Leading figures debate same-sex marriage over dinner
SEATTLE -- Two of the most outspoken voices in the same-sex marriage debate sat down for dinner last week and debated the issue on the record and on-camera.
At the invitation of sex advice columnist Dan Savage, Brian Brown - the president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) - flew to Seattle and debated marriage with Savage in Savage’s dining room in Seattle.
The debate stems from a challenge issued by Brown after Savage gave a profanity-laced speech attacking anti-gay scriptures to a group of high school journalists in Seattle earlier this year.
Brown said he would debate Savage anywhere and anytime.
Savage accepted the challenge and invited Brown to his home for dinner and a debate moderated by New York Times reporter Mark Oppenheimer.
The debate took place last week, and the video of the hour-long debate has been posted on YouTube since.
Savage began the debate by accusing NOM President Brian Brown of promoting “two big lies” about gays and gay marriage.
“There are gay people and there are Christians, and they’re at war,” said Savage, "when the fact is the overwhelming majority of LGBTQ Americans are Christians or, like me, were raised in Christian families or come from Christian faith backgrounds.”
The other alleged lie that Savage accused Brown and his group of promoting is that people are either supporters of traditional marriage or supporters of marriage equality, "when I think you can be a supporter of both,” said Savage.
Savage spoke for 15 minutes, then Brown began making his case.
“This is an argument about public policy and about ideas. This is not an argument about us trying to hurt individuals and, hopefully on your side, folks not trying to hurt us,” said Brown.
Brown said he believes the debate has already sunken to such levels. The NOM president pointed to a recent shooting at the Family Research Council offices in Washington, D.C. and blamed in part the labeling of the FRC as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for precipitating the shooting.
Said Brown: “There is something unique about men and women. There is something unique about marriage between men and women, that this union is important for society and important for children, and it’s in the best interest of children.
“(It’s) what our faith has taught, what other faiths have taught and what, frankly, people of no faith can come to through natural law.”
Savage disputed the claim that gays want to change the institution of marriage by arguing heterosexuals had already changed that institution many times over human history.
“Marriage, for most of recorded human history, was polygamist, for most of recorded human history was a property transaction where one man took possession of another man’s daughter, and during that property transaction she became a wife,” said Savage. “About 100 years ago, we began to redefine marriage to be an egalitarian institution where two people create each other as their next of kin through marriage, and it’s not a gendered institution anymore.”
NOM advocates for traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Savage, an openly gay man with a husband and an adopted son, has been outspoken in his support of marriage equality for same-sex couples.
“It’s not about babies. It’s about commitment and love. It’s about establishing that next of kin. It’s about finding that one person in the world to be there for you who you will be there for,” said Savage. “Marriage isn’t just defined by sex roles anymore.”
Said Brown: "By its very definition, marriage is the union between a man and a woman because only this type of union can bring into society new life and connect that new life with both a mother and a father.”
Oppenheimer ended the debate by asking both Savage and Brown to explain their ideal legal definition of marriage.
“Marriage is the legal union of two adults, and that’s what I think it should be,” said Savage. “I believe it should be limited to that.”
Brown said marriage should be “based on their complimentary (traits), based on the ability to have children -- the connection on parenthood -- that they could have children even if they don’t. The gold standard for public policy should be that marriage is the lifelong commitment of one man and one woman.”
Washington state voters will get a chance to weigh in on the issue in November when they decide on the fate of Referendum 74. A vote to approve R-74 would retain the state law which legalized same-sex marriage in Washington. A vote to reject R-74 would overturn that law. The law was passed by the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire, but opponents collected enough signatures to put it on hold and ask for voter input.
Man and woman were created different for one reason, procreation. The union of man and woman can create life. Therefore marriage between man and woman is logical. Birth and death are naturally occuring events. Since there is death, there needs to be birth to sustain a race. How can gay marriage do that? Gays have to rely on male, female relationships to sustain life whether they like it or not.
 @souptonuts No one is debating that male + female = offspring. That doesn't matter AT ALL when it comes to marriage though. That's not the purpose of civil marriages.
@PleaseBeSmart It matters to me. I have a right to my opinion just as you have a right to yours. I don't think gay marriage is right, I don't think homosexuality is right. I think if it is impossible to pursue any other life style gays should then keep it to themselves. I don't advertise my private life because it is no ones business. I don't care about peoples private lives as long as it is not thrown in my face by people who call me names because of my beliefs. You nor anyone else is going to change the way I believe, nor would I attempt to change your beliefs. I merely stated my opinion and that is my only wish. Do with it as you will.
 @souptonuts  @PleaseBeSmart You're entitled to your opinion... I don't have a problem with that. My problem arises when people think their opinion should dictate law. You don't have to think gay marriage is right, but if you support the Constitution, and you seem to, then you must not oppose gay marriage on legal grounds. And I don't tend to call people names, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with that one. And of course you don't advertise your private live... it's not under attack. You're free to marry who you wish. The only way to change most things is to raise awareness about them, and that's exactly what homosexuals are doing.Â
 @souptonuts OK, so marriage should only be for people who procreate. Not for couples without kids, not for adoptive parents of any orientation. Even Brian Brown doesn't try and pass your argument off. Too easily defeated. 1-5% of the population having same-sex marriages are not going to affect the rest of traditional married couples. That this the point that Brown can not even refute in this debate. People will have babies at the same rate regardless of same-sex marriage.
Â
You might be better off making the point that Government should stay out of marriage- that used to be just for religions to certify. Gov should only recognize legal domestic partnerships and those should be available to any consenting adults. Â
@ iloveeugene, I think you just hit the nail on the head with this situation. Both sides are asking the govenment for protection of their constitutional rights but they are going about it in the wrong matter. On one side, you have same sex couples demanding the same rights as every one else and they absolutely deserve it. We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness and unifying with the person of your choosing strikes me as very integral to those ends. On the flip side, you have people that feel they are defending the sanctity of an istitution based in their faith and therefore defending their faith. So who is right and who is wrong?
 Both are equally right and wrong, if marriage is in fact a social institution grounded in faith (and for my position's point I view that it is) then the rules for it's application should be based on that faith's laws and they have the right to protect that. However, ours is a secular government and there is an established seperation between church and state and it (the state) should have no power to grant or license a religious act. Not only should government not have the power to "grant" same-sex marriage they should not have the power to "grant" heterosexual couples the same thing.
 For legal purposes there is a need for a legally joining civil union that recognizes the rights that we (the parties involved) grant one another over one another regardless of sexuality, not the government. But it needs to be void of faith because as the government of a nation of many, many, equally protected faiths it has to remain secular to remain fair for everyone.
Â
Implicit in the right to grant is the right to deny thus making it not a right but a priveledge. If it is our right and we know it to be as such then the only person you should ever have to ask about your marriage should be your partner.
Â
just my two cents...