If you are a religious person, how can it be ok if you can marry multiple times? I do not know of any religion that specifically condones it and says, yeah, you can marry as many times as you want as long as you marry a person of opposite sex, but you can never marry a person of same sex.
If government does not give any specific incentives/rights to 'married' people versus unmarried people, this issue would be a lot less contentious.
If I recall correctly the catholic church only recently changed their stance on divorce. I know in the past that if you were catholic and divorced, you could not get married again in the catholic church. So a lot of catholics would just switch religions to the handful of other "christian religions" that didn't have that rule in place.
Are you sure they've changed Snoop?
I don't follow the churches antics much anymore, but I know the most pious and judgmental person I've ever met, my sister-in-law, keeps up on these things.
She's concerned for the souls of my children and grandchildren and never misses an opportunity to tell us what we should be doing to get back into the pope's good graces. She's told us a number of times that we're going to hell unless we change.
She herself though has a history of running around with married men. She's been divorced, remarried, but not in the church, and goes to mass every Sunday. She cries her eyes out during communion because, according to her interpretation of the church's doctrine, she can't receive it, because she's been divorced.
It's quite a show which I see only when I go to family funerals and weddings. She tries to get sympathy afterwards from all of the nieces and nephews she judges and condemns the rest of the year.
And yes, she's a hardcore conservative. Against everything the church is against. She loves her grandchildren who were conceived by in vitro fertilization, even though this practice, according to her, condemns the mother to eternal damnation.
Even though I enjoy her little performance, it would break my heart knowing that she's putting herself through hell each week.
I can assure you they have not changed. What may have evolved over time is a liberalization of the annulment procedure. With a church-approved annulment, Catholics can be re-married. (See Henry VIII.) But it used to be fairly difficult to meet the criteria. The church MAY have loosened those requirements, but an annulment is still required, as the church does not recognize the civil divorce, and thus re-marrying would constitute polygamy otherwise.
Thanks for the confirmation Eddie. I do remember that some people got annulments a little easier ($$$$$$) than others. Sinatra comes to mind. But your average Joe the ex Alter Boy usually gets denied the annulment. Unless he's got the cash.
Thanks for the confirmation Eddie
Good one, King! I didn't catch that the first time.
Here's a question I never understood about annullment. When a marriage is annulled, the Church is saying, in effect, that the marriage never took place. What about the children from that (now nonexistent) marriage? Are they suddenly all illegitimate?
There shouldn't be a wall between Church and State, there should be an impenetrable force field.
Wow, W-King, that sounds like quite a performance. Something tells me you've videotaped it for your own enjoyment. ;0)
I gave up trying to keep all of those rules straight when I retired from the Catholic Church at about 7 or 8 years old. I didn't understand people feeling there was such a lack of rules from Monday to Saturday that they had to wake up early on Sunday to go get some more instructions.
gosh, and he knows this how, exactly?
"gays never wanted to get married until ... about five years ago."
methinks mr. quinn may have more in that closet then just a nice fur coat.
Another reminder...Quinney adored Jeff Christie(Rush Limbaugh) when he was a DJ inPgh. during the '70s. Quinney always lets his audience of about 150 weekly know that he and Rush were tight. How tight, we cannot be too sure. So Quinney, how tight were you with Jeff Christie?
And Radio Rosie, you are a disgrace to anyone who calls oneself a Christian. Rosie, you are a phony and God will punish you for sticking by Quinney just for the money. Shame on you. And you are a parent..the kid has no chance.
That's an extemely personal question, isn't it?
I am not positive but I heard the Quinney was on Jeff Christies' staff. I have no visual proof just unconfirmed oral sources say so.
I think they're so close that the only thing that could fit between them is a thin layer of the Eros Silicone Lube advertised in the Colonel's picture above.
So you are saying they had no friction between them.
I couldn't have said it better.
"gays never wanted to get married until ... about five years ago."
Really Jim... maybe you have been wanting to marry an unknown lover of the same persuasion for the last five years and this was a simple Freudian slip?
You and that useless bimbo you have as your sidekick need a new schtick... this ones already being used by all the other rightwing blowhards!
Come up with something new... ya wanna be...
How about,
Edward Albee (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?) and his "partner" of 35 years Jonathon Thomas??
Don Bachardy (now 74 yeards old, fell in love at 18) and Christopher Isherwood?
And those were only two that I could think of off the top of my head. Less famous would be my friends John and Bob, a couple since 1976. They filed for a marriage liscence in 1989 (didn't get it, but they used it to rally the community).
The religious blowhards think the world is only 6000 years old, so to them, 1989 is about five years ago.