Timeless Wisdom - A Debate on Same Sex Marriage: Prager v. Estrich

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com.

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the third and final performance of this sixth season of American Perspectives presented by Yale. I'm Michael Ralphson, I'm your coordinator, and I'll be your host this evening. This is the beginning of American Perspectives. We've tried to mix it up, presenting both speakers and musical entertainment representing the best of the cultural traditions of 21st century America. It's a nice little exception. It's our first debate, and what a timely topic. From Prop 8 in California to the decisions in— the court decisions in Iowa and Vermont, and of course last weekend's Miss USA pageant, same-sex marriage is front and center. And tonight we've got two well-spoken, passionate, and very friendly representatives from each side. So let's V. Armand Davis. She was born and grew up in Massachusetts, graduated from Wellesley in 1974, has a law degree from Harvard. She was the first woman president and editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. She managed the 1988 presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis, the first woman ever to manage a presidential campaign. She's the author of 8 books, including Sex and Power and The Case for Hillary Clinton. She's a frequent legal and political analyst on Fox News. She's taught at Harvard Law. She now teaches at USC Law School and is in private law practice. She's entering from stage left. Please welcome Susan Hester. He was born and raised in New York City. He graduated, as he likes to say, in the top 90% of his class from the Yeshiva of Flatbush. He graduated from Brooklyn College in 1970 with degrees in anthropology and history and studied international affairs at Columbia University under the tutelage of Zbigniew Brzezinski. He's the author of 4 books, including Happiness Is a Serious Problem and Why the Jews: The Reasons for Antisemitism. He's lectured around the world, including presenting lectures in Russian, Hebrew, and Spanish. He's been a radio talk show host for 27 years and is heard locally here in Los Angeles on radio station KRLA. He too is heard frequently as a commentator on Fox News and CNN. He's entering from stage right. Please welcome Dennis Prager. A little bit about the format. We will have each presenter will have 10 minutes to do an opening set of remarks. Then there will be a 10-minute response by each presenter. We will follow that with a 15-minute question and answer period, and then there will be 5 minutes of closing remarks. For each presenter. At the conclusion of this evening's debate, both Susan and Dennis have promised to be out in the lobby for about half an hour to kind of mix it up with you and answer any personal questions you may have and just say hi. About the questions, many of you received, or you all should have received, an index card and a pencil when you came in that you can write down your question. Write down on the top of the card whether you want the question to be answered by Dennis or Susan. And we will have, if you haven't passed your card up already, some of you did before the performance, but at about during the final 10-minute presentation, just prior to the Q&A, Chris Wolfe and Susan Lyne will be in the aisles collecting your questions. Please be sure it's in the form of a question. If you wish to opine, you may do so with Bill O'Reilly. And when you write your question, Please be sure the word of today: don't be pecksniffian. With that, our first presenter, Susan Eskridge.

Thank you very much. Thank you to Toyota for having us here and sponsoring good intellectual chatter. Thank you to my good and old friend Dennis Prager, with whom I often disagree but always enjoy. I went to a charity event not long ago, and I happened to be seated next to a gentleman who was about 80, which in Los Angeles would be about the right age for me. And next to him was seated a young woman who was about my daughter's age, and I started late. And for a moment, just briefly, I entertained the wishful hope that he might say to me, "I'd like you to meet my granddaughter." But of course he didn't. He introduced me to his wife. And I smiled pleasantly because of course I was trying to hit him up for money for some cause or another. But the truth is I disapproved disapproved of that marriage. Now I must tell you, my mother disapproved of any marriage that didn't involve the right type of Jew. All right? Any other mixed marriage, as she put it, was really not a marriage. The question here is not whether people have views as to what is or is not an appropriate proper, religiously sanctioned marriage. I respect the fact that nothing I say to you tonight is going to change your view of what's appropriate and what isn't. I tried for a lifetime with my mother, believe me, I don't try now. The question is whether the the state is entitled to discriminate in terms of who gets the benefits, the privileges, the rights, and yes, the obligations of civil marriage, and who doesn't. And if it is entitled to discriminate, why? Now, at this point in my argument, the logical thing to do would be to begin telling you horror stories. And I would take out a large violin and tell you true and horrible stories of what has happened to individuals at the end of life whose loved ones are excluded from the hospital room and not allowed to even retrieve possessions, of lost children who, who hadn't been formally adopted because of the constraints on Adoption by a gay couple as opposed to a single person, and then the children lose both their parents because they lose one. The health insurance stories, I always love health insurance stories because I know so many of them. But I think I can sum this up without playing the violin because most of us actually know someone who's been in some kind of situation like this, or we certainly know someone, sadly too Many of us probably are that someone who has lost a spouse. And imagine going through that experience without the legal protections and rights you had as the, quote, "spouse." That's what we're asking of our gay and lesbian friends who are in a committed relationship and want to make the commitment to marriage with its rights and responsibilities. Now, I can't imagine that my very good friend Dennis Prager— you always know when somebody says "very good friend" and they're about to— but really, I can't imagine that my very good friend Dennis would not be in favor of a whole range of civil provisions that would protect the rights of gay partners. In the event of sickness or death, or maybe even insurance. Indeed, even Sarah Palin, with whom I am not often in agreement, has come out and said, and I give her credit for this, that she supports domestic partnership. Many people today who oppose gay marriage say, "I'll take care of the horror stories through domestic partnership." Now, I really can't see you, so I'm not going to ask you to raise your hands, but I wonder how many of you here would be content to be told that you were no longer married, you were partners? Or that perhaps only people under 40 were entitled to be married and everyone over 40 to be partners. I think most of us would feel like being singled out for a different status, even if it comes with all the same rights and responsibilities, is at the very least the sort of stigma which a state should not impose for no reason. It's unfair. If I said to you Jews weren't going to be married, only non-Jews could marry, but Jews could be partners, we would be up in arms screaming discrimination, and we would be right. The role of the state is in the absence of a compelling interest to treat everyone the same. Private morality should be private. Who a rabbi wants to marry, who a minister wants to marry, is entirely up to them. But the only justification for drawing this line would be some compelling state interest, and I would challenge Dennis Prager, or in our friendly way, ask him, what is that great interest that justifies singling out one group that already faces in our society discrimination and torment, and denying them the same rights and privileges and opportunities given to anybody else? One final point. I have no doubt that 20 years from now, we will not be having this debate. In 20 or 25, or maybe it will take more, or I think probably less years, this debate will be resolved. And I think we all know sort of how it will be resolved. It may be through congressional action, it may be state by state, it may get to a different Supreme Court. But one way or another, our children or our grandchildren at least will look at us and say, "You mean you guys really debated that stuff? Why would you deny people who wanted to marry the right to marry? If they're that crazy, why not let them do it?" Thank you very much.

For those who came to see blood, Susan and I will disappoint you because we really do like each other, and neither of us are of that ilk anyway. In fact, Susan's quote honors one of my books on the jacket. And so we have a very long—

Health insurance rates in America are surging, leaving millions without affordable options. But Christians don't need to waste money on a broken system. Christian Healthcare Ministries is an alternative to health insurance at half the cost. With CHM, fellow believers contribute monthly to help pay each other's medical bills while lifting one another up in prayer. It's financial and spiritual support when you need it most. Join CHM today by visiting chministries.org/wellness. That's chministries.org/wellness. Americans have a big healthcare problem. Over 100 million citizens carry medical debt while paying for overpriced and complicated health insurance. As Christians, we don't have to pay for a broken system. Christian Healthcare Ministries is an alternative to health insurance at half the cost, plus you can enroll at any time. Stand up to health insurance with a biblical solution. Join CHM today by visiting chministries.org/wellness. That's chministries.org/wellness.

Standing, uh, friendship. We differ on this. This is one of those times I, I think that she would acknowledge I have the more difficult job. Everything that is said on behalf of same-sex marriage pulls at the heart, including my own heart. If compassion were the one criterion by which I would determine whether to redefine marriage, I would redefine it in a nanosecond. But compassion is a spectacular human emotion and virtue even, but it's not decisive in all cases in making a social policy. And let me give you an example. I fully acknowledge, and this is what tears at me, believe it or not, I do fully acknowledge that it is not fair to a gay person not to be able to marry. So whenever that is thrown at me, I plead guilty. It isn't fair. I believe that there are compelling societal interests to keep marriage defined as a man-woman, but I acknowledge that because of those state or societal interests, the individual gay person is hurt by that. I do. But liberals, who tend to be on the side of same-sex marriage, do it as well. Many whites and many Asians, for example, are hurt by affirmative action policies in schools, in colleges. They fully acknowledge that it's unfair to many white students and many Asian students that the rules of admission are changed on behalf of whomever the affirmative action is for, whether it is African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, or whomever. But liberals argue that it's better for society to have ethnic and gender diversity in colleges. And therefore, even though it's not fair to a certain percentage of white students and Asian students, it doesn't matter that it's not fair. Society benefits. Well, gee, what happened to compassion? All of a sudden you are arguing that the society has a vested interest in a certain thing and that some people will suffer as a result. That happens all the time. As soon as society makes any rule, certain people, almost all the time, certain people will be unfairly treated. I mean, it is unfair. I mean, I hate to say this, life is unfair. It's not, but it is unfair. And sometimes you can't, in your attempt to make it fair, you may not improve the world. And that's the reason that liberals are for affirmative action, even though it's unfair to white or black or female students— or excuse me, white or Asian students. So I acknowledge this unfairness. That is why she is absolutely right, Susan. The Dennis that she knows is for giving whatever rights are involved to gay couples. Whatever rights, whatever obligations are involved. So the issue is not even that. It really is over the term marriage. Does society have a vested interest in redefining marriage? Here is a question that I would ask people who want to redefine marriage to ask themselves. I have to ask myself questions: Am I being fair? Am I being just? Am I being compassionate? I do. I ask you to ask yourself this question: Can you name another major social institution, or another major moral value, any moral, major moral value, in which you can say, "We now are right, and all religions, and all secular value systems prior to us, and all secular moral thinkers, and all religious moral thinkers were dead wrong." You cannot come up with a single example. Not a single example. This is the only time that we have— and it takes a lot of hubris, I think— We are enlightened. Moses was a moral idiot. Jesus was a moral idiot. The men of the Enlightenment were all— and women of the Enlightenment— were all moral idiots. They all missed the boat. And it's the only area, the only one, in which they all missed the boat. Judaism was wrong. Christianity was wrong. Islam was wrong. Buddhism was wrong. The Enlightenment was wrong. Secular humanism was wrong. Because no one advocated the redefinition of marriage.

Marriage.

This is brand new. Maybe we should sit back, take stock for a moment, and ask, gee, is it possible that there was wisdom in all of these things that understood that when you redefine marriage, you will have a severe impact on society? I think we will. The impact is enormous. Society does have a vested interest in defining marriage. Utah was told by the American government You cannot be a state if you allow polygamy. By what criteria does Susan Estrich, or any of you who are for the argument that, hey, what's the state's interest in defining marriage? Let people do whatever love leads them to want. On what grounds can you oppose polygamy? And don't say, well, that's a silly argument. Tell me why it's a silly argument. It's easy to say it is, but why is it? Polygamy was the human norm, but we decided that we wouldn't do that. Okay, fine, but we decided. In other words, the state said we have an interest in having monogamy.

Why?

What about all the women who were not taken care of, who would now at least have children, who would now at least have a husband, who would now have a family, who would now have more of a community perhaps? There are very compelling arguments for polygamy. But the states told the Mormons, "Sorry, sorry, you cannot have the marriage the way you want it. We will tell you what type of marriage and how it is defined in the United States of America." So there's total ample precedent for the state defining. This notion, "Leave it to religion, well, they can do whatever they want." First of all, I can promise you, as sure as I speak to you, that if same-sex marriage becomes the norm in America, every religious group and every religious clergyman that does not perform same-sex marriage will be ostracized by society as if they were racist. There is no question about it. It has already happened in Massachusetts. The longest, largest sponsor of adoptions in the state of Massachusetts has been the Roman Catholic Church. And its charities. It has left the business because the church said you cannot live by what you advocate in adoption. They thought that adoption should first go to a married couple, meaning a man and a woman, and the state of Massachusetts told them to go to hell. And they went to hell, and there were no longer Catholic adoptions. I don't mean Catholics adopting, I mean no It is out of the business of the adoption world. This is exactly what will happen to religions. They will be ostracized. If the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America wants to have a convention in Chicago, Chicago will say, "We don't accept racists in our society, in our city. You may not have your convention here." I swear, I am as certain of this as I am of anything. Anything. I'm more certain of this than I am of my mortgage. I mean, I— this is a given. One knows that this will happen. So this notion, we won't tell religion what to do, is just not true. It's already been told in Massachusetts. You're out of the adoption business. Little kids, little kids will have to be taught in schools, as already they are. They will have to be taught in schools just as often as they are given a fairy tale about the prince marrying a princess, they will have to be told about a prince marrying a prince. Because otherwise— this is not a joke, this is not to belittle the idea, I'm just telling you that there are ramifications. We think, and this is my problem with a lot of my dear liberal friends, they don't ask what happens. They feel that they are so compassionate and kind, and conservatives are so mean-spirited, that just following the compassionate, kind course leads to good things. Well, we were compassionate to a lot of people who couldn't take mortgages, and because of the subprime mortgage problem, now poor, middle class, and rich are suffering around the world. Compassion is not a good way to make policy. And if you feel that it is a good thing for little girls— and you might, I don't— if you think it is a good thing for little girls to be asked in first grade, "So do you think you'll marry a boy or a girl?" when sexual confusion is a very big part of human nature. I don't accept the black-and-white view of human sexuality. We are, as Freud called, polymorphous perverse. We go along the whole spectrum, especially female sexual nature, which is far closer to bisexual in its nature than it is to strict heterosexual. Society has a deep impact on the sexual behavior of people. I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice. But I believe that sexual behavior is chosen. And that's a different thing from homosexuality. I disagree with the right-wingers who tell me that homosexuals choose their orientation. Nobody sits down and chooses their orientation. But a lot of people can choose. That's why you have a number of famous women who have gone from lesbian to straight, back to lesbian. Okay, there's a lot more to say.

Thank you. I am not going to address the women who have gone from lesbian to straight, back to lesbian. I'll leave that to Dennis Prager. Of course the state has an interest in defining marriage. If two 14-year-olds show up at the clerk's office and say, "We're really in love and we'd like to be married," the appropriate response is, of course, "What's your mother's number?" We set age limits. Some states have health test requirements. You know, Maybe you should have waiting periods. The question is not whether the state has an interest in defining a relationship that is as important for so many other things like real estate and property and healthcare law. The question is, what is the concrete state interest in denying those rights and benefits? To an individual based on their choice of a same-sex partner when both of us realize that that isn't a choice in the first instance? What is the concrete interest? And my friend Dennis, because he is a compassionate man, says, I will give them all the rights, benefits, and privileges through a domestic partnership system, because who could deny to people that kind of fundamental and decent treatment? But if you're going to give people all the rights, why discriminate and not give them the name? Why say you have the rights but you are a second-class citizen and we will not recognize you as being equal? Now, it is true that Jesus didn't think of it and Moses didn't think of it. And it's even true that our founding fathers didn't think of it. But I have to tell you, they missed the boat on women's rights too. And that is no reason— none of them said we need to get the most qualified women in the rabbit, right? Or in the priesthood, we need a woman pope. That was not an agenda item. In fact, our founding fathers didn't give us the right to vote. But that is not a reason in 2009, at a time when all of us recognize that the state, decency, and fairness demand treating people equally, and nothing but, with all due respect, Dennis Prager, a parade of possible future horrors. That if people don't behave well once this change comes in, it will turn out for the worst. Well, I would rather devote my energy to ensuring that we get the change, that decency and equality to man. And that we will, believe me, have enough rabbis and ministers who will be happy to perform these marriages, that there will be no reason to ostracize those who choose not to. One final point. Nobody is going to be asking a little girl in school about marrying another little girl. The peer pressure to be just like everybody else is so overwhelming that what I worry about is not what's gonna happen when a girl is asked about marrying a girl, but what happens to the little girl who has two fathers and lies about it, as I've seen happen many times, because she's embarrassed and doesn't know how to explain it. To their classmates. And what happens to the kid who realizes he or she is different? And it is because there are kids who are different, not different, different only if you accept a different standard as the norm, who are gay. And to treat them with decency and respect also means treating their parents. Decency and respect. Thank you very much.

We're going to raise the house lights just a bit so that those of you who have questions during Dennis's last segment can pass the questions— we'll pass them to the aisles in the middle here, and they'll be collected and sent on up. Thanks.

Okay.

I do hope that the issue that I raised about society, where liberals advocate a societal program that is non-compassionate to certain people, I would like Susan to address that one, because I don't know how you can argue that it is always wrong to hurt individuals for the sake of a societal interest. When that is exactly what is done through affirmative action policies. I mean, nobody intellectually, honestly can deny that that happens, and I'd like to know why it's okay for that, but it's not okay for the most fundamental institution in society, marriage. You see, I don't think that we need a redefinition. I think that the issue— we have treated gays terribly. I don't mean we America, I mean we the human species. I'll tell you a personal story since I have the time here. When I was very, very young, there was the Lyndon Johnson-Barry Goldwater election. I remember very, very little about it, but I do remember one thing, and that was that an aide to Lyndon Johnson was gay. And, or they didn't say gay then, homosexual. And he was outed by some people who, I don't know, trailed him to a men's room or whatever it was, and it was held over him, and his name was, in order to get at the Johnson campaign, the Cold War campaign, publicized this fact. He was very high up in the campaign, and ruined the man's his family life. As I say, I remember virtually nothing from the campaign except my anger at the Goldwater campaign. I was so angry that they would do this to a human being and his family. And I have always felt that way. And this will disturb some of my, especially religious friends, but I will tell you that There are times when I have introduced gay friends to a guy. Because I don't want gays to be alone. I don't. It's a bad life, a lonely life. And so, where I have seen this in my personal life, and I've gone through a very long road on this, I remember being the head of an institution, an educational institution for college-aged students where they came to a retreat to study Judaism with me and others for all of July and then another session all of August, one of the boys came over to me and said, Dennis, I hear everything you say and I still want to stick to the tradition and I want to marry a woman, but I'm only attracted to guys. And I ask you not to laugh at me for— I I even remember, I'm exposing myself here to you, I even said, "Well, have you given Playboy a try? I mean, you know, have you looked at the pictures and do you have absolutely no reaction?" And I learned, and I have tried to teach this to fellow conservatives, a true homosexual male, let's talk about the males for a minute, heterosexual men, we can't even We can't imagine this. The idea of looking at a sexy woman in a bikini, or less, obviously, or more, for that matter, and having no reaction. I asked Andrew Sullivan on my show, I said, you know, major gay spokesman, he and I testified in Congress on opposite sides for the Defense of Marriage Act, and against, he was against it, I was for it. And I had him on my show and I said, "Let me just ask you something. Do you have any more reaction viscerally to seeing a gorgeous woman in a bikini or a beautiful car?" And he said, "No. Not one whit more." And I said, "I knew you'd say that. I just wanted my straight male listeners to hear that." Because sometimes we think, well, if they make the right choice. That's not a choice. I can't choose to be as attracted to a car as to a female. It's not in me, it's not possible. There's nothing you can do to me to make that happen. So I have, I think, really deep empathy here, but redefining marriage is the most radical notion of my lifetime. It is more radical than single-payer health healthcare. I mean, that may be financially radical, but the notion of two wives married to one another, two husbands— I'll tell you why it's so radical, and this is the ultimate issue that nobody pays attention to. What is being said here is, to me, scary. What is being said is this: gender doesn't mean anything. We have— that's what it means. Whether you marry a male or you marry a female doesn't matter, so long as you marry a human. But it does matter. Sex does matter. That's why the comparisons to, "Well, there was a time when there were states that opposed interracial marriage." Race is race and sex is sex. There is no difference between a black human and a white human. There are enormous differences between a female human and a male human. We are attempting— we are living in such a radicalized society that has such little wisdom that it denies that men and women are fundamentally different. But if we are fundamentally different, then redefining marriage to mean it doesn't matter which sex you marry is a big deal. It is a huge deal. It's not which race you will marry. Which race you marry is meaningless. Which sex you marry is chock full of meaning. Men are men and women are women, but we live in an age that is for the redefining of this into nothingness. I was on with Perez Hilton of Miss America fame, of Miss USA fame. I was on Larry King with him just this past week, and he said men and women are not different at all, only in their anatomy. How a human can say that? How can a human? But as a gay spokesman, and that's how he is regarded if you look at the gay blogs. That's what he is saying. There is fundamentally a denial of the differences between men and women, and that is staggering. It doesn't matter who you marry, it doesn't matter, just so long as you marry, or even that may not even be said, but it does matter. It does matter. And that's what we are preserving when we preserve the definition of marriage. We are preserving the distinction between male and female. Some of us believe that mothers can give something to children that no two great fathers can give. Some of us believe that, that, that, uh, a, a, um, a man has something to give that no two great mothers can give. But this is all denied in the redefinition of marriage. It doesn't matter so long as they're loving. But it does matter. Being loved by two moms is not the same as being loved by a mom and a dad. It's no reflection on the inherent worth of those two women, of course not. And I know a lot of jerks get married, so what? A lot of jerks drive, we're not going to stop giving out licenses. I mean, that is just the way it is. But that is no argument against marriage, and it is no argument for the redefining of marriage. Men and women are profoundly different. And without hurting gays, and therefore giving them the rights of marriage, we sustain the infinite wisdom of understanding the differences between men and women while giving the civil rights to our dear fellow citizens and family members who are gay.

Okay, time for the Q&A. I've got lots of questions, and I will start with one that was addressed to Susan. It says, Susan, are you saying marriage should not be defined at all, or that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, or something in between?

I think marriage should not be restricted according to the gender. Of the individuals involved. I think that marriage is a critical institution, that society has a strong interest in stable families, that marriage provides a legal basis for certain very important rights should your spouse get sick, should you need to dispose of property, etc. But I have yet to hear with individuals who respect Dennis, you tell me what interest society has in denying to gay individuals the same ability to make that commitment and live under that system of law that we give to other individuals. And just to answer your first question, of course I recognize that there are occasional —where larger social policy will injure an individual, where we make a decision that hurts someone to serve a larger goal. And I happen to take a fairly restrictive view of affirmative action precisely for those reasons, because I think it should be restricted to those situations where the injury is most worthwhile, as it were, balanced by its benefits. But I haven't heard any benefit to society of denying the gays the same rights we give to heterosexual couples. And it is that compelling state interest. And it isn't making women and men the same. Any mother here who's raised a boy and a girl knows they come different. But that doesn't mean there are some boys who don't want to do ballet and some girls those who don't want to play sports. And the concept of equality does not depend on the fact that people can tongue the same, but that their individual differences, or the color of their skin, or their gender, or their sexual orientation, should not deny them the right to be treated equally.

This one's for Dennis. Dennis, I agree with your position on marriage being defined as only between one man and one woman, yet debating the other side seems to always default to me being akin to a racist or a homophobe. Can you please sum up a simple yet effective way to debate that sums up your position?

The truth is, when you're called something vile, it's It's not easy to have a bumper sticker response to such an epithet. This is a very big problem because, to go back to this other issue of affirmative action, routinely, those who oppose affirmative action based on race are called racists. What's a bumper sticker answer to that? Gee, I'm not. See, that's what you're reduced to. It's like, you know, "You fondle little children." "No, I don't." But it's not as effective a response as the accusation is. And I must say that in this regard, and I would like Susan to comment on this, she is not one of them by any means, but in this regard, there has been behavior by activists, straight and gay, doesn't matter, instances, both with regard to same-sex marriage, that has been truly obscene. I mean, take the Miss USA issue. Listen to the woman's answer to the question. The woman was asked, do you think every state should follow suit after Vermont, right? The fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman. If you get— if there's a more gentle way of saying this, she's actually happy that there are states that have same-sex marriage and not But I happen to believe in opposite-sex marriage. If there is a more gentle, sweet way to say this, I don't know what it would be. And yet it was announced by the, indeed, one of the co-directors of the Miss USA pageant that she lost the crown because of that. So what is being announced, and believe me, future beauty contestants will know this, they will know that you have to have the left-wing position on marriage in order to compete in a beauty pageant. In a beauty pageant. This is the totalitarian temptation that I worry about, where it seeps into every area of life. If you don't think like we do, you're scum. She was called a bitch by this guy that I debated on Larry King, Paris Hilton, and that's fine. That's a non-issue. And he defended it. He said, "I'm allowed to be angry. She's making me a second-class citizen." And that ends the issue. She's a bitch. Didn't deserve to win the title because she thinks marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. I'll give you two more examples. eHarmony, the largest singles uniting of singles through the internet site, eHarmony. Is, was sued by gay activist groups, that they have to also open up to having men meet men and women meet women through it. What happened to freedom of association in America? Would I insist that a gay site open up to having opposite-sex people meet? But this is what's going to happen. Susan is so sweet, and I mean this quite literally, that she doesn't know how vicious America will become against those who believe in male-female marriage. It is not true what she said, that, "Oh, there will be enough rabbis, priests, and ministers to marry same-sex couples that nothing will happen to the other." Not true. They will be as ostracized and condemned and in other ways shunted out of society as racists are today. People who would not marry a a black and a white. And the eHarmony thing forced down their throat by legal means. They have to now unite members of the same sex as well. And the retribution against supporters of Proposition 8: their restaurants attacked, their names listed, their homes demonstrated against, their businesses boycotted. This is what it's come to now. So the questioner is absolutely right. You can't hold the position that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman, no matter how much you care for gays, no matter how many rights you want to give them, and be considered a decent human being. This is not good for America, let alone not good for families and others where we have this difference.

This question is for both, so since Dennis just spoke, we'll let Susan answer first. And this is— the question is, does society have an interest in promoting heterosexual monogamous marriage, or does society have an interest in promoting homosexual monogamous marriage, and how are they different?

I don't think the resolution of whether to define marriage so as to include gay couples will affect a single person's choice as to who they're going to spend their lives with. All right? I don't think continuing to limit marriage to a woman and a man is going to lead a single gay person to say, "Well then, I guess I won't be gay and I'll marry a woman." Nor do I think that allowing gays to marry will lead large numbers of straight people to say, "Guess I should marry someone of the same sex." sex instead. In other words, I don't think that the state has any capacity to incentivize heterosexual marriage or disincentivize long-term homosexual relationships. I think the only question is, do we treat them equally? Equally, or do we make some people into second-class citizens with the same rights but a different title? And I must say, as to the viciousness, as the person who ran the 1988 campaign, I am not nice, all right? I'm nice, but I'm not naive. Let me put it that way. If you're old enough to remember, that was the Pretty Ugly campaign. But I think realistically speaking, so long as this issue remains unresolved, passions will be high. My experience in Massachusetts, quite frankly, is that within a year or two, when it was a boon to business, everybody chilled down and the temperature came down. But until California resolves it, it's going to be a very vicious fight.

Well, there is one thing— I mean, look, I've answered— I do believe that society has an interest in encouraging the opposite sexes to marry. I do. I think that— let's forget homosexuality for a moment. Does society have an interest in, in encouraging men to commit to women?

Health insurance rates are surging in America, leaving millions without affordable options. If you're sick of having paychecks eaten up by healthcare costs or dealing with mega corporations, then listen to this: Christians don't need to waste money on a broken system. That's why I want to tell you about Christian Healthcare Ministries. It's an alternative to traditional health insurance at half the cost. With CHM, fellow believers contribute monthly to help pay each other's medical bills. There's no enrollment period, so you can join anytime, and you aren't restricted to provider networks, so you choose the doctors and hospitals you want. It's that simple. CHM is not insurance. It's a ministry that puts faith into action. Feel the difference of financial support and biblical care from fellow believers. Join CHM today by visiting chministries.org/wellness. That's chministries.org/wellness. Americans have a big healthcare problem. Over 100 million US citizens carry medical debt, but that's not the whole story. With health insurance, your out-of-pocket and monthly costs are way too high. You get surprise bills, denied claims, and poor customer service. That's a serious burden. As Christians, we don't have to pay for a broken system. Christian Healthcare Ministries is an alternative to health insurance at half the cost. You can enroll at any time and join a proven faith-based solution that's both reliable and affordable. CHM isn't just health, it's financial and spiritual support. Support when you need it most. Families across the country count on CHM to step in during their hardest moments, and it works. Stand up to health insurance with a low-cost biblical solution. Join CHM today by visiting chministries.org/wellness. That's chministries.org/wellness.

Ask that question. Absolutely. See that? And I got an answer. Okay, that's exactly right, because male nature— and that's an area I I specialize in, and my next book tentatively titled "Your Man Is Not a Pervert" is about male sexual nature. And men left to their own devices and without societal pressure will be naked nomads, in the famous great words of George Gilder. So society has has a deep interest in doing everything it can to incentivize men to commit to a woman. Now, will it happen that in societies wherein marriage is also men taking care of men and women taking care of women, will it be as special for a man to say he is married? I can't answer that now. I don't know that— that part of the future I No. For a man to say, right now, and this can change any day, in this state certainly, but for a man to say he is married, we now know he is committed to a woman. We think that's wonderful. We think that that's a great thing for young boys to see. When I was a boy, the definition of a man was one who got married and took care of a woman and a family. Family. That was what manhood was. It wasn't macho. That was macho. Macho was not gallivanting from woman to woman. That was an asshole. Alright? That is the world in which I lived. I'll give you a very powerful example. In Orthodox Judaism, and I was raised in Orthodox Judaism, this you'll you'll find fascinating, because most of you were not raised Orthodox Jews. In Orthodox Judaism, at least in the Ashkenazi world, in the European part of Orthodoxy, until a male got married, he did not wear the prayer shawl in synagogue. Now that was utterly discriminatory. Talk about discrimination. And he was called, when he was called to the Torah, to bless the Torah, great honor in the middle of the synagogue service, he was called a lad, not a man, when he was called in Hebrew to the Torah. The Hebrew word for lad. And in other words, growing up in that world, I was told, you will be a boy, Dennis, until you marry. Even if you marry at 40, you're still a boy until you marry. In other words, there was something deeply manly in taking care of a woman. That doesn't mean that gays are not manly, that is not my point at all. My point is that the model is one that society wishes to encourage. So I have an open question. On this one I don't make a prediction. On the others I was certain. The ostracization of all those who believe in opposite-sex marriage will take place very quickly, just as it did with the adoption services of the Catholic Church in Massachusetts. But will marriage have the ring of, "Boys, this is what you should do," if it is now to include members of the same sex? One final word. I quote Susan, if I could, if I wrote it quickly enough: "I don't think it will lead a single person to marry a member of the same sex." I don't agree. I think that girls, given the bisexual nature that is in much, many female sexual makeup. Since female sexual makeup is so utterly different from male, and it is so non-genitally based as male is, and given that it is more nurturing-based and comfort-based and hugging-based and emotion-based, that girls who are not doing well with boys, and who who may not be attractive, or think they're not attractive, or for whatever reason, will far more likely give thought to, "Hey, I don't have to be alone." You know, and these are not gay girls, but these are girls who have not been doing well in the social scene, will not feel constrained to find a male nearly as much once marriage is accepted to be with either sex. That part I can predict because of the latitude of female sexuality. I agree, I don't think that that will be something with boys. And by the way, my proof is very simply this: you talk about peer pressure. The actual peer pressure among many college girls today is to have a same-sex affair. The pressure is not to marry a man. On the contrary, that died out in the '70s because after all, women were Women are like fish without men are like fish without bicycles. And so there was no pressure, there was no pressure at all to marry a man. There is pressure though to have some bisexual affair and show you're really with it. I had a girl on my show exactly, I think, I don't remember which university, I think it was McGill in Montreal, and she wrote a column. She came to college completely heterosexual, she took these courses and realized this is ridiculous. I was raised in a hetero sexist environment, I'm gonna start having relations with girls. And she did, because the college talked her into it, and the peers loved it, and the boys loved it. Everybody loved it. So the reality is sexual behavior is very, very, on a very big broad spectrum, and we will be seeing big changes if we redefine marriage.

We're at the 15-minute point in the Q&A session, and we didn't take quite the full amount of time for the actual debate, so maybe we'll do one more question for each of you. Susan, if same-sex marriage is passed, what's the to stop free people from getting married, or young people from getting married, and they mention animals, but I think that's not what they're saying.

I'd like to state right here that I am against bestiality, right? So I do believe in the regulation of sexual conduct to protect animals. You know, the state draws a lot of lines. It says you can't drive until you're 16, even though some kids at 15 are just fine, and some, frankly, as a mother, I will say 24 would be a better age. But we pick this line, and no one who's 15 and 3/4 can come in and say, "You have to let me drive." because, you know, I'm just as good as the person who's 16, even if they aren't. The state can draw lines. I have no problems with that. It can say 2 people are the most it can be in a marriage because we think more than 2 is inherently exploitative. It can say you have to be 18 to get married. You can say you have to live in this state or submit a Social Security card or whatever. What we give extra scrutiny to, what we should look, I think, with suspicion at, is when the state draws a line based not on some neutral criteria that's applicable to all of us. You're 14, you'll get older, everyone does. Or almost everyone if they don't drive. The question is, when the state uses a criteria that inherently denies benefits to people on an unfair basis— unfair because it is not related to the purpose for which the benefits are given, to secure rights and responsibilities because we're gonna do that anyway, and unfair because it's immutable. You know, I mean, I'm not gonna get into love, lesbians, until graduation, except to say that as the mother of a college-aged daughter, everything Dennis says is wrong. Um, but I do want to say that If you believe, as I think Dennis and I both do, that at least in most cases homosexuality is not a choice, it's like having blue eyes, it's what you were, okay, you're tall or you're short, this is who you are, then to condition government benefits on an immutable characteristic, on who you are, is the very definition of discrimination. And it is for that reason, I think, that the labels do matter. Thank you.

Final question for Dennis Prager. Dennis, you say same-sex marriage is not biologically correct, but isn't it a bad idea to bring biology into the argument since many scientists would claim that monogamy itself is not a biological norm?

I didn't understand the question. I didn't say it wasn't biologically correct. What I said was that men and women are profoundly different. If that's what you meant by biological, then okay, then I do understand. If that's what the questioner meant. So what are the questions? Anyone know what the question meant other than the questioner? Does anyone know? Do you know what the question?

Yeah, I think so.

I think what the questioner meant is health insurance rates in America are surging, leaving millions without affordable options. But Christians don't need to waste money on a broken system. Christian Healthcare Ministries is an alternative to health insurance at half the cost. With CHM, Fellow believers contribute monthly to help pay each other's medical bills while lifting one another up in prayer. It's financial and spiritual support when you need it most. Join CHM today by visiting chministries.org/wellness. That's chministries.org/wellness. Health insurance rates are surging in America, leaving millions without affordable options. If you're sick of having paychecks eaten up by healthcare costs or dealing with mega corporations, then listen to this. Christians don't need to waste money on a broken system. That's why I want to tell you about Christian Healthcare Ministries. It's an alternative to traditional health insurance at half the cost. With CHM, fellow believers contribute monthly to help pay each other's medical bills. There's no enrollment period, so you can join anytime. And you aren't restricted to provider networks, so you choose the doctors and hospitals you want. It's that simple. CHM is not insurance. It's a ministry that puts faith into action. Feel the difference of financial support and biblical care from fellow believers. Join CHM today by visiting chministries.org/wellness. That's chministries.org /wellness.

You know, if you think biology is the imperative, all right, then how do you justify, you know, monogamous marriage, which is not consistent with the underlying imperative? And, you know, so should this be judged according to some biological imperative? How is that?

For the person who didn't get the question, Okay, so because I believe that men and women are basically different and I want to honor that difference, why don't I honor the biological fact that monogamy is not biologically the norm? Right, something like that. Okay, well, I must admit it's the first time I ever had that question. It doesn't mean it's a bad one, but it's, uh, it's, it's, it seems to me to be apples and oranges. We're talking about first Putting aside the question of, and I'll deal with it, of the biological imperative of monogamy, let's, if we can agree that there is a war on the notion that men and women are profoundly different, because after all, what does it mean? I mean, what we have to be We can differ, but we have to be honest. It doesn't matter which sex you marry, it doesn't matter with which sex you raise children, means that the sexes don't differ in any significant way. That's what it means. Forget the talk about rights and so on, these are all different categories. What we have going on here is— and by the way, in academia that is the argument, that sex which has now been changed to gender, and it was deliberately done. We used to say, "What sex are you?" Now it's, "What gender?" Gender is more malleable than sex. Sex was a given. Gender is now considered socially constructed. That is why there was a move in New York City. The city council nixed it, but there was a move. The city health commission actually advocated that they abolish men's rooms and women's rooms in New York City because there are people who don't fit in either category, and that a person should define— don't laugh, this is what's coming— a person defines how he or she feels. Look, it is now a $250,000 fine, I believe it is, in a number of states, Vermont and California among them, If a man starts wearing a dress at work, then you can't fire him. You will be put out of business effectively if you fire him. We can no longer ask for sex-based norms. The very idea is discriminatory and bigoted. This is what— and same-sex marriage is— of course it appeals to fairness and compassion. I fully acknowledge that. But what is happening is it's part of the larger war against the idea that there is a male and there is a female. What is being argued is it does— it's people. Sex doesn't matter, people matter. If two loving people raise children, it's irrelevant if it's a man and a woman, or if it's two women or two men. That's a very big statement, but at least understand what the statement is. The statement is is that it doesn't matter what you are, male or female. They're not significant differences. Now, the fact that I think that that's significant, I also believe that male biology is significant, but in this case I have a value system. My value system wants to preserve male-female differences, and my value system in that sense goes along with biology, if that's your question. I'm trying to be as to be as direct as possible, in the case of where biology says, uh, um, go have sex with as many women as possible versus the value of monogamy, obviously my value system there says biology is not the thing that should determine. So you'll say, well, why in one case and why not in the other? Because of a value system. In one case, male and female, it's not just biological differences. That's the whole point. It's not just biology. Those of you who are married to a man or a woman of opposite sex— it's now— those of you married to a member of the opposite gender, and I'm not being flippant, but one will have to start making this clear. You know how different you are, and you know it isn't just biology. It transcends biology. It is biological, but it transcends it in so many ways. I don't want to lose that. And we don't need to lose it. We can love our gay relatives and our gay friends. And partner is not— why don't they— I don't understand why one wouldn't want a distinctive word for a same-sex partner. I mean, it doesn't matter— when two women say, "This is my wife, this is my wife"— and by the way, if it is the same thing, I would love to know, and this is just an open question, gays will surely email me, and I would like to know, do those, have those gays who have married, when marriage was legal in California, or now in Massachusetts, or now in Vermont, as it will come, do they adopt the last name as often as straights do? Or do they keep their own names? I think that even gays understand there was something something a little different. Different doesn't mean inferior. I don't buy that notion. "Well, separate but equal, the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court—" Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, don't throw out lines. Different is beautiful. There is something beautiful about different. I honor the same-sex relationship. All I ask is that for the sake of a handful of members of society, Don't redefine the fundamental and longest-lasting civilizing institution we have ever had, called marriage. That's all I ask.

We have set aside time for a closing statement from each of you. Although Dennis's remarks kind of sounded like a closing statement. So Susan, I will give you an opportunity to have a closing statement, and then we'll say good night.

Okay. First of all, I want to thank all of you for your kind and patient and respectful attention to the debate tonight. I'm not one who believes in name-calling. Name-calling. But I'm also not one who believes in giving in to the name-caller. And I think it is incumbent upon all of us, and I applaud Toyota for its role in doing so, to stand up and prove that we can engage in civilized, respectful debate about issues which all of us on both sides may care very passionately about. About, and do so in a way that at least tries to move the discussion forward and enlighten us into what others are thinking about or focused on. So I applaud Dennis, I applaud Toyota, and most of all I applaud you, sir. I've taught in the area of gender discrimination for about 25 years now. I am also, as I said, the mother of a daughter and a son. I have, notwithstanding 3 jobs, devoted myself primarily for the last 20 years, in my own mind, in terms of my priorities, goals, and decisions, to raising my children. Men I know who were in a similar place on the escalator as I was 20 years ago by and large did not make the decision that I did, and for that reason are now running the world. I do not regret my decision. I can— would only regret having made the other one. So do I believe men and women are just the same, of course not. As my 83-year-old friend Rose used to tell me when I fetched her, a father is not a mother. But the fact that most women, and I think this is true of my students, that most women put a higher priority on family and want to spend their time raising family does not mean that we ostracize the man who chooses to do so, or in one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions of my time, deny him Social Security survivor's benefits when he chooses to stay at home and raise his children after his wife died. When a mother in precisely the same situation would collect those benefits. In other words, recognizing that groups of people are different is not a reason to treat individuals differently and to insist that they must conform to their norm or they will be denied the privileges and the respect according to those who do. The difference between sex and gender: sex refers to reproductive organs, gender refers to the social construct of how you are in the world and how the world is to you. It was some years ago that my first transsexual student came to me, and until that time I might have I actually laughed at Dennis's joke, and I know it was well-intentioned, about a man putting on a dress and going to work. But what that really is about is about something called transitioning. And I don't think there are a handful of gays in America, but I do not know how many people are literally born in the wrong body. But some are. And I guess I have seen interviews, I have read about it, I have tried to study it. They transition, many of them with great counseling and assistance, manage to become who they ultimately believe that they were meant to be. Do I fully understand it? Of course not. We're in a realm where all of us assume our own section— look at the world through the blinders of our own sexuality and virtually everything else looks different. But I do know that respecting individual difference is not a denial of the realities that men and women are different, gays and straights are different. The question is, do we as a society choose to treat treat people differently on the basis of these criteria, or does the state have an obligation to treat every individual as equally as we possibly can? Thank you very much.

Well, I have to say something. First, I didn't tell any jokes. About the transsexual man or transgendered man. I don't know which he was. All I'm saying is, A, I didn't tell a joke.

B, I didn't— It's not a joke. He said if you put a dress on, you couldn't fire him.

Yeah, but that's not a joke. That's unfortunately the law. Maybe the law is a joke, but the story wasn't a joke. See, this is very important. This goes to another larger issue too, and for, I guess, another time. But let's say he is transitioning. We don't know. Maybe it's just be a cross-dresser. Uh, but let's say he is transitioning. See, we have come in my lifetime since the '60s and '70s, the individual is uber alles. Self is over everybody. There's no more sense— when I was— there's no more sense of what I was raised with, that I have an obligation when I go out into the public sphere, I have some obligations in the way I comport myself. And so that's gone. You know, I mean, you look at the way people used to dress to go to baseball games. Men would go in a suit and suit and tie to a baseball game. When I was a kid, going on an airplane was an event. People dressed up to go on an airplane. Now people, of course, are in shorts and t-shirts. Good or bad, I mean, the idea that I owe my society anything has died fairly much in our lifetime. Let us say he is transitioning. That's his business. I still think that he owes to society and to his employer that he dress according to the sex that he still is. When he is visibly a female, let him wear a dress, then it's a non-issue. But as long as he is visibly a male, then he should not wear the dress at work. If he wants to do it at a club with friends, at home, Obviously, it's a non-issue to me. But why the employer must go along with whatever he is working through? I mean, yes, we do discriminate, and frankly, thank God we discriminate in some arenas in life. If you don't want to hire— one of the only ways to stop kids from getting huge tattoos is to tell them, you know, employers won't won't hire you. It's one of the best arguments you have against an entire sleeve, you know, the entire arm covered in a tattoo. Now some of you will say, well, that's irrelevant. But society is allowed to make these verdicts. We are no longer allowed to make these verdicts. You are a bigot no matter— so long as you have any preference that the man at work Dennis Prager, with his bearded face, not wear a dress, you're a bigot. And yet most people do, and understandably do, have a difficult reaction to a man wearing a dress. And that's okay that we do, it doesn't make us bad. It's okay that we would like men and women to act like men and women in public. What they do privately being their business. So no, it isn't any joke, and I certainly didn't mean it as one, and you didn't laugh anyway. You know, if it were a joke, you would have laughed. It isn't funny. But it is part of the spirit of our times that what I am going through or what I want is what matters. I have one more reaction to one other thing that I'm wrong about colleges. I know Susan has a college-aged daughter, But I must say, here, doing a talk show with many listeners, and talking to many people, and speaking on college campuses, and reading reports from popular journals like Newsweek, the bisexual pressure is huge on females. Guys love it, it's a turn-on for guys, and girls feel it from other girls. It's passé to have an affair with a guy, affair, affair, or hookup with a guy. That's nothing. But with a girl, that's adventurous. That shows you have not allowed your heterosexist upbringing to constrain you to such a limited access of love in life, and now you will also engage with a girl. That doesn't mean they're turning lesbians. I didn't say it did. There are certain fixed lesbians and certain fixed homosexual men, I believe that. But behavior is indeed influenced by society hugely. Greek men used women for babies and used boys for sexual pleasure. Go explain. Do you think that that is a matter of fixed biology, where the genes or whatever of Greek men different? No. The society said this is the way you get pleasure. And it worked. Society has a tremendous impact on our sexual behavior. And that, to me, I think everybody's needs can be met. You give the rights and obligations to gays in their relations. You keep marriage as male-female. And you'd still try to encourage boys to take care of a girl one day through marriage. Thank you.

What a great evening.

This is the first time we did a debate. I hope it won't be the last. Both of you were, I think, standing your positions eloquently and with passion, and I think that the audience greatly appreciated the civility and the thought that went into your presentation.

So thank you.

So now, after Susan and Dennis have a chance to catch their breath, uh, We'll meet you in the lobby.

Thank you for coming. This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.