Prop 8 Trial Re-enactment, Day 2 Chapter 3

[amielanquist41]

fantastic website webmovietube,to watch free online movies..

[santinasiford05]

webmovietube is the best place to watch movies onle for free..njoy

[myqueensindel]

I have not scrolled down to the comments yet and the video has not really started, but I can already tell you this: Nearly every comment contains a bunch of youtube debaters wasting their time commenting back and forth about how they're right and that religion is wrong, and that act is immoral, and yadda yadda yadda.

[soulfoodmarketing]

JUDGEMENT IS REALLY GOING TO DEPEND ON THE BIG GUY......

GOD OUR FATHER...WATCHING OVER US...

PLEASE STOP WHINNING....AND MAN UP...COWBOOYYYY UP......

GIVE FIGHT TO SAQVE OUR WORLD...

AMEN W

[condicionXdulce]

@soulfoodmarketing separation of church and state. separation of church and state. separation of church and state. separation of church and state. separation of church and state. your god is irrelevant to the discussion.

atheists and agnostics can get married. all kinds of different religious, not necessarily judeo-christian (Buddhists, Muslims etc.), and non religious people can get married. it is not religious institution. the end.

[Lesterronity]

Only a radical fringe element of Mormons -- unsupported by their church hierarchy -- is engaged in this criminal behavior, not Mormons at alrge.

[Swisscheese007]

3:10 ruff ruff  Rrrrr Reform haha Funny part

[duck24x]

ARRRRRRRGHH!!

Law has GOT to get away from ALL this WORHTLESS BULLSHIT PROSE!

It MUST be modelled by GAME THEORY!!

(a form of game theory NOT yet created yet, which incorporates formal logic, which *I* intend to create)

FUCK this SHIT of requiring people to be PAID LAWYERS to represent others.

Blow up all the prisons to free all prisoners: then lets see how much power courts & money will have.

[Zelzeban]

Obviously, RvNYC, you base your statements "from the pulpit", which is not a good source of scientific information. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, to whatever uneducated degree it might be. :)

[Zelzeban]

My point stands. Your comment is childish... and expected.

[RvNYC]

Violate what rights? Gay men are perfectly free to marry the WOman of their choice.

The mental illness aspect of this disease is made more plainly apparent by the psychotic pursuit of this irrational goal.

It suffers ur efforts to erase religion from the public square that it wont change the fact that u are NOT normal! Accept this and u will be at peace.

[IceC80]

That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard anyone say -- even on Youtube.

[RvNYC]

You call ignorance that with which u do not agree, since it does not serve ur greater radical agenda.

At what point exactly is ok to thwart the will of the majority to salve the self esteem of an unbalanced priviliged few. So let them cake, right?

[MalpracticingDr]

@ RvNYC

You seem to misunderstand how our government functions. Our government was built in such a way that the majority does not always get its way, i.e. Brown v. Board of Education. This prevents an oppressive majority from subjugating a minority. Secondly, you cannot use religion as an excuse to eliminate a right of a certain group of people, no matter how small.

[RvNYC]

So damned be the will of the community?

How far do you carry this exactly before it becomes a Tyranny of the few.

But your assumtion is flawed big time. There is NO "oppresive" majority, only a power drunk narcissistic minority attempting to attain by force what they could not by persuasion; a pretense of normalcy and thus social acceptance.

Lest it is forgotten they Already have their rights thru other legal means.

[MalpracticingDr]

Homosexuals seeking equal socio-legal right to marry is hardly tyranny. Homosexuals are not forcing anything on anybody. They are merely seeking social and legal equality. There certainly is an oppressive majority and it can be seen in the way homosexuals have been harassed in the past and present. Civil unions are legally equal to marriages... on paper. Socially, however, it is a second class form of marriage for minority that has historically been forced into second class citizenship.

[RvNYC]

If civil unions are equal to marriage on paper already, then u are admitting legal parity.

And do you really think the harrassment will stop simply because the title on the form is different.

What is being sought can not be won in a court room and much less by defeating the popular will. You aren't talking about a segregated small sect of white racists here.

It is non sense to claim a second class status when the there are inumerable examples of rich powerful and openly gay people.

[kainswor9170]

Ive heard worse. Dont even respond to it. People like that get whats coming to them eventually.

[EdM021]

"Gay men are perfectly freee to marry the woman of their choice."

YOU are so willfuly ignorant! We gay men do not fall in love with women the way we do with other gay men!

[RvNYC]

Then form your domestic partnership. No one objecst to that because it does not impinge on the freedom of Religion.

U want government out of your bedrooms. We dont want them at our Pulpits.

[EdM021]

Civil marriage, granted by the states, simply will not impinge on the freedom of religion. Churches will still be free to be more restrictive in granting marriages than the state chooses to be. I know of churches that wish to officiate over same-sex marriages. Now they can't do that in most states because government is in their pulpits. Plus the federal government is in our lives by treating opposite-sex married couples preferentially. Private domestic partnerships won't change that. IDIOT!

[RvNYC]

Free to be more restrictive but still subject to the Law, even against the core tennets that define a Church.

And, Duh, it treats us normals prefferentially because we want a continuation of the species last I checked. U know love marriage...then comes the baby carriage. This particular law is really the codification of a universal fact. No one ever sat down and said. Oh yeah and a man will take a woman and we'll call it "marriage".

Gee I hope you did hurt ur pinkies typing the expletive.

[EdM021]

And making same-sex marriage legal will enlarge the sphere in which a church can legally bless weddings.

Continuation of the species??? Oh, please. There's a natural ceiling for the number of homosexual members of any society and for any species, human and nonhuman, that have homosexual members in it. For humans, the percentage is around 5% That means the other 95% will still go on creating babies and popping them out like it's going out of style!

Rome had same-sex marriage up to 342 AD.

[Zelzeban]

Here is a quote from the American Psychological Association "The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." In conclusion, you are clearly uneducated in your reference that homosexuality is a mental illness, and in fact, homosexuals are normal.

[RvNYC]

Except that there has to exist a term, i.e. Homosexual, to explain it to the other 90 percent of the world.

Look be gay I do not care in the least, but the fact that you can not wear the mantle of Married is not up to u.

A man calls a woman his wife and even way before any paper is signed. She will bear children of his blood. He will protect and provide. That is the marriage tradition in a nutshell. Want something else go for it but do not lie to yourself and call it what it is not,

[TBTabby]

Okay, lemme get this straight...Mormons have tried to "redefine marriage" to they have have polygamous marriages...but now that same-sex couples are trying to get married, they've decided that redefining marriage is a bad thing?

[enigmatically]

@TBTabby yep, this is what makes the Mormon involvement in prop8 so ridiculous is the inherent hypocrisy of it all. I think in many ways the Mormon involvement in trying to define marriage as "one man, one woman" is an attempt to overcome the stigma of polygamy upon which its religion was founded.

[rg0057]

Yes, TBTabby. This hypocrisy is one reason why Prop 8 only refers to "a man and a woman" and not "one man and one woman".