SO TYPICAL OF THE LEFT. This girl is rhetorically implying the Right doesn't respect the will of the people. The irony is when that same process repudiates large government and higher taxes, they (the Left) take to streets, protest, raise hell, harass and intimidate until they get what they want.
This is the last guy that should say anything about marriage, unless being married three times is part of that 3000 year old tradition. As for a majority voting on a minority, didn't we have that for civil rights for blacks and women? So it isn't that much of an argument or even fair. And again no real factual argument against marriage equality even when most major countries have it and not experienced an apocalypse. So it really is just bigotry renamed as personal beliefs and tradition,
@aussiveconservative - informatist is doing EXACTLY what progressive/liberals like to do. Give you some far fetched, blown out of proportion point. And say "This is what so and so is saying." I Think Speaker Gingrich made a fantastic point on the issue at hand. And the kid at the end, had nothing to say, when Gingrich spoke AGAIN about the will of the people.
@informatist - you are WRONG. The liberal democrats of the SOUTH didn't want interracial marriage. You forget the history of the republican party was they wanted to ABOLISH slavery. Also, marriage is not a RIGHT for anyone. It always has been, and always SHOULD BE, a religious institution. The government, nor the judiciary has the right to legislate, or rule, on matters that are religious in nature. ALSO, this matter was voted on 2x by Californians. They voted for it TWICE.
What Newt side-stepped is her comparisons to the civil rights movement... Interracial marriage was also voted down by the majority and then overturned by the courts... and the people who were against interracial marriage cited the Bible as their reason too... So is Newt saying that we never should have allowed interracial marriage?
@informatist I would of course refer you to the video to see if Newt is saying that the state never should have allowed interracial marriage? No, he didn't. That is of course what you are saying he said, but that is factually false though because that isnt what he said now is it.
Newt, you cheated on your first wife then dumped her when she was in the hospital with cancer. Later you cheated on your second wife with a 27 year old congressional aide. Maybe you should pipe down about defending marriage.
Jefferson wrote, " majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction." How was Prop 8 a democratic measure when it only favored one demographic? If the argument is that it is an ancient tradition, how exactly will gay marriage destroy straight marriage? Obviously this doesn't mean that everyone will start engaging in same sex behavior.
simple solution: religions can keep THEIR marriage in churches
gay people and straight people who are NOT religious (because the number of people abandoning the christian faith is actually increasing) can get married but NOT in a church.
what gay person would ever want to get married in a church?
"Hi, I want to get married in a place that preaches that I'm going to hell after I die"
don't like this solution? you're being a bitch. stop it.
Gotta love Newt's 'strong faith' in marriage - this is a man who cheated on his wife and handed her divorce papers while she lay incredibly sick with illness. What a piece of shit Newt Gingrich is.
What's enormously depressing to me, irrespective of the views of the students, is how uneducated they sound. The young woman who spoke is utterly oblivious of the democratic process, and the fact that activist judges imposing their wills on a majority who disagrees with them is obviously not "democratic." Then, the young man who speaks suggests that Gingrich's view is wrong in part because it garners less liberal applause than the young woman's view, as if that matters.Who's teaching these kids?
@dseanmat I agree that these students sound pretty uneducated in the democratic process. However, it scares the crap out of me that people think using a democratic vote on a minority is constitutional. I don't care what your view is on an issue concerning a minority, you do NOT let the majority vote on something that affects the minority. Do people really not understand how morally wrong that is?
@Jakeof5 That "scares" you? Can you explain to me just what part of the Constitution is violated by a public referendum, which is the ultimate expression of democracy (along with the election of public officials)? "Using a democratic vote on a minority" is not constitutional? So what would be constitutional, allowing a minority to force its will upon the majority? In both direct democracy and in republican democracy, the majority rules. If you don't like that then you don't like democracy.
@dseanmat I clearly understand what you are trying to say. Although, did we vote as a country to end slavery? Do you think something like slavery should have a vote? This would definitely be a democratic way of dealing with a minority.
@dseanmat No, our country did not vote to end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. AKA we did not vote on this. Do you understand WHY we didn't vote on this? The majority at this time in our country's history could have EASILY voted FOR slavery.
That's why I say no democratic vote when it comes to a minority because OBVIOUSLY the minority will LOSE every time.
@Jakeof5 Your facts are wrong. First, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery. Read it. It was a Presidential decree aimed only at the states which were "presently in rebellion," meaning the Confederacy. And they didn't exactly listen to it, did they? Slave states which did not secede (such as the counties of West Virginia) were specifically exempt. It was Amendment 13, passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then a majority of the states, which ended slavery democratically.
@Jakeof5 If you favor the rights of the minority over the rights of the majority, then you favor tyranny over democracy. In the words of Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form."
@Jakeof5 Finally, let me say this, for what it's worth, Jake: I applaud your passion, and your sincerity. While I don't agree with you on this issue (particularly because of the enormous implications it has for religious freedom, as we have seen in Masachusetts and in D.C.) I am sure your heart is in the right place. You seem like someone with whom I can have a reasonable disagreement about this. That's a good thing. Thanks for your time, friend.
@dseanmat explain the implications this particular issue has on religious freedom? To deny gay marriage, in general, I'll have to say is absolutely wrong. To deny gay marriage in a church is understandable and fine. To force a church to go against its beliefs is wrong. However, to forbid a gay couple from getting married ANYWHERE outside religion is not fair. I know MANY straight couples who would kill a priest if he showed up to their wedding....however, they get to call it marriage?
@Jakeof5 In Massachusetts and in D.C., as soon as high-handed officials forced the issue of gay marriage on the people, Catholic Family Services was told that they had to start adopting children to gay couples, which obviously goes against their religion. You may think their religion is wrong, but the indisputable fact is that the state would be forcing them to violate their religious beliefs. So they ended their adoption services altogether. And they had been the largest NGO adoption providers.
@dseanmat my reply on the Mass. and D.C. Catholic Family Services refusing to adopt to gay couples is that if this organization was receiving ANY federal or state funding, they have to abide by the state. they're using their money. If they aren't using the state's money then i 100% agree with you. You do NOT force a religion to go against its beliefs. I don't agree with refusing to adopt to gay couples but I also do not agree with forcing a religion to go against its beliefs.
@Jakeof5 Furthermore, wedding-related businesspeople of Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Evangelical Christian, Baptist, and Muslim background who all uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage were told they had to do business with gay marriages. So if you were a limo driver, caterer, photographer, or florist, and you told a gay couple you didn't want to work for their wedding, you could be sued back into the Stone Age. What about their religious freedom as guaranteed by Amendment 1?
@dseanmat the wedding-related businesspeople who hold a religious background. I can see your point with this. I just find it absolutely unfair and this is a perfect reason why I don't believe in religions like this. It's flat out being rude to another fellow human being. Again, that's why I don't follow these religions. Being rude to someone who does absolutely no harm is just not my thing. Again, I do see your point on this. this is a tough one.
@Jakeof5 The First Amendment to the Constitution states in part that the state "shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion." Again, regardless of whether or not you happen to agree with the religion, the people and organizations I cited are legally entitled to their religious beliefs and the government is not supposed to be able to force them to violate the teachings of their respective faiths. But where gay marriage has been forced on the population, religious freedom goes out the window.
@dseanmat again, if organizations are receiving ANY money from the state of fed gov. then they have to abide by certain stipulations presented to them from the government. If they don't want to follow it, no more money for them. If they aren't receiving any money then i 100% agree with you. they have the freedom to do whatever.
I still don't understand where religious freedom goes out the window. What about a gay couples freedom?...Again, 2010....time for compromise. We can't be selfish.
@Jakeof5 I want to give you credit again for being respectful and thoughtful in your replies, even though this is obviously a deeply personal and emotional issue. Good for you, friend. I disagree with you, but I have tremendous respect for you and your point of view.
@Jakeof5 Lincoln issued the Proclamation right after the battle of Antietam in order to ascribe a high moral purpose to the war at a moment when it looked like the north could actually win it. It didn't really carry any practical impact, since of course the Confederacy didn't consider itself bound by it. But the vast majority of this country was opposed to slavery (remember that the Confederacy only had a fraction of the population of the North) and would have voted it down given the chance.
@dseanmat The eventual end of slavery started legally with the Emancipation Proclamation, issued following the Battle of Antietam. Although the Emancipation had little immediate effect -- it freed slaves that were still in areas under Confederate control -- it changed the Northern objective of the war from reuniting the Union to ending slavery. Still it would not be until after the end of the war and the 13th Amendment, ratified Dec. 18, 1865, that slavery was legally abolished in the US.
@Jakeof5 Now I'm asking did the PEOPLE of the US vote on this? I'm really asking. Leaving a minority's rights up to the majority population is still very wrong in my eyes. i don't care what the issue is...even if i'm for it. It's just morally wrong. It's not fair. What about the rights of black people later on after slavery...during jim crow laws. Did our country vote on that? How did jim crow laws end? Did we vote as a country or did that initiate in court cases?
@dseanmat Jim Crow laws....explain democratically-passed 14th Amendment....... what does this mean? Did the people of the US go into booths and vote for this? That's what i mean by democratic vote. Was this voted on BY the general population?
@Jakeof5 As with any Constitutional amendment, it was passed by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. That is not direct democracy but it is certainly an example of republican democracy. And with a deeply personal issue like this one, I say, let the people decide. Time is on your side, my friend, not mine. The younger generation agrees with you, mostly, and if you let the people decide this then it will only be a matter of time before your side prevails.
@dseanmat BUT that's the difference. Even if time was on my side and the vote for gay marriage passed....i STILL don't think that's right. You're missing my point. I can care less about gay marriage. The way that it is being decided, I don't agree with. When I say it shouldn't be up for a democratic vote, i mean it shouldn't be voted by the GENERAL POPULATION. i should've been more clear. I'm sorry. When it comes to ANY minority, the general population SHOULD NOT vote on the issue.
@dseanmat i have to keep coming back to this because this is important to me. I hope you understand that I'd be JUST as upset if gay marriage PASSED by a general population vote. My issue is with the general population vote concerning an issue dealing with a minority.
Isn't it just common sense that if the majority is voting on a minority that the majority will win EVERY time?
To be honest, I'm actually surprised that the prop 8 vote was as close as it was.
@dseanmat do you understand my concern there? My sister got married back in October to her husband in a gorgeous old ballroom of a historic hotel. She would have been the first person to stop a priest from walking through the doors of her wedding. Yes, she does not believe in religion what so ever. She is in the medical field and definitely has a scientific way of thinking over creationism. Why aren't religious people hounding them? Because coincidentally they are a straight couple?
@Jakeof5 Truly religious people don't "hound" anybody. I have very strong views on this subject because of the aforementioned implications it has for everyone's religious freedom. But neither I nor anyone else I know has ever "hounded" anybody. As for your sister and your other friends whom you said would "kill" a priest who came to their wedding, I respectfully submit to you that you need to cultivate relationships with more tolerant people.
@dseanmat I was exaggerating about non-religious wanting to kill a priest. Sorry, let me just be clear. I'm saying that some straight people have strong views against religion. I'm not going to be naive and say that EVERYONE against religion is a saint and will be cordial towards someone who preaches religion. Truly GOOD people (religious or not) will never hound anyone. GOOD people. not religious people, not non religious people...GOOD PEOPLE!
@dseanmat and you can be BAD and religious. (and vice versa....you can be good and religious and you can be bad and non religious)
I don't think religion defines someone as being good or bad. It's your ACTIONS that define that.
And the comment on surrounding myself with more tolerant people. I'll take that advice if you take it as well. Why can't you be more tolerant of gay people? Because of your religion? That is not fair. ha ha I have to be tolerant of you but you don't do the same?
@Jakeof5 No, of course I have to be tolerant. In fact, my religion tells me that I have to love and respect gay people as much as I love my own children, or myself. In fact, Jesus said, "No greater love hath anyone than he that giveth his life for his friends." Meaning that my religion mandates that I give my very life for a gay person if I have to. Must I also agree with everything they say as well?
@dseanmat If someone was discriminating against a religion then i'd be on the person being discriminated against. Even though I don't agree with religion I personally believe that they have the right to practice it and I'd DEFINITELY be on their side if they were being discriminated again. That's why in this issue of gay marriage, I'm on gay marriage side because i truly believe they are being SCREWED. A compromise AT LEAST needs to be made in this issue.
@dseanmat also, why aren't religious activists picketing outside red lobsters and restaurants that serve shell fish? I don't know if this is true but it has been flying around the web that consuming shellfish is as just an abomination as being homosexual? Is this true? If not, why are people saying this? Religion seems very silly to me. It has GREAT intentions but to be honest, I see it bringing out the WORST in people. Just be fair! Compromise! <--- keyword
@Jakeof5 That shelfish business is insane. No religion believes that. Strive to think critically. Also, your claim that science and religion are incompatible is pure bigotry. Catholics believe in evolution, and every other valid scientific theory. You are confusing us with creationists. Finally, to say that "religion seems very silly to you" is unfortunate, but thank God we have a Constitution and its First Amendment guarantees my right to be as "silly" as I want to be.
'But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,
What does this mean?
And that same First Amendment protects me from religious people going a little overboard and being "selfish" (not "shellfish" because that's detestable...j/j)
@Jakeof5 That's Mosaic Law, the "old covenant." The old law, and the Old Testament prophets, were fulfilled in Jesus, and that a new covenant was taking place. That doesn't mean all the old laws were abolished, but it meant that old Jewish laws (like the ones you refer to) did not apply to Gentiles (non-Jews) who were becoming Christians. Orthodox Jews still adhere to these rules. But Christians don't observe "kosher" restrictions. You'd have to ask an Orthodox Jew about this matter.
@dseanmat ok i am being a bigot on the evolution and catholic religion..... change that in me. So do you believe that God did not create the world? How does that work? (again, i'm interested)
Do you believe the Noah's Arch theory to be literal? (this actually happened?)
@Jakeof5 I absolutely believe God created the world. I also believe that evolution (and the rest of the laws of science) were the blueprint which He used to do it. Let me turn the tables on you a bit (if I may) and ask you: can you create anything? Meaning, can you create matter which did not already exist? Even something as small as a tiny pebble? Of course not. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy precludes this. So where did matter originate>
@dseanmat I won't have to ask an orthadox jew. ha ha. I understand that all religions have different rules they follow. That's fine with me. I love the moral structure that comes with religion, don't get me wrong. I just disagree that the act of homosexuality is immoral. That's my belief and forbidding a monogamous relationship of two people of the same sex outside the church is not right. To forbid ANY kind of monogamous relationship is a little nutty to me. ah well.
@Jakeof5 And no, I do not think Noah's Ark was meant to be taken literally. Again you have Catholicism conflated with fundamentalism (i.e. a literal approach to Biblical interpretation). I believe the entire Genesis account of creation to be a parable, much in the vein of Jesus' later parables. I believe the point of the parable to be that God did in fact create the world. Most Christians would agree with me. Those who don't are entitled to their views as well, and I respect them for it.
@dseanmat I absolutely respect anyone's beliefs...... can i create anything? no. Do I think that a God created the world? I honestly don't know. I don't know how the world was created. Having the belief that God created the world is wonderful. I just don't think it's right to govern on a belief. If God created the world, then who or what created God? is God a man? is God a woman? is God even a human? is God naked? Who created his clothes? It just brings up a whole set of new questions.
@Jakeof5 The fact that religion raises questions merely illustrates the beauty and joys of discovering the answers. For myself, I was baptized in a Catholic Church, thank God, and so I have all the answers I seek. Nothing else in the world has better enabled me to come to terms with the vast complexities of life, or to lead a happier or more fulfilling existence. Governing without religion has been tried in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Castro's Cuba, and Pol Pot's Cambodia.
@dseanmat it's really interesting how religion affects people differently. If it gives you positive fulfillment then by all means I say YOU should stick with it. For me, religion has the opposite effect. It wasn't until I abandoned religion that I felt happier as a person, got more involved with my community, and had a better appreciation for life. Whatever works for the individual to fulfill those needs is the path they should choose.
@Jakeof5 What was it about religion that prevented you from being happy, or from being involved in your community? Mine makes me realize that I am loved by God, and charges me with loving everyone else, and going out into my community to serve everyone in it. That said, most of my very best friends are atheists, and all of them are extremely generous, charitable people who (to their credit) are enormously respectful of my devout Catholicism.
@dseanmat it just didn't work for me. I am a better person without religion. trust me. i think it works for some people and for others it doesn't. I get that same charge for loving people and wanting to help my community when I am not following one religion.
I can't explain it. I was not a happy person with religion and the way my life is now, I never want to return to what it was. I'm 100% a better person now. If religion makes someone a good person then i say follow it.
@aussieconservative it's not only religious though. I know plenty of people who are atheist but are still allowed to get "married". They did not get married in a church (no did they want to) but they still get to call it marriage because it is a man and a woman? I don't understand that.
I think to deny anyone a life of monogamy doesn't make sense. I don't think I'll understand that. I'd love to understand where people against gay marriage are coming from though.
@Jakeof5 just because athiests do something doesnt mean that it makes any sense? marriage is not a necessary tradition for atheists, just as if people have equal treatment, marriage is not a necessaciary thing for homosexuals. marriage is a religous tradition that groups that have no claim over it are imposing their own seperate values. I agree that if you are a gay couple and you want things like power of attonery over your partner you have my support if you want tax advantages that too.
@Jakeof5 the marriage thing is a proxy for something else. its a short hand to homosexuals getting the same identical rights that people that are married have. If i give a woman power, through marriage, over a frozen sperm sample and she then gets divorced from me and gets married to another woman, could she still use the sample? Would gay couples have the same adoption rights as hetrosexual couples? marriage takes care of these things in one go. there is more to this than is being said.
Our Constitution was written to protect the rights of people to do as they please, so long as no one else's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are infringed.
The 16th Amendment abolished liquor because it was deemed immoral...does that make any sense? Of course not, that is why it was repealed.
I personally abhor gay marriage, but it does not hurt me nor my children...and I am not afraid to talk to them about it myself instead of leaving it to a state institution.
I know many here may find my comments appalling, and it may even be amongst my own YT friends...but a true understanding of the Constitution is needed.
Many believed that slavery was okay because "blacks" were sub-human...we all know better than that...and it was our Constitutional foundation that eventually lead to the overturn of a disgusting "traditional" action.
In order for our Constitution to work as it should, we cannot pick and choose what we like or dislike based upon somebodey's morals.
This country is NOT a democracy...and our forefathers did not want that. Democracy is mob rule...oppression of the minority by the majority.
For those that claim any religious reference are wrong. My Bible also tells ME that homosexuality is wrong. But it also tells me that God himself does not interfere with free will...so why should we?
You make a good argument about free will! God doesn't interfere with Murder, but last time I checked it was illegal (unless you are OJ).
You are right when you say this isnt a democracy, we are a representative Republic!
The constitution needs to be followed strictly and only OUR constitution...if it doesnt say anything about Marriage, then it MUST be left up to the individual States! Like it or not! I support the Constitution, not a party!
The issue of murder obviously infringes upon another person's right to life, so I cannot compare that to gay marriage.
The Constitution also says nothing about abortion...so why isn't that left to the states?
If left to the states, then what is the type of government run by CA? I imagine they are a Republic too.
The whole point I am making is that gay marriage does not infringe anyone else's rights. If it can be shown to me differently, I will gladly reconsider an intelligent argument.
God looks at Murder the same way he does ANY sin! Meaning they are all equal! Now you are picking and choosing!
Marriage is a religious term, hijacked by the Governments to use for Tax purposes! In ALL religions Marriage is between Man, Woman and GOD!
California is a Republic. Also the Electorate voted against Gay Marriage....why isnt that acceptable? If the Electorate eliminates the 2nd amendment....that would make all my weapons illegal and I would have to surrender them!
Yes God does look at ALL sins...but God does not run The USA.
Mat 22:21 - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Jesus believed in man-made govt.)
Marriage - Are you okay with multiple wives as some religions allow? What about marriage to children? What about arranged marriages?
No state can repeal a Federal Constitutional Amendment, period; that's why they are there.
I pray every single bigot who is fearful of gay people are dead by this year's end. No matter how much moral bullshit you spew, there is no GOD who would ever sponsor or engage in hatred at the level you pigs are capable of.
The fearful hatred you people preach is beyond words. Your GOD will burn you into the fires of hell.
Moral people need their voice heard. Stand together and fight or face the consequences. Be on guard for the Muslim in our nation.Sure they are peaceful now but just like they did to the rest of the world,when their numbers go up -so do their voices. Look how many nation have been taken over by them. They do it by fighting for their laws and their beliefs and forcing the people to shut up. If we lose our first amendment rights, we lose.
this is EXACTLY what ticks me off about liberals. its' ALL cheapshots. They feel, in THEIR affiliation that it's not right to be angry with the latinos and the blacks who voted heavily against gay marraige. And they're vile LIARS.
And of course republicans and non blacks and non latinos are scapegoated. PATHETIC. Liberals are not concerned about equal rights. Infact, the republican party had african americans elected into that party FIRST. NOT DEMOCRATS.
I read your description after I saw the clip, and I noticed that the guy made his two cheap shots before moving onto to make his faux concern about the GOP party known. I thought Gingrich responded to that idiot well.
Its the equivalent of Pedophiles proposing a law for us to accept pedophila as a lifestyle. Are we dividing the country because we don't agree with that lifestle too? Where does this protection of "lifestyle" end? What is really is, is an attack on the majority. Its an attack on morals and values.
people really need to explain WHY they think homosexuality is comparable to people who are pedophiles. I don't get this argument AT ALL. Please explain to me the reasoning behind this. This is an AWFUL comparison.
Lol Pedophiles? First what does two consenting adults relationship have to do with that? And when should the majority pass laws on the minority? We had that when we had slavery, and no civil rights. Your morals and values don't speak for everyone.
Aussie this is excellent. Newt put it so well especially about what gives you the right to overrule how the people voted on prop 8. That's the problem nowadays. The majority votes one way and a handful of people seem to be able to get their vote overturned in courts. The democratic process is beginning a slow death I'm afraid
SO TYPICAL OF THE LEFT. This girl is rhetorically implying the Right doesn't respect the will of the people. The irony is when that same process repudiates large government and higher taxes, they (the Left) take to streets, protest, raise hell, harass and intimidate until they get what they want.
synon9m 5 months ago
This is the last guy that should say anything about marriage, unless being married three times is part of that 3000 year old tradition. As for a majority voting on a minority, didn't we have that for civil rights for blacks and women? So it isn't that much of an argument or even fair. And again no real factual argument against marriage equality even when most major countries have it and not experienced an apocalypse. So it really is just bigotry renamed as personal beliefs and tradition,
MrSinister84 11 months ago
@aussiveconservative - informatist is doing EXACTLY what progressive/liberals like to do. Give you some far fetched, blown out of proportion point. And say "This is what so and so is saying." I Think Speaker Gingrich made a fantastic point on the issue at hand. And the kid at the end, had nothing to say, when Gingrich spoke AGAIN about the will of the people.
cpmower 1 year ago
@cpmower yeah leftists we can speak for ourselves don't need you to interpret for us ok
aussieconservative 11 months ago
@informatist - you are WRONG. The liberal democrats of the SOUTH didn't want interracial marriage. You forget the history of the republican party was they wanted to ABOLISH slavery. Also, marriage is not a RIGHT for anyone. It always has been, and always SHOULD BE, a religious institution. The government, nor the judiciary has the right to legislate, or rule, on matters that are religious in nature. ALSO, this matter was voted on 2x by Californians. They voted for it TWICE.
cpmower 1 year ago
What Newt side-stepped is her comparisons to the civil rights movement... Interracial marriage was also voted down by the majority and then overturned by the courts... and the people who were against interracial marriage cited the Bible as their reason too... So is Newt saying that we never should have allowed interracial marriage?
informatist 1 year ago 2
@informatist I would of course refer you to the video to see if Newt is saying that the state never should have allowed interracial marriage? No, he didn't. That is of course what you are saying he said, but that is factually false though because that isnt what he said now is it.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
Newt, you cheated on your first wife then dumped her when she was in the hospital with cancer. Later you cheated on your second wife with a 27 year old congressional aide. Maybe you should pipe down about defending marriage.
norm58 1 year ago
Jefferson wrote, " majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction." How was Prop 8 a democratic measure when it only favored one demographic? If the argument is that it is an ancient tradition, how exactly will gay marriage destroy straight marriage? Obviously this doesn't mean that everyone will start engaging in same sex behavior.
vasquez87 1 year ago
democratic vote on a minority is unamerican.
simple solution: religions can keep THEIR marriage in churches
gay people and straight people who are NOT religious (because the number of people abandoning the christian faith is actually increasing) can get married but NOT in a church.
what gay person would ever want to get married in a church?
"Hi, I want to get married in a place that preaches that I'm going to hell after I die"
don't like this solution? you're being a bitch. stop it.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
Gotta love Newt's 'strong faith' in marriage - this is a man who cheated on his wife and handed her divorce papers while she lay incredibly sick with illness. What a piece of shit Newt Gingrich is.
MidwestN8TV 2 years ago
1:58: "There is not a single state in which defense of marriage has been defeated in a democratic process."
FALSE!
Arizona, Proposition 107, 2006; rejected an amendment to ban gay marriage.
Newt can't get his facts straight.
ehealthy222 2 years ago
yes, but then they adopted it two years later with 56% of the vote. That's what he;s talking about....
bmf1706 2 years ago
What's enormously depressing to me, irrespective of the views of the students, is how uneducated they sound. The young woman who spoke is utterly oblivious of the democratic process, and the fact that activist judges imposing their wills on a majority who disagrees with them is obviously not "democratic." Then, the young man who speaks suggests that Gingrich's view is wrong in part because it garners less liberal applause than the young woman's view, as if that matters.Who's teaching these kids?
dseanmat 2 years ago 3
@dseanmat I agree that these students sound pretty uneducated in the democratic process. However, it scares the crap out of me that people think using a democratic vote on a minority is constitutional. I don't care what your view is on an issue concerning a minority, you do NOT let the majority vote on something that affects the minority. Do people really not understand how morally wrong that is?
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 That "scares" you? Can you explain to me just what part of the Constitution is violated by a public referendum, which is the ultimate expression of democracy (along with the election of public officials)? "Using a democratic vote on a minority" is not constitutional? So what would be constitutional, allowing a minority to force its will upon the majority? In both direct democracy and in republican democracy, the majority rules. If you don't like that then you don't like democracy.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat I say we vote on how SHITTY youtube is. it's not letting me reply but I'm sure it will let this message through
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@dseanmat I clearly understand what you are trying to say. Although, did we vote as a country to end slavery? Do you think something like slavery should have a vote? This would definitely be a democratic way of dealing with a minority.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@dseanmat No, our country did not vote to end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. AKA we did not vote on this. Do you understand WHY we didn't vote on this? The majority at this time in our country's history could have EASILY voted FOR slavery.
That's why I say no democratic vote when it comes to a minority because OBVIOUSLY the minority will LOSE every time.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 Your facts are wrong. First, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery. Read it. It was a Presidential decree aimed only at the states which were "presently in rebellion," meaning the Confederacy. And they didn't exactly listen to it, did they? Slave states which did not secede (such as the counties of West Virginia) were specifically exempt. It was Amendment 13, passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then a majority of the states, which ended slavery democratically.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 If you favor the rights of the minority over the rights of the majority, then you favor tyranny over democracy. In the words of Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form."
dseanmat 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 Finally, let me say this, for what it's worth, Jake: I applaud your passion, and your sincerity. While I don't agree with you on this issue (particularly because of the enormous implications it has for religious freedom, as we have seen in Masachusetts and in D.C.) I am sure your heart is in the right place. You seem like someone with whom I can have a reasonable disagreement about this. That's a good thing. Thanks for your time, friend.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat explain the implications this particular issue has on religious freedom? To deny gay marriage, in general, I'll have to say is absolutely wrong. To deny gay marriage in a church is understandable and fine. To force a church to go against its beliefs is wrong. However, to forbid a gay couple from getting married ANYWHERE outside religion is not fair. I know MANY straight couples who would kill a priest if he showed up to their wedding....however, they get to call it marriage?
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 In Massachusetts and in D.C., as soon as high-handed officials forced the issue of gay marriage on the people, Catholic Family Services was told that they had to start adopting children to gay couples, which obviously goes against their religion. You may think their religion is wrong, but the indisputable fact is that the state would be forcing them to violate their religious beliefs. So they ended their adoption services altogether. And they had been the largest NGO adoption providers.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat my reply on the Mass. and D.C. Catholic Family Services refusing to adopt to gay couples is that if this organization was receiving ANY federal or state funding, they have to abide by the state. they're using their money. If they aren't using the state's money then i 100% agree with you. You do NOT force a religion to go against its beliefs. I don't agree with refusing to adopt to gay couples but I also do not agree with forcing a religion to go against its beliefs.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 Furthermore, wedding-related businesspeople of Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Evangelical Christian, Baptist, and Muslim background who all uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage were told they had to do business with gay marriages. So if you were a limo driver, caterer, photographer, or florist, and you told a gay couple you didn't want to work for their wedding, you could be sued back into the Stone Age. What about their religious freedom as guaranteed by Amendment 1?
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat the wedding-related businesspeople who hold a religious background. I can see your point with this. I just find it absolutely unfair and this is a perfect reason why I don't believe in religions like this. It's flat out being rude to another fellow human being. Again, that's why I don't follow these religions. Being rude to someone who does absolutely no harm is just not my thing. Again, I do see your point on this. this is a tough one.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 The First Amendment to the Constitution states in part that the state "shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion." Again, regardless of whether or not you happen to agree with the religion, the people and organizations I cited are legally entitled to their religious beliefs and the government is not supposed to be able to force them to violate the teachings of their respective faiths. But where gay marriage has been forced on the population, religious freedom goes out the window.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat again, if organizations are receiving ANY money from the state of fed gov. then they have to abide by certain stipulations presented to them from the government. If they don't want to follow it, no more money for them. If they aren't receiving any money then i 100% agree with you. they have the freedom to do whatever.
I still don't understand where religious freedom goes out the window. What about a gay couples freedom?...Again, 2010....time for compromise. We can't be selfish.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 I want to give you credit again for being respectful and thoughtful in your replies, even though this is obviously a deeply personal and emotional issue. Good for you, friend. I disagree with you, but I have tremendous respect for you and your point of view.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 Lincoln issued the Proclamation right after the battle of Antietam in order to ascribe a high moral purpose to the war at a moment when it looked like the north could actually win it. It didn't really carry any practical impact, since of course the Confederacy didn't consider itself bound by it. But the vast majority of this country was opposed to slavery (remember that the Confederacy only had a fraction of the population of the North) and would have voted it down given the chance.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat The eventual end of slavery started legally with the Emancipation Proclamation, issued following the Battle of Antietam. Although the Emancipation had little immediate effect -- it freed slaves that were still in areas under Confederate control -- it changed the Northern objective of the war from reuniting the Union to ending slavery. Still it would not be until after the end of the war and the 13th Amendment, ratified Dec. 18, 1865, that slavery was legally abolished in the US.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 Now I'm asking did the PEOPLE of the US vote on this? I'm really asking. Leaving a minority's rights up to the majority population is still very wrong in my eyes. i don't care what the issue is...even if i'm for it. It's just morally wrong. It's not fair. What about the rights of black people later on after slavery...during jim crow laws. Did our country vote on that? How did jim crow laws end? Did we vote as a country or did that initiate in court cases?
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 Jim Crow ended because of the democratically-passed 14th Amendment, although it took almost 100 years to work effectively.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat Jim Crow laws....explain democratically-passed 14th Amendment....... what does this mean? Did the people of the US go into booths and vote for this? That's what i mean by democratic vote. Was this voted on BY the general population?
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 As with any Constitutional amendment, it was passed by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. That is not direct democracy but it is certainly an example of republican democracy. And with a deeply personal issue like this one, I say, let the people decide. Time is on your side, my friend, not mine. The younger generation agrees with you, mostly, and if you let the people decide this then it will only be a matter of time before your side prevails.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat BUT that's the difference. Even if time was on my side and the vote for gay marriage passed....i STILL don't think that's right. You're missing my point. I can care less about gay marriage. The way that it is being decided, I don't agree with. When I say it shouldn't be up for a democratic vote, i mean it shouldn't be voted by the GENERAL POPULATION. i should've been more clear. I'm sorry. When it comes to ANY minority, the general population SHOULD NOT vote on the issue.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@dseanmat i have to keep coming back to this because this is important to me. I hope you understand that I'd be JUST as upset if gay marriage PASSED by a general population vote. My issue is with the general population vote concerning an issue dealing with a minority.
Isn't it just common sense that if the majority is voting on a minority that the majority will win EVERY time?
To be honest, I'm actually surprised that the prop 8 vote was as close as it was.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@dseanmat do you understand my concern there? My sister got married back in October to her husband in a gorgeous old ballroom of a historic hotel. She would have been the first person to stop a priest from walking through the doors of her wedding. Yes, she does not believe in religion what so ever. She is in the medical field and definitely has a scientific way of thinking over creationism. Why aren't religious people hounding them? Because coincidentally they are a straight couple?
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 Truly religious people don't "hound" anybody. I have very strong views on this subject because of the aforementioned implications it has for everyone's religious freedom. But neither I nor anyone else I know has ever "hounded" anybody. As for your sister and your other friends whom you said would "kill" a priest who came to their wedding, I respectfully submit to you that you need to cultivate relationships with more tolerant people.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat I was exaggerating about non-religious wanting to kill a priest. Sorry, let me just be clear. I'm saying that some straight people have strong views against religion. I'm not going to be naive and say that EVERYONE against religion is a saint and will be cordial towards someone who preaches religion. Truly GOOD people (religious or not) will never hound anyone. GOOD people. not religious people, not non religious people...GOOD PEOPLE!
point is, you can be GOOD and not religious.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@dseanmat and you can be BAD and religious. (and vice versa....you can be good and religious and you can be bad and non religious)
I don't think religion defines someone as being good or bad. It's your ACTIONS that define that.
And the comment on surrounding myself with more tolerant people. I'll take that advice if you take it as well. Why can't you be more tolerant of gay people? Because of your religion? That is not fair. ha ha I have to be tolerant of you but you don't do the same?
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 No, of course I have to be tolerant. In fact, my religion tells me that I have to love and respect gay people as much as I love my own children, or myself. In fact, Jesus said, "No greater love hath anyone than he that giveth his life for his friends." Meaning that my religion mandates that I give my very life for a gay person if I have to. Must I also agree with everything they say as well?
dseanmat 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 If you don't think religion defines someone as bad or good, then hopefully you can disabuse yourself of any prejudice against it.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat If someone was discriminating against a religion then i'd be on the person being discriminated against. Even though I don't agree with religion I personally believe that they have the right to practice it and I'd DEFINITELY be on their side if they were being discriminated again. That's why in this issue of gay marriage, I'm on gay marriage side because i truly believe they are being SCREWED. A compromise AT LEAST needs to be made in this issue.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@dseanmat also, why aren't religious activists picketing outside red lobsters and restaurants that serve shell fish? I don't know if this is true but it has been flying around the web that consuming shellfish is as just an abomination as being homosexual? Is this true? If not, why are people saying this? Religion seems very silly to me. It has GREAT intentions but to be honest, I see it bringing out the WORST in people. Just be fair! Compromise! <--- keyword
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 That shelfish business is insane. No religion believes that. Strive to think critically. Also, your claim that science and religion are incompatible is pure bigotry. Catholics believe in evolution, and every other valid scientific theory. You are confusing us with creationists. Finally, to say that "religion seems very silly to you" is unfortunate, but thank God we have a Constitution and its First Amendment guarantees my right to be as "silly" as I want to be.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat Shellfish thing confuses me. What is this:
Leviticus 11:10
Second Testament
'But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,
What does this mean?
And that same First Amendment protects me from religious people going a little overboard and being "selfish" (not "shellfish" because that's detestable...j/j)
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 That's Mosaic Law, the "old covenant." The old law, and the Old Testament prophets, were fulfilled in Jesus, and that a new covenant was taking place. That doesn't mean all the old laws were abolished, but it meant that old Jewish laws (like the ones you refer to) did not apply to Gentiles (non-Jews) who were becoming Christians. Orthodox Jews still adhere to these rules. But Christians don't observe "kosher" restrictions. You'd have to ask an Orthodox Jew about this matter.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat ok i am being a bigot on the evolution and catholic religion..... change that in me. So do you believe that God did not create the world? How does that work? (again, i'm interested)
Do you believe the Noah's Arch theory to be literal? (this actually happened?)
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 I absolutely believe God created the world. I also believe that evolution (and the rest of the laws of science) were the blueprint which He used to do it. Let me turn the tables on you a bit (if I may) and ask you: can you create anything? Meaning, can you create matter which did not already exist? Even something as small as a tiny pebble? Of course not. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy precludes this. So where did matter originate>
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat I won't have to ask an orthadox jew. ha ha. I understand that all religions have different rules they follow. That's fine with me. I love the moral structure that comes with religion, don't get me wrong. I just disagree that the act of homosexuality is immoral. That's my belief and forbidding a monogamous relationship of two people of the same sex outside the church is not right. To forbid ANY kind of monogamous relationship is a little nutty to me. ah well.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 And no, I do not think Noah's Ark was meant to be taken literally. Again you have Catholicism conflated with fundamentalism (i.e. a literal approach to Biblical interpretation). I believe the entire Genesis account of creation to be a parable, much in the vein of Jesus' later parables. I believe the point of the parable to be that God did in fact create the world. Most Christians would agree with me. Those who don't are entitled to their views as well, and I respect them for it.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat I absolutely respect anyone's beliefs...... can i create anything? no. Do I think that a God created the world? I honestly don't know. I don't know how the world was created. Having the belief that God created the world is wonderful. I just don't think it's right to govern on a belief. If God created the world, then who or what created God? is God a man? is God a woman? is God even a human? is God naked? Who created his clothes? It just brings up a whole set of new questions.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 The fact that religion raises questions merely illustrates the beauty and joys of discovering the answers. For myself, I was baptized in a Catholic Church, thank God, and so I have all the answers I seek. Nothing else in the world has better enabled me to come to terms with the vast complexities of life, or to lead a happier or more fulfilling existence. Governing without religion has been tried in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Castro's Cuba, and Pol Pot's Cambodia.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat it's really interesting how religion affects people differently. If it gives you positive fulfillment then by all means I say YOU should stick with it. For me, religion has the opposite effect. It wasn't until I abandoned religion that I felt happier as a person, got more involved with my community, and had a better appreciation for life. Whatever works for the individual to fulfill those needs is the path they should choose.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 What was it about religion that prevented you from being happy, or from being involved in your community? Mine makes me realize that I am loved by God, and charges me with loving everyone else, and going out into my community to serve everyone in it. That said, most of my very best friends are atheists, and all of them are extremely generous, charitable people who (to their credit) are enormously respectful of my devout Catholicism.
dseanmat 1 year ago
@dseanmat it just didn't work for me. I am a better person without religion. trust me. i think it works for some people and for others it doesn't. I get that same charge for loving people and wanting to help my community when I am not following one religion.
I can't explain it. I was not a happy person with religion and the way my life is now, I never want to return to what it was. I'm 100% a better person now. If religion makes someone a good person then i say follow it.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Jakeof5 why do you care about marriage then? it is a religious tradition.
aussieconservative 11 months ago
@aussieconservative it's not only religious though. I know plenty of people who are atheist but are still allowed to get "married". They did not get married in a church (no did they want to) but they still get to call it marriage because it is a man and a woman? I don't understand that.
I think to deny anyone a life of monogamy doesn't make sense. I don't think I'll understand that. I'd love to understand where people against gay marriage are coming from though.
Jakeof5 11 months ago
@Jakeof5 just because athiests do something doesnt mean that it makes any sense? marriage is not a necessary tradition for atheists, just as if people have equal treatment, marriage is not a necessaciary thing for homosexuals. marriage is a religous tradition that groups that have no claim over it are imposing their own seperate values. I agree that if you are a gay couple and you want things like power of attonery over your partner you have my support if you want tax advantages that too.
aussieconservative 11 months ago
@Jakeof5 the marriage thing is a proxy for something else. its a short hand to homosexuals getting the same identical rights that people that are married have. If i give a woman power, through marriage, over a frozen sperm sample and she then gets divorced from me and gets married to another woman, could she still use the sample? Would gay couples have the same adoption rights as hetrosexual couples? marriage takes care of these things in one go. there is more to this than is being said.
aussieconservative 11 months ago
Comment removed
JHancock1776 2 years ago
Our Constitution was written to protect the rights of people to do as they please, so long as no one else's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are infringed.
The 16th Amendment abolished liquor because it was deemed immoral...does that make any sense? Of course not, that is why it was repealed.
I personally abhor gay marriage, but it does not hurt me nor my children...and I am not afraid to talk to them about it myself instead of leaving it to a state institution.
JHancock1776 2 years ago
I know many here may find my comments appalling, and it may even be amongst my own YT friends...but a true understanding of the Constitution is needed.
Many believed that slavery was okay because "blacks" were sub-human...we all know better than that...and it was our Constitutional foundation that eventually lead to the overturn of a disgusting "traditional" action.
JHancock1776 2 years ago
In order for our Constitution to work as it should, we cannot pick and choose what we like or dislike based upon somebodey's morals.
This country is NOT a democracy...and our forefathers did not want that. Democracy is mob rule...oppression of the minority by the majority.
For those that claim any religious reference are wrong. My Bible also tells ME that homosexuality is wrong. But it also tells me that God himself does not interfere with free will...so why should we?
JHancock1776 2 years ago
You make a good argument about free will! God doesn't interfere with Murder, but last time I checked it was illegal (unless you are OJ).
You are right when you say this isnt a democracy, we are a representative Republic!
The constitution needs to be followed strictly and only OUR constitution...if it doesnt say anything about Marriage, then it MUST be left up to the individual States! Like it or not! I support the Constitution, not a party!
RecceMan90 2 years ago
The issue of murder obviously infringes upon another person's right to life, so I cannot compare that to gay marriage.
The Constitution also says nothing about abortion...so why isn't that left to the states?
If left to the states, then what is the type of government run by CA? I imagine they are a Republic too.
The whole point I am making is that gay marriage does not infringe anyone else's rights. If it can be shown to me differently, I will gladly reconsider an intelligent argument.
JHancock1776 2 years ago
God looks at Murder the same way he does ANY sin! Meaning they are all equal! Now you are picking and choosing!
Marriage is a religious term, hijacked by the Governments to use for Tax purposes! In ALL religions Marriage is between Man, Woman and GOD!
California is a Republic. Also the Electorate voted against Gay Marriage....why isnt that acceptable? If the Electorate eliminates the 2nd amendment....that would make all my weapons illegal and I would have to surrender them!
RecceMan90 2 years ago
Yes God does look at ALL sins...but God does not run The USA.
Mat 22:21 - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Jesus believed in man-made govt.)
Marriage - Are you okay with multiple wives as some religions allow? What about marriage to children? What about arranged marriages?
No state can repeal a Federal Constitutional Amendment, period; that's why they are there.
JHancock1776 2 years ago
What about atheists? Are they not allowed to be married in this country even in a heterosexual relationship?
Obviously, you see them as sinning because they do not worship God...
JHancock1776 2 years ago
correction...18th Amendment was Prohibition.
(16th was the unconstitutional income tax)
JHancock1776 2 years ago
All professional politicians are Greedy Hucksters. This nation never intended for professional politicians. Lets take it back.
StonewallDVGM 2 years ago 2
You know what? You're right.
GiovannaNYC 2 years ago
celebrate our diversity - that's the message I hear - healthy debate will keep democracy and this republic a viable force on the planet.
Sour grapes on either side are and will only be just that - - Sour grapes.
Snowflake70 2 years ago
I pray every single bigot who is fearful of gay people are dead by this year's end. No matter how much moral bullshit you spew, there is no GOD who would ever sponsor or engage in hatred at the level you pigs are capable of.
The fearful hatred you people preach is beyond words. Your GOD will burn you into the fires of hell.
Cheers,
-The Race
RaceForTheTruth 2 years ago
Liberal Hypocrisy.
They wrap themselves in the 1st Amdmt., while trying to silence anything that they don't want people to hear!
Liberals have gone beyond McCarthyism in their persecution of conservatives.
FrankCastlez 2 years ago 2
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
No censorship laws like Obama's Anti-Hate Crime Bill H.R.1913 in America. This is America, Love it or Leave it!
Nickk361 2 years ago 3
Moral people need their voice heard. Stand together and fight or face the consequences. Be on guard for the Muslim in our nation.Sure they are peaceful now but just like they did to the rest of the world,when their numbers go up -so do their voices. Look how many nation have been taken over by them. They do it by fighting for their laws and their beliefs and forcing the people to shut up. If we lose our first amendment rights, we lose.
koolmom21 2 years ago
this is EXACTLY what ticks me off about liberals. its' ALL cheapshots. They feel, in THEIR affiliation that it's not right to be angry with the latinos and the blacks who voted heavily against gay marraige. And they're vile LIARS.
And of course republicans and non blacks and non latinos are scapegoated. PATHETIC. Liberals are not concerned about equal rights. Infact, the republican party had african americans elected into that party FIRST. NOT DEMOCRATS.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago 2
GOD Created Adam & Eve!
NOT adam & steve!
There for Marriege is between, Man & Women! That's Who Make Babies!
faggots, don't make nothing, but more aids!
rebelstang 2 years ago 2
Newt's got balls for putting himself in this line of hostile fire. 5/5
MidNightRider2001 2 years ago 3
I read your description after I saw the clip, and I noticed that the guy made his two cheap shots before moving onto to make his faux concern about the GOP party known. I thought Gingrich responded to that idiot well.
VinceP1974 2 years ago 2
They dont want equal protection. If they were for equal protection under the law then they would be opposed to hate crime laws. But they arent.
Gay marriage isn't about legal benefits or equality. Its about watering down our values and making us accept their lifestyle.
girzwald3 2 years ago 3
Its the equivalent of Pedophiles proposing a law for us to accept pedophila as a lifestyle. Are we dividing the country because we don't agree with that lifestle too? Where does this protection of "lifestyle" end? What is really is, is an attack on the majority. Its an attack on morals and values.
Gina2NYC 2 years ago 3
Gina:
Excellent Point ! According to the ACLU + NAMBLA + The Lisbon Treaty + Islam that is exactly what the Liberals want and will demand !
Look at the Failed Lisbon treaty !
starcatcher7777 2 years ago 2
@Gina2NYC
people really need to explain WHY they think homosexuality is comparable to people who are pedophiles. I don't get this argument AT ALL. Please explain to me the reasoning behind this. This is an AWFUL comparison.
Jakeof5 1 year ago
@Gina2NYC
Lol Pedophiles? First what does two consenting adults relationship have to do with that? And when should the majority pass laws on the minority? We had that when we had slavery, and no civil rights. Your morals and values don't speak for everyone.
MrSinister84 11 months ago
Thanks for posting this video - I've added it as a favourite!
Cheers
onemoreterm 2 years ago 3
Newt is so right these people can only win in the courts.
gismotech 2 years ago 6
Aussie this is excellent. Newt put it so well especially about what gives you the right to overrule how the people voted on prop 8. That's the problem nowadays. The majority votes one way and a handful of people seem to be able to get their vote overturned in courts. The democratic process is beginning a slow death I'm afraid
Freefaller007 2 years ago 5