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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Grim Truth]

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

[StevenKeirstead]

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]

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]

you just did it yourself.

[happykiddo]

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]

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]

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.

[StevenKeirstead]

Marriage has had different definitions throughout history. There are large periods of time and many places where polygamy has been allowed. Same sex marriage was allowed in ancient Rome before the Christians took it over and lost the empire to the Vandals and Visigoths. Native American tribes allowed same sex marriages, and nearly every tribe had at least one “two spirit” person, a transvestite who acted as a shaman and often had a mate of the same sex.

I’d also like to remind you that there are tens of thousands of legal same sex marriages in the US right now in states where it is legal. Portia De Rossi and Ellen Degeneres have a legal marriage in California, because Prop 8 only prohibited new same sex marriages in California. I am married to my husband in Boston, and it’s still legal for new couples five years after it started. Four other states have same sex marriage now.

[StevenKeirstead]

The feelings of religious rightists may be offended by same sex couples having marriage rights, but they don’t get the only say. This is not about their dogma or anyones feelings, it is about equal rights under law. The Constitution is against the opponents of same sex marriage and it’s only a matter of time before the courts rule the 14th Amendment applies as written to everyone for equal legal rights and privileges. So far the Supreme court has not ruled in our favor but their antiquated decision in Baker v. Nelson will be reconsidered, just as the Bowers v. Hardwick decision was repealed by the Lawrence v. Texas one. Conservative churches will have the right to refuse to have same sex marriages in their churches and that is all. They will have to live with us, even if they don’t like it.

[JeremiahA]

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

Everyone already does.

[LeftRight]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[unfettered]

'Everyone already does'

As long as we marry who you've decide is the correct partner.

[JeremiahA]

I am not that poweful.

[mreaid]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[LeftRight]

Marriage is most definitely NOT a religious institution. In fact, it was a GOVERNMENT institution LONG before Religion figured out that there was something for them to gain from it....

[Liberal Angel]

Marriage was invented by man in order to form alliances, maintain clan stablity by forming clear lines of succession (which is why adultery is only a crime against a man, women were their property) and other business-related issues. Marriage is NOT a religious institution, and was only co-opted by the Church in about 1200 AD, more than a millenium after the Church's founding. A wedding may be a religious tradition, but mariage itself is not. The word is also important, because we cannot accept that we are not entitled to the SAME rights as everyone else, marriage is the right, not a civil union. Homophobes do not have a monopoly on English words.

[mreaid]

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 and homophobes keep their already soiled (and that's without the help of those "evil gays!") "marriages­."

But yeah, I do see your point, to those above me. I didn't think about how the sanctity of marriage was before being a religious doctrine worth it's weight in goat!

[dcdesignr]

"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."

You've hit upon the semantic issue that, I think, is one of the issues here, mreaid. Marriage can be both a civil union and religious. As well, this can be true for both same sex and heterosexual unions – there a number of religions that recognize (and will bless) same sex unions. But, as far as the state is concerned "marriage" is really just shorthand for civil union, since the state is not in the sanctity business; as stated in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. When framed like this, to me, it truly makes the idea of having "civil unions" for one group of people and "marriage" for another a straw dog. As well, having two standards kind of smacks of the "Separate but Equal" concept in the Jim Crow era South. As New York state senator Diane Savino said, "We have nothing to fear from love and commitment."

[texasteph12570]

• 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]

“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]

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

[wm1]

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

[DinkSinger]

"I acknowledge myself a unitarian—Believing that the Father alone, is the supreme God, and that Jesus Christ derived his Being, and all his powers and honors from the Father ... There is not any reasoning which can convince me, contrary to my senses, that three is one, and one three." Abigail Adams

""when will Mankind be convinced that true Religion is from the Heart, between Man and his creator, and not the imposition of Man or creeds and tests?" Abigail Adams

"it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson

"our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry" Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." Thomas Jefferson, commenting on The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

[StevenKeirstead]

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.” John Adams

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.” John Adams

[StevenKeirstead]

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1801

[Foreground]

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

A history of same-sex marriage in Christianity alone.

[texasteph12570]

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]

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]

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

[Foreground]

So I guess "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means that there were never any Christian/Jewish armies or wars?

Cause, you know, you might want to tell that to the Bible. And the Crusades. And etc....

[JeremiahA]

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]

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.

[CFL68]

I'd just like to repeat that my sluggishness in accepting 'gay marriage' has nothing to do with religion, but rather biology, and human history and pre-history.

People will eventually just get tired of pointing out how ridiculous the concept is, and just go along with the whole 'lets pretend apples and oranges are the same thing' contention.

[LeftRight]

Biology: Has NOTHING to do with marriage, which is a LEGAL concept based upon the pair-bonding that humans have done since there have been humans. Pair-bondings OFTEN take the form of male/female partnerships, but ALSO take the form of male/male partnerships, female/female partnerships, and friendships between the two or same sexes.

Human history: Has had more acceptance of homosexual behavior than unacceptance.

Human pre-history: Cannot really tell, since it's PRE history, but the available evidence (including from other species that are closest to us in sexual behaviors) seems to show that we likely had homosexual pair-bondings even then...

Try again?????

[Crazyquilt]

Intellectual sluggishness abetting your moral priggishness. NIIIICE

[Foreground]

We're biologically predisposed towards migratory hunting and gathering, with over a hundred thousand years of human society reflecting that. I'm still going to get my oranges at the market instead of walking barefoot to Florida.

I'll take your suggestion to build our society around your percieved notion of biological imperetives more seriously when you post proof that you're getting on the internet by means of a computer chipped from a big rock and powered by the campfire you built to ward off both tthe cold and predators.

[JimStag]

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]

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]

Right on!

[JeremiahA]

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

I am not sure what you mean by "according to whatever laws they like." Do you mean state laws or church laws? So civil unions and marriages would be recognized by the state? This sounds reasonable to me.

[Liberal Angel]

That's not what was suggested. He wants to cede the term "marriage" to religious institutions (even though marriage has nothing to do with religion), and have the unions legally recognized by the governement called "civil unions" reguardless of sexual orientation. That was not a confusingly written post, so I'm not sure how you got it so mixed up.

[IDIOTA]

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]

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