Gay Marriage | News | Piers Morgan | Suze Orman

Suze Orman Destroys Conservative 'Scholar' on Marriage Equality: VIDEO


Didn't have a chance to post this yesterday but it's a must-watch clip.

Heritage Foundation Scholar Ryan Anderson has been making the rounds on media to tout "traditional marriage". The other day I posted a clip in which Anderson was blasted by Don Lemon, who called Anderson's assertions that same-sex marriage is not illegal "absurd."

Tuesday night Anderson appeared on CNN with Piers Morgan and insulted Suze Orman's relationship to her face during a discussion about marriage equality and the Supreme Court.

Anderson complained that SCOTUS was upholding "our constitutional authority to have a debate" on gay marriage, agreed with an assertion by Morgan that he would defend a convicted felon's right to get married over Suze Orman's and then continued with this bull-pucky:

"The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children. Everything we've discussed so far has been about adult relationships."

Said Orman, who was far more calm and collected than many would have been:

"I feel compassion for you, and I'll tell you why. I know that you believe very strongly what you believe, but I also know that you're very, very uneducated in how it really, really works. And I believe from the bottom of my heart that if you really, really understood why the government does need to get involved, why it does need to be legal on a federal level, if you really understood that, there is no way that you would sit there and say what you are saying right now."


(via tncrm)


Make sure not to miss a Towleroad headline by following @TLRD on Twitter.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Aren't groups like the Heritage Foundation trying to SHUT DOWN "our constitutional authority to have a debate" by supporting a federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

    Posted by: John B. | Mar 28, 2013 1:13:54 PM

  2. Suze Orman is FIERCE. If you're looking for someone who could be to the Gay Rights movement what Martin Luther King, Jr was to the anti-segregation movement, she comes closer than anybody I can think of.

    Posted by: Stuffed Animal | Mar 28, 2013 1:14:44 PM

  3. Anderson's bio at the Heritage foundation does not say if he is MARRIED. Can someone at Towleroad verify his marital status? That would be like a heterosexual discussing what it is like to be gay. Wait that happens everyday. It's like a virgin researching then writing a book about sex.

    Posted by: Carlos | Mar 28, 2013 1:26:25 PM

  4. Think tanks are paid promoters of ideas. Their job is to come up with the most compelling arguments to advance a particular partisan cause and get as much press on them as possible. Spokesmen are not citing their own views.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 28, 2013 2:29:02 PM

  5. I would wager LOTS of money his parents were divorced. MUCH the same as MAGGIE from NOM was a single mother and that's why she's leading a crusade on STR8 marriage as well. It's related to their personal life history and it's bs. Get over yourselves already...

    Posted by: MArf | Mar 28, 2013 2:47:37 PM

  6. Look, this gentleman's argument can be destroyed head on. It is true, that marriage really isn't about children, and modern marriage isn't "traditional". But his argument is about the "welfare of children". Ok, let's go there. Let's assume, for the moment, that all his arguments are ok at face value, then evaluate his central demand on its own merits.

    A child of a gay couple, out of a ban of gay marriage, doesn't gain a mommy and a daddy by virtue of that denial. You can't turn gay people straight by banning them. The most potent argument against this guy is one that wasn't used. The ideal situation in his mind is not the normative situation - so if the biological parent of a couple in a gay marriage DIES, what do you do with the CHILD afterwards? What does he suggest, since to the law, HIS law, the law he FAVORS, the remaining PARENT and CHILD are now STRANGERS. Does he intend to bleat TO that child that his ideal situation is a mommy and daddy?

    This child normally would be sent to a foster home, since the surviving partner has no legal authority over the life of the child.

    Is that really in the best interest of the child - to send them to foster care because they can't have a "mommy and daddy"?

    Is sending kids to foster couples this man's idea of protecting children? Because positively affirming heterosexual marriage is not doing what this man says he wants to do, which is to uphold bans.

    Posted by: Tinyfirefly | Mar 28, 2013 3:53:06 PM

  7. And President Obama is wrong. there aren't intelligent educated people of good will on both sides of the issue. The anti-gay side is wrong. At minimum. Because bans are about animus and punishment.

    Posted by: Tinyfirefly | Mar 28, 2013 4:05:10 PM

  8. same BS rhetoric that always comes up 'Marriage is about children'. Marriage has nothing to do with children. If it was, then there should be a law that says once a couple (hetro) has a child then they can't get divorced until the child becomes an adult. Marriage is a proclamation of one person's love for another. The government just chooses to recognize this with benefits. And even if a State has Civil Unions, the Federal government does not recognize or confer the same benefits to Civil Unions.

    Posted by: SFRowGuy | Mar 28, 2013 4:25:11 PM

  9. Debating with a naive adolescent is beneath Suze & Piers. It's disappointing to watch because I think they're both such accomplished people who should be doing more important things with their even baking cookies would be more productive.

    Posted by: PAUL B. | Mar 28, 2013 5:08:06 PM

  10. He certainly has his Heritage Foundation talking points down. Too bad they are all BS.

    Posted by: noteasilyoffended | Mar 28, 2013 5:25:53 PM

  11. He certainly has his Heritage Foundation talking points down. Too bad they are all BS.

    Posted by: noteasilyoffended | Mar 28, 2013 5:25:55 PM

  12. Did he say he was with the HF for 15 years...and then said he was 31 years old? So how does that work? He was 16 when the HF brought him on board to indoctrinate?

    Posted by: PAUL B. | Mar 28, 2013 6:42:44 PM

  13. Interesting exchange but it was a bit of a gang up.

    Posted by: LJC | Mar 28, 2013 6:58:43 PM

  14. Suze was amazing. She kept calm, and explained her points in an intelligent manner. She explained her reasoning with logic, and then ended with an anecdote. Great job!

    Posted by: | Mar 28, 2013 7:00:12 PM

  15. and again, I have to ask why this moron is called a "scholar" cat is more scholarly.....I commend Suze Orman for maintaining her cool and restrained response

    Posted by: Bernie | Mar 28, 2013 7:12:49 PM

  16. The ongoing 'language evolution' from the Heritage and like kind, 'natural marriage' - 'traditional marriage' - no legal marriage until '2000' vs the truth of South Africa - thank you Nelson Mandela - 1994, etc. etc keeps rolling out and unchallenged. SCOTUS even using new language and terms as though appropriate. Anderson, like many of them, sticks to the message, uses the language, all words - without relationship to reality - intended only to further their hopeless positions.

    Posted by: RexT | Mar 28, 2013 7:22:40 PM

  17. It is IMMENSELY hypocritical of Mr. Anderson to declare that we need to slow down and have a conversation before we start changing our laws ... now that the tide seems to have turned. Did we hear him or his ilk declaring that we should slow down and have a conversation when states were rushing in to ban same-sex marriage? No. These folks are quite happy to monkey with laws and disregard the outcomes for families as long as those changes reflect their personal ideologies.

    And one more thing: if folks like Mr. Anderson were sincere in their belief that the states should be empowered to decide this stuff on their own, they would INSIST that DOMA be overturned and that the federal government start respecting the decisions of those nine states that permit same-sex marriage.

    Posted by: SearchCz | Mar 28, 2013 7:41:10 PM

  18. As soon as this guy started talking, my gaydar went off the radar. He is so GAY (latent for sure) he and Mr. Michelle Bachman should be joined at the head....

    Posted by: Joey Steel | Mar 28, 2013 9:04:29 PM

  19. Recognize the strategy at work here.

    Conservatives are going to continue to say horrific, insulting, over-the-top theings presented as their "honest beliefs", and SOME of them actually DO believer some of the things they say, but most of them are saying these things for one primary purpose.

    To elicit a profoundly negative response that they can point to and replay, over and over, to justify how hateful, socially destructive, and shameful they ARE.

    Suzy knows not to give that to them.

    I sincerely hope the rest of us do, too.

    Posted by: Tom | Mar 28, 2013 9:44:04 PM

  20. I am loving seeing Ryan Anderson on television night and day. There's no one more effective in advancing the cause for marriage equality.

    Posted by: LincolnLounger | Mar 28, 2013 11:00:42 PM

  21. Health care is "secondary issues" to marriage...

    How about when one of the two gets cancer, and isn't covered under a spouse's insurance?

    Posted by: Ryan | Mar 29, 2013 12:33:37 AM

  22. I'll bet Ryan Anderson was very good at dodgeball when he was a kid. He managed to dodge direct answers to most of the questions he was asked. Not to mention that he doesn't even know what the real purpose of marriage is: To ensure the orderly tranmission of property rights and money. Look it up, Mr Ryan.

    Posted by: Beekeeper | Mar 29, 2013 4:47:03 AM

  23. I'll bet Ryan Anderson was very good at dodgeball when he was a kid. He managed to dodge direct answers to most of the questions he was asked. Not to mention that he doesn't even know what the real purpose of marriage is: To ensure the orderly tranmission of property rights and money. Look it up, Mr Ryan.

    Posted by: Beekeeper | Mar 29, 2013 4:47:04 AM

  24. That was literally the most offensive, shameful, biased, condescending set up I've ever witnessed on television. Piers Morgan has reached an ALL TIME LOW. Ryan T. Anderson, God bless you! I stand behind you!

    THIS is a respectful debate (remove spaces to link):
    "VIDEO: Heritage’s Ryan Anderson and The Blaze’s S.E. Cupp Debate Marriage"
    http : //blog. heritage. org/2013/03/28/video-heritages-ryan-anderson-talks-marriage-on-the-blaze/

    Posted by: anonymous | Mar 29, 2013 4:59:53 AM

  25. That was literally the most offensive, shameful, biased, condescending rude jerk I've ever witnessed on television. Ryan Anderson stooped really LOW. He needs to learn to treat others with some respect during a conversation and not interupt the other guests when they are speaking.

    I wonder who he will have on his side once history rolls over him like a steam roller on a hot June afternoon.

    My gaydar also went instantly flying into the red. I can't find any information on Anderson being married or single.

    He could have been as dangerous in the long term as Ralph Reed, but he is not that smart, we won't have to worry about Anderson too much longer.

    Posted by: Jeff | Mar 29, 2013 5:20:47 AM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «The Story Behind TIME Magazine's Gay Marriage Cover« «