Fox News Anchor Talks Sense On Same-Sex Marriage

Andrew Sullivan tags this interesting comment from FNC host Megyn Kelly:

“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge—the Equal Protection clause says you can’t do that. Why is gay marriage any different?

And the guy she’s interviewing sounds like a total idiot.

FILED UNDER: Gender Issues, Quick Takes, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. She’ll be fired by the close of business today,.

  2. Joe Carter says:

    Kelly is right. Why are we discriminating against polygamists? They should have the same right as everyone else, shouldn’t they?

  3. Joe

    As far as I’m concerned consenting adults should have the right to voluntary enter (and leave) whatever kind of relationships they want

  4. Joe Carter says:

    @Doug Mataconis: Somehow I don’t think you really believe that (at least I hope not). I suspect you would agree that a person shouldn’t be able to voluntarily agree to allow themselves to be killed and eaten (as in the case of the German cannibal a few years ago).

    Sometimes society has legitimate reason for putting restrictions on consensual relationships. We should also be able to decide that we don’t have to give special privileges (such as those reserved for marriage) to everyone who thinks they have been discriminated against.

  5. David M says:

    @Joe Carter: Surely cannibalism isn’t the next step after polygamy.

  6. Joe Carter says:

    I certainly hope not. Then again, it was only a couple of years ago that we had people vehemently denying that polgamy was the next step after same-sex marriage.

    My point is that consent is a rather arbitrary standard to hand an ethical and/or legal system on. People believe in consent because it’s currently popular to believe that consent is necessary. But that hasn’t alway been the case in history and there is no reason that it will always be so.

  7. Modulo Myself says:

    @Joe Carter:

    I’m fairly certain it’s not arbitrary to base a system on consent. Unless you view your own consent to activities as of no importance.

    And in situations where consent is not taken into account–your taxes, for example–outrage is generally felt.

  8. Rick Almeida says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    I agree with the basis of your comment, but we in the US absolutely do consent to be taxed.

  9. legion says:

    Megyn Kelly said something I agree with? What is the world coming to?

  10. anjin-san says:

    We should also be able to decide that we don’t have to give special privileges (such as those reserved for marriage) to everyone who thinks they have been discriminated against.

    No one is talking about “special privileges” for gays/lesbians. Simply the same right I have, to be married to the person I want to be with (assuming they will have me).

    Equal protection under the law. A very American value…

  11. legion says:

    @Joe Carter: Marriage isn’t simply a one-way street; it has a lot of responsibilities as well. Yes, you have certain rights to benefits, etc that you wouldn’t have with someone you were just “shacking up” with… but divorcing someone is a lot more complicated than just moving out, and puts more pressure on the involved parties to have actually tried to come together, especially if children are a part of the equation.

    And I, like Doug, wouldn’t have any problem with poly marriages amongst consenting adults – but many of the legal cases based on religious groups’ use of polygamy often revolve around underage girls being forced into early marriages and generally getting abused & all but held hostage. _That’s_ why the term is so loaded in most conversations.

  12. Burt Likko says:

    My point is that consent is a rather arbitrary standard to hand an ethical and/or legal system on. People believe in consent because it’s currently popular to believe that consent is necessary. But that hasn’t alway been the case in history and there is no reason that it will always be so.

    1. Consent is a foundational standard for political legitimacy in liberal democracy. E.g., “No taxation without representation”: the American revolution was predicated on the notion that the consent of the governed, as expressed through representatives in the governing body, was the basis for the legitimate use of government power. Consent is a foundational standard for legal relationships: contracts are only enforceable if both parties consent to them (coersion is a defense to enforcement); consent is a defense to a wide variety of what would otherwise be violent crimes (compare assault to boxing); consent is already seen as a prerequisite to marriage, at least in our nation (one may not be forced to marry against their will).

    2. If future generations wish to base their ethical and/or legal systems on some foundation other than consent, they will (or at least ought to) have the ability to make that decision for themselves. They should no more be bound by our ethics than we ought to be bound by the ethics of previous generations. We should adopt the ethics of previous generations if they are good ethics to adopt and we should not presume to dictate for all future time what is either desirable or necessary. I for one will not presume to make choices about social policy for people who will have to address problems I cannot even imagine in times that will occur long after I am dead.

    3. If consent is too arbitrary a foundation for ethics and/or laws, then to what more objective and reasonable standard would you look upon which to base an ethical and/or legal system? I would certainly hope that the answer is not “a collection of myths subscribed to itinerant shepherds from the Bronze Age middle east” as this seems rather more arbitrary than the consent of our living contemporaries.

  13. Murray says:

    The funny part is that it seems Jeffress himself, or a very devoted fan, posted that on the tubes.

    He seems to think he looked great :o)

  14. Vast Variety says:

    @Joe Carter: While I don’t believe there is really a contitutional ground to stand on in teh case of banning either marriage equality or polygamy, there is a signifigant difference between the two. Polygamy is always either a Religious or Socialtial choice. Homosexuality isn’t a choice.

    As for Kelly, that is definatly an interesting remark, espeically comming from someone who has toted the anti-gay Fox News line for some time.

  15. C. Clavin says:

    She’s the one that got 3 months off for Family Leave…see her get skewered by Stewart.
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-blames-post-partum-compassion-for-megyn-kellys-maternity-leave-flip-flop/
    Even the insane have flashes of sanity I suppose.
    Interesting.
    It looks like the plastic surgeon screwed up her nose-job though.

  16. Vast Variety says:

    @Joe Carter: Also please note that marriage isn’t a special previlage. The US Supreme Court has on neumerious occasions stated that it is a fundamental human right.

  17. 11B40 says:

    Greetings:

    I just can’t understand why people object to our sexual dysfunctionals redefining society’s primary sexual relationship.

  18. James H says:

    @David M: Dogs and cats… LIVING TOGETHER!!!

  19. Dave A says:

    I just can’t understand why people object to our sexual dysfunctionals redefining society’s primary sexual relationship.

    I just can’t understand why conservatives talk about smaller government, more freedom, and getting government out of peoples lives while actively promoting less inclusive laws and considering citizens sexual choices a reasonable arena for the federal government to dabble in.

  20. Boyd says:

    I’m curious why you think Ref. Jeffress is “a total idiot,” Doug. I know it’s patently obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, but some of us would prefer you let us know what it is that causes you to be so insulting about him.

  21. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Burt Likko: Can we have an Amen?

    AMEN!

  22. Magnolialover says:

    I love this pastor, trying to act like gays aren’t discriminated against in this country today, and in this time. Heck, just last week, a church in Mississippi turned down an inter racial couple to marry in their church.

    Discrimination, still alive and well, and it is usually fronted by folks like Pastor Jeffress. You are a homophobic bigot. Because, I believe, the Bible also says, hate the sin, not the sinner, and if you’re such a godly man, let god figure it out. Chances are good, those gay folks? They’re going to Heaven if they’re good people. I doubt this pastor is.

  23. PogueMahone says:

    @Joe Carter:
    I’ve seen same sex marriage foes draw comparisons to many things- bestiality, polygamy, God’s wrath, etc… But cannibalism!?

    WINNER!!!

  24. jd says:

    @Joe Carter: “Why are we discriminating against polygamists? They should have the same right as everyone else, shouldn’t they?”

    Well, it’s in the Bible…

    Notice that this week’s memo instructs the talking heads to claim it’s all about the CEO’s freedom of speech. No, it’s about CFA directing mucho dollars toward groups actively working to keep the LGBT down and to support LGBT executions abroad.

  25. michael reynolds says:

    Yes. Two women get married and it is totally like killing a person and eating him. Brilliant!

    And they say conservatives are stupid.

  26. Maggie says:

    This same sex marriage thing is the most ridiculous argument and why it is soooo hard to solve is sooo silly when the legal and moral solution is simple .
    Why dont we go enforce the separation of church and state as the constitution
    requires?
    The government can get out of the “marriage debate”completely and leave it to churches to recognize marriage as defined in the bible or whatever set of religious dogma they represent.
    at the same time the churches can get out of the govenment business and quit trying to force their “moral” code on the entire country

    All the govt needs to do is guarantee that all citizens are given the license to enter into “legally” recognized domestic unions with the same rights for hetros and homos as guaranteed under the constituion Govenment does not need to argue the bible, all they are supposed to do is uphold the constitution.

    So unless this argument is about trying to make everybody dance to a certain type of music because we don’t like theirs, problem soved! thank you very much.

  27. superdestroyer says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    But should they have government benefits confered on everyone in those relationships. My guess is that homosexuals will press for polygamy since it will make scamming on government programs easier. The arts crowd would love the chance to get at family benefits for a large number of people using polygamy.

  28. EMRVentures says:
  29. Boyd says:

    @superdestroyer: Yes, since down through history, the overwhelming majority of polygamous relationships have been homosexual. Oh wait, that’s exactly backwards.

    Okay, I understand. You’re saying that because a consistent trait of homosexuals, practically absent from heterosexuals, is the desire to scam government programs. Oh wait, there’s absolutely no basis for that statement, either.

    Wait, now I understand. Arts people are notoriously polygamous. And homosexual. And government scammers. And…well, now that I look at it, none of what you said makes a bit of sense or has any factual backing whatsoever. So I’m guessing you made it up out of whole cloth, and I won’t presume to speculate why.

    But I’m still wondering why Doug thinks Rev. Jeffress is so obviously a “total idiot” that he can casually toss out the ad hominem without even a word of reasoning on why he thinks that’s the case.

  30. superdestroyer says:

    @Boyd:

    Homosexual males are very promiscuous, dominate the arts, and are very powerful in government circles. That means that homosexuals marriage has always been about getting access to government and employee benefits such as insurance, social security, inheritance.

    My guess is that the type of people who work in publishing, theater, art galleries would love to have a family system that makes a large number of them eligible for benefits while having as few as possible actually working in a job that reports income.

  31. Boyd says:

    @superdestroyer:

    My guess…

    This characterizes all your comments so far, since you have offered nothing but opinions without anything to substantiate them. They may well be true, but we’d never know that from you, because you appear to expect us to accept everything you say as the truth.

    But, as already indicated, that’s not the case. So you take up the banner of forsaking facts and running on pure emotion to rile up the faithful to support your position. Who does that sound like to you, SD?

  32. MM says:

    Shorter Joe Carter: I have no logical case, so enjoy a big old slippery slope fallacy.

    Talk about an “intel dump”.

  33. An Interested Party says:

    Sometimes society has legitimate reason for putting restrictions on consensual relationships.

    And the supposed “legitimate” reason for not legalizing SSM would be?

    I just can’t understand why people object to our sexual dysfunctionals redefining society’s primary sexual relationship.

    The truly sexually dysfunctional individuals are those homophobes who appear to be so obsessed with teh gays!!1!!! And while we are the subject of the dysfunctional, perhaps those people like the person who wrote the above statement should learn to get over their obsession with Islam and how its adherents are supposedly somehow trying to take over the world…

    My guess is that homosexuals will press for polygamy since it will make scamming on government programs easier.

    Superdestroyer talks about governments scams quite a bit, that is, when he takes time from being a raging racist…he seems quite obsessed about this topic…I wonder what scams he’s running…

  34. Kylopod says:

    >My point is that consent is a rather arbitrary standard to hand an ethical and/or legal system on.

    I strongly disagree. Consent is rooted in one of the foundational principles of any free society–the idea that people should have the right to pursue their own happiness in the way they please so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others. Consent is inextricably bound with this principle. It doesn’t only apply to sexual activity but to just about everything we do in life.

    One thing that has continually struck me through all the years observing the debate over gay rights–not just SSM–is how often opponents of gay rights resort to analogy to make their case, as you have done now. Analogies have their uses, but when gay rights opponents make them, it is nearly always a gambit to change the subject to avoid having to make arguments of their own against gay rights. Instead of bothering to explain why gays should be denied the right to marry, opponents bring up some form of sexual activity that our society still considers taboo (polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc.) and ask rhetorically why that shouldn’t be allowed as well. When opponents make these analogies, they aren’t shedding any light on the true boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable sexual activity, but rather throwing up their hands and falling back implicitly on the notion of “traditional values,” which usually ends up meaning little more than “whatever was considered acceptable behavior in the 1950s.” That, and not consent, is what’s “arbitrary.”

  35. grumpy realist says:

    @Maggie: This would work except that marriage is inextricably tied up in law at present.

    Unless you want our legal system to totally ignore the existence of marriage and families? That would be interesting, but I don’t think it would create the sort of society you want.

    As long as you have protected status for “families” and “marriage partners”, you’re going to have squabbling (legal and otherwise) over what falls into those categories. Given the Catholic Church (and other churches’ reactions), I really, really doubt they’re going to fall along with your separation theory. They will always be indignant that Gays Can Get Married. I’ve noticed that they’ve given up on fulminating against Divorced People and Divorced People Getting Married Again under the law, but I think that’s because they realize too many Americans are divorced to go along with that. Gays are just sufficiently sparse in the population to provide a nice group to fulminate against.

  36. bill says:

    if states want to make it a law that’s fine, the fed. gov’t needs to stay out of it. what works in some states doesn’t necessarily work in others, that’s what makes us great! it’s all about money anyway, always is.