Tom Duane: Gay Marriage Bill Failed Because Of Political 'Betrayal'.mov

[Threetails]

"Betrayal?" It's called Democracy, motherfucker.

[tytheeman20]

@Threetails Gay Marriage passes in NY!!! Equality always wins!!!

[Threetails]

@tytheeman20 Awesome. Seems people keep "betraying" themselves on this issue with their "misplaced politics" and voting for us queers to marry. Oh dear! What is the country coming to? XD

[epkiernan]

Tommy Duane is Gay

[gpbrown4]

when you look at the basics of this argument its not over whether homosexuals should be allowed to share all the rights that heterosexuals do...both sides agree that we want that what the argument is is over a title, which is the term marriage. Marriage is a religious term at heart starting long before politics had any part in it so if our country truly believes in separation of church and state marriage should only be used in unions done by a recognized church all other unions are civil ones

[ohyeahbambam]

Marriage is NOT a religious term. never has been never will be... marriage is practiced in all different countries, religions, social groups, all kinds of people.

[gual123]

@ohyeahbambam marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism. I'd call that religious. But is does have a civil meaning as well.

[ohyeahbambam]

@gual123 yes it is, being raised as a catholic I know, that does NOT mean that it was "created" by the catholic church or any other religious group. Think of it as adopting a child and calling it your own... or copying someones idea and saying it was yours.

[idaman12345]

@gpbrown4 if marriage was really a religious term it wouldnt outdate religion, nor would atheists be allowed to marry

[DarkNayru62]

@gpbrown4 Marriage does not belong to a religious institution, it is a far older tradition that goes back thousands of years before Christianity.

[GretchenDawntreader]

I'm a bit confused by the arguments in this thread...it seems there is a perception that any rights endorsed for LGBTI comes at the cost of rights for other groups, like blacks or jews.

I think we can work for a day when all people are afforded equal protection under the law for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Letting Gay America get married isn't going to take marriage away from anyone else.

[fishhead06]

By defeating marriage equality, they are imposing a certain type of religious and social morality in order to deny equality. This isn't even a Christian theocracy - it's a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

[pakratmak]

Maybe the Marist poll should have asked those same people if they were actually voting.

[oldtownkid]

I think that one of the reasons why bills pushing for equal rights for gay couples are being rejected even in places where you'd expect those bills to easily pass, is because of the name. If instead of pushing for gay "marriage" they would push for equal rights for same sex civil unions there would be more places where gay couples would be enjoying the same rights, with the only difference in the label put into the relationship. My take on this issue. I think it may give quicker/better results

[GretchenDawntreader]

"...If instead of pushing for gay "marriage" they would push for equal rights for same sex civil unions..."

Right. That's why having water fountains for "coloreds" and "whites only" worked so well. They both had water fountains, so what was the problem ;)

We've had the separate but equal argument in this country before, I'm surprised it's coming back around again.

[oldtownkid]

Comparing the things that blacks went through with this is comparing oranges and refrigerators. Emancipation of the slaves was proclamed in 1862, 100 years later civil rights for blacks were achieved on paper, and to this day blacks still face some degree of discrimination, progress has been happening but it's taken a while. I don't know when the gay community first realized that they deserved the right to marry but I doubt it could possibly be compared to all the issues that blacks went thru

[oldtownkid]

...and my point was the opposite of what you're saying. Whites and blacks were both "free" on paper after 1863. "Free" was only a label, same label but no equality, and my suggestion to that community so they can enjoy equal rights is drop the label, get the rights ! Compare what happened in Washington state and in Maine this last november. WA called it civil union, it passed, ME called it marriage, it was rejected, rights were the same in both bills.

[ugboy1]

if the legalization of interracial marriage had been left to individual state congresses to vote it in rather than the supreme court striking down anti-miscegenation laws in loving v. Virginia, interracial marriage would have been illegal in many conservative states probably up until the 80's

[bohemond4]

that may be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life...Congrats!

[KosmicCitizen]

Behold, the poisonous hand of religion strikes again.

[PersonalJesus348]

Jeese Ventura said it best. Government should only recognize civil unions for everyone. Leave it up to private entities to do marriages etc.

[DarkNayru62]

@PersonalJesus348 I agree, if they don't pass regular marriage for everyone, then take away the 1,000 federal rights and hundreds of additional state rights, including medical treatment, hospital visitation, employee benefits for families, parenting rights and custodial protections that are granted, and make EVERYONE get a civil union too. That would be fair, but it would be easier just to let gays get married, no?

[PersonalJesus348]

@DarkNayru62

True. But the government gets carried away when it gives itself more power.

[DarkNayru62]

@PersonalJesus348 I mean, they wouldn't get those rights I listed above unless they got a civil union like the gays. I don't mean take them AWAY away.

[thinazzabird]

If what people mean changes markedly between the twitches of fingers and the words they say I suppose Attorney General of National Security Janet Napolitano shall have to construct her inquiry devices rather cleverly.

[bionicarcher]

Us gays just want to be treated as 'equal humans' by law because we know we are on the inside. We're just born differently like so many people are. We'd like this to be over and then we'd leave you all alone while we live in peace. Yet I know the narrow thinking people don't want peace for us.

[bigc028282]

Just a little more concerned about the hijacked environmentalism of "climate change", that is now proven to be an IMF/U.N. SCAM FOR MONEY AND "GLOBAL GOVERNANCE". The verbiage in the Crapenhagen "treaty".

WATER BOARD them all for truth, and convict them of TREASON. What else would you call a TAX FRAUD upon an ENTIRE COUNTRY, AND WORLD?

[greyflcn]

@bigc028282

So is Milton Friedman a libertarian?

greyfalcon. net/ milton

[AnonymousCthulhu]

How ironic that the majority of the people against gay marriage happen to be die-hard religious fanatics who are so protective of their own rights (freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms) while taking away the rights of others. Lol hypocrisy!

[clubfloozy]

Excellent observation! Thank you.

[AnonymousCthulhu]

It is quite ironic and pathetic that the majority of the Religious people who vote against gay marriage happen to be black — the same people who spent fifty some years fighting for equality after three-hundred years of slavery. Sheesh! Religion really negates your ability to think and reflect.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

slavery and marriage rights are hardly comparable. while I am not against gay marriage, we have it in Canada, there is a difference between legal rights in terms of recognition and a complete lack of autonomy and being traded like cattle. You're pissed off about the vote ... fine, just don't bring in topics like race if you don't understand its complexities.

[AnonymousCthulhu]

The fight for civil rights and the fight for marriage rights is one in the same. The bit about slavery was thrown in there to emphasis the fact that their struggle for civil rights was so precious (notice the preposition AFTER + the recognition of slavery), which makes it even more ironic when they deny other people rights. I wasn't comparing slavery to gay marriage. You should read between the lines more often before you 'run off at the mouth'.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

no the fight for civil rights was about making sure people could move in society as they felt without restrictions based on race, it was about reclaiming everything promised by Lincoln that was undermined but successive democratic party governments. If it wasn't for the democratic party there wouldn be no organization called the ku klux klan, and slaves would have gotten their fair share ie 40 acres and a mule.

[AnonymousCthulhu]

You completely missed the point. They are the same thing in essence and in theory and in comparison. People are fighting for rights. One group of people obtained those rights after fifty some years and even further after three-hundred some years of slavery. Now those same people are denying other people rights today. That's ironic. That's hypocritical. That's my point.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

my point is that they are not equitable, they may sound so on paper but the struggle is incomparable. Let me put it to you this way, it was bible thumpers who fought strongest and longest in the struggle for racial equality, because the bible and their understanding of it prompted their actions. In this way those blacks are continuing to side with the ideology and religion that released them from slavery. Siding against that very force would also be hypcritical.

[AnonymousCthulhu]

The point has gone right over your head yet again. You're thrashing around in a superficial bubble. You just can't understand the fundamental similarity in these cases. Both fighting for rights, both fighting for rights, now one of them is denying the other rights. I'm NOT comparing the struggles, I'm saying that after the struggle blacks DID have to deal with, you figure they would at-least understand other people's fight for rights instead of just beating them down ironically.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I understand your argument, but I find it a weak argument, not based on a solid foundation. I get it, not supporting someone else's fight for rights, but do you see the hypocrisy of siding against the church that fought for your great granddaddy to be free ? My point is that it is a complex issue that one should inform oneself about. As long as your viewpoint is reasoned, based off of intense thought and introspection, that is all I ask.

[AnonymousCthulhu]

It's not a weak argument, it's a logical conclusion. It's ironic that people who fought for equal rights are now suppressing equal rights. Concluded. Second, I don't know about you claim. (I am not of African descent, btw.) The church would have perpetuated slavery. The majority of slave owners were most likely religious — It's acceptable in their text! Slavery was abolished by individuals through secular means. Even if the were religious, it would have been a correlation and not a causation.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I am a child of inter-racial marriage, and I can assure you that your views on slavery and the church are incomplete to say the least. Send me a message if you want to learn more, its a lot to try to fit into these tiny comment spaces. In terms of british abolishion which was decades before America, it was on the insistance of religious minded people, acting on their belief of what was right by God. As for the US, Quakers & Catholics were at the movements forefront.

[anon4654]

The bible instructs you to keep slaves, don't claim that religion abolished slavery, or even that the bible is any sort of guideline for moral behaviour (I don't stone my kids to death for making jokes or working on the wrong day, and neither should you).

[LeGioNoFZioN]

it wasn't the bible but rather people who read the bible, religious minded people who fought to abolish slavery both in Britiain and in the US. William Wilberforce anyone ?

you don't have to believe or adopt anything in the bible, but don't belittle us for believing or adhering to the beliefs that have sustained us for centuries

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I'm losing myself here in the argument, because I'm not arguing that blacks should oppose or support marriage equality. they should do what their individual consciences advise them to do inkeeping with whatever worldview they hold as people. the hypocrisy charge runs both ways, so then each must determine in thier own mind what they think and to in turn stand for whatever that is

[AnonymousCthulhu]

Sure, they should do whatever they want to do within their individuality and free will and legal ability, but the fact that they're denying a minority rights after spending so many years as a minority fighting for rights — in a fundamentally similar situation — is still ironic and a bit hypocritical no matter how you 'slice the cake'.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

that much I can agree with, other than the fundamental similarity part.

[AnonymousCthulhu]

I can agree that the struggle was drastically different and the reason for these two people to struggle was drastically different as well. Gay people have not dealt with three-hundred years of slavery! The discussion is not on the severity of the situation. Both of them fought or are fighting for equal rights. It's like saying "John is not wounded, because his gun shot wound is not as severe as James' brain cancer.' John's wound is not negated because James has a worse wound. They both deal.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

again this much we can agree on. though I would equate it more along the lines of James having terminal cancer and John was shot in the foot. Both wounded but only one was imminently terminal.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

in short it was about ending 100 years of hypocrisy, with free blacks still being treated as less than human. The struggle was much larger than having your marriage recognized. I'm not trying to lessen the seriousness of equal marriage rights, but I have to assert that your comparison is a major reason blacks that have no problem with gay marriage won't vote for it.  equating the two is a slap in the face of a people who have only just attained equality within the last half century.

[whosthechamp]

So then, is this implying that blacks see themselves as ABOVE gays, since being equated to them is a "slap in the face"? I mean, blacks were fighting for marriage equality 50 years ago and the conservatives used the BIBLE to deny them it until it was eventually decreed by the supreme courts that it couldn't be voted on due to it not being a fair vote. You know, majority vs minority votes never work out.

Btw, Im not black or gay, or religious for that matter. Im just very interested to have ...

[whosthechamp]

your point elaborated on more fully as I feel we all benefit from having this touchy subject dealt with anonymously through text, instead of trying to have it face 2 face in the real world for this extremely sensitive subject.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I agree

[LeGioNoFZioN]

for the record I am neither gay nor black either, but I am inter-racial

[LeGioNoFZioN]

it is not equating blacks with gays that is the slap, it is equating the struggle, the depth and investment of the struggle that is the slap in the face. Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the the 1960's and wasn't removed from the psyche text until the 1970's, I would say moving from texbook disorder to being able to marry and be legally recognized in less than forty years is not an example of oppression that is comparable to the black experience worlwide...

[LeGioNoFZioN]

.. lets not forget that blacks weren't traded to european whites only, they were traded to the middle and far east in equal numbers to the ones that came to this continent. and historically speaking you could hide being gay if your society didn't approve, but you could never hide being black.

[whosthechamp]

But, if you want to speak in historical contexts, then slavery is nowhere NEAR being exclusive to blacks as EVERY civilization that has ever ben industrialized had slaves with no exception, and blacks weren't even the most recent slaves in America, the Chinese were in the 1849.

Im not demeaning the slavery of blacks, just saying if you try to equate apples to oranges it can work in any direction. For example, historically, who has had it worse: Jews or blacks?

[LeGioNoFZioN]

no but slavery used to be, in europe indentured servitude, which one could eventually buy ones way out of. Slaves used to get paid, not much, but depending on what debt put them in slavery, they could eventually get their own way out before dying, but this was abolished and a new form of slavery enacted, one in which only blacks were used, and where none of them could get out. Others faced oppression like chinese rail workers, just not as long or as deep....

[LeGioNoFZioN]

... but to answer your question, as to who had it worse, I would say blacks, because of the numbers that were enslaved and killed. around 40-50 million slaves shipped to North America and around 50-60 million shipped to the middle and far easts. this taking place over about 300-400 years.

[dafttool]

America is supposed to mean EQUALITY FOR ALL. Civil rights should NEVER be put up to popular vote. Where would women & blacks be now if that was the case? It's disgusting that in this supposed modern era, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping, neanderthal bigots are allowed to stand in the way of what's inevitable, what's morally right, gay people being given the same rights as everybody else.

[mintvagoo]

I just don't understand the problem with same sex marriage. The sanctity of marriage is a joke- over 50% of marriages end in divorce. What do they think they are protecting?

Religious k00ks are Americas t.aint.

[bionicarcher]

Not all gay people engage in sex acts. In fact, a good portion (I included) are serious Buddhists and go beyond feeding the selfish ego to attain lasting happiness. Also generalizing us shows how little you know biggesttrucker.

[7jerryv7]

The legalization of gay marriage is inevitable. The major issue that will arise is reciprocity among states. What if X state marries Jane and Marry but state Y does not observe gay marriage? As more and more states legalize homosexual marriage the federal government will need to step in and force ass-backwards states to accept gay marriage.

In Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of interracial marriage. How long will it take to lift the ban on gay marriage?

[bionicarcher]

I don't understand why heterosexual marriage isn't up for debate in every state. The bigots deserve a taste of their own medicine. What ever happened to 'separation of church and state'? Untrustworthy monsters.

[biggesttrucker]

it is not always about religion. The gay is more likely to have aids, and is quite unnatural. Two men...I mean WTF????! Sometimes, experimenting can lead to formation of bad habits; these poor individuals need to go to rehab.

[Innize]

I'm not surprised you are against gay marriage. You favorited a breast exam video.

Redneck pervert.

[junkforkaryn]

homosexuality may not be "normal" , but it sure as hell is natural.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

the same separations of church and state that was just sidestepped when the american government worked in tandem with catholic and other religious groups to increase support for universal health care ? you can't have it both ways. without those "bigots", half my family would still be enslaved. Its a complex issue, your point of view is no better or superior to other peoples. Its only through dialogue that a true consensus can be made. anything that can be given in law can be taken as easily

[Jermbot15]

"without those "bigots", half my family would still be enslaved."

Would they? If you removed religion would moral people fail to find their way to moral conclusions?

No, abolition was a rational decision informed by empathy and caring for mankind. Though there were Quakers, Catholics, and nondenominational Christians in the movement, they didn't get their reasons from a thorough reading of Leviticus.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

yes because athiest existed even back then, yet it was the religious convictions of the people of that day in keeping with their faith that allowed the institution of slavery to be abolished. Their reasoning wasn't leviticus, it was the gospel of Matthew Mark Luke and John that informed their religious worldview. Indentured servitude was a norm that had been abolished in the European world after centuries of practise, yet blacks were still held as slaves without...

[Jermbot15]

"yet it was the religious convictions of the people of that day in keeping with their faith that allowed the institution of slavery to be abolished."

Remove the word religion and you are almost certainly correct. It was conviction based on a rational analysis of what was right and what was wrong.

Picking and choosing what biblical passages apply to your life and which should be ignored is just adding an extra, rather useless step, to what should be a reasonable discussion of morality.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I understand yoru argument, but it doesn't supplant the historical record, history is not up for revisionism.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

any chance of getting out, this is why these religious people objected to the form of slavery my ancestors were subject to. the enforced slavery of blacks, and slavery as it pertains to indentured servitude were different, thus as society rejected the norm in most forms it is the religious that fought to end its more recent race based occurrance.

[whosthechamp]

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

[whosthechamp]

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.

[whosthechamp]

If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that the slave will belong to his master forever.

[whosthechamp]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)