Lucy Liu for HRC's New Yorkers for Marriage Equality

[whotaughtyou]

YOU DONT LOVE ME

OUTPUT £103 ANDREA MCLEAN WHITE DIAMONDS

RC 79111 ADRIAN SWABY BLACK DIAMONDS

ALGERIAN MAIDEN BANK ROBBERY CHUCK 2

GET THOSE PEADOPHILES OUT OF MY HOUSE

[Quadzilla99]

Why is she still in the closet?

[PolarisPhoenix13]

Just another example of how great this lady is!

[dmohr7]

43 and fucking hot super milf!

[kellycat2552]

what a joke......who is she to support marriage...she isn't married and is gay.. .I think she means I support gay marriage. Obviously she wants it both ways. Be in the closet and gay what a joke!!!

[VelaToNorma7]

Being a faggot is unnatural.

[meattube4u33]

@VelaToNorma7 Homosexuality is a birth defect and it is unnatural as the majority of people are born hetrosexual and honosexuals can not reproduce, there for homo's are in fact unnatural defects.

[1Bloodless1]

@meattube4u33 homosexuality is NATURAL. Stupidity is only unnatural. We are all homo SAPIENS. Do you even know what this word means? Homosexuality is the same LOVE just for the same sex. What's the difference anyway, who people love and want to marry, mind your own business. LIVE AND LET LIVE.

Peace...

[meattube4u33]

@1Bloodless1 Homosexuals have no business adopting hetrosexual childern, when you freaks of nature start minding your own business I wil gladly mind mine. LEAVE THE CHILDERN ALONE YOU SICKOS!!!

[1Bloodless1]

@meattube4u33 Tell me, have you seen an unhappy, unloved, uneducated, badly raised child who has grown in homosexual family? Open your eyes, and don't be so narrow-minded. We are all equal people, despite our sexual orientation. When will you people get that sexual orientation has nothing to do with intelligence, world view, social values, and responsibilities. Choose love and understanding, not war and unfounded judgement.

[meattube4u33]

@1Bloodless1 ( have you seen an unhappy, unloved, uneducated, badly raised child who has grown in homosexual family? ) YES Yes I have and it is so very very wrong. Its sad when a child has to grow up without parents and even worse when the state dumps that child into the hands of a pair of same sex perverts to be exposed on a daily basis to a sick and demented lifestyle, a child is in a large part a product of his/her enviorment and a hetro child needs hetro parents with hetro values.

[1Bloodless1]

@meattube4u33 ( have you seen an unhappy, unloved, uneducated, badly raised child who has grown in homosexual family? ) You said you have seen, but you haven't given any proof. Besides, it is psychologically proven that children do not care with whom to live, all they need is LOVE. They don't care if there's only a man/woman/ or a couple of same/different gender people. Think about orphans, or children who have been left by their parents only because they don't want them. It's a solution.

[meattube4u33]

@1Bloodless1 HOMOSEXUALS CAN NOT REPRODUCE, THUS IT IS UNNATURAL FOR HOMOSEXUALS TO RAISE CHILDERN, ABSOLUTLY TOTALLY 100% UNNATURAL

[1Bloodless1]

@meattube4u33 who gave you this right to decide who can or can't do this and that? What makes you better than anyone, who said you have more rights than the others? NO ONE and NOTHING. We are all human beings, born free and equal. Don't judge and you won't be judged, because all you're saying is unproven superstitions, and stereotypical thinking. RESPECT is the key word to a better world, but you probably won't understand anyway...

[meattube4u33]

@1Bloodless1 I respect the rights of innocent childern to have a decent life and thier right to a fair chance in life by not allowing them to be forced into the hands of a pair of same sex perverts who will have an impact on thier future and mental health. Childern deserve a mother and a father. In nature only a mother and a father produce a child, same sex perverts do not produce childern in nature and it is in fact unnatural for same sex perverts to raise childern. YOU NEED TO RESPECT THAT!

[Nekhet]

@meattube4u33 Actually biologists have discovered at least 6000 different species which practice homosexuality, so it is not as "unnatural" as you think it is.

[golfinskynyrdfan]

@VelaToNorma7 its people like you who deserve a kick in the face, then the nuts, then the face again, and finished off with a donkey punch. you inconsiderate bastard. i cant wait till your generation dies out

[WellConditioned]

Equal Protection and Due Process will be the final say across the country.

The gluttunous christians will double the value of McDonald's stock when it finally comes to pass.

[badlands307]

Butt ugly.

[blognewb]

@badlands307 lol really? I'd like to see your face, just to check where you get your standards.

[N2CChaos]

Its a good thing I don't give a damn about Hollywood's opinions.

[frostwave01]

@N2CChaos You cared enough to make a comment on this vid. Seeing as you have nothing else to do but demean people because you are afraid/jealous of their differences. I guess i can see why it would be hard not to.

[blognewb]

@N2CChaos you don't care that 1) you searched for this clip 2) watched it, and worse, 3) commented and 4) hit submit. That's how much you "don't give a damn". Typical hypocrites.

[blognewb]

@N2CChaos you mean the above 50% DIVORCE RATES in "married" straight couples? Yeah it will never. Think about it :) This is STATE LAW NOT RELIGIOUS law, it just so happened that in BOTH cases, it's the SAME TERM "MARRIED".

[kosilveriarn]

perhaps we should just abolish all marriage, would be far simpler

[BelieveIt1051]

If Lucy supports diversity, then why is she in favor of a relationship type that kills off diversity by restricting procreation? If she supports acceptance, then does she also accept polygamist "marriage", incestuous "marriage", child/adult "marriage", human/animal "marriage", human/object "marriage", or arranged "marriage"?

If only more people would think about this issue more deeply and challenge the pro-same-sex "marriage" side more would see that traditional marriage must be protected.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 Like most who support marriage equality for same gender couples Lucy supports equality of existing marriage law which applies to TWO people, to apply to same gender couples, that is TWO CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN beings who DON'T currently SHARE an EXISTING CLOSE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP to one another.

Your silly slippery slope argument is a failure, as you would have gotten on that slope the minute you legislated marriage period. We have limits now, we CAN have "rational" limits.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView But you're ignoring the point. She does not support equality. She supports redefining the definition of marriage so that gender is no longer recognized. This is proved by the fact that she does not advocate in favor of redefining marriage to fit the other relationship types I mentioned previously.

Also, existing marriage law does not apply to two people. It applies specifically to one man and one woman.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 Constitutionally impermissible, in some places, law is restricting marriage based on the gender of the individuals who comprise the couple. As there is no rational justification for restricting marriage law to people who share opposite genders (as found by an ever growing number of courts, the legal experts who are listening to expert testimony), then to exclude same gender couples does not hold up to scrutiny.

You fail to understand the logical fallacy of the Slippery Slope.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView Law is not restricting marriage to anything. It is merely protecting marriage from being misused and applied to things it does not apply to such as incestuous couples, child/adult couples, human/animal couples, same sex couples, and polygamist groups.

The courts don't have the Constitutional authority to change the definition of marriage in the first place, so your argument is moot. Second, there is rational basis for protecting the ago old definition of marriage.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 Really what argument is that? Because every one I've heard so far, and more and more courts, as well as legislatures and Americans are agreeing, fails miserably. The courts DO have the Constitutional authority to ensure that citizens of the United States, who are equally regarded by law, ARE treated equally by existing law, and that where there is any discrepancy of that, there be a rational justification. Opposite gender restrictions on marriage law don't pass muster.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView And to that end the courts (in regard to DOMA, not Prop 8) may hear the case and decide to uphold DOMA or void it. However, voiding DOMA would not create a law stating that same-sex "marriage" is legal. Nor could it redefine marriage.

Now, in regard to Prop 8, the Federal Courts have no right to hear the case at all, as Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution does not grant them authority in a case between citizens of a State nor citizens of a State and the same State.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 Sorry BelieveIt, but the States ARE in fact bound by the Federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment ensures that. No State, by any means of enacting law, can deny the equal protection of the laws to any citizen or class of citizens without having a compelling justifiable State interest for doing so. As much as it has helped you in recent years, no majority of people can simply deny the Constitutional right to equal protection of the laws, to any other people.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView Yes they are bound by the U.S. Constitution, but it is up to the state Supreme Court to hear any cases between citizens of that state or between the citizens of that state and the state government itself. It is supposed to end there. No appeals to any federal district court, no Supreme Court involvment. Why? Because the Federal government is not a party, nor is any other state government, nor is any out of state citizen, nor is any foreign national.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 You don't understand. All levels of government, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, are bound by the citizen protections guarantees of the bill of rights, that originally only applied to federal legislation. The 14th also guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens, exceptions only made when there is a justifiable compelling State interest for them. They were unable to convince the courts of that for the restriction of marriage law to opposite gender couples only.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView I am not challenging the 14th Amendment. I am challenging the assertion the the Supreme Court has the authority to hear cases arising between citizens of one state or citizens of a state and that state government.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 The Federal District and U.S. Supreme Court has the authority when a challenge is made based on U.S. Constitutional grounds, and Proposition 8 was challenged on such grounds.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView Not so. They only have jurisdiction when the Constitutional question arises from a federal law.

Yahoo! "Federal-question jurisdiction".

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 Of course there is federal jurisdiction. The law in question is the United States Constitution and a State law (State constitution or otherwise) being in violation of that.

Why are you even trying to argue this point? I don't even hear those who are actually fighting this case trying to make your argument. Or if they did they were ruled against and dropped that line of reasoning.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView Well again, I didn't care to discuss the matter of jurisdiction, but my point is that even with the federal courts hearing the case, they don't have the authority to institute same-sex "marriage". Even if they were Constitutionally authorized to strike down Prop 8, such a ruling would not create same-sex "marriage". There would be nothing to compel the government to recognize same-sex couples as be married, as there is no law saying they must.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 There is no such thing as same sex marriage as far as the law is concerned. State's have marriage law. The ruling is, that any stipulation that the two consenting adults who join in that legal union have to be of the opposite gender is invalid and a violation of Constitutional protections. The courts are 'instituting' same sex marriage. They are merely stating that if you HAVE such laws, you cannot discriminate against the participants based on their gender.

[EmeraldView]

@EmeraldView p.s. As you probably guessed that last two lines should read:

The courts are NOT 'instituting' same sex marriage. They are merely stating that if you HAVE such laws, you cannot discriminate against the participants based on their gender.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView Also, Equal Protection only means that the law apply to everyone equally. Prop 8 applies to everyone equally. No citizen can go against Prop 8. Therefore Equal Protection is upheld.

The problem with the Walker court was that he flipped everything on its head. He demanded the Prop 8 side to convince him (a homosexual) that Prop 8 was a good thing. Instead he should have challenged the plaintiffs to show how Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 Have you READ the Prop 8 Walker decision? That's what pretty much the entire opinion speaks about. The defendants (Prop 8 supporters) also needed to show how restricting marriage law and its myriad of legal rights, benefits, protections, obligations, & responsibilities ONLY to opposite gender couples has a rational basis or advances a compelling State interest.They failed miserably, and now want the courtroom footage buried forever! BTW, you gravely misunderstand Equal Protection.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView Yes I have read it. Walker did not challenge the same-sex "marriage" side to prove how Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. He demanded the Prop 8 side convince him that Prop 8 was necessary and good for the state. It was not their job to convince him that the law was a good thing. 7 million voters decided it was a good thing. So his demands were unacceptable. What should have happened (if at all) was the plaintiff proves 8 violates "X", and the defense proves it does not. Period.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 Clearly you did not read Judge Walker's Prop 8 decision. The entire case was based on how it violates the U.S. Constitution. Of course that was argued by the Plaintiffs and Judge Walker clearly spelled out precisely HOW it is in violation, in multiple ways. 6.5 million also voted against Prop 8, but it wouldn't matter if it was 13.5 million to 1, even THAT big a majority can't vote away the Constitutionally protected right to equality under law, that must have a rational basis.

[BelieveIt1051]

@EmeraldView Of coruse I did. The case was based on how the Prop 8 side could not provide a "compelling reason" to justify Prop 8's existence. A complete disregard for the judicial process.

Furthermore he claimed that it wasn't likely that they would be able to appeal the decision, saying they didn't have legal standing. So they did have legal standing to defend it in his court, but not the appeals court? What kind of "judge" was that?

My point was 7 million saw a compelling reason for 8.

[EmeraldView]

@BelieveIt1051 Well.... 7 Million were not participants in the trial with legal experts and expert testimony.  Their say is irrelevant when it comes to whether the law/amendment was Constitutionally permissible. Yes, the defendants of Prop 8 were asked to show a compelling reason for Prop 8. They needed to show a rationale for suspending equal protection to same gender couples under existing marriage law; if there were a compelling State interest for having such an exception to equality.

[pisaltouch]

Such a great video. I will support u guys.

[KISSarmyGuy]

Lucy is so cool and beautiful!

[jch91875]

@thevovo68 you say no one knows right from wrong anymore. Guess you think hate and being judgemental are right then ? What is disgusting is when some moron tries to say that what I do behind closed doors and who I do it with in some way affects them. Really??? Thank you, didn't know I was that important. Whats sad is people like you who are so miserable the only happiness you know is making others miserable. Don't like gay marrige huh, don't f#cking marry one then asshole. Leave that to me.

[AirwaveXReverie]

Thank you, Lucy.<3

[declanappleseed]

Awww, she's way too cute!

[HenhousetheRed]

@TheVovo68 Crawl out from under the rock you live under and go back to kindergarten. You need to learn how to spell before you try and communicate with us adults, please.

[HenhousetheRed]

@TheVovo68 Too bad we gay people are better than you will ever be. Me, my boyfriend and all of my gay friends are doing better than functioning. We are shining. Of course, you, who believes us to be disgusting and wrong, will never be able to see the truth. We are as normal as you are, if not far more normal since "normal" does not include such displays of hatred for other human beings.

By the way, did you know that the father of modern computes was a gay man? Alan Turing. We function well, kid.

[WellConditioned]

@TheVovo68 Satire, yes?

If not you are in dire need of an education on so many levels.

[kevlarman7]

@TheVovo68 Homosexual people are nice!They have NOT brought Earth down to its lowest level.that would be your type, you bible humpers!And a disease is caused by micropscopic organisms in your blood.Homosexuality is a state of mind, you stupid bastard.And if youre gonna insult someone, learn how to spell.henhouse is right, gays are way better than you!oh, and according to the bible, eating shrimp is a sin, as well as being gay, and swearing, but it says nothing about slavery!Point taken?

[kevlarman7]

@HenhousetheRed I support you all the way. Gays have rights, and bible humpers like Vovo here need to give up their shield of the moniter and find something better to do, rather than rip decent peoples souls like you and I apart. I would say God bless you, but hes a homophobe too. Jesus, is anyone a non-homophobe?

[chaiwattob]

Thank you! Lucy liu! You are so beautiful and kind hearted.

[BustersDad]

Beautiful as always! Thank you for your support!

[CLEVELTECH]

THANK YOU.

[vanisherone]

Lucy you never disappoint. I'm with you and all others in this quest!

[deadmonkey342]

MARRIAGE EQUALITY! :D

[aheller]

THANK YOU LUCY LIU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[athao214]

She is such a beautiful woman. I love her.

[WellConditioned]

Yet another reason I like this fine woman!

[strafrag1]

thanks for your support, Lucy.

I'm a native NYer too and very proud of it!