Appearance Alert!
MRC President Brent Bozell to appear on FNC's Kelly File at 9:20 p.m. EST

Gayle King Likens Opposing Same-Sex 'Marriage' to Opposing Desegregation

Obama booster Gayle King attacked conservative Dennis Prager on Thursday's CBS This Morning for his opposition to same-sex marriage. King channeled the left by equating such opposition to opposing desegregation: "You recently wrote...that you can be against same-sex marriage and not be anti-gay...it's sort of like saying to a black person...I want you to sit at the back of the bus, but I'm not anti-black." [audio available here ]

The morning show slanted in general towards the cultural left by bringing on three supporters of same-sex "marriage" or civil unions: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; Chris Hughes, the publisher of The New Republic; and Max Mutchnick, co-creator of the TV show "Will and Grace," which was recently cited by Vice President Joe Biden as he announced his support of the redefinition of marriage on Sunday's Meet The Press. Hughes and Mutchnick are both open homosexuals.

Prager appeared on the newscast at the top of the 8 am Eastern hour, about an hour after Giuliani and Hughes, and immediately before Mutchnick. Anchor Charlie Rose first asked the right-leaning talk show host, "Tell me what you think the political fallout from this is and where you think the country is on this issue of same-sex marriage." The guest, answered, in part, that "I don't think it will be good for him [President Obama], and I think it will energize all of those evangelical Christians who had misgivings about voting for a Mormon [Mitt Romney].

King then came in with her incendiary question to Prager, who replied by refuting her loaded analogy:

KING: Dennis, you recently wrote an article about- that you can be against same-sex marriage and not be anti-gay-

PRAGER: Right-

KING: And a friend of mine told me recently, it's sort of like saying to a black person, listen, I want you to sit at the back of the bus, but I'm not anti-black. A lot of gays, I keep hearing, aren't understanding your distinction. What do you mean?

PRAGER: Well, I mean it with the- with utter sincerity, knowing gays so well and being- and, having in my extended family, a wonderful lesbian couple with a child. It's not the same as in the back of the bus. It's the same as- I have a better analogy. It would be like saying, I prefer that married people raise children to single people. That doesn't mean that single people are inferior to married people.

It shouldn't be any surprise that the CBS anchor, an admitted friend of First Lady Michelle Obama and donor to the President's reelection campaign, would run to the defense of the chief executive's latest position on this controversial issue.

The full transcript of the Dennis Prager segment from Thursday's CBS This Morning:

CHARLIE ROSE: With us now from Los Angeles, Dennis Prager, leading conservative voice on talk radio. Good morning, Dennis.

DENNIS PRAGER, AUTHOR, STILL THE BEST HOPE: Hi- nice to be with you.

[CBS News Graphic: "Politics Of Same-Sex Marriage: Conservatives React To New Obama Position"]

ROSE: Tell me what you think the political fallout from this is and where you think the country is on this issue of same-sex marriage.                            

PRAGER: Right. Well, they're both related and they're both separate. The political fallout will- ultimately, I don't think- accrue well for the President's chances for reelection. He may get reelected anyway, but this will not benefit him. We always hear that the polls show about 52 to 48 [percent] in favor of redefining marriage or 50/50. We were told it was 50/50 in North Carolina. It turned out to be 61/39, and that was a state that went for President Obama in the last election. So I don't think it will be good for him, and I think it will energize all of those evangelical Christians who had misgivings about voting for a Mormon.

GAYLE KING: Dennis, you recently wrote an article about- that you can be against same-sex marriage and not be anti-gay-

PRAGER: Right-

KING: And a friend of mine told me recently, it's sort of like saying to a black person, listen, I want you to sit at the back of the bus, but I'm not anti-black. A lot of gays, I keep hearing, aren't understanding your distinction. What do you mean?

PRAGER: Well, I mean it with the- with utter sincerity, knowing gays so well and being- and, having in my extended family, a wonderful lesbian couple with a child. It's not the same as in the back of the bus. It's the same as- I have a better analogy. It would be like saying, I prefer that married people raise children to single people. That doesn't mean that single people are inferior to married people.

ERICA HILL: So- and in the veins of that conversation, it comes up often, too, that people say, well, yes, that may be an ideal for some people, that you have two loving parents, but it can't always happen that way. So when people bring up the fact that this being a- about civil marriage versus a religious marriage, does that change things at all in the minds of even some of the evangelical voters that you just spoke about?

PRAGER: What would what change their minds? If we give civil-

HILL: If this is about a civil marriage- not a civil union, but a civil marriage- because, obviously, you can't legislate within a church, a synagogue, a mosque-

PRAGER: No, no. It wouldn't change people's minds because society defines marriages. This notion that only a church or synagogue defines a marriage is unfair to atheists and secular people. They want the society to define, just as it always has. However your religion defines it is your business, but how society defines marriage is society's business.

HILL: So if, then, the definition in society is changing, at what point, if it does change-

PRAGER: If it changes, it changes. But the fact is that wherever people have been allowed to vote, they don't want to redefine marriage in what, to be intellectually honest, is the most radical way that marriage has ever been redefined. And if love is the only issue, there is no answer I've ever received to the question, why not allow a person to love two people and marry them? I've never gotten an answer. I've debated gay activist leaders. They always skip on to another topic. But once we have shattered the male-female ideal for marriage, then everything should be allowed.

ROSE: Let me come back to the politics, for a moment. [Representative] Barney Frank said this kind of issue, once you pass and the President takes a stand, you find out that it is not as controversial and that it is more popular, and that it will not be a major issue in the campaign.

PRAGER: Well, I don't think that they will talk about it a lot, but I believe it will be an issue in a lot of people's minds- as I said, evangelicals. In my state of California, blacks voted heavily to amend the constitution of California to define marriage is between a man and a woman. It may not be spoken about a lot, but I think it will affect people's voting.

ROSE: Might it also energize President Obama's supporters, who might have had some misgivings about him, and knowing that he was with them, but not expressed that idea as well as they wanted him to?

[CBS News Graphic: "Support For Same-Sex Marriage: Democrats, 65%; Independents, 57%; Republicans, 22%; Margin of Error: +/- 3% Pts.; Source: Gallup Poll"]
    
PRAGER: I don't believe that, even if it energizes them, they would have voted anyway. The folks on the left- politically, socially- have nowhere to go. So they would vote for President Obama anyway. But there are others who will say that this is very important to them, and frankly, it is very important. Whether or not society has male-female marriage or not is one of the most fundamental questions a society has to face.

ROSE: Dennis, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

PRAGER: Thanks for having me.

— Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.