March 27, 2013

The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson mounted a vigorous defense of traditional marriage last night on “Piers Morgan Live” during a debate with Morgan and Suze Orman, who both back same-sex marriage.

Anderson, who serves as Heritage’s William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, opened the segment by stating his view on marriage:

I think marriage exists to bring a man and woman together as husband and wife, to be mother and father to any children their union produces. And the Supreme Court, in the cases they’re hearing today and tomorrow, should really not cut short the democratic debate that we’re having. Citizens all across the country are discussing what marriage is and why it matters. And what we want to see the court do is uphold our constitutional authority to have that debate.

When Orman called him uneducated and ignorant for his views, Anderson politely responded:

Why do you assume that I’m ignorant? You say I just don’t know. I don’t assume anything badly about you. I just think we disagree. President Obama himself has said there are people of good will and sound mind on both sides of this issue. I agree with the President.

I’m not going to call you names and I’m not going to say you’re ignorant or don’t understand. But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that.

Anderson stated facts and never lost his calm, even as Suze Orman and Piers Morgan kept raising their voices. And he successfully explained what many conservatives are concerned about: “Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father.”

The audience’s response was in line with Morgan and Orman’s views, but Anderson remained stoic. He said he while he may be in the minority in that audience, “in America there are lots of people who agree with me and we should have this conversation.”

Read more Heritage research in favor of traditional marriage.

Do you agree with what Ryan Anderson said about marriage on “Piers Morgan Live”?

Comments (188)

Jaime L. Manzano - March 28, 2013

Beyond simple usage of the word “marriage” it seems that the wholesale transfer of benefits under the law to a revised definition is a clear “bait and switch” effort. If a change in benefits is justified, change the law, not the definitions under which benefits were initially approved.

Burt Prater - March 28, 2013

I wholeheartedly agree with Ryan and admire him for his measured, accurate, and consistent responses in the face of a hostile audience.

bbrun - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson was right and all the rest of the crowd obiously was selected to be for Gay Marriage.
Ryan you did a good job under the fire of the devil!!

Ellen Elmore - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson is 100% correct about the definition of marriage. He stated facts not opinions which is something liberals have a hard time with. Ryan’s defense of tradtional marriage is in line with the views of the majority of the American public. He stated his facts with humilty and made his case without criticism of the oppostion.

jim wier - March 28, 2013

Marriage may or may not be for the purpose of having children. When my mother remarried, after the death of my father, at age 65 it surely was not to have children. You are behind the curve of public opinion and it is issues like this that have the younger generation as leaning heavily to the democratic party. If your organization continues to focus on social issues rather than economic I will cease supporting you.

maurice - March 28, 2013

Why waste time and energy talking to people of this mind set?
You can’t fix stupid!!!!

David Hubbs - March 28, 2013

The purpose of marriage is the procreation of the species….love, while an important ingredient , is not the “end game”. I love my dog…but I think it would be a problem if I married him.

Suzie Orman has openly declared her gay lifestyle so it would be quite unusual for her to defend any other position. And Piers Morgan needs no comment

Dewey Switzer - March 28, 2013

Yes, I agree. In fact we condemn the children we have if we do otherwise.
Dewey

t. tanis - March 28, 2013

wonder how orman and morgan were brought into this world……………maybe back then they really had clones working and the world never knew…

David A. Dibbell - March 28, 2013

I agree with Morgan and Orman. It’s an individual rights issue and a fairness issue. My experience is along the lines recently demonstrated by Senator Portman – that is that your view changes when you discover that you have a gay person in your family. If the Republicans had any brains at all, they would put forward legislation to legalize same sex marriage once and for all.

Pamela Grothaus - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson must be commended for standing up to these arrogant liberal radicals and calmly stating well-reasoned arguments for preserving marriage as one man and one woman. Thank you, Ryan!!!

Robin Taylor - March 28, 2013

I completely agree with what Ryan Anderson said about marriage, “the discussion, the debate needs to happen among the people about marriage and the democratic process followed.” It is astonishing how bullies attempt to stifle the voice of a different opinion and how they attempt to dictate government. Be bold and courageour – Mr. Anderson and the Heritage Foundation!

Zev crawley - March 28, 2013

I completely agree. Life is the supreme right, without the right to live no other right matters. Consequently, life is the supreme responsibility. Life is only created from the union of a man and a woman. The life they create is their responsibility, not a village or the states or their neighbor’s. the left wants to create more “programs” to allow parents to abdicate this responsibility and develop more dependency on the government. The government should continue to encourage marriage between a man and a woman through legislative and tax policy so the children that are produced from that relationship are held as their responsibility. I do not care about personal choice for gratuitous sex between consenting adults, but that is not the point of marriage it is about being responsible for the next generation.

Judy Doyle - March 28, 2013

God bless Ryan Anderson for defending traditional marriage. I agree with him and so do millions of other Americans.

Nelson Whipple - March 28, 2013

The issue has no basis in “rights” or “fairness”.The stand for man-woman marriage is just plain common sense, accepted as such for what? Ten thouysand years. Thiis is not the only issue with regard to which we have lost all sense of common sense.

Marilyn Lofaro - March 28, 2013

I was appalled at the rudeness of Piers Morgan
and Suzi Ormond!

Mary Bippes - March 28, 2013

I agree with Ryan Anderson that a marriage is definded as a man and a woman united together that, if possible, will have children. In my opinion, if we head down this path it will become a slippery slope we will not be able to control and at the end of it will be problems we can’t even imagin. Thank you for standing up for marriage as it was given by God.

Mary Beth Colton - March 28, 2013

Thank God we have stoic men like Mr. Anderson on our side. We need to stand strong in this storm, the future of our society depends upon it. Nothing good will come from same sex marriage, it is that simple.

Raymond Mancini - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson did as good a job as he could do, in
talking to two loud mouthed liberals,and an audience
who seemed to enjoy supporting homosexuality. I was
a little surprised God wasn’t brought into the conversation, but I guess it was best because then we
would have seen how they really hated Him.

Royce Boon - March 28, 2013

I most heartily agree with Ryan Anderson re marriage.

David ravanesi - March 28, 2013

I believe if two people love each other and want to be a legal couple relative to shared benefits ie. insurance that would normally cover heterosexuals they should be allowed to enjoy the same rights as a married man and woman. I think the only difference speaking from
My beliefs just allow the vows but call It a union..speaking to gay and lesbian friends of mine they could nt care less what its called but allow them to have the same benefits as heterosexual couples and I agree

Mary Ann Bageac - March 28, 2013

I will admit to having evolved on this issue. In the traditional biblical definition of marriage, yes it is between a man and a woman. However in the legal definition used in our secular legal system I cannot agree with Ryan on this one. I fail to see the connection between this issue of marriage and less government. Less government would not attempt to dictate the structure of our families. Like it or not a 2 parent family is the key regardless of the gender of the parents. Conservatives and the Republican party will again shoot themselves in the foot on this one. Make it an issue of freedom and choice not the imposition of some preconceived family values agenda. Focus on theories about creating an economic environment in which families of all sorts can thrive. That is where we must win

Tom Adams - March 28, 2013

Thank you Ryan. Hold your ground. Articulate the message clearly. Thank you.

marvin kramer - March 28, 2013

the word marriage should used ONLY when a man and women unite Same sex partners who unite should be given EVERY right legally and otherwise , I would not think this would be difficult for gays to accept, they get EVERY benefit except the use of the word marriage, let’s not alter history for the use of a word

Terry Hanger - March 28, 2013

God is our creator, and He created marriage between a man and a woman. His Book states men with men and women with women is an abomination in His sight. Sodom and Gomorrah were taken off the face of the earth because of it. Lots wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back when told not too.

Mitchel Wolf - March 28, 2013

I agree with Ryan Anderson that marriage should be beween a man and a woman only.

Brian - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson was spectacular in his approach to the debate. He was spot on. The host and guest were unable to land a meaningful punch… and then came the barbs and raised voices. Keep up the great work Ryan!

G L Stout - March 28, 2013

Marriage is between male and female, man and woman for the purpose of procreation. It must include a follow up; i.e. the care of the off spring, teaching of morals, helped by religion, and including the values we gained from our parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters, clergy, the “good” teachers, etc. The root is the stable family enviornment. It cannot be replicated by 2 or more same sex so called parents!!

Audrey Chambers - March 28, 2013

Seems much opposition to a same sex union is the term Marriage. I agree with that opposition. I also believe these unions should be allowed and propose the term Pairrage or Pairage. It should convey all the rights and privileges of Marriage. While there is an ideal set of parents, the reality is it is the exception today rather than the rule, not only in its makeup but in its application. Would that a child have the loving upbringing of the input of two adults than of only one. Government has been a major contributor to the single parent household. But that’s a subject for another day.
I am a grandmother and my parenting days are far behind – just to let you know I’m not looking for anything for myself in this ongoing debate.

Bill Dunne - March 28, 2013

I always found Suze Orman’s manner vaguely off-putting whenever I happened to stumble across her on the tube, and now I know why. She’s a jerk. And a bully. And therefore in good company with Piers Morgan. How’s that for ad hominem? Ryan Anderson acquitted himself as well and as honorably as anyone could have done in that grossly unfair set-up. His counter to Orman’s personal attack on him was spot on, and while it didn’t make any noticeable impression on his antagonists, some CNN viewers must have cheered.

Nick Sandwick - March 28, 2013

Why do we need to change the meaning of words, morality and standards for the lowest common denominator. Everything isn’t a right as spelled out in the Constitution. We’re on the Road to Serfdom.

Bill - March 28, 2013

As usual the discussion of the Left is not about the actual Constitutional issue but about definitions. The actual problem is that the government and the courts have intruded into the private lives of our citizens with laws and taxes that favor specific groups. If we “legalize” gay marriage then we would still be interfering with the “civil rights” of single people. In actuality these are not civil rights but rather are discriminatory benefits of one group rather than another. As with most issues, if we just withdrew the government from our lives, as per the Founding Fathers who foresaw this as the problem, we wouldn’t have to even discuss marriage. This is not a libertarian view but rather a Constitutional one.

14ben - March 28, 2013

Way to go, Ryan. What a great job staying calm and clear.

I find the moralizing of the pro-gay marriage people to be quite interesting. And they are all over the board: Citing the increase in public approval as a reason for redefining marriage, when you know that they would turn around and say that public opinion was just “wrong” if it happened to be going the other direction.

I also find the self-centeredness of the proponents of gay marriage to be quite revealing. No longer is the ideal of marriage about a man and a woman committing to each other “for better or for worse,” for a lifetime for the benefit of any children they might have and for the benefit of society – Suze Orman seems to be all about the tax breaks and the inheritance benefits and less expensive health coverage (hope she didn’t support Obamacare!) and the opportunity to satisfy her own emotional needs rather than thinking of what is really good for children or for this society.

Roger J Jacobson - March 28, 2013

I agree with Ryan. This was a typical, load the audience one way and perform a hatchet job and shout him down when your arguments are too weak to stand on their own. Great Job Ryan. One person standing for right and a million standing for wrong does not make the million right, it just makes the whole thing sad.

John Weston - March 28, 2013

I agree and support traditional biblical marriage.
Thanks for taking on the liberals.

J Lovelace - March 28, 2013

Liberals always brag about everyone being free to do whatever, but Morgan & Susie were typical when they sensed they were losing and began to shout and interupt. Anderson was outstanding in his presentation.

Susan DeLorenzo - March 28, 2013

Ryan did a beautiful job, illustrated by both Piers and Suze resorting to bashing hime personally to make their point. Talking down to him as though he was ignorant, and the I have compassion for you , is so transparent. Stick to the facts–it is trying to equate the two types of relationships–maybe thay are equal, but they are still different. I wouldn’t really care either way—just kind of thinking this is the first step in forcing religious institutions to marry same sex couples. This government is into forcing institutions to do things they find morrally objectionable. You can try to change the definition of marriage, but it is what it is —–Jaime L comment was exactly what is needed. Change the tax code, let them have what ever contract they want…..but marriage is marriage— (notice they have to qualify same -sex)
one man and one woman–sorry…anything else is something else.

sam - March 28, 2013

We do not argue about certain rights because ideas have consequences.

V Eiland - March 28, 2013

I mostly agree with Ryan Anderson. There are things that can be done to remedy the economic unfairness for same sex couples. We do not, should not, change the definition of marriage. They can call their relationships whatever they want, but to try to change the definition of a sacred institution for selfish purposes is just plain arrogant and self-serving only. What about my right to have marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman? Why do I have to change what I believe to fit their lifestyle? They can call their union whatever they want, but most of us will never accept it as “marriage”. I will repeat: we do NOT need to change the definition of marriage to bring about economic changes for the gay couples. We all know the reason they are attacking the definition of marriage is to try to force society to accept and celebrate their lifestyles.

M. Lee Gallion - March 28, 2013

Since Mrs. Orman brought up economics, I think there is one important point left out in this debate. According to Mr. Morgan and Ms. Orman, that most of America believes it is ok for two people of the same sex to be married, a still much disputed fact, who is going to produce the next generation if will allow same sex couples to marry? We are already at a very marginal rate of procreation as it is to continue America’s existance. Adding more non-producing pairs of married couples will add to this dilemna, not improve it. God created us to procreate and we are not doing a very good job of that now.

Don - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson was very professional in a very hostile enviorment. His message was right on.

Clarence Carpenter - March 28, 2013

Thank you Ryan for your stand on Marriage and for not getting in their game..
It is so sad to see this country has lost it’s moral fabric..
First they removed prayer from our schools, then it’s ok to abort the unborn, then anything goes..do what makes you happy..It is time to put God back in our lives..

Diane Coddington - March 28, 2013

And the adult in the room was? Ryan. Thank you!

D. Evanson - March 28, 2013

Ryan is absolutely right and in agreement with God’s word on marriage. I would suggest all people read Romans 1 as in regard to God’s word about homosexuality….if all who make judgments and laws would go by God’s word there would be no discussions…period. People have forgotten that God has the final word. There is going to be a judgment day…!!

Charles Gumm - March 28, 2013

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Anderson that marriage is between one man and one woman. God created marriage and the family unit and I think His position is still crystal clear. I applaud Mr Anderson for defending the traditional biblical view of marriage.

Jason - March 28, 2013

I’m very impressed with his ability to remain calm and his knowledge way surpasses the MOB crowd who just love to be bullies. Piers needs to go back to his country and quit being a agitator

Donald Baisch - March 28, 2013

Humans have been living on this planet and were
considered naturally families with a mother and a father
since before Christ. Marriage has been the phase when they decided to procreate. It has been less than a century that same sex unions have been recognized
and said they should change the values of the world.
and the reflect less than 1 percent of the world population

Jeremy - March 28, 2013

I think the argument is really, why government involved in religion. Marriage in my religion means holy matrimony, holy means religion, so why does the government want to get involvementrd in my religion? I believe all should be able to have civil unions by the state and marriage by your holy or religious person. This would make it fair for both for hetero and homosexual. Because a civil union provides for rights and taxes, while marriage is expressing your commitment to God. I think a good way to look at it, is if a religion permitted it, then this would be a non-issue and it would be their first amendment right.

field retterer - March 28, 2013

I agree with Anderson. Marrage between a man and woman is the foundation of a civil society. Anderson was most impressive. Morgan and Orman were not.

Jason - March 28, 2013

God bless this man ! we are all sinners but you have to
acknowledge you are sinning to be forgiven

mshunk - March 28, 2013

Ryan was articulate, polite, logical and clear. I thought he properly framed the debate, explained his position well and did so calmly and soberly. For Orman to accuse him of ignorance and Morgan to accuse him of intolerance is an unfortunate example of how such disagreements frequently devolve. They didn’t attempt to refute his arguments, because they can’t. They simply sought to discredit him, belittle him, and treat him with the same intolerance of which they accused him. Thank you Ryan for courageously and magnanimously stating and defending your position.

Rory - March 28, 2013

Of course I believe Ryan is right. But I couldn’t bear to watch this good man pilloried and insulted. I had to turn away. I can no longer listen to the left with their hypocritical and hysterical arguments because they’re always on the wrong side of nearly every issue.

Art Emerson - March 28, 2013

Ryan you are to be commended for your position, and maintaining your composure. You are a wonderful example of how to express the Constitutional aspects of marriage. Why is it that Homosexuals and Lesbians have to take good words and misrepresent them because they sound better. Why doesn’t the Supreme Court just revise the name of the marriage contract for Homosexuals and Lesbians. Why is it necessary that they want to take the Constitutional term and deffinition of Marriage and change it. Originally it was suggested that this type of marriage be called a Civil Union it would have the same benefits as a Constitutionally defined marriage, but it would wouldn’t change the Constitutional terminology. J.L. Manzano I think you are on the right track. At least the Heritage Foundation has dedicated itself as an organization to the fundamentals that have brought this country through some of the most difficult times. Jim Wier sorry to hear your close minded opinion, I hope you have some other values in your life.

Eric Hyne - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson did a stellar job!!! Content and control. Absolutely stunning. Thank you, again and again.

Rory - March 28, 2013

I wish to further add that my opinion would not change even if my son or daughter came to me telling me they loved someone of the same sex, though I would still love and accept my children.

lemhom - March 28, 2013

Morgan is an unfair, biased moderator and uses bully tactics when arguing–much like Obama.

Hernan Herrera - March 28, 2013

We have finally arrived at the point that several wise men of old predicted many years ago. That point is where a “democracy” begins to decay from within – much like the ancient Romans – embracing ideas and practices that once were repugnant, but now have become appealing to a growing number. The lesson of history is that when such societies depart from a moral code that protected the traditional family unit (children with a father and a mother), such societies are ripe for collapse!

t-mom - March 28, 2013

Way to go Ryan Anderson. I am so impressed with how you handled yourself with concrete and succinct arguments in favor of marriage between and a Man and a Woman. You were obviously in the minority, but your poise was remarkable. We need to be having this type of debate. You are correct that anyone is free to marry whomever they wish. The government needs to stay out of our personal lives. Let’s reform the financial arguments Suze wants and she can get married anytime she wants to. I am behind you and stick to your convictions.

Sharon Earle - March 28, 2013

I don’t understand why the gay and lesbians in this country feel the need to shove their lifestyles in everyone’s face. Just live your lives and leave the rest of us alone. The Constitution should not be changed to redefine marriage for their purposes since marriage has been defined as the union of a man and woman since the beginning of time. Give them equal rights to benefits and leave the definiton of marriage alone. God bless you Ryan.

Jean - March 28, 2013

I agree 100% with Ryan. I thank him for his straight forward and clear and sound biblical and logical perspective that he shared with such respect for his dissenters.

gerald scott - March 28, 2013

I have never hear marriage better describe.Ryan Anderson did a outstanding job under fire.

Stephen XCarveth - March 28, 2013

I am in favor of gay persons coming together in a CIVIL UNION with all the right and privileges of a married couple. I see no justification of gay persons becoming married. How can they procreate? Our youth are inundated with sex ed. in our schools. Will we now have sex ed. and explain in detail the sexual acts of gay person.?

A F McSwain - March 28, 2013

I definitely agree with Ryan Anderson.

Helen Desler - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson explained the meaning and correct definition of the age old custom and nature’s reason for marriage. He does not object to the Love between two same gender adults. I, myself, do not know, how that relationship was classified years ago, ,however, the understanding of the word “marriage ” does not fit it.
It seems to have been expressed, that the modern same gender couples, because of their Love to each other and their staying together, feel to deserve all economic benefits, which married couples receive..
Most people, young and old, even the “uneducated’ ones, do NOT object to their loving union nor their receiving those mentioned economic and healtcare beneftst. However, they should find a better, more modern flattering definition for their partnership and not highjack the “oldfashioned” word, “Marriage”!

Andrew Anderson - March 28, 2013

“Wings to truth.” Johannes Gutenberg (1398-1468 AD)
In the words of modern day genius Andrew Breitbart, we need more debate, not less.

beverly jackson - March 28, 2013

Need more people like Mr. Andreson to speak for us all, there is no such thing as marriage between same sex, no same sex going on in the animal world, yet we are being pushed to accept this. We are loosing our values, We Conservative Democrats & Republicans stand firm & focus on these social issues, for the health of our country.

James F. Hoyng - March 28, 2013

Thank you Ryan Anderson for presenting accurate facts in the face of emotional tirades. History has proven that countries and societies decline and die out when such immoral activities are promoted. For generations we have tolerated homosexuals who don’t push such ridiculous agendas on the rest of the country. Remember that they are an extreme minority, only 3 – 4 percent of the total population. Leave our marriage laws, which have stood for more that 2000 years, alone.

Karen Henning - March 28, 2013

I agree but we need to do something to bring all that agree together

Karen Henning - March 28, 2013

I agree but how to we combat this?

joseph a - March 28, 2013

The 31 year old (Ryan Anderson) has a much wiser & even tempered view than some folk older than he. A good training ground Heritage is? A most excellent job pointing out the Constitutional elements of the current marriage discussion within a “modern” studio audience. And an especially functional response when the inheritance tax was raised (no pun intended) – Constitutionally change the tax code attempting to make it fairer to most citizen circumstances, no matter whatever type of Americans it affects, INSTEAD OF the end-around attempt of changing the traditional definition of marriage. Besides, the Supremes should know better than most of us that their main job is to clarify the law for the states, not create new federal law, but we shall see…

William A. Ryan - March 28, 2013

I sincerely feel as a member of a country that was formed on Judeo-Christian values that marriage as defined by those moral values should not be changed. As the culture of our country slowly changes over time, does not imply that we must change our religious and social values. The meaning of marriage and its religious and legal contexts should remain. However, for fairness sake, civil unions between same-sex partners should also fall under an umbrella term, yet to be defined, that protects the legal rights of these couples as marriage protects those same rights the the law awards to heterosexual couples. Financial and legal implications are driving this divide and need to be addressed.

Kenneth E. Burbank - March 28, 2013

The best selling book of all time defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Author is in all ways perfect in His attributes; one of which is omniscience. Every human that has lived, or will ever live on the face of this earth will one day be judged and held accountable for a decision each has made regarding His Son. The fool has said in his heart He does not exist. Don’t place your values on the temporal; rather, keep eternity’s values in view. The wisdom of man is foolishness to Him.

Jane Kuehn - March 28, 2013

Piers Morgan acted like an ignorant bully, shouting louder, interrupting more stridently, and calling on public sycophants to uphold the validity of his statements. His opponent was rational, did not raise his voice or try to impose his superior position. The audience was clearly biased towards the “stars”, but the better discussion rested with the unassailable logic of Ryan and the basic constitutional question.

Wes Gross - March 28, 2013

I’m not aware of any current laws that prohibit two or more persons (except for incest, etc.) from living together, let alone being in love. The definition of marriage doesn’t keep them from it, either. There should be no “tax break” or penalty based on your relationship with another person – only tax deductions or credits for dependent children.
I was involved in the wealth building and management business for many years and steered same-sex couples toward protecting their wishes through trusts and wills. The right legislation would eliminate all differences in how estates are resolved.

Don Rorschach - March 28, 2013

Piers is nothing but a Communist and homomarriage is one of the goals of Communism which has become the leading light of the Democrat Party. It should be named Democrat/Communist Party. The Democrat/Communist Party will support anything that further destroys the United States of America.

Sandy - March 28, 2013

I absolutely agree with Ryan. I wholeheartedly stand with him and all who believe in traditional marriage. If gay people want to be together as a couple, they can be joined in some type of union. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Words have meaning. You do not change the meaning of words to fit your own personal agenda. In my estimation, this whole gay marriage conversation is agenda driven. Everything the left does is.

Donna Bullock - March 28, 2013

I think Mr. Anderson did a wonderful job. I also believe there is an underlying political motive. Consider how many millions of babies have been aborted, how Obamacare undermines care for the elderly, and now “gay marriage”. It is a perfect undeclared war against replenishing the Earth and capable of wiping out nations and races of people. No shots fired. Politically passive eugenics.

rroberson - March 28, 2013

Yes, I agree with what Ryan said. Many people say that more of the country is with the gay marriage group. But sadly more of the country is also leaving the biblical principles that founded this country. God states that homosexuality is “an abomination”. “contrary to nature” and “shameless”. People don’t want to hear that. God instituted marriage. His definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The majority may get their legal right to marry in this country; that will not change the truth of what God states that marriage is.

John Schuh - March 28, 2013

He should have pressed on on the issue: why should two lesbians have more rights than two spinster sisters. She was demagoguing while he was trying to argue.

MaryJo Shannon - March 28, 2013

Marriage refers to the union of a man and a woman, given by God who blesses their union. The two, joined together, become one. They complete each other. I would support civil unions for gay couples, giving them civil rights as a couple.

Thomas Yunghans - March 28, 2013

It would have been nice if Suze had given Ryan a chance to respond on all of her issues, instead of shouting at the top of her voice so no one could hear his response.

Lisa W. - March 28, 2013

Ryan, you were spot on with your rationale as to why marriage should ONLY be the union of one man to one woman. The real shame here is on the host for rudely interrupting you every time you tried to answer his claim that you didn’t want homosexuals to be able to love one another like you can. And Suzie O. showed her true colors when she gave the Thanksgiving Day illustration where no one was asking her and her partner about how they met, etc., etc. It’s clearly not about arguing for the right to marry as it is about winning and having something to brag about. Keep up the fantastic work, Ryan. I am behind you 100% on this, AS ARE THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, as evidenced by the voter bans on gay marriage! You are NOT in the minority here. Far from it!

Debra Folkes - March 28, 2013

The Heritage Foundation should be proud that Ryan Anderson was able to calmly and rationally respond to the attacks and name calling by both Piers Morgan and Suze Orman. Mr. Anderson tried to explain (and the very biased audience rejected) that the issue isn’t about who you can love, it’s about the States having the right to define marriage by ballot, not by legislating from the Federal Supreme Court. Mixing State’s rights with tax law policies, healthcare issues, social issues, and especially love, only serves to divert attention from the constitutional questions about State’s rights. The “left” can’t argue the facts (Suze commented on how well “that gentleman” knew his FACTS) so the “left” has to resort to name calling and the absurd idea that people are being prevented from loving each other. Gay marriage is not a right…the government cannot give you rights…all our rights come from God and from the natural order of our world as described to by the Founding Fathers.

Ben - March 28, 2013

An outstanding job by Ryan Anderson who was clearly attempting to have a serious debate with two unserious people(Piers and Orman). I commend Ryan for his courage to go into a forum that he knew would be grossly skewed against him. This is why I support Heritage, countering emotional arguments about ‘fairness’ with sound reason and logic.

Eileen Sico - March 28, 2013

God as our creator created man, according to God’s image. God then created the woman to be his companion, mate and partner for life. If God planned otherwise and made a man for the man, where will mankind be?
If the gay/lesbian community wants fairness due to benefits, give them that due, but keep the sanctity of marriage the way it was planned. Just because it was of old doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing. If one of my kids turned up to be gay, I will still have the same stand. Wrong does not change because its my family.
We need to stand for what is right rather than what is “politically correct”, trend or fashionable. Conservatism is not the dying breed but has allowed liberals to control our government’s policies by not speaking up for their values.
Speak up for what you believe in and don’t allow our kids to live this kind of confusion.
Ryan Anderson, I stand behind you.

DGSymmank - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson is absolutely right. The liberal left is so biased in defense of sin that they cannot see the fallacy of their position!

diane munkirs - March 28, 2013

Thank you Mr. Ryan with your words of wisdom on Marriage. You were so calm. I totally agree with you. You represent the kind of voice Heritage stands for.

Lori M - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson did an excellent job explaining why the fed gov’t shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage. God has already done this in His Word, The Bible. Of course, the audience and hosts Anderson was up against didn’t reflect Biblical values. Thank you for remaining calm and carrying a well thought out debate into a clearly card stacked audience. I agree with you, Ryan. Keep fighting the good fight.

Barton L. Hartzell - March 28, 2013

Ryan explained the REAL definition of marriage as
being between a man and a woman very logically and succinctly. The problem is that liberals have tried to
redefine the term marriage to include civil unions
between homosexuals.

Jim Sands - March 28, 2013

Liberals, even in this forum: let’s not discuss the issues and look over different the alternatives… do it “my way” [read progressive liberal way] or I will defame, insult, berate and otherwise abuse you until you do agree with me, dumb a–!

Frank P - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson did a professional job in this debate !!!! Against lots of name calling. Change the law, not the definition of Marriage.

DC Govier - March 28, 2013

Good job keeping your head and keeping your side civil.

However, the only reason we are even talking about this is because government got into the marriage business, with licensing persons to conduct marriages and persons to get married, as well as adjudicating any problems in marriages outside of abuse or other assault and battery situations.

Because government is in the marriage business, that already redefined marriage from a faith institution to a civil institution. And since it is a civil institution, therefore the equal protection and application clauses of the Constitution must apply. The only way this will not eventually, whether today or tomorrow, become permissible for same gender couples is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Once government has nothing to say on marriage whatsoever, aside from any harm case where charges could also be filed between two strangers, then this will no longer be an issue.

Jean Counts - March 28, 2013

Mr. Anderson, Keep up your good work! and thank you.

Anders Lundberg - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson is right. Every issue that Suzie raises, health care, death tax, social security etc. can be treated with appropriate legislation without calling it “marriage.” It’s that simple. Suzie talks of two people loving, caring etc., topics that are actually outside of the definition of “marriage.”

jan klaas - March 28, 2013

Ryan Anderson did a GREAT job. He stayed calm in a very difficult environment and gave well-reasoned responses. He is a wonderful spokesman for marriage and the views of the Heritage Foundation.

Roger Mohn - March 28, 2013

It is just unbelievable that somehow “so called” polls actually show the majority of Americans in support of gay marriage. Who are these pollster’s polling? How can true marriage be anything but be between one man and one woman? It’s just common sense and there lies the difficulty in all of this. America has indeed lost it’s common sense; it’s moral compass. I stand with the Heritage Foundation’s efforts to continue the debate, stay in the fight and do what us right for all Americans.

Harlan Mills - March 28, 2013

Harlan Mills -March 28,2013

Those against marriage of a man and a women are thinking just about themselves to get what they want out of it and not the purpose of marriage which is to raise children produced produced by that union in a home where both the wife and the husband raised children in a healthy home life that these children will become good citizens as they step into adult hood.. Anderson is 100% about the definition of marriage. He did a very good job,

Kenneyra - March 28, 2013

Marriage is the basis of our society…a father & a mother nurturing children. Many of society’s problems are based upon the breakdown of this structure…a cursory look at the parts of our society that is dominated by single parent families will validate this. There’s no problem with same sex couples cohabitating and what ever benefits they lack can be granted with minor changes to law. It doesn’t require an undermining of traditional marriage.

Rob - March 28, 2013

You can always tell who is losing the argument: the one who raises the voice, calls names, and/or appeals to the bandwagon. In this case, Suze and Piers lost very early. Well done, Ryan! God bless you for your defense.

Martha Dickerson - March 29, 2013

Thank you, Ryan, for taking the heat and standing firmly for the truth in the face of such scorn! I was so impressed!

Gail - March 29, 2013

Chicken is Steak and Milk is Beer…. Why again is Civil Union not good enough? Why are Illegals not illegals? Oh yeah its about Money and votes and perverting everything that is Good and Sacred.Christians have no right to their faith and beliefs. If you dont go against your religious beliefs and are not “tolerant” you are not American… Really Piers…. I would LOL if you were not so British is is?

Hermann Glockler - March 29, 2013

So Pierce and Susie stacked the audience to get the effect of approval they wanted.
I believe Ryan Anderson was incredibly brave, and a bit naive for not demanding a neutral audience, cowardly by Susie Orman.and of course by the idiot Pierce.
Marriage, as explained by Ryan Anderson, is for procreation, and same sex couples can not procreate.
The financial angle brought up by Susie Orman is a canard, since she does not have the expenses of raising and educating kids.
And her sob story about not being able to tell about her wedding leaves me cold.

mclark - March 29, 2013

Thanks to Ryan Anderson! Good men that defend the sancty of marriage are deeply appreciated by those of us who want our voice heard.

Sgt. John B Myers – Tea Party - March 29, 2013

As for Taxes I’m for 999. I’m for gay marrage BUT if federal law is passed for marrage insted of Civil Union will there be harrassment law suits aginst clergy who won’t marry gay’s ?.

dlr - March 29, 2013

I have never understood why Gay people want to get married…now I know. It’s purely financial according to Suze. So, change the tax code. As for her discussion at Thanksgiving dinner… lame. Public opinion in one direction does not make it right. It just illustrates the moral decline of our nation.

However, I agree with Rush Limbaugh in that this issue is lost. The LGBT mafia has hijacked the term “marriage” and eventually it will be legalized. Once they took ownership of the word marriage we lost the battle.

NJG - March 29, 2013

Orman is a bully. She can’t have a discussion without raising her voice and calling Ryan names…so condescending to him (Morgan too). And I love how they say public opinion has changed to the majority being in favor of gay marriage based on their audience when their audience is stacked in favor of gay marriage. Why not have an audience of those against gay marriage and have the gay marriage supporter try to sway their opinion? You’ll never see that…you’ll never see a gay marriage supporter enter a forum of non-supporters. The way I see is that the gay community has no respect for the majority of Americans who believe marriage is only to be between a man and a woman. If the gay community is so hell bent on having the financial benefits of marriage, can’t they go the civil union route? Kudos to Ryan for standing strong.

Brent Thomas Davis - March 29, 2013

I salute you, Ryan Anderson!!! You stood up for truth and reason in the midst of a lynching mob trying to lynch YOU! Redefining marriage is not the way to solve problems of trying to give the rights for things in our lives to whom we desire. However, I think that it is the further issue, that will be unpopular for some time, that what is really at issue is that homosexuals want to enjoy the prestige and status of marriage that should not be accorded to sexual deviant behavior which is detrimental to civilization. Controlling one’s behavior is laudable and marriage is the good and proper signal that one is one is restricting ones sexual activity to this one other person of the opposite sex. Perverted sex is not really restricting oneself enough. It is not honorable. Having close male and female friends is wonderful and does not necessitate having sex with them. Sex is honorable between two individuals who are designed to have sex together, ie, males with females, and not honorable within the same sex, where sexual feelings will be honorably controlled. It was right for you to avoid that in that setting–we are not trying to restrict people’s freedom, but we are not forcing society to say such deviant behavior is honorable.

Brent Thomas Davis - March 29, 2013

I am for every homosexual’s right to marry: let them find a person of the opposite sex and settle right down!

Marilyn Owens - March 29, 2013

I am proud of Ryan Anderson for standing up against the liberal intimidation tactics. Our country is headed for real trouble if the nation dilutes the definition of marriage in this way.

Jennifer - March 29, 2013

Thank you Mr. Ryan Anderson! I was extremely impressed with your ability to stay calm and effectively articulate the view of so many Americans.

Steven Schneider - March 29, 2013

Ryan Anderson demonstrated how we could all be if we truly wanted a strong future…”Be calm and carry on”
(old Brit war poster,WWII)

aldo - March 29, 2013

another reason cnn’s rating are were they are! Piers morgan telling people what they think, putting word in their mouths is his specialty!

scott - March 29, 2013

what a great job Ryan Anderson did! Go Heritage!

Elaine Dumont - March 29, 2013

Yes, I agree with Ryan Anderson and I send KUDOS to him for his admirable behaviour. This business of the ‘tail wagging the dog’ must be attacked in return each time they spew their misguided views. Less than 2% of our population is homosexual…let’s not forget the remainder! The 98% ALSO have ‘rights’ and we are fed up with minorities’ jealousy of our normal ways driving them to attempt to discredit same! MYOB, whatever that may be!

Richard Dion, PhD - March 29, 2013

Clearly there is no “winning” a debate or even making one’s position clear when one is subjected to terms such as “uneducated” and the constant whining that “the rest of the world agrees” with these individuals who are no more an expert than I might be. Morgan and Orman are nothing more than huxters for what they themselves sell …. think about this for a moment — Orman the self professed financial genius simply sells her shtick and I’m confused as to how that makes her an expert in this particular field ……. as to Morgan — there is nothing to be said .. talk about ignorant … the man is a babbling fool who makes a living by being outrageous and spouting inflammatory rubbish ….. when does that qualify anyone to be an expert on the topics discussed on this program
I appreciate the courage of Anderson to just sit there and keep his cool …….. it’s important to remember that his views represent the majority not the minority ….. the minority in this case simply make more obnoxious noise

Chyrell - March 29, 2013

I agree with Mr Anderson. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Since the beginning of history this has been known.

suzanne poe - March 29, 2013

I wholeheartedly support and agree with Ryan and was so pleased to see his character, especially in face of the objectionable pics in the background.

Charles Knight - March 29, 2013

I agree with Ryan Anderson

W. Jones - March 29, 2013

I admire Ryan Anderson having the courage to attend this TV
show and defend the other side of marriage between a man and a woman. He was clearly outnumber by a situation which was set up to indicate same sex marriage. He was interrupted many times when he was answering their questions. Though he presented good answers, the other side wasn’t willing to listen.

Patricia - March 29, 2013

I absolutly agree with Ryan on a man/ woman partnership (marriage.) There is nothing about any other kind of a relationship that can’t be acheived by other legal means. Side issues are the only reason that have anything to do with real marriage. Much as we find same sex marriage beyond the norm, the majority of the people are being over run by all the squeeking wheels that need to be oiled. Therefore we will have same sex marriage wether we want it or not, due to the weakness of our judical system.

John L. Metzger - March 29, 2013

Thank you, Ryan. It is basic liberal strategy to appear with those who believe their leftist agenda. You did a magnificent job stating your wonderful true marriage beliefs. It takes more like you, those of us out here; to continue to speak up for the truth as God’s Word presents it on marriage.

Marcia Jobe - March 29, 2013

I agree totally.

Alyssa - March 29, 2013

I am so proud of Ryan for going into the den of lions. I am 26 and I know hundreds of others in my generation that agree with him wholeheartedly. I’m pretty sick of people generalizing that we think like liberals when we don’t.

Douglas Adee - March 29, 2013

Piers Morgan and Suzie Orman
(along with CNN, and MSNBC by the way) have an obvious agenda which is to convince the American people to support same-sex marriage. Did you notice the display of the sign behind Piers Morgan? Did you notice the so-called poll results supporting same sex marriage by 53%? Did you notice how Piers Morgan and Suzie Orman repeatedly told the American public that anyone not supporting same-sex marriage, particularly if you’re 31 years old, is “offensive” and “intolerant.” What a bunch of bologna!

Marketing strategists make a living on the fact that if you keep telling people a lie over and over, eventually people will believe the lie.

The same-sex marriage argument is based on lies! The truth of their argument is to make their lifestyle mainstream. They want the entire world to call perversion normal. This was the same attitude that existed in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and we know how that turned out.

History’s graveyard of fallen societies is full of once great nations that fell to ruin following their decline in decadence. Same-sex marriage is just one more wrong down the ladder to the destruction of America. All I can say is to echo the words of Dr. James Dobson and pray for God’s judgement on our nation.

George - March 29, 2013

The homosexual marriage thing is really very simple. But I have yet to hear from anyone the fundamental reason for denial of classifying a homosexual union as a marriage.

Such a union is inherently sterile.

If we want to encourage such a relationship, then we are saying that the human race should be eliminated.

Fred Loew - March 29, 2013

3 Cheers for Ryan!!!!

J Wilkes - March 29, 2013

Liberals, what do they believe in, Choice to murder a baby and same sex marriage both of these are mortal sins. This is not man’s law it is infact God’s law, we as man can not change His law’s. I support Ryan Anderson on what he was trying to say, it is clear Liberals are not capable to understand the words in the way we conservatives mean them. May God have mercy on us all…

Dan Brulinski - March 29, 2013

Ryan did an outstanding job in explaining the basis and rationale for traditional marriage and in my opinion was winning the debate. When Suze Orman couldn’t respond adequately to Ryan’s points, Suze had to turn to the audience (carefully selected) in an attempt to rebut his argument.

Bill Wainscott - March 29, 2013

Ryan Anderson expressed and defended the understanding that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. It is the foundation of every society in history. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not a civil right. We decriminalized that activity in recent years and that is the extent of that right.

Pat - March 29, 2013

It is so blatantly obvious that this audience was recruited to weigh it to the pro gay marriage side. Voters in California said no to gay marriage. Do they not get that. Ryan was stalwart in his defense of what marriage really is. The economics of gay marriage is simply a red herring to get what gays want. Why don’t they lobby for the economic side of their “problem”. And Piers? If he is sincere in his point of view then fine. But I believe he will prostitute himself for ratings

William Care - March 29, 2013

I agree with him completely. The bible has clear info on this matter. I also think we need a message from on high, such as a few “pillars of salt”.

Bill Geiger - March 29, 2013

Marriage is one of the religious rites creating a just and moral society. This “Gay Marriage” propaganda is part of their “freedom from religion” campaign to destroy anything religious, including the definition of marriage. How about the government laws and rules recognizing only “Civil Unions”. Marriage would then be only a religious rite, not a factor in the law.

Jeanne Zook - March 29, 2013

I emphatically agree that marriage is between one man and one woman and instituted by God for the good of the human race. It has been and continues to be supported by God and by His Son, Jesus Christ. Man has been rebelling against the wisdom of God for millenia, This is only the latest rebellion, but the aberation of same sex coupling is an aberation and roundly condemned by God’s word and reasonableness. In the Oriental cultures we see the symbolic Ying Yang symbols, Opposites which are complementary. Other cultures could be cited which also rationally support the union of the complementary sexes in marriage for procreation. People need each other but no culture can long survive with the basic unit of society becoming confused and distorted.

Scott McElroy - March 29, 2013

I wholeheartedly support and agree with Ryan Anderson and was so pleased to see his bold & courageous spirit spoke in love. Thank God we have this stoic man standing for HIS way, traditional biblical marriage as one man & one woman for life, till death do them part. If you look at history, not one country that went down the homosexual path survived long, Sodom and Gomorrah is a prime example. We need so badly to return our government back to the ways of our Founding Fathers.

David R. Snyder - March 29, 2013

Zero births in the Gay and Lesbian Community! You can not debate with people with the attitude” you are entitled to my opinion”

P Wendling - March 29, 2013

Yes, I agree with Mr. Anderson. An open discussion is a health discorse for the country, only those that are ignorate and low on facts stoop to yelling and name calling because they know they have no substance to their arguments. My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a women period. You can call same sex unions, civil unions or what ever you want but it is not marriage. Keep up the good work maybe a few lights will go on.

Barbara J Warren - March 29, 2013

I believe like Ryan Anderson that marriage is between a man and woman,and the Supreme Court should not be involved.

Victor Peetoom - March 29, 2013

Thank you, Mr. Ryan, for voicing my sentiments in a measured and calm way. May the Lord give you srength and courage for more battles to come.

Bruce & Karen Polzin - March 29, 2013

YES, we agree with Ryan Anderson 100%. We are tired of liberals in this country trying to change all of our beliefs and traditions to ease their immoral conscience.

Carol Perrine - March 29, 2013

Ryan is 100% correct in his facts and I was so impressed how well he handled himself. The downfall of a society starts with the downfall of the family. Gay marriage can contribute to the decrease of society itself. Thank you Ryan for showing all of us how to act when confronted with a hostile group and gave us facts to use. Suze was trying to justify her behavior by getting everyone on her side.

Guy Fish - March 29, 2013

Marriage was not created by Man or by Government. It was ordained by Heavenly Father. You can call something Gay Marriage but it dos not exist.

Bill R. Cottrell - March 29, 2013

Thank you Ryan Anderson for standing up for his consistent responses to the phony Piers Morgan. God created man, and then said that man should NOT live alone, so he created woman from the rib of a Adam; Eve was created to be the helpmate(wife) of Adam for the purpose of procreating children and furthering His creation. God created Adam and Eve for this purpose, each being different in their bodily functions for producing children. Adam and Steve cannot procreate those children. Government cannot change what God created, and government must stay out of that which God created!!!

Byron Mullet - March 29, 2013

Ryan Anderson, cool, calm and the facts. I’m not sure why Conservatives shy away from acknowledging it is a moral issue. It’s also a blessing issue. A righteous nation, will “secure the Blessings of Liberty…” from the Creator in our Declaration, as well as obtain our rights…including the pursuit of Happiness by virtue. Also, the bible defines normal and virtuous. No one but God, can make a moral law more stringent or less stringent. Hear that Pres. Obama?

Peggy Nelson - March 29, 2013

I agree with Anderson. Having heard similar conversations I am always amused to see how the liberal or gay side of the conversation starts calling names and is so defensive. Have you ever watched fighting children? You always see the child that knows he is wrong will start with the name calling and/ or hitting below the belt. That said, in this conversation it was clear who was the right, mature, adult in this group.

walter - March 30, 2013

Ryan is right about marriage being a union between a man and a woman. I don’t have a problem with gays being allowed to form their own civil union. What I have a problem with is the gays calling the union a marriage. It isn’t. Thousands of years ago the word marriage was defined for the world as a union between a man and a woman. The word marriage is owned exclusively by the religions of this world and no one or no government has the right to redefine it. If gays want a union they must not use the word marriage to define it. That definition is already taken. They must coin a new word like maybe Gayage or whatever satisfies them. I also believe that children are best served if these children have both a mother and father. If the government allows gays to adopt, then it must also allow a single person to adopt. After all, single now can adopt on a temporary basis by becoming a Big Brother or Big Sister. It both cases a child is better off if he/she has at least on adult to provide love, protection and training.

Lorraine Root - March 30, 2013

Good for Ryan! He did not raise his voice or imply that they were stupid or UNAMERICAN like they did!

Fred Wilson - March 30, 2013

Have these people learned nothing from Roe v Wade. We may lose in the end as our nation/world disintegrates but let the political process work. The only poll that really matters is the ballot box and there most people still believe in marriage as it was define at the creation. The forces of Satan need to be patient and not attempt to bypass our defined process to attempt to influence 5 justices to thwart the will of the people. And for the SCOTUS to succumb would be very unprofessional.

Jerry - March 30, 2013

Obviously Ryan was & is correct. Liberals aren’t all that dedicated to practicing same sex marriage. It is just a wedge issue. Their whole existence is dedicated to inflect pressure on traditional American values. If and when gay marriage becomes the law of the land, another traditional value will come under assault. Imagine, do you take this horse, pig, dog, etc to be your lawfully wedded ………

Lynne Zwanziger - March 30, 2013

Ryan is completely correct and did more than an excellent job with his appearance. He was super to even get on that stupid television program to try and get a responsible and reasonable message out to Americans. All Suze Orman was concerned about was money, money, money!

Chuck Evans - March 30, 2013

Thank you Mr. Anderson for your quiet defense of simple truth. Volume must increase when argument departs from truth.

P. Hudson - March 30, 2013

Agree with Ryan but why does he/others not discuss what Jesus himself said –and did not say– in Matthew 19: 4-12. “Male and female… shall become one in flesh”. He did not suggest the same for Eunuchs. Our constitution guarantees –not control, prohibition, regulation of–rather freedom of religion. Petition Congress to change the benefit laws for those who engage in a contractual legally binding joint relationship–rather than marriage definition.

Wes - March 30, 2013

I agree with Ryan Anderson. We are witnessing a massive media blitz to change public opinion and while some will fall for it, I will not. Moral relativism is the symptom of a deeper issue, rejection of the authority of God. God instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves but does not give us the authority to change his laws. This issue is being used to divide (and conquer) us rather than to seek a solution.

Don Morner - March 30, 2013

Thank you, Ryan Anderson, for speaking out so clearly for the cause. You did a fabulous job in stating our thoughts and concerns. Your ability to stay so calm and focused while being interrupted by Piers, Ms. Oreman and the audience. You have our complete support.You are speaking in behalf of Christians and I’m sure it is pleasing to God.

Robert Kroning - March 30, 2013

If same-sex people want to be ‘married’, perhaps they should be allowed to, but in a religious ceremony, not a civil one. The benefits the state gives to the married status derives from the need to support and encourage the wholesome rearing of children. Granting those benefits to heterosexual couples serves that purpose in a simple and efficient way. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is for sex, not for children. Government should not be involved in, certainly should not subsidize, this behavior.

Lex McCusker - March 30, 2013

It was great to see Heritage folks addressing this issue on main-stream media. Ryan did a great job, in the face of condescension, the 2-on-1 format, the biased crowd and the format of the set. What grace and courage he showed!

Taking Heritage expertise to the public at large the way Ryan did is how we will move the eventually carry the day on this issue.

Pam O’Dell - March 30, 2013

Gay marriage is an oxymoron.

Jim Vogus - March 30, 2013

I think Heritage should give Ryan “hostile fire” pay this week! What a brave defense of the definition of marriage in the liberal lions’ den! If we blur definitions, e.g. gay, truth, tolerance, marriage, into constantly changing meanings, it will be impossible to have any conversations. His comment on “calling a circle a square” is right on target.

gail - March 30, 2013

Ryan did a tremendous job. He was in the lions den! I am so sad for these very ignorant selfish people…..one day they will know the truth. We should not be redefining marriage….call it a union but not marriage. Then work with the laws that Orman was so concerned about.

david ford - March 30, 2013

I am a 65 year old retired elementary teacher who is beyond saddened by the state of our country. Anything and everything is allowed in our society and it is glorified on television. Teaching the gay lifestyle to youngsters in our big city schools is as bad as Muslim countries teaching kids to hate America. They see these ideas as normal from such and early age.

Adrienne Hartman - March 30, 2013

I definitely agree that marriage should be between one man and one woman. That is how God set it up and societies that adopted same sex marriage have all fallen in the past.

Robert Campbell - March 31, 2013

Major kudos to Ryan for getting his message across in such a hostile environment.
Thank You

Fred Clarke - March 31, 2013

Since when have we all become GL-BS. It surly seems that way from the lib media’s theatrics. I am seeing more BS than enlightened discourse.

Myron Allen - March 31, 2013

Ryan Anderson did a wonderful job under very trying circumstances.Any crowd attending a CNN affair is going to have a liberal majority.
Ryan was consistently calm and on target while sticking with principles.
Morgan and Orman used every trick they could muster, including name calling, to bolster their argument; however, anyone who listened thoughtfully recognizes it was an argument of principle vs expediency of using marriage as a means to transfer benefits.

Holly Chapo - March 31, 2013

Marriage has been a tradition for millennia and it has been between a man and a woman. The dictionaries define it as a union between a husband and a wife, neither of whom can be of either gender: husband is male, wife is female. Simply because 3% of the US population wants everything their way, is no reason to destroy one of the pillars of civil society. So, yes, I agree with Ryan Anderson and anyone else who will stand up for principle and fact. Morgan and Orman represent the angry, unprincipled left who rely on emotionalism to make their case.

pm waggoner - April 1, 2013

Ryan did a great job in an obviously contrived pro-gay marriage setting courtesy of Piers Morgan. Ryan deftly avoided the verbal template that Morgan desired to set the topic within. I frankly have no sympathy for the aggrieved “lesbian widow”. Her relationship (while important to her) is not of legal interest to the greater society and she was treated equally to any other legally
single person (or family memmbers like the “two sisters” example Ryan provided). Citing opinion polls (as Piers Morgan constantly did) is not an argument! Truth, or even good public policy, is not tied to the whims of the moment.

Joyce S. Ennis-Scott - April 1, 2013

I agree with Anderson completely…
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
So if one wants the economic benefits of being married
one marries the opposite sex, that’s pretty simple!

Lani - April 1, 2013

I’m so impressed with Ryan. He was clear and concise without malice or retribution to the host and Suzi’s ridiculous comments. Interesting how those two had to go to their audience for approval. Ryan defined the importance of marriage and that government CAN change some laws that benefit couples who are married for those who choose lesbian unions. It doesn’t mean we have to change the TERM “marriage”. But NO… not for the ever so brilliant Suzi Orman… she STILL thinks the TERM “marriage” has to be changed so she can LOVE her partner better… (? DUMB) I know her better now. Thank YOU Ryan for your bravery among wolves!!

Henry E - April 1, 2013

Consider the root of the problem: mankind wants things their way. They must change the definition of marriage; otherwise they are forced to acknowledge that from the beginning of recorded history, marriage was not an invention of men, but a divine institution.

Barb - April 1, 2013

I agree with Ryan and admire him for keeping with the facts and stating them in a calm manner. My opinion is that this is not really about “marriage” only the benefits. Which seems to me can be resolved in another way other than re-defining marriage. As a conservative this is a stand, though it may be unpopular, worth standing for.

Dennis Crouch - April 1, 2013

Ryan Anderson was very impressive in his handling on this obviously biased and hostile questioners and audience. He is to be commended. The basic issue is that the marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Ryan speaks to that very well. I’ll repeat what John Adams said, ““Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” His statement is as relevant today as it was in the 1700s.

Victress Jenkins - April 1, 2013

I completely agree with Ryan that marriage is for men & women. Even as a single person, I believe in traditional marriage.
During the march for marriage in France, even homosexuals were marching in favor of traditional marriage. I beliee that those persons have Civil unions and are “completely satisfied”.

John J. Greifenkamp - April 1, 2013

Thank you, Ryan, for having the courage to face people unwilling to listen to a view contrary to their own narrow minded agenda. You did a great job and are to be congratulated for your articulate presentation of the true meaning of “Marriage” as a union of a man and a woman as God intended. The deck was stacked against you and in this liberally minded media, this will likely be the environment facing people of faith today. John J. Greifenkamp

Kathleen Hill - April 1, 2013

I agree with Ryan Anderson! However, this “conversation” would have been a comedy skit not too long ago.

Plove - April 1, 2013

I totally agree with Anderson!! Hurrah for his courage. We need a lot more willing to stand up for the right!

Andrea Campbell - April 2, 2013

Many thanks to Ryan Anderson for his courage. It is not easy to present your view when the audience, the host and the featured are so overwhelmingly stacked against you. His argument is clear, principled, respectful and based on thousands of years of tradition.

Like so many others, I find it shocking and frightening that the First Principles of virtually all human beings are being summarily undone in just a few short years.

richard rossi - April 2, 2013

We need more Ryan Andersons in our senate,house, congress,courts to defend our unalienable rights,by our judeo-christian laws of GOD,nature, & constitution concerning traditional marriage.The problem is Relativism,which denys Absolute truth, with truth relative to individual,group, that there is, really no right or wrong,under the guise of Moral Relativism.This cancer has invaded our society,economy,schools,universitys,homes & family. If all Moral views are eqally valid, then how can we have a Standard to determine Right & Wrong,using Relativism to determine Relativism, based on evoloving social changes ?

Joseph Vocaturo - April 2, 2013

Ryan Anderson was great! Notice that the liberals cannot, and therefore do not, make any argument on the basis of natural law. The only argument they have is that homosexual couples are adversely affected by the laws of man; for example, tax law and the social security system. What would their argument be if not for the unjust laws of man? In true liberal form, they seek to create more bad legislation in order to treat existing bad legislation.

Alan Rhodes - April 2, 2013

I agree with Ryan Anderson completely. He’s did a very good job explaining his views. God bless him for standing up for what is right

Joyce Willis - April 3, 2013

I agree with his views on marriage100% and want him to know he did an admirable job in standing up to all those who so opposed him. We, as a nation cannot go contrary to God’s plan for man and woman.

JJ - April 6, 2013

I agree with Ryan Anderson. He stayed with the facts and spoke for many of us in America. Over the past 40 years we have seen ‘our’ America slip down the slope into disregard for the things that we hold dear. Thank you for speaking for us.

Barbara Ginn - April 6, 2013

Thank God for Heritage and men like Ryan. We must not back down in our understanding and explanation of marriage. I agree with Rush Limbaugh that we should have never let marriage be redefined in this debate. Any union other than a man and woman is not marriage. It may be two people who love each other, but it is not a marriage.

Jo Robbins - April 7, 2013

Ryan Anderson, you hit the issue straight on, were excellent at articulating the argument for marriage between a man and woman, and exposing the nonsense that the left uses to “discredit” any opposition to their agenda. God bless you for your stand and wisdom. Great job standing firm.

Rita nutt - April 15, 2013

This is the first time in the known history of man that the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman has been doubted! It just makes logical sense that the home is for a union of man and woman and then children. Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for standing up for what is right in such a hostile situation.

James - May 1, 2013

Strong arguments Ryan Anderson in the face of adversity – including the host – who should be impartial. But we are talking about low rated left CNN. Orman displayed a typical liberal response: attack the individual and rev up the mob (audience) when they have no credible arguements.

Kurt D. Lee - May 9, 2014

Unbelievably intriguing details you have said, say thanks a lot for posting.

Frances R. Hedrick - May 9, 2014

I merely need to reveal to you in which I’m just beginner to blog posting and totally cherished your review. Very possible I am prone to remember your post post . You seriously have excellent article text. Value it for giving out with us your domain document.

hindi film songs download - May 25, 2014

I have to thank you for the efforts you’ve put in writing this
site. I am hoping to see the same high-grade blog posts by you
in the future as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities has
encouraged me to get my own blog now ;)

fitflop ligne - June 26, 2014

I feel there is no need to tempt fate or the occasional passerby..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>