By The Right Scoop


This is a fun exchange and an interesting one to boot. Heritage scholar Ryan Anderson makes the point that same-sex marriage isn’t illegal in any state, meaning if two people decide to have a wedding ceremony and can work out a place of employment that will give them benefits, they won’t be penalized for doing so by fine or imprisonment. He argues what is at issue at the Supreme Court is a re-definition of marriage for everyone to include same-sex couples which of course would give it the same legal rights and protections as traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

But Don Lemon says it is illegal and won’t let up on the argument that it is illegal even though Anderson tries to point out he’s using the wrong word, that it isn’t illegal at all. And it pretty much goes until nearly the end of the segment.

Watch:

(h/t: Mediaite)

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • OneThinDime

    Oh the bravey.  Note to the idiot, federal laws already protect homosexuals from being fired, evicted or any other discrimination. What is not protected are single people without children.

  • OneThinDime

    Hey Don Lemon, if two males or two females can be “married”, why can’t four males be married?  What about 2 males and one female?  What about one male and a goat?

    • stage9

      OneThinDime In Europe (the very Europe that has already legalized counterfeit marriage) they are arguing just that!http://community.scoop.co.nz/2013/03/dutch-mp-admits-polygamy-group-marriage-next/  »

      • OneThinDime

        stage9 OneThinDime Had read that a few days back, that’s what prompted my post.  It’s sick, totally sick.

    • PhillyCon

      OneThinDime Then we will be called “bigots” for opposing it.

      • OneThinDime

        PhillyCon OneThinDime We already are.  Didn’t you hear, the Starbuck’s CEO told a shareholder to sell his stock because he disapproves of Starbuck’s gay policy.

    • JohnBohler

      OneThinDime Why not brother and sister? After all… if they are adults and love each other, why can’t they get married?  “blugh”

      • OneThinDime

        Good one!  And cousins too!

  • DanaZZGarcia

    I find it curious that an idea that was only thought up a couple decades ago (gay marriage) is now touted as a basic human right.

  • LIBERTYUSA

    …GOD created man and woman for a reason.” (period)

    • 57thunderbird

      LIBERTYUSA Adam and Eve,not Adam and Steve!

      • stage9

        57thunderbird LIBERTYUSA Now, even THAT line is under attack.
        Hateful school play mocking Bible & religion with blatant homosexual themes attracting national attention
        http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13a/PVPA-play-031513/index.html
        “The play begins with a retelling of Genesis using a homosexual couple, Adam and Steve, instead of Adam and Eve, along with other homosexual characters who are are very sexually explicit in their speech and actions. As one review puts it, this re-telling of Genesis “gets so specific as to be a gay how-to sexbook.”

        • Alborn

          stage9 57thunderbird LIBERTYUSA This must have been a one act play since there would have been no offspring to populate the world and no more chapters of the Bible or mankind. Some people are so stupid. Not meaning you but the play writers. I know it is just for the shock factor.

        • stage9

          Alborn stage9 57thunderbird LIBERTYUSA It’s typical in Massachusetts. Once counterfeit marriage was legalized, every imaginable filth flooded in with the backing of the state.

        • 57thunderbird

          Alborn stage9 57thunderbird LIBERTYUSA Good point.

        • 57thunderbird

          stage9 57thunderbird LIBERTYUSA Sounds like a new e-mail campaign is in the works.Time for we the people start letting these anti-Christian bigots know how we feel about their indoctrination of America’s youth!FAU issued an apology for the Jesus stomping class.

      • StevenLynch

        57thunderbird
        God did make a few Steves.
        This little meme has gotta go.

        • stage9

          StevenLynch 57thunderbird Sorry friend. God didn’t. You and your environment did.

        • StevenLynch

          @stage9…
          Read names much?

        • stage9

          StevenLynch If you want to say something then say it. If you want to go a couple of rounds about the issue then let’s do so. But snipe commenting is pointless.

        • Laurel A

          StevenLynch 57thunderbird Sure God made some Steves…but Steve isn’t doing what God designed him to do.
          Aberrations if nature, nature made by God, happen every single day and every minute of every single day. God told us what to do about that. God didn’t design us to be perfect but he did design us with free will which gives us a choice in how we react to our imperfections.

        • K-Bob

          StevenLynch 57thunderbird I agree. That’s what the leftists and totalitarians do.  They cause language to be destroyed, and good names to be ruined.  People on the right often abet this process by letting the leftists frame the arguments.

  • dorsaimail

    they don’t want protection, they want your agreement …  not your acceptance of their lifestyle but you full agreement that what they are doing is normal …  and they want you prosecuted if you don’t agree …

    • stage9

      dorsaimail They don’t even want that….
      Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, agrees. She admits:
      “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.” (Quoted in Tim Leslie, “The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage,” Crisis, January 8, 2004. Available online at http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2004/leslie.htm )

      • stage9

        dorsaimail “Michelangelo Signorile admits that is his strategy as a homosexual activist. His goal isn’t to get government-backed same-sex marriage so he can adhere to marriage’s moral code like straights do. (He can already do that without the government getting involved. And remember, just about every other homosexual is like Signorile; 96 percent of them do not get married when given the chance.) His goal is to destroy marriage itself. He urges his fellow homosexual activists “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”
        Signorile goes on to write, “The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake . . . is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” (Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” Out, December 1994. Quoted in Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk, Insight, Issue No. 238.)

      • stage9

        dorsaimail 
        Updated link for the source above:
        http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2004/feb/040223a

    • cabensg

      dorsaimail Exactly!!!! 
      They already have the same protection any citizen in the US has but that wasn’t enough. They want people further punished by calling it a hate crime if a homosexual is killed. I guess everyone else who is murdered it was because they were so loved by the murderer. You were exactly correct saying it’s not about acceptance. They already had that. I don’t understand why people can’t see this is about force not fairness.

  • Booker

    Lemon is gay. So, I assume he decided to inject himself into the issue. You can never have a respectful conversation with these raging leftists.The interview started okay until the interrupting. This is why CNN is declining in ratings. There isn’t a single person on this network that will push this issue in a clear, unbiased format. From Costello to the early morning Obamabot ,Soledad, they’re all the same.

    • stage9

      Booker Never use “gay” and “inject” in the same paragraph.

      • 57thunderbird

        stage9 Booker LOL!!!

    • deTocqueville1

      Booker They believe if you yell loudly enough and keep repeating the same disinformation you are actually engaging in rational thought and argument

  • stage9

    What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts
    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html

    • Kelly60

      stage9 I’m actually sick now.

      • stage9

        Kelly60 stage9 Sorry. It’s a lot different than Will & Grace would have you believe isn’t it?

        • cabensg

          stage9 Kelly60 You didn’t have to understand much about what was happening with the homosexual agenda to find that show totally repulsive. Even without the homosexual agenda it was mean spirited and vulgarity disguised as humor.

    • cabensg

      stage9 Depravity has been the downfall of many a civilization.

  • PicklePlants

    Anchor advocate much?

  • deTocqueville1

    Lemon is another arrogant jerk.

  • freeperjim

    mdpop2012 Spoken like a true sodomite ignoring reality….

    • StevenLynch

      Oh?  This guy is a citizen of Sodom?  There haven’t been any of those in about 5000 years.

      • stage9

        StevenLynch sodomite: one who engages in sodomy. FreeDictionary.com

      • bucketheadbaptist

        stage9  
        The StevenLynch is correct.
        “Sodomite” was a made up word by the secretaries of King James.  The Hebrew text describe a Male Temple Prostitute.  The King James Secretaries assigned the word due to a faulty reading of Genesis 19.
        The word “Sodomy”… does not appear in the King James bible.
        Anywhere.

      • stage9

        bucketheadbaptist stage9 StevenLynch The word sodomy is coined from the CITY OF SODOM which a was a homosexual cesspool! It is no different than using the word “gay” to describe a homosexual.
        sodomy (n.) c.1300, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin peccatum Sodomiticum “anal sex,” literally “sin of Sodom,” from Latin Sodoma

      • bucketheadbaptist

        @stage9
        No-where in the Bible does it say that the city of Sodom was a Homosexual cesspool.
        The interpretation of Genesis 19 has been taught in error as Sodom being full of homosexuals mainly because the Christian church is in denial of the events of Genesis 6.
        You should read your bible more… and your dictionary less.

      • stage9

        bucketheadbaptist Genesis 19: 4-5 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”
        Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. God destroyed the city because its “sin was so grievous”.

      • bucketheadbaptist

        stage9 bucketheadbaptist 
        “all the people from every quarter”… It wasn’t just the men…
        And it wasn’t about just sex.
        Study more… judge less.

      • bucketheadbaptist

        stage9 bucketheadbaptist 
        “all the people from every quarter”… It wasn’t just the men…
        And it wasn’t about just sex.
        Study more… judge less.

      • stage9

        bucketheadbaptist stage9 “Judge with righteous judgement” — Jesus Christ
        Yes, Lord.

      • stage9

        bucketheadbaptist stage9 “Judge with righteous judgement” — Jesus Christ
        Yes, Lord.

      • Watchman74

        bucketheadbaptiststage9Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both
        old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. No mention of any women.

      • stage9

        Watchman74 bucketheadbaptist stage9
        Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 
        Rom 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 
        What is “natural”? Whatever “natural” is, it’s not a man lying with another man. That is being described as “unnatural”.
        1Kings 14:24  And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

      • 57thunderbird

        bucketheadbaptist stage9 Speaking of judging.Isn’t that what you just did to stage(?You don';t even know him and you proceed to, tell him to read his bible more.How do you know how much time he spends in the Word?Remove the plank from your own eye before picking the speck from your brother’s eye.

      • bucketheadbaptist

        Watchman74
        What part of “all the people” did you miss?

      • bucketheadbaptist

        stage9
        Ok… mistake #2… read Romans 1 closer.  
        The passage is NOT about Homosexuality… It is about those who reject God as Creator… and the judgement that is put on such a culture, is to be given over to that lifestyle.
        And I already told you that the word “Sodomite”… in the context that you are using it… is a made up word by the King James Secretaries.
        The Hebrew word is “qadesh”… and it means “male temple prostitute”.
        http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6945&t=KJV

      • bucketheadbaptist

        57thunderbird  
        I didn’t judge him.  I told him to go read the book… not the dictionary.
        You should also learn to use scripture in its proper context and usage.

      • stage9

        bucketheadbaptist stage9 LOL! But you’re admitting that the MEN wanted to have sexual relations with the male angels!
        That is homosexuality! The fact that they were MILITANT about it, shows the utter depravity of their minds and the fact that GOD was going to destroy the city shows how VILE THEY WERE AND HOW THEY WERE BEYOND SAVING!
        How VILE do you have to be, and how OUT OF YOUR MIND ARE YOU that you would want to have sexual relations with an ANGEL OF GOD???

      • bucketheadbaptist

        stage9
        It’s not about sex.
        It’s about breeding.
        Go read the first 4 verses of Genesis 6 and get back to me.

      • stage9

        bucketheadbaptist stage9 LOL! BREEDING??? What level of depravity of mind leads you to think that men wanting to sodomize angels of GOD is about “breeding”???
        You must be out of your mind!

      • stage9

        bucketheadbaptist stage9The Bible SAYS: Genesis 19:4-5 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (or literally: “have sex with them”)

      • K-Bob

        bucketheadbaptist stage9 StevenLynch That isn’t relative to the dictionary definition at all. 
        Just because no one had bothered to dream up specific numbers above one billion in the early days of arithmetic did not invalidate the workings of math.

      • K-Bob

        bucketheadbaptist 57thunderbird Yes, you probably should.
        Antagonism is a losing form of argument in almost any realm of thought.  But moreso in the realm of discussing religion in general, and scripture in specific.
        You have no idea the level of study people bring to these discussions, so do not presume to tell them what they think or believe.

      • bucketheadbaptist

        K-Bob 57thunderbird 
        K-Bob…
        The New comment system is a little weird… and I’m not quite sure to whom you were specifically aiming the last two comments…. but I’ll assume both of us.
        I don’t believe that my comments have been antagonistic to anyone directly  (unlike those that have been directed towards me personally, see stage9’s “You must be out of your mind!”).  I’ve tried to only comment on the doctrinal position that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality… which is the Orthodox position of Christianity.
        But is not the ONLY position.
        I’m not the only person that has looked at it more closely and come to a different understanding.
        There are 3 witnesses in the New Testament that tie the events of Genesis 19… to the events of Genesis 6.  They are Peter, Jude and Jesus.
        The people of Sodom knew about the events of Genesis 6 far better than the average Christian of today does.
        There’s only one reason that God personally got involved in killings in the book of Genesis.  — Hybrid beings that were a direct threat to the Messianic line.  
        Sorry if that’s a Heretical view,  the problem is, its completely accurate.

      • K-Bob

        bucketheadbaptist K-Bob 57thunderbird That’s an interpretation. And entirely beside the point.

      • bucketheadbaptist

        K-Bob 57thunderbird 
        Why is it entirely beside the point?
        The point is that calling someone a Sodomite is meant as an insult meant to tie homosexuality to a town that God destroyed 5000 years ago.
        The person that said that believes God destroyed Sodom due to homosexuality.
        My “interpretation” as you call it… is that God destroyed Sodom because of its attempt to thwart the “seed of the woman”… by producing a human/angelic hybrid… something the God of the Bible destroyed many times throughout the Old Testament.  There aren’t any other Homosexual enclaves in recorded history that was destroyed by the act of an angry God or an environmental or natural disaster.
        Our struggle is not with flesh and blood, …even the homosexual ones.
        It’s against Powers and Principalities.  Always has been… always will be.

      • K-Bob

        bucketheadbaptist K-Bob 57thunderbird Just because you want to hare off on a special pleading regarding the text of the scripture doesn’t mean the modern definition of “sodomite” is somehow invalid.  That’s not how language works.  If it was, then the word “gay” would still only mean “pleasantly happy.”

      • bucketheadbaptist

        K-Bob  
        The sky is green.
        Green is the color of the sky.
        Saying something enough times doesn’t make it factual.
        Since the usage of the word here was meant to be a slur to incite and cause harm…  I don’t expect you’d allow someone to call a black person the “n” word would you?

      • K-Bob

        bucketheadbaptist K-Bob Sure. We all have to buy your labels, but not the ones we already know.
        Idiosyncratic language is not a winning formula for debate. And turning the debate by cooking up a red herring about labels is simply not a productive use of anyone’s time.

  • StevenValdez

    Not everything that is illegal is criminal, like Illegal Immigration. Crossing into the United States without permission or overstaying a visa, the act itself is not necessarily a crime. If you’re guilty of alien smuggling or document fraud and it is immigration-related then it’s a crime. If you’re being deported and you’re being detained for it, it’s for a civil infraction and not a criminal one. If the infraction were a criminal one, the punishment wouldn’t be deportation but imprisonment. If you’re deported and you reenter the country, then it’s a crime. And it’s a crime to enter the country in certain ways.  If you use someone else’s passport or steal someone’s identity, that’s a crime. Believe it or not, the mere act of being in the country illegally isn’t a crime. It’s a civil statute.

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ OnTheMark

    I think it’s, like, about, like, listening…?
    The whole legal/illegal debate in this video is not important because, while Anderson is technically correct in saying no one will go to jail for being married by a minister to someone of the same gender, the issue has never been about whether someone goes to jail. It has always been about whether or not a man can be legally recognized as another man’s wife.
    The bottom line is that any individual who is so deeply in denial about his biological heterosexuality that he decides to commit to a monogamous, life-long relationship with another person of the same gender, by doing so necessarily brings into serious question his mental health and his fitness to parent.

    • stage9

      OnTheMark “parent”. good point. glad you brought that up….isn’t THAT what marriage is all about? I’m just say’n.

    • StevenValdez

      OnTheMark “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.” – AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full

      • stage9

        StevenValdez OnTheMark I read this too, but like the APA the AAP has taken to political activism.
        http://narth.com/docs/differ.html
        “In February 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement declaring its support for homosexual parenting. The statement urges the states to extend the status of legal parent to same-sex partners, as well as marriage-equivalent status to homosexual and lesbian couples.”

        Because there was considerable opposition within AAP membership ranks to the pro-homosexual stance of the policy, Zanga says, the AAP commissioned a “technical report” to investigate its decision, authored by Boston pediatrician Ellen Perrin.
        In that report, Perrin herself questioned the reliability of the studies used by her organization to measure the effects of same-sex couples raising either biological or adopted children, saying “The small and non-representative sample [of children raised by same-sex couples] studied,” she said, “and the relatively young age of most of the children, suggest some reserve [concerning the policy statement].”
        Although most ACP members retain their membership in the larger pediatrics group, Dr. Zanga said he and his fellow ACP members “do not want the media, the government, or the public to think that all pediatricians agree with the AAP’s policies on controversial issues.”

        • StevenValdez

          stage9 That link just says they believe traditional marriage is what is best, nothing wrong with that, but doesn’t say it’s required. Being a good parent and providing a quality of life and love for the child is not determined by your sexual orientation.

        • stage9

          StevenValdez stage9 Further reading on the subject of whether homosexual parenting is equal to parenting by a mother and father:
          NEW STUDY ON HOMOSEXUAL PARENTS TOPS ALL PREVIOUS RESEARCH
          http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
          The Regnerus Study and Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationshipshttp://psychologyandchristianity.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-regnerus-study-and-children-of-parents-who-have-same-sex-relationships/
          New Study: Daughters of Lesbian Parents More Likely to Engage in Same-Sex Behavior and Identify as Bisexual
          http://narth.com/2011/12/new-study-daughters-of-lesbian-parents-more-likely-to-engage-in-same-sex-behavior-and-identify-as-bisexual/

        • cabensg

          StevenValdez stage9 I guess we’ll see if that’s true after a number of these children are grown. Just like we found out one parent homes with only the Mother wasn’t as optimal as feminist and liberals thought it would be we might also find out using children as guinea pigs to see if homosexauals can raise normal children might not turn out so well either. It’s never really about the children though they’re just innocent victims for liberals to experiment with.

        • stage9

          cabensg StevenValdez stage9May 1, 2006 – The Los Angeles Times (April 21) published “A Haven’s Sex and Sensibility” about children who are being exposed to sexually explicit gay materials in stores in the Castro District of San Francisco. Heterosexual parents as well as some homosexually-oriented parents are expressing concern over the impact that explicit depictions of gay sex will have on children.
          The article, by John M. Glionna, traces the path of Brody Paul and his brother Zander who live in Castro and are regularly exposed to gay sex images in store windows. Glionna notes: “A video store where they regularly rent Disney films stocks triple-X gay porn flicks in plain view. Across the street, next to their favorite pizza joint, the front window of a gay sex shop called Rock Hard displays a large Day-Glo purple sex toy, leather trusses and graphic manuals.”
          Mark Welsh, manager of Rock Hard has toned down his displays but is angered by attempts to cater to parents of children. “I have always pushed the envelope to show what I can because if there’s one place on the planet to flaunt sex, it’s here. There’s a place for these ads. Sex is why Castro was founded.”
          Angeline Acain, the editor of a gay newspaper catering to homosexual parents says they should adjust to the neighborhood, not the other way around. “That culture existed long before they arrived. If you see a window display you find offensive, don’t take your kid down that block.”
          According to Glionna, the Gay Lesbian and Transgender Community Center now forbids nudity in the hallways because children accompany their parents there. In addition, the bondage classes are now behind closed doors.
          Zander Paul says he has no problem living in the Castro District. He told Glionna: “For me, the word ‘gay’ has two meanings: One is you’re happy. The other is you like boys.”

      • Watchman74

        StevenValdezOnTheMarkI doubt they would ever publish anything negative about homosexuality, it’s become too PC When one see’s how they went after Chick-Fil-A who can blame them.

        • stage9

          Watchman74 StevenValdez OnTheMark There is an agenda. These are not separate issues. The agenda the left pushes with abortion and illegal immigration and government dependency and gun confiscation and all the rest, is part of a BROAD-based ideology. All of this fits under the same tent. And just like the war in Europe during WWII, there are many fronts and many battles within the same war.

        • stage9

          Watchman74 StevenValdez OnTheMark There is an agenda. These are not separate issues. The agenda the left pushes with abortion and illegal immigration and government dependency and gun confiscation and all the rest, is part of a BROAD-based ideology. All of this fits under the same tent. And just like the war in Europe during WWII, there are many fronts and many battles within the same war.

      • Watchman74

        StevenValdezOnTheMarkI doubt they would ever publish anything negative about homosexuality, it’s become too PC When one see’s how they went after Chick-Fil-A who can blame them.

      • K-Bob

        StevenValdez OnTheMark Key word being “growing.”  Why does it have to “grow,” one might ask?  Was this not studied before?  Were people stupid before, and unable to study something?  No they weren’t.  They did study it.  A lot.  And this “growing” pile of propaganda has a long way to go before it can bury the results from years and years of studies already done.
        We know http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=all  Except to the ignorant and unintelligent, this is obvious on the face of it, http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/30-years-of-research-that-tells-us-a-child-deserves-a-mother-and-a-father/.  It doesn’t mean we condemn or disallow any other sort of parenting, but the best possible outcomes should not be denied because of fealty to some blind pretense to “equality.”
        Homosexuals must be provided the ability to exist without condemnation before the law, and they must be allowed to attain legal remedies and status as life partners, when it comes to medical care, property, and retirement benefits.  But whatever homosexual unions are, the are not, and never will be, “marriages,” regardless of what irresponsible judges and politicians decide.
        We live in a nation where the Dredd Scott decision was the law of the land until a war was fought, and the Constitution was amended.  Judges are not the final arbiter of our Constitution, no matter what the Marbury v. Madison opinions claim.

        • StevenValdez

          K-Bob I don’t think the best possible outcome for kids is denied, but it’s not the only way.

  • Laurel A

    The anchor is flat out throwing out logical fallacies in an effort to redirect the argument away from the original point. This is propaganda activism.

    • deTocqueville1

      Laurel A Exactly.

  • volgeek

    Just because your “marriage” is not recognized that doesn’t make it illegal.

    CNN – putting idiots to work since 1980.

  • JohnBohler

    Interesting argument that i did think about, but never used because i wasn’t sure it’ll work.  But seeing this makes me realize that it is a legitimate argument and i’ll be using it in the future.
    Thanks Ryan! lol

  • 57thunderbird

    mdpop2012 Troll.

  • DebbyX

    Holy cow, the whole illegal argument sure sounds flat out wrong after listening to this.  The definition IS what they are trying to change so that the rest of us have to accept the false premise of their “union”.

  • JohnSchaffran

    This is the argument.  The marriage wants to be redefined to include gays.  Even Hillary believed in 2004 that marriage for gays should be a union.

  • G_unit

    wow, what an awesome interview showing the idiocy of the  news anchor……..excellent!

  • Elanadowns

    As a society if we no longer believe that a child is BEST reared by its biological mother and father; buckle up my friends.

  • marketcomp

    Ignorance just surrounds all of us. The host should not be a host if he is not going to listen to the definition of marriage that has been defined for us historically and biologically. While he is saying that heterosexual marriage is not always the best situation for a child. Well I would say that there is absolutely no evidence that a same-sex relationship is ever the best situation for a child. These people try their best to suppress and eliminate any evidnece pointing to the fact that same-sex relationships are by their very nature paranoid because most of the homosexual relationships are unstable and there is plenty of proof for that. So why would raising a child in a same-sex relationship be stable when the entire structure is unstable? This appears to be global, just like the austerity movement. Unfortunately we will probably find out the hard way becasue it appears that Justice Robert’s cousin is gay and wheather he recuses himself or not I beleive marriage will be redefined for the 41 States that do not recognize gay-marriage. So then the question is what’s next, because the LGBT people are never happy and until the break down traditional marriage they will always come after something else that’s traditional.

  • retiredconservative

    wow–I’m amazed at the clear inability of the liberal mind to process any information rationally.

    • marketcomp

      retiredconservative Just illogical and typical on everything that they believe.

  • PVG

    Much ado about less than than 4% of the population. Too bad 1/2 as much attention is missing from the 15% who can’t find a job!!!

  • PertyMouthParks

    This is why you must educate your own children. You leave it up to the media, your kids will be drones.

  • DarkKnight2016

    This is personal to him. Don Lemon announced he was gay about 2 years ago.

  • chrisjhess1983

    Wow… so the Supreme Court makes laws– who doesn’t know what they are talking about Don?!  I can see how both of them consider themselves right, Don actually said it best “its semantics”  It is, to a degree.  While there isn’t LEGAL protection for some “rights” of homosexual couples, it remains LEGAL for them to be a couple– both were right, but Don gets the dummy award for saying SCOTUS makes something legal and for being just a jerk to his GUEST.

  • wbrock2

    Don Lemon is ignorant

  • Diogenes_wy

    Traditional marriage is made up of two parts, civil and
    religious.
    1)You
    must obtain a license from the state and it must be signed by both you
    and your spouse and an official designated by the state, and then must be filed
    with the state. This is a civil contract.
    2)The
    second part, religious, is the blessing of the church and the sanctification of
    your marriage by God.
    It is the second part
    that the gay community desires for they are already allowed the civil union, which is their right under law. Then the issue in “gay
    marriage laws” is to force the “church’ to recognize them through legislative
    and judicial means thus gaining the ‘blessing’ of God who has declared their
    life style sinful and an abomination.
    This assault on marriage through the courts and legislative
    processes has been made possible because the government granted legal spousal
    benefits to married couples that are not available to unmarried couples.
    Without these government induced benefits, there wouldn’t be a push for gay
    marriage, because the GBLT community without laws to cite as unfair would have
    to confront the church directly without the benefit of the courts.

    So, the whole controversy boils down to government
    interference in the social realm without regard for unintended consequences.

    The founding fathers never intended government to interfere
    in the personal affairs of the people and framed the constitution to exclude
    social meddling, assuming that Americans were and always would be a moral and
    virtuous people. But government, being a product of men, is imperfect, short-sighted and inept
    at best, so it has done everything it wasn’t supposed to do, all in the name of
    fairness, equality and safety.

    • jcrichichi

      Diogenes_wy In other words this whole thing can be solved with the Government incorporating Civil Unions in their Marriage Definition. 
      Gay Marriage is just the Left’s tool in outlawing Religion.

      • Diogenes_wy

        jcrichichi Diogenes_wy 
        No. Civil unions are a stand alone legal contract and should be held separate from marriage. Civil unions can incorporate all of the government legal perks of marriage without being called marriage. It is nation wide acceptance of the legal aspects of civil unions that should be addressed which the courts and government are legally empowered to do so. The redefinition of marriage is a social construct and the government is not constitutionally empowered to  adjudicate social issues.

        It’s not about outlawing religion but about corrupting it into irrelevance.

  • jcrichichi

    This whole debate is on the wrong focus.
    When it comes to this debate I’m pretty much Libertarian. I don’t care if two homosexuals want to get married. As a limited government conservative why would I want the federal government involved in this debate at all? 
    I always thought gays could get married but not in a church call me naive but I never saw this as a great debate nor it should be.
    If they want to get married let them. My only concern is Religious organizations and institutions being forced to violate their core beliefs/principals because of Government.
    If any law should be passing in these states or in the Congress it should be a Religious Freedom bill protecting churches, religiously owned businesses and other religious organizations from legal challenges should they decide to say “NO” To a homosexual couple.
    The 14th Amendment does not protect people’s sexual orientation, and no offense to any homosexuals reading this comment, but homosexuality isn’t a race. 
    I do not know if you can be born gay; scientifically they have yet to find a gene. As far as I am concerned being gay is a choice. If you want to be gay, then know the consequences of being gay includes not being able to get married in a church
    If I was an African American, I would be outraged by homosexuals claiming they deserve “Civil Rights.” Gays and Lesbians have no reason to complain when compared to what Black Americans had to go through. No right to complain.
    Now I have no respect for the Gay Marriage Political Movement because I know it’s the Left’s tool to basically outlaw religion. That’s the only reason why Gay Marriage became political. The Left sees it as the ultimate too to outlaw religion and unless Conservatives wake up to that we will fail.
    I fear however it’s too late.

  • poptoy1949

    Don Lemon is a Racist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Army_Pilot1967

    Lemon is such a rude putz, I didn’t even finish watching the video.  I just don’t like Don Lemon…and that has nothing to do with his sexual orientation at all!!!!!!!!!!!