No, I don't buy any of this for a second, and I will not vote for gay marriage, I will also support measures to keep marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. I don't have a problem with recognizing Civil Unions, but I am against gay marriage, I personally think homosexuality is an abomination, and a genetic defect. Which produces no possible benefit for any society I want to live in.
@ProfMTH Was quite a win. Long story short, conservative and religious college, but only in the area with law programme. Had to write a argument for the Supreme Court for Perry v Schwarzenegger, with our Professor writing the court's opinion based upon the strengths of the arguments. In the end the Perry supporters won by a landslide because all the opponents: 1)could not think of any good arguments at all 2) resorted to "think of the children" "destruction of sanctity of marriage"
I love how they always try to play the "we're the majority, so we should be able to vote on it" card. This is one of the *exact* reasons we are a democratic republic, rather than a democracy. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%."
"I don't know" at least the guy was honest but they are the three words you really shouldn't be having to say to a judge when questioned, it does weaken your argument a tad.
I hadn't heard of West Virginia School Board v. Barnette, so I looked it up. I was surprised that it overturned another SCOTUS ruling that was only 3 years old. Are there any other instances where SCOTUS has reversed itself so quickly?
@SkepticalTraveler There are a few, yes. I'm trying to think of the names of the cases off the top of my head and I'm drawing a blank. Once my mind unfreezes, I'll give you a few examples. The Court has often often viewed its adherence to precedent in decisions involving interpretation of the Constituion as more flexible than reversals in decisions involving ordinary laws or regulations (which decisions are far more easily reversed by the political branches--especially the legislative branch).
(con't) Moreove, the Gobitis decision that Barnette overruled was generally viewed as a horrible decision. Among the nefarious things that happened in its wake was a significant outburst of violence and threats of violence against Jehovah's Witnesses.
Ha! Walker has a "vested interest" in the outcome of this case? Of course he does!! Everyone has a "vested interest" in preserving his or her own civil rights! Why shouldn't they?
I always thought that marriage based on your willingness to have children would make the most sense. I mean, after all, isn't that why we have marriages in the first place? To make child rearing more economical? I dunno that was always my idea of what it was, and has always been for. To put into writing a couple's commitment to the propagation of their genome within a social group. This could apply to anyone and would get rid of the dead weight loss of childless married couples.
@ProfMTH The Married couples who get tax exemptions but with no real need for them. Basically, they get money from everyone else for the wrong reasons. This is not to say it is necessarily harmful. But these tax exemptions could go to needier others. I merely suggest that we give couples tax exemptions for raising children because that is what is so expensive about being married. Other than that, they are just room mates who have a piece of paper saying they share a house with their fuckbuddy.
Although I feel no one should go without their rights, if you think about it their liberties are limitless if it is a consensual act. If homosexuals are to marry, what about those who want to marry more than one companion? I don't think that homosexuals should marry but, I don't think they should be hindered from doing so. Peace...
Excellent video,as always.You explain the law very well to lay people.I was slightly bemused by the claim from some people that the judge was biased due to his sexual preference and that a heterosexual judge would not be.The fact that the vast majority of gay-marriage opponents are straight would suggest otherwise,or at least that it is irrelevant.
"7 million Californians believed" in proposition 8. Okay, but she forgot to mention that "7 million Californians" constituted only 52% of the vote. Over 6,400,000 Californians voted against proposition 8.
The idea that Judge Walker having a "vested interest" prevents him from making a sound decision is such bull. Every judge has a vested interest in the society the he/she lives in. Justice Roberts probably desires to not be detained indefinitely as much as anyone else. I guess he should be excluded from making decisions concerning habeas corpus,
No, if a state/federal law violates the Constitution, it is struck down regardless if the majority/minority enacted it. The framers of the Constitution were concerned w/the POLITICAL MAJORITY using their power against the POLITICAL MINORITY. Since the Constitution is law, it also protects the CITIZENS from an OVERREACHING GOVERNMENT. The Bill or Rights protects individual rights ( speech, religion, right to bear arms, not to quarter troops, right to confront witness, no self-incrimination).
Do not take me the wrong way. Your video is decent and you seam to not be an ignoramus.
I actually think gay wedding not that big deal. It's the underling fact that fundies are trying to meddle into other people personal lives the real issue here.
The troglodyte who played terminator is a governor... every time i see this i chuckle.... well you are still debating creationism.
America is a shame on the 1st world, usa is a third world with weapons (at least the south, for the record you still have good universities and scientists). Control your rednecks or be a venezuela of tomorrow
@UrsoDaCortesia Whatever one may think of the governor of California, the fact is that he refused to defend Proposition 8 in court and he asked the judge not to stay his decision so that same-sex couples could begin getting married again immediately. So he did a fine job here.
It hasn't been very long since your country extended the right to marry to same-sex couples--not exactly a basis to denounce other countries that are still working it out.
One point that the Pro Prop h8ers made regarding "procreative" aspect of marriage that was not addressed is simply this:
If a gay man or lesbian is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, would they be inclined to marry someone of the OPPOSITE, get biz-zay and "procreate" with that person? So they would just switch to heterosexual and start making babies?
That's absolutely stupid, and is the subtext of the "procreative" crap.
IRoNy: Homophobia is typically the result of suppressed homosexuality, and the fear of the suppressed homosexuality being encouraged to express itself.
Holy shit. God fuckin forbid gays have a say at their own witch trial. So I can complain then (because these guys are so consistent and all) that since the rest of the judges were openly hetero that they have conflicts of interest? Maybe we should have a panel of eunuchs.
OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL! OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL! OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL! The assholes keep repeating this to promote naughty pictures in the average American idiot's head.
Why does the state have to define what marriage is at all? Why cant we define that privately? is the enemy the opposing view or is it in reality the state?
In order for all those who criticize the Perry decision on the ground that Judge Walker is openly gay to not take a hypocritical position it follows that they will also demand that Justice Scalia withdraw if the case makes its way to the Supreme Court. In the May 2002 issue of a publication entitled "First Things" Justice Scalia wrote that should the constitution ever require him to act in a way that is contrary to Catholic mandates he would have no choice but to resign from the court.
@jm11941. The Catholic Church has repeatedly made clear that Catholicism not only prohibits engaging in a gay marriage but prohibits the facilitation of a gay marriage. A decision that holds the prohibition of gay marriage as unconstitutional is a clear facilitation of gay marriage. Therefore, not only dies Justice Scalia harbor strong feelings on the issue of gay marriage he feels morally compelled to vigorously oppose it.
On the front page of my homepage I list all the issues I support and I used to have "Gay Marriage Rights" and to be honest, I don't consider it a right at all, to me its more of a contract held by the state between consenting adults. When you said Marriage Equality at the start of the video it really made a bell go off in my head on how to address the issue more accurately. That's obviously more of a side issue with me and rhetoric, the video is excellent and informative. Thanks for making it.
ProfMTH something you may not be aware of--The current coalition government in the UK are now talking about getting rid of "civil partnerships"(introduced by my party-Labour)and replacing them with equal marriage. I despise this ConDem administration but welcome this decision by them and feel its long overdue
Footnote This change comes from the Liberal Democrats and NOT from the Conservatives
@polyathiest Hi Prof, Going off-topic: As a Brit I'm intrigued. I understand there would be fundamental principled differences between your political disposition an that of the coalition but my guess is for you to 'despise' them there's more to it than basic political differences? For me for the time being I am undecided so here's one request for you to apply that mind of yours for which I have so much respect to a video for your British subscribers on your objections to what's going on here.
Marriage is discriminatory anyway, just like the carpool lane. I'm too ugly to ever for anyone to ever love me, hence I will always lack this right. Why should good looking or charismatic people have basic privileges outstripping my own for getting together? Isn't the hot sex they have reward enough? Why should they get legal privileges? Government should stay out of marriage altogether, whether straight or gay!
I am incredibly proud of the judicial system in this case. Proposition 8 will probably go down in history as an emberrising human rights violation in the eyes of those who come after us. This court case puts faith in the system as a tool used to defend the rights of all individuals and proves that the civil rights system is not run by popular demand
@THEFIXERification I believe I stated that international treaties are equal to the Constitution not that they supercede it. And what does China-gate have to do with...Oh nevermind, you just wouldn't grasp it anyway!
wow! you people really know how to beat a moot point to death. why should the government be involved in marriage to begin with? it is strictly a religious ceremony and should be separate from government mandate.
@ProfMTH where did the idea of religion come from? man. where did the idea of marriage stem from? man and religion. i do agree that marriage now seems to have little to do with religion, but it is a tradition that directly comes from religious texts. and i think doug stanhope says it best ---> /watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM
Good vid, Prof. I wondered exactly how that went down. Just out of curiosity, should the case successfully taken up by the right-wing, how many more courts must they go through to get to the supreme court?
This is just a method to keep our eyes off the real important issues like the dissconect of government and the people. Tax and spend spend spend. Wake up people, vote incumants out.
@bigjon1359 All politicians are pretty much the same, though. No matter what they say, 95%+ are mercenaries out for their own bloated paycheck and retirement and health insurance. They don't care about the will of the people, and have no incentive to look out for the will of those who didn't vote for them. That's why positive changes for minorities like gays are so slow to come about: when you comprise about a tenth of the population, your voice is easy to drown out with hateful rhetoric.
03:40 So if homosexual judges have "vested interests", are "impartial" and has a "conflict of interests", how the h3ll can we heterosexuals to be trusted, then? I mean, aren't we in "conflict of interest" towards "heterosexual" rulings? :p
To say that a homosexual judge is unable to judge on that case is like saying a Christian judge is unable to judge on that case. Silly. Also, that woman from NOM looks like a frog.
"Lesbian and gay rights almost never win in ballot initiative." This is true, but hopefully changing, as a recent CNN poll shows a majority of respondents support gay marriage (and one would assume other gay rights issues like the repeal of DOMA).
gay adoption, weather the partners be married or not, is now an will be forever a crucial design for the survival of the offspring of those who are accidentally predisposed to reproduce
Not sure if this has been touched on by others-but what about polygamy? Personally, I am strongly in favor of gay marriage. Currently, we have 1000's of polygamists in our country or immigrating to our country. Whenever anyone brings it up-most pro-gay marriage advocates that i've seen simply get defensive and angry. I rarely hear a well thought out arguement for why it's OK to discrimnate against their religious beliefs. I have some ideas as to why-but I'd be interested in hearing yours.
Isn't it hilarious how these conservative Christians have no idea that one of the ideas of a democracy is majority rule, but with MINORITY right? If voters approved a law reinstating slavery, that doesn't mean that the people have a "right" to reintroduce slavery. Idiots.
Oh sure, next we're going to have people who drink upholding the repeal of prohibition. People who are black or white defending interracial marriage or, let's see, female judges deciding cases regarding women's right to vote.
Truth is everyone has a "vested interest" in protecting everyone else's fundamental rights. We need more sensible people like Judge Walker, regardless of their race, religion, orientation, dentition, or hat or shoe size.
It's funny. Marriage is a religious practice. laws are a human practice that come about because of reoccurring problems, and not knowing how to solve those problems, they make a law. Something can be said for a so called civilized society that adds more and more laws. You would think in a truly civilized society, they would be less laws because the root cause of those problems were addressed and steps were taken to actually solve them. I see the importance in laws and the flaws.
@moety2 There are non-religious cultures which value marriage. Regardless of what we are constantly told, religion "created" marriage out of our natural tendency for monogamy. In fact, it is usually religion that supports the idea of polygamy, though most modern forms of Christianity do not support polygamy, many religions do.
@ChocoboKillerKanyo I said it's a religious practice. As for the non-religious cultures which value marriage, could you give me an example? I've heard the whole monogamy thing before and I do believe it. But the bread and butter of my post was about laws.
@moety2 Pygmy and Chinese cultures jump to mind, but off hand I can't think of anything else. The Chinese were predominantly Taoist or Confusionist, which are religions, but based more on philosophical ideas than saying "GOD SAID SO.
@ChocoboKillerKanyo As you said and as I pointed out to the Chinese marriage is a religious concept. As for Pygmy, I did not know that. That is interesting. I will look into that to try and get an understanding on how that worked. Thanks for the call out. Next time I will modify my statement to say marriage is an almost exclusively religious concept or something to that effect to be more accurate.
A MAN MARRYING ANOTHER MAN IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT! If it is, then a man marrying a dog or blow up doll or his father or 20 woman is a fundamental right. AND IT'S NOT!
Also, stop blocking people for no reason - you cowardly faggot. I guess you really aren't a supporter of free speech or equality, otherwise you would let everyone speak.
And, there are NO humans that are gay. Only blood drinking parasites like you are faggots. And, that's why you are an abomination who is going to hell.
@adayofpersia "A MAN MARRYING ANOTHER MAN IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT!"
Actually, it is. Marriage is a fundamental right. Welcome to the world of equality.
"Also, stop blocking people for no reason - you cowardly faggot."
Ah, you must be theDracoIX, whom I blocked because of your continual use of 'faggot' and other slurs. And now you'll be blocked a second time. Congratulations.
@adayofpersia using capital letters in comments means you will be tortured forever by the invisible pink unicorn after you due. bet your scared now, bitch.
Oh how brave you are,hiding behind a Youtube sock puppet while you hurl slurs and accuse others of cowardice.
(note: no offense to real Youtube sockpuppets, it's an expression dealing with anonymity provided by way of screen names. Really I like real sock puppets, shout out to The Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppets.).
Propaganda of the Month: Nice way to dodge the incest question (twice). By your flawed rationale, once a family-relationship is established, then marriage is unnecessary. Thus, homosexual marriage is entirely unnecessary if a civil union (a family-relationship) is available.
Just answer the questions honestly: We don't allow incestuous marriages because it is disgusting and morally repugnant, just like gay marriage
I haven't dodged it. I answered it...twice. Marriage establishes a family relationship between two people. Siblings ALREADY HAVE A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. Parents and their children ALREADY HAVE A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. There is no family relationship to be established. I'm sorry if you find this difficult to wrap your mind around, but judging by your comments it seems likely that you experience that problem regularly.
(con't) @MichaelFondledMe "... homosexual marriage is entirely unnecessary if a civil union (a family-relationship) is available."
Lesbians and gay men are not going to ride in the back of the bus any longer in order to placate religious objections to same-sex couples getting married. The days of your religious objections having a privileged and determinative status in American law have come to an end. Welcome to the world of equality.
@MichaelFondledMe Yes let's ban all things morally repugnant to me. Like blacks marrying whites. I can't stand those. Also our fine blue-eyed men marrying dirty Jews. Those have to go to.
@MichaelFondledMe So, you're differentiating between a civil union and a marriage, saying that one is unnecessary in the presence of the other. By that line of thinking, marriage itself is superfluous. Tell me, but please without the rhetoric, what the difference is, in your view.
The homosexual agenda is fighting a losing battle. In so doing, they have caused a tremendous backlash. More than 20 states have Constitutional amendments to clarify that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Next up.... the SCOTUS. The result? Each state has the ability to define marriage, and there is no "fundamental right" to REDEFINE marriage for: (i) homosexuals; (ii) polygamists; and (iii) incestuous relationships. Morality wins.
@MichaelFondledMe "The homosexual agenda is fighting a losing battle."
Actually, it's faring quite well, which no doubt scares the bejesus out of you and bigots like you. That's too bad. If you don't like it, move to Uganda.
@THEFIXERification Clearly you have failed whatever government education you have had.
Treason? Is that what you people are calling it now? Liberal legislation, rulings, and governing is treason, and conservative is patriotic, GOT IT!
So I'll say it once again, it is the job of the Judicial branch to protect the rights of the people, originally the 5th amendment was the only due process clause in our bill of rights, this one only applies to the federal government. The 14th however...
@THEFIXERification ...was made to apply to state governments and protect against something such as Alabama declaring slavery legal again. But it applies to everyone's rights.
So if you have some twisted definition of treason or you have been brainwashed by the fear mongering of the tea party and been converted into a brainless tool that goes around screaming "TREASON" "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST", (of course in a real life situation these things would be spelled wrong on the rally signs.)
Homosexual judges have a vested interest in legalizing gay marriage in the same way that fundamentalist Christian judges have a vested interest in legalizing "intelligent design" and similar absurdities, but these people don't ever complain about how THOSE judges are in breach of conflict of interest ethics. What an unpredictable discrepancy lol.
And, while we're at it - what about polygamy. Why deny someone the right to marry multiple people if everyone consents?! DON'T BE A FVCKING BIGOT! People can love more than one person and for you to deny them the right to marry more than one person just makes you a close-minded, dirty BIGOT!
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL NOT JUST FAGS AND TEH STR8S. ZOOSEXUALS, INCESEXUALS, BLOW UP DOLLSEXUALS, AND POLYSEXUALS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
@theDracoIX Here's an idea. Before simply repeating the tired, old "I HATE PEOPLE WHO DONT AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE THEY ARE 100% WRONG ALL OF THE TIME EVER," learn to articulate an argument. I know, I know, big words like "articulate" can be a little bit intimidating for the uneducated mongrel, but if you're going to continue clogging up the comments section, at least mke your comments worth reading.
@ChocoboKillerKanyo Bitch, go read all of my comments and then pick out a point I made and THEN refute it - otherwise, you're just fvcking trolling for attention.
Why don't you try your luck in the courts? Find someone, that is denied marrying 27 women or marrying his sheep, find a lawyer that is willing to take your case and have at it!
"If you get that sheep to competently sign a contract, then have at it."
I was just giving Darkrunner1975 some tips, what he could do. If you want to assist him in the case (if he indeed feels, that the case merits some action), then please, feel free to help him.
Why bother putting anything to a vote when some tool judge can come along and say "Well, I don't think you guys voted the right way. We're gonna go ahead and null and void your vote."
The constitutional legality of his decision is nebulous at best.
Make no mistake, I have no problem with gays getting married. More power to you. As long as you don't bother me, i have no problem with it.
My beef is with the judge telling the people "Fuck you, I don't care how you voted."
@Darkrunner1975 Welcome to America, where the judiciary is one of the branches of government and the majority doesn't always rule.
"The constitutional legality of his decision is nebulous at best."
Then you should have no trouble refuting it. I've laid out the constitutional case in this video. Produce an actual refutation, if you can. If you can't, don't waste my time or yours with sloganeering and whining.
Fundemental rights aren't up for popular vote? If only. Last time I checked, we can, either through referendum, representatives, or appointed judges, majority vote to take people's property, strike rights from the constitution, take people's fire arms, stop them from certain sexual behaviors, prohibit trade, infringe on travel, restrict freedom of speech, etc. I wish it were not so.
The right's attacks on Judge Walker in this case are very similar to creationists' attacks on Judge John E. Jones, the Federal Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, when he ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design was just another form of creationism and thus couldn't be taught in public schools. And Jones, like Walker, was appointed by a Republican: George W. Bush. That goes pretty far in undermining the argument that these are "activist judges" "legislating from the bench"
Prop 8 shouldn't have been up for vote in the first place due to the fact it violated the rights of a group of people. Many similar rulings have been made such as this one through out US history. Such as Brown vs The Board of Education for one out of many examples.
It's the job of anyone in his position to protect the rights of the people and strike down laws that may threaten these rights such as Prop 8.
Quick question. Do you do all of this in one big take or do you just take the best takes from your script? I notice the quick jumps but at the same time I notice your stuttering.
Also do you do this in one big sit down just to get the audio and then do the video editing?
First, I do some notes. Then I write out a script. I record the script, during which I sometimes add things I didn't put in the script. Yes, I do that in one big take, which I edit later as I'm putting the audio together with the video.
@THEFIXERification Er.. actually they do. The 14th amendment states all PERSONS have equal protection under the law not just all CITIZENS. Also along with the constitution International treaties are the supreme law of the land and one of those international treaties is the UN charter. BTW I have enough grasp of reality to know that concept is spelt concept not cencept.
@THEFIXERification So you think we should violate a person's right to (peacefully) immigrate from one country to another even more than we do just because Mexico does? Remember the UN charter which we signed onto protects a person's right to immigrate from one country to another even if every country violates it in one form or another.
@THEFIXERification Suppose a state legalizes the murder of illegal immagrents? Wouldn't the Feds be remiss if they didn't strike down the peoples will in that case???
@THEFIXERification "Supreme court judges shouldnt be able to strike down the votes of the people of a state."
So if the people in Mississippi vote to amend the Mississippi State constitution to state that black people can't vote you don't think the Supreme Court should be able to strike that down? How about if the voters in new york vote to amend their constitution to not allow gun onwership?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ProfMTH WHY?! The fvcking judge said fundamental rights aren't up for voting - and then this fvcker single-handily made a ruling on the matter? So the vote of the majority doesn't mean shit i.e. DEMOCRACY - but the vote of one means everything i.e. DICTATORSHIP!
tony perkins was awesome in psycho
adler2adler 7 months ago
No, I don't buy any of this for a second, and I will not vote for gay marriage, I will also support measures to keep marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. I don't have a problem with recognizing Civil Unions, but I am against gay marriage, I personally think homosexuality is an abomination, and a genetic defect. Which produces no possible benefit for any society I want to live in.
VVV717 7 months ago
@VVV717 You must shake with rage when you channel surf past Logo channel.
GrahamCrackerStudios 4 months ago
@VVV717 Thankfully, your bigoted personal objection has no use when it comes to making the real decisions.
RequiemFear 1 day ago
Great vid, helped me out on my Constitutional Law, Civil Liberties, Final this semester .
KcCommie 8 months ago
@KcCommie Great! I'm glad it was helpful.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ProfMTH Was quite a win. Long story short, conservative and religious college, but only in the area with law programme. Had to write a argument for the Supreme Court for Perry v Schwarzenegger, with our Professor writing the court's opinion based upon the strengths of the arguments. In the end the Perry supporters won by a landslide because all the opponents: 1)could not think of any good arguments at all 2) resorted to "think of the children" "destruction of sanctity of marriage"
KcCommie 8 months ago
If it was a heterosexual judge, would it clognhis thinking? Seriously, in order to get a fair judge, he needs tone asexual!
DavidNeff2011 9 months ago
I LIKE YOUR WORDPLAY
Clearie552 11 months ago
I love how they always try to play the "we're the majority, so we should be able to vote on it" card. This is one of the *exact* reasons we are a democratic republic, rather than a democracy. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%."
rafaravioli 11 months ago 2
this is still one of my favourite things on youtube
PlanetBongoSan 11 months ago
@PlanetBongoSan Thanks.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
"I don't know" at least the guy was honest but they are the three words you really shouldn't be having to say to a judge when questioned, it does weaken your argument a tad.
eals524 1 year ago
@eals524 Way more than a tad.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 5
I hadn't heard of West Virginia School Board v. Barnette, so I looked it up. I was surprised that it overturned another SCOTUS ruling that was only 3 years old. Are there any other instances where SCOTUS has reversed itself so quickly?
SkepticalTraveler 1 year ago
@SkepticalTraveler There are a few, yes. I'm trying to think of the names of the cases off the top of my head and I'm drawing a blank. Once my mind unfreezes, I'll give you a few examples. The Court has often often viewed its adherence to precedent in decisions involving interpretation of the Constituion as more flexible than reversals in decisions involving ordinary laws or regulations (which decisions are far more easily reversed by the political branches--especially the legislative branch).
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) Moreove, the Gobitis decision that Barnette overruled was generally viewed as a horrible decision. Among the nefarious things that happened in its wake was a significant outburst of violence and threats of violence against Jehovah's Witnesses.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"not the legally relevant question"??? Not a terribly smart statement to make to a judge.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog Quite right. A rather amateurish attempt to avoid answering the judge's question.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@infideluxe So what are you saying?
monopolydevil 1 year ago
@monopolydevil i think he's saying those are semi-literate and self-refuting arguments
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
Hm, a hetero judge might have the opposite bias. They should have found someone who is asexual, like an eunuch :)
djbanizza 1 year ago 12
Ha! Walker has a "vested interest" in the outcome of this case? Of course he does!! Everyone has a "vested interest" in preserving his or her own civil rights! Why shouldn't they?
rafaravioli 1 year ago
Comment removed
rafaravioli 1 year ago
I always thought that marriage based on your willingness to have children would make the most sense. I mean, after all, isn't that why we have marriages in the first place? To make child rearing more economical? I dunno that was always my idea of what it was, and has always been for. To put into writing a couple's commitment to the propagation of their genome within a social group. This could apply to anyone and would get rid of the dead weight loss of childless married couples.
qwertyzz7 1 year ago
@qwertyzz7 "...the dead weight loss of childless married couples"?!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH The Married couples who get tax exemptions but with no real need for them. Basically, they get money from everyone else for the wrong reasons. This is not to say it is necessarily harmful. But these tax exemptions could go to needier others. I merely suggest that we give couples tax exemptions for raising children because that is what is so expensive about being married. Other than that, they are just room mates who have a piece of paper saying they share a house with their fuckbuddy.
qwertyzz7 1 year ago
"Bigotry never really changes."
So true, thanks for the vid.
gagaplex 1 year ago
@gagaplex My pleasure. Thanks for watching.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Although I feel no one should go without their rights, if you think about it their liberties are limitless if it is a consensual act. If homosexuals are to marry, what about those who want to marry more than one companion? I don't think that homosexuals should marry but, I don't think they should be hindered from doing so. Peace...
monopolydevil 1 year ago
Comment removed
infideluxe 1 year ago
@monopolydevil
"If homosexuals are to marry, what about those who want to marry more than one companion?"
If women were given equal rights, what about those women who want more rights than men?
Hmmmm.
infideluxe 1 year ago
Notice how at 2:13 that they are all white Christians.
Vberg56 1 year ago
Excellent video,as always.You explain the law very well to lay people.I was slightly bemused by the claim from some people that the judge was biased due to his sexual preference and that a heterosexual judge would not be.The fact that the vast majority of gay-marriage opponents are straight would suggest otherwise,or at least that it is irrelevant.
madhillick 1 year ago 4
@madhillick "...or at least that it is irrelevant."
Indeed!
Thank you very much.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Great video, very clear.
ChilapaOfTheAmazons 1 year ago
@ChilapaOfTheAmazons Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"7 million Californians believed" in proposition 8. Okay, but she forgot to mention that "7 million Californians" constituted only 52% of the vote. Over 6,400,000 Californians voted against proposition 8.
inkeyes17 1 year ago
The idea that Judge Walker having a "vested interest" prevents him from making a sound decision is such bull. Every judge has a vested interest in the society the he/she lives in. Justice Roberts probably desires to not be detained indefinitely as much as anyone else. I guess he should be excluded from making decisions concerning habeas corpus,
ummAwkward 1 year ago
"The Constitution supersedes ordinary law, even when the law represents the wishes of a majority of citizens"
Just read that in my government textbook, and thought I'd share it.
Great video, by the way!
marshalllodge 1 year ago
@marshalllodge Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
No, if a state/federal law violates the Constitution, it is struck down regardless if the majority/minority enacted it. The framers of the Constitution were concerned w/the POLITICAL MAJORITY using their power against the POLITICAL MINORITY. Since the Constitution is law, it also protects the CITIZENS from an OVERREACHING GOVERNMENT. The Bill or Rights protects individual rights ( speech, religion, right to bear arms, not to quarter troops, right to confront witness, no self-incrimination).
socalcraigster 1 year ago
I've been off the grid for the last 2 months...I MISSED ALL THE EQUALITY!!!
SleepsAvatar 1 year ago
Do not take me the wrong way. Your video is decent and you seam to not be an ignoramus.
I actually think gay wedding not that big deal. It's the underling fact that fundies are trying to meddle into other people personal lives the real issue here.
UrsoDaCortesia 1 year ago
huahuahua
The troglodyte who played terminator is a governor... every time i see this i chuckle.... well you are still debating creationism.
America is a shame on the 1st world, usa is a third world with weapons (at least the south, for the record you still have good universities and scientists). Control your rednecks or be a venezuela of tomorrow
UrsoDaCortesia 1 year ago
@UrsoDaCortesia Whatever one may think of the governor of California, the fact is that he refused to defend Proposition 8 in court and he asked the judge not to stay his decision so that same-sex couples could begin getting married again immediately. So he did a fine job here.
It hasn't been very long since your country extended the right to marry to same-sex couples--not exactly a basis to denounce other countries that are still working it out.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
"he asked the judge not to stay his decision so that same-sex couples could begin getting married again immediately. So he did a fine job here."
Still a troglodyte. Im not judging him im judging the people who voted him into the office.
"It hasn't been very long since your country extended the right to marry to same-sex couples"
My country (brasil) is a shithole and not an example to anyone. I do not use the geographic accident that I was born here to denounce anything.
UrsoDaCortesia 1 year ago
One point that the Pro Prop h8ers made regarding "procreative" aspect of marriage that was not addressed is simply this:
If a gay man or lesbian is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, would they be inclined to marry someone of the OPPOSITE, get biz-zay and "procreate" with that person? So they would just switch to heterosexual and start making babies?
That's absolutely stupid, and is the subtext of the "procreative" crap.
lorax1284 1 year ago
I just discovered your channel Prof! I wish I was your student! I feel smarter already!
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago 8
@hardinmichael1981 :-) Hey, thanks a lot. Welcome to the channel!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Thank goodness for our Constitution!!!
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
@8:58 Fed Gov WTF?! States are Hot!
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
IRoNy: Homophobia is typically the result of suppressed homosexuality, and the fear of the suppressed homosexuality being encouraged to express itself.
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
3:30
Holy shit. God fuckin forbid gays have a say at their own witch trial. So I can complain then (because these guys are so consistent and all) that since the rest of the judges were openly hetero that they have conflicts of interest? Maybe we should have a panel of eunuchs.
GallusSapien 1 year ago 4
@GallusSapien "God fuckin forbid gays have a say at their own witch trial."
lol Well put.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
This is a good educational video. Thanks for uploading. It's always good to know a little more about our Judicial system.
martin692006 1 year ago
@martin692006 Glad you found it useful. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL! OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL! OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL! The assholes keep repeating this to promote naughty pictures in the average American idiot's head.
tardans1 1 year ago
@tardans1 Among other reasons.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Why does the state have to define what marriage is at all? Why cant we define that privately? is the enemy the opposing view or is it in reality the state?
Elchochkie 1 year ago
Prof: even though you present sound and compelling arguments, I can not accept them as such because YOU'RE A BIG DUMB GAY HEAD FACE!
Does that about sum up the opposition? ;)
somtwo 1 year ago
@somtwo It does indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
ProMTH, damn, you're good!
Shelama 1 year ago
@Shelama Thank you very much.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
In order for all those who criticize the Perry decision on the ground that Judge Walker is openly gay to not take a hypocritical position it follows that they will also demand that Justice Scalia withdraw if the case makes its way to the Supreme Court. In the May 2002 issue of a publication entitled "First Things" Justice Scalia wrote that should the constitution ever require him to act in a way that is contrary to Catholic mandates he would have no choice but to resign from the court.
JM11941 1 year ago
@jm11941. The Catholic Church has repeatedly made clear that Catholicism not only prohibits engaging in a gay marriage but prohibits the facilitation of a gay marriage. A decision that holds the prohibition of gay marriage as unconstitutional is a clear facilitation of gay marriage. Therefore, not only dies Justice Scalia harbor strong feelings on the issue of gay marriage he feels morally compelled to vigorously oppose it.
JM11941 1 year ago
Comment removed
JM11941 1 year ago
Comment removed
JM11941 1 year ago
A gay judge appointed by that "liberal" Ronald Reagan.
FerKzrs 1 year ago
@FerKzrs He slipped through, no doubt. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
On the front page of my homepage I list all the issues I support and I used to have "Gay Marriage Rights" and to be honest, I don't consider it a right at all, to me its more of a contract held by the state between consenting adults. When you said Marriage Equality at the start of the video it really made a bell go off in my head on how to address the issue more accurately. That's obviously more of a side issue with me and rhetoric, the video is excellent and informative. Thanks for making it.
erkd1 1 year ago
ProfMTH something you may not be aware of--The current coalition government in the UK are now talking about getting rid of "civil partnerships"(introduced by my party-Labour)and replacing them with equal marriage. I despise this ConDem administration but welcome this decision by them and feel its long overdue
Footnote This change comes from the Liberal Democrats and NOT from the Conservatives
polyathiest 1 year ago
@polyathiest Yes, I've been hearing about that. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@polyathiest Hi Prof, Going off-topic: As a Brit I'm intrigued. I understand there would be fundamental principled differences between your political disposition an that of the coalition but my guess is for you to 'despise' them there's more to it than basic political differences? For me for the time being I am undecided so here's one request for you to apply that mind of yours for which I have so much respect to a video for your British subscribers on your objections to what's going on here.
absoprob 1 year ago
@polyatheist Sorry polyatheist, I clicked reply to the wrong comment. As you can see my comment was intended for the good professor.
absoprob 1 year ago
Marriage is discriminatory anyway, just like the carpool lane. I'm too ugly to ever for anyone to ever love me, hence I will always lack this right. Why should good looking or charismatic people have basic privileges outstripping my own for getting together? Isn't the hot sex they have reward enough? Why should they get legal privileges? Government should stay out of marriage altogether, whether straight or gay!
CadicusTheDamned 1 year ago
We are a republic. Tell them to deal with it. Pure democracy would suck anyway.
CadicusTheDamned 1 year ago
Excellent video, as usual. Clear and understandable.
Good news for all who are queer for the Constitution.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
Why do the conservatives think it's so important to protect discrimination?
kablamo9999 1 year ago
@kablamo9999 Much of their power is rooted in it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I am incredibly proud of the judicial system in this case. Proposition 8 will probably go down in history as an emberrising human rights violation in the eyes of those who come after us. This court case puts faith in the system as a tool used to defend the rights of all individuals and proves that the civil rights system is not run by popular demand
TheFreethinker1986 1 year ago
@THEFIXERification I believe I stated that international treaties are equal to the Constitution not that they supercede it. And what does China-gate have to do with...Oh nevermind, you just wouldn't grasp it anyway!
mjh012363 1 year ago
wow! you people really know how to beat a moot point to death. why should the government be involved in marriage to begin with? it is strictly a religious ceremony and should be separate from government mandate.
pmcdon02 1 year ago
@pmcdon02 "[marriage] is strictly a religious ceremony"
No, it's not.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH where did the idea of religion come from? man. where did the idea of marriage stem from? man and religion. i do agree that marriage now seems to have little to do with religion, but it is a tradition that directly comes from religious texts. and i think doug stanhope says it best ---> /watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM
pmcdon02 1 year ago
Awesome video. Thanks for all your hard work.
aaron9060 1 year ago
@aaron9060 Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Good vid, Prof. I wondered exactly how that went down. Just out of curiosity, should the case successfully taken up by the right-wing, how many more courts must they go through to get to the supreme court?
sagredo 1 year ago
@sagredo After the distict court it's the 9th Circuit and then the Supreme Court. Three-tier system.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
This is just a method to keep our eyes off the real important issues like the dissconect of government and the people. Tax and spend spend spend. Wake up people, vote incumants out.
bigjon1359 1 year ago
@bigjon1359 All politicians are pretty much the same, though. No matter what they say, 95%+ are mercenaries out for their own bloated paycheck and retirement and health insurance. They don't care about the will of the people, and have no incentive to look out for the will of those who didn't vote for them. That's why positive changes for minorities like gays are so slow to come about: when you comprise about a tenth of the population, your voice is easy to drown out with hateful rhetoric.
ChocoboKillerKanyo 1 year ago
I thought the governments roll was to protect our rights not dictate them to us. marrage is a personal thing and has no place in the legal system.
bigjon1359 1 year ago
Man this is a great video.
1lovelost1 1 year ago 7
@1lovelost1 Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
03:40 So if homosexual judges have "vested interests", are "impartial" and has a "conflict of interests", how the h3ll can we heterosexuals to be trusted, then? I mean, aren't we in "conflict of interest" towards "heterosexual" rulings? :p
sp00x 1 year ago
To say that a homosexual judge is unable to judge on that case is like saying a Christian judge is unable to judge on that case. Silly. Also, that woman from NOM looks like a frog.
MatthiasVargas 1 year ago
"Lesbian and gay rights almost never win in ballot initiative." This is true, but hopefully changing, as a recent CNN poll shows a majority of respondents support gay marriage (and one would assume other gay rights issues like the repeal of DOMA).
joshgut 1 year ago
@joshgut Yes, as you'll recall, I went on to note that public opinion is gradually shifting away from the Christian Right on this issue. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
gay adoption, weather the partners be married or not, is now an will be forever a crucial design for the survival of the offspring of those who are accidentally predisposed to reproduce
funkskull 1 year ago
If the judge was a openly christian hetero, would that disqualify him because he had a "vested interest" in the outcome? silly, silly fundie haters.
Fossilswin 1 year ago
Do rich, white, male have a vested interest in looking out for other rich, white, men's interests?
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
Not sure if this has been touched on by others-but what about polygamy? Personally, I am strongly in favor of gay marriage. Currently, we have 1000's of polygamists in our country or immigrating to our country. Whenever anyone brings it up-most pro-gay marriage advocates that i've seen simply get defensive and angry. I rarely hear a well thought out arguement for why it's OK to discrimnate against their religious beliefs. I have some ideas as to why-but I'd be interested in hearing yours.
Brambledemon 1 year ago
@Brambledemon I don't have a problem in principle with polygamous marital arrangements.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Isn't it hilarious how these conservative Christians have no idea that one of the ideas of a democracy is majority rule, but with MINORITY right? If voters approved a law reinstating slavery, that doesn't mean that the people have a "right" to reintroduce slavery. Idiots.
NashvilleKildCountry 1 year ago
Huh, "Marriage equality". I don't know if I've ever heard it given that term. I like it, and shall use it; much less charged with vitriol.
IdleGod 1 year ago
@IdleGod Great! :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Oh sure, next we're going to have people who drink upholding the repeal of prohibition. People who are black or white defending interracial marriage or, let's see, female judges deciding cases regarding women's right to vote.
Truth is everyone has a "vested interest" in protecting everyone else's fundamental rights. We need more sensible people like Judge Walker, regardless of their race, religion, orientation, dentition, or hat or shoe size.
ecklesecklesby 1 year ago
@ecklesecklesby Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
4:26
Has anyone noticed the striking resemblance between former NOM president Maggie Gallagher and Mrs. Swan from MADTV?
Compare here:
watch?v=e4XnplSo8I4
and have a good chuckle.
amoxtlacatl 1 year ago
@amoxtlacatl lol
ProfMTH 1 year ago
On that picture of George HW Bush, he looks a lot like W, which he usually doesn't...
Brandt761 1 year ago
It's funny. Marriage is a religious practice. laws are a human practice that come about because of reoccurring problems, and not knowing how to solve those problems, they make a law. Something can be said for a so called civilized society that adds more and more laws. You would think in a truly civilized society, they would be less laws because the root cause of those problems were addressed and steps were taken to actually solve them. I see the importance in laws and the flaws.
moety2 1 year ago
@moety2 There are non-religious cultures which value marriage. Regardless of what we are constantly told, religion "created" marriage out of our natural tendency for monogamy. In fact, it is usually religion that supports the idea of polygamy, though most modern forms of Christianity do not support polygamy, many religions do.
ChocoboKillerKanyo 1 year ago
@ChocoboKillerKanyo I said it's a religious practice. As for the non-religious cultures which value marriage, could you give me an example? I've heard the whole monogamy thing before and I do believe it. But the bread and butter of my post was about laws.
moety2 1 year ago
@moety2 Pygmy and Chinese cultures jump to mind, but off hand I can't think of anything else. The Chinese were predominantly Taoist or Confusionist, which are religions, but based more on philosophical ideas than saying "GOD SAID SO.
ChocoboKillerKanyo 1 year ago
@ChocoboKillerKanyo As you said and as I pointed out to the Chinese marriage is a religious concept. As for Pygmy, I did not know that. That is interesting. I will look into that to try and get an understanding on how that worked. Thanks for the call out. Next time I will modify my statement to say marriage is an almost exclusively religious concept or something to that effect to be more accurate.
moety2 1 year ago
@MichaelFondledMe So why are you so skittish about the word "marriage"?
ChocoboKillerKanyo 1 year ago
A MAN MARRYING ANOTHER MAN IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT! If it is, then a man marrying a dog or blow up doll or his father or 20 woman is a fundamental right. AND IT'S NOT!
Also, stop blocking people for no reason - you cowardly faggot. I guess you really aren't a supporter of free speech or equality, otherwise you would let everyone speak.
And, there are NO humans that are gay. Only blood drinking parasites like you are faggots. And, that's why you are an abomination who is going to hell.
adayofpersia 1 year ago
@adayofpersia "A MAN MARRYING ANOTHER MAN IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT!"
Actually, it is. Marriage is a fundamental right. Welcome to the world of equality.
"Also, stop blocking people for no reason - you cowardly faggot."
Ah, you must be theDracoIX, whom I blocked because of your continual use of 'faggot' and other slurs. And now you'll be blocked a second time. Congratulations.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 5
aww, don't be too hard on him. he's just pissed he won't get to go to hell, with all of us cool people.
Brandt761 1 year ago
@adayofpersia using capital letters in comments means you will be tortured forever by the invisible pink unicorn after you due. bet your scared now, bitch.
Splooshiba 1 year ago
@adayofpersia
Oh how brave you are,hiding behind a Youtube sock puppet while you hurl slurs and accuse others of cowardice.
(note: no offense to real Youtube sockpuppets, it's an expression dealing with anonymity provided by way of screen names. Really I like real sock puppets, shout out to The Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppets.).
Rubberspaz 1 year ago
Propaganda of the Month: Nice way to dodge the incest question (twice). By your flawed rationale, once a family-relationship is established, then marriage is unnecessary. Thus, homosexual marriage is entirely unnecessary if a civil union (a family-relationship) is available.
Just answer the questions honestly: We don't allow incestuous marriages because it is disgusting and morally repugnant, just like gay marriage
MichaelFondledMe 1 year ago
@MichaelFondledMe "Nice way to dodge the incest question (twice)."
I haven't dodged it. I answered it...twice. Marriage establishes a family relationship between two people. Siblings ALREADY HAVE A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. Parents and their children ALREADY HAVE A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. There is no family relationship to be established. I'm sorry if you find this difficult to wrap your mind around, but judging by your comments it seems likely that you experience that problem regularly.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @MichaelFondledMe "... homosexual marriage is entirely unnecessary if a civil union (a family-relationship) is available."
Lesbians and gay men are not going to ride in the back of the bus any longer in order to placate religious objections to same-sex couples getting married. The days of your religious objections having a privileged and determinative status in American law have come to an end. Welcome to the world of equality.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 5
@MichaelFondledMe Yes let's ban all things morally repugnant to me. Like blacks marrying whites. I can't stand those. Also our fine blue-eyed men marrying dirty Jews. Those have to go to.
znodester 1 year ago
@MichaelFondledMe So, you're differentiating between a civil union and a marriage, saying that one is unnecessary in the presence of the other. By that line of thinking, marriage itself is superfluous. Tell me, but please without the rhetoric, what the difference is, in your view.
ChocoboKillerKanyo 1 year ago
Pro[paganda_of_the]MonTH...
The homosexual agenda is fighting a losing battle. In so doing, they have caused a tremendous backlash. More than 20 states have Constitutional amendments to clarify that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Next up.... the SCOTUS. The result? Each state has the ability to define marriage, and there is no "fundamental right" to REDEFINE marriage for: (i) homosexuals; (ii) polygamists; and (iii) incestuous relationships. Morality wins.
MichaelFondledMe 1 year ago
@MichaelFondledMe "The homosexual agenda is fighting a losing battle."
Actually, it's faring quite well, which no doubt scares the bejesus out of you and bigots like you. That's too bad. If you don't like it, move to Uganda.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 2
@THEFIXERification Clearly you have failed whatever government education you have had.
Treason? Is that what you people are calling it now? Liberal legislation, rulings, and governing is treason, and conservative is patriotic, GOT IT!
So I'll say it once again, it is the job of the Judicial branch to protect the rights of the people, originally the 5th amendment was the only due process clause in our bill of rights, this one only applies to the federal government. The 14th however...
Sean554 1 year ago
@THEFIXERification ...was made to apply to state governments and protect against something such as Alabama declaring slavery legal again. But it applies to everyone's rights.
So if you have some twisted definition of treason or you have been brainwashed by the fear mongering of the tea party and been converted into a brainless tool that goes around screaming "TREASON" "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST", (of course in a real life situation these things would be spelled wrong on the rally signs.)
Sean554 1 year ago
Comment removed
Sean554 1 year ago
Homosexual judges have a vested interest in legalizing gay marriage in the same way that fundamentalist Christian judges have a vested interest in legalizing "intelligent design" and similar absurdities, but these people don't ever complain about how THOSE judges are in breach of conflict of interest ethics. What an unpredictable discrepancy lol.
ChocoboKillerKanyo 1 year ago
And, while we're at it - what about polygamy. Why deny someone the right to marry multiple people if everyone consents?! DON'T BE A FVCKING BIGOT! People can love more than one person and for you to deny them the right to marry more than one person just makes you a close-minded, dirty BIGOT!
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL NOT JUST FAGS AND TEH STR8S. ZOOSEXUALS, INCESEXUALS, BLOW UP DOLLSEXUALS, AND POLYSEXUALS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
theDracoIX 1 year ago
@theDracoIX Here's an idea. Before simply repeating the tired, old "I HATE PEOPLE WHO DONT AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE THEY ARE 100% WRONG ALL OF THE TIME EVER," learn to articulate an argument. I know, I know, big words like "articulate" can be a little bit intimidating for the uneducated mongrel, but if you're going to continue clogging up the comments section, at least mke your comments worth reading.
ChocoboKillerKanyo 1 year ago
@ChocoboKillerKanyo Bitch, go read all of my comments and then pick out a point I made and THEN refute it - otherwise, you're just fvcking trolling for attention.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
And again, I see no reason why polygamy shouldn't be made legal. Who are you to judge if a man wants to have 27 wives?
The freak into beastiality that wants to marry his sheep? Shut your suckhole. You can't judge him.
This opens up doors...
Darkrunner1975 1 year ago
@Darkrunner1975
Why don't you try your luck in the courts? Find someone, that is denied marrying 27 women or marrying his sheep, find a lawyer that is willing to take your case and have at it!
Spillerix 1 year ago
@Spillerix
In California, I have no doubt that would be approved.
Darkrunner1975 1 year ago
@Spillerix If you get that sheep to competently sign a contract, then have at it.
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk
"If you get that sheep to competently sign a contract, then have at it."
I was just giving Darkrunner1975 some tips, what he could do. If you want to assist him in the case (if he indeed feels, that the case merits some action), then please, feel free to help him.
Spillerix 1 year ago
Why bother putting anything to a vote when some tool judge can come along and say "Well, I don't think you guys voted the right way. We're gonna go ahead and null and void your vote."
The constitutional legality of his decision is nebulous at best.
Make no mistake, I have no problem with gays getting married. More power to you. As long as you don't bother me, i have no problem with it.
My beef is with the judge telling the people "Fuck you, I don't care how you voted."
Darkrunner1975 1 year ago
Comment removed
Spillerix 1 year ago
@Darkrunner1975
"Why bother putting anything to a vote when some [...] judge can come along and say [...]"
ProfMTH did explain it in the video. Fundamental rights are not up to elections.
Spillerix 1 year ago
@Darkrunner1975 Welcome to America, where the judiciary is one of the branches of government and the majority doesn't always rule.
"The constitutional legality of his decision is nebulous at best."
Then you should have no trouble refuting it. I've laid out the constitutional case in this video. Produce an actual refutation, if you can. If you can't, don't waste my time or yours with sloganeering and whining.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Nebulous...as in, the next judge that comes along can certainly rule the opposite.
Darkrunner1975 1 year ago
@Darkrunner1975 "Nebulous...as in, the next judge that comes along can certainly rule the opposite."
Why? What would "the next judge that comes along" be able to say Judge Walker got wrong in his decision? What would be the basis for overruling it?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
2:19-20: "oh my gahhd!"
ProfMTH, you owe me a new keyboard. ;)
Jujubunnie 1 year ago
@Jujubunnie ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Ha, "imperial" I totally missed that.
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
@randyhelzerman ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Fundemental rights aren't up for popular vote? If only. Last time I checked, we can, either through referendum, representatives, or appointed judges, majority vote to take people's property, strike rights from the constitution, take people's fire arms, stop them from certain sexual behaviors, prohibit trade, infringe on travel, restrict freedom of speech, etc. I wish it were not so.
furtim1 1 year ago
@proceo12 ;-) Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
The right's attacks on Judge Walker in this case are very similar to creationists' attacks on Judge John E. Jones, the Federal Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, when he ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design was just another form of creationism and thus couldn't be taught in public schools. And Jones, like Walker, was appointed by a Republican: George W. Bush. That goes pretty far in undermining the argument that these are "activist judges" "legislating from the bench"
IlGreven 1 year ago
@THEFIXERification It's his job.
Prop 8 shouldn't have been up for vote in the first place due to the fact it violated the rights of a group of people. Many similar rulings have been made such as this one through out US history. Such as Brown vs The Board of Education for one out of many examples.
It's the job of anyone in his position to protect the rights of the people and strike down laws that may threaten these rights such as Prop 8.
Please learn how our government works. Thank you.
Sean554 1 year ago
Quick question. Do you do all of this in one big take or do you just take the best takes from your script? I notice the quick jumps but at the same time I notice your stuttering.
Also do you do this in one big sit down just to get the audio and then do the video editing?
Thanks.
Luinreg 1 year ago
@Luinreg Stuttering? lol
First, I do some notes. Then I write out a script. I record the script, during which I sometimes add things I didn't put in the script. Yes, I do that in one big take, which I edit later as I'm putting the audio together with the video.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@THEFIXERification Er.. actually they do. The 14th amendment states all PERSONS have equal protection under the law not just all CITIZENS. Also along with the constitution International treaties are the supreme law of the land and one of those international treaties is the UN charter. BTW I have enough grasp of reality to know that concept is spelt concept not cencept.
mjh012363 1 year ago
@THEFIXERification So you think we should violate a person's right to (peacefully) immigrate from one country to another even more than we do just because Mexico does? Remember the UN charter which we signed onto protects a person's right to immigrate from one country to another even if every country violates it in one form or another.
mjh012363 1 year ago
Thanks ProfMTH
RenovatedJon 1 year ago
@THEFIXERification Suppose a state legalizes the murder of illegal immagrents? Wouldn't the Feds be remiss if they didn't strike down the peoples will in that case???
mjh012363 1 year ago
@THEFIXERification "Supreme court judges shouldnt be able to strike down the votes of the people of a state."
So if the people in Mississippi vote to amend the Mississippi State constitution to state that black people can't vote you don't think the Supreme Court should be able to strike that down? How about if the voters in new york vote to amend their constitution to not allow gun onwership?
MrJmm999 1 year ago
@THEFIXERification "Supreme court judges shouldnt be able to strike down the votes of the people of a state."
Why?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProfMTH WHY?! The fvcking judge said fundamental rights aren't up for voting - and then this fvcker single-handily made a ruling on the matter? So the vote of the majority doesn't mean shit i.e. DEMOCRACY - but the vote of one means everything i.e. DICTATORSHIP!
Fvcking dumbass.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
@theDracoIX "Fvcking dumbass."
That's funny coming from someone like yourself who is ignorant of one of the basics of American government, i.e., the role of the Judicial Branch.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 13
@ProfMTH The role of the Judicial Branch is to overturn the vote of the American people... awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwesome.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
@theDracoIX If the vote of the American people is unconstitutional, then yes, the constitution trumps a popular vote.
kamijk 1 year ago