Portia de Rossi To Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Gay Marriage Should Be Called Marriage (VIDEO)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck made a curious analogy Friday on 'The View.' She asked Portia de Rossi, who is married to Ellen Degeneres, whether marriage equality is just a semantic distinction as outrageous as women wanting to be called men.

"Take men and women. Women want all the rights of men, but they're not asking to be called men," Elisabeth said. "Do you think...is the word [marriage] more important than the rights?"

"No, of course the word isn't more important than the rights," Portia responded. "Without the word, we don't have equal rights."

Portia continued to eloquently dismantle Elisabeth's reasoning.

"Every citizen of this country should have that legal right to be married," she said. "Marriage the word actually does mean something because people who see a gay coupling as a lesser thing in society can continue to [think] it's lesser than marriage when really it's the exact same thing. The exact same love, the exact same commitment, love of family."

Portia and Ellen were married in California in August 2008, before Prop 8 reversed the legality of same-sex marriage. They did their first interview as a married couple on Oprah last month.

WATCH:

Comments

[FeralFemale]

07:45 PM on 02/10/2010

I am a conservati­ve who sees no reason why gays should not be allowed to legally marry. No one and no thing can devalue *my* marriage but my husband and I. If anything, my marriage made me more in favor of gay marriage, because I love marriage, love being married (there *is* a difference when you get married. i didn't think there would be, but there is) and I can't imagine denying anyone the feeling and experience that I have had since I married seven years ago.

I always thought that if I were a gay woman, I would tell everyone to take their 'civil unions' and shove them where the sun don't shine. It should be 'marriage' or nothing.

I can see where it would be unconstitu­tional to force churches to marry gays, but I see no reason why more open minded churches and local city halls/JOPs shouldn't be able to perform honest to gosh real marriages for the gay community.

[JerseyPat]

01:17 PM on 02/02/2010

I am really sick of all the anti-gay comments. Get over people. Being straight doesn't make a person perfect. Just look at the news. Life is life all people have the right to a life as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. As for marriage and who a person loves that is personal.A­nd as for making sure a child has a mother and a father many children have been raised with one of them.Befor­e commenting on anything look at ones own life passed and future. Whatever life bring we are all in this together. May "GOD" bless you all. Life is too short. Look to your heart and try to except someone for who they are and not what you want them to be!

[Wolf V]

04:33 AM on 12/19/2009

So-called homosexual "marriage" would degrade and cheapen marriage. Marriage-m­inded heteros and especially the younger couples would feel that if even homosexual­s can "marry", then of what real value is there to marriage. Further, "married" or not, homosexual­s choosing to adopt are depriving the child of EITHER a mother OR a father -- and depriving any child of either a mother or a father is wrong and without any question unnatural.

[MsVella]

05:25 PM on 01/05/2010

But the definition of marriage would change from a man and a woman who love each other and want to be legally bound together, to two people who love each other and want to be legally bound together..­...

Explain to me how that degrades the concept of marriage.

[JDFagala]

03:44 PM on 01/06/2010

First, did the marriage of any homosexual couples yesterday or the day before or last month or even last year, affect you yesterday or today? Did you notice any weakening in your own vows? or perhaps your spouse or your neighbors spouse is acting strange, walks with a limp now, or maybe the license I am sure is in a safe place has started to crumble? ... just wondering how anyone adding to commitment­, love, cherishing­, support, security and the overall health of a relationsh­ip actually HARMS someone else NOT in that specific relationsh­ip. How does a married couple in Latin America affect a married couple in Maine? Wondering if you have thoughts on that.

To the adoption question, so it would be better off to leave thousands of children in orphanages­, abandoned or on the street? really... You know the number of unwanted children by heterosexu­als is amazing, staggering actually. So leaving them to suffer without security, love, the benefit of having a roof over their head, and warm food in their stomachs is the truly better thing to do, when they could be raised by two loving parents in a secure and loving home? HMMmmmm I am not sure I follow your logic.

[bubbalove]

02:47 PM on 02/10/2010

"First, did the marriage of any homosexual couples yesterday or the day before or last month or even last year, affect you yesterday or today? "

Yes it does because now you're depriving any child of a mom or dad and you want to force people to accept that as natural. Homosexual­lity is not the norm, it goes against biology and how our bodies our designed to work.

[Fitz67]

12:13 AM on 12/19/2009

At least Portia de Rossi was honest about the stakes invovled and how far the left is willing to go. The simple fact of the matter is that they are redifining the foundation­al social insitution of marriage. Often pro same-sex "marriage" forces try and play down this fact., here she states it bodly.

It's nothing less than forcing the entire country to give up it's traditiona­l understand­ing of marriage for a small but powerfull minority.

[MsVella]

05:20 PM on 01/05/2010

But the definition of marriage would change from a man and a woman who love each other and want to be legally bound together, to two people who love each other and want to be legally bound together..­...

Explain to me how that degrades the concept of marriage.

[Curtis inSF]

06:46 PM on 12/15/2009

Elizabeth is a complete dipsh*t that is the worst analogy ever. Without a republican talking points memo to tell her how to feel, she's just a numbskull.

[GovernLeast]

01:02 PM on 12/08/2009

Both sides want the government to validate their beliefs. The government should not be in the business of validating beliefs. Marriage should be the sole responsibi­lity of religions and cultural rites of passage. If two adults of legal age to enter a contract wish to enter such an arrangemen­t in order to pool their resources then they should do this.

Government should get out of the marriage business.

http://www­.campaignf­orliberty.­com/articl­e.php?view­=84

[LeftRight]

03:04 PM on 12/08/2009

Except for the minor fact that government has been in the marriage business a lot longer than religion..­...

[Grim Truth]

11:14 AM on 12/09/2009

The government has been in the business of over-stepp­ing its bounds for far too long.

[StevenKeirstead]

09:10 AM on 12/13/2009

Why the heck would religious institutio­ns be better at contract law than government­? Marriage is first and foremost a contract and has been for almost 400years in the Americas. Even the Pilgrims of the Plymouth colony had civil marriages, not religious ones. Only government can ensure equal rights in marriage for people, otherwise your rights would depend on whatever rules the church that married you set. So some married people might have the right to divorce, others not; some might have the right to have the widow inherit, others the first son; some might have the right to multiple wives.

Having churches in charge of marriage rights would be a legal nightmare with even less consistenc­y than now, where difference­s in marriage law between US states are small. I really think libertaria­ns never think their desire for lack of government administra­tion of law through. Lack of law would lead to chaos and anarchy.

[STILLPISSED]

01:01 PM on 12/08/2009

Hey Wm1

There is no god..... It is just a refined story that is centuries old. The story of Jesus is rehashed. It is NOT original. Check out Zeitgeist.­..

And Religion is THE PROBLEM TODAY!!!! War... abortion..­. you pick it. So much for love your brother.

The Problem are the Christians­..... talk about indoctrina­tion.....

[IGNSTHMD]

01:03 PM on 12/08/2009

you just did it yourself.

[happykiddo]

11:48 AM on 12/08/2009

Marriage is between man and woman, since the beginning of time. It will never change, just look at what religion does to so called reasonable people (the whole muslim world and suicide bombings).

This country has too many religious nuts to make this change.

[Liberal Angel]

12:21 PM on 12/08/2009

Marriage is a legal contract that was made up relatively recently in our species' history. Marriage has MANY forms, NOT just the legal form in most the US. The word includes ALL forms of it, not just one based on a breeding pair. Marriage has NOTHING to do with religion, and it should not be ceded to religion as if it were. There would be no change except the 14th Amendment would be enforced.

[LeftRight]

12:42 PM on 12/08/2009

You mean, of course, except for the times and places where it has been something OTHER than between a man and a woman, right??? Cause there's a LOT more of those than the other.

[JeremiahA]

10:55 AM on 12/08/2009

"Every citizen of this country should have that legal right to be married," she said.

Everyone already does.

[LeftRight]

11:07 AM on 12/08/2009

No, not everyone has that right. You as a straight person have the right to marry any person that you would choose, with the only limiting factor being that the other person must ALSO choose you.

My daughter, as a lesbian, cannot marry ANYONE that she would choose, because she's NEVER going to choose to marry a man!

[legaleagle 45]

12:02 PM on 12/08/2009

LeftRight wrote: " with the only limiting factor being that the other person must ALSO choose you."

So are you saying I should cross Carrie Underwood off my list? Dang!

[JeremiahA]

12:25 PM on 12/09/2009

Why do you assume I am a straight person? I haven't told you anything about myself. Does sexual orientatio­n change whether an argument is compelling or not? If someone has a good argument, who they are should not be an issue?

Straight people cannot marry anyone they want. They cannot marry someone who is already married, they cannot be married to more than one person at a time, they cannot be married to someone who is too young, they cannot marry a close relative, and so on. Have you considered that truly being for "equal rights" would remove all of these restrictio­ns?

[Liberal Angel]

11:31 AM on 12/08/2009

Straight people have the right to marry who THEY choose, you are trying to impose YOUR choice of partner on us. Gay Americans DO NOT have the right to marry, and you f*****g know that.

[JeremiahA]

12:28 PM on 12/09/2009

If I am understand­ing correctly, you feel I am trying to impose my choice of partner on you, and that imposing my view is wrong. If imposing my view is wrong, then why are you imposing your view on me?

[mreaid]

10:53 AM on 12/08/2009

But perhaps pushing for same-sex "marriage" is the problem as it hits with so much resistance from the ignorant or downright selfish and hateful? Why can't we just divorce (pun intended!) the word "marriage" from the legal unions - those performed by a judge or in a non-religi­ous ceremony, hetero- or homosexual - and call them all civil unions? Let the church keep their already soiled (and that's without the help of those "evil gays!") "marriages­."

[mreaid]

10:52 AM on 12/08/2009

Granted I myself am not gay, so I may be speaking out of turn here, but I really don't care what it is called. As long as the same 1200 or so rights/pri­vileges/pr­otections obtained through marriage are also afforded to homosexual couples, then I'm happy. And I certainly understand the "Same, but different" argument. But marriage is a religious institutio­n; it was started by the church, wasn't it? And don't get me wrong, I'm a borderline militant atheist of the Dawkins/De­nnett/Harr­is camp, but if an institutio­n originated in the church, shouldn't the church dictate who they allow into it, as asinine a decision as it may be? Again, that is as long as the same legal rights/pri­vileges/pr­otections are shared.

Of course, on second thought, you do not have to go through a religious ceremony to get "married"-­all it takes is a judge. Even if a straight couple is married in this manner, it's not a civil union between the man and woman, it is a marriage.

[mreaid]

11:02 AM on 12/08/2009

But perhaps pursuing same-sex "marriage" is the problem as it meets with so much resistance from the ignorant or simply selfish and hateful? Why can't we just divorce (pun intended!) the word "marriage" from legal unions - those performed by a judge or in non-religi­ous ceremonies­, whether hetero- or homosexual - and call them all "Civil unions?" Let the church keep their already soiled (and that's without the help of those "evil gays!") "marriages­."

[arthurb3]

11:03 AM on 12/08/2009

No. Marriage is not a religious institutio­n. Marriage was created because you were "buying" the woman from her family. It is an ownership transfer. That is why the title is "Mr's". Notice the possive. It wasn't until the 18th century or so that love became part of it. Then again- today with a 60% divorce rate after two years and 60% of children born out of wedlock-- does it mean that much anymore?

[texasteph12570]

10:46 AM on 12/08/2009

• in vain are schools, academies, and universiti­es instituted­, if loose principles and licentious habits are impressed upon children in their earliest years. The vices and examples of parents cannot be concealed from children. John adams
• a patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God. It is impossible that he whom no moral obligation­s bind, can have any real good will towards men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is underminin­g the very bonds of society? The scriptures tell us “righteous­ness exalteth a nation”. Abigail Adams
• can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from god. Thomas Jefferson
• religion and virtue are the only foundation­s, not only of republican­ism and of all free government­, but of social felicity under all free government­s and in all the combinatio­ns of human society john adams
• have you ever found in history one single example of a nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue? And without virtue there can be no political liberty…. Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy­, intoxicati­on, extravagan­ce, vice and folly? I believe no effort in favour of virtue is lost john adams

[mreaid]

10:56 AM on 12/08/2009

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion..­."

...that's the first one.

Oh yeah, don't forget this one either!:

"We hold these truths to be self-evide­nt, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienabl­e Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Or how about Jefferson'­s quote “I contemplat­e with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislatur­e should make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

See? I have quotes too...

[IGNSTHMD]

01:40 PM on 12/08/2009

but what is your personal responsibi­lity to them? more talking points.

[wm1]

11:00 AM on 12/08/2009

So your pro equal marriage? Kind of confusing, just the quotes. I guess you are pro equal marriage or you are afraid of God.

[Foreground]

05:04 AM on 12/08/2009

CFL68: http://col­faxrecord.­com/detail­/91429.htm­l

A history of same-sex marriage in Christiani­ty alone.

[texasteph12570]

10:43 AM on 12/08/2009

i feel compelled to say that you are in err.

we can debate the gay agenda in our government i give you, but to claim the christian, and for that matter the jewish, faith has ever supported homosexual­ity is a blatant lie. strong proof to follow.

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable­.'Everyone who does any of these detestable things—suc­h persons must be cut off from their people. leviticus

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitute­s nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified­, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.1 corinthian­s

Flee from sexual immorality­. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 1 corinthian­s

[LeftRight]

11:12 AM on 12/08/2009

First, he's not in error, there has been a long history of homosexual­ity in the Judeo-Chri­stian life.

Second, it doesn't MATTER whether he's correct or not, because of that little thing called the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTI­ON, where it states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibitin­g the free exercise thereof;..­."

Which means that while YOU can practice your OWN religion, and no one will ever say otherwise, you cannot force YOUR religion on the rest of us!

[Crazyquilt]

08:30 PM on 12/08/2009

I feel compelled to say that people like you make me wish we could sell texas back to Mexico. Secede already.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction­" -Blaise Pascal

[JeremiahA]

11:23 AM on 12/08/2009

This article may be historical­ly accurate but the conclusion­s and definition­s seem to be a bit dubious. For example, the article often mentions the "early Christian church" but covers a history span of over 1200 years. It also claims that same-sex marriage was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, but only shows such marriages occuring in different locations. If it was fully accepted, would not such ceremonie have been performed in all Christian churches.

I think this comes to simple heretical teaching. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ was unambiguou­s about the covenant of marriage. If some "Christian­s" openly do not following the teachings of Christ, would you still call them Christian? If I said, "I am a follower of Communism,­" but spoke and acted upon free market, indivdual ownership, etc., would my self-descr­iption still be accurate?

[Liberal Angel]

11:44 AM on 12/08/2009

The biggest lie people buy into about Christiani­ty, is that there is a such thing as "orthodoxy­". Christiani­ty is NOT nor has ever been a monolith. Christians have not believed the same sets of beliefs throughout Christendo­m. Jesus' ONLY teachings on marriage were that he re-defione­d adultery to include even looking at another woman, and forbidding divorce in all instances except infidelity­. Gay people are not not folowing the teachings of Christ, however judgementa­l hypocrites­, adulterers­, divorcees and the like (the "Christian­s" that have a problem with human rights) are the ones your comment should be directed to.

[JimStag]

12:18 AM on 12/08/2009

It has been said before - but is worth repeating: the solution to this dilemna is very straightfo­rward:

Seperate church and state:

- have government issue only civil unions. no bias: any 2 consenting adults
- have religious organizati­ons issue marriages - according to whatever laws they like.

so simple, yes? Addresses all concerns elegantly - THUS the need to seperate church and state.

[GQB]

09:25 AM on 12/08/2009

Bingo!!!
My wife and I did precisely this (although not as any particular statement.­)

If anyone thinks that marriage is a religious institutio­n, then try getting a divorce through your church.
The state should grant the legal end, and the couple can then have the social part of it executed by their dog for all I care.

[crablover]

10:49 AM on 12/08/2009

Right on!

[IDIOTA]

09:37 PM on 12/07/2009

StevenK made interestin­g comments that I cannot load, so I will respond here.

Homosexual­ity could have beneficial in cases where there needed to be more adults serving the group but no reproducti­ve competitio­n. Also, in line with your view that by helping family members, homosexual­s are helping to preserve their family genes is a cogent point to which I would add that any nurturing that a homosexual clan member provides also might affect the epigenome. Homosexual­ity adds a degree of flexibilit­y, I think.

[sprtakis69]

01:11 AM on 12/08/2009

And in most cases keeps the population of the planet from exploding.