It is really rediculous that this wasn't passed. We've had too many screw ups with people needing to have equal rights, from slavery, to women's rights, to gay rights. It's been hundreds of years fighting for these rights, and we're still screwing up.
"President Obama was elected cashing our checks and making promises to our community, but so far he has failed to be the "fierce advocate" for gay rights that he said he would be." — Yeah, that's not the only thing he lied about, but then, he's a politician, what else did anyone ignorantly expect. I don't believe any of them anymore. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Seeing these people cry... Feeling their pain... They're human beings, just like the rest of us "straight people". Their sexual orientation doesn't make them any less, or more, than anyone else. I'm a straight, 18-year old Canadian female, and I wholeheartedly stand for LGBT rights. What's stopping them from receiving the rights they earned as being citizens?
and we called this the american dream, woops i guest it was just propaganda all this time. if LGBT people want to get married without discrimination, then move to europe or canada were you have much more freedom.
it's a shame it didn't pass. It's hard watching all those people cry knowing that they tried and they tried hard and the numbers didn't add up in their favor at the end of the night. This response maybe 2 years late but this video it still has the same power behind it. I hope they get what they are fighting for.
It's funny how most people who identify themselves as "liberals" or "democrats" (I'm probably talking about you here) know just as little about politics and how the world works as teapartiers. The only thing most "liberals" and "democrats" have on republicans and teapartiers is a better sense of fashion.
It's the truth and you know it. Before you call me out on this, go read a book and learn something more about politics other than "LEFT IS BETTER THAN RIGHT!!" simple-minded crap.
@ButterDaBreadBro can't remember where I read this but statistically gays who have been married are more likely to stay married and/or together longer than a heterosexual relationship... but that study has only been around for several years since gay marriage in certain states has only been around for several years.
Love is completely and 100% subjective, but in that our emotions lead us to be subjective, we must be aware of the feelings of all people in this matter. With respect and consideration, we must make sacrifices, and sometimes that means letting go of preconceived notions of what we view as wrong. Compromise, is what makes this country work, and equality for all is the greatest representation of that notion. Love is compromise, love is equal, and love is not just a right by law, but a human right.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE??? America is not the land of the free I grew up to believe. I feel sorry for these people. Remember love makes the world go around not hate.
I FINALLY FOUND THE LOVE OF A LIFE TYME...FOREVER IN MY HEART, OF A LIFE TIME :) I CAN HELP YOU WITH YOUR REIGN. I NEED MONEY, A SENSIBLE CAR, GAS, CIGARETTES OR WEED... MUST THE MONEY...NOT FOR LOVE OF LUST, FOR PASSION. IT'S WITH PASSION, COURAGE OF COVICTION, AND STRONG SENSE OF SELF THAT WE MOVE FORWARD....GET AT YOUR OMEGA, ALPHA. YOU'RE NOT THE ANTICHRIST, YOU'RE AN ANGEL, COME TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY, LET ME SHOW YOU HOW TO MAKE IT REIGN. @ <3 me
as long as they keep trying it will pass. the older ignorent repulicans will die. younger more thoughfull people are born. these rights will be given. gays will have their day! time passes people become more open! NEVER GIVE UP DAMN IT!!!! NEVER!!!!
The biggest IRONY is that religious people say we cannot be good without the bible/god, when most things they preach is wicked and vile. Shame on religion and cults alike.
Marriage of two men or two women is not equal to a marriage of man and woman. That's a fact, because the second one has a potential of having children. Therefore a homosexual marriage shouldn't have the same rights as a heterosexual marriage. But if it's only about love as gays and lesbians claim then they surely will agree to be able to marry their partners without some of the right of heterosexual merriage, won't they?
@Kozaack Should women who can't give birth not have the same rights as those who can? Should a man whom has had his testicles removed due to cancer not have the same rights as one who hasn't?
@snakedad If it is known that man or woman can't have children or they won't have for some reason they shouldn't. It's about procreation. If they won't have children why should they get profits that are supposed to encourage them to have children? All other profits? Be my guest. And to be clear, I'm talking from position of slowly dying european society.
Dude come on. They are adults just like you and me the only difference is they feel and think different. Let them get married. They have every right as you and me.
@funkyhenry There's no problem - let them get married. But don't give them profits that are supposed to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate. OK? Do we agree here?
@Kozaack: What about hetros that CAN'T procreate? Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Animals procreate, but most of them don't mate for life. In many previous cultures and countries, marriage was a way to join two kingdoms, or for the brides father to get money from the groom. That's all marriage was, a business contract.
@str33twarrior22 I really don't. But in some countries of Europe being gay gives you additional profits. I'm against that. I don't mind two guys fucking as long as I don't have to watch that or pay them for doing it. And you really don't know me well enough to hate me.
@Kozaack How does being gay in some European countries give additional profits, whatever you mean by that? Why would you have to pay for two men to have sex?
@Ridahna How would you propose the state determine fertility of individuals? Why would such an intrusive determination be necessary? Are you under the impression that the state is obligated to forgo a general distinction for an individual one when the people believe the general to be sufficient?
Hey youtubers, i made a video on how to get 360 waves, and im doin a Bill Cosby impression in it, i was wondering if someone cud give me feedback on it, positive or negative, thanks alot
Im straight, but I think if you are against gay marriage you are either a religious nut or homophobic. Thomas Jefferson said "If it niether breaks my leg nor pinches my pocket, what difference does it make to me"
I think its selfish and unconstitutional to deny them equal rights
@boricuamm707 I agree with Jefferson. But in most european countries gays can get married and now they fight to be able to adopt children and get money from my pocket just because they're a minority. I believe that there are some sincere people who are simply in love, but also there are those who calculate what they can get from heterosexual majority after making this first step.
@boricuamm707 In Netherlands there are agencies that assign orphans to new parents. If there is a homosexual couple in queue they get a kid first, because any accusation of dyscrimination automaticly closes any adopting agency. And homosexual couples take adventage of it. I think this is where "equality" and political correctness will lead western society.
What you are talking about is a very very very small fraction of a percentage of one segment of the population. It does not represent a problem in concerning marriage considering that marriage is entirely optional when it comes to procreation. Marriage is not about procreation, it is a symbolic form of expressing the love for one another with rather unfortunate economical bonuses attached to it. The government should have no rights to interfere with peoples feelings
Its so sad....I cant believe it didnt happen. So many people fighting their rights, for their love, and it is denied to them? We need to change things, it cannot go on like this
So long as this nation is dubbed a "Christian Nation" ...gay rights will be a hard fight. I am FAR from gay myself but don't see the problem allowing rights to any person. This is just the next step in America's progression. Finally allowing blacks equal rights, then women...and here we are today.
looks like 52% of people in maine are fucking ignorant discusting bastards. how can america be so "free" but not allow 2 people the freedom to get married? fuck im happy to live in canada. its like america without all the hate and ignorance.
I love all your videos! This one is one of my favorites, because it's VERY serious and it's INSANE that people can so insensitive and vote YES to gays not being able to get married formally.
I find this hard to watch when NewLeftMedia glorifies a story like this, but cherry-picks people in other rallies to make the opposition look like idiots.
There are idiots in all walks of life. To be so biased is not good press. I'm not an ideologue either... I can't stand Hannity.
@daveyjazz72 welcome to the media. No matter where you go there is always someone more biase to one side. I'm not saying whether or not im for or against marriage but I hate biase news programs
I cried when i watched this, its just horrible that these people are denied the rights that everyone else has just because they were born different. Anyone who says America is the land of the free is living in another reality
@ionlyjoinedforrwj - me too. Just seeing the mix of people that this effects, be they feminine or butch lesbians, twinks, bears, elderly gay men... this effects us ALL and it IS the one only unifying thing that the gay community has to fight for.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How on earth do my rights get infringed when gay people marry? They don't. In the words of Jefferson: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I think the right to privacy would constitute gay marriage... I personally do not agree with it but I could care less what they do in their lives. I would say tho that when I see two men kissing it truly is disgusting to me, so I kind of like that they have to hold back their enthusiasm towards each other. If they can learn to not weird out people who aren't used to their antics, I would be all for it. But, no one wants stuff that happens in the Gay Parade in SF to happen in their suburb.
@nnjhansen uhhh do u even know what the right to privacy means in regards to the constitution? let me inform you a lil dipshit... you vote in a state issued election but you do not have to tell people who you vote for... so basically it is unconstitutional for the state to inquire about decisions you make in your personal life... do you subspecies of humanity even try to form a foundation for your argument. I could care less about homosexuality. Focus on shit that matters like the oil spill.
@nnjhansen and the State has no interest in asking the sex of the participants in this LEGAL CONTRACT. The State's interests are fulfilled by marriages without children, by marriages with children, by marriages that adopt, by marriages that have a child through IVF, by marriages that have partners of the same sex, by marriages that have partners of the opposite sex. All those marriages fulfill the State's objectives. If you don't like same sex marriage, do not get one.
@ElSeedyMinotaur As the state's interest in the contract can ONLY be satisfied if there is a member of each sex in the marriage, the state DOES have an interest in the sex of the participants. Why don't you let the people in a state decide what their interests are and what they believe it takes to satisfy those interests?
@nnjhansen Nonsense, we've been over this and over this... 'procreation' occurs in many ways. The state also does not inquire whether both members are fertile, another requirement of 'procreation.' Do infertile or marriages between elderly people no longer satisfy the state's interest? No. Then the state's interest must lie in more than pure, biological procreation but rather in the creation of stable, committed families.
A requirement that same sex partnerships more than satisfy.
@ElSeedyMinotaur Human reproduction occurs ONLY one way. A sperm from a male fertilizes an egg from a female. No same sex couple can accomplish this. Now you are arguing that because a requirement could be made more stringent it is not a legitimate requirement? That is ridiculous.
No same sex couple can offer a child a stable, loving home with his or her mother and father, can they?
@nnjhansen Same sex couples accomplish this everyday, in the same way that many infertile couples do. Are you suggesting that the donor has a more unique and protected relationship than the parents who raise the child? Are heart transplant recipients 'denied' a relationship with their 'other' parents?
@nnjhansen Laws against interracial marriage remained on the books in the south until recently and a majority of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage until 1991, do you beleive that the people of the states should have been free to continue to deny marriage to interracial couples because it was unpopular? Btw, my sister in law and her partner have procreated, what makes you think you have any right to know the details?
@ElSeedyMinotaur As those laws treated people differently on the basis of their race and we fought a bloody civil war, amended the Constitution, and then passed civil rights legislation specifically to address state actions based on race, the people did speak on the subject. There is nothing remotely similar in history or law between anti-miscegenation laws and requiring a man and a woman for marriage so stop pretending there is and answer the question.
@nnjhansen Legislation has been passed specifically addressing discrimination based upon both gender and sexual orientation. Prior to Loving v. Virginia the arguments used by anti-miscegenation supporters were eerily similar to current arguments. Do you believe Loving v. Virginia was decided incorrectly?
BTW, Griswold v. Conn would seem to indicate that the circumstances surrounding my nephew's conception are none of yours or the state's business.
@ElSeedyMinotaur Which of the arguments are similar? No, I believe the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to prohibit state actions based on race.
I do not care about the circumstances surrounding that child's conception. You keep bringing him up. What I do know is that there is no possibility that two women created him.
@ElSeedyMinotaur As no one is being discriminated against by a law that requires a man and a woman in a marriage contract, this is not an issue of the state discriminating against anyone.
You have not answered my question, why not allow the people to decide what their interests are and what satisfies them?
@ElSeedyMinotaur Again, the law in VA only prohibited whites from marrying outside their race. Where is the similar problem with the requirement for a man and a woman?
BTW, the Court rejected your argument 5 years after Loving.
@ElSeedyMinotaur The state does not have to determine the fertility of individuals to be sure that both a man and a woman is required to create a new human being.
@nnjhansen Oh, the state argued that the laws weren't a violation of civil rights because they applied to whites and blacks equally... similar to the 'gays have a right to marry whomever they choose of the opposite sex' argument, no?
@ElSeedyMinotaur The Court rejected that argument because it was demonstrably untrue. The VA law prohibited only whites from marrying outside their race.
@ElSeedyMinotaur Where did you learn to read? "The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race."
'Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.'
@ElSeedyMinotaur The state contended that they punished both parties equally, not that each was forbidden to marry outside their race. Your reading comprehension needs work. Her is a test, could a white person legally marry an Asian under the VA law? Could a black person?
@ElSeedyMinotaur You have a bizarre idea of what constitutes equality if you believe that everyone being subject to the same restrictions and conditions is not it.
@nnjhansen The state has no compelling interest in the gender of participants. Compelling people to choose an 'opposite sex' partner is not equality. Nor will it last...
@ElSeedyMinotaur What is the compelling state interest in the number of parties or the level of consanguinity? It sure can't be related to procreation, right?
@ElSeedyMinotaur But you have made the argument that the state needs a compelling, non-procreation based reason to maintain the non-discriminatory requirement for a man and a woman in a marriage because a person should be able to marry their consenting partner, right?
@nnjhansen I have maintained that there is no compelling reason to continue the gender requirements for
marriage and I will go further and say that society is best served by allowing these families the same rights and responsibilities as others. If you feel there is a further benefit to extending these benefits to polygamous or incestous marriages then you should argue for them, I have not.
@ElSeedyMinotaur No, you have stated that the reason given & acknowledged for centuries is illegitimate. You have stated repeatedly that any state interest in how a child is created cannot be used to deny the opportunity for a person to marry their consenting partner. Now deal with the consequence of your argument & answer the question.
@nnjhansen No, I have clearly and repeatedly said that the state's interests are served by removing the gender component of this contract. You may argue for the removal of the other requirements if you so choose, I am not.
@ElSeedyMinotaur@ElSeedyMinotaur You are an intellectual coward. Until you begin to argue in good faith and address the implications of your argument in an honest fashion, I am through with you. Good day.
@ElSeedyMinotaur No, you are a coward because you refuse to accept the implications of your argument. Yelling "slippery slope" is not an argument, it is an excuse not to defend an argument. (If you understood what the slippery slope fallacy actually is you would not be yelling it) You are a coward.
@nnjhansen I have defended my argument... you'd like to turn my argument into something else. Your attempt to 'show me' how my arguments inevitably lead to acceptance of plural and incestuous marriage are the definition of a slippery slope and I refuse to participate.
I am arguing for the changing of the gender requirements for this legal contract only.
I invite you to make your case for plural and incestuous marriage if you'd like to, I'm under no obligation to do so.
@DURound I would not go that far. He is a coward, simple as that. There are implications to his argument and rather than confront them in an intellectually honest fashion he screams, "slippery slope" as though that relieves him of his obligation.
@nnjhansen No, I have defended my argument and will continue to do so... you'd like me to defend something else entirely. I'm under no such obligation. Sorry that offends you so... is this your first discussion?
@ElSeedyMinotaur I can see that you want to discuss this, but whether it is false, or whether it is not false, I will not be discussing the issue with you.
@ElSeedyMinotaur BTW, either your sister in law or her partner may have been a party to procreation but they did not do it together. Get a biology book or ask your mommy how babies are made if you are unclear.
@nnjhansen wuuuuuuuut the fuuuuuuuuck are you talking about you dipshit degenerate trash. NEVER EVER EVER EVER try to EVER question my intelligence you ignorant ill-informed dirty fucktoy. You have access to google you fuckface fucking piece of shit toolbag motherfucking dirty piece of shit fuck, search from now on before you ever try to question something... The secrecy (synonym: privacy of the ballot) has nothing to do with the right to privacy. Search google, right to privacy vote fuckface.
....just to let you know. When you cuss a lot to try and get your point across you don't sound too smart, you just sound intolerant, hotheaded, and ridiculous,
I have a lot of respect for people who say they find two men kissing truly disgusting, that they disagree with gays getting married, but don't care less and therefor support the law allowing them to marry.
SF Gay Pride is an anomaly, many gay people don't like going to SF pride either, including me. Most prides are much nicer.
Those who kiss in public are generally younger and immature, like teenagers who "neck" in public. No one should kiss in public.
Pretty soon gays will be jumping up and down for joy when the gay judge in California declares Prop 8 Unconstitutional. Of course that's not the end of things and it may wend its way to the supreme court. I think the judge is taking such a long time because he is trying to craft a decision that will not require SCOTUS review.
I am grateful that Maine did what was right. Every time the people have a chance to express their views on this matter, they have voted to not permit gay marriage.
That number is diminishing. As people see allowing gays to marry does not affect their lives, they start to be reasonable. More people are becoming caring and respectful towards others lives. I've heard more people say things along the lines of "my view is I don't believe in it, but that's for my life. I'm not going to vote so another person can't live by their beliefs." That's a respectable stance to take.
@PLmoms, I think that the long lead time between the decisions to adulterate marriage and the bad effects on society make people think it does not affect their lives. But it does.
I think it is perfectly respectable to say "Gay Marriage is not something I want in tihs society" and vote for laws that uphold that view.
You have to wonder what's really on those people's minds, when it goes straight to the gutter, thinking about children and animals like that. They need to worry about restricting their thoughts, not our rights!
Are you aware of Question 1 in ME, and Prop 8 in CA? If not, watch the video and you can also find others to see what the issue is and the rights that are being restricted.
Easy for you to say that, you're not one of the folks whose rights are being restricted. You are simply one who's life is not affected either way, but you chose to impose your beliefs on those whose lives ARE affected.
@PLmoms Yes it is easy for me to say because NO ONE's rights are being restricted. The restrictions and conditions on marriage licenses apply equally to all. Whether you like it or not, what those restrictions and conditions are (like for all licensing schemes) is a political issue to be decided by the people.
Correct, YOUR rights are not restricted. Good for you. A marriage license is not equal unless you are legally allowed to marry the one you want to spend your entire life with, and after.
My life shouldn't be decided by you or other people to whom my life does not affect theirs. This is simply the majority pushing their beliefs on the lives of a minority. It's happened in the past, and history shows it wasn't right then. It's not right now.
@PLmoms No one's rights are being restricted. No one has the ability to marry whoever they "want to spend your entire life with." All marriages are subject to the exact same conditions and restrictions.
Your life is NOT being decided on by others. You can live with whoever you want for as long as you want. There is no legal barrier to that. What you cannot have are the benefits society gives to those who comply with the conditions it sets.
The legal, financial and social benefits that come with marriage are the RIGHTS that are lost for gay people. No one is subject to the exact same conditions. Otherwise, marriage wouldn't be about love and commitment, it would still be about men owning their women. You wouldn't expect happiness in your marriage, but misery in not being able to marry the person you love.
Marriage is a legal agreement between 2 unrelated adults who are committed to each other, hopefully with love.
@PLmoms As those legal, financial, and social benefits are contingent on a state issued license they are not rights but privileges. Which condition on marriage do you believe does not apply everyone?
Marriage, civil marriage, is a state licensing scheme. The purpose of it, like all licensing schemes, is to further a legitimate societal interest. The license is not issued to benefit the recipients but the state. Feel free to love and be committed to whoever you want. Do not expect other to care.
If it were not of benefit to the married couples, the state wouldn't have to issue licenses and rights that come with marriage would not exist. The state laws are not meant to only benefit the state, but also the people to whom the state serves. Marital rights for the states tax paying citizens. The state should not be discriminating even if the majority of it's people want to discriminate, because even the minorities contribute to the state.
@PLmoms@PLmoms You believe the state issues licences for the benefit of the recipients? Honestly? Law licenses are issued for the benefit of the lawyer rather than his potential clients? Drivers licences are for the drivers rather than the other people on the road? Of course not. The state issues licences to further a societal interest. The benefits accrue to those who meet the conditions related to those interests.
Are you joking around? Because it would have to be mutually beneficial, both sides benefit. The lawyer wants the fat salary and cool car to drive, or maybe wants to feel good about fighting for justice. Drivers want to drive to get from point A to point B. Or be able to save for their dream Corvette...the people would not participate w/o enjoying benefits.
But driving is a privilege. Marriage is a right. US Supreme Court determined so in Loving vs Virgina.
@PLmoms Of course there has to be mutual consideration, that is required for any contract ual agrement. You want to deny the state the ability to determine it's consideration. You want the state to agree to be party to the agreement without it's interests being served. Even if you accept the notion that marriage is a right, that has only been implied by the Court in the context of it being the union between a man & a woman and related to procreation.
@PLmoms What interest do you think the requirement of a man and a woman is related to?
Please do not reply with the canard that there is no actual fertility requirement. It is nonsensical to suggest that because a requirement could be made more stringent the requirement as it stands is somehow illegitimate.
In the US Constitution, there is no Man and Woman requirement. IT wasn't in any state constitutions until voters ADDED the wording, and DOMA ADDED it as a federal law, all based on peoples fears.
If procreation were *really* the requirement, you would not allow old people to remarry, just one example. So stop with the canard that it is a procreation requirement, because it is a nonsensical justification for discrimination.
@PLmoms In the US Constitution, there is no Man and Woman requirement
DURound: Marriage is also not in the US Constitution. But per the US Constitution 10th Amendment, this is a matter delegated for the States to control. Hence States have marriage laws. In almost every state marriage is between a man and a woman. This is not a US Constitutional issue.
This made me cry, Thank you for your work. ((hugs))
SuperSpencercat 1 day ago
Why is the Right so afraid of these people?
atheistphilosopher 2 months ago in playlist More videos from NewLeftMedia
It is really rediculous that this wasn't passed. We've had too many screw ups with people needing to have equal rights, from slavery, to women's rights, to gay rights. It's been hundreds of years fighting for these rights, and we're still screwing up.
p.s. I'm in Maine.
harrypotterfantng 4 months ago
gay people need to be free...they are good people...let help them i think immigrants and gay should unite to overthrow the republican rednecks
Flash02021990 4 months ago
pretty sad. such oppression for a country that claims to be fighter for freedom. how dare the US invade other countries preaching freedom
lordrazr 7 months ago
"President Obama was elected cashing our checks and making promises to our community, but so far he has failed to be the "fierce advocate" for gay rights that he said he would be." — Yeah, that's not the only thing he lied about, but then, he's a politician, what else did anyone ignorantly expect. I don't believe any of them anymore. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
VideoExpostulations 8 months ago
Seeing these people cry... Feeling their pain... They're human beings, just like the rest of us "straight people". Their sexual orientation doesn't make them any less, or more, than anyone else. I'm a straight, 18-year old Canadian female, and I wholeheartedly stand for LGBT rights. What's stopping them from receiving the rights they earned as being citizens?
Skywolf17 8 months ago 5
A nation dedicated to liberty, justice and equality. Does it look that way to you? Doesn't look that way to me.
AmericanXcore 9 months ago
and we called this the american dream, woops i guest it was just propaganda all this time. if LGBT people want to get married without discrimination, then move to europe or canada were you have much more freedom.
civilarchangel 10 months ago
it's a shame it didn't pass. It's hard watching all those people cry knowing that they tried and they tried hard and the numbers didn't add up in their favor at the end of the night. This response maybe 2 years late but this video it still has the same power behind it. I hope they get what they are fighting for.
sanchez2021 10 months ago
Keep up the good video work looking good. When you have time come visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 11 months ago
Keep up the good video work looking good. When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 11 months ago
People should be charged with a crime for lying in media.
derekismature 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try online Latino women profiles rockmycity.info
kemasanuja 11 months ago
land of the free... at least if u are straight and christian. look how pathetic this country has become
kretsche10 1 year ago 3
@kretsche10 What exactly is a straight Christian free to do that someone else is not?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online Be Naughty women benaughtyman.info
nimalikamanjula 1 year ago
Ladies and gentlemen, just think of sexual equality like this
Sexual equality = more people come out of the closet
More gays and lesbians = less competition on the straight "market"
Less competition = More sex for us straights!!! :D
BoogiemanCoffee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You like marry this girls ** rockmycity.info **
aviishabegam 1 year ago
The only way the right wing bigoted Christians can win is by lying about people.
str33twarrior22 1 year ago
It's funny how most people who identify themselves as "liberals" or "democrats" (I'm probably talking about you here) know just as little about politics and how the world works as teapartiers. The only thing most "liberals" and "democrats" have on republicans and teapartiers is a better sense of fashion.
It's the truth and you know it. Before you call me out on this, go read a book and learn something more about politics other than "LEFT IS BETTER THAN RIGHT!!" simple-minded crap.
420dogowner 1 year ago
Intolerance is disgusting and unfortunately this country is full of intolerant people.
goillini00 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Try to change your life ** rockmycity.info **
adahweisingerkxc 1 year ago
Are people afraid gays might have a happier marriage and live a happier life than them?
ButterDaBreadBro 1 year ago 9
@ButterDaBreadBro can't remember where I read this but statistically gays who have been married are more likely to stay married and/or together longer than a heterosexual relationship... but that study has only been around for several years since gay marriage in certain states has only been around for several years.
ERAUPRCWA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Latino Beauties are there rockmycity.info
kolenakolenaliya 1 year ago
Love is completely and 100% subjective, but in that our emotions lead us to be subjective, we must be aware of the feelings of all people in this matter. With respect and consideration, we must make sacrifices, and sometimes that means letting go of preconceived notions of what we view as wrong. Compromise, is what makes this country work, and equality for all is the greatest representation of that notion. Love is compromise, love is equal, and love is not just a right by law, but a human right.
IrishBanditKing 1 year ago
FREEDOM OF CHOICE??? America is not the land of the free I grew up to believe. I feel sorry for these people. Remember love makes the world go around not hate.
pippy204 1 year ago 2
@HAYOO.COM HEY, I'M TALKING TO YOU, I'M YOUR ANGEL, COME GET ME... :)
i'M A WELLNESS AMBASSADOR FOR THE KOUNTRY, MAKE ME ONE, THE POWER OF THAT IS IN YOU AND Him GIVE LOVE, GET LOVE.
kay081989 1 year ago
I FINALLY FOUND THE LOVE OF A LIFE TYME...FOREVER IN MY HEART, OF A LIFE TIME :) I CAN HELP YOU WITH YOUR REIGN. I NEED MONEY, A SENSIBLE CAR, GAS, CIGARETTES OR WEED... MUST THE MONEY...NOT FOR LOVE OF LUST, FOR PASSION. IT'S WITH PASSION, COURAGE OF COVICTION, AND STRONG SENSE OF SELF THAT WE MOVE FORWARD....GET AT YOUR OMEGA, ALPHA. YOU'RE NOT THE ANTICHRIST, YOU'RE AN ANGEL, COME TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY, LET ME SHOW YOU HOW TO MAKE IT REIGN. @ <3 me
kay081989 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This made me cry. Thanks for all your work in getting this message out, for putting a face to this issue.
MeredithWad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This made me cry. Thanks for all your work in getting this message out, for putting a face to this issue.
MeredithWad 1 year ago
This made me cry. Thanks for all your work in getting this message out, for putting a face to this issue.
MeredithWad 1 year ago
as long as they keep trying it will pass. the older ignorent repulicans will die. younger more thoughfull people are born. these rights will be given. gays will have their day! time passes people become more open! NEVER GIVE UP DAMN IT!!!! NEVER!!!!
yankeepunk3000 1 year ago 2
The biggest IRONY is that religious people say we cannot be good without the bible/god, when most things they preach is wicked and vile. Shame on religion and cults alike.
myl7myl7 1 year ago 5
@myl7myl7 There is not much of a difference between a cult and a religion
charmander4533 1 year ago
@myl7myl7 All religious people are bigoted? Really...hmm...ignorance goes both ways
BlondePrincess2011 1 year ago
The end is painful to watch. How could you watch that and still think that homosexual marriage should be illegal?
xojaiserxo 1 year ago 3
Marriage of two men or two women is not equal to a marriage of man and woman. That's a fact, because the second one has a potential of having children. Therefore a homosexual marriage shouldn't have the same rights as a heterosexual marriage. But if it's only about love as gays and lesbians claim then they surely will agree to be able to marry their partners without some of the right of heterosexual merriage, won't they?
Kozaack 1 year ago
@Kozaack Should women who can't give birth not have the same rights as those who can? Should a man whom has had his testicles removed due to cancer not have the same rights as one who hasn't?
snakedad 1 year ago
@snakedad If it is known that man or woman can't have children or they won't have for some reason they shouldn't. It's about procreation. If they won't have children why should they get profits that are supposed to encourage them to have children? All other profits? Be my guest. And to be clear, I'm talking from position of slowly dying european society.
Kozaack 1 year ago
@Kozaack
Dude come on. They are adults just like you and me the only difference is they feel and think different. Let them get married. They have every right as you and me.
Aren't you for citizen equality?
funkyhenry 1 year ago 2
@funkyhenry There's no problem - let them get married. But don't give them profits that are supposed to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate. OK? Do we agree here?
Kozaack 1 year ago
@Kozaack: What about hetros that CAN'T procreate? Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Animals procreate, but most of them don't mate for life. In many previous cultures and countries, marriage was a way to join two kingdoms, or for the brides father to get money from the groom. That's all marriage was, a business contract.
zperra 1 year ago
@Kozaack lesbians can have kids, one can get pregnant from a sperm bank. so there you go. it woks the same way
yankeepunk3000 1 year ago 2
@Kozaack Ugh why the fuck do you ignorant people want to deprive others of their fucking rights? I hate backwards people like you
str33twarrior22 1 year ago
@str33twarrior22 I really don't. But in some countries of Europe being gay gives you additional profits. I'm against that. I don't mind two guys fucking as long as I don't have to watch that or pay them for doing it. And you really don't know me well enough to hate me.
Kozaack 1 year ago
@Kozaack How does being gay in some European countries give additional profits, whatever you mean by that? Why would you have to pay for two men to have sex?
enzedbrit 1 year ago
@Kozaack So I suppose infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either right?
Ridahna 11 months ago
@Ridahna How would you propose the state determine fertility of individuals? Why would such an intrusive determination be necessary? Are you under the impression that the state is obligated to forgo a general distinction for an individual one when the people believe the general to be sufficient?
nnjhansen 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey youtubers, i made a video on how to get 360 waves, and im doin a Bill Cosby impression in it, i was wondering if someone cud give me feedback on it, positive or negative, thanks alot
MrPurple0 1 year ago
Im straight, but I think if you are against gay marriage you are either a religious nut or homophobic. Thomas Jefferson said "If it niether breaks my leg nor pinches my pocket, what difference does it make to me"
I think its selfish and unconstitutional to deny them equal rights
boricuamm707 1 year ago 2
@boricuamm707 I agree with Jefferson. But in most european countries gays can get married and now they fight to be able to adopt children and get money from my pocket just because they're a minority. I believe that there are some sincere people who are simply in love, but also there are those who calculate what they can get from heterosexual majority after making this first step.
Kozaack 1 year ago
@Kozaack I say just treat them equal, no less no better.
boricuamm707 1 year ago
@boricuamm707 In Netherlands there are agencies that assign orphans to new parents. If there is a homosexual couple in queue they get a kid first, because any accusation of dyscrimination automaticly closes any adopting agency. And homosexual couples take adventage of it. I think this is where "equality" and political correctness will lead western society.
Kozaack 1 year ago
@Kozaack Yea thats no good, I could see things like that happening. I doubt to that extreme though.
boricuamm707 1 year ago
@Kozaack
What you are talking about is a very very very small fraction of a percentage of one segment of the population. It does not represent a problem in concerning marriage considering that marriage is entirely optional when it comes to procreation. Marriage is not about procreation, it is a symbolic form of expressing the love for one another with rather unfortunate economical bonuses attached to it. The government should have no rights to interfere with peoples feelings
sensur1 1 year ago
Don't forsake the Democratic party. If you do that, guess which hockey mom will end up in the white house with all the nuke codes in 2012?
bamcis17 1 year ago 3
this always makes me so sad
timmchap35 1 year ago
Its so sad....I cant believe it didnt happen. So many people fighting their rights, for their love, and it is denied to them? We need to change things, it cannot go on like this
Max10192 1 year ago
Imposing morality on consenting adults is disgusting.
machogun 1 year ago 55
This has been flagged as spam show
@machogun Imposing fake morality on consenting adults is disgusting.
Fixed.
poetaviolinista 1 year ago
@machogun immorality makes more sense in that sentence.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@machogun It's what some call "religion"...
darwincity 10 months ago
@darwincity Ra-men.
machogun 10 months ago
So long as this nation is dubbed a "Christian Nation" ...gay rights will be a hard fight. I am FAR from gay myself but don't see the problem allowing rights to any person. This is just the next step in America's progression. Finally allowing blacks equal rights, then women...and here we are today.
aaron2414 1 year ago 3
looks like 52% of people in maine are fucking ignorant discusting bastards. how can america be so "free" but not allow 2 people the freedom to get married? fuck im happy to live in canada. its like america without all the hate and ignorance.
yackon4game 1 year ago 2
I love all your videos! This one is one of my favorites, because it's VERY serious and it's INSANE that people can so insensitive and vote YES to gays not being able to get married formally.
itsWetWilly 1 year ago
I find this hard to watch when NewLeftMedia glorifies a story like this, but cherry-picks people in other rallies to make the opposition look like idiots.
There are idiots in all walks of life. To be so biased is not good press. I'm not an ideologue either... I can't stand Hannity.
daveyjazz72 1 year ago
@daveyjazz72 all media news are like what your sayin ..............we just have to put up with it
descrates09 1 year ago
@daveyjazz72 welcome to the media. No matter where you go there is always someone more biase to one side. I'm not saying whether or not im for or against marriage but I hate biase news programs
Sneezlebob 1 year ago
oh my god this literally made me cry.
4EyedBlonde 1 year ago
The majority has the duty to protect the minority from the majority.
dumbzebra 1 year ago 2
I cried when i watched this, its just horrible that these people are denied the rights that everyone else has just because they were born different. Anyone who says America is the land of the free is living in another reality
wranglers575 1 year ago
See what ignorance can do? This is so heartbreaking.
hstg98 1 year ago
@xxxgangstagurl15xxx homosexuality isnt disgusting
idaman12345 1 year ago
I cried when everyone else was crying when they didn't get the vote. D:
ionlyjoinedforrwj 1 year ago
@ionlyjoinedforrwj - me too. Just seeing the mix of people that this effects, be they feminine or butch lesbians, twinks, bears, elderly gay men... this effects us ALL and it IS the one only unifying thing that the gay community has to fight for.
freakystyley4000 1 year ago
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How on earth do my rights get infringed when gay people marry? They don't. In the words of Jefferson: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
1776independent 1 year ago 4
@DURound is nothing but an unintelligent troll who spreads misinformation along YouTube videos. Just ignore everything he/she/it says.
xmikeyxlikesitx 1 year ago 7
@xmikeyxlikesitx Exactly right.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
I cry every time I watch this. Thanks again, Chase and Erick.
waIIflower 1 year ago 50
This has been flagged as spam show
no special rights for fags and dykes!!
greatamerican2010 1 year ago
I think the right to privacy would constitute gay marriage... I personally do not agree with it but I could care less what they do in their lives. I would say tho that when I see two men kissing it truly is disgusting to me, so I kind of like that they have to hold back their enthusiasm towards each other. If they can learn to not weird out people who aren't used to their antics, I would be all for it. But, no one wants stuff that happens in the Gay Parade in SF to happen in their suburb.
eastcoastin 1 year ago
@eastcoastin How can you claimed a right to privacy for a state issued license?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen uhhh do u even know what the right to privacy means in regards to the constitution? let me inform you a lil dipshit... you vote in a state issued election but you do not have to tell people who you vote for... so basically it is unconstitutional for the state to inquire about decisions you make in your personal life... do you subspecies of humanity even try to form a foundation for your argument. I could care less about homosexuality. Focus on shit that matters like the oil spill.
eastcoastin 1 year ago
@eastcoastin Do you have a clue or do you just like babbling?
The secrecy of the ballot box has nothing to do with any Constitutional right to privacy.
You do need to provide personal information in order to vote.
You likewise, do need to provide personal information when you apply for a license from the state.
If you do not want the state involved in your personal life, do not ask it for a license.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen and the State has no interest in asking the sex of the participants in this LEGAL CONTRACT. The State's interests are fulfilled by marriages without children, by marriages with children, by marriages that adopt, by marriages that have a child through IVF, by marriages that have partners of the same sex, by marriages that have partners of the opposite sex. All those marriages fulfill the State's objectives. If you don't like same sex marriage, do not get one.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur As the state's interest in the contract can ONLY be satisfied if there is a member of each sex in the marriage, the state DOES have an interest in the sex of the participants. Why don't you let the people in a state decide what their interests are and what they believe it takes to satisfy those interests?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Nonsense, we've been over this and over this... 'procreation' occurs in many ways. The state also does not inquire whether both members are fertile, another requirement of 'procreation.' Do infertile or marriages between elderly people no longer satisfy the state's interest? No. Then the state's interest must lie in more than pure, biological procreation but rather in the creation of stable, committed families.
A requirement that same sex partnerships more than satisfy.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur Human reproduction occurs ONLY one way. A sperm from a male fertilizes an egg from a female. No same sex couple can accomplish this. Now you are arguing that because a requirement could be made more stringent it is not a legitimate requirement? That is ridiculous.
No same sex couple can offer a child a stable, loving home with his or her mother and father, can they?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Same sex couples accomplish this everyday, in the same way that many infertile couples do. Are you suggesting that the donor has a more unique and protected relationship than the parents who raise the child? Are heart transplant recipients 'denied' a relationship with their 'other' parents?
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur No same sex couple in the history of mankind has accomplished this. Never. Not once.
I ask again, why don't you let the people in a state decide what their interests are and what they believe it takes to satisfy those interests?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Laws against interracial marriage remained on the books in the south until recently and a majority of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage until 1991, do you beleive that the people of the states should have been free to continue to deny marriage to interracial couples because it was unpopular? Btw, my sister in law and her partner have procreated, what makes you think you have any right to know the details?
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur As those laws treated people differently on the basis of their race and we fought a bloody civil war, amended the Constitution, and then passed civil rights legislation specifically to address state actions based on race, the people did speak on the subject. There is nothing remotely similar in history or law between anti-miscegenation laws and requiring a man and a woman for marriage so stop pretending there is and answer the question.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Legislation has been passed specifically addressing discrimination based upon both gender and sexual orientation. Prior to Loving v. Virginia the arguments used by anti-miscegenation supporters were eerily similar to current arguments. Do you believe Loving v. Virginia was decided incorrectly?
BTW, Griswold v. Conn would seem to indicate that the circumstances surrounding my nephew's conception are none of yours or the state's business.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur Which of the arguments are similar? No, I believe the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to prohibit state actions based on race.
I do not care about the circumstances surrounding that child's conception. You keep bringing him up. What I do know is that there is no possibility that two women created him.
Answer the question.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen The 14th was specifically written to prohibit state discrimination against ANY citizen, you've read it?
I have answered your question: I believe that Loving was decided correctly despite the State's objections and the people's disagreement.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur As no one is being discriminated against by a law that requires a man and a woman in a marriage contract, this is not an issue of the state discriminating against anyone.
You have not answered my question, why not allow the people to decide what their interests are and what satisfies them?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Again, the same argument was used in Loving...
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur Again, the law in VA only prohibited whites from marrying outside their race. Where is the similar problem with the requirement for a man and a woman?
BTW, the Court rejected your argument 5 years after Loving.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen No they didn't.... they refused to hear it. It is a binding precedent but one I disagree with and one that will soon be overturned.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur They dismissed it for want of a substantial federal question. That means no 14h Amendment violation.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen And I think that was a wrong decision and one that will soon be overturned.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@nnjhansen The state has no interest in determining fertility... as you've said.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur The state does not have to determine the fertility of individuals to be sure that both a man and a woman is required to create a new human being.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Oh, the state argued that the laws weren't a violation of civil rights because they applied to whites and blacks equally... similar to the 'gays have a right to marry whomever they choose of the opposite sex' argument, no?
The SCOTUS rejected that argument...
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur The Court rejected that argument because it was demonstrably untrue. The VA law prohibited only whites from marrying outside their race.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen No it didn't you're being silly... what law school did you attend?
The law forbid both whites and blacks from marrying outside of their race and that was the entire basis of the Commonwealths argument...
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur Where did you learn to read? "The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race."
Want to try again?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Where did you?
'Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.'
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur The state contended that they punished both parties equally, not that each was forbidden to marry outside their race. Your reading comprehension needs work. Her is a test, could a white person legally marry an Asian under the VA law? Could a black person?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen I concede the point, I had misread the decision.
Nevertheless, the equality of application argument is similar... not allowing homosexuals to marry their consenting partner is not equality.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur You have a bizarre idea of what constitutes equality if you believe that everyone being subject to the same restrictions and conditions is not it.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen It is not... heterosexuals may marry their consenting partners.
Homosexuals may not. That is not equality and the state has no compelling interest in continuing the inequality.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur All persons can marry their consenting partner if the conditions of the state are met. That IS equality.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen The state has no compelling interest in the gender of participants. Compelling people to choose an 'opposite sex' partner is not equality. Nor will it last...
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur What is the compelling state interest in the number of parties or the level of consanguinity? It sure can't be related to procreation, right?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen I make no argument for changes along those lines but if you'd like to, I'd listen...
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur But you have made the argument that the state needs a compelling, non-procreation based reason to maintain the non-discriminatory requirement for a man and a woman in a marriage because a person should be able to marry their consenting partner, right?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen I have maintained that there is no compelling reason to continue the gender requirements for
marriage and I will go further and say that society is best served by allowing these families the same rights and responsibilities as others. If you feel there is a further benefit to extending these benefits to polygamous or incestous marriages then you should argue for them, I have not.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur No, you have stated that the reason given & acknowledged for centuries is illegitimate. You have stated repeatedly that any state interest in how a child is created cannot be used to deny the opportunity for a person to marry their consenting partner. Now deal with the consequence of your argument & answer the question.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen No, I have clearly and repeatedly said that the state's interests are served by removing the gender component of this contract. You may argue for the removal of the other requirements if you so choose, I am not.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur @ElSeedyMinotaur You are an intellectual coward. Until you begin to argue in good faith and address the implications of your argument in an honest fashion, I am through with you. Good day.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen I refuse to accept your 'slippery slope' nonsense and I'm the coward?
Very well, you have a good day too.
You've lost this one.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur No, you are a coward because you refuse to accept the implications of your argument. Yelling "slippery slope" is not an argument, it is an excuse not to defend an argument. (If you understood what the slippery slope fallacy actually is you would not be yelling it) You are a coward.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen I have defended my argument... you'd like to turn my argument into something else. Your attempt to 'show me' how my arguments inevitably lead to acceptance of plural and incestuous marriage are the definition of a slippery slope and I refuse to participate.
I am arguing for the changing of the gender requirements for this legal contract only.
I invite you to make your case for plural and incestuous marriage if you'd like to, I'm under no obligation to do so.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@nnjhansen:you are a coward
DURound: You should go easy on Seedy. He is probably a juvenile.
DURound 1 year ago
@DURound I would not go that far. He is a coward, simple as that. There are implications to his argument and rather than confront them in an intellectually honest fashion he screams, "slippery slope" as though that relieves him of his obligation.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen No, I have defended my argument and will continue to do so... you'd like me to defend something else entirely. I'm under no such obligation. Sorry that offends you so... is this your first discussion?
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@nnjhansen :he screams, "slippery slope" as though that relieves him of his obligation
DURound: Well, its the way of youth.
DURound 1 year ago
@nnjhansen:All persons can marry their consenting partner if the conditions of the state are met.
DURound: And the conditions of the state are applied equally to all people, are reasonable and meet an appropriate social interest.
DURound 1 year ago
@DURound 'are reasonable and meet an appropriate social interest.'
This is false.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur I can see that you want to discuss this, but whether it is false, or whether it is not false, I will not be discussing the issue with you.
DURound 1 year ago
@DURound I have no interest in discussing anything with you. You have proven yourself to be incredibly juvenile.
I will continue to point out your ignorance and falsehoods when I see them, however.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
Comment removed
DURound 1 year ago
@DURound That is true... we will not be discussing anything. You seem incapable of discussion and I have no interest in teaching you.
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
Comment removed
DURound 1 year ago
@DURound And yet you cannot stop telling me that you won't... The lady doth protest too much, methinks...
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
Comment removed
DURound 1 year ago
@DURound Is it fun to be a pedantic prepubescent, DUR?
You'll grow out of this juvenile behavior someday, I hope. I wish you well...
ElSeedyMinotaur 1 year ago
Comment removed
DURound 1 year ago
@ElSeedyMinotaur BTW, either your sister in law or her partner may have been a party to procreation but they did not do it together. Get a biology book or ask your mommy how babies are made if you are unclear.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen wuuuuuuuut the fuuuuuuuuck are you talking about you dipshit degenerate trash. NEVER EVER EVER EVER try to EVER question my intelligence you ignorant ill-informed dirty fucktoy. You have access to google you fuckface fucking piece of shit toolbag motherfucking dirty piece of shit fuck, search from now on before you ever try to question something... The secrecy (synonym: privacy of the ballot) has nothing to do with the right to privacy. Search google, right to privacy vote fuckface.
eastcoastin 1 year ago
@eastcoastin
....just to let you know. When you cuss a lot to try and get your point across you don't sound too smart, you just sound intolerant, hotheaded, and ridiculous,
jivebot0 1 year ago
@eastcoastin
I have a lot of respect for people who say they find two men kissing truly disgusting, that they disagree with gays getting married, but don't care less and therefor support the law allowing them to marry.
SF Gay Pride is an anomaly, many gay people don't like going to SF pride either, including me. Most prides are much nicer.
Those who kiss in public are generally younger and immature, like teenagers who "neck" in public. No one should kiss in public.
Thanks for your honesty.
PLmoms 1 year ago
Pretty soon gays will be jumping up and down for joy when the gay judge in California declares Prop 8 Unconstitutional. Of course that's not the end of things and it may wend its way to the supreme court. I think the judge is taking such a long time because he is trying to craft a decision that will not require SCOTUS review.
DURound 1 year ago
I am grateful that Maine did what was right. Every time the people have a chance to express their views on this matter, they have voted to not permit gay marriage.
DURound 1 year ago
@DURound
That number is diminishing. As people see allowing gays to marry does not affect their lives, they start to be reasonable. More people are becoming caring and respectful towards others lives. I've heard more people say things along the lines of "my view is I don't believe in it, but that's for my life. I'm not going to vote so another person can't live by their beliefs." That's a respectable stance to take.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms, I think that the long lead time between the decisions to adulterate marriage and the bad effects on society make people think it does not affect their lives. But it does.
I think it is perfectly respectable to say "Gay Marriage is not something I want in tihs society" and vote for laws that uphold that view.
DURound 1 year ago
That slippery slope theory is bullshit. "If we let gays marry, then people will want to marry children, and then animals, and then God knows what!"
People who think that need to lie under a rock and stay there.
clixx13 1 year ago
@clixx13
You have to wonder what's really on those people's minds, when it goes straight to the gutter, thinking about children and animals like that. They need to worry about restricting their thoughts, not our rights!
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms What right is being restricted?
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen
Are you aware of Question 1 in ME, and Prop 8 in CA? If not, watch the video and you can also find others to see what the issue is and the rights that are being restricted.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms I am well aware of the issue. Nothing that can reasonably called a right is being restricted.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen
Easy for you to say that, you're not one of the folks whose rights are being restricted. You are simply one who's life is not affected either way, but you chose to impose your beliefs on those whose lives ARE affected.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms Yes it is easy for me to say because NO ONE's rights are being restricted. The restrictions and conditions on marriage licenses apply equally to all. Whether you like it or not, what those restrictions and conditions are (like for all licensing schemes) is a political issue to be decided by the people.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen
Correct, YOUR rights are not restricted. Good for you. A marriage license is not equal unless you are legally allowed to marry the one you want to spend your entire life with, and after.
My life shouldn't be decided by you or other people to whom my life does not affect theirs. This is simply the majority pushing their beliefs on the lives of a minority. It's happened in the past, and history shows it wasn't right then. It's not right now.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms No one's rights are being restricted. No one has the ability to marry whoever they "want to spend your entire life with." All marriages are subject to the exact same conditions and restrictions.
Your life is NOT being decided on by others. You can live with whoever you want for as long as you want. There is no legal barrier to that. What you cannot have are the benefits society gives to those who comply with the conditions it sets.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen
The legal, financial and social benefits that come with marriage are the RIGHTS that are lost for gay people. No one is subject to the exact same conditions. Otherwise, marriage wouldn't be about love and commitment, it would still be about men owning their women. You wouldn't expect happiness in your marriage, but misery in not being able to marry the person you love.
Marriage is a legal agreement between 2 unrelated adults who are committed to each other, hopefully with love.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms As those legal, financial, and social benefits are contingent on a state issued license they are not rights but privileges. Which condition on marriage do you believe does not apply everyone?
Marriage, civil marriage, is a state licensing scheme. The purpose of it, like all licensing schemes, is to further a legitimate societal interest. The license is not issued to benefit the recipients but the state. Feel free to love and be committed to whoever you want. Do not expect other to care.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen
If it were not of benefit to the married couples, the state wouldn't have to issue licenses and rights that come with marriage would not exist. The state laws are not meant to only benefit the state, but also the people to whom the state serves. Marital rights for the states tax paying citizens. The state should not be discriminating even if the majority of it's people want to discriminate, because even the minorities contribute to the state.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms @PLmoms You believe the state issues licences for the benefit of the recipients? Honestly? Law licenses are issued for the benefit of the lawyer rather than his potential clients? Drivers licences are for the drivers rather than the other people on the road? Of course not. The state issues licences to further a societal interest. The benefits accrue to those who meet the conditions related to those interests.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen
Are you joking around? Because it would have to be mutually beneficial, both sides benefit. The lawyer wants the fat salary and cool car to drive, or maybe wants to feel good about fighting for justice. Drivers want to drive to get from point A to point B. Or be able to save for their dream Corvette...the people would not participate w/o enjoying benefits.
But driving is a privilege. Marriage is a right. US Supreme Court determined so in Loving vs Virgina.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms Of course there has to be mutual consideration, that is required for any contract ual agrement. You want to deny the state the ability to determine it's consideration. You want the state to agree to be party to the agreement without it's interests being served. Even if you accept the notion that marriage is a right, that has only been implied by the Court in the context of it being the union between a man & a woman and related to procreation.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen
Then why is marriage not contingent on the ability to procreate?
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms What interest do you think the requirement of a man and a woman is related to?
Please do not reply with the canard that there is no actual fertility requirement. It is nonsensical to suggest that because a requirement could be made more stringent the requirement as it stands is somehow illegitimate.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen
In the US Constitution, there is no Man and Woman requirement. IT wasn't in any state constitutions until voters ADDED the wording, and DOMA ADDED it as a federal law, all based on peoples fears.
If procreation were *really* the requirement, you would not allow old people to remarry, just one example. So stop with the canard that it is a procreation requirement, because it is a nonsensical justification for discrimination.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms In the US Constitution, there is no Man and Woman requirement
DURound: Marriage is also not in the US Constitution. But per the US Constitution 10th Amendment, this is a matter delegated for the States to control. Hence States have marriage laws. In almost every state marriage is between a man and a woman. This is not a US Constitutional issue.
DURound 1 year ago
@DURound
Yes, I am aware of this.
PLmoms 1 year ago
@PLmoms Ok! Seemed you might not be based upon the questions you had asked!
DURound 1 year ago