'NEW RULE: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If there's one area I don't want the US government to add to its list of screw-ups, it's love. On the occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves: What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other? And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? ... Republicans are always saying we should privatize things, like schools, prison, Social Security—OK, so how about we privatize privacy? If the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what's their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.' — Comic and talkshow host Bill Maher in a Valentine's Day column in the Boston Globe.
'Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people, and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the budget to encourage and promote marriage—including seed money to pay an old Jewish woman to call up people at random and say 'So why aren't you married, Mr. Big Shot?' But when it comes to homosexuals, Republicans sing 'I Love You Just the Way You Oughta Be.' They oppose gay marriage because it threatens or mocks—or does something—to the 'sanctity of marriage,' as if anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered sacred. ... But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue—they really believe that homosexuality, because it says so in the Bible, is an 'abomination' and a 'dysfunction' that's 'curable': they believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay—because the theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests. But the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is an 'abomination,' and therefore their refusal to endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are true believers, but the Democrats are merely pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us. The Democrats' position doesn't come from the Bible, it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says that most Americans are against gay marriage.' — Maher.
'[THE] law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100 percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay, and that they don't need re-programming. They need a man with a slow hand.' — Maher.
'The wildfire will truly begin. It is becoming increasingly clear that Congress must act and must act soon. It's a fight we don't particularly relish but the courts have brought us to it. We will not let activist judges redefine marriage for our entire society.' — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, reported by Reuters.
'If the majority of Americans want to stop same-sex marriage from undermining the institution of marriage ... maybe those many Americans themselves ought to start showing more respect for heterosexual marriage. Too bad that so many don't. Judging by the last census figures, you might suspect that many Americans hold marriage in contempt. Since 1970, the marriage rate has dropped by about a third. The divorce rate has doubled and the number of cohabiting couples has zoomed. An astonishing third of all children are born out of wedlock. The way things are going, it's surprising that more people—straight or gay—aren't asking: Why even bother with marriage?' — Dennis Byrne in the Feb. 9 Chicago Tribune.
'I'll be told that gays should be allowed to marry to raise children because same-sex couples can raise children just as well as married men and women. I decline to accept that assertion. Yes, children are harmed in some traditional marriages because one or both spouses are abusive, poor, abandoned, unskilled or malevolent. That happens in same-sex marriages also. So let's stipulate to 'everything else being equal' before we compare. ... In the interest of civil debate on this emotional subject, we should agree: Homophobia is not a reason to oppose gay marriage, and a person defending traditional marriage no longer should be called a bigot.' — Byrne, not wanting to be called a bigot for opposing gay marriage.
'But some traditions deserve to be poked full of holes. One is the treatment of homosexuals as criminals and second-class citizens. Last year's Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws was an application of the principle that the state has no business supervising what consenting adults do between the sheets. Legalizing permanent commitments between same-sex couples would recognize the reality that countless gay couples live together in long-term relationships, with some of them raising children together. Given that, it's pointlessly destructive to deny homosexuals the chance to bind themselves in the same way that heterosexual couples do. If you don't like gay marriage, you definitely shouldn't enter into one.' — Columnist Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune Feb. 8.
'Decent tolerant Americans, the vast majority of the nation, are in a very romantic mood right now—the honeymoon phase, if you like—over the whole idea of gay marriage. Countless Cinderellas are lifting the shapely feet of other Cinderellas to find that lo the slipper fits. Countless Prince Charmings are preparing to mount their fine white steeds-and other Prince Charmings. And why should they not be so engaged? Let's face it: 'Normal' marriage—whatever that is—is on its last legs. Men get along far better with men, and women with women. There's very little point to opposite genders living together, except for the highly overrated business of heterosexual sex, which, for 99 percent of married straights, is a five- to-ten-minute affair anyway, leaving the rest of the week (or month or year) a waking nightmare of under-appreciation, burning resentment, mutual incomprehension, and terminal fights over whose turn it is to change Julian.' — Tony Bendra writing in Details Magazine Jan./Feb. 2004 issue.
'Could gay marriage actually be purer, sweeter, more fun, more loving and lasting than the discredited millennia-long effort to get oil and water to live together? Could gays be ushering in an era when people really do live happily ever after? When you consider how much less dysfunctional certain high-profile marriages might've been if they'd been gay, you can only say Go for it, guys and dolls, plight that troth. Had the House of Windsor embraced same-sex unions, not only would Brits be spared a long line of ever more cretinous offspring, but Far-From-Bonnie Prince Charlie wouldn't have been forced into marriage, free instead to cuddle up legally, if he wanted to, with his footman or mouth-man or whatever he was - or for that matter with Camilla, who, as all palace insiders suspect, is a man anyway. ... I'm not gay. I'm married with kids. I have nothing but admiration for those who are fighting to do whatever they please with those they love, including marry them—if for no other reason than that it enrages, torments, and shoves it up the abundant fundaments of the vile cracker Christians who are trying to force their spittle-flecked morality on the rest of us.' — Bendra in Details.
The Onion 'asked people' about same-sex marriage. Some responses: 'Same-sex unions will only serve to weaken the institution of marriage for the rest of us. My wife and I can barely stand each other as it is.' 'Great. Just when I finally get my mother to accept that I'm gay, she has a whole new thing to nag me about: getting married.' 'Some fag better not try marrying me. [You] fuck a guy one time and he pulls out a ring.'