The purpose of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Personal rights and freedoms are not subject to majority rule.
This is a very basic principle of our constitution and our country. Savage seems to not understand this. He should try reading the federalist papers.
Even worse, he is clearly a self loathing closeted gay man.
@Mr40acresandamule AKA Jerry "Brown" will score higher than Schweirdze"Negger". King of fictional psychotard outcasts afraid of what's really funny. Get with it. Look at more of the flames fanned of MSN rallies across the US when Obama took office and protesting to defeat illegals.
Whether you are for same sex marriage or against it,gay marriage will ineviatiably happen because there less of a stigma attached to homosexuality. People love to use the argue that blacks are against it. Blacks make up only 6% of California's population.
So, it is their choice to be anti-gay or lesbian. You can't brow beat people into accepting a lifestyle. Blacks and hispanics are more religious than whites. There is still a homophobia in those community. People have a right to believe homosexuality is morally wrong, but mistreating someone who is gay or lesbian is not right. I can be respectful to some who has the deep desire to sleep around, but I don't have to embrace it.
@Mr40acresandamule Your argument makes no sense, unless you are willing to support the law treating people who sleep around differently than everyone else. no one is asking you to accept or like anything. Just leave other people alone.
@kfag101 I respect your opinion on what you said. Marriage between a man and a man is as perverse as man sleeping around with 100's of women. A man sleeping around with dozens of women causes disease and illegitimate children which causes on strain on government resources that taxpayers have to fund. Have you ever considered my arguement?
@Mr40acresandamule you know that is an excellent point. the problem is promiscuity not man on man or man with women! for your info I voted no on prop 8 but have some issues with the way gay men treat eachother and women
@vidhead85 The constitution was never meant to defend something so absurd as gay "marriage." The author and supporters of the document never would have imagined such a thing, much less so approved of it. I guess some people think the constitution gurantee's government-led healthcare too, eh?
@TRexTurtle The constitution was never meant to defend anything like racial equality, womens' rights, or worker's rights. Justice Kennedy said that as the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom--this greater freedom is not saying 'because we want to do it you should grant it to us' the greater freedom is always kept in check by rational basis review. The right to marry is fundamental to gays and straights no one would
@TRexTurtle No one would bar a man and a woman from marriage becuase it is their fundamental right. No one should be able to vote away the rights of a minority. Gays are a sexual minority no matter how people think of their lives.Even prisoners have the right to marry and gays are people too, who should be able to LEGALLY marry the person of their choice as long as they can consent, are aware of their consent and have the documents necessary
@TRexTurtle stop a straight couple from marriage, and people said interracial relationships were gonna doom marriage and look--the sky didn't fall. However, when peoples marriages are invalidated by legislation like this their lives fall apart, their houses can be taken from them when their partner dies, their children taken from them and they have no security--is this what the Constitution was written to protect?
the court seems like a group of elitists!? that's their fucking job!!!! they interpret the constitution and decide whether or not the law is or isn't. they are supposed to not be influenced by public opinion at all.
Savage arguement that "No one is taking a right that was never granted," in reference to marriage is fallacious. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was not a right until legislation was passed to secure fundamental rights, the Bill of Rights were not fundamental rights until the authors of the Constitution made them so. According to Savages own logic, if the people voted for discrimination than we would still have Jim Crow laws would we not?
@alvincay100 Jerry Brown is a very smart person. I doubt u have held a conversation with him. I have. He is an incredibly smart person and he will be a great governor
@goglee2 Of course I'm not "important" enough to have held a conversation with him. "Incredibly" smart? What do you base that on? The measure of your small mind? Well, you're in good company, I'm sure his mommy thought he was a "clever" little boy too. He already was governor, but I don't think the word "great" was ever used to describe him. I'm sure he will be just as bad as the last few governors, after all, he represents one side of the religious demagoguery of American.
ah yes, Jerry Brown, one of only two democrats Savage has praised, Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton. By the way, pick up his new book, Trickle Up Poverty, available in bookstores.
Thanks. It's impossible for a minority to win in votes for equal rights. We're a minority, thus protection from the courts to determine the legitimacy of any such determination from a "democracy" as just. It's basic math people. A minority will never win, we're a MINORITY! Lack of education in terms of sexuality is a real issue. The uninformed determine liberty? YIKES!
VOTE FOR THE INDEPENDENT TEA PARTY CANDIDATE CHELENE NIGHTENGALE! STOP VOTING FOR THESE LYING PUBS AND DEMS. THEY ARE OPEN BORDERS SCUM. FUCK THEM ALL
Both Scharzenegger and Brown never supported the people of California ... and people have good memories. Brown was actually AGAINST the people and their choices. I think Brown is done ... and it's about time.
Jerry Brown is a moron. My grandparents remember him as Governor Moonbeam and he was a crappy one. He was a lousy mayor of Oakland ... and he's a shitty Attorney General right now. Brown's job is to support the VOTERS. He has failed to do so. The "Fair Housing" law is crap. No one wants to live next door to idiots and losers. The "Fair Housing" law has formed GHETTOS.
@Karen41872 Jerry Brown was a much better governor than the guy he replaced and the ones who have replaced him, including the current celebrity. Your classification of him as a moron is a sign of lesser intelligence on your part. Perhaps you could ask your grandparents to define the word for you. Your statement, "no one wants to live next door to idiots and losers..." perhaps your neighbors feel the same way about you.
@shudderbug --- Oh really? The guy who preceded Brown was RONALD REAGAN, probably the greatest president to date. I checked with a number of people who lived during the Brown gubernatorial era, and... to-the-one, they expressed great disappointment in him (unlike that of his father). As to my neighbors, I live on the beach in a community of wonderful people and we all feel fortunate that we live in the same neighborhood. My neighors love me.
@Karen41872 Your statement, "RONALD REAGAN, probably the greatest president to date..." is laughable. Of twelve separate polls taken since 1982, your "greatest president" averaged 15th place. Even two separate polls from the Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of liberal thought, said Reagan occupied six or eighth place, depending on the year. Reagan better than Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. says a lot about you. Google: Historical rankings of Pres.
@shudderbug -- I don't use GOOGLE..... I get my information from original sources. Even Sergei Bren, one of Google's originators. told me that not everything on their site is verifiable. They get a lot of misinformation which later can be righted. but not always. Yes, Reagan was better than those you list ....... He is on par with Jefferson.
@Karen41872 Google is just a search engine, a tool to get information. Do you use ANY search engines, or you born with all of the knowledge you now have? The information I quoted came from wikipedia and all of the survey sources are readily available for you to verify. Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself (which is probably not new to you). First you say, Reagan is "probably the greatest president to date," now you say, "He is on par with Jefferson." He can't be both.
@Karen41872 god. Learn the facts. Jerry Brown had to have been one of the best governors we have ever had. Creating 2 million jobs. Giving $4 billion in tax cuts to the middle class
Even now as governor so far he has cut funding for his office by 25%= $7,000,000.00
Face it. Your grandparents are right wing nut jobs
@goglee2 -- Both my grandparents and my great-grantparents lived through MOONBEAM's first governorship and he was a total failure. I then went back and read about Moonbeam's accomplishments and he is indeed a LOSER! Just wait and see what he will do now that he's back in the governor's chair. I can just hear you liberals cry rivers of tears when he starts cutting off your entitlements. I'll sit back and laugh.
@Karen41872 you don't know the facts. You watch fox news too much.
Jerrybrown made the best of a very bad situation that was left over from the Reagan years who intact made the homeless rate in California go up since he just took them out of the state hospitals and left them to fend for themselves alone on the streets. Jerry brown let workers form unions. Witch Reagan did not
If Brown was so bad than tell me this. Why did the deficit in California drop when he was governor?
@goglee2 --- Actually, I don't watch FoxNews that much.... I watch History Interntional, History and NatGeo channels. I do read online newspapers from all over the world. Regarding Reagan and the closure of the state hospitals .... I have to agree with you on that. I am not a fan of unions at all. The dropping of the deficit in CA ws the ONLY thing Moonbeam did correctly...... but this won't happen this time. Already people are sorry they voted for him.
@shudderbug --- You didn't know him as a Weiner .... by the way, a lot of people in the public eye change their names to ones with impacts. Just look at the roster of film stars.
@Karen41872 I know he is just as much as weiner as he is a savage and that does not say anything for his character. The fact that other people in the public eye change their names is immaterial.
@shudderbug --- You may have wanted to watch Dr. Savage's interview with Brown, but you certainly KNOW where Savage stands on liberal socialism the kind espoused by Brown.
~'we the sheeple' no longer have real say as to whom is running for office! Both candidates are stealthy jewZionist SCOUNDRELS, as are so many criminal-politicians. lil'Meg-pie was head of Ebay, -yet i've yet to find an Ebay-employee that felt she was an asset! She scammed a lot of money there, and she's vested $120+million of her Billion+ bank-account in quest to be another nasty Calif.Gov.. Yet J.Brown's even worse, --if you want higher TAXES, hold your nose and vote for either Commie!!!
Brown is right. The Bill of Rights is not something that is put up for a vote. Since 1888 the Supreme Court says that marriage is a fundemental right..
@genYprogressive Your dead wrong. Where in the Constitution or Bill of rights says two men can get married. Thomas Jefferson one of the more liberal fore-fathers who inspired the Bill of Rights because he said the Constitution was too broad, once suggested castration for Sodomy offenders. Explain that one, or just talk for the sake of talking like all liberals do when faced with logic.
marriage is a fundamental right, you cant get rid of a fundamental right with any vote. it's like getting rid of freedom of speech, you just cant get rid of it
The minority has always been a victim of discrimination. Black or Chinese people do not have a "hold" on what Civil Rights are and what they aren't even if they were once victims. Citing their opinion on this matter is insignificant. The Courts are there to defend fundamental rights of minorities even if the majority disagrees. (Slavery banned, interracial marriage legalized, segregation by color terminated). The Courts are there to make sure no on infringes on people's fundamental rights.
I disagree. This is an issue that should be voted on, and was actually...twice. Slavery and the societal custom of marriage are not the same. It is not a fundamental right for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. Any more than it is a fundamental right to marry a 14 year old, which is legal in some states and illegal in others. Marriage is a SOCIAL union and an institution. Marriage is defined by the society that supports it, and it is NOT a civil right.
It is a civil right for a person to marry the person they want to be with for the rest of their life. A society would only be discriminating a group of people by depriving them of such right. It will not affect how you or others live, and will not destroy the sanctity of your marriage either.
@isaiasnaruto {It is a civil right for a person to marry the person they want to be with}
No. It is not a civil right. It is a plain old right. So called civil rights are BS rights, except for voting.
The govt does not say who is and is not married (believe it or not). The govt recognizes a certain type of marriage as something to support in the interests of society.
i want to hear jerry brown talk, not weenie boy constantly interrupt him and spout off his own bull. shut up weiner and let the man talk, no one is voting for you, they want to hear him.
I've watched Jerry Brown for decades. And you know what? You will never ever see that man grin. NEVER. I mean a real grin. I don't mean some little half assed smile. He does those. But he simply does not have a grin in him.
What's up with that? Why would a man never in his life grin? Something is wrong with him.
(If he has a muscular or neural disorder in his face, I apologize.)
@goglee2 It isn't age. Like I said, Jerry Brown has never be seen to grin EVER. I've watched him since the '60s. It goes deeper than grumpiness when a man never ever grins. I honestly don't know what it is. That's what I find interesting about it.
Anyone know any neurologists or psychiatrists out there? Help us out. Ask the good doctor why a man would never ever grin.
@yowzephyr You know what? Your right. On Jan 3rd I had a full conversation with the man and he never grinned. I think it's because he was going to be a priest and they are serious as hell.
Savage is an impostor !! hes an entertainer portraying a ultraconservative character he is what white males want to hear !!!! hes like mcdonalds for fat people !! Savage is for white racist males
Jerry Brown talking to Michael Savage about the constitution sounds like a teacher disciplining his unruly whelp. Michael Savage is out of touch with reality.
What the fuck does minorities voting against Gay marriage have anything to do with this? In the sixties the majority of white people used their majority to deny blacks their basic housing rights, and now the majority of straight people are using their majority to deny homosexuals their basic right to marry.
Savage keeps talking about fallacious arguments, but then makes a glaringly fallacious argument by saying "African Americans, Hispanics and Chinese all voted for Prop 8, therefore gay marriage cannot be a civil right." How is this a valid argument? What does the race of the voters have to do with a debate about sexual orientation. Sure, those races are minorities in a debate about race, but in this debate, the only minorities in question are homosexuals. Compare apples with apples.
@orgigami He makes that analogy because marriage is not a fundamental right, like racial equality. Whether or not you belive its a fundamental right is another issue.
Marriage is indeed not a fundamental right, a lowly goverment employee will determine what your legal status is and who you can bed, bequeth your wealth on death etc etc.
People like Savage are the reason why issues of rights cannot be put to a popular vote and why these issues must be resolved in court, where the real issues can be discussed in a civilized way. I bet Savage wouldn't talk like this in front of a judge and he would have to have evidence to back up his statistics (which are grossly incorrect) and have valid arguments to start with...he has none!!
I do believe marriage for gay people is a fundamental civil right...but Savage can't make a valid argument against it. There are many SCOTUS rulings that favor marriage rights for gay people. He can say whatever he wants on his talk show and twist things around but he would have to bring reasonable arguments to court and they have to be able to hold water. Just my two cents anyway.
If Savage is correct, then you can kiss the rights of any minority goodbye.
For example, we had legal segregation and discrimination in this country, and it was partially because of the Supreme Court of the United States that we don't anymore.
On a broader note, It took a war to end a tradition of slavery in this country, even though most Southerners were for it. Does that tell you anything?
Marriage is not a fundamental right. The reason why the Gov't encourages traditional marriage is because it benefits everyone. Everyone on earth, gays included, exist due to the union of sperm & egg; that's common sense. So, as far as gov't is concerned, this is the only universal arrangement gov't should put it's stamp on. All other alternative arrangements are up to the people involved - it's not up to the rest of society to accommodate their unique situation. It's not about Love or morality.
He's been hanging around CA politics since he was smoking dope with The Eagles, Linda Ronstadt, and all the rest of the 70s pop stars in LA. The hippies lifted him into office.
The laws in California are all fucked up, from criminal, to civil, family etc etc. He is doing a shit job
California needs some new blood. Enough of these hangers on like Brown.
Jerry Brown is way out of line on this issue. He should step down as the People's highest law enforcement officer and make room for someone who is fair and objective.
Now you must learn who the devil is,Its the so called White Race! Ps 58:1 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried;
I have been a fan of Jerry Brown since 1976 at least. He ran several times for his Democratic Party's nomination for President, including 1980 against incumbent Jimmy Carter and Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy. I met him again during the New Hampshire Primary season circa 1991-92 against Bill Clinton from Arkansas. He goes way back, he is highly intelligent, he is an accomplished politician with a great record of achievement. He cleaned up Reagan budget mess, and could do it again today.
elitest judges of gay california girlie men who rule supreme court of california spit in the peoples face time to arm ourselves and take america back these marxist have no morals but all time try to legislate thier morality on you.
How does Savage think that just because some ethnic groups voted against the civil right of Marraige make it not against civil rights? Just because an ethnic group votes against another group's civil right, doesn't mean this is not a civil rights issue.
It is a civil rights issue because one group, homosexuals, are denied the ability to have legal recognition of relationships that others are allowed.
Of course your'e wrong. Homosexuality is not a civil rights issue because it not race, color or creed of a human. Rather its a behavior! of certain people who can be any race or from any background.
If you as man, decide one day that you want to be called a woman, and the goverment should fund your medical pills for PMS, you wouldnt expect anyone to listen.. Same here.. Homosexuality is a behavior and it should remain as that. "Marriage" is between a man and a woman. and MOST people agree
A civil rights issue is when any person is receiving unequal treatment under law as compared to others. in this case, certain legal rights, privileges, and recognitions that are granted to heterosexuals are not being granted to homosexuals, therefore this is a civil rights issue.
Since when is getting married a right? Let alone a CIVIL one? I thought there was a fight that liberals used to fight called Separation of Church and state. Now you want the two combined so what is it really Black Metal Queer?
Marriage is attached to 1000's of LEGAL protections and rights!!! This makes it a CIVIL ISSUE!!! This is not like the sacraments of communion and baptism that have NO legal ramifications! There is a part of marriage that is religious, and a part of marriage that is independent of religion ie. civil. To deny same-sex couples the same legal structure and assistance that straight couples get is a civil rights issue.
There is not one secular argument to not allow homosexuals to engage in this civil arrangement known as a marriage. The only arguments given are that it is your opinion, religion, or tradition that these rights are only granted to heteros. I'll have you know that the constitution is not to be based on something so fickle as YOUR opinion, YOUR religion, or YOUR tradition.
The constitution is to be based on equal treatment under the law, and in this case equal treatment means letting any two consenting adults engage in a marriage. To not allow homosexuals is to treat them unequally, and I don't care if the majority of voters are in favor treating any group unequally, that is still injustice, and that injustice needs to be overturned.
Sure let two consenting brothers and sisters (or two sisters or two brothets) let Mormons marry all they want and allow muslim to do what they choose with their spouses. They are old and consenting. Just because you can doesn't make it R I G H T.
Polygamy does not interface easily with our current legal/financial infrastructure. And it usually is defined in a sexist setup of male superiority, inhibiting the consensual nature needed for legal agreements between adults.
Whereas same-sex partnerships are between consensual adults, have no inherent health risks, and the two persons involved interface just fine with the current infrastructure made for straight couples.
same-sex partnerships are between consensual adults, have no inherent health risks,
A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer.
Don't you know that living as a couple is difficult, even more so when you live as a couple and are considered the scum of the earth and are denied the necessary legal structure to make such a couple last.
Most of the problems associated with homosexuals are due to you bigots relegating us to the level of shit in society. don't blame a community who suffers intense discrimination for their problems, blame the bigots who discriminate.
Of course I do. That's what heterosexual couples face. DIFFICULTY. That's what I'm talking about, you really think you're different than the rest of society because of a personal choice. A lifestyle choice.
And please tell me how homosexuals don't do this to themselves? Seen Craigslist? Seen the Folsom Street Fair? Seen the Bay to Breakers? Care to elaborate?
The issue is not festivals that trouble your sense of society, the issue is if certain rights are granted to hetero couples, why should same-sex couples be denied those rights. Why should the law treat us in a worse way than you get to be treated?
Marriage is a CIVIL INSTITUTION!!! The ceremony in a church means nothing beyond tradition. You can still get married without ever walking into a church! Marriage is not like communion or baptism that have NO legal ramifications. Marriage is granted by the state, whether your religion wants to ceremonialize it is of no legal concern.
YOU WISH to define a legal institution based on YOUR religion/tradition/opinion. YOU violate the separation of church and state!
There is no separation of church and state what are you talking about??? Before you respond Google the United States Constitution. Read the amendment right,s and you will see for you,re self that there is no separation of church and state.
I'm sure that your quote of amendment 1 says nothing about seperation of church and state right?
What Amendment 1 says is that the congress shouldn't mingle in religion, not that it should have nothing to do with religion. And it also says nothing about religion not having a place in congress. What amazes me is that none of the people that quote the "founding fathers" seem to notice that all those people were very religious men that referred to God all the time. But that you dont quote.
The first amendment says that there can not be a law establishing any one religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it. Establishing that marriage is only between a man and a woman prohibit the free exercise of religions that DO want to marry same-sex couples.
And the founding fathers were DEISTS! DEISTS! DEISTS! DEISTS! DEISTS! DEISTS!
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and so were most of the other founding fathers. Any argument that they were "Christian" is bullshit. One or two of them may have argued in favour of Christian values, but they did not set out to establish a Christian country (references to God on money and in the pledge didn't come about until 60-70 years ago
A deist is someone who believes A god exists who started the universe, but who does not currently interfere with the affairs of men. And yes, the founding fathers were deists.
Benjamin Franklin thought Christian theology was ridiculous. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible, removing all references to backwards morality, nonsensical miracles, and threats of apocalyptic doom. The remainder were the only parts that could be rectified with common decent morality and philosophy, and the only fill out under 100 pages.
There is no such thing as separation of church and state you fucking moron. Ill give you 50 bucks if you can find "separation of church and state" in the US constitution or even the bill of rights.
Thats not separation of church and state you moron. Thats them not being able to #1 Say "this is the official religion of America" #2 Say "You cant be this religion"
Also, it said CONGRESS. Meaning the US congress. Individual states can do whatever the hell they want.
first off, if you weren't jacking off during your civics course, then you would know that the US Constitution takes precedence over any state constitution.
And if the government can make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, and it grants certain licenses(marriage) according to the religious beliefs observed by the participants (gays are going to hell, therefore can't marry), the government is in effect establishing religion.
It is a right to receive equal treatment under the law. Granting marriage licenses, which are a portal to numerous rights, and protections, to some couples but not others on a basis that is entirely arbitrary is unequal treatment. This should be easy to understand, if a hetero couple receives extra rights and protections, and a same-sex couple does not, that is unequal treatment under the law.
"You mean like if I call you a word, say a fag in a fight that's a hate crime."
That is exactly what you said, but we can forget it and see if you can tell me why your church can define who is allowed entry into a CIVIL institution that is attached to numerous rights and protection?
Listen dumbass, I told, the STATE OWNS MARRIAGE!!! Not your little church!!! THIS IS NOT BAPTISM!!! THIS IS A CIVIL ISNTITUTION GRANTED BY THE STATE WITH ADVANTAGES WITHIN THE STATE!!!
Your church cannot tell the state to refuse service to anyone.
I said it many times, and it probably isn't worth saying to you because you are incapable of reading comprehension, but marriage is an institution of the state not church, so it does not violate the separation of church and state for the state to define its own institution in a way that a few churches would disagree with.
And I don't care what you have to say, We shall overcome your bigotry.
In the beginning the universe was a infinitesimal point of infinite density, and expanded rapidly to develop into the universe we know to today. Your little myth means nothing to me or to our constitution.
Well please tell me how to test quantum theory. We don't have any scopes to see in that small of a level of depth, and if you knew anything of advanced mathematics you would know that quantum theory is just that. A theory. It's actually almost philosophical if you have a mind to grasp it's concepts.
Here is a rebuttal to your argument from CA Law...
It affords the couple most of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses.
So what now? How is it unfair? Why can you sue for hate crime and not me? Who is the special interest here? Me or you????
If you are referring to civil unions, they don't receive any of the federal rights or protections, and they don't even receive equal state benefits. You must be using a very flexible definition of "most".
And even if they get the same rights, separate but equal is NOT equal!!! If you want an institution of civil law to be defined in any way that discriminates without reason, then the definition must change to disallow discrimination.
"well then move to a place that does. instead of forcing this down the voters throats when they don't want it. you lost, quit crying."
No, I think the courts need to force you guys to stop discriminating. And don't whine about losing your power through the ballot box. You as a majority abused you power by taking rights away. The courts are there to temper your abuse of power, and protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the bigoted majority.
No one is discriminating. If I want to live in a society that, say.... doesn't allow me to eat chocolate. Well I try to push legislation and they vote, NO, NO CHOCO! Well fine, why should I turn my LOVE for chocolate away because these "bigots" won't allow me to eat it. Now I should call the ACLU and protest my right to eat chocolate or.... move to a community that allows me too and live in peace with my love for chocolate. Seems trivial but it's relatively easy.
If society decides to ban you from eating chocolate, it is infringing on your rights to choose what you want for your life. Since you eating chocolate does not violate the social contract between you and anyone else, there is on reason to prohibit you from eating chocolate, just as there is no reason to keep me from marrying a man. Such legislation is discriminatory, and needs to be fought. And the right to eat food has been fought, recall the black sit-ins at lunch counters? or even Stonewall?
Black sit-ins had to do with not being able to eat food in certain places, pretty close to the analogy you came up with. And if you have heard of Stonewall, gays had to deal with the same thing, too.
2 equate what gays r going through now with what blacks have been going through in the past is absolute ludicrous. Gays have more liberty in the US than anywhere else.The prop8 has nothing 2 do with gay-hate, where the black sit-ins did! We can also argue that the law is incest-hate,poligamy-hate,bestiality-hate,pedophelia-hate since those arent allowed too.The prop8 is against redefining marriage and perverting it into something that is unknown in human history. 2 men are
Nice to see a jew can indeed be racist.
kmcl11 1 month ago
The purpose of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Personal rights and freedoms are not subject to majority rule.
This is a very basic principle of our constitution and our country. Savage seems to not understand this. He should try reading the federalist papers.
Even worse, he is clearly a self loathing closeted gay man.
finerbiner 8 months ago
@Mr40acresandamule AKA Jerry "Brown" will score higher than Schweirdze"Negger". King of fictional psychotard outcasts afraid of what's really funny. Get with it. Look at more of the flames fanned of MSN rallies across the US when Obama took office and protesting to defeat illegals.
wyecee 10 months ago
Whether you are for same sex marriage or against it,gay marriage will ineviatiably happen because there less of a stigma attached to homosexuality. People love to use the argue that blacks are against it. Blacks make up only 6% of California's population.
Mr40acresandamule 10 months ago
@Mr40acresandamule actually they are about 13% of the cali pop, but they vote very anti gay and asians vote overwelmingly anti gay
kfag101 10 months ago
@kfag101 Nah, I checked with the U.S. Census Bureau and California is 6% black. Now, the 13% of California being black may include "black" Hispanics?
Mr40acresandamule 10 months ago
@Mr40acresandamule uh okay so the vast majority of the black pop is anti gay what is your point?
kfag101 10 months ago
So, it is their choice to be anti-gay or lesbian. You can't brow beat people into accepting a lifestyle. Blacks and hispanics are more religious than whites. There is still a homophobia in those community. People have a right to believe homosexuality is morally wrong, but mistreating someone who is gay or lesbian is not right. I can be respectful to some who has the deep desire to sleep around, but I don't have to embrace it.
Mr40acresandamule 10 months ago
@Mr40acresandamule Your argument makes no sense, unless you are willing to support the law treating people who sleep around differently than everyone else. no one is asking you to accept or like anything. Just leave other people alone.
finerbiner 8 months ago
@Mr40acresandamule oh 4 sure!
kfag101 10 months ago
a marriage between a man and a man is perverse!
kfag101 10 months ago
@kfag101 I respect your opinion on what you said. Marriage between a man and a man is as perverse as man sleeping around with 100's of women. A man sleeping around with dozens of women causes disease and illegitimate children which causes on strain on government resources that taxpayers have to fund. Have you ever considered my arguement?
Mr40acresandamule 10 months ago
@Mr40acresandamule you know that is an excellent point. the problem is promiscuity not man on man or man with women! for your info I voted no on prop 8 but have some issues with the way gay men treat eachother and women
kfag101 10 months ago
Will the "Brown" achieve higher approval ratings than the clumsy "Nigger"?
wyecee 1 year ago
@wyecee Wow you are rebbish piece of dogshit that needs to be shot in the face!
Mr40acresandamule 10 months ago
Judges...elitists? Come on! I guess we should've put Loving v. Virginia to a vote
vidhead85 1 year ago
The will of the people is not above the Constitution!
vidhead85 1 year ago 2
@vidhead85 The constitution was never meant to defend something so absurd as gay "marriage." The author and supporters of the document never would have imagined such a thing, much less so approved of it. I guess some people think the constitution gurantee's government-led healthcare too, eh?
TRexTurtle 10 months ago
@TRexTurtle The constitution was never meant to defend anything like racial equality, womens' rights, or worker's rights. Justice Kennedy said that as the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom--this greater freedom is not saying 'because we want to do it you should grant it to us' the greater freedom is always kept in check by rational basis review. The right to marry is fundamental to gays and straights no one would
vidhead85 10 months ago
@TRexTurtle No one would bar a man and a woman from marriage becuase it is their fundamental right. No one should be able to vote away the rights of a minority. Gays are a sexual minority no matter how people think of their lives.Even prisoners have the right to marry and gays are people too, who should be able to LEGALLY marry the person of their choice as long as they can consent, are aware of their consent and have the documents necessary
vidhead85 10 months ago
Comment removed
vidhead85 10 months ago
@TRexTurtle stop a straight couple from marriage, and people said interracial relationships were gonna doom marriage and look--the sky didn't fall. However, when peoples marriages are invalidated by legislation like this their lives fall apart, their houses can be taken from them when their partner dies, their children taken from them and they have no security--is this what the Constitution was written to protect?
vidhead85 10 months ago
this is the way our country works, judicial review is the final word on the law. love it or leave it.
hellojulie 1 year ago
the court seems like a group of elitists!? that's their fucking job!!!! they interpret the constitution and decide whether or not the law is or isn't. they are supposed to not be influenced by public opinion at all.
hellojulie 1 year ago 2
nullify the will of voters? their opinion doesn't mean shit when it violates the constitution, that's why it got overturned
hellojulie 1 year ago 2
@hellojulie You said it perfectly
vidhead85 10 months ago
Savage arguement that "No one is taking a right that was never granted," in reference to marriage is fallacious. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was not a right until legislation was passed to secure fundamental rights, the Bill of Rights were not fundamental rights until the authors of the Constitution made them so. According to Savages own logic, if the people voted for discrimination than we would still have Jim Crow laws would we not?
sisque16 1 year ago
Jerry Brown is a dumb ass, but Savage isn't making a great argument here. Savage is arguing like a little kid.
alvincay100 1 year ago
@alvincay100 Jerry Brown is a very smart person. I doubt u have held a conversation with him. I have. He is an incredibly smart person and he will be a great governor
goglee2 1 year ago
@goglee2 Of course I'm not "important" enough to have held a conversation with him. "Incredibly" smart? What do you base that on? The measure of your small mind? Well, you're in good company, I'm sure his mommy thought he was a "clever" little boy too. He already was governor, but I don't think the word "great" was ever used to describe him. I'm sure he will be just as bad as the last few governors, after all, he represents one side of the religious demagoguery of American.
alvincay100 1 year ago
for Christmas, I asked "Santa" for Trickle Up Poverty, my sister asked for "Liberty and Tyranny" . Ok, according to Savage, my sister is a schmuck.
nadine2k101 1 year ago
ah yes, Jerry Brown, one of only two democrats Savage has praised, Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton. By the way, pick up his new book, Trickle Up Poverty, available in bookstores.
nadine2k101 1 year ago
WHITE POWER !
mouse9111 1 year ago
@mouse9111 Get a life.
abola2121 1 year ago
Too bad this Jewish nazi is still on the air. He lies like a dog and his dumb followers think he is great. Only in America!!!
lancer89032 1 year ago
If the Majority had the final say, we would still have slavery.
atrayu90602 1 year ago
Has Savage read the constitution?
NoSheepPeople 1 year ago
Thanks. It's impossible for a minority to win in votes for equal rights. We're a minority, thus protection from the courts to determine the legitimacy of any such determination from a "democracy" as just. It's basic math people. A minority will never win, we're a MINORITY! Lack of education in terms of sexuality is a real issue. The uninformed determine liberty? YIKES!
QueerLiberation 1 year ago
Jerry Brown believes the court has the right to overturn the will of the People. He does not deserve to hold office.
cooperdavidc 1 year ago
@cooperdavidc he's about to become governor.I would say fuck you to california but it appears they already are.
rw5791 1 year ago
WHAT IS J BROWN VIEWS ON CHILD SUPPORT REFORM?
roppokai1 1 year ago
jerry ftw
nonphixional1 1 year ago
VOTE FOR THE INDEPENDENT TEA PARTY CANDIDATE CHELENE NIGHTENGALE! STOP VOTING FOR THESE LYING PUBS AND DEMS. THEY ARE OPEN BORDERS SCUM. FUCK THEM ALL
eof
TheNewMusicNetwork 1 year ago
Jerry Brown's an idiot. No way I want this commi loser as my governor.
EvertonFooty 1 year ago
@EvertonFooty yeah bro were fucked
roppokai1 1 year ago
@EvertonFooty obviously,you have no idea what communism is. Take your tea party crap els where.
goglee2 1 year ago
@goglee2 - I'm from Eastern Europe.... you lose.
EvertonFooty 1 year ago
@EvertonFooty Than what are you doing criticizing an American polotishion?
goglee2 1 year ago
Both Scharzenegger and Brown never supported the people of California ... and people have good memories. Brown was actually AGAINST the people and their choices. I think Brown is done ... and it's about time.
Karen41872 1 year ago
Jerry Brown is a moron. My grandparents remember him as Governor Moonbeam and he was a crappy one. He was a lousy mayor of Oakland ... and he's a shitty Attorney General right now. Brown's job is to support the VOTERS. He has failed to do so. The "Fair Housing" law is crap. No one wants to live next door to idiots and losers. The "Fair Housing" law has formed GHETTOS.
Karen41872 1 year ago
@Karen41872 Jerry Brown was a much better governor than the guy he replaced and the ones who have replaced him, including the current celebrity. Your classification of him as a moron is a sign of lesser intelligence on your part. Perhaps you could ask your grandparents to define the word for you. Your statement, "no one wants to live next door to idiots and losers..." perhaps your neighbors feel the same way about you.
shudderbug 1 year ago
@shudderbug --- Oh really? The guy who preceded Brown was RONALD REAGAN, probably the greatest president to date. I checked with a number of people who lived during the Brown gubernatorial era, and... to-the-one, they expressed great disappointment in him (unlike that of his father). As to my neighbors, I live on the beach in a community of wonderful people and we all feel fortunate that we live in the same neighborhood. My neighors love me.
Karen41872 1 year ago
@Karen41872 Your statement, "RONALD REAGAN, probably the greatest president to date..." is laughable. Of twelve separate polls taken since 1982, your "greatest president" averaged 15th place. Even two separate polls from the Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of liberal thought, said Reagan occupied six or eighth place, depending on the year. Reagan better than Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. says a lot about you. Google: Historical rankings of Pres.
shudderbug 1 year ago
@shudderbug -- I don't use GOOGLE..... I get my information from original sources. Even Sergei Bren, one of Google's originators. told me that not everything on their site is verifiable. They get a lot of misinformation which later can be righted. but not always. Yes, Reagan was better than those you list ....... He is on par with Jefferson.
Karen41872 1 year ago
@Karen41872 Google is just a search engine, a tool to get information. Do you use ANY search engines, or you born with all of the knowledge you now have? The information I quoted came from wikipedia and all of the survey sources are readily available for you to verify. Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself (which is probably not new to you). First you say, Reagan is "probably the greatest president to date," now you say, "He is on par with Jefferson." He can't be both.
shudderbug 1 year ago
@Karen41872 god. Learn the facts. Jerry Brown had to have been one of the best governors we have ever had. Creating 2 million jobs. Giving $4 billion in tax cuts to the middle class
Even now as governor so far he has cut funding for his office by 25%= $7,000,000.00
Face it. Your grandparents are right wing nut jobs
goglee2 1 year ago
@goglee2 -- Both my grandparents and my great-grantparents lived through MOONBEAM's first governorship and he was a total failure. I then went back and read about Moonbeam's accomplishments and he is indeed a LOSER! Just wait and see what he will do now that he's back in the governor's chair. I can just hear you liberals cry rivers of tears when he starts cutting off your entitlements. I'll sit back and laugh.
Karen41872 1 year ago
@Karen41872 you don't know the facts. You watch fox news too much.
Jerrybrown made the best of a very bad situation that was left over from the Reagan years who intact made the homeless rate in California go up since he just took them out of the state hospitals and left them to fend for themselves alone on the streets. Jerry brown let workers form unions. Witch Reagan did not
If Brown was so bad than tell me this. Why did the deficit in California drop when he was governor?
goglee2 1 year ago
@goglee2 --- Actually, I don't watch FoxNews that much.... I watch History Interntional, History and NatGeo channels. I do read online newspapers from all over the world. Regarding Reagan and the closure of the state hospitals .... I have to agree with you on that. I am not a fan of unions at all. The dropping of the deficit in CA ws the ONLY thing Moonbeam did correctly...... but this won't happen this time. Already people are sorry they voted for him.
Karen41872 1 year ago
Wow, for and against gay marriage in the same breath. This guy is perfect for politics.
stevieRay3211 1 year ago
He sounds like a savage but he'll always be a weiner to me.
shudderbug 1 year ago
@shudderbug --- You didn't know him as a Weiner .... by the way, a lot of people in the public eye change their names to ones with impacts. Just look at the roster of film stars.
Karen41872 1 year ago
@Karen41872 I know he is just as much as weiner as he is a savage and that does not say anything for his character. The fact that other people in the public eye change their names is immaterial.
shudderbug 1 year ago
@shudderbug -- If you don't like his politics, why are you on this YouTube site?
Karen41872 1 year ago
@Karen41872 I came to watch the Jerry Brown interview with Michael Savage. That's why :)
shudderbug 1 year ago
@shudderbug --- You may have wanted to watch Dr. Savage's interview with Brown, but you certainly KNOW where Savage stands on liberal socialism the kind espoused by Brown.
Karen41872 1 year ago
@Karen41872 And your point is?
shudderbug 1 year ago
Ahhh liberals, ever talking yet never thinking.
SpankbankINC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
~'we the sheeple' no longer have real say as to whom is running for office! Both candidates are stealthy jewZionist SCOUNDRELS, as are so many criminal-politicians. lil'Meg-pie was head of Ebay, -yet i've yet to find an Ebay-employee that felt she was an asset! She scammed a lot of money there, and she's vested $120+million of her Billion+ bank-account in quest to be another nasty Calif.Gov.. Yet J.Brown's even worse, --if you want higher TAXES, hold your nose and vote for either Commie!!!
AryanKnight 1 year ago
i miss you savage!!! MODESTO DOES!!!
badtothebonz1 1 year ago
This asshole won't let jerry brown talk
66Metalforlife66 1 year ago
@66Metalforlife66 -- Jerry Brown has done enough talking. Brown is the ASSHOLE.
Karen41872 1 year ago
Brown is right. The Bill of Rights is not something that is put up for a vote. Since 1888 the Supreme Court says that marriage is a fundemental right..
genYprogressive 1 year ago
@genYprogressive Your dead wrong. Where in the Constitution or Bill of rights says two men can get married. Thomas Jefferson one of the more liberal fore-fathers who inspired the Bill of Rights because he said the Constitution was too broad, once suggested castration for Sodomy offenders. Explain that one, or just talk for the sake of talking like all liberals do when faced with logic.
SpankbankINC 1 year ago
@SpankbankINC --- You're so correct about liberals talking just to be talking.
Liberalism is a festering boil on our society's backside. It needs to be lanced. Stand back!
Karen41872 1 year ago
marriage is a fundamental right, you cant get rid of a fundamental right with any vote. it's like getting rid of freedom of speech, you just cant get rid of it
goglee2 1 year ago
@goglee2 {marriage is a fundamental right}
No. When the government gives privileges to married people-- that's what it is, privileges not rights.
The government shouldn't give privileges to married people, its discriminatory. The govt has no business saying who is and who is not married.
Get it?
mindprism 1 year ago
The minority has always been a victim of discrimination. Black or Chinese people do not have a "hold" on what Civil Rights are and what they aren't even if they were once victims. Citing their opinion on this matter is insignificant. The Courts are there to defend fundamental rights of minorities even if the majority disagrees. (Slavery banned, interracial marriage legalized, segregation by color terminated). The Courts are there to make sure no on infringes on people's fundamental rights.
isaiasnaruto 1 year ago
@isaiasnaruto
I disagree. This is an issue that should be voted on, and was actually...twice. Slavery and the societal custom of marriage are not the same. It is not a fundamental right for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. Any more than it is a fundamental right to marry a 14 year old, which is legal in some states and illegal in others. Marriage is a SOCIAL union and an institution. Marriage is defined by the society that supports it, and it is NOT a civil right.
james662662662 1 year ago
@james662662662
It is a civil right for a person to marry the person they want to be with for the rest of their life. A society would only be discriminating a group of people by depriving them of such right. It will not affect how you or others live, and will not destroy the sanctity of your marriage either.
isaiasnaruto 1 year ago
@isaiasnaruto {It is a civil right for a person to marry the person they want to be with}
No. It is not a civil right. It is a plain old right. So called civil rights are BS rights, except for voting.
The govt does not say who is and is not married (believe it or not). The govt recognizes a certain type of marriage as something to support in the interests of society.
The sanctity of marriage is not even involved.
mindprism 1 year ago
thumbs down this comment if you love michael savage!
TheBlobinator 1 year ago
i want to hear jerry brown talk, not weenie boy constantly interrupt him and spout off his own bull. shut up weiner and let the man talk, no one is voting for you, they want to hear him.
themountainviewguy 1 year ago
I hate Michael WEEEENER.
themountainviewguy 1 year ago
I've watched Jerry Brown for decades. And you know what? You will never ever see that man grin. NEVER. I mean a real grin. I don't mean some little half assed smile. He does those. But he simply does not have a grin in him.
What's up with that? Why would a man never in his life grin? Something is wrong with him.
(If he has a muscular or neural disorder in his face, I apologize.)
yowzephyr 1 year ago
@yowzephyr he is to serious, he doesn't take shit fro anyone
oh ya and he is old and cranky. but i love him
jerry brown 2010
goglee2 1 year ago
@goglee2 It isn't age. Like I said, Jerry Brown has never be seen to grin EVER. I've watched him since the '60s. It goes deeper than grumpiness when a man never ever grins. I honestly don't know what it is. That's what I find interesting about it.
Anyone know any neurologists or psychiatrists out there? Help us out. Ask the good doctor why a man would never ever grin.
yowzephyr 1 year ago
@yowzephyr he doesn't take shit from anyone, its not something wrong with him he is just tough.
goglee2 1 year ago
@goglee2 Tough guys grin. There's nothing wrong with grinning. It's never grinning that is weird.
yowzephyr 1 year ago
@yowzephyr You know what? Your right. On Jan 3rd I had a full conversation with the man and he never grinned. I think it's because he was going to be a priest and they are serious as hell.
goglee2 1 year ago
Um, Mr. Savage--most people in colonial times were against the Revolution. The people are not always right, but they eventually catch up to what is.
newcolonist 1 year ago
let jerry brown speak
sierrareddog 1 year ago
Savage is an impostor !! hes an entertainer portraying a ultraconservative character he is what white males want to hear !!!! hes like mcdonalds for fat people !! Savage is for white racist males
89frisco 1 year ago
Jerry Brown talking to Michael Savage about the constitution sounds like a teacher disciplining his unruly whelp. Michael Savage is out of touch with reality.
TheTranceCartel 1 year ago
What the fuck does minorities voting against Gay marriage have anything to do with this? In the sixties the majority of white people used their majority to deny blacks their basic housing rights, and now the majority of straight people are using their majority to deny homosexuals their basic right to marry.
Savage is a fucking dumbass.
drifter6276 1 year ago
I would like to invite all the good people of the world to join the Jerry Brown for Governor Facebook fan page at......w.w.w.facebook com/jerrybrown
CADEYYRN 1 year ago
if an initiative proposes something that is absolutely ridicules, it should be nullified.
sleepytime1123 1 year ago
poor jerry.... poor poor jerry.
sentencing 1 year ago
Brown is so far to the left he's back on the right, and Savage is so far to the right hes on the left...Thats why they love each other...
TheLittleJohnny 1 year ago
This quack is insane. just listening to him makes the idea of sticking dynamite between my ears and waiting on my brains to explode.
vicky9891 1 year ago
Savage keeps talking about fallacious arguments, but then makes a glaringly fallacious argument by saying "African Americans, Hispanics and Chinese all voted for Prop 8, therefore gay marriage cannot be a civil right." How is this a valid argument? What does the race of the voters have to do with a debate about sexual orientation. Sure, those races are minorities in a debate about race, but in this debate, the only minorities in question are homosexuals. Compare apples with apples.
orgigami 2 years ago
@orgigami He makes that analogy because marriage is not a fundamental right, like racial equality. Whether or not you belive its a fundamental right is another issue.
abaskcasckbackj 1 year ago
@abaskcasckbackj,
Marriage is indeed not a fundamental right, a lowly goverment employee will determine what your legal status is and who you can bed, bequeth your wealth on death etc etc.
--
Why does legal marriage (preventing)
leonidas512 1 year ago
People like Savage are the reason why issues of rights cannot be put to a popular vote and why these issues must be resolved in court, where the real issues can be discussed in a civilized way. I bet Savage wouldn't talk like this in front of a judge and he would have to have evidence to back up his statistics (which are grossly incorrect) and have valid arguments to start with...he has none!!
ch2279 2 years ago
@ch2279 If you dont beleve that gay marriage is a fundamental civil right, then yes, it should be held to the voters.
abaskcasckbackj 1 year ago
I do believe marriage for gay people is a fundamental civil right...but Savage can't make a valid argument against it. There are many SCOTUS rulings that favor marriage rights for gay people. He can say whatever he wants on his talk show and twist things around but he would have to bring reasonable arguments to court and they have to be able to hold water. Just my two cents anyway.
ch2279 1 year ago 2
What Savage doesn't understand that its not something to be voted on....Savage is completely wrong!!!
ch2279 2 years ago
His numbers (Savage's) have been disproven in terms of how many minorities voted for Prop 8.
DantheDem 2 years ago
And I'm sure when a majority of Californians choose to allow same-sex marriage, Savage will be 100% OK with that... Yeah right.
mrpickles4pres 2 years ago
Michael Savage needs to be castrated penis and balls completely after he is injected with adrenaline.
Womanizer2985 2 years ago
If Savage is correct, then you can kiss the rights of any minority goodbye.
For example, we had legal segregation and discrimination in this country, and it was partially because of the Supreme Court of the United States that we don't anymore.
On a broader note, It took a war to end a tradition of slavery in this country, even though most Southerners were for it. Does that tell you anything?
Rights vs. tradition? Which one wins?
Whatever you think of him, Brown wins this one.
VaeVictis06 2 years ago
Marriage is not a fundamental right. The reason why the Gov't encourages traditional marriage is because it benefits everyone. Everyone on earth, gays included, exist due to the union of sperm & egg; that's common sense. So, as far as gov't is concerned, this is the only universal arrangement gov't should put it's stamp on. All other alternative arrangements are up to the people involved - it's not up to the rest of society to accommodate their unique situation. It's not about Love or morality.
haypenny 2 years ago
Jerry Brown ought to fuck the hell off.
He's been hanging around CA politics since he was smoking dope with The Eagles, Linda Ronstadt, and all the rest of the 70s pop stars in LA. The hippies lifted him into office.
The laws in California are all fucked up, from criminal, to civil, family etc etc. He is doing a shit job
California needs some new blood. Enough of these hangers on like Brown.
bloggerjoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Michael Savage is a fool.
JeremySalas 2 years ago
And Gavin Newsome is a hero (insert sarcasm here)
peezaphace 2 years ago 2
Good job Michael.
Jerry Brown is way out of line on this issue. He should step down as the People's highest law enforcement officer and make room for someone who is fair and objective.
Garysher2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now you must learn who the devil is,Its the so called White Race! Ps 58:1 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried;
crackermustgo 2 years ago
I have been a fan of Jerry Brown since 1976 at least. He ran several times for his Democratic Party's nomination for President, including 1980 against incumbent Jimmy Carter and Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy. I met him again during the New Hampshire Primary season circa 1991-92 against Bill Clinton from Arkansas. He goes way back, he is highly intelligent, he is an accomplished politician with a great record of achievement. He cleaned up Reagan budget mess, and could do it again today.
mdelcamp1 2 years ago
elitest judges of gay california girlie men who rule supreme court of california spit in the peoples face time to arm ourselves and take america back these marxist have no morals but all time try to legislate thier morality on you.
billycobraman 2 years ago
How does Savage think that just because some ethnic groups voted against the civil right of Marraige make it not against civil rights? Just because an ethnic group votes against another group's civil right, doesn't mean this is not a civil rights issue.
It is a civil rights issue because one group, homosexuals, are denied the ability to have legal recognition of relationships that others are allowed.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Of course your'e wrong. Homosexuality is not a civil rights issue because it not race, color or creed of a human. Rather its a behavior! of certain people who can be any race or from any background.
If you as man, decide one day that you want to be called a woman, and the goverment should fund your medical pills for PMS, you wouldnt expect anyone to listen.. Same here.. Homosexuality is a behavior and it should remain as that. "Marriage" is between a man and a woman. and MOST people agree
martysoffice 2 years ago
A civil rights issue is when any person is receiving unequal treatment under law as compared to others. in this case, certain legal rights, privileges, and recognitions that are granted to heterosexuals are not being granted to homosexuals, therefore this is a civil rights issue.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Since when is getting married a right? Let alone a CIVIL one? I thought there was a fight that liberals used to fight called Separation of Church and state. Now you want the two combined so what is it really Black Metal Queer?
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
Marriage is attached to 1000's of LEGAL protections and rights!!! This makes it a CIVIL ISSUE!!! This is not like the sacraments of communion and baptism that have NO legal ramifications! There is a part of marriage that is religious, and a part of marriage that is independent of religion ie. civil. To deny same-sex couples the same legal structure and assistance that straight couples get is a civil rights issue.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
There is not one secular argument to not allow homosexuals to engage in this civil arrangement known as a marriage. The only arguments given are that it is your opinion, religion, or tradition that these rights are only granted to heteros. I'll have you know that the constitution is not to be based on something so fickle as YOUR opinion, YOUR religion, or YOUR tradition.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
The constitution is to be based on equal treatment under the law, and in this case equal treatment means letting any two consenting adults engage in a marriage. To not allow homosexuals is to treat them unequally, and I don't care if the majority of voters are in favor treating any group unequally, that is still injustice, and that injustice needs to be overturned.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Sure let two consenting brothers and sisters (or two sisters or two brothets) let Mormons marry all they want and allow muslim to do what they choose with their spouses. They are old and consenting. Just because you can doesn't make it R I G H T.
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
Was I talking about incest and polygamy? or same-sex marriage?
Don't bring up other issues. These different models of relationships are NOT equivalent, I'm am so fucking sick of explaining this.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
On your slippery slope:
Incest has a demonstrable health risk.
Polygamy does not interface easily with our current legal/financial infrastructure. And it usually is defined in a sexist setup of male superiority, inhibiting the consensual nature needed for legal agreements between adults.
Whereas same-sex partnerships are between consensual adults, have no inherent health risks, and the two persons involved interface just fine with the current infrastructure made for straight couples.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
same-sex partnerships are between consensual adults, have no inherent health risks,
A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer.
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
Don't you know that living as a couple is difficult, even more so when you live as a couple and are considered the scum of the earth and are denied the necessary legal structure to make such a couple last.
Most of the problems associated with homosexuals are due to you bigots relegating us to the level of shit in society. don't blame a community who suffers intense discrimination for their problems, blame the bigots who discriminate.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Of course I do. That's what heterosexual couples face. DIFFICULTY. That's what I'm talking about, you really think you're different than the rest of society because of a personal choice. A lifestyle choice.
And please tell me how homosexuals don't do this to themselves? Seen Craigslist? Seen the Folsom Street Fair? Seen the Bay to Breakers? Care to elaborate?
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
The issue is not festivals that trouble your sense of society, the issue is if certain rights are granted to hetero couples, why should same-sex couples be denied those rights. Why should the law treat us in a worse way than you get to be treated?
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Comment removed
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
Marriage is a CIVIL INSTITUTION!!! The ceremony in a church means nothing beyond tradition. You can still get married without ever walking into a church! Marriage is not like communion or baptism that have NO legal ramifications. Marriage is granted by the state, whether your religion wants to ceremonialize it is of no legal concern.
YOU WISH to define a legal institution based on YOUR religion/tradition/opinion. YOU violate the separation of church and state!
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
There is no separation of church and state what are you talking about??? Before you respond Google the United States Constitution. Read the amendment right,s and you will see for you,re self that there is no separation of church and state.
fatboydanny1234 2 years ago
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Any questions?
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
I'm sure that your quote of amendment 1 says nothing about seperation of church and state right?
What Amendment 1 says is that the congress shouldn't mingle in religion, not that it should have nothing to do with religion. And it also says nothing about religion not having a place in congress. What amazes me is that none of the people that quote the "founding fathers" seem to notice that all those people were very religious men that referred to God all the time. But that you dont quote.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
The first amendment says that there can not be a law establishing any one religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it. Establishing that marriage is only between a man and a woman prohibit the free exercise of religions that DO want to marry same-sex couples.
And the founding fathers were DEISTS! DEISTS! DEISTS! DEISTS! DEISTS! DEISTS!
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
No they were not. And you shouting it over and over and over will not make that so.
Do you even know what a deist is?
girzwald3 2 years ago
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and so were most of the other founding fathers. Any argument that they were "Christian" is bullshit. One or two of them may have argued in favour of Christian values, but they did not set out to establish a Christian country (references to God on money and in the pledge didn't come about until 60-70 years ago
heatsketch 2 years ago
A deist is someone who believes A god exists who started the universe, but who does not currently interfere with the affairs of men. And yes, the founding fathers were deists.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Benjamin Franklin thought Christian theology was ridiculous. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible, removing all references to backwards morality, nonsensical miracles, and threats of apocalyptic doom. The remainder were the only parts that could be rectified with common decent morality and philosophy, and the only fill out under 100 pages.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
There is no such thing as separation of church and state you fucking moron. Ill give you 50 bucks if you can find "separation of church and state" in the US constitution or even the bill of rights.
girzwald3 2 years ago
Can you comprehend what you read? Or can you even read?
I just showed you where. It is just worded differently.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Thats not separation of church and state you moron. Thats them not being able to #1 Say "this is the official religion of America" #2 Say "You cant be this religion"
Also, it said CONGRESS. Meaning the US congress. Individual states can do whatever the hell they want.
Take a civics class you ignorant fuck.
girzwald3 2 years ago
first off, if you weren't jacking off during your civics course, then you would know that the US Constitution takes precedence over any state constitution.
And if the government can make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, and it grants certain licenses(marriage) according to the religious beliefs observed by the participants (gays are going to hell, therefore can't marry), the government is in effect establishing religion.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Curious where in the US Constitution does it say marriage is a right? Or even a privilege?
Where in the constitution does it guarantee men to marry men?
Where in the constitution does it say that gays are protected by hate crime?
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
It is a right to receive equal treatment under the law. Granting marriage licenses, which are a portal to numerous rights, and protections, to some couples but not others on a basis that is entirely arbitrary is unequal treatment. This should be easy to understand, if a hetero couple receives extra rights and protections, and a same-sex couple does not, that is unequal treatment under the law.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
And why do you think you deserve a right to commit a hate crime???
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Comment removed
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
"You mean like if I call you a word, say a fag in a fight that's a hate crime."
That is exactly what you said, but we can forget it and see if you can tell me why your church can define who is allowed entry into a CIVIL institution that is attached to numerous rights and protection?
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Comment removed
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
Listen dumbass, I told, the STATE OWNS MARRIAGE!!! Not your little church!!! THIS IS NOT BAPTISM!!! THIS IS A CIVIL ISNTITUTION GRANTED BY THE STATE WITH ADVANTAGES WITHIN THE STATE!!!
Your church cannot tell the state to refuse service to anyone.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Comment removed
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
I said it many times, and it probably isn't worth saying to you because you are incapable of reading comprehension, but marriage is an institution of the state not church, so it does not violate the separation of church and state for the state to define its own institution in a way that a few churches would disagree with.
And I don't care what you have to say, We shall overcome your bigotry.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Comment removed
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
Yes...
In the beginning GOD created Man and Woman...
Adam and Eve. Although I'm not religious most 4 year old kids know this...
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
"In the beginning GOD created Man and Woman..."
In the beginning the universe was a infinitesimal point of infinite density, and expanded rapidly to develop into the universe we know to today. Your little myth means nothing to me or to our constitution.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
accoriding to the new religion: SCIENCE.
you take it without even testing the equations yourself. BLIND FAITH.
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
"accoriding to the new religion: SCIENCE.
you take it without even testing the equations yourself. BLIND FAITH. "
umm, the current cosmological theories HAVE been tested, hence why they are accepted by scientists.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Well please tell me how to test quantum theory. We don't have any scopes to see in that small of a level of depth, and if you knew anything of advanced mathematics you would know that quantum theory is just that. A theory. It's actually almost philosophical if you have a mind to grasp it's concepts.
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
Quantum mechanics is a testable theory, ie. photoelectric effect, double slit experiment, Bell's theorem, etc...
But we are talking about the Big Bang, and that too has been tested, Hubble's law, WMAP.
The problem with QM is not that it can't be tested, but that the results of the tests are difficult to interpret.
Now, please do not compare myths to intensely researched scientific theories, and stay on topic.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Comment removed
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
I mean stop talking about the big bang.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Here is a rebuttal to your argument from CA Law...
It affords the couple most of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses.
So what now? How is it unfair? Why can you sue for hate crime and not me? Who is the special interest here? Me or you????
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
If you are referring to civil unions, they don't receive any of the federal rights or protections, and they don't even receive equal state benefits. You must be using a very flexible definition of "most".
And even if they get the same rights, separate but equal is NOT equal!!! If you want an institution of civil law to be defined in any way that discriminates without reason, then the definition must change to disallow discrimination.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
well then move to a place that does. instead of forcing this down the voters throats when they don't want it. you lost, quit crying.
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
"well then move to a place that does. instead of forcing this down the voters throats when they don't want it. you lost, quit crying."
No, I think the courts need to force you guys to stop discriminating. And don't whine about losing your power through the ballot box. You as a majority abused you power by taking rights away. The courts are there to temper your abuse of power, and protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the bigoted majority.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
No one is discriminating. If I want to live in a society that, say.... doesn't allow me to eat chocolate. Well I try to push legislation and they vote, NO, NO CHOCO! Well fine, why should I turn my LOVE for chocolate away because these "bigots" won't allow me to eat it. Now I should call the ACLU and protest my right to eat chocolate or.... move to a community that allows me too and live in peace with my love for chocolate. Seems trivial but it's relatively easy.
dontcallmyhousenomo 2 years ago
If society decides to ban you from eating chocolate, it is infringing on your rights to choose what you want for your life. Since you eating chocolate does not violate the social contract between you and anyone else, there is on reason to prohibit you from eating chocolate, just as there is no reason to keep me from marrying a man. Such legislation is discriminatory, and needs to be fought. And the right to eat food has been fought, recall the black sit-ins at lunch counters? or even Stonewall?
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
Man you are ignorant. Black sit-ins had nothing to do with banning certain foods.
Holy shit you are dumb.
girzwald3 2 years ago
Black sit-ins had to do with not being able to eat food in certain places, pretty close to the analogy you came up with. And if you have heard of Stonewall, gays had to deal with the same thing, too.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
2 equate what gays r going through now with what blacks have been going through in the past is absolute ludicrous. Gays have more liberty in the US than anywhere else.The prop8 has nothing 2 do with gay-hate, where the black sit-ins did! We can also argue that the law is incest-hate,poligamy-hate,bestiality-hate,pedophelia-hate since those arent allowed too.The prop8 is against redefining marriage and perverting it into something that is unknown in human history. 2 men are