David Letterman is clueless when it comes to gay ‘marriage’

I don’t watch a lot of television, but when I do, I make sure to avoid the “Late Show with David Letterman.”

It’s not that he can’t be entertaining at times. It’s that he’s an activist in a suit whose contempt for individuals who aren’t dyed in the wool liberals makes him unbearable to watch. What’s more is that after tearing into guests he disagrees with politically, he runs for intellectual cover by disingenuously reminding his audience “I really don’t know what I’m talking about.”

Rachel Maddow and David Letterman

The thing is, Letterman does know what he’s talking about. At least, some of the time. During an interview with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow last week, he tried to look like he knew what he was talking about but he failed miserably.

Here’s what he said: “Humans have the right to do what humans do, that’s it. End of the story. There’s no argument. There’s no exceptions. Humans have rights and they get to do what humans get to do. Case closed. Good night.”

He is, of course, talking about redefining marriage so to include same-sex couples.

“It’s beyond embarrassing.” he added “It’s exclusionary based on, what? Well, nothing, really, other than the fear people have generated of who knows what.”

Letterman received thunderous applause from his audience for sharing his deep insight on human rights. He even got a nod of approval from Ms. Maddow, a former Rhodes Scholar.

The question Letterman must now answer is: Where do human rights come from? Do our rights come from God? And if so, do we have an obligation to exercise those rights in the way God instructed us to? Or do rights simply come from government? And if so, as Letterman intimated, do we have the right to do whatever we want whenever we want?

As a left-of-center guy, I imagine Letterman wouldn’t have displayed such a laissez-faire attitude had he and Ms. Maddow been discussing banking executives and their decision to bundle mortgage-backed securities in the mid 2000s. I imagine he would say that we have to regulate the banking industry because people might get hurt.

A fair point. But if Letterman were to actually say that, he’d contradict his libertarian-esque claim that “humans have rights and they get to do what humans get to do.”

What Letterman fails to realize is that human beings “do” a lot of things. And a lot of the time human beings “do” things they shouldn’t. For example, some people become prostitutes. Some abuse alcohol. Some abuse drugs. Some think cannibalism should be allowed. And some, like this lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, think murdering a child after a botched abortion should be legal.

Does Letterman think such behavior should be morally permissible? Even encouraged? After all, he did say that “humans have the right to do what humans do.” Is there no limit to what humans should be allowed to do, Dave? Where do you draw the line?

I hope Letterman wouldn’t support those things. Then again, I don’t know that much about him. Is he a Christian? If he is, is he familiar with the creation story? Surely he must know that God did not say to Adam and Eve, “Well, you’re human, and you have a right to do whatever it is you do. I can’t impose my values on you.”

I hope Dave comes to realize that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and that we have been given laws from God to obey for our own good. Even in our pluralistic society, where many people do not believe in God, millions of people support the notion that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There’s nothing “exclusionary” or “embarrassing” about that, either. What’s embarrassing is that people actually think Letterman’s intellectually lazy comments represent some sort of profound philosophical insight when in reality they are as empty as the suit that sits behind the desk on the “Late Show with David Letterman.”


Categories:Marriage Media

  • Jeff

    Congrats to David Letterman who’s been accepted into the “Filthy Still” Club (Rev. 22:11) but who’s also won a “Get Out Free” ticket offered 24/7 by Big J that’s good during only one lifetime (length of lifetime not guaranteed)! If you know of any other potty mouths or evil doers who would be good Hell-minded members of the Club, please send us their names. For more info Google “USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans.”

  • JackB

    I rarely watch Letterman so I can’t offer much. I am for traditional marriage, but I have little control, not that I want any, over others and I can’t FORCE my position on others.

    I thought I recalled that a prior Pope settled the issue of creationism and evolutionism. I can’t remember back to the days of Adam and Eve, but did they ever get married? Lighten up!

  • Genome

    Homosexuals, tempted and secluded by Satan at an early age. Broken emotionally and psychologically, our psyche split into a different dimension of what love is and what sex is. Ridiculed and humiliated for this powerless sin, that only kills ourselves. Now you complain that this burden bothers you, that it is somehow “affecting” you. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and principalities of darkness of this present age…”

    • Patrick

      genome, what kind of a crazy screed is that in a rational conversation about civil law?

  • Evan

    I believe that all humans have rights. And they should be allowed to marry who they want assuming they are both consenting adults. Why do you think that you should be allowed to force your beliefs onto others? Have you ever heard of separation of state and religion? That means that god should not even enter the picture. I understand that David Letterman may have badly worded his statement but I am backing him up fully. Also you pulled that Bank thing out of your ass and he never said it. That means it cannot be used as an augment. Please reply.

    • http://www.juanpablodostribute.blogspot.com Samwise

      Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 16-point 1):
      •(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to RACE, NATIONALITY or RELIGION, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.—–
      Also–in the 1st amendment to the constitution, there is no mention of separation between church and state. Instead, there is mention of no religion becoming the national religion (like in England). Please study your sources before drawing conclusions–thanks!

      • Eric

        By quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you’ve argued against yourself. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or RELIGION, have the right to marry, etc. Beliefs that homosexuals should not wed are based solely on your religion. A person’s religion, however, as stated above, has no impact on marriage.

        • Paul Sadek

          Nobody is arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. The “right to marry” is quite different from the nonexistent “right to redefine marriage.”

    • mominvermont

      So you believe adult men’s desire to discriminate against and exclude women from their marriages is more important than a child’s desire to have a loving and committed relationship with her mother?

      Keep marriage pro-gender. Because gender matters to everyone, including those with same sex attraction.

      • Patrick

        Mominvermont: We will always have intact, traditional nuclear families as well as broken families and repaired families. We will always have second families and step-sons and step daughters. We will always have single mothers and single fathers, some by choice, some by chance. We will always have orphans and kids who are adopted out and those who are adopted in. We will always have straight couples who are childless, by choice or by chance, and we will have gay couples who are childless, by choice or by chance.

        Granting Bill and Ted a civil marriage license won’t change any of that, EXCEPT that it will benefit Bill and Ted as well as any children they may choose to raise.

    • Paul Sadek

      Oh, Evan, sit down and relax, and think a little bit about what you’re saying.

      “And they should be allowed to marry who they want assuming they are both consenting adults.” So that means you think that a man should be allowed to marry his mother, his sister, or his grown daughter, right? Or for that matter, another married person? You advocated zero restrictions except that “they are both consenting adults.”

      “Why do you think that you should be allowed to force your beliefs onto others?” Because I still believe that some things are right and others are wrong. I strongly suspect that you are more than willing to “force” your belief on someone who believes that he has a right to pick the lock on the door of your house and rob you…or harm your family.

      “Have you ever heard of separation of state and religion?” Well, I usually hear it worded as “separation of church and state,” and yes, I’ve heard of it, but not in the constitution. As I recall, it was an opinion offered by Thomas Jefferson, which carried none of the weight of law.

      “That means that god should not even enter the picture.” I’m not sure what “that” refers to; but given the context in which God was referenced in the original piece, it begs the question: Just where do YOU think basic human rights come from, Evan? The government?

      It’s been said many times, but I’ll say it again: This is NOT about “who can get married.” It is about the perceived “right” to redefine what marriage IS–and that is NOT a basic human right.

    • MLF

      There is an established tradition (mostly non-western) of adults marrying children, perhaps older than the beliefs being ‘forced’ on you. Clearly, we all also know that setting a specific age as a barrier to a ‘right’ is arbitrary (in fact at times even overridden by new legislation as in the case of contraceptives and abortions for minors w/o parental consent).
      Other than ‘forcing beliefs’ on people who want to participate in child marriage or child sex…or child pornography for that matter…why on earth should they or the bigamists or triads not be allowed to pursue their own personal happiness? The size of the affected population is apparently irrelevant given that only about 3.5% of the population is even homosexual, never mind the percentage of that which is pro same sex marriage or has any interest in marrying. What about, as Jeremy Irons pointed out, a father and son who want to express their love physically within a marriage? As he rightly noted there is no scientific/biological reason to prevent such a union.

      Where will you draw the line? A better question is WHO will draw the line? Because any line to be drawn will be based upon some value somewhere and that will be a forcing of belief once again. So whose belief is it acceptable to force onto everyone?

  • Chris

    I can’t stomach the guy.

  • Paxmaker

    If ther is no essential difference between a man And a woman, then there is no problem with them doing anything, as they would essentially be doing the same things. But, there are a number of essential differences, including the ability to bear children, a significantly different but complementary emotional composition from that of men, the presence of a significantly different biological structure and set of processes than that of men, etc. Analysed as to essence, any thinking biologist, sociologist, psychologist and related fields would have to conclude that. This difference and obvious complementarity reveals nt only the child bearing truth, but also the nurturing child rearing truth of these essential characteristics! The next question is why, sociologically, any clear thinking individual would conclude anything other than the rectitude of a human institution called marriages, binding these individuals to a permanent relationship for the advancement of a solidly human unit called the family should accrue to any other set of human relationships? The clear answer, for this purpose is no, either due to lack of essential complementarity (sometimes calledcomprehensively conjugal) or due to dilution of essential relationships as in threesomes, multitudinous memberships of one sex or the other, etc.
    The fuzzy civil discourse on this topic, shows how far our university trained communities have become purveyors of politics rather than veritas. Also, it displays excursions into lability such as applying physics regarding carbon footprints and cellular construction to argue for same sex marriage, taking essence down to the level of accidents and to the level of those fuzzy thinkers again. This absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or any other accidental human characteristic. It has everything to do with answering the question, what is marriage, on the level plain with the questions as to what Re the distinguishing essences of man an woman in relationship to the understanding of what those essential differences imply for human civilization, not for the passing fancies of well meaning but unquestionably challenged truth seekers.

    • Alan

      The UDHR was drafted in 1948. Limiting your argument to something created so many years ago leaves your conclusion unsound. The idea that you alone have the right to impose your views upon someone else because you don’t think it is right for them to act in a way that fails to align with your illogical belief set is completely disgusting. Sure, free speech exists. That does not mean that people such as yourself are restricted from saying illogical things. Maybe you don’t agree with it. But nobody is forcing you to get homosexual marriage or even have homosexual relations. I don’t agree with your conclusions. That doesn’t mean you can’t have them, but there is no reason why they should be imposed upon me. The UDHR and similar documents were drafted to help establish equality of opportunity for all humans. Nobody can create equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity can never be created so long as one human tries to restrict another. If it doesn’t directly affect you, there’s no reason to get involved.



Receive our updates via email.