Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon and maker of bizarre comparisons between being gay and other things that are not at all like being gay, is still considered by some to be the next great savior of the Republican Party. In fact, a recent poll had him coming in just behind Rand Paul as the Republican second most likely to lose to Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical 2016 run. (The poll had Clinton beating Carson 45 percent to 38 percent, whereas Clinton would beat Paul by 46 percent to 39 percent.)
Carson is currently making the media rounds to promote his new book -- and fan the flames of his GOP semi-stardom and speculation about 2016. In conversation with Newsmax TV host Ed Berline on Monday, Carson unveiled the kind of stellar thinking and capacity for bridge-building that has so many Republicans excited about his potential run. When asked if he could come up with a compromise on marriage equality -- one of the "biggest, most contentious" issues of our day -- he said that we all have to be willing to "understand that not everybody thinks the same way that they think" and "engage in conversation."
Carson continued, "I don't think I can impose my will on any two consenting adults. They can do what they want to do, I am not going to try to stop them from doing that."
Off to a good start, right? So what is this big compromise Carson has in mind to appease both sides on the issue of marriage equality, since he accepts that he can't impose his will on any two consenting adults? The solution, according to Carson, is to not let gay people get married. Ben Carson's big compromise on equal marriage is to not let gay people get married.
They can want to get married, Carson explains. But Carson goes on to argue that marriage has never, ever changed its traditional meaning, and so he won't let that happen now. Carson is exactly and precisely right about marriage never changing over thousands of years of recorded history, which is why marriage today is still defined as it was in the first five books of the Old Testament: a polygamous union between one man and multiple women. Or why marriage today is still defined as the arranged union of members of the ruling class from different foreign powers for the purposes of building military alliances and producing heirs. Or why marriage is still defined as a union in which women were held as property; and if a married woman were to be killed or injured, her husband could sue the person responsible to recover the labor he lost around the home.
Watch it here:
h/t Right Wing Watch