Im just coloring. Lol. Excuse me, but how do you guys get your info about the gay community? Im totally new to this. hehe This year I wanna be more involved. Thanks :)
I think when people hear the words gay and marriage together they on some level are insulted. I just don't think people are ready, maybe they will never be. People are just not that tolerant. I don't know if they ever will be. I grew up in a small town and I know how intolerant people are. It sadens me to know that gay children still go through so much just because they are different. It's sad, but it's the world we live in.
Depressing letter, I must say. The liberation IS coming, great big bad time. Actually, those rights shall not remain the domain of "the public whim and will" 4 much longer, in my opinion. Your state's Supreme Court ruled the way it DID, however, & this really IS something we R ALL going 2 have 2 accept, male/female/str8/gay/etc., B-cause of the exact same PRINCIPLE underlying the process of amending the FEDERAL Constitution. (Note I did not say exact same PROCESS; I know the difference, eh?)
I never knew that it was this bad in the states for gay people, it's just plain ridicoulus! I've never felt so blessed to live in such an open country as I do now .. I dont even know what to say really.
Keep fighting for your rights, you deserve it as much as anyone else!
I agree with many things you said on your video about Maine. I just found you on Youtube. Can you comment on the state of FL, perhaps the most backward gay state in the union. The FL Supreme Court just granted a gay main in Miami the right to adopt a child. It remains illegal for gay people to adopt in FL. Gays can have a private adoption however Gays cannot adopt children out of the foster care system.
Oh by the way, please encourage your viewers to NEVER GIVE UP
Bryan you are so right....it has so much to do with fear. I am not a part of the gay community, but I totally support and love you guys. I would love to upload video's of my family so you could meet us, but even I have fear of what my friends and family would say if they knew how I felt and what my veiws are.....I'm working on having a voice but religion chokes me. I believe you deserve every right that I deserve. Jay....Jesus is love....not hate....you guys ROCK!
My BFF died of AIDS in 95 and I would try to discuss it with my ex husband when I was sad or I miss her like crazy and he would try to lecture me and his parents would shun me...... RIP Pedro Zamora
I remember seeing the movie what makes a family some time ago where brooke shields partner in the movie died of lupus and the grandparents were trying to take the child away it was SO sad,.... I am still thinking abut moving back to Maine but 2 questions keep my mind spinning, If we can be colorblind then why can't we be gender blind?and I heard this on TV tonight but How come the bible says man on man relations is bad but yet they don't mention woman on woman relations? love all EQUALLY
Im from maine, did so much for the campaign and was crushed by the results. it still hurts to this very day. but it is heartening to here your words of support and conviction from CA.
Thank you for all you do! Keep up the fight! WE ARE WITH YOU!
@AstroMen2911 you mean the right to marry? you have the right to marry of the opposite sex, this applies to everyone equally. what you mean to say is that you want a union with the same potency that a Married couple has.
but you should acclimatize yourself to this situation because some people not in the way that you are thinking they may be and we share the different vision.take me 4 the example:I m totally a anti-gay right guy then before I came across to your web.
There has never been any empirical evidence or verification that a same-sex or polygamist 'couple' isn't to the benefit of society. This is a misnomer and falls within the ad hominem assaults perpetrated by the State and supported by religious fanaticism.
Apologies, I ment to reply and hit spam instead. Whether it is properly regulated is not a closed issue. It is my belief, as part of the state, that the proceedures are not properly regulated. Such division between people, as you and I, is why Statist societies, throughout history(every one of them) has fallen. Because you say 'I' can't do this, and it is 'my' right to choose to do that. Republics create states to defend the minority from the majority and you desire a contradictory system.
We have a system that affords protections to all from government intrusion. It is the same system we have had since 1789. I am content with the system we have and have had for 200+ years, you prefer some fanciful system that does not and has never existed.
These were societies that were tolerant and embraced such a taboo lifestyle and recognized it as legitimate. You ask if there were ever such a society or make a assumption they didn't exist.
It was commonly the way that couples were "officially" married before the church became involved in Wedding ceremonies. This is a matter between the individuals and their "Creator/God(s)". As for the State, it is responsible for the protection of the rights of the minority. 51% of people overrule 49%. <--in this way democracy fails utterly. Which is why this country was founded as a Republic. This is a non-issue for any with a modicum of empathy/sense, and who aren't blinded w/religious dogma
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. PoH is just common sense, albeit not so common. A lover who is in the hospital and cannot be visited because the state isn't granting a liscense, directly in violation of the PoH and of a Freedom society, which we claim to be. Religious persecution brought pilgrims here. Persecution and bias on sexual orientation are matters of inequality.
Denial of a license to someone who does not meet the reasonable requirements for one is not persecution. The state is under no obligation to grant a license merely because it would make the recipient happy. That would destroy the whole purpose in the granting of licenses.
There we have it, 'reasonable requirements'. For a hetero-couple, the only reasonable requirements are the presence of the individuals and a court fee. So, exactly on what basis are some allowed to have the right to choose their mate and others do not? Refining anothers ability to choose and receive equal outcome, is persecution. Not to make the person(s) 'happy' but allowing them the liberty to excercise choice, exactly as in anti-miscegenation cases which were found unconstitutional.
That is not true, there are a number of reasons why a man and a woman may not meet the requirements for a marriage license. One may not be of age, one may already be married, or they may be too closely related. The key is that all these restrictions and limitations are reasonable and related to the state's legitimate interest in issuing marriage licenses.
Civil marriage exists for a reason. That interest is exclusively served by the union of a man and a woman.
So which of these requirements are the 'gay' individuals, seeking equal acknowledgement, fail to meet? Or perhaps you have forgotten the definition and true tradition of marriage, which is not Christian; but was hijacked (for good and ill) by them. Using justifications that this is a non-secular society is common for politicians-"This is a Christian nation and we shall uphold the traditions of marriage."- pfha, same people do not trace the origins of the joining of two people in love.
As individuals they do not fail to meet any of them. A homosexual male is just as capable of being married as a heterosexual man. The requirement for a marriage license is one man and one woman, whether one or both of them happen to be homosexual is irrelevant. That requirement is completely reasonable given the state's purpose in granting marriage licenses.
Exactly, the State's purpose, being....ill-defined, or biased towards challenged 'norms'. Implications of a State agenda is totalitarian rule and inches away from a Nazi socio-political regime. If a man couldn't see his wife in time of need, because it isn't recognize by the state, as in interracials in the prior century, as a lawful union, the result of which we already know: riots, picketing, peaceful demonstrations, political activism, etc. But this isn't about that is it? It's preference.
The state's interest is neither ill-defined nor biased. It has been acknowledged by courts, legislatures, and the people for centuries.
There is nothing totalitarian or nefarious in a state issuing license to further its legitimate interests. Do the reasonable restrictions on drivers licenses, law licenses, or liquor licenses place us inches away from a totalitarian precipice as well?
These aforementioned licenses, are for the protection of the society: unlicensed drivers, drinkers, or law practitioners are potentially detrimental to the physical safety of society. Just as in the 14th amendation, it is the time for another similar amendment, but politcial agenda and statist agenda muddy the waters of the constitution and the processes of pursuing such amendments. The 'legitimacy' of the interests is up for speculation and should be subject to the harshest scrutiny.
All licenses serve a societal purpose, that is why the state issues them.
Feel free to attempt to amend the Constitution.
Until then, there is no Constitutional basis for imposing a radical redefinition of marriage on a society that has repeatedly rejected that redefinition.
Not at all, yet this is the true traditional definition of marriage, before being hijacked by religious fundamentalist, who are known for their persecutive, divisive, exclusionary, and uncompromising natures. With such individuals in congress, mis-representing the public within the context of the said issue is none other that bias founded on a personal viewpoint and not on the REAL world implications = Miscegenation, once more.
Confucius is the 'true definer' of marriage? Marriage as an institution long predates Confucius.
Marriage has, however been redefined through the years. To date, society has generally rejected your proposed change and there is no reason their expressed will should be overruled.
Predates, yes, but the definition still holds. Previously, marriage was for exchange of property, titles, and joining of families, vastly askew to personal liberty, as such was not the primary concern of society. Society creates many unconstitutional norms that are re-enforced by bought-off politicians, re-elected by their base which is of homophobic persuasion and should not be considered the final arbitrators of the law. No reason, huh? No reason for you or for me? Who's behalf do you speak on
By what possible measure if Confucius's definition of marriage the 'true' definition. In fact, Confucius has little to no real influence on the development of our institutions or society.
You have already acknowledged that there is no constitutional basis for imposing your definition of marriage on the people. Given that, the definition of marriage is purely a matter for the people to decide and to date they have rejected your proposal.
Back to the dichotomy; the majority decided to subjugate the minority. The message that Confucius stated should be the focus and not the individual himself. Ultimately it is about being able to choose and be acknowledge equal, as homosexuals and polygamist are TOO a part of society, yet they are disregarded as inconsequential to the whole, this is absurd and invidious ideology. Just because the majority of society is dancing to bombs or injustice doesn't lend credence to their usurption of law.
Yes, confucius is irrelevant but the definition stated is not, that is agreed. Subjugation is precisely the correct word and 'meaning' is subjective, thus base on such subjectivity it should be interpreted in an unbias sense; one person under the rule of another, or in this case a collective of others.
Better system, why yes I do. A return to the republic, as founded, where wolves and sheep decide on what's to eat, but the sheep has a gun. <--metaphore for having to force equality.
No it is not agreed. Confucius and his definition of marriage is irrelevant.
Subjugate means 'to bring under control' or 'to enslave.' The denial of a marriage license does neither of these to anyone.
We are all subject to the law, homosexual and heterosexual alike. Are you claiming same sex marriage existed in this fanciful 'republic' from which we have strayed?
The definition is entirely relevant as this is the point upon which, the licenses are administered. Enslavement doesn't just mean physical, it is psychological and emotional enslavement.
No it did not exist in the 1770's yet that is no reason for it to be disbarred from consideration and/or in congress. No, then, this in not my claim as we both, presumably, remember history.
You are psychologically and emotionally enslaved for want of a piece of paper from the county clerk??
No, you are right, there is no reason this issue should not be considered and it has been. Thirty-one times it has been considered and thirty-one times it has been summarily rejected.
The paper is meaningless in so far as it relates to what is allowed with said license. Without it, 'I' could not see an ill mate or obtain custody of children should 'my' mate pass on. Yes, as was the case with interracial marriage and equal civil rights for blacks, being summarily rejected over and over and espousing violence as a retort because the black community resisted. How can you not see the exact similarity.
Hospitals are free to set their own visitation policies, that entire argument is a red herring. As for 'your children', if they are truly yours there is no issue. As two men or two women cannot 'have' children the lack of a license is not the issue.
There is nothing similar in this issue and that of inter-racial marriage.
Then you are choosing to disregard the exact similarity and parallels and thus sully the issue with ignor(e)ance. Adopting couples? aren't 'their children'? Serrogate families? aren't their children?
The more we discuss this, the more I can see a personal bias from you the speaker, as you oppose this issue, thus you would not desire to see the real world implications. This is a conflict of interest and is the reason amendments haven't been made. Majority of media(propaganda) believe as you.
There are no similarities. An interracial couple is capable of satisfying society's purpose in issuing a marriage license. A same sex couple is not. The anti-miscegenation laws were not applied equally, current restrictions on marriage are. The law in VA served an illegitimate state interest, the current restrictions on marriage serve a legitimate one.
If a child is lawfully adopted there is no issue of custody.
If in a civil union, a mate dies, then court preceedings take place to contemplate foster care as a civil union is NOT a marriage and thus parents find themselves with their kids taken by the state because they are not recognized as equal.
Civil unions are not equal to marriage in many states, so what? If a child is left without a legally recognized guardian, that child enters the foster system. If that is the case, the child has no 'parent' in any legally recognized sense.
So what?! Haha, this is exactly the apathetic nature that predicates the intolerance and prejudice of our current era. So what, huh? Why not ask those suffering from children being stripped away or lovers dying in hospital beds without visitation or say in whether a vegetative person is to undergo care or pull the plug?
They solve these issues for Heterosexual couples but not GLBT couples. Thus, there is an incontinuity of the rule of law, which even though it isn't seen by the majority to need amending, doesn't negate it's exact parallels to civil rights. On this aspect of miscegenation and GLBT being as such, we shall have to agree to disagree. However, for myself, without ego, it is vivid in the striking parallels and similarities in denying any individual rights to marriage based on Sex, Creed, Race, etc.
@nnjhansen your just a heartless little bitch, because of this discrimnation and little bigots like you, my sister my cant even say bye or i love you to her partner , cant leave her property to the person shes wants to have it. because of bigots like you , children who are just finding out who they killing themeselves because of your bullying, their familes who been together for a long time being torn apart because of their immgration status because of you bigots laws,
@sunshine79768 and your bigots reason for doing this to people is nothing, them having a cermony of them coming together has zero affect on your life , but its does have affects on my family, her family, and lots of other famlies , so why dont you just leave other people's lives alone and worry about your own
Or more likely, they taught you to believe as such. Where are your beliefs on this topic founded? For mine are to create a truly free society where each is accepted and equal, especially when the supposed deterious effect upon society are unfounded and mere prejudice with the veneer of authority. The value of authority is only respectable or permitted when the rights of one to choose freely are not infringed upon.
My beliefs are founded on the principles of self government. Marriage is a social construct properly regulated by the state. The state's only source of legitimate power is through the consent of those it seeks to govern. Therefore, the power to regulate this social construct we call marriage lies solely with the people.
And if I may, watch this video and then let's continue our discourse, if you will.
George Carlin- We're Equal
If not for me as a participant asking a favor in the advancement of context, then for yourself and perhaps a new perspective in which to continue the discussion.
Then add, that the majority of the US consisting of homosexuals, vote for bans on straight marriage in 31 states. I feel a little silly to give such an almost childish example to put you in the place of gay people in the US nowadays, but its an attempt o maybe make you see if you can have any empathic sense of understanding what youre doing (discriminating).
This is a elementary, nnjhansen. You are perhaps, allowing personal opinion to make law and mandate, or rather infringe on anothers' existance as to the freedom with which they are allowed to be equal in this society. This is a fear based judgement as well as a ego-power-control ideology. There are over 1,000 rights that are not covered in a civil union, including 0 hospital visitation, for a friend and loved one, your partner in this chaotic life. All (wo)men are created equal..are they not?
Personal opinion is at the basis of every law, is it not? (With the exception of the 10 Moses brought down from the mountain but I assume you wish to confine this discussion to secular law.)
Not personal opinion, per se. More of a collective agreement that one cannot, in a free society, legislate(in authoritarian sense) or mis-represent it's people.
Law, in a free society, is made when the people express their personal opinion either directly at the ballot box or through their elected representatives.
Yes, this is correct. However, as stated before, in a democracy 51% rule over and take the rights of 49%, which is why the U.S.A. was founded as a republic. Yet, fascist corporation owned society(where we are now), doesn't care for ethical treatments or the constitution. Elected reps are bought and paid for by conglomerates, banksters, and lobbyists. The will of a people is being subjugated by it's own adherence and willful apathy to an oligarchical society.
Rule of majority is exactly subjugation of the minority, which has been the trend for too long. This system restricts the right to choose freely and coerces public opinions through propaganda and religious fanatacism which borders on non-secularism, if not being it in totality.
No one is restricting anyone's ability to choose how or with whom they live. The only restriction of freedom is that which you wish impose on the majority by denying them their rightful ability to set conditions under which licenses will be granted in their name.
The dichotomy of majority vs. minority is convoluting the issue. As in the past with miscegenation, it was illegal for interracial couples to obtain liscenses, until amended and seen as unconstitutional. By this criterion, the conditions are biased towards hetero society and are precisely the same as miscegenation cases of the last century. Each piece is part of the whole, thus in my name too, correct? Why is 'my' name being misrepresented?
That is right, it was illegal in some states for mixed race couples to receive marriage licenses UNTIL the US Constitution was amended and the 14th Amendment's 'clear and central purpose' of eliminating 'all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States' was ratified.
Point in case, this is prima facia for the justification and legitimisation of amending the constitution further to include the gay populace as part of society, totally, and fufill the proclamation of such 'inalienable rights'. As a citizen, I am entitled to receive a qualitative protection, as in religious freedom or political freedom, to live life as I see fit, given I do not violate another person's person. This is invidious sexual orientational discrimination.
You currently have the EXACT same rights as anyone else. No one is forcing you to attend or support a church with which you do not believe, you have the franchise, you can freely speak your mind on public policy issues, you can even marry subject to the same restrictions and limitations that apply to everyone else.
In short, you are not being discriminated against.
Except for the issue of personal freedom of expression in who persons choose to marry.The restrictions and limitations are bias, catering to a hetero society. Thus, you say one is free to perform within the regulations of a warped definition of marriage. This is not freedom but entrapment, in an ethical sense. Discrimination is highly relative and dependant on the individual case. Should I choose a same-sex mate and seek qualitative rights, it is the duty of the state to amend it's prejudice.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the state issues licenses for the benefit of those who receive them. The state issues licenses for the benefit of the society at large. The fact is that a personal, intimate relationship between a man and a woman is much more consequential to society than that between two (or three...) men or women. The state is under no obligation to change any of its licensing requirements merely because you choose not to comply with an existing requirement.
It was the case for interracials as well, to not comply(which is subjugation). And for this is mere speculation that it is 'better' for society that 1 man and 1 woman be joined rather than. Over 50% of hetero marriage ends in divorce, murder, or suicide...is this beneficial to society? But these issues aren't addressed because of bias. Hetero marriage and licensing has been beneficial and destructive. Who's to say that 2 men or 2 women or a multitude, isn't a benefit to society? = Personal Bias
Who is to say? The people in the society are to say. In our system of government the people are sovereign and they get to make the law. You are free to make your case for why you believe the law should be changed but to date you have failed to make that case.
Obviously, the case has been presented and was not an issue in societies such as the Romans, Greeks, etc.; where it was common practice. It is fundamentalist subjugation, which is unlawful. The system you speak of no longer exists. The sovereign people were supplanted by the Statist regime and then consolidated into the military-religious complex. This is a call for a return to liberty, U.S. society is more akin to Nazism. Legislation of living, which is not the governments jurisdiction.
"Fundamentalist subjugation," "military-religious complex"??? Where do you get this stuff?
The only fascist-like behavior surrounding this issue is by those who believe they get to impose their will on the people regardless of their expressed will.
Lack of a marriage license does not prevent you from living or control how you live.
If you are not familiar with such terms, it would be to the benefit of the discourse if you educated yourself on them, no offense intended.
'The only fascist-like behavior surrounding this issue is by those who believe they get to impose their will on the people regardless of their expressed will.'
The GLBT community has voiced their expressed will and are shunned as abominations and misrepresented.
'The GLBT community' does not get to impose its views on the rest of society. It is clear that your basic problem is that you reject the notion of self government. You want a small subset of society ('The GLBT community') to determine what society approves of.
Fundamentalist subjugation- A collective of like agenda individuals persuing superiority of law over others. Furthermore, it is primarily based on personal preference, social conditioning, and not necessarily for the benefit of the whole of society.
Military/1-Religious/2 Complex- 1-Individuals with dominate viewpoints based on military policy/procedure and wartime mentality, i.e. survival of the fittest, not concerned with ethics.
'Fundamentalist subjugation' sounds like politics to me. What is a representative republic but groups of people vying for political control on the basis of their ideas?
You think the military is not concerned with ethics? You could not be more wrong.
Yes this is the current political system, which not a republics foundations. A republic is there to prevent the majority from ruling over the minority and lends the same rights endowed to all for all. If you wish to believe that warmongers or profiteers consciously pursue ethics then the delusion is not mine. For a business, which the military is, and a lucrative one(for some), to attempt to obtain that which would see it crippled, is ambiguous subterfuge. No business seeks it's own end.
You simply do not understand our system of government not the military.
In our system, the people are sovereign and they get to make the law. The minority is protected only to the extent that the majority (either now or in the past) has set up protections for them. The Constitution is how that earlier majority set up protections from government intrusion.
No one is being denied anything recognized as a right.
We have the most ethical military in the history of the world.
Really, the most ethical, huh? How about Sibel Edmonds who testified, breaking the gag order, that Al Qaeda was under absolute CIA control until 9/11? Or the profiteering from war, or the sexual atrocities commited accross seas by military members? Lobbyist and special interest make the law, along with corporations who have consolidated congress and bought the law books. You are describing a democratic-authoritarian society and not the republic with which we were founded.
An FBI translator who spoke fluently the native language and was privvy, as stated in here testimony, to the exact relations of the CIA and Al Qaeda.
No that is not my arguement. My contention is that in a Republic the freedoms and liberties of the minority are defended from the majority, and it was this reason that the forefathers instituted a Republic and not a Democracy.
You really do not understand the relationship between the FBI and the CIA if you believe for a moment that a low level FBI translator would have any insight into what would be a classified and compartmented CIA operation.
We have the exact same system with even greater protections now than we did at any time in our history. Your argument is nonsense.
Sibel Edmonds Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 PT1, if you are really interested in knowing what happened. I do not seek to attack you or assume a lack of understanding other than when you intentionally misconstrue factual empirical evidence or alter the interpretation of protections or liberties.
Who is being protected and from what are they being protected from?
You cannot be serious! Patriot Acts 1 and 2 completely demolished personal security and privacy from intrusion from government bodies. There are police(nazi) checkpoints being set up across the U.S. in violation of the 4th amendment, forced vaccinations, a civilian combat force being trained to be deployed in the State(including Boy/Girls Scout children!), and posse comitatus act being bit by bit repealed as there are military checkpoints in the U.S. as well, the flouridation of the water
I am disheartened that you have conceded, there is still so much more to share. This aside, the above mentioned(Agenda 21, Fluoridation, Miltiary Check.) these are REAL and documented. These are empirically verifyable; the UN manifesto is taken almost directly from Agenda 21 in pursuit of a Global Government and a Nazi(to the 10th power) genocide of the people. Population control and Gaia worship from fanatical ecologists is real. Just like global warming being purposefully hyped to create
A retreat to the ad hominem assaults and nothing more. Yes you have conceded this debate and I accept your concession through proxy of you refusing to acknowledge empirical evidence provided to you and as such, you have violated the terms of a debate*to respond and defend your position in an eloquent and fACTUAL manner*.
If or when you respond, if it could pertain to the 'most secure time in history from government intrusion' comment you made, then perhaps we might reopen where we left off.
The HR-bill to restrict heavily, vitamins and minerals nutrition in food and to restrict organic farming, Agenda 21 which is the UN depopulation agenda to forcefully destroy 9/10th of the population, from 6.8Billion to 500,000,000. The fact that Obama held another governmental title in direct violation of the Constitution! And you believe we are secure in our protections? Pure folly!
2- Persons devoted to a particularly exclusionist and divisive worldview that puts caste systems in place and/or changes the social norms through propaganda.
I am in favor of self government as this is what I speak of; the ability of an individual to govern their own life in accordance with society and being granted such liberty as to express themselves equally, through voice, art, politics, relationships and so on.
'The GLBT community' does not get to impose its views on the rest of society.' Yet society, as if it differs when it comes to persons of homo-persuasion, can impose its views on the minority. How is this not subjugate and persecution?
Nothing stops you from expressing yourself 'equally, through voice, art, politics, relationships and so on.' How does the lack of a marriage license impact any of that?
The reality is that you want to force others to accept that which they reject. They get to decide what they approve of and sanction, not you.
Separating individual from the whole to verify your claim. This is ad hominem verification and is thus biased and false. Who is doing the real forcing here?
When one is seen as a second class citizen it directly impacts them in the ways they are able to be found credible, respectible, and free to express themselves, in society and as society(Which they are apart of).
No one forces a marriage license on anyone. If you do not wish to accept the conditions attached to the license, do not apply for one.
Again, the state is not in the business of issuing licenses so that you can feel good about yourself. Licenses serve a societal, not individual interest and in our system of government the majority gets to decide what that societal purpose is.
Precisely why this is more of a authoritarian society more akin to prejudice Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The drawback of not applying is inequality, it is in this way that the system manifests entrapment(either you abide and marry a female or male or you don't and are not recognized as a union. Thus revoking rights to visit when ill, custody, etc.) The conditions of the license are unconstitiutional, even if the majority is sleeping as sheeple in the grips of televised opinion.
There is no 'right' to visit someone in the hospital or to gain custody of that which is not yours.
We have already been over this and you have acknowledged that there is nothing unconstitutional about the current marriage laws. That you wish to see them changed for your own benefit does not rise to a constitutional defect.
Personal benefit does not enter into the matter aside from a persons ability to travel freely and act as such. There are hospital policy that will not allow a same-sex partner to visit their mate because of the lack of that piece of paper. Custody of children when adopted or through a serrogate are the individuals 'property'(using that word loosely). Also, I have meticulously stated that current marriage prerequisites(1man/1woman) are entirely unconstitutional.
The hospital is free to set whatever visitation policy it wants.
There is no issue of the custody of an adopted child. The adoptive parent(s) are the child's legal guardians.
You have not stated what constitutional provision you believe the current marriage laws violated and you have acknowledged the need for an amendment for that to be the case.
Actually, I believe this falls into the 14th amedments alterations as a subtext. Bottom line, okay; Bill of Rights and the Constitution were both written to protect people from other people's whims or demands when directly in conflict with individual liberties or the pursuit of happiness(equality). As well as, the establishment of a universal consensus, not a bi-partisan agenda and especially not religious or personal interpretation of subjective context and prerequisites.
'14th amendments alterations as a subtext'? Is that something like a 'penumbra of an emanation'?
There is nothing in the text or history of the 14th Amendment to suggest that it restricts a state's ability to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Nothing. The Supreme Court BTW agrees with me.
The Constitution was not written with any expectation of a 'universal consensus' and the influence of 'factions' was well understood. Have you ever read the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers?
A penumbra in the sense of a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution. If you want to take current political civil rights as a measure of the future and what we as a people are working towards, to be free in all aspect and acknowledging each as equal and able to govern self, then so be it. I respectfully disagree.
No I have not read those papers, care to give a summary and context until I can?
Is it a discrimination, nnjhansen, when a governement will deny you the right to marriage because youre heterosexual, and the law says only homosexuals can marry?
Then on top of this, the majority of homosexuals get to vote on your marriage rights, and you are a minority as youre straight and they can vote your rights away and do so through a proposition? Just reverse the situation, that only man/man, woman/woman marriage is legal , man/women is not. What would you like to happen in this case?
Your analogy is false because there is no law that says homosexuals cannot marry.
If the state had a legitimate interest in the man/man or woman/woman relationship that it did not have in the man/woman relationship then I would have no problem with a social institution meant to further that interest. For the life of me, I cannot conceive of such an interest though.
hhjhansen, so youre okay in the reverse situation when others decide that you as a straight person, have no relevance to the state to get married then cannot get married. So, youre okay you cant marry, only gay people can. Thats what youre saying.
Again, your analogy is fatally flawed. There is NO law stating that only heterosexuals can marry. Homosexuals generally choose not to get married because they find one of the requirements to be distasteful. That is very, very different.
There are any number of state issued licenses that I do not qualify for reasons of either choice or capability, I do not object to those license schemes.
Now, really answer the reverse situation as if it were real. I see its very hard for you to do that. Youre saying in such situation, youre okay you cant marry because youre straight.
I have answered as though the actual situation were reversed. If, there were a state issued license, one of the requirements for which I found distasteful, I would not apply for such a license. If that requirement were reasonably related to the state's legitimate interest in granting the license in question, I would have no objection.
So youre saying that because one aspect of you you find distasteful, you wont allow yourself to want that license to marry? Really? And what would be distastefull about wanting to get heterosexually married?
I am saying that as long as the requirements for a state issued licensed are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest, my personal feelings regarding satisfying that requirement is irrelevant. If I do not care to satisfy the requirement, I accept that I cannot receive the license.
No, what I am saying is that as a reasonable person I recognize that the state issues licenses for a reason. That in order for the license to satisfy that reason, the state properly sets requirements and conditions for receiving the license. As long as the state's interest is legitimate and the requirement is reasonably related to it, I fail to see the issue.
Exactly, so this means, you cant get married, in your case to the opposite sex, in the reverse situation. And you indicate you are okay with that for yourself and for other opposite sex/straight people, who want to marry but cant.
That would be the case if the state had a legitimate interest in man/man or women/woman relationships that it did not have in man/woman relationships. I cannot, however imagine what such an interest would be.
Youre only proving my points again and again. You make the distinction on sexual orientation, which is a discrimination. It's really that simple, no amount or quality of your arguments can change that even when you try very hard to deny the reality of your own bigotry..
I make no distinction on the basis of sexual orientation because the law does not. There is no law preventing homosexuals from marrying. A single male homosexual has the exact same legal opportunity to marry as his heterosexual counterpart.
All licensing schemes discriminate between those who satisfy the requirements and those who cannot or choose not to. The fact that homosexuals generally do not choose to satisfy the requirement does not cast a negative light on the requirement.
Reality check, and then Im done, because you keep talking besides reality, not on reality. As a person can one marry a person of the samesex? Only in (almost) 5 states, in the US. You could also call it gender discrimination next to it being sexual orientation discrimation. The argument that gays can marry opposite sex, is the same as saying blacks could marry, only if they married blacks, not whites. Im sure you understand your argumentation makes you also a racist.
It is not sexual discrimination because it affords no advantage to one sex over the other.
The laws against inter-racial marriage on the other hand were specifically designed to benefit the white race to the exclusion of all others. Remember only whites were denied the ability to marry outside their race. The two situations have nothing in common.
I wish there was a better word for it than bigot or homophobe, until then I will call you and people like you sexual orientation racists. That's right on the mark. Im done now.
You may want to invest in a dictionary. "sexual orientation racist" is a term completely devoid of any meaning.
Once you accept the reality that it is neither based on fear nor bigoted to acknowledge the reality that the union of a man and a woman is significantly more consequential to society than any other union, you will have an easier time accepting why the law is what it is.
Last reply then. Where I live there already is samesex marriage, and weve had this fight about 10 years ago and people like you are just plain and simple sexual orientation racists and are not welcome here. You dont know anything about SSMarriage being beneficial, as where I live its been established it is, which makes your bigotry look even worse. You are not talking facts, just fears, prejudices, phobia's and irrationalities which you are not even open to question and to correct. SORacist.
I will cut you some slack on the 'sexual orientation racist' nonsense since English is not your native language but a word of advice, stop using it, it makes you sound stupid.
If the people of the Netherlands see some benefit in recognizing same sex couples (I can't imagine what that benefit is but I'm not Dutch) that is their call.
Tell you what, I will stay out of Dutch politics if you stay out of ours.
Im calling you by what you have shown me so far. I might change my mind on the SO racism thingy, if you can show some behavior in that direction that grants it. The Netherlands isnt the only country that has legalized gay marriage. You'd think that if it was not beneficial, would other following countries have legalized? Think about that one. I have my right, and support to give to depfox, to debate with anti-samesex marriage americans here, If you dont want that, then dont post here.
You are more than welcome to continue calling me whatever you like. I would suggest a good English dictionary though because racist is really not a word that is applicable here.
What other nations do, is up to them. I could not care less why they do it.
I know what racist means, its the same word in Dutch. That you dont care about other countries where gay mariage does work (and in 5 of US states), again says a lot about your state of mind. You dont care about other people's lifes and rights and happiness, only about your own. You actually dislike to extend the freedom and equality you enjoy to your fellow countrymen and women. Hows that for selfishness.
I don't care about other countries because I do not live there.
I care deeply about people's rights and freedom. I have dedicated a good portion of my life to protecting them. This is not an issue of either rights being denied or of freedoms lost. This is a licensing scheme. Nothing more.
And why are you actually posting here when youve obviously made up your mind about samesex marriage anyway. For the fun of it? For making gay people feel bad? For your self pleasure? For compensating your own feelings of inferiority by acting superior over others? One thing I can tell you is that gay people will NEVER give up their fight for marriage and equal rights until they have it. NEVER, so you will never convince them/us with anything you have to say against it.
I post here to correct inaccurate arguments. No one is being denied a recognizable right, no one is being wrongly discriminated against, no one is prohibited from marriage, everyone has an equal ability to marry, etc...
So, you wanna convince gay people to not have equal rights, to marriage and other rights, because according to you the arguments are incorrect? On what planet do you live? I can tell you none of your arguments have worked or changed my mind. Only thing is that I now consider people like you sexual orientation racists. So, thanks for that. *out*.
People, including you, dont have the right to marry samesex, so they and you dont have equal rights. Second,, there are mostly only gay people posting here, and you wont convince them. I think you'd be better off posting on a blog or site to people that agree with or might agree with you because here, noone is going to agree with you. But I know you get a kick out off feeling superior because you yourself feel so inferior. I feel sorry for you. It's really diner time now. See ya around.
If the restrictions apply to everyone then their rights are equal. That is what equal means.
I am not necessarily interested in changing anyone's mind. I simply need to keep the people who respect marriage for what it is voting the way they have in every election where this has been an issue.
You are absolutely correct in flippin' the script, so to speak. Ethics is either universal or it doesn't work at all, being man-made, ethical treatment is subject to the awareness of the people. Quite frankly, the people are waking up and the slumbering sheeple who pull levers like monkeys in voting booths are an obsolete class of unaware human beings. Are we to live by the imperious breath of men who have not empathetic hearts and bias minds with vapid agendas?
It would depend on their reasoning. To date, they have rejected the notion that this issue presents a substantive federal question and nothing has changed to make it so.
This issue is properly decided by the people and their elected representatives.
There is a case in federal court on prop 8, that might end up in the US Supreme Court. Would you accept the outcome if its pro-gay? Also, if in the future, the voters who are pro-gay marriage are in the majority, would you accept your country accepts gay marriage?
Perhaps the fascist take over and the police state(as in nazi germany) is moving in? The continuation of that vile 'War on everything!', or that the government is now an arm for lobbyist and the military industrial complex?
Confucius~ "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love,
Or just maybe to warp perceptions: Marriage has existed in many a varied fashion. Handfasting origins date to Rome, Greece, Ireland, Scotland, etc.
First video I've encountered from The Leffews' Clan, haha. Smile guys and be buoyant! The fervor with which action is desired should embolden and not depress you. Do not diminish your joyous natural selves because of circumstance.
I believe in America but not it's government, for it is bought and sold 1quardrillion fold. Those who really control the issues are dangling this, trite issue, that is mere common sense, in the publics eye to divert attention. From what you may ask...?
I respect and love how passionate you guys are about all this. It's upsetting to see you guys so torn up about this. But at the same time it makes me realize how disturbed I should be as well. And yet I'm not. I mean I didn't like what happened with Maine (and as out of touch with politics as I am I actually knew about what was going down there), but I'm way less emotionally invested in it than you guys. Your videos have made me reflect on my own political apathy.
Not disputing the love you have for each other, I would for you guys to be happy, but I don't think you need to spout your hate to those who don't feel you should be married.
I'm sorry you feel that way about people like me who would say no to Prop 8. The Federal and State Court justices are only told to interpret the laws of the land, not govern from the bench. Barack Obama doesn't hold much clout with the people anymore. The Virginia and NJ governors races are a testament to that.
Bryan you are so passionate and I respect your words. when i watch your your guys's videos I feel so empowered. I will have to respectfully disagree about Ellen lol I love her. But everything us you have said I totally 110% agree with you!! Love you guys and your videos!!!
thats funny i thought it was a *Marriage* license, the sex is still happening in Maine though, the marriage part is only a matter of time, the voting gets closer every time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Not on my watch Bennie. This Pandora's Box will not be opened. This line will not be crossed. You will not open this can of worms in my backyard. It will be stopped by any means necessary.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The good people of Maine did the right thing. We don't need or want that garbage going on here. Not on my watch and not in my backyard. Take it back to San Fran-sickos!
Maine was another disappointment, but Washington DID light a blazing candle of hope by passing (comfortably) an "everything but marriage" law that granted us ALL the rights of marriage except it just called it domestic partnership. Since many churches will marry us, I'm not so concerned about what the state calls it as long as we have all the rights. Please check out my song "It's About Love".
Keep this movement going. Keep this movement rolling. In spite of the difficulties, And we're going to have a few more difficulties, Keep climing Keep moving. If you can't fly, run. If you can't run, walk. If you can't walk, crawl. By by all means, keep moving! -Martin Luther King, Jr. Let look at Washington as a minor accomplishment and remember the good things. Don't stop moving forward. we have to saver what little movement we have right now and add on to that!
I'm from maine and last year I had to move out and move into Canada... I have many friends that is hurting because because Vote 1. We need a national leader, not a cleb. Someone with passion, charm and anger. I'm at the point now if there was a riot. I be the first. Blacks had riot and people notice..... I'm just anger.
Im just coloring. Lol. Excuse me, but how do you guys get your info about the gay community? Im totally new to this. hehe This year I wanna be more involved. Thanks :)
Xaiclops 3 weeks ago
"civil-union-bill(dot)org"
MrFenix174 5 months ago
I think when people hear the words gay and marriage together they on some level are insulted. I just don't think people are ready, maybe they will never be. People are just not that tolerant. I don't know if they ever will be. I grew up in a small town and I know how intolerant people are. It sadens me to know that gay children still go through so much just because they are different. It's sad, but it's the world we live in.
tboar456 7 months ago
Depressing letter, I must say. The liberation IS coming, great big bad time. Actually, those rights shall not remain the domain of "the public whim and will" 4 much longer, in my opinion. Your state's Supreme Court ruled the way it DID, however, & this really IS something we R ALL going 2 have 2 accept, male/female/str8/gay/etc., B-cause of the exact same PRINCIPLE underlying the process of amending the FEDERAL Constitution. (Note I did not say exact same PROCESS; I know the difference, eh?)
bimboblacky 8 months ago
I never knew that it was this bad in the states for gay people, it's just plain ridicoulus! I've never felt so blessed to live in such an open country as I do now .. I dont even know what to say really.
Keep fighting for your rights, you deserve it as much as anyone else!
HenceMe 8 months ago
I agree with many things you said on your video about Maine. I just found you on Youtube. Can you comment on the state of FL, perhaps the most backward gay state in the union. The FL Supreme Court just granted a gay main in Miami the right to adopt a child. It remains illegal for gay people to adopt in FL. Gays can have a private adoption however Gays cannot adopt children out of the foster care system.
Oh by the way, please encourage your viewers to NEVER GIVE UP
gonzie64 1 year ago
Bryan you are so right....it has so much to do with fear. I am not a part of the gay community, but I totally support and love you guys. I would love to upload video's of my family so you could meet us, but even I have fear of what my friends and family would say if they knew how I felt and what my veiws are.....I'm working on having a voice but religion chokes me. I believe you deserve every right that I deserve. Jay....Jesus is love....not hate....you guys ROCK!
76gottaloveme 1 year ago
Gay Pride World Wide
Gay Pride World Wide
Gay Pride World Wide
Gay Pride World Wide
Gay Pride World Wide
Gay Pride World Wide
Gay Pride World Wide
Gay Pride World Wide
SerbiansareTrash 1 year ago
My BFF died of AIDS in 95 and I would try to discuss it with my ex husband when I was sad or I miss her like crazy and he would try to lecture me and his parents would shun me...... RIP Pedro Zamora
stinkerbell76 1 year ago
I remember seeing the movie what makes a family some time ago where brooke shields partner in the movie died of lupus and the grandparents were trying to take the child away it was SO sad,.... I am still thinking abut moving back to Maine but 2 questions keep my mind spinning, If we can be colorblind then why can't we be gender blind?and I heard this on TV tonight but How come the bible says man on man relations is bad but yet they don't mention woman on woman relations? love all EQUALLY
stinkerbell76 1 year ago
I live in maine, i hate it here, im not 18 but i wouldve voted so we could have same sex marriage here.
AustinSpeaks 1 year ago
If only I was American ,i would support you and give you a vote,because I never realize how it is so important to the gay people..
good video!
chenjirong 1 year ago
Im from maine, did so much for the campaign and was crushed by the results. it still hurts to this very day. but it is heartening to here your words of support and conviction from CA.
Thank you for all you do! Keep up the fight! WE ARE WITH YOU!
zpbandj 2 years ago 3
Yes, we as gays have to fight. Its just sad that we have to fight over things that straights take for granted.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
@AstroMen2911 you mean the right to marry? you have the right to marry of the opposite sex, this applies to everyone equally. what you mean to say is that you want a union with the same potency that a Married couple has.
MrFenix174 5 months ago
I'm gay and my mother voted yes on one.. It hurt me so much because she swore up and down that she accepted me for who I am.
RealizeAbbey 2 years ago 6
I am very sorry about that. Bryans brother voted for prop 8 its funny that our own families wont stand with us.
depfox 2 years ago
@depfox amazing and painful that ones own family votes against your rights, what is wrong with them?
summersonset 2 years ago
@depfox its so funny..
but you should acclimatize yourself to this situation because some people not in the way that you are thinking they may be and we share the different vision.take me 4 the example:I m totally a anti-gay right guy then before I came across to your web.
chenjirong 1 year ago
@depfox
It isn't your family's problem.
ma7799 6 months ago
hey Abby, that is so painful, must be real hard to deal with :(
summersonset 2 years ago
There has never been any empirical evidence or verification that a same-sex or polygamist 'couple' isn't to the benefit of society. This is a misnomer and falls within the ad hominem assaults perpetrated by the State and supported by religious fanaticism.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Apologies, I ment to reply and hit spam instead. Whether it is properly regulated is not a closed issue. It is my belief, as part of the state, that the proceedures are not properly regulated. Such division between people, as you and I, is why Statist societies, throughout history(every one of them) has fallen. Because you say 'I' can't do this, and it is 'my' right to choose to do that. Republics create states to defend the minority from the majority and you desire a contradictory system.
seraphimra 2 years ago
We have a system that affords protections to all from government intrusion. It is the same system we have had since 1789. I am content with the system we have and have had for 200+ years, you prefer some fanciful system that does not and has never existed.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
In this you are false. Societies have existed as such, I suggest checking on Roman, Greek, and even some Native American histories.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Now you have lost me. What do Greek, Roman, or American Indian societies have to do with anything?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
These were societies that were tolerant and embraced such a taboo lifestyle and recognized it as legitimate. You ask if there were ever such a society or make a assumption they didn't exist.
seraphimra 2 years ago
It was commonly the way that couples were "officially" married before the church became involved in Wedding ceremonies. This is a matter between the individuals and their "Creator/God(s)". As for the State, it is responsible for the protection of the rights of the minority. 51% of people overrule 49%. <--in this way democracy fails utterly. Which is why this country was founded as a Republic. This is a non-issue for any with a modicum of empathy/sense, and who aren't blinded w/religious dogma
seraphimra 2 years ago 4
And what "right" precisely do you believe the majority is unfairly denying to the minority?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what other inalienable right do you think I reference?
seraphimra 2 years ago
The inability to obtain a state issued license does not infringe on anyone's liberty nor their pursuit of happiness.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. PoH is just common sense, albeit not so common. A lover who is in the hospital and cannot be visited because the state isn't granting a liscense, directly in violation of the PoH and of a Freedom society, which we claim to be. Religious persecution brought pilgrims here. Persecution and bias on sexual orientation are matters of inequality.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Denial of a license to someone who does not meet the reasonable requirements for one is not persecution. The state is under no obligation to grant a license merely because it would make the recipient happy. That would destroy the whole purpose in the granting of licenses.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
There we have it, 'reasonable requirements'. For a hetero-couple, the only reasonable requirements are the presence of the individuals and a court fee. So, exactly on what basis are some allowed to have the right to choose their mate and others do not? Refining anothers ability to choose and receive equal outcome, is persecution. Not to make the person(s) 'happy' but allowing them the liberty to excercise choice, exactly as in anti-miscegenation cases which were found unconstitutional.
seraphimra 2 years ago
That is not true, there are a number of reasons why a man and a woman may not meet the requirements for a marriage license. One may not be of age, one may already be married, or they may be too closely related. The key is that all these restrictions and limitations are reasonable and related to the state's legitimate interest in issuing marriage licenses.
Civil marriage exists for a reason. That interest is exclusively served by the union of a man and a woman.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
So which of these requirements are the 'gay' individuals, seeking equal acknowledgement, fail to meet? Or perhaps you have forgotten the definition and true tradition of marriage, which is not Christian; but was hijacked (for good and ill) by them. Using justifications that this is a non-secular society is common for politicians-"This is a Christian nation and we shall uphold the traditions of marriage."- pfha, same people do not trace the origins of the joining of two people in love.
seraphimra 2 years ago
As individuals they do not fail to meet any of them. A homosexual male is just as capable of being married as a heterosexual man. The requirement for a marriage license is one man and one woman, whether one or both of them happen to be homosexual is irrelevant. That requirement is completely reasonable given the state's purpose in granting marriage licenses.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Exactly, the State's purpose, being....ill-defined, or biased towards challenged 'norms'. Implications of a State agenda is totalitarian rule and inches away from a Nazi socio-political regime. If a man couldn't see his wife in time of need, because it isn't recognize by the state, as in interracials in the prior century, as a lawful union, the result of which we already know: riots, picketing, peaceful demonstrations, political activism, etc. But this isn't about that is it? It's preference.
seraphimra 2 years ago
The state's interest is neither ill-defined nor biased. It has been acknowledged by courts, legislatures, and the people for centuries.
There is nothing totalitarian or nefarious in a state issuing license to further its legitimate interests. Do the reasonable restrictions on drivers licenses, law licenses, or liquor licenses place us inches away from a totalitarian precipice as well?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
These aforementioned licenses, are for the protection of the society: unlicensed drivers, drinkers, or law practitioners are potentially detrimental to the physical safety of society. Just as in the 14th amendation, it is the time for another similar amendment, but politcial agenda and statist agenda muddy the waters of the constitution and the processes of pursuing such amendments. The 'legitimacy' of the interests is up for speculation and should be subject to the harshest scrutiny.
seraphimra 2 years ago
All licenses serve a societal purpose, that is why the state issues them.
Feel free to attempt to amend the Constitution.
Until then, there is no Constitutional basis for imposing a radical redefinition of marriage on a society that has repeatedly rejected that redefinition.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Confucius~ "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love.
Thus, it is current society(fundamentalist) which has altered the definition.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Are you claiming Confucius founded marriage or is the basis for our laws??
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Not at all, yet this is the true traditional definition of marriage, before being hijacked by religious fundamentalist, who are known for their persecutive, divisive, exclusionary, and uncompromising natures. With such individuals in congress, mis-representing the public within the context of the said issue is none other that bias founded on a personal viewpoint and not on the REAL world implications = Miscegenation, once more.
Fundamentalist redefined marriage.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Confucius is the 'true definer' of marriage? Marriage as an institution long predates Confucius.
Marriage has, however been redefined through the years. To date, society has generally rejected your proposed change and there is no reason their expressed will should be overruled.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Predates, yes, but the definition still holds. Previously, marriage was for exchange of property, titles, and joining of families, vastly askew to personal liberty, as such was not the primary concern of society. Society creates many unconstitutional norms that are re-enforced by bought-off politicians, re-elected by their base which is of homophobic persuasion and should not be considered the final arbitrators of the law. No reason, huh? No reason for you or for me? Who's behalf do you speak on
seraphimra 2 years ago
By what possible measure if Confucius's definition of marriage the 'true' definition. In fact, Confucius has little to no real influence on the development of our institutions or society.
You have already acknowledged that there is no constitutional basis for imposing your definition of marriage on the people. Given that, the definition of marriage is purely a matter for the people to decide and to date they have rejected your proposal.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Back to the dichotomy; the majority decided to subjugate the minority. The message that Confucius stated should be the focus and not the individual himself. Ultimately it is about being able to choose and be acknowledge equal, as homosexuals and polygamist are TOO a part of society, yet they are disregarded as inconsequential to the whole, this is absurd and invidious ideology. Just because the majority of society is dancing to bombs or injustice doesn't lend credence to their usurption of law.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Denial of a license is not subjugation by any meaningful sense of the word.
Confucius is irrelevant.
The majority in our system makes the law. They get to choose what value they place on what types of relationships.
Do you have a better system?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Yes, confucius is irrelevant but the definition stated is not, that is agreed. Subjugation is precisely the correct word and 'meaning' is subjective, thus base on such subjectivity it should be interpreted in an unbias sense; one person under the rule of another, or in this case a collective of others.
Better system, why yes I do. A return to the republic, as founded, where wolves and sheep decide on what's to eat, but the sheep has a gun. <--metaphore for having to force equality.
seraphimra 2 years ago
No it is not agreed. Confucius and his definition of marriage is irrelevant.
Subjugate means 'to bring under control' or 'to enslave.' The denial of a marriage license does neither of these to anyone.
We are all subject to the law, homosexual and heterosexual alike. Are you claiming same sex marriage existed in this fanciful 'republic' from which we have strayed?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The definition is entirely relevant as this is the point upon which, the licenses are administered. Enslavement doesn't just mean physical, it is psychological and emotional enslavement.
No it did not exist in the 1770's yet that is no reason for it to be disbarred from consideration and/or in congress. No, then, this in not my claim as we both, presumably, remember history.
seraphimra 2 years ago
You are psychologically and emotionally enslaved for want of a piece of paper from the county clerk??
No, you are right, there is no reason this issue should not be considered and it has been. Thirty-one times it has been considered and thirty-one times it has been summarily rejected.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The paper is meaningless in so far as it relates to what is allowed with said license. Without it, 'I' could not see an ill mate or obtain custody of children should 'my' mate pass on. Yes, as was the case with interracial marriage and equal civil rights for blacks, being summarily rejected over and over and espousing violence as a retort because the black community resisted. How can you not see the exact similarity.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Hospitals are free to set their own visitation policies, that entire argument is a red herring. As for 'your children', if they are truly yours there is no issue. As two men or two women cannot 'have' children the lack of a license is not the issue.
There is nothing similar in this issue and that of inter-racial marriage.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Then you are choosing to disregard the exact similarity and parallels and thus sully the issue with ignor(e)ance. Adopting couples? aren't 'their children'? Serrogate families? aren't their children?
The more we discuss this, the more I can see a personal bias from you the speaker, as you oppose this issue, thus you would not desire to see the real world implications. This is a conflict of interest and is the reason amendments haven't been made. Majority of media(propaganda) believe as you.
seraphimra 2 years ago
There are no similarities. An interracial couple is capable of satisfying society's purpose in issuing a marriage license. A same sex couple is not. The anti-miscegenation laws were not applied equally, current restrictions on marriage are. The law in VA served an illegitimate state interest, the current restrictions on marriage serve a legitimate one.
If a child is lawfully adopted there is no issue of custody.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
If in a civil union, a mate dies, then court preceedings take place to contemplate foster care as a civil union is NOT a marriage and thus parents find themselves with their kids taken by the state because they are not recognized as equal.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Civil unions are not equal to marriage in many states, so what? If a child is left without a legally recognized guardian, that child enters the foster system. If that is the case, the child has no 'parent' in any legally recognized sense.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
So what?! Haha, this is exactly the apathetic nature that predicates the intolerance and prejudice of our current era. So what, huh? Why not ask those suffering from children being stripped away or lovers dying in hospital beds without visitation or say in whether a vegetative person is to undergo care or pull the plug?
seraphimra 2 years ago
Medical powers of attorney, adoption, and changes in hospital visitation policies solve those issues. No need to redefine marriage.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
They solve these issues for Heterosexual couples but not GLBT couples. Thus, there is an incontinuity of the rule of law, which even though it isn't seen by the majority to need amending, doesn't negate it's exact parallels to civil rights. On this aspect of miscegenation and GLBT being as such, we shall have to agree to disagree. However, for myself, without ego, it is vivid in the striking parallels and similarities in denying any individual rights to marriage based on Sex, Creed, Race, etc.
seraphimra 2 years ago
@nnjhansen your just a heartless little bitch, because of this discrimnation and little bigots like you, my sister my cant even say bye or i love you to her partner , cant leave her property to the person shes wants to have it. because of bigots like you , children who are just finding out who they killing themeselves because of your bullying, their familes who been together for a long time being torn apart because of their immgration status because of you bigots laws,
continued
sunshine79768 9 months ago
@sunshine79768 and your bigots reason for doing this to people is nothing, them having a cermony of them coming together has zero affect on your life , but its does have affects on my family, her family, and lots of other famlies , so why dont you just leave other people's lives alone and worry about your own
sunshine79768 9 months ago
Or more likely, they taught you to believe as such. Where are your beliefs on this topic founded? For mine are to create a truly free society where each is accepted and equal, especially when the supposed deterious effect upon society are unfounded and mere prejudice with the veneer of authority. The value of authority is only respectable or permitted when the rights of one to choose freely are not infringed upon.
seraphimra 2 years ago
My beliefs are founded on the principles of self government. Marriage is a social construct properly regulated by the state. The state's only source of legitimate power is through the consent of those it seeks to govern. Therefore, the power to regulate this social construct we call marriage lies solely with the people.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
And if I may, watch this video and then let's continue our discourse, if you will.
George Carlin- We're Equal
If not for me as a participant asking a favor in the advancement of context, then for yourself and perhaps a new perspective in which to continue the discussion.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Then add, that the majority of the US consisting of homosexuals, vote for bans on straight marriage in 31 states. I feel a little silly to give such an almost childish example to put you in the place of gay people in the US nowadays, but its an attempt o maybe make you see if you can have any empathic sense of understanding what youre doing (discriminating).
summersonset 2 years ago
This is a elementary, nnjhansen. You are perhaps, allowing personal opinion to make law and mandate, or rather infringe on anothers' existance as to the freedom with which they are allowed to be equal in this society. This is a fear based judgement as well as a ego-power-control ideology. There are over 1,000 rights that are not covered in a civil union, including 0 hospital visitation, for a friend and loved one, your partner in this chaotic life. All (wo)men are created equal..are they not?
seraphimra 2 years ago 2
Personal opinion is at the basis of every law, is it not? (With the exception of the 10 Moses brought down from the mountain but I assume you wish to confine this discussion to secular law.)
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Not personal opinion, per se. More of a collective agreement that one cannot, in a free society, legislate(in authoritarian sense) or mis-represent it's people.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Law, in a free society, is made when the people express their personal opinion either directly at the ballot box or through their elected representatives.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Yes, this is correct. However, as stated before, in a democracy 51% rule over and take the rights of 49%, which is why the U.S.A. was founded as a republic. Yet, fascist corporation owned society(where we are now), doesn't care for ethical treatments or the constitution. Elected reps are bought and paid for by conglomerates, banksters, and lobbyists. The will of a people is being subjugated by it's own adherence and willful apathy to an oligarchical society.
seraphimra 2 years ago
In this republic, 50.1% rules over the other 49.9% unless a previous (larger) majority amended the Constitution to set the bar higher.
You are aware that fascists are left-wing statists I hope.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Rule of majority is exactly subjugation of the minority, which has been the trend for too long. This system restricts the right to choose freely and coerces public opinions through propaganda and religious fanatacism which borders on non-secularism, if not being it in totality.
seraphimra 2 years ago
No one is restricting anyone's ability to choose how or with whom they live. The only restriction of freedom is that which you wish impose on the majority by denying them their rightful ability to set conditions under which licenses will be granted in their name.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The dichotomy of majority vs. minority is convoluting the issue. As in the past with miscegenation, it was illegal for interracial couples to obtain liscenses, until amended and seen as unconstitutional. By this criterion, the conditions are biased towards hetero society and are precisely the same as miscegenation cases of the last century. Each piece is part of the whole, thus in my name too, correct? Why is 'my' name being misrepresented?
seraphimra 2 years ago
That is right, it was illegal in some states for mixed race couples to receive marriage licenses UNTIL the US Constitution was amended and the 14th Amendment's 'clear and central purpose' of eliminating 'all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States' was ratified.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Point in case, this is prima facia for the justification and legitimisation of amending the constitution further to include the gay populace as part of society, totally, and fufill the proclamation of such 'inalienable rights'. As a citizen, I am entitled to receive a qualitative protection, as in religious freedom or political freedom, to live life as I see fit, given I do not violate another person's person. This is invidious sexual orientational discrimination.
seraphimra 2 years ago
You currently have the EXACT same rights as anyone else. No one is forcing you to attend or support a church with which you do not believe, you have the franchise, you can freely speak your mind on public policy issues, you can even marry subject to the same restrictions and limitations that apply to everyone else.
In short, you are not being discriminated against.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Except for the issue of personal freedom of expression in who persons choose to marry.The restrictions and limitations are bias, catering to a hetero society. Thus, you say one is free to perform within the regulations of a warped definition of marriage. This is not freedom but entrapment, in an ethical sense. Discrimination is highly relative and dependant on the individual case. Should I choose a same-sex mate and seek qualitative rights, it is the duty of the state to amend it's prejudice.
seraphimra 2 years ago
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the state issues licenses for the benefit of those who receive them. The state issues licenses for the benefit of the society at large. The fact is that a personal, intimate relationship between a man and a woman is much more consequential to society than that between two (or three...) men or women. The state is under no obligation to change any of its licensing requirements merely because you choose not to comply with an existing requirement.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
It was the case for interracials as well, to not comply(which is subjugation). And for this is mere speculation that it is 'better' for society that 1 man and 1 woman be joined rather than. Over 50% of hetero marriage ends in divorce, murder, or suicide...is this beneficial to society? But these issues aren't addressed because of bias. Hetero marriage and licensing has been beneficial and destructive. Who's to say that 2 men or 2 women or a multitude, isn't a benefit to society? = Personal Bias
seraphimra 2 years ago
Who is to say? The people in the society are to say. In our system of government the people are sovereign and they get to make the law. You are free to make your case for why you believe the law should be changed but to date you have failed to make that case.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Obviously, the case has been presented and was not an issue in societies such as the Romans, Greeks, etc.; where it was common practice. It is fundamentalist subjugation, which is unlawful. The system you speak of no longer exists. The sovereign people were supplanted by the Statist regime and then consolidated into the military-religious complex. This is a call for a return to liberty, U.S. society is more akin to Nazism. Legislation of living, which is not the governments jurisdiction.
seraphimra 2 years ago
"Fundamentalist subjugation," "military-religious complex"??? Where do you get this stuff?
The only fascist-like behavior surrounding this issue is by those who believe they get to impose their will on the people regardless of their expressed will.
Lack of a marriage license does not prevent you from living or control how you live.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
If you are not familiar with such terms, it would be to the benefit of the discourse if you educated yourself on them, no offense intended.
'The only fascist-like behavior surrounding this issue is by those who believe they get to impose their will on the people regardless of their expressed will.'
The GLBT community has voiced their expressed will and are shunned as abominations and misrepresented.
seraphimra 2 years ago
What term do you believe I am unfamiliar with?
'The GLBT community' does not get to impose its views on the rest of society. It is clear that your basic problem is that you reject the notion of self government. You want a small subset of society ('The GLBT community') to determine what society approves of.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Fundamentalist subjugation- A collective of like agenda individuals persuing superiority of law over others. Furthermore, it is primarily based on personal preference, social conditioning, and not necessarily for the benefit of the whole of society.
Military/1-Religious/2 Complex- 1-Individuals with dominate viewpoints based on military policy/procedure and wartime mentality, i.e. survival of the fittest, not concerned with ethics.
seraphimra 2 years ago
'Fundamentalist subjugation' sounds like politics to me. What is a representative republic but groups of people vying for political control on the basis of their ideas?
You think the military is not concerned with ethics? You could not be more wrong.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Yes this is the current political system, which not a republics foundations. A republic is there to prevent the majority from ruling over the minority and lends the same rights endowed to all for all. If you wish to believe that warmongers or profiteers consciously pursue ethics then the delusion is not mine. For a business, which the military is, and a lucrative one(for some), to attempt to obtain that which would see it crippled, is ambiguous subterfuge. No business seeks it's own end.
seraphimra 2 years ago
You simply do not understand our system of government not the military.
In our system, the people are sovereign and they get to make the law. The minority is protected only to the extent that the majority (either now or in the past) has set up protections for them. The Constitution is how that earlier majority set up protections from government intrusion.
No one is being denied anything recognized as a right.
We have the most ethical military in the history of the world.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Really, the most ethical, huh? How about Sibel Edmonds who testified, breaking the gag order, that Al Qaeda was under absolute CIA control until 9/11? Or the profiteering from war, or the sexual atrocities commited accross seas by military members? Lobbyist and special interest make the law, along with corporations who have consolidated congress and bought the law books. You are describing a democratic-authoritarian society and not the republic with which we were founded.
seraphimra 2 years ago
Sibel Edmonds was a low level FBI translator in no position to know what the CIA did or did not control.
Yes, the most ethical. Not perfect, no organization is but by far the best ever.
Are you really arguing that people in this nation enjoyed more freedoms at our founding than they do now? Honestly?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
An FBI translator who spoke fluently the native language and was privvy, as stated in here testimony, to the exact relations of the CIA and Al Qaeda.
No that is not my arguement. My contention is that in a Republic the freedoms and liberties of the minority are defended from the majority, and it was this reason that the forefathers instituted a Republic and not a Democracy.
seraphimra 2 years ago
You really do not understand the relationship between the FBI and the CIA if you believe for a moment that a low level FBI translator would have any insight into what would be a classified and compartmented CIA operation.
We have the exact same system with even greater protections now than we did at any time in our history. Your argument is nonsense.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Sibel Edmonds Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 PT1, if you are really interested in knowing what happened. I do not seek to attack you or assume a lack of understanding other than when you intentionally misconstrue factual empirical evidence or alter the interpretation of protections or liberties.
Who is being protected and from what are they being protected from?
seraphimra 2 years ago
I was in a much better position to 'know what happened' than some low level flunky at the FBI.
We have greater protections today from government intrusion into our lives than at any time in our history.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You cannot be serious! Patriot Acts 1 and 2 completely demolished personal security and privacy from intrusion from government bodies. There are police(nazi) checkpoints being set up across the U.S. in violation of the 4th amendment, forced vaccinations, a civilian combat force being trained to be deployed in the State(including Boy/Girls Scout children!), and posse comitatus act being bit by bit repealed as there are military checkpoints in the U.S. as well, the flouridation of the water
seraphimra 2 years ago
I am sorry but I cannot take seriously someone who speaks of military checkpoints, Agenda 21, organic farming, and THE FLUORIDATION OF WATER!?!?
Enjoy your delusions, I am through with you.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I am disheartened that you have conceded, there is still so much more to share. This aside, the above mentioned(Agenda 21, Fluoridation, Miltiary Check.) these are REAL and documented. These are empirically verifyable; the UN manifesto is taken almost directly from Agenda 21 in pursuit of a Global Government and a Nazi(to the 10th power) genocide of the people. Population control and Gaia worship from fanatical ecologists is real. Just like global warming being purposefully hyped to create
seraphimra 2 years ago
I have conceded nothing but that but that you are a loon.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
A retreat to the ad hominem assaults and nothing more. Yes you have conceded this debate and I accept your concession through proxy of you refusing to acknowledge empirical evidence provided to you and as such, you have violated the terms of a debate*to respond and defend your position in an eloquent and fACTUAL manner*.
If or when you respond, if it could pertain to the 'most secure time in history from government intrusion' comment you made, then perhaps we might reopen where we left off.
seraphimra 2 years ago
The HR-bill to restrict heavily, vitamins and minerals nutrition in food and to restrict organic farming, Agenda 21 which is the UN depopulation agenda to forcefully destroy 9/10th of the population, from 6.8Billion to 500,000,000. The fact that Obama held another governmental title in direct violation of the Constitution! And you believe we are secure in our protections? Pure folly!
seraphimra 2 years ago
2- Persons devoted to a particularly exclusionist and divisive worldview that puts caste systems in place and/or changes the social norms through propaganda.
seraphimra 2 years ago
I am in favor of self government as this is what I speak of; the ability of an individual to govern their own life in accordance with society and being granted such liberty as to express themselves equally, through voice, art, politics, relationships and so on.
'The GLBT community' does not get to impose its views on the rest of society.' Yet society, as if it differs when it comes to persons of homo-persuasion, can impose its views on the minority. How is this not subjugate and persecution?
seraphimra 2 years ago
Nothing stops you from expressing yourself 'equally, through voice, art, politics, relationships and so on.' How does the lack of a marriage license impact any of that?
The reality is that you want to force others to accept that which they reject. They get to decide what they approve of and sanction, not you.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Separating individual from the whole to verify your claim. This is ad hominem verification and is thus biased and false. Who is doing the real forcing here?
When one is seen as a second class citizen it directly impacts them in the ways they are able to be found credible, respectible, and free to express themselves, in society and as society(Which they are apart of).
seraphimra 2 years ago
No one forces a marriage license on anyone. If you do not wish to accept the conditions attached to the license, do not apply for one.
Again, the state is not in the business of issuing licenses so that you can feel good about yourself. Licenses serve a societal, not individual interest and in our system of government the majority gets to decide what that societal purpose is.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Precisely why this is more of a authoritarian society more akin to prejudice Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The drawback of not applying is inequality, it is in this way that the system manifests entrapment(either you abide and marry a female or male or you don't and are not recognized as a union. Thus revoking rights to visit when ill, custody, etc.) The conditions of the license are unconstitiutional, even if the majority is sleeping as sheeple in the grips of televised opinion.
seraphimra 2 years ago
There is no 'right' to visit someone in the hospital or to gain custody of that which is not yours.
We have already been over this and you have acknowledged that there is nothing unconstitutional about the current marriage laws. That you wish to see them changed for your own benefit does not rise to a constitutional defect.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Personal benefit does not enter into the matter aside from a persons ability to travel freely and act as such. There are hospital policy that will not allow a same-sex partner to visit their mate because of the lack of that piece of paper. Custody of children when adopted or through a serrogate are the individuals 'property'(using that word loosely). Also, I have meticulously stated that current marriage prerequisites(1man/1woman) are entirely unconstitutional.
seraphimra 2 years ago
The hospital is free to set whatever visitation policy it wants.
There is no issue of the custody of an adopted child. The adoptive parent(s) are the child's legal guardians.
You have not stated what constitutional provision you believe the current marriage laws violated and you have acknowledged the need for an amendment for that to be the case.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Actually, I believe this falls into the 14th amedments alterations as a subtext. Bottom line, okay; Bill of Rights and the Constitution were both written to protect people from other people's whims or demands when directly in conflict with individual liberties or the pursuit of happiness(equality). As well as, the establishment of a universal consensus, not a bi-partisan agenda and especially not religious or personal interpretation of subjective context and prerequisites.
seraphimra 2 years ago
'14th amendments alterations as a subtext'? Is that something like a 'penumbra of an emanation'?
There is nothing in the text or history of the 14th Amendment to suggest that it restricts a state's ability to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Nothing. The Supreme Court BTW agrees with me.
The Constitution was not written with any expectation of a 'universal consensus' and the influence of 'factions' was well understood. Have you ever read the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
A penumbra in the sense of a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution. If you want to take current political civil rights as a measure of the future and what we as a people are working towards, to be free in all aspect and acknowledging each as equal and able to govern self, then so be it. I respectfully disagree.
No I have not read those papers, care to give a summary and context until I can?
seraphimra 2 years ago
Is it a discrimination, nnjhansen, when a governement will deny you the right to marriage because youre heterosexual, and the law says only homosexuals can marry?
Then on top of this, the majority of homosexuals get to vote on your marriage rights, and you are a minority as youre straight and they can vote your rights away and do so through a proposition? Just reverse the situation, that only man/man, woman/woman marriage is legal , man/women is not. What would you like to happen in this case?
summersonset 2 years ago
Your analogy is false because there is no law that says homosexuals cannot marry.
If the state had a legitimate interest in the man/man or woman/woman relationship that it did not have in the man/woman relationship then I would have no problem with a social institution meant to further that interest. For the life of me, I cannot conceive of such an interest though.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
hhjhansen, so youre okay in the reverse situation when others decide that you as a straight person, have no relevance to the state to get married then cannot get married. So, youre okay you cant marry, only gay people can. Thats what youre saying.
summersonset 2 years ago
Again, your analogy is fatally flawed. There is NO law stating that only heterosexuals can marry. Homosexuals generally choose not to get married because they find one of the requirements to be distasteful. That is very, very different.
There are any number of state issued licenses that I do not qualify for reasons of either choice or capability, I do not object to those license schemes.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Now, really answer the reverse situation as if it were real. I see its very hard for you to do that. Youre saying in such situation, youre okay you cant marry because youre straight.
summersonset 2 years ago
I have answered as though the actual situation were reversed. If, there were a state issued license, one of the requirements for which I found distasteful, I would not apply for such a license. If that requirement were reasonably related to the state's legitimate interest in granting the license in question, I would have no objection.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
So youre saying that because one aspect of you you find distasteful, you wont allow yourself to want that license to marry? Really? And what would be distastefull about wanting to get heterosexually married?
summersonset 2 years ago
I am saying that as long as the requirements for a state issued licensed are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest, my personal feelings regarding satisfying that requirement is irrelevant. If I do not care to satisfy the requirement, I accept that I cannot receive the license.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
So you then accept, because of you being straight, you cant get a marriage license. Thats what youre saying.
summersonset 2 years ago
Comment removed
nnjhansen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, what I am saying is that as a reasonable person I recognize that the state issues licenses for a reason. That in order for the license to satisfy that reason, the state properly sets requirements and conditions for receiving the license. As long as the state's interest is legitimate and the requirement is reasonably related to it, I fail to see the issue.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Exactly, so this means, you cant get married, in your case to the opposite sex, in the reverse situation. And you indicate you are okay with that for yourself and for other opposite sex/straight people, who want to marry but cant.
summersonset 2 years ago
That would be the case if the state had a legitimate interest in man/man or women/woman relationships that it did not have in man/woman relationships. I cannot, however imagine what such an interest would be.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Youre only proving my points again and again. You make the distinction on sexual orientation, which is a discrimination. It's really that simple, no amount or quality of your arguments can change that even when you try very hard to deny the reality of your own bigotry..
summersonset 2 years ago
I make no distinction on the basis of sexual orientation because the law does not. There is no law preventing homosexuals from marrying. A single male homosexual has the exact same legal opportunity to marry as his heterosexual counterpart.
All licensing schemes discriminate between those who satisfy the requirements and those who cannot or choose not to. The fact that homosexuals generally do not choose to satisfy the requirement does not cast a negative light on the requirement.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Reality check, and then Im done, because you keep talking besides reality, not on reality. As a person can one marry a person of the samesex? Only in (almost) 5 states, in the US. You could also call it gender discrimination next to it being sexual orientation discrimation. The argument that gays can marry opposite sex, is the same as saying blacks could marry, only if they married blacks, not whites. Im sure you understand your argumentation makes you also a racist.
summersonset 2 years ago
It is not sexual discrimination because it affords no advantage to one sex over the other.
The laws against inter-racial marriage on the other hand were specifically designed to benefit the white race to the exclusion of all others. Remember only whites were denied the ability to marry outside their race. The two situations have nothing in common.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I wish there was a better word for it than bigot or homophobe, until then I will call you and people like you sexual orientation racists. That's right on the mark. Im done now.
summersonset 2 years ago
You may want to invest in a dictionary. "sexual orientation racist" is a term completely devoid of any meaning.
Once you accept the reality that it is neither based on fear nor bigoted to acknowledge the reality that the union of a man and a woman is significantly more consequential to society than any other union, you will have an easier time accepting why the law is what it is.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Last reply then. Where I live there already is samesex marriage, and weve had this fight about 10 years ago and people like you are just plain and simple sexual orientation racists and are not welcome here. You dont know anything about SSMarriage being beneficial, as where I live its been established it is, which makes your bigotry look even worse. You are not talking facts, just fears, prejudices, phobia's and irrationalities which you are not even open to question and to correct. SORacist.
summersonset 2 years ago
I will cut you some slack on the 'sexual orientation racist' nonsense since English is not your native language but a word of advice, stop using it, it makes you sound stupid.
If the people of the Netherlands see some benefit in recognizing same sex couples (I can't imagine what that benefit is but I'm not Dutch) that is their call.
Tell you what, I will stay out of Dutch politics if you stay out of ours.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Im calling you by what you have shown me so far. I might change my mind on the SO racism thingy, if you can show some behavior in that direction that grants it. The Netherlands isnt the only country that has legalized gay marriage. You'd think that if it was not beneficial, would other following countries have legalized? Think about that one. I have my right, and support to give to depfox, to debate with anti-samesex marriage americans here, If you dont want that, then dont post here.
summersonset 2 years ago
You are more than welcome to continue calling me whatever you like. I would suggest a good English dictionary though because racist is really not a word that is applicable here.
What other nations do, is up to them. I could not care less why they do it.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I know what racist means, its the same word in Dutch. That you dont care about other countries where gay mariage does work (and in 5 of US states), again says a lot about your state of mind. You dont care about other people's lifes and rights and happiness, only about your own. You actually dislike to extend the freedom and equality you enjoy to your fellow countrymen and women. Hows that for selfishness.
summersonset 2 years ago
I don't care about other countries because I do not live there.
I care deeply about people's rights and freedom. I have dedicated a good portion of my life to protecting them. This is not an issue of either rights being denied or of freedoms lost. This is a licensing scheme. Nothing more.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
And why are you actually posting here when youve obviously made up your mind about samesex marriage anyway. For the fun of it? For making gay people feel bad? For your self pleasure? For compensating your own feelings of inferiority by acting superior over others? One thing I can tell you is that gay people will NEVER give up their fight for marriage and equal rights until they have it. NEVER, so you will never convince them/us with anything you have to say against it.
summersonset 2 years ago
I post here to correct inaccurate arguments. No one is being denied a recognizable right, no one is being wrongly discriminated against, no one is prohibited from marriage, everyone has an equal ability to marry, etc...
nnjhansen 2 years ago
So, you wanna convince gay people to not have equal rights, to marriage and other rights, because according to you the arguments are incorrect? On what planet do you live? I can tell you none of your arguments have worked or changed my mind. Only thing is that I now consider people like you sexual orientation racists. So, thanks for that. *out*.
summersonset 2 years ago
Homosexuals have an equal right to marriage in every state of the Union. I am not concerned with convincing you of anything as you are not a voter.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
People, including you, dont have the right to marry samesex, so they and you dont have equal rights. Second,, there are mostly only gay people posting here, and you wont convince them. I think you'd be better off posting on a blog or site to people that agree with or might agree with you because here, noone is going to agree with you. But I know you get a kick out off feeling superior because you yourself feel so inferior. I feel sorry for you. It's really diner time now. See ya around.
summersonset 2 years ago
Comment removed
nnjhansen 2 years ago
If the restrictions apply to everyone then their rights are equal. That is what equal means.
I am not necessarily interested in changing anyone's mind. I simply need to keep the people who respect marriage for what it is voting the way they have in every election where this has been an issue.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, if the US Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage by law in the future, would you accept that?
summersonset 2 years ago
You are absolutely correct in flippin' the script, so to speak. Ethics is either universal or it doesn't work at all, being man-made, ethical treatment is subject to the awareness of the people. Quite frankly, the people are waking up and the slumbering sheeple who pull levers like monkeys in voting booths are an obsolete class of unaware human beings. Are we to live by the imperious breath of men who have not empathetic hearts and bias minds with vapid agendas?
seraphimra 2 years ago
It would depend on their reasoning. To date, they have rejected the notion that this issue presents a substantive federal question and nothing has changed to make it so.
This issue is properly decided by the people and their elected representatives.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
There is a case in federal court on prop 8, that might end up in the US Supreme Court. Would you accept the outcome if its pro-gay? Also, if in the future, the voters who are pro-gay marriage are in the majority, would you accept your country accepts gay marriage?
summersonset 2 years ago
If the people decide to redefine marriage, that is their call.
The case against Prop 8 is decidedly unpersuasive.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Perhaps the fascist take over and the police state(as in nazi germany) is moving in? The continuation of that vile 'War on everything!', or that the government is now an arm for lobbyist and the military industrial complex?
Confucius~ "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love,
Or just maybe to warp perceptions: Marriage has existed in many a varied fashion. Handfasting origins date to Rome, Greece, Ireland, Scotland, etc.
seraphimra 2 years ago
First video I've encountered from The Leffews' Clan, haha. Smile guys and be buoyant! The fervor with which action is desired should embolden and not depress you. Do not diminish your joyous natural selves because of circumstance.
I believe in America but not it's government, for it is bought and sold 1quardrillion fold. Those who really control the issues are dangling this, trite issue, that is mere common sense, in the publics eye to divert attention. From what you may ask...?
seraphimra 2 years ago
I respect and love how passionate you guys are about all this. It's upsetting to see you guys so torn up about this. But at the same time it makes me realize how disturbed I should be as well. And yet I'm not. I mean I didn't like what happened with Maine (and as out of touch with politics as I am I actually knew about what was going down there), but I'm way less emotionally invested in it than you guys. Your videos have made me reflect on my own political apathy.
u3q2v 2 years ago
Not disputing the love you have for each other, I would for you guys to be happy, but I don't think you need to spout your hate to those who don't feel you should be married.
I'm sorry you feel that way about people like me who would say no to Prop 8. The Federal and State Court justices are only told to interpret the laws of the land, not govern from the bench. Barack Obama doesn't hold much clout with the people anymore. The Virginia and NJ governors races are a testament to that.
MissPopuri 2 years ago
Well, we'll just vote your rights to marry away, see how you feel.
summersonset 2 years ago
Bryan you are so passionate and I respect your words. when i watch your your guys's videos I feel so empowered. I will have to respectfully disagree about Ellen lol I love her. But everything us you have said I totally 110% agree with you!! Love you guys and your videos!!!
scottneumann82 2 years ago
Quoted For Truth
cantfademel 2 years ago
thats funny i thought it was a *Marriage* license, the sex is still happening in Maine though, the marriage part is only a matter of time, the voting gets closer every time.
BenJEMean 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not on my watch Bennie. This Pandora's Box will not be opened. This line will not be crossed. You will not open this can of worms in my backyard. It will be stopped by any means necessary.
cantfademel 2 years ago
not sure where you live, but around here people dont get married in their backyards, nor in yours, but yes it will happen :) shucks for you
BenJEMean 2 years ago 2
oh and "Pandora's box" already has been opened, 5 other states actually, good luck stopping it :)
BenJEMean 2 years ago 2
LULZ!
dhfdfhdfh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The good people of Maine did the right thing. We don't need or want that garbage going on here. Not on my watch and not in my backyard. Take it back to San Fran-sickos!
cantfademel 2 years ago
hmm what "garbage" exactly, if your referring to the sex, guess what, its still happening. paranoid idiot
BenJEMean 2 years ago 2
Maine was another disappointment, but Washington DID light a blazing candle of hope by passing (comfortably) an "everything but marriage" law that granted us ALL the rights of marriage except it just called it domestic partnership. Since many churches will marry us, I'm not so concerned about what the state calls it as long as we have all the rights. Please check out my song "It's About Love".
prayingforequality 2 years ago
autumnsalsberry 2 years ago
I'm from maine and last year I had to move out and move into Canada... I have many friends that is hurting because because Vote 1. We need a national leader, not a cleb. Someone with passion, charm and anger. I'm at the point now if there was a riot. I be the first. Blacks had riot and people notice..... I'm just anger.
AnthonyHawksley 2 years ago