Adam Freedman Debates Gay Marriage and the Constitution on Blaze TV


Recently, Ricochet’s own Adam Freedman, host of “The Naked Constitution” podcast, appeared on The Blaze TV to participate in a debate on gay marriage and the constitution. Here’s the footage from his appearance on Real News:

 <iframe src=”” width=”400″ height=”254″ frameborder=”0″>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

There are 14 comments.

  1. Member

    I note the discrete rhetorical shift from equal protection for all individuals to equal protection for all couples. 

    This is a dramatic and unjustified leap.

    Every self-identified gay person, qua person, enjoys, currently, the equal protection of the laws of our nation.

    What the Adam’s interlocutor here implicitly asserts is that gay sex couples deserve and demand to be recognized as the same as heterosexual couples. That assertion entails an assumption that there is no relevant difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples, which is risible.

    Heterosex is procreative, homosex is not. Heterosex joins the two halves of the human whole in a stable union, homosex doesn’t.

    Marriage between a man and woman (even if it can’t produce children) serves the common good, homosexual relations don’t.

    They are not the same. They are radically different. To call them the same in law would be a radical injustice.

    • #1
    • December 6, 2012 at 1:03 am
    • Like
  2. Member

    Ugh. Here we are playing defense again. There’s going to be a showdown between the 10th and “equal protection.” Guess which argument is going to win, despite the fact that removal of the gender standard is going to open “marriage” up to all kinds of arbitrary “coupling” or “grouping?” Expect more leveling success for the Left, especially when the Right can’t form a consensus. 

    • #2
    • December 6, 2012 at 1:08 am
    • Like
  3. Inactive

    A marriage license is not supposed to be about “societal recognition” which is what the biggest gay advocates want to turn it into to (as well as a vehicle to further use governmental force against those they see as bigots to not just tolerate but accept them).

    A marriage license and the privileges it confers are almost all centered around a family unit which will likely produce offspring and the legal structures necessary to ensure responsibility for spouse and children. These are not necessary and are indeed superfluous for gay couplings.

    • #3
    • December 6, 2012 at 1:11 am
    • Like
  4. Inactive

    So was it unconstitutional when the federal government told Utah it couldn’t become a state and keep polygamy?

    • #4
    • December 6, 2012 at 1:14 am
    • Like
  5. Inactive

    I’d be interested to see a comprehensive list of things that gay marriage advocates feel gay couples are being denied by not being able to get a marriage license.

    From a legal perspective – aside from tax status – is there anything on that list that cannot be had via normal contract law?

    The way gay marriage advocates discuss a marriage license you’d think they were talking about anti-sodomy laws. The gay lobby has stopped being defensive and carving out their own space to live freely and have moved onto being aggressors and preventing others from doing so.

    • #5
    • December 6, 2012 at 1:22 am
    • Like
  6. Member

    The entire American system is grounded on the natural law, viz, the idea that we have a Creator who designed humanity and endowed us with a dignity that involves unalienable rights. 

    The fundamental claim of same sex marriage advocacy is that there is no inherent design in human nature—no “given” that is beyond the reach of arbitrary will. It seeks to replace what is with what we want.

    It is radically inimical to our system.

    • #6
    • December 6, 2012 at 1:26 am
    • Like
  7. Member

    The point bears repeating, because it’s another one SSM advocates like to obscure:

    Like the rights and duties pertaining to citizenship, the rights and duties pertaining to marriage are not conferred by the government. They are natural rights and duties, given in the design of humanity as male and female, whose sexual union engenders children.

    The government’s role is to “secure” them, not to grant them. They are not the gift of government, they are the gift of God.

    The prime way government secures the rights of marriage, is by recognizing and privileging it in law.

    Marriage is a unique relation, with a unique power to serve the common good. No other sexual relationship compares to it. The only legitimate interest the government has in other sexual relations is the negative interest it has in them when they become a menace to the common good (as in the cases of polygamy, prostitution and incest, for example.)

    • #7
    • December 6, 2012 at 1:29 am
    • Like
  8. Member

    Another kind of sexual relationship that undermines the common good:

    the kind that leads to single parenthood, or triple parenthood.

    Any kind of relation that tends to the detriment of children is a kind that tends to the detriment of society as a whole. We have a vital public interest in upholding marriage as the permanent union of one man and one woman.

    We have a vital public interest in opposing any and all laws that interfere with marriage and/or seek to degrade it to the level of a mere contract between consenting adults.

    • #8
    • December 6, 2012 at 1:42 am
    • Like
  9. Inactive

    The point that isn’t illuminated here is that we aren’t talking about “gay marriage,” we are talking about same sex marriage a marriage between two men and two women. This is an important point as it prevents the law from creating the “two classes” that are initially discussed. In fact allowing “gay marriage” while preventing heterosexual same sex couples from getting legally married would create a two class of citizens in the way mentioned. The current system — marriage is between a man and a woman — does not.

    Currently, a homosexual man can marry a woman and a heterosexual man can marry a woman. The only argument a homosexual man can make is “but I have no possibility of loving a woman,” but is the purpose of a marriage “love” or is it something else?

    Same sex marriage laws — if only applied to gay couples — would discriminate against same sex couples who want to gain the contractual benefits of marriage but have no sexual desire for one another.

    Same sex marriage — by its nature — would redefine dramatically what the role of government in marriage is. Is it purely contract or something more?

    • #9
    • December 6, 2012 at 3:36 am
    • Like
  10. Inactive

    Freeman’s argument is weak.

    The more fundamental question that should be asked is ‘What causes homosexuality?’

    So far, despite many attempts to map the human genome not one scientist has found any evidence to support the idea of a ‘Gay Gene’. There is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. Nor is there conclusive evidence pointing to a biological factor either. There have been various studies on twins, brain size, arm size, etc. Not much has been found to explain the causes of homosexuality. It’s all inconclusive so far.

    So when Queer Rights folks claim that they were ‘born that way’ and equate themselves to the Civil Rights Movement that’s really dishonest. Race is a identifiable genetic and biological fact. Blacks, Asians, and Whites really are ‘born that way’ and look that way due to genetics. So far, the jury is out on homosexuality caused by genetic factors. It can’t be equated to race, yet.

    Furthermore, there’s really inconclusive evidence for environmental determinants of homosexuality. Not much evidence supports birth order, parents, family size, etc. It’s all inconclusive. So if it isn’t genes, biology, or the environment what causes homosexuality?

    • #10
    • December 6, 2012 at 4:30 am
    • Like
  11. Inactive


    All that is left for explanations of the causes of homosexuality is either a psychological condition-or illness as it used to be described as-or a belief system. If it is a psychological condition, then it needs to be addressed as such and part of that is homosexuals would be afforded the same protections as the mentally ill.

    However, if homosexuality is merely a choice or belief system as many in the Queer Rights movement claimed up until about 30 or so years ago then that’s an entirely different matter. It means that criticism of homosexuality isn’t racism. It means that criticism of homosexuality is like criticism of any other belief system or choice values that people criticize with vigor. Including but not limited to; Atheism, Communism, Capitalism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

    If I am wrong, show me the evidence.

    Perhaps before we re-engineer America to make it into a happy harmonious socialist society we ought to ask a more fundamental set of questions of what homosexuality is or isn’t. 

    • #11
    • December 6, 2012 at 4:32 am
    • Like
  12. Member
    Jim Ixtian: Freeman’s argument is weak.

    The more fundamental question that should be asked is ‘What causes homosexuality?’

    I like your last question better than this one: the more fundamental question “What is homosexuality?”

    Whatever causes it, it isn’t a type of person. It’s a type of attraction and/or a type of behavior. Every self-identified gay person is either a man or a woman and, as such, has all the rights and duties of heterosexual men and women, including, as Nathaniel said, the right to enter into the institution of marriage, with all its rights and duties, if they find an eligible person of the opposite sex to agree.

    • #12
    • December 6, 2012 at 5:19 am
    • Like
  13. Member

    Oh, never mind.

    • #13
    • December 6, 2012 at 12:13 pm
    • Like
  14. Inactive
    katievs I like your last question better than this one: the more fundamental question “What is homosexuality?”

    Whatever causes it, it isn’t a type of person. It’s a type of attraction and/or a type of behavior.

    All fine and good, but that’s not quite what the pro-SSM and Queer Rights folks are arguing. They’ve taken it one step back and are arguing that it is a behavior caused by genetics/biology/whatever instead of being a ‘lifestyle’ choice. They’re very different propositions that are being proposed for lateral reasons.

    When Queer Rights agitate for SSM, they’re not just agitating for marriage. For them the stakes are much more broader than just marriage. It’s about forcing the acceptance of homosexuality on greater society by any means possible. And that’s not some conspiracy I’ve cooked up either. It’s standard Cultural Marxism of which the Queer Rights folks are a part of. By all means read what they’ve written and you’ll see their goals. It’s not pretty and they’ve clearly thought a lot of this through. Start with Herbert Marcuse, then go from there.

    • #14
    • December 7, 2012 at 10:55 am
    • Like