Freedom to Marry's Sean Eldridge Debates NOM's Maggie Gallagher after Prop 8 Ruling

[firstatheist]

"He convicted all of those Californians of irrational bigotry." Indeed he did, and guilty they were. 

[igi024]

ANTI LGBT.. RESPECT PEOPLE WANTS!

[igi024]

every person has the right to choose and to love... to anti-LGBT my question is DO U WALK WITH THE PERSON I CHOOSE? I CLEAVE.. NOT YOU... IF I CHOOSE MY SAME GENDER ITS NOT UR PROBLEM... ITS MY CHOICE SO RESPECT!

[nicksum29]

Ugh, is this horrendous woman still doing rounds in the asylum.

[jbugarin2013]

This is like 'Beauty and the Beast' but with the gender roles reversed

[MRBBJC]

This issue is very clear. All Americans have to have the same right to marry the person that they love. Why are we even having such debate?

[Laroughtenshighton]

yuck!she totally destroy american dream,with her lich like face and pig body,fucking useless cunt.

[itbarthur4u]

Allowing Gay People to get married does not force any one to change who they get married to. It only allows more people the freedom to have that choice.

This is also about equal treatment under the law and being able to give the person one loves health insurance and all the things marriage conveys. Isn't it better to get more people covered under health insurance? That alone could reduce the cost of medicaid, and medicare.

[itbarthur4u]

Children being adopted by gay couples have already lost their parents. Two loving parents are way better than no loving parent.

This is a matter of Civil Law not Religious beliefs. People should not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on others.

[itsallthesametothem]

I love to look through the comments from all the 'progressives and open-minded' individuals from our communities. You are always militant and insulting and instead of having a dialogue we have such intelligent views as "fat," "cunt," and "beast." You should be real pround - that's the way to garner partnerships.

[MamaMario13]

@itsallthesametothem its important because gluttony is also a sin as is having a child outside of wedlock (Maggie has had one in the past). I would NEVER even consider becoming a christian but I can respect christians who live by their teachings, I cannot respect hypocrits like Maggie who cherry pick the bits of the bible they want to support their hatred, I think it is important to highlight this.

[itsallthesametothem]

@MamaMario13 Well, while I disgaree with your contention, I have rarely heard Maggie pull from the Bible and wave it in front of her arguments. Also, how do you know her weight is indeed the result of gluttony? I truly do not believe she is someone who hates others. I am a man of faith. I want all couples to have rights and privileges but do not agree with redefining marriage outside of a man and woman. I realize that equals bigotry in some others, but it's just an opinion devoid of animus.

[seahorse05]

@itsallthesametothe What Maggie Gallagher said in a recent interview, "It's going to be a bloody mess in New York.. " Militant and insulting? And if you had persons and organizations working, spending money and passing laws denying full citizenship, dignity, respect, freedom, due process and the equal protection of our laws....from a group of citizens they deem less than...or they loath and harbor animus towards...don't you think the persons being targeted would be less than amiable about it?

[itsallthesametothem]

@seahorse05 I have to take issue with your characterization as "...less than" and "loathe." You don't know me but I am a person of faith and do not believe in altering the definition of marriage. That said, I absolutely would call of all the rights and privileges that the law can offer same sex couples. Call it a crazy moniker issue, but it goes against MY belief system. Trust me, there are a lot more things we as a community can hate and spend time on than this issue.

[seahorse05]

"...altering the definition of marriage?" Not at all. Lakota chief Crazy Horse had one or two male spouse(s) and many other Native American nations also had same-sex marriages. Ethnographers have documented this. Examples: Omahas, Zapotecs, Mohaves, Crow, Hidatsa, Ojibwa, Winnebago, Yuma and Timucua. Other cultures too. In 17th century Fukian Province China, same-sex marriages between gay men seem to have been common. And in West Africa, "woman marriage[s]" --a practice by many tribes.

[seahorse05]

"altering the definition(s) of marriage.?" Not at all. 2nd Century AD: Roman emperor Elagabalus sent out a request for a male athlete named Aurelius Zoticus, whom he later marries in a lavish ceremony. 1552 : In the "History of the Indies," Francisco Lopez de Gomara documents men are marrying other men in the Indies (Caribbean Islands). Nero, ( a 1st Century AD Roman emperor ) became love-struck with a guy named Sporus---and married him in a public wedding.

[seahorse05]

@itsallthesametothem "altering the definition(s) of marriage?" Not at all. In the journal of the French skeptic and essayist, Michel De Montaigne (1580-1581), he recorded Portuguese same-sex marriages celebrated in a nuptial mass in Rome:

".......They married one another, male to male, at Mass, with the same ceremonies with which we perform our marriages, read the same gospel service, and then went to bed and lived together. ..."

[itsallthesametothem]

@seahorse05 Well, I am not sure of the point here. Are there those would be in strident opposition to a stance of the Church, sure. If this did happen, it was not sanctioned by the Vatican. Now, we are certainly not going to change the minds of those who come here, nor are we going to be successful with each other. I would suggest we agree to disagree and hope the economy, which is infinitely more imoportant, rebounds.

[seahorse05]

@itsallthesametothem All the examples of cultures/societies/nations with same-sex marriages below that I shared were documented by Ethnographers.

The Portuguese "Catholic" same-sex marriages were discovered by Catholic Church leadership beyond the Catholic leader(s) or priest(s) that performed them and yes they weren't "sanctioned " by the Vatican leadership. Catholic leadership that didn't "sanction" those marriages/nuptials/weddings had the men that were married burned to death.

[Newreligion100]

Its like watching beauty and the beast and the guy is the beauty -3

[ginb1289]

The only reason that most heterosexuals want to deny gays marriage is that it would mean that gays would be their equal.

It's the same reason that white people didn't want blacks to be afforded the same choice that they had to sit in front of the bus.

[queerveganliberal]

@ginb1289

Exactly they believe their relationship is worthy of more validation and affirmation than gay couples. Don't call them homophobes, call them what they truly are hetero-supremacists

[itsallthesametothem]

@ginb1289 I am a person against gay marriage and believe all people are equals. Why parse hetero and gay? This is precisely why we have these issues.

[studmuffin956]

idk why that fat cunt is complaining about gays, i mean seriously look at her she looks like a fucking dyke!

[jokojay1]

Why does that chick look like a pig? Eat some slop, bitch!

[jehovahbackwards]

Come on, Sean. Calling her a bigot is as much "name-calling" as calling her brunette.

[isakechaos]

a slur against the majority!!!! what a crazy bigot. MINORITY RIGHTS SHOULD NEVER BE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY VOTE for good reason

[fanagot]

OMG Maggie is finally realizing that every time she wakes up and looks at the mirror what she sees is a bigot... It must be a miracle...

[70s80s]

Mean MaGAGie GHOULiger is REALLY mean! HOW MEAN IS SHE????

[Devin1488]

what's giant and pink and bigoted all over?

[beegbolt]

What about the SIX MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND people of California that said NO to your bigoted proposition, Maggie!

[bimboblacky]

Actually, I B-lieve the American College of Nursing ALSO backs up my point in the immediately previous comment, AS does the American Assocation of Sociologists. The list really DOES go on and on and on, and remember there were SEVENTEEN witnesses, mostly EXPERTs, on the Kristin M. Perry, et al, side in the now landmark Federal District Court case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, currently on appeal and certified back 2 the STATE Supreme Court on the question of STANDING as I write this text. So there.

[bimboblacky]

Also, while it sounds just HORRRR-ible that the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker included that stuff against the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church (actually), and the Southern Baptist Convention (and he did; I read the ruling in its entirety), CONTRARY 2 what Mrs. Gallagher claims here, *children* R JUST FINE without both a mother AND a father in every single case. So say the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Assocation, & the American Psychiatric Association!!! So, UH.

[nicksum29]

Maggie just gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger. I wonder if she missed the (countless) quotes against gluttony and (especially Corinthians) damaging your body. psalm 7:18; Philippians 3: 18 - 19; Proverbs: 23:2; Corinthians 3:16-17.... Actually there are really too many to list.

[rextrek]

@nicksum29 Maggie gets BIGGER,and BIGGER cause HATE & BIGOTRY SELLS in America....she doesn't want her Gravey train to dry up.... then she'll HAVE TOO get a REAL JOB to pay for her Bon Bons and Doughnuts.

[nicksum29]

@rextrek I doubt she could get a real job with that window-dressing diploma she bought.

[bimboblacky]

OKAY, got 2 correct one VERY embarrassingly obvious historical legal error back there; SO much 4 copy/paste from Wikipedia and Cornell School of Law!!! The case where a POPULAR REFERENDUM was OVERruled by the SCOTUS was [Governor] ROMER V. EVANS, 1996!!! OBVIOUSLY not Lawrence v. TEXAS, ha ha ha. In THAT case, the SCOTUS overruled the legislative bill passed by both houses of their Congress and signed in-2 law by the Governor of Texas AT THAT TIME.Both cases still point 2-ward SAME-SEX MARRY.

[bimboblacky]

When the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES accepted the case CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY V. MARTINEZ, the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE *SEVENTH* CIRCUIT and the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ruled in *direct conflict* with each other. This requires resolution by the SUPREME COURT of the entire UNITED STATES, *if* they will agree 2 hear the case! They usually cite this as a strong motivator 4 it, Federal case IN CONTROVERSY. They ruled in favor of Martinez, 5-4.

[bimboblacky]

She is, obviously, right about the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. However, I read that ENTIRE appellate ruling, and even THAT Federal court bought in-2 ONE, and *only* one, argument presented by Attorney General Bruning (at least in the context of unanimity). That was, basically, the "responsible procreation theory." So even the EIGHTH flatly THREW OUT the other five arguments made by Cooper, pretty much. ALSO, this is PRECISELY how the SUPREME COURT gets cases!!!

[bimboblacky]

The votes cast in the 31 states (well, 30 if U DON'T count the State of California), as time has passed, have seen an ever-DECREASING majority. Love 2 C Maggie's side try 2 go 2 court 2 overturn any vote (which I predict WILL happen, probably sooner rather than later) which FAVORS same-sex marriage in a United State!!! And, really, a LOT of things have NO place @ the ballot box. The language of the FOURTEENTH Amendment NEVER specified RACE as the ONLY characteristic 2 B IGNORED 4 rights' basis.

[bearchewtoy75]

What date did this air?