Gay Marriage | Kelsey Grammer | News | Piers Morgan | Tea Party

Kelsey Grammer Says No to Tea Party, Over Opposition to Gay Marriage: VIDEO

Kelsey2

Republican Kelsey Grammer was asked last night by Piers Morgan about his allegiance to the Tea Party.

Says Grammer: “I’m not sure they say anything that I would object to. I’ve just been told that they’re lunatics."

Morgan tells him that most of the Tea Party is opposed to gay marriage.

"I wouldn't sign on to that. Absolutely. I played several [gay characters]. I guess I'm more Libertarian in that way. I think marriage is up to two people that love each other. And if you find the church that you want to get married in you go right ahead ..In my mind the state of marriage is something that has been endorsed by the idea that it is a sacrament within the context of a faith...the word marriage comes out of the religious side of our experience and our history. So I tend to think our government shouldn't be involved in any way..."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. He's right in a way. And of course, if you keep "marriage" for the sacred ceremony, since there ARE churches that bless gay unions, you STILL end up with gay marriage existing.

    This is the one thing that "Christian" organizations like NOM have never, ever admitted.

    Posted by: Strepsi | Oct 13, 2011 9:09:57 AM


  2. I've never found Grammer attractive, but that beard really works on him. That's the best he's ever looked.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Oct 13, 2011 9:27:14 AM


  3. Because Kelsey Grammer is such an authority on marriage, lol. Oy vey.

    Posted by: Ben | Oct 13, 2011 9:34:21 AM


  4. He should be an authority on marriage; he's had enough of them.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Oct 13, 2011 9:36:24 AM


  5. The Christian church didn't get into the marriage business until the middle ages! Before that it was mostly a secular and private affair. Some people had their weddings blessed. That was about it

    Officially it didn't become a "sacrament" until the early 16th century. And that was in response to Martin Luther's Reformation, which saw marriage as a secular thing

    Posted by: Steve | Oct 13, 2011 9:49:36 AM


  6. Dastus, the beard isn't just on his face.

    Posted by: Chip | Oct 13, 2011 9:52:56 AM


  7. Right. Cause his 4 marriages (so far) were sacraments. He probably wishes the government were out of his marriages because all those divorces and child support payments get expensive.

    Posted by: Ernie | Oct 13, 2011 10:08:14 AM


  8. How can an intelligent and gay-friendly man like him not see that as long as legal and financial benefits attend the institution of marriage, it cannot be to the whim of organized religion? Or is he merely saying, as Libertarians do, that no one should have special legal or financial benefits based on marriage? Unfortunately, even if this is the case, Libertarians believe people should be free to discriminate against anyone they want.

    Posted by: Jack | Oct 13, 2011 10:35:22 AM


  9. Of course he's not right!

    Marriage is a government function, not a religious one. Only the government is in the marriage business, religion is only in the wedding business.

    Only the government can grant, enforce or dissolve marriages. Religions can ONLY throw parties -- called "weddings" -- for marriages they like.

    You are legally married ONLY when you possess a vailid marriage license from the government. You can have a dozen wedddings in a dozen churches and you still won't be legally married until the GOVERNMENT says you are.

    You can get married without ever stepping inside a church for a wedding or having clergy as an officiant -- people do it ALL the time! Just because clergy are allowed to officiate at weddings doesn't make marriage a religious institution; clergy can only officiate because the GOVERNMENT says they can.

    You do realize that this weird modern right-wing myth that marriage is actually a function of religion means atheists can never get married, right? I mean, that has occurred to you, right? Right?

    Honestly, how far are we into the marriage equality fight now? How many years has it been? And this is information we all grew up with, that we all know -- this is the way marriage works, so why is anyone listening to lunatics who preach the opposite of REALITY?

    For heaven's sake, if nothing else, it's Kelsey Grammer! Why on Earth would anyone agree with anything he says? He's an idiot!

    Posted by: ohplease | Oct 13, 2011 10:37:24 AM


  10. Wrong, Kelsey - VERY WRONG. Marriage is clearly a legal institution, with multiple legal benefits from which we the disenfranchised are excluded.

    Seriously, with all that prattle about leaving it to the churches; are we to take the message that he is opposed to atheist marriage? That is clearly, to the likely disappointment of the tea partiers, unconstitutional. Just because he played an intelligent man once (Frazier) clearly doesn't make him one.

    Posted by: Rob | Oct 13, 2011 11:00:49 AM


  11. I don't buy it. I think his agents are telling him his residuals have fallen since shooting his mouth off.My guess is that tea taste is turning sour

    Posted by: ron g | Oct 13, 2011 11:23:10 AM


  12. If only the tea party had kept out the weirdos, these bizarre discussions wouldn't be taking place. Who knew Grammer was a member anyway?

    Posted by: anon | Oct 13, 2011 11:23:10 AM


  13. I KNEW There was a reason I don't like him. Now I know!!!

    Posted by: Billy | Oct 13, 2011 11:29:15 AM


  14. The comments started off on track but somehow veered into an oncoming train. Kelsey is arguing in favor of gay marriage, not against it as the commenters seem to think. He does so in a somewhat confusing way, but his basic point is that gays and straights should have equal marriage rights. He then goes on a bit of a tangent to say that in his opinion maybe everyone should have equal, civil ceremonies akin to civil unions, and a sacramental marriage ceremony with no legal standing could be the province of religion, ie religion should stay out of civil marriage. But for some reason most of the comments here have him saying something completely different.

    Posted by: Brian | Oct 13, 2011 12:40:26 PM


  15. "This is the one thing that "Christian" organizations like NOM have never, ever admitted."
    ---
    Well, to be overly fair, they have good (or rather bad) reason not to admit that. They don't believe it. At least, too many insist that anyone claiming to know God *and* to support gay marriage is simply lying.

    Posted by: Hyhybt | Oct 13, 2011 3:23:06 PM


  16. By the way, for the message that appears with the CAPCHA... is it really necessary to make that white text on a light yellow background? It looked like a blank block until I accidentally selected part of it.

    Posted by: Hyhybt | Oct 13, 2011 3:25:10 PM


  17. He's partially correct. As he darned well knows (after several marriages) the State handles marriages separate from any Church ALL THE TIME. He's mincing his words for his right-wing fan base. You're either FOR Equality under law, or against.

    He produces the show that Patricia Heaton (a Katholic nut-job) is on as well.

    Talent or not, knowing people support my discrimination sucks the joy out of any performance for me.

    Posted by: Pete n SFO | Oct 13, 2011 4:15:11 PM


  18. Marriage in the town hall is a fully legal, civil right.

    It has nothing to do with religion (marriage predates christianity btw).

    Posted by: SteveC | Oct 13, 2011 4:19:07 PM


  19. @Brian: Kelsey is arguing (poorly) in favor of religion owning marriage. Many of us believe that it is religion that should not be interfering in marriage (their only right should be sanctioning whichever partnerships they so choose), a civil institution whose protections and benefits all come through the government. Most of us aren't saying he's a bigot, we're just disputing his ideas about marriage, particularly since it's rather laughable that a man who's been married many times (the last time before his divorce papers were dry) would have anything useful to say about marriage, or our civil rights.

    Until straight people successfully argue that the government should be out of THEIR marriages (it only comes up when gay couples want in, funny that), talking about civil unions for all, marriage left to the majority-bigoted churches, is a complete non-starter. It's offensive.

    Posted by: Ernie | Oct 13, 2011 4:30:36 PM


  20. Well at least he didn't talk about the sanctity of marriage. Also he obviously has not been paying to close attention to the Tea Party or he would have known their opinions on homosexuality.

    Posted by: Nicholas | Oct 13, 2011 6:06:16 PM


  21. The commenters on this blog are all special ed graduates.

    Morons, he is IN FAVOR of marriage equality. He's a Republican who speaks out very clearly in favor of gay marriage. He deserves thanks, not insults.

    His further thought was that, since marriage is linked with religious sacraments, it would probably be better for the govt. to get out of the marriage business altogether. This was actually proposed in MD and NH. The govt. would issue civil unions to all couples and any couples who wanted a marriage would get it from their religious group. Whether you agree or disagree with this approach, he is not proposing anything that would treat gays differently.

    Posted by: David | Oct 13, 2011 10:13:08 PM


  22. Sorry Ernie but I really think you and the other commenters are misreading this whole issue. He's very clearly in favor of same sex marriage. The only part that people here should possibly be disagreeing with is that he wants to reserve the word marriage for religion, and the government would just give civil unions to everyone, which would carry all the same legal rights. Marriage would have no legal standing, be just a sacramental/social event, and gay friendly churches would be free to have gay marriages if they want. But it wouldn't matter from a legal standpoint, as the government would have control over legal "marriage", ie civil unions.

    And to your last point, he explicitly states the government should be out of all marriages, gay and straight, which is exactly what you're asking him to say.

    Posted by: Brian | Oct 14, 2011 12:20:30 AM


  23. I didn't say he wanted to treat same-sex couples differently or that he is speaking out against gay people. I strongly disagree with his interpretation of marriage as a "sacrament" that should be left to the churches. Contrary to this faux-libertarianism, I believe marriage is a civil institution (which it is!) and should remain so--arguments to take it out of the government's hands (arguments that tend to be seriously raised only in conjunction with marriage equality for gay couples) are wrongheaded in my opinion.

    I also think it's disingenuous for a man who has taken advantage of civil marriage 4 times (perhaps not always to his benefit, so one questions his judgment) to claim he thinks government shouldn't be involved. If he truly thinks that, why does he keep getting married? He could have just had a legally meaningless church ceremony, but he didn't. Many people (not Kelsey, explicitly) who say they favor the civil-unions-for-all approach haven't thought it through, are in fact (civilly) married, and don't recognize that straight people are not in favor of CUs for all, so it won't happen. Allowing churches to own the word marriage is dangerous for gay people; straight people who take marriage for granted tend to be blind to this reality.

    Posted by: Ernie | Oct 14, 2011 11:22:23 AM


  24. Jeez, tea bag huggers.....
    Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
    Officiant, Celebrant, Justice of the Peace,
    & Non-denominational Minister....

    Posted by: Joseph A. Mustich | Oct 14, 2011 2:40:37 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Victoria Jackson Goes to Occupy Wall Street: VIDEO« «