@tundrayacut, I just read your comment suggesting death toward LGBT people. I have deleted that comment and blocked you from my YouTube channel, and I will consider reporting you to the police. I do not take any kind of death threat lightly.
MORE THAN HALF OF CALIFORNIAN POPULATION SAY YES ON 8, WHY SOME STUPID PEOPLE WANNA CHANGE TO THE GAY-STUPID-RIGHTS TO HAVE A RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE ! DID YOU WANNA IGNORE A MORE THAN HALF OF PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA ??? THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, IT LOOKS LIKE A COMMUNIST REGIM FROM MY COUNTRY, THATS WHY AMERICA BECAME SOCIALISTIK AND COMMUNISTIK COUNTRY UNDER BABAMA HUSEIN RULES
@tundrayacut, your comment borders on the hysterical with the all-caps presentation and references to a communist regime and "babama husein", not to mention shows disrespect toward gay people. Many who voted yes on 8 more than like voted out of ignorance and fear, and history has shown that once people get to know who we are as gay people and hear our stories, their thoughts and attitudes change toward LGBT equality. It's a matter of time before marriage and full equality is the norm.
I find it very interesting that a certin turd on here insists that marriages are there to "produce children", and yet it is perfectly legal for people to choose to have their tubes tied or a vascectomy.
i dont get it , what they want ?? WHo is against them ? gay's can marry each other right ? So why do they want to get marry in church ? They do know that church is against gay marriage right ? SO why don't their make their own church ?
@zerackid, the LGBT community is fighting for the right to civil marriages that is recognized by the US government, which is separate from religious marriages, and gays and lesbians are currently banned from getting legally civilly married in over 40 states across the country. Those against the LGBT community fear/hate/are ignorant about gay people and the separation of church and state. There are religions including some churches that accept and embrace same-sex marriage.
@zerackid no one is trying to force a church to marry anyone. It isn't even legal. Like, you can't force a catholic church to perform a baptist wedding, or a synagogue to perform a muslim wedding. So really, shut up. My sister got maried in a civil ceremony performed by a judge: it's still a legal marriage whether or not it was blessed by a church. So again, shut up.
This trial will show that the Prop 8 supporters have no concrete evidence to show that allowing gay people to marry will be destructive to society. Prop 8 was passed with deep seated fear, hatred, ignorance and bigotry toward homosexuals. I have hope that one day very soon this disgusting piece of the California constitution will be wiped out!
@garysher3, if you made comments under "Garysher2", I blocked you because I don't tolerate the dehumanization of other people. You're free to let me know in a private message that you can show me that you wish to show full respect and dignity towards others, including not dehumanizing others, and I would be fine to give you a second chance.
Sean, I'll answer for Gary. He' s a VERY bitter man, and quite sexually frustrated and repressed. I have no doubt that he was abused as a child, and as a result he beats his wife and abuses his 2.5 below average children. He has spent literally months and months on youtube bashing gays. He has some SERIOUS issues surrounding his own sexuality. This video explains everything:
You gays must be deluded if u think this trial will be successful. Judge Walker is already known to be partial to your side. Even the supremes know this. Even if it wins on a federal level...Supremes will kick it out.
in a animal world is totally other side-a female is looking 4 male ,,, and a male is looking 4 a female,,,,, gay and lesbian should learn a lot from animals, because animals are smarter than gay&lesbian couples
@tundrayacut, homosexuality is found in countless species throughout our planet. You should do some more research to better understand sexual orientation in the animal world, and I would also strongly recommend that you brush up on your grammar. The more prejudiced against gay people you are today, the more regret you will feel later on in your life. Exercise your brain and understand how the world really works.
why minority must to rule the majority? thats stupid ! do you want to be a gay-thats fine,its your choise, but the stupid gay has bring to the schools a book with gay scene-about dad+dad and a mom+mom ! thats bullshit !
@tundrayacut, how is the minority ruling the majority? LGBT people are demanding dignity, respect and full equal civil human rights. Any American citizen would demand the same. Moreover, being gay is a discover, an immutable trait, and the choice is to live as yourself as opposed to living a lie. Gay families are a fact of life, and if parents don't like this, including children's books showing two dads/two moms, the parents are responsible to teach their children as such, not the schools.
@tundrayacut You're really stupid and have no knowledge. The whole American Constitution was designed so that the majority does NOT rule over the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual. Do you understand that? What's more, you idiot, allowing gays to marry does not force anyone into a gay marriage, so what's your problem?
@marksmith46 You arte stupid-moron ! Let me tell you something, you just need to open your mind(if you have a normal mind? ) LOOK AROUND, look at the animals, the animals choose male and female, they choose each other, and this is a normal, ONLY some stupid-morons of people choose man-man or woman-woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know that animals are smarter, because animals did not change their mind, the animals are normal ! Some people are stupid, and they are doing stupid things
@marksmith46 Don't be an idiot, don"t be a moron man(or you are a woman) OPEN YOUR EYES AND MIND, AND VERY CAREFULLY LOOK AT THE ANIMALS, YOU'LL SEE A REAL LOVE, NOT STUPID-GAY-LOVE, ANIMALS LOVE EACH OTHER, AND HAVE A LOT OF BABIES, BECAUSE ANIMALS ARE SMSRTER THAT IDIOTS-GAY OR MORON-LESBIANS
@tundrayacut I am not an idiot, you are. You can't construct a proper sentence and you can't spell. I know how to love people. All you know how to do is hate. You've got a SHlTTY life and an obvious need to feel superior to others. You're a sick, sad little fool. Animals don't love the way people do, and if you really, REALLY feel that they do, then think about it the next time you're eating a chicken or a piece of beef, you idiot bastard. Guess what? I hate you more. Dumbass.
Dont you finding it IRONIC that the same wingnuts want the healthcare debate broadcast for all to see, but dont want to have the Federal prop 8 trial broadcast?
If the US Government approved same sex marriage, then the politician who run for office don't have any more reason to win the election, because for them, opposing gay marriage is a good way to express hatred against gay. Those candidate who oppose gay marriage always win the public heart which is really sad
Tgurl, you are very right. I don't even think many Republicans hate gays at all and don't give a damn if they get married.
However, they know that if they want to be re-elected, they must declare that they do. And democrats...sadly, they do the same thing. America just isn't going to accept pro-gay politicians on any large scale.
So, here we are, because politicians want to keep their jobs like anyone else.
nnjhanson: since you insist there are all kinds of restrictions on straight marriage (which you haven't been able to name), and there is no 'right to marry', how about you allow gay adults to be 'victimized' by these same 'restrictions' that allow every non-gay adult I know of to be married to the one who agrees to marry them too?
I would LOVE to be equally victimized, if only in sympathy for these unfair restrictions of yours.
You and I both know that a gay man can't marry another gay man, even if they are deeply in love and have been in a relationship for years and years, and it isn't fair, kind, humanitarian, or necessary to a peaceful society to keep them from that.
Play your word games all you want to, but the fact remains, we can't marry each other.
So why are you here? To complain you don't have that right either?
So join the fight then, instead of maintaining the inequality.
No, a man cannot marry another man regardless of either's sexual preference. The law does not distinguish on the basis of sexual orientation. EQUAL
The state does not issue licenses so that the recipients can get benefits, it issues licenses so that society benefits. The fact that two men or two women are deeply in love and have been together for years is irrelevant as that relationship is of little to no real consequence to society and the state therefore has no reason to involve itself.
You're doing exactly what I said in another post: you hate gays so you don't care if it's fair, generous, kind, or representative of American Equality and Justice.
What a waste of time..
You'll take my money but you won't give it back. You'll use my money but you won't let me use yours. You'll get into shitty marriages that also have no consequence to society, except to clog up our divorce courts and raise horrible children.
Try acting out of kindness for once instead of logic.
Equality exists when the law applies equally to all, not when it impacts everyone equally. Justice occurs when the law is fairly administered not when it is changed to suit your personal whims.
It would destroy the linkage between the institution and the purpose for which it was created. Having it imposed by a court would hurt the concept of self-government.
It is not hateful to acknowledge that the relationship between a man and a woman is uniquely significant to society. It is merely an acceptance of a biological reality.
It would destroy THE linkage. That you believe a linkage that has been acknowledged for centuries is based on hate shows how irrational your thoughts are on this matter.
Were you denied the ability to vote? That is how self-government is exercised.
If we are talking about "biological reality" then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, in that's existed throughout history even when societies want to get rid of it.
And "marriage" is a social construct. It is created by people and can be abolished and changed by people. There is no biological reality to marriage. There is more biological reality to homosexual partnerships than the artificial institution of marriage created by man. Therefore it's subject to revision.
Whether homosexuality is a 'biological reality' is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that homosexuality exists does not mean that the relationship between two men or two women is in any meaningful way consequential to society.
Marriage was created by man to serve a specific purpose and to date the people have rejected your proposed revision every time they have been asked.
I forget, you get to decide what is "relevant" to all discussions. And you're the one who brought up "biological reality" first. I just clarified the obvious truth that you seemed to forget.
What is "consequential" to society is subjective and constantly changing. Marriage serves multiple purposes not limited to just procreation or even partnership licensing. Your neglecting or refusal to acknowledge those societal consequences is where we disagree
Then you tell me, how is the relationship between two men or two women consequential to society in a way that any other relationship between consenting adults is not? Why should the state involve itself in that relationship and not the myriad of other alternatives?
Yes, the people means a majority. That is how our system works.
I agree that is how our system works, I disagree that "the people" is only the majority. "The people" consists of the majority and the minority, it's just that the majority gets their way. Which is fine because that's how our country works and we can't all get our way 100% of the time.
Fortunately part of our system is also overturning tyranny of the majority if they make ill-informed or bad decisions through other legitimate political channels. Like say trampling over civil liberties.
Who, in our system, is empowered to 'overturn the tyranny of the majority' and where does this power come from?
Before you say the courts, ask yourself on what basis the Court can legitimately overturn a law. The only such basis is either the US Constitution or the constitution of the respective state. Those documents, however are at their most basic, also simply reflections of popular will.
The other branches of our government. Direct democracy and majority voting is only 1 component of our thankfully complex government which is a Constitutional Republic.
The Courts can legitimately overturn a law as you said based on the US Constitution. However, it's not based on "popular will". The popularity contests are for the other branches of government. Straight from Wikipedia: "majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law". It's called "checks and balances"
The Constitution is explicitly an expression of the popular will. The document begins, "We the People." It is the rules by which the people have chosen to be governed. The document is amended by a process meant to ensure widespread popular approval.
The Constitution definitely attempts to support the popular will to an extent, but not in every and all instances. One of it's key important aspects is helping to guarantee the liberty and rights of its people even if the popular or majority will neglects them. Our forefathers specifically included checks and balances to prevent tyranny of the majority. Sadly the majority can be ignorant or make poor decisions, which is why our country was not designed to simply be a Direct Democracy.
The Constitution is the rule book the people gave to the government. The checks and balances are limits on government power, not the people's power.
No government entity has any legitimate power that was not given to it by the people. That is basic to the very nature of a system in which the people are sovereign.
The parent's role is the serve the child. The child wants to play with fire. The parent goes against the child's wishes, and takes the box of matches away from the child.
Here, the parent defies the will of the child, but you would still say that the parent is doing what's in the best interests of the child and ultimately serving him/her. The child just doesn't realize it, because the child is uneducated and immature.
You can disagree with me all you want, this part is not opinion but fact. I didn't make this government up, I'm just relating the obvious.
The concept is the same in how we elect representatives to make decisions for "the people". You know how we elect the President? Or how we have Congressmen carrying out legislation for us, ambassadors representing us, etc.
Government being 100% accountable to its people is only theoretical. There is give and take in reality.
Your question needs not answering. I merely have to ask how the relationship between an infertile male and female couple is consequential to society in a way that any other relationship between a consenting fertile couple is not.
In terms of the state involving itself in the myriad of other alternatives I don't have an answer for that. I have not thought much about them and don't have a strong opinion for them.
None of these questions are truly relevant to the issue of gay marriage
The state has no reasonable or Constitutionally permissible way to determine the fertility of individuals and there is no need for it to do so. It is not necessary that the requirements for a license guarantee the state's interest in issuing the license is satisfied. The requirements merely need to be reasonably related to the state's interest and that interest must be legitimate. There is no doubt that the requirement for a man and a woman is reasonably related to the state's interest.
These questions have everything to do with marriage. Marriage exists for a reason. It is precisely the very real consequence of the the intimate relationship between a man and a woman that justifies the ste involving itself. The absence of any comparable or unique consequence to other types of consensual adult relationship negates any such need or justification for state involvement.
It has to be "THE reason" according to your logic and the Court of Appeals. The subjective opinion of whoever made that decision hardly constitutes an infallible justification. I can easily cite the opinions of the states and nations which have allowed gay marriage. This is about politics, and let's be real many people like yourself have your minds made up regardless of the logical justifications behind it. When the holes in your arguments come up, you just ignore them and use circular logic
There is no basis for your claim that only requirements related to THE purpose of a license are legitimate. There is a requirement that a person uncover their face for a drivers license photo or they will not be issued the license. That requirement has nothing to do with the ONLY purpose the state has for issuing the license, it is not even related to the state's primary interest.
This is about politics and that is why it is rightly settled politically.
I don't know if I'd say "rightly" but yes the reality is that regardless of what's right, wrong, or best for the country or people, this issue will be resolved politically.
From a logical perspective, yes my claim stands. But from a political perspective, then you really don't need any justification to implement restrictions. So I don't even know why you even bother bringing up the whole fallacious procreation argument. You might as well just stick with, "Your opinions are less popular"
There is nothing fallacious about the procreation arguments for marriage. It has been accepted by legislatures and courts for centuries. Aside from that, arguments should have substance to them.
In the absence of such substance you are left with meaningless platitudes like "Marriage Equality" when all marriages are equal.
Arguments should have substance to them,. Unfortunately the ones you've put forth (those legislatures and courts you talk about) are riddled with logical holes, flaws, and inconsistencies, which is the point. This isn't about substance at all. It's obviously just the majority wielding their political power and waving it over the head of a less powerful minority.
Fallacy = Procreation as licensing criteria given the numerous infertile exceptions being allowed to marry. Consistency
That would possibly amount to a fallacy if, and only if, the state had a reasonable and permissible way to distinguish those individuals who individually were infertile. The state does not, therefore their requirement for a man and a woman is reasonable.
These are excuses. I've given plenty of viable solutions to judge infertility (i.e. obvious examples like 80 year olds). "Reasonable" here is subjective. It's "reasonable" to you, because you are biased against gay marriage. So to you, bending the rules on the procreation requirement/justification for heterosexuals seems perfectly fine, while to those of us who are in favor of gay marriage obviously see the exceptions as unreasonable. For it to be logically sound, it must always make sense
No, your "solutions" amount to either discriminating against women over some arbitrary age that may or may not accurately distinguish individual fertility or subjecting everyone to intrusive and expensive medical tests that the US Supreme Court has ruled to be an impermissible violation of privacy rights.
Laws are not created in a vacuum. Real limits exist and must be accounted for.
So it's not okay to discriminate against women of a certain age but it is okay to discriminate against gays? Mmmmkay
Funny how you can be sympathetic to minor inconveniences for "intrusive and expensive" medical tests and "privacy rights" for some U.S. citizens, yet you have a complete callousness towards the plight of others who may face even larger "inconveniences"
No one IS being discriminated against currently. That is where you make a fundamental mistake. Homosexuals generally CHOOSE not to get married because they find one of the requirements for a marriage license to be distasteful. There is nothing in the law that prohibits a homosexual from marrying. The state does not inquire about an individual's sexual preference in applying for a marriage license.
You, however, propose prohibiting people from marriage on the basis of both sex and age.
Nice change of topic there once your bias against homosexuals was exposed. I wasn't talking about marriage discrimination. I was pointing out how you're willing to make exceptions and bend the rules for infertile heterosexual couples, yet you think it's unreasonable for gay couples to marry, when from your own procreation argument, they are the reproductive equivalent.
As I've already said in the past, I prefer no prohibitions based on procreation. That was your stance not mine.
Exactly how did I change topic? You accused me of approving discrimination against homosexuals. I merely stated that the current law does not discriminate.
Allowing individuals who happen to have a physical infirmity that the state does not and cannot be aware of, a license is not making an exception or bending a rule. The rule is one man and one woman. That rule is reasonable given the state's interest.
Wrong. The current law discriminates. Even you admitted that licensing schemes discriminate before.
And since that licensing scheme is supposedly procreation, it fails massively in terms of its own justifying logic given its inconsistency in application.
That's funny that I have more common sense than our gov't. The gov't can't tell an 80 year old couple can't produce a child. Really?
We are not talking about the state's interest. We are talking about "reason" itself. It's illogical
The scheme is applied inconsistency if "procreation" is the justifying logic behind segregating a social group from an institution
Human biology requires a FERTILE AND WILLING man and woman. Not just any man and woman. If procreation is so important that it actually restricts people from marriage, then it must do so consistently
I say 80 year old couple. As in the 80 year old wife he's married to and would supposed to be having exclusive sex with isn't going to be bearing a child.
At a minimum, human reproduction requires a man and a woman. You may argue that the requirement could be more stringent, but so what? Virtually every requirement for every license could be made more stringent. That does not make the existing requirement any less legitimate.
Your insistence that the law account for all possible outlying situations is quite simply unreasonable as no licensing scheme can or does.
You're wrong. A man and woman is not the minimum. An infertile or unwilling man and woman will not have a baby. Therefore, a mere male/female requirement is not the actual minimum, even if the law treats it as the minimum
So what? If the laws aren't based in anything reasonable, then they should be changed. Duh. Which is why gay marriage should be allowed since the government is clearly ALREADY not taking the procreation justification seriously. As is evidenced by their actions
One more time. There is no reasonable or constitutionally permissible way for the state to determine the fertility of individuals applying for a marriage license. What you are proposing as a condition of marriage in not legally permissible. The requirements for a license do not have to guarantee that the state's interest will be met, they merely need to be reasonably related to that interest.
"Reasonable," "constitutionally permissible," and reasonably related" are all subjective and socially constructed. They're based on opinions versus being scientific fact based. So when you repeat yourself over and over again, it doesn't make it any more true. That's merely your opinion, and since you've already demonstrated a healthy prejudice against homosexuals, it doesn't take a genius to see you're simply justifying your own biases with your preconceived and unjustified intolerance
This is not a question of science. It is a question of public policy. There are constraints in public policy and among them are legality and reasonableness.
As we make public policy in this nation through democratic means, public opinion is not an irrelevant measure.
There is no evidence to suggest that marriage was created as a social institution in response to any animus toward homosexuals.
Ultimately this is about public policy I agree. Science, legality, and reasonableness all influence that public policy
Unfortunately, so does unreasonableness, lies, hate, bigotry, misinformation, etc. Voters, policy makers, judges, etc. are all human, all have biases, and all can make mistakes or errors in judgment
Democracy an certainly be a virtue but it can also be an instrument of evil. I never said public policy was irrelevant. I just don't treat it as infallible or an absolute good
I never said marriage was created as a social institution in response to any animus toward homosexuals. But marriage is definitely 100% a social construction (as in, made by humans). Therefore, it's subject to change
Even if you have Thomas Jeff on your side, he is not infallible, and I have the gov't creators on "my side". I didn't create this government. I am simply working within the confines of something made before my time. And fortunately, it includes checks and balances
I assume that you mean the majority opinion = "the state's interest". Correct me if I'm interpreting you wrong.
The circular logic is that you are using the majority's opinion to justify the majority's opinion. That's why I said you might as well drop the whole pretense. People have formed opinions regardless of whether it's right or best for the US
The state's interest involves civil rights and equality. "The rule" is unreasonable because the institution is subordinating a social group
Yes, the state's interest is what the majority of the people in that state say it is.
There is nothing circular about stating that the majority of the people believe that the state has an interest in X (therefore X is a state interest) and that justifies the majority's support for a specific policy that furthers that interest.
No one is denied a civil right or equal access to marriage. Homosexuals CHOOSE not to get married, they are not prohibited from doing so.
Okay I'm glad you clarified what you meant by "state's interest". So basically you're just using circular reasoning. Your justifying opinion with the opinions themselves as opposed to actually giving a logical basis behind those opinions.
Among the many civil rights and equal access issues about the current institution of marriage is the inability to get married to somebody you actually want to get married to. Y'know somebody you wouldn't want to cheat on. Or actually want to have sex with
There is nothing circular about the argument. The people created an institution to serve a purpose. It is their institution to serve the purpose they have for it.
No one has an unconditional ability to marry the person of their choice. The conditions and restrictions on marriage apply equally to everyone.
I used basic logic to show your circular arguments. Your conclusions equate to your premises simply by substituting the words you use with the meanings you yourself have posited. It's the transitive property of logic. Using different words to repeat yourself hardly constitutes a logical argument
But anyways, it appears you either don't comprehend this or do and feign ignorance so we're done.
The majority is always right argument doesn't fly. Re: Nazi Germany, racism, sexism, etc.
If you believe that to be logic, I suggest another course in Reasoning for you. That is NOT a circular argument.
In our system of government, the majority IS always right unless a previous (larger) majority has said otherwise. We live in a system where the people are sovereign.
You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. We disagree on logic.
Your conception of government is incorrect. The people are sovereign, but "the people" includes minorities not just a majority. If our gov't was a direct democracy you'd be correct. We aren't. There are limits on the political power of "the people". Your assumptions on how our nation works is misinformed (or only partially correct and over simplistic) and incorrect. But again, clearly we're not going to agree on that
I have Thomas jefferson on my side. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
Seems to me the document that founded our nation says "the people" have all the power and they should only allow government to exercise any of it when that government is responsive to "the people."
@u3q2v You're right, if we had to solely stand by the laws made out of referendums, all the majority would rule that black people should be segregated, Asians' logical skills should be exploited, Hispanics should be reduces to slavery, and gays should be taken to jail just for being so. Sometimes I think that people think with their feet, not with their head.
The checks and balances are limits on all power, including "the people" or the masses. This is just fact, and I'm not even going to argue with you on this. If you don't understand this basic fact that's taught in schools, I can't help you.
I understand what you're saying about people ultimately serving the gov't, but there are times when the gov't and our Constitution go against the will of the masses to protect the civil liberties of its people. Ultimately it's for the greater good.
You've yet to prove that marriage was created by man for the procreation purpose you've asserted. But even if we take that to be the truth, it's still irrelevant because the institution has clearly become larger than that single purpose
To date the majority (not "people", because the voting losers still count as people last time I checked) has rejected the revision...in certain places. Not all. Racists were once the voting majority too. What the majority want isn't necessarily the best
What kind of proof do you need? Courts have acknowledged the purpose for centuries. From 1873,
"One of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children ... This is implied in the very nature of the contract of marriage." (Carris v. Carris)
to 2006,
"Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth." (Hernandez v. Robles)
Thank you for attempting to provide proof by citing your sources at least. I looked up the 1873 case, and really didn't find much on it. It looks like a case between a married couple where 1 partner only married because he thought he'd impregnated his wife. Correct me if that's wrong. Anyhow, it doesn't seem relevant to gay marriage, and I didn't even find the quote you listed. It's hard for me to understand the quote's context without seeing the whole thing
The 2006 quote is from a ruling that prohibits marriage based on the opinion of a biased heterosexist. That's hardly proof. When I ask for proof, I mean sources from all the way back in history showing that all the institutions of marriage were started because of procreation and solely because of it. It can't just be 1 reason either. It has to be THE reason as you often claim.
The arbitrary opinions of some individuals on the purpose of marriage in recent times isn't proof.
1873 was less than 100 years after our Constitution was ratified.
And, no it does not have to be THE reason. As the IN Court of Appeals put it,
"The key question in our view is whether the recognition of same-sex marriage would promote all of the same state interests that opposite-sex marriage does, including the interest in marital procreation. If it would not, then limiting the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples is rational and acceptable.." (Morrison v Sadler, 821 NE2d 15) 2005
"The fact that two men or two women are deeply in love and have been together for years is irrelevant as that relationship is of little to no real consequence to society and the state therefore has no reason to involve itself."
This would be incorrect. It's the intangible processes that you neglect which DO have an impact on the health and functioning of society which is what you are neglecting.
"Homosexuals are subject to the same restrictions on marriage as everyone else. "
And more.
Restrictions also aren't just limited to political or legal processes (which is the part you tend to be caught up with). Restrictions occur in intangible but significant ways and these things impact the political, economic, and social health and functioning of the nation.
And while everybody is subject to restrictions, some are more restricted than others.
Go ahead and keep pointing out that it's not fair, it won't do any good.
Of COURSE it's not fair. It's OBVIOUSLY not fair.
But as long as people who hate you get to vote on it, you will not win, because when people hate you, they enjoy being unfair. Their aim is to hurt you.
People are just not capable of saying "You know, I hate you, but I think you deserve equal rights".
So, sorry, but until people stop being hateful idiots, gay marriage will not happen here in retarded America.
I know, Sean, and I'm saying that people don't care if it's unconstitutional, and that includes judges: I don't trust their ability to put aside their 'moral values' or their prejudices.
Gays had better be careful about this "It's unconstitutional!" business: all it takes is a petition to amend your state's Constitution, another public votet, and WHAM, it becomes Constitutional.
The same people get to vote on amending your Constitution to say NO GAY MARRIAGE, and they'll do it.
What about the bigger policies that will come out of gay marriage? Like gay couple adoptions...i dont want my kids to think its normal because its not. I have no problem with gay marriage. What one person does to himself, whether its gay marriage or drug use, is their right, as long as it doesnt harm others. On the other hand, some kids are starving, gay parents or not, they need to be adopted.
@MyGrassroots, tens of thousands of gay couples around the nation (and the world) have adopted children, including "DepFox" on YouTube. The concept of gay parents is normal, but if you don't want your kids to think it's not, that is your responsibility and no one else's. Essentially, where we are headed towards is full dignity, respect and equal civil human rights, and I think it will be a wonderful evolutionary step for our country.
So in your opinion, even though there is no evidence that gays are bad parents...you think you can limit their reproductive and adoption rights? How do you purpose we do that. Gays are not infertile, and you would rather a child sit in broken foster care systems that dont love and care for them. The very children that heteroseuxal have thrown away. Just so you dont have to think about or acknowlege our existence. So you wont be offended. How sad and pathetic! SELFISH AND BIGOTED
@osvaldoc70, maybe one day there will be a scouting organization that will include both boys and girls - the idea isn't as funny as some might think it today.
@nnjhansen, LGBT Americans are denied the civil right of marriage to the ones we love, the right to openly serve in the military, the right to adopt children as a second parent/spouse and the right to be protected from all forms of discrimination among other rights. I believe that all American citizens are entitled to dignity, respect and full equal civil rights, as we are all entitled to the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
@nnjhansen, I believe that we are going to fundamentally disagree about the right to marriage, and I am fine to agree to disagree, respect those whose views differ from mine, and respect our government whose courts have and continue to clarify the fundamental civil right of marriage.
I wish you would at least attempt to justify your position. Constantly asserting something without offering anything in the way of substantiation is unhelpful and indicative of a weak or even non-existent argument.
@nnjhansen, based on the hundreds of comments that you have made on my videos discussing this topic, I sincerely believe that we are going to fundamentally disagree about the right to marriage, and with all due respect to you, I don't see a need to continue this argument with you.
Based on your inability to substantiate your assertion that you are being denied a right, I believe you have no argument to make.
Do you believe the state has any ability to set any conditions or requirements on civil marriage? Why?
What restrictions, if any, are permissible? Why?
If there is in fact a fundamental right to marry anyone you choose, you should be prepared to answer these questions and more. That you cannot indicates a lack of serious consideration of the subject.
@nnjhansen Stop playing the ignorance card: you DO have the right to marry who you love (if that person will have your dumb azz)
There are no restrictions on straight civil marriages, only gay marriages (like this on giant restriction: we can't have one).
The inability to obtain a state license infringes on MY life, MY liberty and MY pursuit of happiness. Unless of course you think gay people are "no one".
There is NO right to marry who you love. There are (and always have been) a number of restrictions on marriage that apply equally to everyone.
As the lack of a license does not cause your death, confinement, or restrict you from any lawful activity, it infringes neither life, liberty, nor the ability to pursue happiness.
Try to have some idea of what you are talking about before you shoot your mouth off. Ignorance does your side no good in this discussion.
There ARE NO RESTRICTIONS on two unrelated adults of the opposite sex who want to get married. None. Not one. Not race, blood type, age, maturity level, crime record, or residence.
Please tell ME now of one of your imaginary restrictions. THERE AREN'T ANY. And if there are, it's high time that you let gay people be "victimized" by these same "restrictions" that allow everyone else in America to be married to the person they love.
Since you just listed three of the restrictions on marriage yourself (age, unrelated, and of the opposite sex) yourself, you have made my point for me. You can also add, consent, currently unmarried, and (at least in CA) the ability to consummate.
All of those restrictions are reasonably related to the state's legitimate interest in marriage.
The military does not have such a policy. It is the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President. Unless you wish the military leadership to violate the law, they must continue to discharge those personnel who are ineligible for service.
What part of the word "repeal" did you not understand. By the way, this is the easiest item on the agenda list. Look for the repeal to happen this year.
It was not the word 'repeal' but the word 'policy' that I objected to.
I guess you did not get the word from Speaker Pelosi that she is now in campaign mode and is not going to force her more vulnerable members to make any more risky votes this session. Repeal of this law is not likely anytime soon, if ever.
ANYTHING you can do...we can do. How about not being fired after a good work record only because the boss heard a rumor that Im gay? How about service in the military?
ANYTHING that you can do WE can do! That includes marriage. That is EQUAL rights!
When you state that the boss fires you because you are supposedly gay, that seems more domesticated rather than national. If a man does not like gay people and finds that there is one working for him, he will probably dismiss him in any legal matter while hiding up the true reasoning. There is no bill in the world that can change the way one personally views a group of people.
Ahhh...but he needs to find other reasons. As it currently is he needs no other reason than the fact that I love someone of the same sex. An act that has no relation to job performance. So If I am a good employee I should keep my job because I do the job that is required.
The silent uneasiness that exists in a work place due to one's sexual preferences will not be cured by this bill. But, hopefully this bill will make the predators more vulnerable; stronger lawsuits for victims of gay dislike and recommended therapy for homophobics who are discontent with the gays' equality.
THANK YOU for posting this video - I wish I could be there with you. My love, thanks and support to everyone out there fighting for us. Is there a site with info on local rallies and demonstrations?? I can't find any!
Good job, Sean. It shows forethought during filming (the pans from the signs to the people holding them); dramatic, energetic editing; good rhythm; effective choice of music, and the finished result serves the message well.
To all who are in this fight for freedom to marry, I speak for so many people in my state of Connecticut who support the struggle to legalize same sex marriage everywhere. CT legalized it last year with very little protest. It's an amazing feeling to have so many people support gay marriage here in this state and I hope that everyone in California will feel this same feeling very soon.
Thanks Sean for capturing this footage yesterday... My wife and I spoke.I a new filmmaker that wanted to be filming yesterday, but I could not manage, speaking, filming and being bone cold. If you would be willing to share your footage with me; at least the part with my wife and I. I would be extremely appreciative. you can go to my channel fiveher2009 on youtube and send me a message.
@esoul57, thanks for speaking at the rally yesterday morning! I do have footage of your speech, and when I get time this weekend, I'll put up more videos of the rally. Thanks again!
Of course it won't be broadcast - they remember the marches last year in Los Angeles and elsewhere... they're worried we will riot - that's the poor, fool! Its the poor who riot!
Thanks so much for capturing this. I'm stuck in Salt Lake City and really wish I could be there for the trail in support of same sex rights. The news isn't covering much and its disappointing.
"Its only those who cannot marry at all who are aware of the extent to which marriage is an expression of basic civil rights" Nancy Cott, Harvard History Professor 01/11/10, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
@meheh, your Holocaust video also greatly inspired me too - you really should get your work out into the film festivals. Thanks again for the inspiration! :)
@tundrayacut, I just read your comment suggesting death toward LGBT people. I have deleted that comment and blocked you from my YouTube channel, and I will consider reporting you to the police. I do not take any kind of death threat lightly.
SeanChapin1 8 months ago
MORE THAN HALF OF CALIFORNIAN POPULATION SAY YES ON 8, WHY SOME STUPID PEOPLE WANNA CHANGE TO THE GAY-STUPID-RIGHTS TO HAVE A RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE ! DID YOU WANNA IGNORE A MORE THAN HALF OF PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA ??? THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, IT LOOKS LIKE A COMMUNIST REGIM FROM MY COUNTRY, THATS WHY AMERICA BECAME SOCIALISTIK AND COMMUNISTIK COUNTRY UNDER BABAMA HUSEIN RULES
tundrayacut 8 months ago
@tundrayacut, your comment borders on the hysterical with the all-caps presentation and references to a communist regime and "babama husein", not to mention shows disrespect toward gay people. Many who voted yes on 8 more than like voted out of ignorance and fear, and history has shown that once people get to know who we are as gay people and hear our stories, their thoughts and attitudes change toward LGBT equality. It's a matter of time before marriage and full equality is the norm.
SeanChapin1 8 months ago
I find it very interesting that a certin turd on here insists that marriages are there to "produce children", and yet it is perfectly legal for people to choose to have their tubes tied or a vascectomy.
marksmith46 8 months ago
gay people = stds
BocaJrs211 1 year ago
@BocaJrs211, can you please explain what you mean by saying "gay people = stds"?
SeanChapin1 1 year ago
i dont get it , what they want ?? WHo is against them ? gay's can marry each other right ? So why do they want to get marry in church ? They do know that church is against gay marriage right ? SO why don't their make their own church ?
zerackid 1 year ago
@zerackid, the LGBT community is fighting for the right to civil marriages that is recognized by the US government, which is separate from religious marriages, and gays and lesbians are currently banned from getting legally civilly married in over 40 states across the country. Those against the LGBT community fear/hate/are ignorant about gay people and the separation of church and state. There are religions including some churches that accept and embrace same-sex marriage.
SeanChapin1 1 year ago
@zerackid no one is trying to force a church to marry anyone. It isn't even legal. Like, you can't force a catholic church to perform a baptist wedding, or a synagogue to perform a muslim wedding. So really, shut up. My sister got maried in a civil ceremony performed by a judge: it's still a legal marriage whether or not it was blessed by a church. So again, shut up.
marksmith46 8 months ago
This trial will show that the Prop 8 supporters have no concrete evidence to show that allowing gay people to marry will be destructive to society. Prop 8 was passed with deep seated fear, hatred, ignorance and bigotry toward homosexuals. I have hope that one day very soon this disgusting piece of the California constitution will be wiped out!
summerrain018 1 year ago 2
LOVE IS LOVE, Marriage is not owned by religion and never has been
NewMadrid01 2 years ago
Marriage - between one man and one woman - is a civil right.
No other permutations of marriage are a right
garysher3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Homosexuals already have equal rights. Why do they try to perpetuate the lie that they don't?
garysher3 2 years ago
@garysher3, on what planet do you come from?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
@SeanChapin1 Planet Earth
And you?
I seem to remember you are the guy who blocked me from making comments on your videos.
So much for tolerance!
garysher3 2 years ago
@garysher3, if you made comments under "Garysher2", I blocked you because I don't tolerate the dehumanization of other people. You're free to let me know in a private message that you can show me that you wish to show full respect and dignity towards others, including not dehumanizing others, and I would be fine to give you a second chance.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Sean, I'll answer for Gary. He' s a VERY bitter man, and quite sexually frustrated and repressed. I have no doubt that he was abused as a child, and as a result he beats his wife and abuses his 2.5 below average children. He has spent literally months and months on youtube bashing gays. He has some SERIOUS issues surrounding his own sexuality. This video explains everything:
Middle Sexes Experiment on Homophobia
lisztnut 2 years ago
Sean, here is a youtube video that warns people about Garysher3:
Garysher3 is a pedophile
lisztnut 2 years ago
You gays must be deluded if u think this trial will be successful. Judge Walker is already known to be partial to your side. Even the supremes know this. Even if it wins on a federal level...Supremes will kick it out.
duttybarb 2 years ago
@duttybarb, do you have something against gay people? Do you mean to say "you gays" in a respectful way?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
@duttybarb Well, we will see then
rinomanfroni 1 year ago
in a animal world is totally other side-a female is looking 4 male ,,, and a male is looking 4 a female,,,,, gay and lesbian should learn a lot from animals, because animals are smarter than gay&lesbian couples
tundrayacut 2 years ago
@tundrayacut, homosexuality is found in countless species throughout our planet. You should do some more research to better understand sexual orientation in the animal world, and I would also strongly recommend that you brush up on your grammar. The more prejudiced against gay people you are today, the more regret you will feel later on in your life. Exercise your brain and understand how the world really works.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
why minority must to rule the majority? thats stupid ! do you want to be a gay-thats fine,its your choise, but the stupid gay has bring to the schools a book with gay scene-about dad+dad and a mom+mom ! thats bullshit !
tundrayacut 2 years ago
@tundrayacut, how is the minority ruling the majority? LGBT people are demanding dignity, respect and full equal civil human rights. Any American citizen would demand the same. Moreover, being gay is a discover, an immutable trait, and the choice is to live as yourself as opposed to living a lie. Gay families are a fact of life, and if parents don't like this, including children's books showing two dads/two moms, the parents are responsible to teach their children as such, not the schools.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
@tundrayacut You're really stupid and have no knowledge. The whole American Constitution was designed so that the majority does NOT rule over the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual. Do you understand that? What's more, you idiot, allowing gays to marry does not force anyone into a gay marriage, so what's your problem?
marksmith46 8 months ago
@marksmith46 You arte stupid-moron ! Let me tell you something, you just need to open your mind(if you have a normal mind? ) LOOK AROUND, look at the animals, the animals choose male and female, they choose each other, and this is a normal, ONLY some stupid-morons of people choose man-man or woman-woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know that animals are smarter, because animals did not change their mind, the animals are normal ! Some people are stupid, and they are doing stupid things
tundrayacut 8 months ago
@tundrayacut Oh you sad, sad idiot: animals don't love each other.
marksmith46 8 months ago
@marksmith46 Don't be an idiot, don"t be a moron man(or you are a woman) OPEN YOUR EYES AND MIND, AND VERY CAREFULLY LOOK AT THE ANIMALS, YOU'LL SEE A REAL LOVE, NOT STUPID-GAY-LOVE, ANIMALS LOVE EACH OTHER, AND HAVE A LOT OF BABIES, BECAUSE ANIMALS ARE SMSRTER THAT IDIOTS-GAY OR MORON-LESBIANS
tundrayacut 8 months ago
@tundrayacut I am not an idiot, you are. You can't construct a proper sentence and you can't spell. I know how to love people. All you know how to do is hate. You've got a SHlTTY life and an obvious need to feel superior to others. You're a sick, sad little fool. Animals don't love the way people do, and if you really, REALLY feel that they do, then think about it the next time you're eating a chicken or a piece of beef, you idiot bastard. Guess what? I hate you more. Dumbass.
marksmith46 8 months ago
This was beautiful. I love Milk and the song you chose. Thank you.
TimeOfYourLife4Ever 2 years ago
A guy came over tonight & he busted like 3 minutex in then left my dorm. I need a REAL man who can last more than 5 seconds!
hellodorkk77 2 years ago
Dont you finding it IRONIC that the same wingnuts want the healthcare debate broadcast for all to see, but dont want to have the Federal prop 8 trial broadcast?
neenerpuss 2 years ago
Exactly!
By broadcasting the trial, will make people accountable for the words they sprout behind the doors of the court.
Thood618 2 years ago
If the US Government approved same sex marriage, then the politician who run for office don't have any more reason to win the election, because for them, opposing gay marriage is a good way to express hatred against gay. Those candidate who oppose gay marriage always win the public heart which is really sad
Tgurl2008 2 years ago
Tgurl, you are very right. I don't even think many Republicans hate gays at all and don't give a damn if they get married.
However, they know that if they want to be re-elected, they must declare that they do. And democrats...sadly, they do the same thing. America just isn't going to accept pro-gay politicians on any large scale.
So, here we are, because politicians want to keep their jobs like anyone else.
marksmith46 2 years ago
nnjhanson: since you insist there are all kinds of restrictions on straight marriage (which you haven't been able to name), and there is no 'right to marry', how about you allow gay adults to be 'victimized' by these same 'restrictions' that allow every non-gay adult I know of to be married to the one who agrees to marry them too?
I would LOVE to be equally victimized, if only in sympathy for these unfair restrictions of yours.
Let us unite with you in your misery.
(You're a moron)
marksmith46 2 years ago 2
Homosexuals are subject to the same restrictions on marriage as everyone else.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You and I both know that a gay man can't marry another gay man, even if they are deeply in love and have been in a relationship for years and years, and it isn't fair, kind, humanitarian, or necessary to a peaceful society to keep them from that.
Play your word games all you want to, but the fact remains, we can't marry each other.
So why are you here? To complain you don't have that right either?
So join the fight then, instead of maintaining the inequality.
What a game player.
marksmith46 2 years ago
No, a man cannot marry another man regardless of either's sexual preference. The law does not distinguish on the basis of sexual orientation. EQUAL
The state does not issue licenses so that the recipients can get benefits, it issues licenses so that society benefits. The fact that two men or two women are deeply in love and have been together for years is irrelevant as that relationship is of little to no real consequence to society and the state therefore has no reason to involve itself.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You're doing exactly what I said in another post: you hate gays so you don't care if it's fair, generous, kind, or representative of American Equality and Justice.
What a waste of time..
You'll take my money but you won't give it back. You'll use my money but you won't let me use yours. You'll get into shitty marriages that also have no consequence to society, except to clog up our divorce courts and raise horrible children.
Try acting out of kindness for once instead of logic.
marksmith46 2 years ago
Equality exists when the law applies equally to all, not when it impacts everyone equally. Justice occurs when the law is fairly administered not when it is changed to suit your personal whims.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Your opinion is idiotic and nothing but justification of hate.
It wouldn't hurt anyone to allow gay Americans to wed each other.
And America shouldn't work so hard at deliberately hurting its own citizens.
The people who spray paint 'FAGGOTS SHOULD DIE" also voted against gay marriage too. For "societal benefits', 'morals' or 'logic'?
Bulshit. It's all driven by hate and hate should never drive public policy.
Happiest nation on earth: Norway. And they have gay marriage.
marksmith46 2 years ago
It would destroy the linkage between the institution and the purpose for which it was created. Having it imposed by a court would hurt the concept of self-government.
It is not hateful to acknowledge that the relationship between a man and a woman is uniquely significant to society. It is merely an acceptance of a biological reality.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
it wouldn't destroy YOUR linkage, in any way. You choose to see it that way because you hate gay people.
We are a biological reality simply because we exist. We're also human beings and taxpaying contributors to society, not jellyfish or amoebas.
Allowing gay marriage doesn't force anyone to get into a gay marriage.
Where is my self government if YOU say "No"? I am not forcing you into a gay marriage!
JERKOFF, just admit you hate gay people.
marksmith46 2 years ago
It would destroy THE linkage. That you believe a linkage that has been acknowledged for centuries is based on hate shows how irrational your thoughts are on this matter.
Were you denied the ability to vote? That is how self-government is exercised.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I said nothing about a linkage, YOU did.
Gays deserve the benefits of marriage, for example, being able to obtain their life partner's social security benefits when he or she dies.
They paid into it all their working lives, and they deserve to know that it goes to support their life partner.
Does it benefit society to have elderly people living on welfare because they got cheated out of what str8 married people got?
You can't convince me you're not a gay hating ass, so stop trying.
marksmith46 2 years ago 2
And what's more, traditions and all that crap can be changed, amended, and accepted, centuries old or not. Big whoop if they are.
Hate should never dictate public policy.
marksmith46 2 years ago 3
If we are talking about "biological reality" then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, in that's existed throughout history even when societies want to get rid of it.
And "marriage" is a social construct. It is created by people and can be abolished and changed by people. There is no biological reality to marriage. There is more biological reality to homosexual partnerships than the artificial institution of marriage created by man. Therefore it's subject to revision.
u3q2v 2 years ago 5
Whether homosexuality is a 'biological reality' is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that homosexuality exists does not mean that the relationship between two men or two women is in any meaningful way consequential to society.
Marriage was created by man to serve a specific purpose and to date the people have rejected your proposed revision every time they have been asked.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I forget, you get to decide what is "relevant" to all discussions. And you're the one who brought up "biological reality" first. I just clarified the obvious truth that you seemed to forget.
What is "consequential" to society is subjective and constantly changing. Marriage serves multiple purposes not limited to just procreation or even partnership licensing. Your neglecting or refusal to acknowledge those societal consequences is where we disagree
By "the people" you mean the "majority"
u3q2v 2 years ago
Then you tell me, how is the relationship between two men or two women consequential to society in a way that any other relationship between consenting adults is not? Why should the state involve itself in that relationship and not the myriad of other alternatives?
Yes, the people means a majority. That is how our system works.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I agree that is how our system works, I disagree that "the people" is only the majority. "The people" consists of the majority and the minority, it's just that the majority gets their way. Which is fine because that's how our country works and we can't all get our way 100% of the time.
Fortunately part of our system is also overturning tyranny of the majority if they make ill-informed or bad decisions through other legitimate political channels. Like say trampling over civil liberties.
u3q2v 2 years ago
Who, in our system, is empowered to 'overturn the tyranny of the majority' and where does this power come from?
Before you say the courts, ask yourself on what basis the Court can legitimately overturn a law. The only such basis is either the US Constitution or the constitution of the respective state. Those documents, however are at their most basic, also simply reflections of popular will.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The other branches of our government. Direct democracy and majority voting is only 1 component of our thankfully complex government which is a Constitutional Republic.
The Courts can legitimately overturn a law as you said based on the US Constitution. However, it's not based on "popular will". The popularity contests are for the other branches of government. Straight from Wikipedia: "majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law". It's called "checks and balances"
u3q2v 2 years ago
The Constitution is explicitly an expression of the popular will. The document begins, "We the People." It is the rules by which the people have chosen to be governed. The document is amended by a process meant to ensure widespread popular approval.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The Constitution definitely attempts to support the popular will to an extent, but not in every and all instances. One of it's key important aspects is helping to guarantee the liberty and rights of its people even if the popular or majority will neglects them. Our forefathers specifically included checks and balances to prevent tyranny of the majority. Sadly the majority can be ignorant or make poor decisions, which is why our country was not designed to simply be a Direct Democracy.
u3q2v 2 years ago
The Constitution is the rule book the people gave to the government. The checks and balances are limits on government power, not the people's power.
No government entity has any legitimate power that was not given to it by the people. That is basic to the very nature of a system in which the people are sovereign.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Analogy:
Parent = Government
Child = Masses/Majority Voters
The parent's role is the serve the child. The child wants to play with fire. The parent goes against the child's wishes, and takes the box of matches away from the child.
Here, the parent defies the will of the child, but you would still say that the parent is doing what's in the best interests of the child and ultimately serving him/her. The child just doesn't realize it, because the child is uneducated and immature.
u3q2v 2 years ago
I could not disagree with you more.
The people created the government, the government has no power except that given to it by the people.
That you look at the government as a parent is quite illuminating.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You can disagree with me all you want, this part is not opinion but fact. I didn't make this government up, I'm just relating the obvious.
The concept is the same in how we elect representatives to make decisions for "the people". You know how we elect the President? Or how we have Congressmen carrying out legislation for us, ambassadors representing us, etc.
Government being 100% accountable to its people is only theoretical. There is give and take in reality.
u3q2v 2 years ago
Your question needs not answering. I merely have to ask how the relationship between an infertile male and female couple is consequential to society in a way that any other relationship between a consenting fertile couple is not.
In terms of the state involving itself in the myriad of other alternatives I don't have an answer for that. I have not thought much about them and don't have a strong opinion for them.
None of these questions are truly relevant to the issue of gay marriage
u3q2v 2 years ago
The state has no reasonable or Constitutionally permissible way to determine the fertility of individuals and there is no need for it to do so. It is not necessary that the requirements for a license guarantee the state's interest in issuing the license is satisfied. The requirements merely need to be reasonably related to the state's interest and that interest must be legitimate. There is no doubt that the requirement for a man and a woman is reasonably related to the state's interest.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
These questions have everything to do with marriage. Marriage exists for a reason. It is precisely the very real consequence of the the intimate relationship between a man and a woman that justifies the ste involving itself. The absence of any comparable or unique consequence to other types of consensual adult relationship negates any such need or justification for state involvement.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
It has to be "THE reason" according to your logic and the Court of Appeals. The subjective opinion of whoever made that decision hardly constitutes an infallible justification. I can easily cite the opinions of the states and nations which have allowed gay marriage. This is about politics, and let's be real many people like yourself have your minds made up regardless of the logical justifications behind it. When the holes in your arguments come up, you just ignore them and use circular logic
u3q2v 2 years ago
There is no basis for your claim that only requirements related to THE purpose of a license are legitimate. There is a requirement that a person uncover their face for a drivers license photo or they will not be issued the license. That requirement has nothing to do with the ONLY purpose the state has for issuing the license, it is not even related to the state's primary interest.
This is about politics and that is why it is rightly settled politically.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I don't know if I'd say "rightly" but yes the reality is that regardless of what's right, wrong, or best for the country or people, this issue will be resolved politically.
From a logical perspective, yes my claim stands. But from a political perspective, then you really don't need any justification to implement restrictions. So I don't even know why you even bother bringing up the whole fallacious procreation argument. You might as well just stick with, "Your opinions are less popular"
u3q2v 2 years ago
There is nothing fallacious about the procreation arguments for marriage. It has been accepted by legislatures and courts for centuries. Aside from that, arguments should have substance to them.
In the absence of such substance you are left with meaningless platitudes like "Marriage Equality" when all marriages are equal.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Arguments should have substance to them,. Unfortunately the ones you've put forth (those legislatures and courts you talk about) are riddled with logical holes, flaws, and inconsistencies, which is the point. This isn't about substance at all. It's obviously just the majority wielding their political power and waving it over the head of a less powerful minority.
Fallacy = Procreation as licensing criteria given the numerous infertile exceptions being allowed to marry. Consistency
u3q2v 2 years ago
That would possibly amount to a fallacy if, and only if, the state had a reasonable and permissible way to distinguish those individuals who individually were infertile. The state does not, therefore their requirement for a man and a woman is reasonable.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
These are excuses. I've given plenty of viable solutions to judge infertility (i.e. obvious examples like 80 year olds). "Reasonable" here is subjective. It's "reasonable" to you, because you are biased against gay marriage. So to you, bending the rules on the procreation requirement/justification for heterosexuals seems perfectly fine, while to those of us who are in favor of gay marriage obviously see the exceptions as unreasonable. For it to be logically sound, it must always make sense
u3q2v 2 years ago
No, your "solutions" amount to either discriminating against women over some arbitrary age that may or may not accurately distinguish individual fertility or subjecting everyone to intrusive and expensive medical tests that the US Supreme Court has ruled to be an impermissible violation of privacy rights.
Laws are not created in a vacuum. Real limits exist and must be accounted for.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
So it's not okay to discriminate against women of a certain age but it is okay to discriminate against gays? Mmmmkay
Funny how you can be sympathetic to minor inconveniences for "intrusive and expensive" medical tests and "privacy rights" for some U.S. citizens, yet you have a complete callousness towards the plight of others who may face even larger "inconveniences"
u3q2v 2 years ago
No one IS being discriminated against currently. That is where you make a fundamental mistake. Homosexuals generally CHOOSE not to get married because they find one of the requirements for a marriage license to be distasteful. There is nothing in the law that prohibits a homosexual from marrying. The state does not inquire about an individual's sexual preference in applying for a marriage license.
You, however, propose prohibiting people from marriage on the basis of both sex and age.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Nice change of topic there once your bias against homosexuals was exposed. I wasn't talking about marriage discrimination. I was pointing out how you're willing to make exceptions and bend the rules for infertile heterosexual couples, yet you think it's unreasonable for gay couples to marry, when from your own procreation argument, they are the reproductive equivalent.
As I've already said in the past, I prefer no prohibitions based on procreation. That was your stance not mine.
u3q2v 2 years ago
Exactly how did I change topic? You accused me of approving discrimination against homosexuals. I merely stated that the current law does not discriminate.
Allowing individuals who happen to have a physical infirmity that the state does not and cannot be aware of, a license is not making an exception or bending a rule. The rule is one man and one woman. That rule is reasonable given the state's interest.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Wrong. The current law discriminates. Even you admitted that licensing schemes discriminate before.
And since that licensing scheme is supposedly procreation, it fails massively in terms of its own justifying logic given its inconsistency in application.
That's funny that I have more common sense than our gov't. The gov't can't tell an 80 year old couple can't produce a child. Really?
We are not talking about the state's interest. We are talking about "reason" itself. It's illogical
u3q2v 2 years ago
OK, the current law does not IMPROPERLY discriminate.
The state's interest IS the reason it involves itself and issues a license.
The scheme is not applied inconsistently. Human biology requires a man and a woman for reproduction. The standard is a man and a woman.
You need to stop speaking of 80yo couples as an 80yo male may well be perfectly capable of fathering a child.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The scheme is applied inconsistency if "procreation" is the justifying logic behind segregating a social group from an institution
Human biology requires a FERTILE AND WILLING man and woman. Not just any man and woman. If procreation is so important that it actually restricts people from marriage, then it must do so consistently
I say 80 year old couple. As in the 80 year old wife he's married to and would supposed to be having exclusive sex with isn't going to be bearing a child.
u3q2v 2 years ago
At a minimum, human reproduction requires a man and a woman. You may argue that the requirement could be more stringent, but so what? Virtually every requirement for every license could be made more stringent. That does not make the existing requirement any less legitimate.
Your insistence that the law account for all possible outlying situations is quite simply unreasonable as no licensing scheme can or does.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You're wrong. A man and woman is not the minimum. An infertile or unwilling man and woman will not have a baby. Therefore, a mere male/female requirement is not the actual minimum, even if the law treats it as the minimum
So what? If the laws aren't based in anything reasonable, then they should be changed. Duh. Which is why gay marriage should be allowed since the government is clearly ALREADY not taking the procreation justification seriously. As is evidenced by their actions
u3q2v 2 years ago
Maybe you need to learn what minimum means.
One more time. There is no reasonable or constitutionally permissible way for the state to determine the fertility of individuals applying for a marriage license. What you are proposing as a condition of marriage in not legally permissible. The requirements for a license do not have to guarantee that the state's interest will be met, they merely need to be reasonably related to that interest.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"Reasonable," "constitutionally permissible," and reasonably related" are all subjective and socially constructed. They're based on opinions versus being scientific fact based. So when you repeat yourself over and over again, it doesn't make it any more true. That's merely your opinion, and since you've already demonstrated a healthy prejudice against homosexuals, it doesn't take a genius to see you're simply justifying your own biases with your preconceived and unjustified intolerance
u3q2v 2 years ago
This is not a question of science. It is a question of public policy. There are constraints in public policy and among them are legality and reasonableness.
As we make public policy in this nation through democratic means, public opinion is not an irrelevant measure.
There is no evidence to suggest that marriage was created as a social institution in response to any animus toward homosexuals.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Ultimately this is about public policy I agree. Science, legality, and reasonableness all influence that public policy
Unfortunately, so does unreasonableness, lies, hate, bigotry, misinformation, etc. Voters, policy makers, judges, etc. are all human, all have biases, and all can make mistakes or errors in judgment
Democracy an certainly be a virtue but it can also be an instrument of evil. I never said public policy was irrelevant. I just don't treat it as infallible or an absolute good
u3q2v 2 years ago
I never said marriage was created as a social institution in response to any animus toward homosexuals. But marriage is definitely 100% a social construction (as in, made by humans). Therefore, it's subject to change
Even if you have Thomas Jeff on your side, he is not infallible, and I have the gov't creators on "my side". I didn't create this government. I am simply working within the confines of something made before my time. And fortunately, it includes checks and balances
u3q2v 2 years ago
I assume that you mean the majority opinion = "the state's interest". Correct me if I'm interpreting you wrong.
The circular logic is that you are using the majority's opinion to justify the majority's opinion. That's why I said you might as well drop the whole pretense. People have formed opinions regardless of whether it's right or best for the US
The state's interest involves civil rights and equality. "The rule" is unreasonable because the institution is subordinating a social group
u3q2v 2 years ago
Yes, the state's interest is what the majority of the people in that state say it is.
There is nothing circular about stating that the majority of the people believe that the state has an interest in X (therefore X is a state interest) and that justifies the majority's support for a specific policy that furthers that interest.
No one is denied a civil right or equal access to marriage. Homosexuals CHOOSE not to get married, they are not prohibited from doing so.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Okay I'm glad you clarified what you meant by "state's interest". So basically you're just using circular reasoning. Your justifying opinion with the opinions themselves as opposed to actually giving a logical basis behind those opinions.
Among the many civil rights and equal access issues about the current institution of marriage is the inability to get married to somebody you actually want to get married to. Y'know somebody you wouldn't want to cheat on. Or actually want to have sex with
u3q2v 2 years ago
There is nothing circular about the argument. The people created an institution to serve a purpose. It is their institution to serve the purpose they have for it.
No one has an unconditional ability to marry the person of their choice. The conditions and restrictions on marriage apply equally to everyone.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I used basic logic to show your circular arguments. Your conclusions equate to your premises simply by substituting the words you use with the meanings you yourself have posited. It's the transitive property of logic. Using different words to repeat yourself hardly constitutes a logical argument
But anyways, it appears you either don't comprehend this or do and feign ignorance so we're done.
The majority is always right argument doesn't fly. Re: Nazi Germany, racism, sexism, etc.
u3q2v 2 years ago
If you believe that to be logic, I suggest another course in Reasoning for you. That is NOT a circular argument.
In our system of government, the majority IS always right unless a previous (larger) majority has said otherwise. We live in a system where the people are sovereign.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. We disagree on logic.
Your conception of government is incorrect. The people are sovereign, but "the people" includes minorities not just a majority. If our gov't was a direct democracy you'd be correct. We aren't. There are limits on the political power of "the people". Your assumptions on how our nation works is misinformed (or only partially correct and over simplistic) and incorrect. But again, clearly we're not going to agree on that
u3q2v 2 years ago
I have Thomas jefferson on my side. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
Seems to me the document that founded our nation says "the people" have all the power and they should only allow government to exercise any of it when that government is responsive to "the people."
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@u3q2v You're right, if we had to solely stand by the laws made out of referendums, all the majority would rule that black people should be segregated, Asians' logical skills should be exploited, Hispanics should be reduces to slavery, and gays should be taken to jail just for being so. Sometimes I think that people think with their feet, not with their head.
rinomanfroni 1 year ago
Why it's circular reasoning:
State interest = Majority opinion
Majority opinion = Doesn't want gay marriage
According to you: It's in the state's interest to not allow gay marriage.
Therefore: It's in the state's interest to enforce [the majority opinion]
Therefore, [The majority opinion] enforces [the majority opinion].
The majority actually agress with itself?! You don't say!
Stating that your opinion is your opinion is redundant and doesn't constitute "reason"
u3q2v 2 years ago
The checks and balances are limits on all power, including "the people" or the masses. This is just fact, and I'm not even going to argue with you on this. If you don't understand this basic fact that's taught in schools, I can't help you.
I understand what you're saying about people ultimately serving the gov't, but there are times when the gov't and our Constitution go against the will of the masses to protect the civil liberties of its people. Ultimately it's for the greater good.
u3q2v 2 years ago
You've yet to prove that marriage was created by man for the procreation purpose you've asserted. But even if we take that to be the truth, it's still irrelevant because the institution has clearly become larger than that single purpose
To date the majority (not "people", because the voting losers still count as people last time I checked) has rejected the revision...in certain places. Not all. Racists were once the voting majority too. What the majority want isn't necessarily the best
u3q2v 2 years ago
What kind of proof do you need? Courts have acknowledged the purpose for centuries. From 1873,
"One of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children ... This is implied in the very nature of the contract of marriage." (Carris v. Carris)
to 2006,
"Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth." (Hernandez v. Robles)
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Thank you for attempting to provide proof by citing your sources at least. I looked up the 1873 case, and really didn't find much on it. It looks like a case between a married couple where 1 partner only married because he thought he'd impregnated his wife. Correct me if that's wrong. Anyhow, it doesn't seem relevant to gay marriage, and I didn't even find the quote you listed. It's hard for me to understand the quote's context without seeing the whole thing
u3q2v 2 years ago
The 2006 quote is from a ruling that prohibits marriage based on the opinion of a biased heterosexist. That's hardly proof. When I ask for proof, I mean sources from all the way back in history showing that all the institutions of marriage were started because of procreation and solely because of it. It can't just be 1 reason either. It has to be THE reason as you often claim.
The arbitrary opinions of some individuals on the purpose of marriage in recent times isn't proof.
u3q2v 2 years ago
1873 was less than 100 years after our Constitution was ratified.
And, no it does not have to be THE reason. As the IN Court of Appeals put it,
"The key question in our view is whether the recognition of same-sex marriage would promote all of the same state interests that opposite-sex marriage does, including the interest in marital procreation. If it would not, then limiting the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples is rational and acceptable.." (Morrison v Sadler, 821 NE2d 15) 2005
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"The fact that two men or two women are deeply in love and have been together for years is irrelevant as that relationship is of little to no real consequence to society and the state therefore has no reason to involve itself."
This would be incorrect. It's the intangible processes that you neglect which DO have an impact on the health and functioning of society which is what you are neglecting.
u3q2v 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Homosexuals are subject to the same restrictions on marriage as everyone else. "
And more.
Restrictions also aren't just limited to political or legal processes (which is the part you tend to be caught up with). Restrictions occur in intangible but significant ways and these things impact the political, economic, and social health and functioning of the nation.
And while everybody is subject to restrictions, some are more restricted than others.
u3q2v 2 years ago
Go ahead and keep pointing out that it's not fair, it won't do any good.
Of COURSE it's not fair. It's OBVIOUSLY not fair.
But as long as people who hate you get to vote on it, you will not win, because when people hate you, they enjoy being unfair. Their aim is to hurt you.
People are just not capable of saying "You know, I hate you, but I think you deserve equal rights".
So, sorry, but until people stop being hateful idiots, gay marriage will not happen here in retarded America.
marksmith46 2 years ago
@marksmith46, that's why this Federal Prop 8 Trial exists, because it is unconstitutional for people to vote on the civil rights of others.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
I know, Sean, and I'm saying that people don't care if it's unconstitutional, and that includes judges: I don't trust their ability to put aside their 'moral values' or their prejudices.
Gays had better be careful about this "It's unconstitutional!" business: all it takes is a petition to amend your state's Constitution, another public votet, and WHAM, it becomes Constitutional.
The same people get to vote on amending your Constitution to say NO GAY MARRIAGE, and they'll do it.
marksmith46 2 years ago
I love this video thanks for posting it.
the only way my state (PA) is going to pass gay marriage is by absolute force.
the idea of gay rights in my state makes me smile more than anything else can think of.
This is not just about rights this is about my future and the future of my partner
ouTandAbOut231 2 years ago 3
What about the bigger policies that will come out of gay marriage? Like gay couple adoptions...i dont want my kids to think its normal because its not. I have no problem with gay marriage. What one person does to himself, whether its gay marriage or drug use, is their right, as long as it doesnt harm others. On the other hand, some kids are starving, gay parents or not, they need to be adopted.
MyGrassroots 2 years ago
@MyGrassroots, tens of thousands of gay couples around the nation (and the world) have adopted children, including "DepFox" on YouTube. The concept of gay parents is normal, but if you don't want your kids to think it's not, that is your responsibility and no one else's. Essentially, where we are headed towards is full dignity, respect and equal civil human rights, and I think it will be a wonderful evolutionary step for our country.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
So in your opinion, even though there is no evidence that gays are bad parents...you think you can limit their reproductive and adoption rights? How do you purpose we do that. Gays are not infertile, and you would rather a child sit in broken foster care systems that dont love and care for them. The very children that heteroseuxal have thrown away. Just so you dont have to think about or acknowlege our existence. So you wont be offended. How sad and pathetic! SELFISH AND BIGOTED
neenerpuss 2 years ago
great !!!
missdaoumen 2 years ago
If the United States gives gay couples the right to marry, will gay rights activists request anything else?
MrCreativeNow 2 years ago
@MrCreativeNow, LGBT people demand what every other American citizen would demand: dignity, respect, and full equal civil human rights. Nothing less.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Can my son join the girl scouts? Equal Rights! hahaha
osvaldoc70 2 years ago
@osvaldoc70, maybe one day there will be a scouting organization that will include both boys and girls - the idea isn't as funny as some might think it today.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
@osvaldoc70 Now are you going to compare straight marriage to Brownies?
If not, I don't want to hear you blabbering about 'the sanctity of marriage' if you attach that little importance or meaning to the institution.
marksmith46 2 years ago
In my area...boys can join girl scouts and girls can join boy scouts.
neenerpuss 2 years ago
Sean, I have asked you these questions repeatedly but you have yet to answer.
What right is it you believe you are being denied?
On what basis do you claim such a right exists?
As an aside, no one is entitled to respect.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen, LGBT Americans are denied the civil right of marriage to the ones we love, the right to openly serve in the military, the right to adopt children as a second parent/spouse and the right to be protected from all forms of discrimination among other rights. I believe that all American citizens are entitled to dignity, respect and full equal civil rights, as we are all entitled to the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
No one has the right to marry the person they love. All civil marriages are subject to conditions and restrictions.
On what basis do you claim the right to marry whoever you want?
The inability to obtain a state license infringes no one's life, liberty, or ability to pursue happiness.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen, I believe that we are going to fundamentally disagree about the right to marriage, and I am fine to agree to disagree, respect those whose views differ from mine, and respect our government whose courts have and continue to clarify the fundamental civil right of marriage.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
I wish you would at least attempt to justify your position. Constantly asserting something without offering anything in the way of substantiation is unhelpful and indicative of a weak or even non-existent argument.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen, based on the hundreds of comments that you have made on my videos discussing this topic, I sincerely believe that we are going to fundamentally disagree about the right to marriage, and with all due respect to you, I don't see a need to continue this argument with you.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Based on your inability to substantiate your assertion that you are being denied a right, I believe you have no argument to make.
Do you believe the state has any ability to set any conditions or requirements on civil marriage? Why?
What restrictions, if any, are permissible? Why?
If there is in fact a fundamental right to marry anyone you choose, you should be prepared to answer these questions and more. That you cannot indicates a lack of serious consideration of the subject.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen, that's your opinion, and I respect it. Thanks for your comment.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
I would say your unwillingness to engage is indicative of a complete lack of respect for my opinion.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I do, however applaud you for allowing dissenting opinions on your videos unlike the intellectual coward known as depfox.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen Stop playing the ignorance card: you DO have the right to marry who you love (if that person will have your dumb azz)
There are no restrictions on straight civil marriages, only gay marriages (like this on giant restriction: we can't have one).
The inability to obtain a state license infringes on MY life, MY liberty and MY pursuit of happiness. Unless of course you think gay people are "no one".
Shut up, you're not making any sense whatsoever.
marksmith46 2 years ago
There is NO right to marry who you love. There are (and always have been) a number of restrictions on marriage that apply equally to everyone.
As the lack of a license does not cause your death, confinement, or restrict you from any lawful activity, it infringes neither life, liberty, nor the ability to pursue happiness.
Try to have some idea of what you are talking about before you shoot your mouth off. Ignorance does your side no good in this discussion.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
There ARE NO RESTRICTIONS on two unrelated adults of the opposite sex who want to get married. None. Not one. Not race, blood type, age, maturity level, crime record, or residence.
Please tell ME now of one of your imaginary restrictions. THERE AREN'T ANY. And if there are, it's high time that you let gay people be "victimized" by these same "restrictions" that allow everyone else in America to be married to the person they love.
Just admit you hate gays and move on, toad.
marksmith46 2 years ago 2
Since you just listed three of the restrictions on marriage yourself (age, unrelated, and of the opposite sex) yourself, you have made my point for me. You can also add, consent, currently unmarried, and (at least in CA) the ability to consummate.
All of those restrictions are reasonably related to the state's legitimate interest in marriage.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"As an aside, no one is entitled to respect."
What 3rd world back alley dumpster do you live under?
You're just a smartass punk and really tiresome.
marksmith46 2 years ago
1. Repeal of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy so that persons known to be gay are no longer discharged.
2. A federal law banning discrimination in employment.
...and that would be all.
LegalEagleX 2 years ago
The military does not have such a policy. It is the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President. Unless you wish the military leadership to violate the law, they must continue to discharge those personnel who are ineligible for service.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
What part of the word "repeal" did you not understand. By the way, this is the easiest item on the agenda list. Look for the repeal to happen this year.
LegalEagleX 2 years ago
It was not the word 'repeal' but the word 'policy' that I objected to.
I guess you did not get the word from Speaker Pelosi that she is now in campaign mode and is not going to force her more vulnerable members to make any more risky votes this session. Repeal of this law is not likely anytime soon, if ever.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
ANYTHING you can do...we can do. How about not being fired after a good work record only because the boss heard a rumor that Im gay? How about service in the military?
ANYTHING that you can do WE can do! That includes marriage. That is EQUAL rights!
neenerpuss 2 years ago
When you state that the boss fires you because you are supposedly gay, that seems more domesticated rather than national. If a man does not like gay people and finds that there is one working for him, he will probably dismiss him in any legal matter while hiding up the true reasoning. There is no bill in the world that can change the way one personally views a group of people.
MrCreativeNow 2 years ago
Ahhh...but he needs to find other reasons. As it currently is he needs no other reason than the fact that I love someone of the same sex. An act that has no relation to job performance. So If I am a good employee I should keep my job because I do the job that is required.
neenerpuss 2 years ago
The silent uneasiness that exists in a work place due to one's sexual preferences will not be cured by this bill. But, hopefully this bill will make the predators more vulnerable; stronger lawsuits for victims of gay dislike and recommended therapy for homophobics who are discontent with the gays' equality.
MrCreativeNow 2 years ago
terrific job on this montage!
ynotbegoodtoall 2 years ago
Lovely!!!
sedrickvanisi 2 years ago
To all who are in this fight, Thank you. I'm in SC where we are second class citizens. Hopefully one day we will be equal.
Rayhawkclan 2 years ago
amazing
justpostit 2 years ago
My thoughts are with you! Keeping them positive and staying hopeful!
debbieomi 2 years ago
The government (for all) needs to broadcast this trial - while it is going on. Now!
5random1 2 years ago
Amazing. The editing was perfect. Great job. *claps* haha
FallingForwardMusic 2 years ago
amazing editing job for such short time, thank you!
cowpocalypse 2 years ago
THANK YOU for posting this video - I wish I could be there with you. My love, thanks and support to everyone out there fighting for us. Is there a site with info on local rallies and demonstrations?? I can't find any!
lithiumhoney 2 years ago
Good job, Sean. It shows forethought during filming (the pans from the signs to the people holding them); dramatic, energetic editing; good rhythm; effective choice of music, and the finished result serves the message well.
EvenEvenOdd 2 years ago
To all who are in this fight for freedom to marry, I speak for so many people in my state of Connecticut who support the struggle to legalize same sex marriage everywhere. CT legalized it last year with very little protest. It's an amazing feeling to have so many people support gay marriage here in this state and I hope that everyone in California will feel this same feeling very soon.
Amazing video Sean. You rock my friend.
Everyone stand up and be heard! End the hate.
RickOnEarth 2 years ago
Thanks Sean for capturing this footage yesterday... My wife and I spoke.I a new filmmaker that wanted to be filming yesterday, but I could not manage, speaking, filming and being bone cold. If you would be willing to share your footage with me; at least the part with my wife and I. I would be extremely appreciative. you can go to my channel fiveher2009 on youtube and send me a message.
esoul57 2 years ago
@esoul57, thanks for speaking at the rally yesterday morning! I do have footage of your speech, and when I get time this weekend, I'll put up more videos of the rally. Thanks again!
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
2:07 hes the writter of the MILK movie
he make my cry at the oscars.
awesome vid.
happiesthought 2 years ago
that was just an amazing video, thank you so much.
caisto5 2 years ago
awesome job Sean. Thank you!
metta8888 2 years ago
Amazing video!
pippipop1337 2 years ago
That put me in tears. I live in Utah, wish I could be there, but glad that this is happening.
singlemomsummer 2 years ago 2
Sean, thanks for posting this classy and touching video.
I only live a few blocks away, but I had to go to work, so had to miss the rally. This makes me feel like I was there; I'm so glad you were.
mike2jb 2 years ago
Of course it won't be broadcast - they remember the marches last year in Los Angeles and elsewhere... they're worried we will riot - that's the poor, fool! Its the poor who riot!
PatrioticBlonde 2 years ago
5 stars. : )
mrsbrown333 2 years ago 2
Thanks so much for capturing this. I'm stuck in Salt Lake City and really wish I could be there for the trail in support of same sex rights. The news isn't covering much and its disappointing.
TheRachelle31 2 years ago 3
I am here is SLC as well. There are a couple of blogs posting play by play, message me if you want the link, it's the best we can get for now.
singlemomsummer 2 years ago
"Its only those who cannot marry at all who are aware of the extent to which marriage is an expression of basic civil rights" Nancy Cott, Harvard History Professor 01/11/10, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
orkoni1 2 years ago 2
@orkoni1 Also shes a marriage expert. I forgot to type that.
orkoni1 2 years ago
Awesome job, man! I'm honored you were inspired by the GAY=SIN video! :D You made my day!
meheh 2 years ago
@meheh, your Holocaust video also greatly inspired me too - you really should get your work out into the film festivals. Thanks again for the inspiration! :)
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Awesome mate!
I am following this all closely. I can;t believe it would take up to three weeks.
ExplorationB 2 years ago