David Brody

CBN News Chief Political Correspondent

Buy David's book
"The Teavangelicals"

Watch The Brody File TV Show Video

Read David's Bio

E-mail David Brody

Subscribe RSS

TwitterTwitter

Facebook Facebook

Add to Technorati Favorites

Subscribe to this Feed

View All CBN News Blogs

View All CBN Blogs

<< With Hoffman Race, GOP Party at Crossroads | Blog Home | Evangelical Vote in Virginia >>

For Gay Community, 0-31 and Counting?


This is a somber day for gay activists.

On Tuesday, the voters of Maine rejected same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

Get out your scorecard. That makes 31 states now where voters have said 'no way" to gay marriage in their state. Gay Activists are 0-31. I calculate that percentage as .000. Someone double check the math.

Look, the homosexual community will not give this fight up. if you think they will then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

But that 0-31 figure is a cold hard reality.

While the gay community will liken this battle to a civil rights push (aren't African-Americans insulted by that?) have they ever thought about the fact that maybe the majority of Americans simply want marriage to be between a man and a woman? Shudder at the thought of that!!! You know this idea that if you believe in a traditional view of marriage then you are a bigot or homophobic or not "hip and with it" is really utterly preposterous.

Print     Email to a Friend    posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:31 AM



Comments on this post

# RE: For Gay Community, 0-31 and Counting?

I'm sure there are plenty of high-fives going around at the offices of CBN, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and all the other groups that promoted Question 1 in Maine. So to them, congratulations, you helped issue Gay couples in that state a setback ... for now. I still take comfort in knowing that sooner or later Gay and Straight couples in the U.S. will be treated equally. And when that happens, I promise that it will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to "teach" about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage. And at last, Gay couples will finally be able take part in the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that our tax dollars have been helping to subsidize throughout the history of this country.
Left by PolishBear on Nov 04, 2009 10:13 AM

# RE: For Gay Community, 0-31 and Counting?

The good news is that it seems like the voters in the state of Washington have narrowly upheld that state's domestic partnership law, which provides all of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage, only under a different term. Perhaps you could provide some analysis of THAT, Mr. Brody.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions."

Could you support THAT?
Left by PolishBear on Nov 04, 2009 10:23 AM

# RE: For Gay Community, 0-31 and Counting?

One last observation about the vote on Question 1 in Maine: Even amongst those organizations opposed to marriage equality for Gay couples, there seems to be a great deal of backbiting. For instance, the organization Stand for Marriage stated the following in one ad:

"Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time."

WELL! Apparently Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, was having none of it. They responded to the ad with the following:

"The irony of the ad text above is that progressive concessions on “domestic partnership” and “civil unions” legislation will, in fact, dismantle traditional marriage."

Guess there's no pleasing everyone, huh?
Left by PolishBear on Nov 04, 2009 2:04 PM