Stonewall 2011: The Night NY Legalized Gay Marriage

[felpaluche]

It must have felt liberating to the third sex.

[PoliticallyErroneus]

It's funny how people will say they're "conservative libertarians" not knowing wtf libertarian actually means. If you're a fiscal conservative who also hates gay people, you're JUST a conservative, there's nothing libertarian about you other than your fiscal policy! PS Not liking war doesn't make you a conservative libertarian, traditional conservatives were and still are anti war.

[REWHBLCAIN]

Bunch of liberal assholes

[HoustonCabbie]

I thought Liberals loved paying taxes.They keep screamin we need more.

[hairbandfan1967]

Big trouble here, lol! What happens when lesbians divorce? Divorce for straight couples results in women getting the children and the house. Also, if a gay dv event is reported, who gets arrested since the W in VAWA means women? Do you think the liberal PC Big Brother of a gov't we have is going be able to handle this without their house of cards, ie all of this grand social engineering, being knocked down? LOL!

[viletree]

@hairbandfan1967 Are you retarded?

[Dysentery7885]

reason tv = communist tv

[RyanR3volution]

@Dysentery7885

lol, Reason TV is a libertarian channel, they are isometrically opposed to centralized planning, what are you talking about? lol

[Dysentery7885]

@RyanR3volution libertarians are just fiscally conservative liberal scum.

[RyanR3volution]

@Dysentery7885

No libertarians believe the gov has no more rights than you do and you cannot force your will onto others.

They believe in freedom from the gov and from you.

Liberal? Conservative? Save the soup can labels, makes you sounds retarded. That is brainwashed talk.

[ChiotVulgaire]

Homosexuals should be allowed to enjoy the same rights and priveleges heterosexuals get when they marry, yes. BUT we cannot righteously force any church to conduct these marriages if they have objections to them. Freedom also means respecting the rights of people to disagree. Besides, there ARE churches out there who would be willing to conduct these marriages anyway, so it's not like we're barring them out completely from religious marriages, it just requires a little more looking.

[viletree]

@ChiotVulgaire Then I cannot be righteously forced to have my tax dollars maintain the tax exempt status for churches. Besides, there are Churches out there that turn a profit anyways, they should be taxed like any individual in this day and age where non-corporal ideas such as corporations can take the luxuries/burdens of being a human.

[tkathryyn]

Only Change Endures. The rest get left behind.

[anthonylfisher]

Government has no business regulating relationships. But as long as they are, equal protection for all. (And no, homosexuality is not equivalent to bestiality.)

[b07rivera]

Hmm, it's strange first it was complete open borders when Reasontv talked about immigrantion now it's a leaning Libertarian blog and magazine saying Legalized gay marriage it's all right WTF!! Libertarians are suppose to support Privatizing marriage and to get govt out of the marriagr licenses, being the univited third party in the two couple.

[FatherTime89]

I'm surprised so many people are bent out of shape about this. Two gays getting married that you don't know has zero effect on you, or your religion or your own marriage (if you have one). You want to complain about gay pride parades or whatever then fine, but that's a separate issue.

[Yereviltwin2]

@FatherTime89

Sorry but this decision does change culture, attitudes, and society. So that does in fact affect me. How can I teach my kids that homosexuality is wrong when outside the home everyone and the government is saying it’s right? So again, yes it does affect me.

[FatherTime89]

@Yereviltwin2 I meant directly. Anything can change culture, attitudes or society.

[Yereviltwin2]

@FatherTime89

If 2 gays get “married” far away, and I never see them or hear about them then, no it won’t affect me. But If it’s next door, or there are a bunch in town, and they are very open about it, then yes it directly affects me. The silent, keep to themselves micro, NO. That loud, public, in my face macro, Yes.

[pbfrank13]

@Yereviltwin2 you could extend that to mean anyone with whom you come in contact with. what difference does it make if they aren't invading your rights to privacy or being obnoxiously loud while your trying to sleep on your own property? People talking loudly on phones in public places bothers me, but I respect their right to do it, it shouldn't be a law to ban public use of cell phones no matter how rude it is. Same goes for gays finally able to express their identity in public

[RiotGirl4Eva]

@Yereviltwin2 Not to give parental guidance but instead of teaching them that homosexuality is "wrong" Maybe you should teach them to accept everyone and not judge by color, religion, or what their genitals like. Teaching them homosexuality is wrong just translates into hate.

[jubeikiba6]

Government shouldn't be in the business of marriage. All individuals gay or straight should have those benefits through private contracts between them and another person. For me "Marriage" itself is a religious or spiritual ceremony that can take place in whatever institution a couple may choose as long as that institution(place of worship or whatever) allows it. That is my definition, but My definition. I would not force my defiition on another individual As I would expect them to do the same.

[michael1791]

It's good that it's a step towards equality. But marriage in and of itself is ridiculous.

[UncleIrv]

This video is an example of how Libertarianism easily becomes a form of Utopian LEFTISM.

Libertarianism supposedly values maximum personal freedom via LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT POWER. But if it embraces the unilateral RE-DEFINITION of a common law legal term such as "marriage" through any process that circumvents THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS (such as judicial fiat) it is a farce.

Libertarians: When you make absurd statements like "Gay Marriage is a fundamental right," you are seriously misguided.

[michael1791]

@UncleIrv Hetero marriage isn't a right either.

[MrUnicorn1995]

@UncleIrv Agreed. Marriage is not a right, nor is it something the State should have its filthy paws on.

[FatherTime89]

@UncleIrv Are you even paying attention or are you just parroting talking points? This was a bill that was voted on by the state legislature and the governor. No courts ever got ahold of the bill. And why are you treating redefinition like it's some blasphemous act that never happens?

[UncleIrv]

@FatherTime89

I never said THIS BILL violated the principles I described. This bill is an example of the only PROPER way to do it.

My comments are directed at the RHETORIC of this video (ie, the closing quote from New York Magazine) and many of the other videos on this channel addressing Gay Marriage.

Yes, EX POST FACTO redefinition of standing common law legal terms IS "blasphemous" to those who are opposed to big government Statism. If you're a Libertarian then you should understand that.

[FatherTime89]

@UncleIrv I understand why government getting into marriage is undesirable if that's what you mean.

[jaymthegenius]

I see the religious weirdos were out in full force. At least they and their backwards cultural memes were defeated.

[elsquibbs]

Us Red Sox fans had a similar celebration at The Riviera Cafe around the corner from the Stonewall Inn after the Sox won the WS in 2004. It was liberating.

[PigeonTech]

As far as regulation of people's relationships go, this was an improvement. But it'd still be better if relationships weren't regulated in the first place. All of the problems that a marriage certificate solves (pension, hospital visitation rights, etc) should be solved in ways that don't discriminate. It's still illegal for 3 adults to marry. And like the woman in the video pointed out, what about us single people?

[CorporalDirge]

If I want to love two women, and show that love with marriage, why can't I? It seems almost all lines determining where and what marriage should be are incredibly arbitrary.

[FatherTime89]

Anyone else here sick of the appeal to tradition fallacy? That's basically the main argument against gay marriage "we can't change the definition because it's always been that way".

[mrbill2600]

@FatherTime I think that you are confusing traditional religious values with the politically correct.

I care that society not express bias regarding various groups of people; and movement toward that acceptance is good.

In return I would hope that you would extend the same concern to those of us who hold as sacred, traditional religious values.

[FatherTime89]

@mrbill2600 Allowing gays to get married does nothing to stop you from holding your religious values. Churches can still refuse to marry whoever they like.

[jsh78mang]

@FatherTime89 Correct but legally they can now marry and are entitled to all the benifits etc. that go along with that.

[mrbill2600]

@FatherTime89 You want a civil ceremony... fine, but that is not a marriage, it is simply a civil union and you know it. So next up on the gay agenda will be a law to force the Church to engage in performing "gay marriages' in an attempt to give "gay marriage" credibility.

A marriage between a man and a woman is the only "authentic" marriage no matter how loudly you scream foul... Gays can not get married anymore than "a fish can ride a bicycle". End of conversation.

[FatherTime89]

@mrbill2600 If they ever try to force churches to marry gays I'd oppose that but they aren't. And the concept of marriage isn't owned by any religion so they can't really say which ones are authentic.

[jubeikiba6]

@FatherTime89 that would be a catch 22. If a church goes against its doctrine on any subject they lose their tax exempt status. therefore if they marry a same sex couple against doctrine they lose tax exempt status. if they don't then the government comes down on them like a sledge hammer. it's a lose, lose, but I wouldn't put it past them.

[mrbill2600]

@FatherTime89 Now that the original concept of Marriage is polluted, the government should establish a "Matrimony License". It would be the same as the old license except that it would be a covenant by which one man and one woman establish between themselves a partnership which is ordained by its very nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

I expect to see you in the streets protesting when Courts try forcing Churches to "marry" gays. That's next.

[viletree]

@mrbill2600 What do you mean by "nature", marriage is not a part of any natural order, reproduction is, ergo marriage is a social construct. Why do you people use words like "covenant" when contract takes the bullshit religious connotations out of the equation. Individuals can have children without being married, animals have offspring without being married, marriage is nonsense.

[mrbill2600]

@viletree Sir: after a look at your YouTube account it appears that it's your life that is nonsense.

[HangProgressives]

Good the homos that marry the more people in front of me when Islam dominates...they will behead the Homo's and Libs first like they have done for 1500 years

[Iammram]

@HangProgressives

lol what?

Christianity has the record of destroying civilizations and populations my friend, Not Islam. Get your facts straight.

[elsquibbs]

@Iammram

Check the records on gay rights in Islamic countries.

[Iammram]

@elsquibbs

You weren't making the case for rights, you were stating that they get beheaded for being gay, which isn't true.

As for Islamic countries, there isn't a true one, they are all half ass ( no pun intended )

For what they do have, you can't look at a religious country from the secular view point, otherwise you won't understand it.

[elsquibbs]

@Iammram

"you were stating that they get beheaded for being gay"

Huh? I never said any such thing.

[Iammram]

@elsquibbs

Crap, I just looked again, and confused you with the guy who I initially responded to about this, sorry about that lol : )

[Loathomar]

@Res028 Right,,, you just keep telling your self you not gay while you dream of cock every night... LOL.. So gay!

[MagnusIan]

All you fucking idiots saying that the government will force churches to marry homosexuals are insane, religious bigots. Should the government be involved in marriage? No, but so long as the government is granting LEGAL marriages to straight people, there are no grounds for preventing gay couples from marrying other than the bunch of Bible-thumping assholes that abject to it. Fuck you, religious bigots. FUCK YOU.

[cooperbry]

Moral decay on film.

[AVIONBLANC]

Currently, the law does not require (force...coerce) churches, reception halls, etc. to participate in the homosexual rituals. The courts will find that "separate but equal" is not recognizing the "rights" of the sodomites. The Marxist agitators will get the crowds stirred up and chanting. Like Canada, the US will limit free speech even more than it does now. Churches will be forced to marry anyone who shows up at their door. Government must stay out of these issues!

[Loathomar]

@AVIONBLANC I like the term "sodomites" or "sodomy" as so few people who use it have any idea what it really means. According to Webster, Sodomy is "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex" Ei, it you have EVER have a blowjob or been eaten out, you are a sodomite, by definition. And one who is not a sodomite... you have my pity... cause who doesn't like some good oral?

[alvincay100]

Ultimately, what this is all about is that traditional marriage has been rendered meaningless by the socialist state. Anyone legally married under the law is in fact wedded to the socialist entitlement system. No need to procreate and raise a family anymore, the state will take care of you when your old.

[TheBullionBull]

How is it "marriage"? Its just a way to dress up sodomy in ceremonies and language imitating that of normal people. Its like calling war a "kenetic peace-keeping action". I agree the government has no place in marriage, other than to enforce contracts. They have no right to try to change the definition from that which has existing since the dawn of time. You'd think libertarians would realize how 1984-ish it is to have gov't change the definition of one of the pillars of civilization.

[Loathomar]

@TheBullionBull How is it you thinking the term marriage has existed since the dawn of time? Do you honestly think that the universe started less then 10,000 years ago, or something? Can you be that dumb? Gays have been with us since the dawn of man kind and are also found in most other sexually reproducing species. To say gay marriage is new is simply ignorance, both the Romans and Chinese had some form of it, but it was so "1984" in 200 BC, right?

[TheBullionBull]

@Loathomar So the Romans, who were screwing little boys, had "some form" of homosexual "marriage" in 200 BC, and that makes it OK? I'll revise my statement then, they are changing the definition that has been in force 99.999% of the time since the dawn of time. Also, who decided that "gay" didn't mean happy anymore, and that now it means sodomite? Attempted culture modification through euphemism is what it is - its like if people started calling adulterers "jolly" or called incest "cheerful"

[Loathomar]

@TheBullionBull Well, it was the Romans and the Chinese and the Greek, but hey, 900 years of the main European cultures really only count of 0.001% of history. As "history" being the time which man kind has been recording is 5000 years, you idea totally stands. 900/5000 totally = 0.0001%. And as for redefine turns, a sodomite is someone who does or receives sodomy, with is defined as "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex" Ever had BJ from a girl? Sodomite? Or Virgin?

[Loathomar]

As for word "gay", it was found to have a split meaning of "Happy, light-hearted, carefree;" also "wanton, lewd, lascivious" In 1890's a gay house was a brothel. It was not tell the 1940's when Gay started to mean homosexual, but it does seem to fit as the stereo type for homosexual is a happy and promiscuous man. Why don't you try reading and looking things up instead of showing your self as an ignorant ass?

[TheBullionBull]

@Loathomar There was homosexual marriage for 900 years in Europe? ROFL do you have any source for this? I am still missing your point I think. Are you saying that if some ancient pedophiles married each other then it is somehow OK for modern America? ?????

[Loathomar]

@TheBullionBull You said "They have no right to try to change the definition from that which has existing since the dawn of time", I disagreed and give examples of gay marriage in history which made your state fails. The ban of gay marriage in Europe came about when Rome became officially Christian and started persecution those who did not conform to the new state religion. This was the Codex Theodosianus. Greece allow gay marrige through out starting in the mid-500BC, Roman banned it 429ad.

[FatherTime89]

@TheBullionBull Why do people act like changing the definition of something is such a big deal. Dictionary definitions change a lot over the years.

[AVIONBLANC]

So, name some "libertarian leaning" state senators in New York State. This is strange for a so called libertarian organization to seemingly approve of a law that will lead to diminished property rights and will force clergy, businesses, individuals in general to accept, it was never about tolerating, a life style or go to jail. Next freedom to oppose the homosexual sodomites will be a crime. Speech will be controlled and religion will be coerced by the state.

[BanditoWalrusGames]

@AVIONBLANC

Bullocks my good man!

This law does not force your religion to practice gay marriage, but YOUR law Forces MY religion not to practice it! My God's got nothing against Gay Marriage, the Prophet has nothing against it, my Faith has nothing against it. So who are YOU to regulate MY religion? I get that you don't want YOUR religion being regulated, but in your zeal you are regulating MINE! Get the State out of my religion!

[Loathomar]

@AVIONBLANC All sodomy should be a crime, and the next time you even thing about a blow job from ANYONE you should be thrown in jail!!! (Sodomy is anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex, BTW)

[abang90]

The government shouldnt be regulating marriage at all. This is just another narrow mold that the government has created...

[freesk8]

I am very happy about this move in the direction of marriage equality, but in the long run, we need a separation of marriage and state. A marriage license implies that the govt has the right to deny you a license. But the govt has no right to regulate marriage between adults.

[MrConservative608]

You non-Christians don't understand you are celebrating your tickets into hell.

Romans 1:30-32 "...God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

[johnycannuk]

@MrConservative608 ...unless its Odin, now Yahweh.....

You do realize you might as well be quoting the phone book to us right? No, that's not fair, the phone book is useful. The Bible is a bunch or bronze age myth and nonsense and is one of the most morally repugnant books ever created.

In short, I don;t care what it says, because its not true.

[LunaticFringe20]

@MrConservative608 Gasp! The Bible mentions that people might not want to follow your Great Sky Bastard? Do you honestly think that Bible quotes are somehow a way to legitimize your argument? They're not, they're imaginary commands from a Holy Dictator. A free and just people do not follow the commands of an imaginary bully who influences people with violent cohesion, i.e. threatening to torture people for eternity because his asinine, arbitrary rules.

[poozypie]

@MrConservative608 No, YOU don't understand. God didn't write the bible. Men did. Men lie and hate. God doesn't. God loves all creatures equally, even you.

[poozypie]

@MrConservative608 No, YOU don't understand. God didn't write the bible. Men did. Men lie and hate. God doesn't. God loves all creatures even boastful ones, even ones who disobey their parents, especially if their parents think other people deserve death.

[TheStrazy]

@MrConservative608 To get into your train of thought "Romans" is a title of the letter written by Paul, so in turn a peice of mail sent to a church to explain earlie christian thought. (i would have used the old "Man shall not lie with another man" its much older and at least you have the hebrews backing you up) But in this day and age quoteing the bible will only open you up to attacks on your religion, So its best to not start about being sent to hell it only hurts your platform.

[MrConservative608]

@TheStrazy So truth must be sacrificed because its not popular.  Is that your position?

[TheStrazy]

@MrConservative608 What is "Truth"? You will never be able to change their minds and bringing religion into it will only stregnthen their resolve against you stance is what i meant. (they dont respect others opinions, religions or ways of life and will attack them for the sake of their own opinion,religion or way of life)

[Couldbeniiice]

Great moment in NY history. Nice footage.

[SuperAtheist]

now gays are free to marry in NY because they have permission from their government masters.

free people don't require permission to do what they have the right to do.

[kmg501]

The "birthplace of the 'gay rights'" was the Frankfurt School.

Even civil libertarians get it wrong once in a while. Unfortunately this is one of those times. The proper way to resolve this was to create recognition of Domestic Partnerships.

And you can prove that this is an error by the fact that polygamy and polyandry remain illegal.

This was a giant red herring and that is why I am and will forever be opposed to this big mistake and another step to unraveling a civilization.

-

[bellyzbad]

why are we still having laws passed on basic human rights fucking retarded Republicans. all gay ppl should be able to marry everywhere

[FatherTime89]

@bellyzbad To be fair a few Republicans voted in favor of this passing.

[yakyakyak69]

Why does gov't even have a say about personal relationships of consenting adults?

What are we... property, collateral for THEIR debt, SLAVES?

[boboelmo]

The guy talking about inheritance and the tax advantages of being married hit the nail on the head. How many heterosexual people will now marry someone of the same sex for the tax advantages? Instead of "legalizing" same sex marriage, why not repeal all laws that have anything to do with marriage at all?

[alvincay100]

@boboelmo Politicians always want more and more say, not less. After all, they their job is to legislate and every new elected official has something to add. Hence the law books keep growing with every passing day. Repealing a stupid law would be giving up power and since they need to pretend to do something important its almost always out of the question.

[AshillaBeige]

@boboelmo I dunno. How many hetero people marry people of the opposite sex for tax advantages? It's a silly argument, but you're right about not giving privileges to people who get married. It's subsidizing a social choice and still in many parts of the US, a choice only available to a certain segment of the population.

[boboelmo]

@AshillaBeige That's a good point. I hadn't really thought of how many people marry someone of the opposite sex just for the tax benefits. It seems rather obvious now that you point it out to me. I feel kind of silly, actually. But at the same time, I still think any law regarding marriage discriminates against both heterosexual and homosexual people.

[Yereviltwin2]

@boboelmo

Because the underlying reason behind the “gay marriage” movement is the gays are using the government to force the cultural part of our society to be accept them. If it was really about rights, then civil unions would have sufficed.

[pbfrank13]

@boboelmo why favor married people at all and extend tax credits to everyone. individual rights trump group rights. You shouldn't get anymore or any less rights for being part of a group.

[depfox]

Congrats New York Yeaaaa

[Graffight]

Gov't should not be regulating marriage AT ALL

[TylersCool45]

@Graffight The Gov't shouldnt be regulating anything at all

[jetrpg22]

@Graffight

The only reason gov cares about marriage is because money is involved.

[DeputyFifey]

@Graffight what u mean like they shouldnt get married at all cause if ur like that well then... HIGH FIVE!!!

[Graffight]

@DeputyFifey - no I mean i could care less what they do. If they want to live together then so be it. if they want to act married, who am i to stop them? My contention is that gov't has no business telling anyone what they can do with their genitalia and has no business deciding who get's married whatsoever. Gov should be out of marriage completely.

[bttalbot]

So if there is no woman to hose the man in a divorce, who gets screwed?

[flynn2008]

@bttalbot

depends who's in the bottom.

[mrbill2600]

Government issues a license to legally protect children that are a product of a family. Religious people see marriage as a covenant of family dedicated before and to God.

[lordthawkeye]

Why does nobody question the logic of politicians having a say in the matter in the first place?

[alvincay100]

@lordthawkeye Politicians represent the people. Politicians have the job of legislating. This includes the right to create laws involving the issuing of licenses. Licenses, whether it be a drivers license or fishing license entail certain privileges and responsibilities and are therefore subject to be issued only when certain requirements are met. Of course license should not stomp on rights protected by the constitution. A license to to keep and bear arms would be unconstitutional.

[FlowCell]

@alvincay100 Everything you said is a series of prescripted fiat declarations. In a nutshell: politicians have a "right [sic]" to control our lives because we all believe in the same legally constructed fantasies and delusions regarding arbitrary power structures.

I defy you to create a descriptive (not prescriptive) explanation for why politicians have the "rights [sic]", or rather, powers to control our personal and financial liberty, even when we aren't hurting a non consenting third party.

[alvincay100]

@FlowCell Go read the constitution numskull. Elected officials are elected precisely to pass legislation. Everything we do affects a third party, whether you want to admit it or not. Some level of collectivism is therefore inevitable. Homosexuals being called marriage is a symptom of society that's not doing well. A society with low birth rates that sees no need to have children or pass on its cultural values is in a bad place and will not survive long.

[FlowCell]

@alvincay100

I have read the Constitution. I asked you for descriptive proof. The Constitution is a prescriptive document that tells us nothing about our reality because people made it up.

As for your other claims, they are totally unfounded. The state allowing gays to marry won't make more people turn gay, so your population crash hypothesis fails.

[alvincay100]

@FlowCell Population crash hypothesis? The population is already crashing. A governmental endorsement of homosexual behavior through equivocation to marriage is simply a symptom of a sick socialist society. As for more people turning gay, I disagree. To what degree it will affect our current social constructs on sexuality is unclear, but it will certainly encourage homosexual behavior.

[FlowCell]

@alvincay100

How could you possibly think that allowing homosexuals to get married (not the same as an endorsement) is a sign of a "sick socialist society". In what way is this socialist?

You have no evidence to support the claim that this will increase homosexual behavior in humans. Further, it is more likely that populations in industrialized nation decline due to the availability of birth control.

[viletree]

@alvincay100 What does homosexual behavior have to do with being a socialist? Are you retarded?

[alvincay100]

@viletree Being a homosexual has nothing to do with being a socialist. Wanting your homosexual relationship to be endorsed by the state so that you can receive socialist benefits has everything to do with socialism. Get it? Now who's the retard? You.

[viletree]

@alvincay100 Socialism is an economic philosophy, and homosexual rights is in the arena of civil rights. You have no idea what you are talking about

[alvincay100]

@viletree Since when is a "license" of any kind a "right"? Is a drivers license a "right"? No and neither is a marriage license. Quit resorting to left-wing language manipulation. No one with half a brain believes this "civil rights" bullshit anymore.

[viletree]

@alvincay100 Ironic that your shilling for a de facto form of statism, and those are not adequate comparisons since it takes a certain set of skills and an operation to achieve a driver's license. Quit your nebulous right wing absconding, no one with half a brain believes this "weasel wording" bullshit anymore.

[lordthawkeye]

@alvincay100 If you think politicians represent the people, you REALLY haven't been paying attention to the news this past century...heck you haven't been paying attention to history at all.

[mrbill2600]

Decadent... used to describe a decline of moral tradition. History teaches that a society that discards tradition as unnecessary and outmoded is doomed to collapse. But with free speech arguments over the nature of tradition and morality have left us at odds with ourselves. Only time will tell who is right, but by then it will be to late to save our society and our Country.

[MarcusCMarcellus]

@mrbill2600 I agree entirely, but don't expect these clever Reason Mag-types to understand a word of what you're saying. There is no wisdom to speak of among them. Just look at the personality cult they have developed around this ridiculous Gillespie character, with his wanna be tough guy, Marlon Brandon leather jacket and that smirk, that sophomoric smirk that betrays a consciousness as limited, as trapped in modernity and as ignorant as any statist leftist.

[qualityrkc]

@MarcusCMarcellus yeh who wants to be modern! lets all go back to the bronze ages weeeew!

[qualityrkc]

@mrbill2600 america is keeping with its tradition of social progress. You can't see that and its sad.

[FatherTime89]

@mrbill2600 All societies have collapsed for various reasons, and hell this country has abandoned tradition many, many times and sometimes we've been better off. Assuming that the traditional is always right is a logical fallacy and if that's the only thing you have to defend it, then it IS useless.

[alvincay100]

Marriage is a religious institution. Why then would any libertarian support the government issuing marriage licenses in the first place? Government involvement in marriage has always been about control of the people. What America needs now is more liberty and it can better achieve that by repealing laws, not passing new ones.

[lordthawkeye]

@alvincay100 Atheists get married. Point refuted. Try again.

[Bookstop1337]

@lordthawkeye

Also just wanted to add, prior to the Renaissance all marriages were performed by notaries or lawyers and not priests so there is almost no tradition of marriage being religious in origin or tradition.

[alvincay100]

@Bookstop1337 Whether marriage is a religious institution or not has nothing to do with whether a priest or lawyer is involved in the ceremony. Marriage as a religious institution goes back way before the Renaissance. Even before the old testament, religion always played a role in defining marriage in ancient times.

[Bookstop1337]

@alvincay100

Ancient Greece, which would be prior to the old testament, there was no ceremony- only a mutual agreement between the two parties that they regarded each other as husband and wife- that's a non religious union. Chinese women in the Ming dynasty also married other women w/o priests, not to mention the Emperor Nero marrying one of his male slaves. Points Refuted.

[alvincay100]

@Bookstop1337 You don't need a priest to have a religious ceremony. Although it may not look like a modern marriage in a church, the Greeks certainly drew on religion when it came to the marriage process. As for Nero, I don't think you want to use his name to advertise for anything unless you want to condemn it. Neither do we want to mimic the Ming dynasty.

[SuperAtheist]

@Bookstop1337 "Points Refuted." you missed one.

"What America needs now is more liberty and it can better achieve that by repealing laws, not passing new ones."

I couldn't agree more. What do you think, Bookstop1337?

Instead of licensing/regulating gay marriage, we should abolish state regulation of marriage entirely.

[Bookstop1337]

@SuperAtheist

That'd make for a heavy dose of personal responsibility, maybe that's exactly what the world needs?

[alvincay100]

@lordthawkeye The only reason an Atheist would get married is because they grew up in a religious society and have chosen conformity.

[qualityrkc]

@alvincay100 People get married in france, a highly secular society, like the usa.

[alvincay100]

@qualityrkc Sure, secular people conform to religion all the time. Religion is still largely responsible for defining marriage.

[qualityrkc]

@alvincay100 ahh you are trolling, you dont wanna listen to facts or reason. good luck in life, you are gunna need it with that attitude.

[johnycannuk]

@alvincay100 I guess that's why the Christian Church never had a marriage ceremony until after 1000 CE eh?

Sorry, civil marriage existed long before religion and will exist long after it.

You are just making this crap up.

[johnycannuk]

@alvincay100 Since when its it your business what two consenting adults do?

Oh why it isn't. It isn't the states or the church's business either.

Mind your own damn business. If you don't want gay marriage, don't marry a gay. Otherwise, piss off. None of your damn business.

[alvincay100]

@johnycannuk Breathe slowly and pull whatever it is you have up your ass out. Social institutions affect all of us. It does matter what your neighbor thinks and does.

[sagan4win]

i can already see the conservative hypocrisy that is going to happen in the comments 

[gsuitter]

I may not personally agree with how you exercise your freedom but as long as you hurt no one, I'll defend your right to do so.

[alvincay100]

@gsuitter Gays always had the right to marry as freedom of religion is protected in the constitution. What these people want is a marriage license. Whether the government should issue licenses in the first place is another matter, but licenses are not a right. For instance, a drivers license is not a right, but a privilege obtained by meeting certain requirements. If you believe in collectivism then you believe that society has a right to legislate licenses and their privileges.

[jnjnelson]

If marriage was only about personal liberty, marriage would only include one person. Marriage is not only about personal liberty.

[MilkDrinkerIntl]

A disgrace!

[TheBullionBull]

Disgusting.