Queen of the DayRachel Maddow to Conservative Pundits: You Can't Stop Making Gay People ExistParry Ernsberger

On Sunday, just a few days after the Supreme Court overturned DOMA (the law that barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states), Rachel Maddow appeared on Meet the Press to chat about the historic ruling. Maddow (alongside author and academic Michael Eric Dyson) was up against two staunch conservatives who strongly oppose gay marriage: The first, Ralph Reed, is the head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Jim DeMint is a former Republican Senator from South Carolina (who, on the same segment, said that women “want” to be forced to have ultrasounds before having an abortion).

DeMint threw the first stone by unfoundedly claiming that heterosexual marriage is “better for children.” Interesting statement, Sir. Especially considering the recent Atlantic article which argues that “gay marriage is good for the age-old institution because it’s reinvigorating the union, which has waned in popularity among heterosexual couples.” The author, Liza Mundy, also went on to say that,

“Same-sex spouses, who cannot divide their labour based on preexisting gender norms, must approach marriage differently than their heterosexual peers. From sex to fighting, from child-rearing to chores, they must hammer out every last detail of domestic life without falling back on assumptions about who will do what.”

Thus implying that children of gay couples actually grow up in a happier, healthier environment. So there. Anyways, Maddow shot back at DeMint, telling him that by denying homosexual couples the right to legally wed is actually “humiliating and demeaning” the children of those couples.

“Gay people exist,” Maddow continued. “There’s nothing we can do in public policy that makes more of us exist, or less of us exist. And you guys have been arguing for a generation that public policy ought to essentially demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist, but you don’t make any less of us exist. You just are arguing in favor of more discrimination, and more discrimination doesn’t make straight people’s lives any better.”

Translation? Sit down, Jim DeMint. The only thing that could have made Maddow’s  statement any more apt is if she ended it with a Z-snap.

Featured image via Shutterstock

comments

Please help us maintain positive conversations by refraining from posting spam, advertisements, and links to other websites or blogs. we reserve the right to remove your comment if it does not adhere to these guidelines. thanks! post a comment.

  1. On one hand I am proud to live my life in the period that will be historically known as the era where humankind started their first real step towards sexual equality. On the other hand, I wish I could exist in an era where other important things like revolution for social and economic equality would happen. We are such a young society and we are doing our best to fight against any kind of injustice; will we be alive or will it take centuries for people to treat each-other as equals. We’re yet so primitive.

  2. I was reading this like, “Z snap….?” And then proceeded to make a Z with my hand and finally got it hah. Great article! Also, I’d like to say that I am a straight, married, Christian who supports gay rights and equality…Not all of us are opposed.

  3. Let’s stop all the fighting. We ALL know that homosexuality is perversion and is sin and is wrong and is not what God intended when he created the marriage bonds. A MAN leaves his father and mother and then clings to his WIFE which is his WOMAN. In the language it is written in it is not vague, wife means woman or female.

    We all know it’s wrong. Why are we fighting over this? The five justices who pulled this prank are flat our wrong. They bent to social pressure from the media and from wealthy homosexuals. They did not carry justice. We ALL know the truth!!!!

    • Oh Brian, Marriage is simply a (civil) contract between two people for their care and feeding. This agreement often times provided a dowry (money, cattle/ other farm animal, land, something of value) for the poor chap to accept the farmers daughter as his bride. Often times, the marriage was arranged, not selected by the two people getting married. No church involved.

      If by chance, you were to have a gay child, wouldn’t you want them to have the same rights you currently have? To marry? To visit a sick spouse in the hospital? To receive survivors benefits from social security?

      Now, unless you yourself find those benefits uninteresting, then perchance, marriage in general is a bad idea.

      FWIW — I’m straight, married, kid-less, own a house, have a job, a car and think the current state of politics spends far too much time in peoples bedrooms.

    • Marriage has been around much longer than Christianity, and in fact early Christians opposed all forms of marriage (not liking that there was a close relationship between two people that the church wasn’t involved in). I suggest you read up on the subject (and maybe read something other than the bible).

      ‘Marriage’ has changed to suit society and culture for millennia, and will no doubt continue to do so – that’s the only truth I know. So yes, lets stop all the fighting … we’ll be long gone and marriage will still be evolving to suit whomever comes next.

    • I agree people shouldn’t be given special rights to push their twisted lifestyle choice onto society where children can see. (Those people are christians)

  4. How did this happen? Gay people didn’t exist in the 90′s!

    • there were most defiantly gay people in the 90s and before that. my mom was a teen in the 60s and most of her freiends were gay or lesbian.

    • They just were probably more afraid to come out than now but gay people were and will be part of society so, we must stop the fighting and respect each other because no matter what, it will impossible for everyone to always agree on everything.

  5. I love that quote from Maddow! I’m probably going to reference that at some point.