Larry King for HRC's NYers for Marriage Equality

[thekellys221]

Larry, this is a SERIOUS ISSUE, but thanks Larry for putting a funny spin on it!

[smilelikeUmeanit90]

I adore Larry King.

[VitaEdoSA]

good thing cis gays pushed gay marriage out in favor of GENDA

[alonzo9772]

I love that he's open about being pro same sex marriage, but isn't he a journalist? isn't he suppose to be politically neutral?

[RealTime88]

@alonzo9772 No No, Alonzo. Mr. King is a broadcaster. He is a guy who asks questions but he's not a journalist because of this clip and because he very often gives his opinion. Great question you asked.

[theSicilianToe]

@alonzo9772 Hes retired.

[atlgaboy]

All these NYer for Marriage Equality videos are terrific, but surprisingly Larry King's may be the best of all.

[wakniss]

thanks Larry :-)

[thenewmiLONNIEum]

If HRC spent as much money, time, and resources fighting for civil rights and they do for celebrity endorsements, we might be equal.

[326742]

Thanks Larry!

[TomsMVP]

Why do gays and lesbians need so much attention. If you want to get dick stuffed up your ass then ok, but why do you want to parade it... THIS IS BULLSHIT !!!! GAYS AND LESBIANS ARE JUST FAGGOTS WHO WANT ATTENTION !!!

[renecito1]

When your Son or Daughter tells you "Im Gay"

then what are you going to say? oh sorry baby I voted against your Happiness.

[emochick56651]

i support it and i live in New York XD

[Knuckles194]

I appreciate Larry king's stance on same sex marriage. we really should make it legal.

[pisaltouch]

OK...i now like Larry King. He's so cool.

[zipjay]

@mrchiefofsinners if anyone is struggling with believing in a 2,000 year old book with pages filled with lies, hate, torture and slavery please close it and open your mind!

[hanksnow82]

When did they start this Scum Bags for Homo Marriage thing ?

[pianoman8778]

@hanksnow82 About the same time they started that assholes for discrimination thing.

[hanksnow82]

@pianoman8778 Nobody is discriminating against anyone and i see no reason to change marriage after 2000 + years being between a man and a woman in every society in the world . Thats some serious precedent .

[pianoman8778]

@hanksnow82 I think you have your information mixed up. Gay marriage has happened in ancient Rome and Asia as a pretty normal thing, It wasn't untill christianity came along that "changed marriage" (after 2000 years ago) No one is trying to change anything, just granting everyone the same right to be legally recognized by the government. You can call it a civil union if you want but when the government denies two people in love the same benefits as any other person, than that is wrong.

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Slavery had a hell of a long precedent too. By your reasoning, I guess we shouldn't have changed that either, right?

Enlightened societies are able to correct the mistakes of the past. Marriage equality is another such correction.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart What an assinine anology comparing one societies domination over another to the institution of marriage . So in your feeble uneducated mind the past thousands and thousands of years of marriage being between a man and a woman by every society in the world has been an act of oppression and a mistake . You sir are a fucking idiot among idiots .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 I never said that it's oppression on the same level as slavery, so you can check that straw man at the door. So yes, denying gay people equal rights is an act of oppression and it is abhorrent that you and others like you consider it acceptable just because it's the status quo.

So, either defend your oppression or try to insult my intelligence with the full knowledge that your position is intellectually indefensible. Your choice.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart bla bla bla you equated homosexual marriage to slavery and you can try to walk it back all you want but that horse has bolted the barn . Homosexuals want new and special rights that have never exsisted in the history of mankind in any society from time immemorial .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Show me where I said they were the exact same level of oppression. Meanwhile, no one's asking for special rights. The right to marry has been repeatedly upheld by the USSC time and time again. And prior to the Theodosian Code in 342 AD, same sex unions were legal throughout the Roman Empire. So yes, it has existed in societies in the past before religious bigotry became the accepted practice.

Lastly, you still haven't provided a logical rationale for why you support this oppression.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart I suggest you educate yourself with better sources then wikipedia and homosexual web sites as John Boswell's contention that the Theodosian Code of 342 AD was a banning of homosexual marriage (which never exsisted) has been proven to be false by John Lauritsen , Wayne R. Dynes , Warren Johansson and others . Boswell misinterpreted the latin "give himself sexually"; to mean marries . A clearer law was issued by Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart Finally no one is being oppressed so why would anyone have to offer any explanation after all these thousands of years ?

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Gay people can't get married in forty five states, and because of DOMA the federal government won't even recognize gay marriages in the five states and the District of Columbia which will perform them. This means they lack access to over 1000 rights, protections, and tax incentives granted by the federal government. Gays are subjected to second class citizenship because of this fact.

So, give me a logical reason to continue this discrimination if you have one.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart I have seen this claim of being denied a 1000 rights before on homosexual web sites and to you and them i suggest you look up what a right is as you clearly lack any understanding of the word . Homosexual marriage has never exsisted in American or any society as i explained to you so what you want is special and new rights that have never exsisted . You don't have the right to have sex with children or animals or roller skate down I - 95 and thats not discrimanation either .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Sex with children and sex with animals is rape. Homosexual relationships is not. Congratulations on equating two completely different things.

So you still have no logical reason to discriminate against same sex couples (and yes, that is depriving people of the right to marry - or have you yet to realize that there's a HUGE difference between religious marriage and civil marriage and that the US doesn't have religious marriage?).

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart The Brittish Columbia Supreme Court is deciding a case right now to allow sex with girls as young as 12 years old (children) as well as polygamy under the same law that allowed homosexual marriage in Canada so the legal comparison has long been made . Homosexual marriage has never exsisted and there is no benefit to society to grant special rights to any group let alone one as small as homosexuals .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 1) Under the age of consent is statutory rape in the US. I'm not familiar with BC laws. 2) Polyamorous couples don't affect me at all, so as long as everyone can give consent in the relationship they don't bother me in the slightest. 3) Gay marriage isn't a special right. It's just marriage between two people who are gay. As it stands now, marriage IS a special right granted to heterosexuals. So by your argument there's no benefit to grant Marriage solely to the Straight group.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart You want America to legalize homosexual marriage like Canada .... Look were the it is taking Canada polygamy which you have a very short sighted view of and children engaging in sex under the guise of religion . The proverbial slippery slope . Making a right that has never exsisted sure as hell is a special right . Having the state sanction homosexual marriage is no boon for society .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 1870: Black men got the right to vote in the US. 1920: Women got the right to vote in the US. "Special rights" that hadn't existed before, or extensions of existing rights into previously discriminated members of society?

Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacious. You still have no logical reason to be bigoted against same sex couples. The fact is that MARRIAGE has countless benefits, and that you support denying these benefits to your fellow citizens for no logical reason.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart Are you really going to equate race to homosexual marriage ? I suggest you offer up this opinion equating civil rights with homosexual marriage in a group of young African American men and let me know how that works out for you . Slippery slope arguments are not at all fallacious since we now have several groups using the homosexual marriage law to try and legalize polygamy and child sex in Canada . There is no benefit to society to promote homosexuality end of story .

[PokemonInuyashax]

D'awww, it's a Bible-thumper, in it's natural habitat.

The Internet.

Seriously grow up.

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 You're telling me to ask a group of African American men what it's like to have laws which treat you differently from other people based on something completely beyond their control? Sounds identical to marriage laws in the United States, so it's obviously also a civil rights issue. The benefit to American society is clear: All Men Are Created Equal. Marriage is a fundamental human right repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court; it is not a heterosexual privilege.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart I'm telling you that you should explain your concept of equating homosexual marriage to civil rights to a group of young black men and let me know how that works out for you . Homosexual marriage never exsisted on the planet earth or in any society since time immemorial and i see no reason to believe it would benefit society in anyway .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 And I'm asking why it matters what a group of young black men think about it. Civil rights are still fundamental rights no matter whom you ask. Just because gay marriage "never" existed before is not a justification for the continued treatment of gays as second-class citizens. If you really don't know why it benefits society, then read up on the social and psychological benefits of marriage to a person and to a family unit. In America we shouldn't have ANY discrimination in our laws.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart Overwhelmingly the black community disagrees with you that homosexual marriage has anything to do with civil rights . 75% of blacks in the most liberal state in the union voted against homosexual marriage and national polls show blacks against homosexual marriage in the high 80 % range including our current president . Please don't tell me to read up on this topic as i know more about it then you ever will . Please feel free to post any study that supports your position .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 California voted for Prop 8 because of a Mormon-backed ad campaign that blitzed the state with bald-faced lies to scare people against it. Gay marriage is absolutely a civil rights issue. A minority of people is being treated differently by federal and state governments and there is no "compelling government interest" (look it up) to justify this discrimination. And Obama's going to be pro gay marriage in the 2012 election, and gay marriage will be the law of the land sooner or later

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart LOL I see you don't let the truth get in the way of a good story ... The mormon ads had almost no effect according to the largest polsters but what did was the huge increase in the black vote supporting Obama but voting 75% against homosexual marriage . Obama has said umpteen times he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and he would have to have a 180 degree change of heart to now implement homo marriage .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 When he was still in Chicago Obama was pro gay marriage, not pro civil unions. Obama now says his beliefs on the issue are "evolving." Combine that with the fact that he just instructed his DoJ to not defend DOMA anymore and you've got all the proof that you need that Obama will absolutely be pro gay marriage. Now that a majority of people is pro marriage equality (Mar 2011 Washington Post poll), it's no longer political suicide to be in favor of granting equal rights to gay couples.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart You really need to stop making shit up as Obama has NEVER been pro homo marriage but we know he is a big enough liar to say one thing and do another . The fact he has told the DOJ to quit defending a legally passed law like DOMA just shows Obamas contempt for the constituion . I hope he runs on legalizing homosexual marriage in the next election as it would gurantee his defeat . Remember homo marriage has never been democratically voted in anywhere .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Obama was pro gay marriage when he was a state senator in Illinois, and that's a matter of public record. Google it. As for public opinion of gay marriage, you can Google that too, because it's been polling with >50% support for the past two years. As the older generations die off, society as a whole is becoming less bigoted and the call for equality becomes louder. Obama's winning in 2012 regardless of his stance on gay marriage, by the way. No Republican can out-campaign him.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart Rather then saying google this and google that you might want to post a source every now and then because frankly it appears you're just making shit up . Please give me any site that has a quote from Obama saying he is pro homosexual marriage or i will have to assume this is just another case of you being full of shit .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Very well. I can't post links, so I'll send you a message with them. If anyone else asks, it's easy enough to find. For people who aren't hanksnow82, Google (full line at a time, with quotation marks):

"Media Hounding Obama's '96 Gay Marriage Stance"

"Obama once backed full gay marriage"

--> For the second one, the domain is windycitymediagroup com, so add site:__________ where ____ is that URL, with the period

[FrostdPoptart]

@FrostdPoptart hanksnow82, I can't send you messages. You'll have to follow the above methods of finding the two URLs I have. One is a MediaMatters article lambasting Obama for his change once he hit national level politics, and the other is the Chicago newspaper that Obama talked to.

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 And Obama's decision to stop defending DOMA proves you didn't read the DOJ's press release on the issue and that you're just making stuff up to fill in the gaps in your knowledge of how the court system works in the United States. When they have no precedent to go on, they have to default to a "heightened scrutiny" test, whereby a discriminatory law is only Constitutional if it protects a legitimate governmental interest. The gay marriage ban does not pass that test.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart You're ignorance of DOMA and the constitution are trully amazing . It's only section 3 of DOMA that the DOJ refuses to defend however it’s very clear that the executive branch has usurped the powers granted exclusively to the judiciary by the constitutionon this issue . NEVER before in American history has a president declared a law unconstitutional absent a federal judge’s ruling on the matter . Eric Holder is the worst AG since Janet Reno .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 The rest of DOMA isn't under attack (clearly it's just the discriminatory portion), so of course the DOJ wouldn't need to defend the rest of it. And the President didn't declare the law unconstitutional in the way that you're implying. DOMA is still the law of the land. And since there is a pre-existing method for Congress to defend a law that the DOJ will not, there is reason to believe that there is a precedent for the DOJ not defending an act of Congress.

[FrostdPoptart]

@FrostdPoptart (continued) Found some cases that past DOJ's would not defend for you :)

United States v. Lovett

INS v Chadha

Morrison v. Olson

Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC

Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp.

Gavett v. Alexander

League of Women Voters of California v. FCC

Turner Broadcasting Svs, Inc. v. FCC

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart Are you really that stupid ? The difference is first a federal judge made rulings in these cases then the DOJ acted not the other way around .

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart You don't sem to have any idea what section 3 of DOMA is all about nor did you rebut any of my points .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Section 3 is the discriminatory part, of course, that says the Federal government won't recognize same sex marriages that are performed in states or D.C, and you didn't really make any points, because the executive branch didn't undo the law by calling it unconstitutional, so that "point" is completely invalid.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart NO thats not the part of section 3 that the DOJ is feasting on but i'm not surprised you don't know what you're talking about again . I will repeat myself once more by stating this position on DOMA Barack Obama has effectively vested all true power in the executive branch. He has made the legislative branch impotent and preempted the authority of the judicial branch , can you not understand that ?

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Yes. Section 3 is the part that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it true. Look it up. Public Law 104-199.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

...

"the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''

You don't seem to have the ability to discuss this honestly, so let me know if you come to your senses.

[imN0Ttheone]

@FrostdPoptart You simple minded douchebag the part of section 3 that the DOJ objects to is how taxiation would be applied differently . You don't seem to have the ability to discuss things intelligently .

[FrostdPoptart]

@imN0Ttheone Oh yes of course! Taxation is why the DOJ isn't defending DOMA! That completely explains why in Eric Holder's letter to John Boehner explaining the DOJ's refusal to continue defending DOMA doesn't include any mention of or reference to taxation.

Try again.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart You seem to have missed my point and the aspect of the law the DOJ is going after , which is unequal taxation .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 The word 'tax' doesn't appear even once in Holder's letter to Boehner. Here's a direct quote:

"the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart (continued) It’s a very simple concept to understand. If the executive branch will not defend dually passed federal law, who will? Congress is Constitutionally restricted from administrative powers. And if laws passed by our democratically elected representatives are enforced selectively then what is their purpose?

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Congress is able to use taxpayer money to hire an outside group of lawyers to defend the act. They already had hired a law firm (King & Spalding), but that law firm decided themselves that they would not defend the law because even THEY thought it was unconstitutional. The last I heard, Boehner's still looking for a law firm that will defend it.

[hanksnow82]

@FrostdPoptart (continued) By stating this position on DOMA Barack Obama has effectively vested all true power in the executive branch. He has made the legislative branch impotent and preempted the authority of the judicial branch . I seriously suggest you do much reading on this topic and come back and try to debate me on it in a few years when you have something to offer other then ignorance .

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 I've done the reading on the topic. It seems to me that you're the one that has not, given your lack of knowledge of the King & Spalding incident. Since I've got >300 characters left in this comment, I feel like I should give you yet another chance to provide a logical justification for your continued insistence of discrimination against a minority group. Oh, and by the way, you're in the minority opinion now. 53% according to gallup support legal recognition of same sex marriage.

[CaMaverick]

@hanksnow82

You are quite possibly one of the dumbest human beings I have ever run across.

What about people who are using the Bible trying to legalize incestuous marriages like the ones of Abraham and Sarah? Or father/daughter marriages like that's seen extensively in the bible? The problem with morons like yourself is they pick and choose what definition suits them at the time.

If you don't want gay marriage, move to Saudi Arabia, let me know how that works out for you

[hanksnow82]

@CaMaverick I don't believe in god or the bible so there is no relevance to your statement . I'm not a biblical scholar so can you tell me a few of these fathers that married their daughters in the bible ?

[CaMaverick]

@hanksnow82

Sure, read about the incestuous relationships between Lot and his daughters, or even Abraham and his half-sister Sarah.

[FrostdPoptart]

@hanksnow82 Just because it's not enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right -- see the 9th Amendment. The right to marry has been repeatedly protected by the US Supreme Court. Marriage is absolutely a right. Being with your loved ones in the hospital is a right. Inheriting something that your loved ones leave you is a right, and their families shouldn't be able to block you from inheriting what is left to you. There's no reason to not allow same sex people these rights.

[StraightActingGayGuy]

=)

[mrchiefofsinners]

If anyone is struggling with the sin and disease of homosexuality, please, turn to Christ for forgiveness and salvation. Then seek medical and psychological treatment.

[LadyNyuOfCats]

@mrchiefofsinners What is wrong with you? The person that needs to seek psychological help here is YOU. What have gay people ever done to you? They can't change who they are, and who they are makes no difference to you- they're human, just like you so why don't they deserve the same rights? What right do you think you have to be a prick and to say that it's wrong and that they need some kind of medical help for it? Shame on you- you're just a sad, sad person.

[pdxist]

Thank you so much, Larry!

[pisaltouch]

OMG...love Larry King. Yes New York...it's about time.

[breakingthisdown]

Awww.

[FactoryJunk]

HRCexposed. It is an example of how homosexuals are not a threat to marriage. That marriage is corrupt already by people who already have the right to be married. Sanctity to marriage? Where is that at in the 21st century? Larry King IS the poster child showing that homosexuals are not a threat to sanctity of marriage. DIVORCE IS.

[equalityamerica]

@FactoryJunk Marriage was redefined by liberal politicians when they voted the no fault divorce laws. They are the same people who are supporting garriage today. The next time HRC is going to have a divorce lawyer making a video. Using divorce, orphans or infertility to justify garriage is dishonest at best.

[HenhousetheRed]

@equalityamerica Then how about this: gay marriage is about love between two consenting human adults.

[equalityamerica]

@HenhousetheRed Marriage need 2 people of complementary sex to exist. Even a 2nd grader understand this. 2 people of the same sex cannot become one flesh. No one in the world since the beginning of time is born from 2 gay men or 2 gay women. Why do you want to steal marriage and force the rest of society into domestic partnership. That is violating the civil rights of others.

[thenewmiLONNIEum]

@equalityamerica 1. how did britney spears and kevin federline become one flesh? fuck you for trying to impose your religion on me. end of debate. take your superstitious hick ass back to the swamp.

[equalityamerica]

@thenewmiLONNIEum The Ideal of Marriage does not change because people are broken. We do not change the driving laws because some people do not respect the speed limit or drive when they are drunk. Your logic is not rational and in addition you need to wash your mouth big time.

[thisiskem1]

@thenewmiLONNIEum LMAO @ "become one flesh" that shit cracks me UP. those anti-gay groups are so oblivious as to what's really going on around them

[TripperTrail]

I love Larry King!!!

[RealTime88]

@TripperTrail So do I!!!! One of my heroes in broadcasting. He's a great man standing for a great cause: Marriage equality. Their love is the same and what they want is the same thing so many straight married couples want.

[AdventuresinAuckland]

I can't believe a state like Iowa has gay marriage and New York still doesn't. But seriously, get with it America.

[TripperTrail]

@AdventuresinAuckland New York now has gay marriage :D We're getting closer and closer!!

[HRCexposed]

Is this a bad Joke or what ? Why is HRC advertising divorce ???

I am even more confused about what HRC stands for ?

What a bad idea ? Taking the poster child of divorce to promote garriage ?

[timgats]

@HRCexposed You don't seem to get it.

[HenhousetheRed]

@HRCexposed You're wasting your time. Are you one of those sheep that NOM gives benefits to for being anti-gay? Lol.

[HRCexposed]

@HenhousetheRed Then why do you waste your time responding to my comment ? LOL

[Madman779]

@HRCexposed You don't get it. tsk tsk.