George Will on Gay Marriage: Opposition Literally Dying

by at . Comments

George Will of ABC News says the opposition to gay marriage in the United States is slowly but quite literally dying; it's primarily older residents, he told This Week.

As the Supreme Court prepares to take up two landmark cases on same-sex marriage, Will said yesterday that it's clear where public opinion is headed.

"There is something like an emerging consensus," the conservative writer said, noting voters in three states recently endorsed same-sex marriage initiatives.

"Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It's old people."

Democratic strategist and former Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville agreed the 2012 election marked a "profound" shift on the controversial issue.

On the table before the SCOTUS is a case challenging Proposition 8, the hot-button 2008 California ballot measure restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

That measure passed, thus banning gay marriage in California; the state's Supreme Court overturned the measure, however, declaring it unconstitutional.

The Court will also hear a challenge to a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Currently, gay marriage is legal in just nine states and in the District of Columbia - but polls suggest support is growing, with a majority or close to it in support.

A recent ABC News-Washington Post poll found 51 percent of Americans support gay marriage, while a recent Pew poll shows national support at 48 percent.

That's up from 35 percent in 2001.

"To me, the consensus has already emerged," said ABC News' Matthew Dowd.

"It's just a question of … is the Supreme Court going to catch up and follow that wind of the pack, or get ahead of it or put a block in the path of it?"

Same-sex marriage:


Wow Carol,what a long and senseless rant.WTF?Comparing gays to flunking students,children,and animals,really?Your pro-creation argument is also ridiculous.Are you not able to see the obvious?How many straight people can't have children or choose not to have any?Idiot

@ poisonapple

Sorry Carol.Carolyn,what will you do when you find out one of your kids is gay?Can you honestly say you don't want them to have the same rights as your straight child?


Oh Happy Day Oh Happy Day When same sex couples can get married. Please tell me WHY NOT THEY PAY TAXES BUT DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.

@ carol hoousendove

You asked and I shall explain: 1) Same-sex couples already can get married. They just can't have federal (or, in many cases, state) recognition of the marriage. 2) It is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone UNLESS they are being discriminated against for being in a protected class. In most states, sexual orientation is NOT a protected class. Before you tell me that discrimination is always wrong, let me ask you: should you pay the incompetent the same wage as the competent? Should the failing student receive the same grade as the A student? Unless you answer in the affirmative in both cases, you believe in discrimination on the basis of competency, so you admit that some discrimination is valid. 3) That leaves us with the question of why we recognize marriage at all for anyone. What is the vested state interest? Why should society encourage people to marry? The answer is that there is NO state interest in having ANYONE get married EXCEPT for procreation purposes. Procreation is NECESSARY for the continuance of the species and for society, so it is a proper role for government to encourage it. It is NOT a proper role for government to grant marriage licenses just because it makes you (or me) happy. Remember that our natural rights include the right to PURSUE happiness, not to receive it. Furthermore, we don't need a license to do most things that give us happiness, so why should the government license (and regulate) it, except for procreation purposes (hint: procreation is the reason for the restrictions on incestuous relationships [including first cousins] since incestuous relationships lead to birth defects). 4) If you deny the procreation argument, you MUST allow for first cousins to marry and you probably need to allow for brothers to marry brothers, sisters to marry sisters, and brothers to marry sisters. The father-child, mother-child relationships can probably still be nixed because of power dynamics. You can also continue to disallow the marriage of underage youth for the same reason. You can also continue to disallow the marriage of people to animals, trees, etc. due to lack of ability to contract (which also applies to children as well). So the fundamentalists cannot argue for a slippery slope (except in some cases of incest/polygamy). 5) If you allow homosexuals to marry, what is your argument against bigamy/polygamy so long as it is accepted by all concerned (i.e., not hidden). Since gay couples (by definition) cannot procreate, they should be denied marital benefits. 6) HOWEVER, since so many heterosexual couples have failed to procreate (and choose to get married while, at the same time, choosing not to have children), the right to state and federal recognized marriage should be stripped of heterosexual couples as well. 7) All couples, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, should be allowed to adopt. 8) Thus it follows that: only couples with children should be granted marital status in the eyes of the state, regardless if they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. We should also make it next to impossible to divorce once you have kids and until the kids reach the age of majority because it has been proven time and again that a lack of two parents (of either gender) leads to poorer outcomes in children.

@ carol hoousendove

you know its not normal, accept it. All people in the world will agree if same sex marriage happened long time ago si don't blame the goverment just because they pay taxes.

Tags: , ,