Gay Marriage | Joel Osteen | Larry King | News

Joel Osteen 'Not Knocking' Gays, But They Shouldn't Get Marriage


It must be religious bigotry week on Larry King Live. Monday night was Pastor Rick Warren, and last night megachurch pastor Joel Osteen and his wife Victoria. King asked Osteen about the recent victories in the marriage equality battle. Osteen has a tough time getting his head around it.

They honestly don't want to see homosexuality as anything less than a perversion. They're just well-coiffed and more polite versions of Michael Savage, essentially.

Clip and transcript, AFTER THE JUMP...

KING: Iowa Supreme Court just allowed same-sex marriage, making them the third state; Massachusetts, Iowa and Hawaii. The general forecast is that's coming. Other people are now saying, why not make marriage a religious institution, and have the state bonding that the non-marriage state issue. So we can have two kinds of getting together.

J. OSTEEN: I'm not sure I understand --

KING: In other words, if you want to be married and you're both religious, go to your church. If you want to be bonded together and you don't want to call it marriage, go on down to the civil servant office.

J. OSTEEN: I don't know if --

KING: The state will not marry you.

J. OSTEEN: Sure. I guess my thing, Larry, is I just like the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. So it sounds like you're saying something different.

KING: Well, it still would, except the state wouldn't perform it.

J. OSTEEN: Well --

KING: You could perform it.

V. OSTEEN: It would be called something else. It would be called partnering or something.

KING: By the state.

V. OSTEEN: Yeah.

KING: If the religious institution -- I'm just throwing this out.

J. OSTEEN: Sure.

KING: Do you think, though, the other side is coming, that eventually many more states are going to allow same sex marriage?

J. OSTEEN: You know, I don't know where it's all going, but again, I just -- it's my desire that we keep the family unit, the basis of our society -- I'd love to see it stay between a male and a female, not knocking anybody else. But I'm not sure where it's all going.

KING: If this continues, do you think it will harm things? Supposing there were more states that had it. What would be the harm?

V. OSTEEN: Again, you know what? We really want to see marriage between a man and a woman. There is going to be people who get together and have relationships and have what they call their families. But I just think marriage should be sanctified by the church. It should be between a man and a woman. But yeah, I mean they're doing it today.

KING: The proposal is if that should happen, sanctified by the church, the state shouldn't be in the marriage business. That was the other proposal. Why should the state be -- just throwing it out there.

J. OSTEEN: I don't know if I'm 100 percent clear on it all. But I guess, Larry, we come back to that -- will it undermine the basis of society? I don't know. I think that -- I know God's best is for a male and a female to have a marriage and raise their family. It doesn't always happen, but I believe that's much better.

KING: Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

J. OSTEEN: Well, I think that again, it's best for a male and a female. I can't say -- I'm not saying that gay people aren't good people. And --

KING: Or good parents.

J. OSTEEN. Yeah, exactly. But again, I like to shoot for God's best, and that is a father and a mother in the home. It doesn't always happen. I know a lot of people raised by single parents. And you know what? We bless them and pray for them as well. but I think God's best is a male and female.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I am shocked! Larry King is a former JESUIT and the fact that neither he nor Joel understand Marriage laws at all! First off Marriage in America IS A CIVIL PRIVILEGE, the state gives it approbation through the issuance of a CIVIL MARRIAGE LICENSE - the contract which states two parties have met the LEGAL requirements to enter into a Marriage! THEN AND ONLY THEN (after the state approves and issues the license) can 2 people go to their religious institution and have a Marriage ceremony!! The other option is have a CIVIL SERVICE performed by a Justice of the Peace or other civil servant designated to lawfully perform MARRIAGE Ceremonies!! Folks - In America MARRIAGE has always been a CIVIL Event and in fact point of interest, in the early days of the Pilgrims settling into the New Land they OUTLAWED RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE ALTOGETHER for several years!!!

    Posted by: alex in boston | Apr 8, 2009 7:12:16 AM

  2. Another in-the-closet fag. Poor wife. Mark my word - Ted Haggard should recruit him!

    Posted by: Alfred | Apr 8, 2009 7:40:41 AM

  3. Anyone else get the feeling that Victoria is the smart one in the Osteen marriage...and probably reviews his books red pen in hand.

    Posted by: Suzel | Apr 8, 2009 8:04:20 AM

  4. "There is going to be people who get together and have relationships and have what they call their families."

    What they CALL their families?

    No. We _ARE_ families.

    Fuck you and your sanctimonious bullshit.

    Posted by: tjc | Apr 8, 2009 8:05:06 AM

  5. What a smarmy bastard.

    Posted by: Friedrich | Apr 8, 2009 8:05:19 AM

  6. Well... at least his limited rhetoric is "I'd like to see..." vs. 'It MUST be this way'.

    I can't get over the Stepford-esque expression plastered across the face of that wife of his. Is she smiling or is she worried?

    Posted by: C.Edwards | Apr 8, 2009 8:06:46 AM

  7. Joel, I'm not knocking oppressive religions but your church shouldn't get tax exemptions. Gays aren't god's best? Neither is your wife's hair color (definitely not natural either). The bible explicitly condemns divorce - how many marriages has Larry had at this stage? And yet you're palling around with him. Hyp-oc-ris-y...

    Posted by: arbitron | Apr 8, 2009 8:08:57 AM

  8. Thanks Alex in Boston. In Michigan, at the end of the religious marriage ceremony, I've always heard the priest/preacher say, something along the lines of "by the powers vested in me by the state, I pronounce you man and wife." How would people feel if all marriages, for governmental purposes, were returned to City Hall, and the church ceremony was a 2nd run option? I don't think the Osteens and their ilk would take to that well.

    Posted by: Jim In Detroit | Apr 8, 2009 8:09:15 AM

  9. Well, this interview wasn't too bad considering the kind of rhetoric we've been subjected to in recent months. At least he says that marriage and adoption with man and women is best, IN GODS EYES. That is a religious belief and not factual. People can have their bigoted religious beliefs all they want so long as they aren't culminated into fruition as we saw with prop 8 and other bans.

    Posted by: Aiden Raccoon | Apr 8, 2009 8:22:15 AM

  10. Alex -- except that there are religions that have marriage with requirements that differ from those of the state. Some churches and temples have been marrying gay and lesbian couples for years. No direct legal benefits (except in places with marriage equality), but all the religious benefits you get with any other marriage. So no, a state-issued marriage license is NOT a requirement for a religious marriage, just as the parallel is not either: you do not need a religious marriage in order to be married in the eyes of the state. They are completely, utterly, and profoundly different institutions. And many people -- gay, straight, believers and non, lawmakers and priests -- get confused by.

    Posted by: tjc | Apr 8, 2009 8:22:34 AM

  11. Jim -- some religious leaders are refusing to issue civil marriage licenses for anyone in their congregation until marriage equality is achieved in their state. Not too many of these folks, but some. So the happy couple goes to City Hall either before or after the religious ceremony to complete the legal paperwork.

    Because they're two different components of most weddings: the religious ceremony and the state paperwork overlap in one convenient event.

    If the two parts were, well, _divorced_, it'd be a pain, but you already need to go down to city hall for the license application in the first place, so what's a 2nd trip? :-)

    Posted by: tjc | Apr 8, 2009 8:27:32 AM

  12. When Joel Osteen hesitates I can see the wheels turning, what is the best thing to say to make the most money???

    I think he is an MF, married faggot. Like Ted Haggard. Like so many religious "leaders." Who do they "lead" anyway? There are so many airheads in America and guys like Osteen keep blowing hot air into them. Oh, well, it's a living.

    Posted by: jessejames | Apr 8, 2009 8:31:03 AM

  13. He sounds stupid. I cant believe I watch him sometimes.

    Posted by: J | Apr 8, 2009 8:32:04 AM

  14. Poor confused thing. Doesn't have a clue. Apparently King doesn't either. What is wrong with the woman? Lithium maybe? She sits there like a Barbie doll.

    Posted by: Island Girly | Apr 8, 2009 8:32:44 AM

  15. I would love for these arrogant doofuses to explain how gay marriage is a bigger threat than the 50% of straight marriages ending in divorce? ...or women getting knocked up and their boyfriends/husbands leaving them ...or husbands cheating on their wives?

    Larry asked him: "If this (gay marriage) continues, do you think it will harm things?" I noticed that Joel didn't answer the question. All he said was that he wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman. I'm surprised that he didn't say that Jebus will cry.

    Posted by: David in Houston | Apr 8, 2009 8:46:11 AM

  16. Osteen is another SLICK charleton..OUT to Bamboozle nitwits out of thier money with promises of Gods love....this assholes who give him thier money are nitwits. Look at him in his $1000 suit..and her in her designer clothes..he can go Fuck himself...and I'd tell him persoanlly IF I ever saw him in person.

    Posted by: Disgusted American | Apr 8, 2009 8:54:31 AM

  17. First off...I thought Hawaii lost gay marriage? Am I wrong?

    Anyway...taking "marriage" out of the state is the way it always should have been. Religion can have the word "marriage", but make all state sanctioned unions between two people possible regardless of gender. All that needs to be done is replace the marriage license with some kind of a civil union contract where both parties need only sign. The union becomes legal at the signing of the contract like most all civil documents. If the couple then wishes to have a religious or non-religious ceremony, then that's their own business.

    There's a reason why a religious marriage needs a wedding license. That is to make the marriage legal to the state. There is no reason why the state needs to have marriage ceremony to become legal.

    The only reason I think the word "marriage" should be changed for civil ceremonies is because many religious people who oppose same sex marriage are too retarded to understand the word "marriage" doesn't belong to them and can't comprehend what a civil marriage is, as the guy being interviewed by King obviously proves. So, let them keep their word and offer equal rights to everyone.

    Posted by: Patrick | Apr 8, 2009 8:58:14 AM

  18. this exhange was disappointing, because I like Osteen's 'power of positive thinking' message. He's pro-prosperity, and on his shows is not a money grabber. But he is not as simple as he pretends to be; so he is basically trying to not "knock the gays" but still towing the line of his christianist base. It was a cowardly display, and I have lost a lot of respect for him.
    His sweet, naive, country boy demeanor fell flat on it's face in this exchange, he is a calculating politician, and not our friend.

    Posted by: patricklehman | Apr 8, 2009 9:04:18 AM

  19. Alex in Boston

    You are thinking of John Mclaughlin as the former jesuit.

    Larry king is Jewish.

    Being as old as dirt, I wouldn't be surprised if Larry king has outdated notions/ myths about homosexuality, but it isn't from being a former jesuit



    Joel Olsteen

    - was handed his congregation/ ministry from his father. Didn't create shit

    - the stadium that he uses for his church is owned by HOUSTON and in a sweatheart deal the guy only pays $288,889 a month / 30 year lease to rent it. That amount of square footage in Houston = much much much higher average rental rate

    - Olsteen's main preaching themes are

    -------------- give him money

    ------------- think positively

    That is it. No crosses, no mention of God or jeeebus. A schister who saw an opening in the over crowded motivational speaker circuit by tailoring the feel goody stuff to church people who stayed away from motivational speakers.

    - the home of the olsteen's is a HUGE!!!!!!! mansion (no prob except he claims to be a preacher and is judging other people) owns a private jet

    A scam artist but hasn't been caught YET!!! toe tapping in a bathroom or snorting cocaine

    Posted by: jimmyboy | Apr 8, 2009 9:18:28 AM

  20. He has the good business sense to dress up whatever prejudice he has in inexact phrases and swath it in seeming compassion. Brilliant! He offends no-one (supposedly) while still shilling for "God's best". Could be worse, better smarmy like this than outright hateful. At least with this one wonders what he really thinks when he is off the pulpit 'cos gays write donation checks just as much as little old knitting ladies do.

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 8, 2009 9:52:18 AM

  21. Why would we care that someone whose ministry is based on the theory that God wants you to be rich thinks that we are immoral? Fuck that greedy smarmy bastard.

    Posted by: ChristopherM | Apr 8, 2009 9:54:42 AM

  22. Whoa, dim and dimmer in that conversation. The state is required for legally binding marriage in the US, the church is not. The church has no right to own the word "marriage," and we should not give it to them, particularly at this important civil rights juncture. Once gay couples are allowed to marry, then we can talk about whether the state should be granting marriage or union licenses. But, you know what, straight people--even non-religious ones--aren't going to be giving up the word "marriage" till hell freezes over. If we agree to hand marriage over to the churches now, we will lock ourselves into 2nd class citizenship and straight people will remain the 1st class citizens. We need to make the distinction between civil and religious marriage because people are thick. But we should be fighting for civil marriage equality, nothing less. It has happened in IA and VT this week. It's not impossible.

    Posted by: Ernie | Apr 8, 2009 10:08:12 AM

  23. Lary King doesn't seem to know shit from applebutter. As for the Olsteen's, it's about money and little else. America needs to grow up and quit paying these fakers for bullshit.

    Posted by: declan | Apr 8, 2009 10:10:41 AM

  24. You would think Larry King could afford a fact checker. Hawaii had and lost marriage and now issues domestic partnerships. Connecticut (and now Vermont) should have been on his list of states with marriage equality.

    Posted by: Will | Apr 8, 2009 10:16:10 AM

  25. As I watched the interview unfold last night, the most persistent thought that ran through my mind was that Olsteen, as well as Rick Warren, are just a more obsequious versions of Robertson and Fawell. Living in the land of Warren, I'm often reminded that he tithes much of his income to personal chairity, as if hording every red cent is the only attraction for a meglomaniac.

    What both these men love, more than money, is exactly what Robertson loves, what Fawell loved, and that is political influence and power. They are the same people, except that the prototypes wear different hairstyles and clothes; they are only forced to step more lightly, as the fire, brimstone and condemnation approach to their flocks no longer flies in a post modern society.

    Let the gays off the hook, and they lose that ability to control and rally their followers through the manipulation of fear--their tried and true method of sustaining their places on top of the heap. Condemn gays too loudly, and they turn off all the folks who they hope to recruit in the future, and lose some of their current congregants who are unable to see beyond the sheep's clothing.

    It's politics...he is playing the same game that Obama, McCain and Clinton did. They have to use us, because they can't win the choice or divorce wars.

    Posted by: Mike | Apr 8, 2009 10:17:05 AM

Post a comment


« «Conservative Harvard Student Goes After Barney Frank on Economy« «