Re: Judge WRONG to strike down Prop 8 and ALLOW gay marriage !!

[kennyddd1]

Interesting these Nat Org For Marrige use scripture to fuel there hatefilled agenda.Why then would they be using a clear GLUTTON to speak on there behalf? I can find many more passages in the bible about the evils of Gluttony and Fat lifestyle then the few and vauge passages condeming gays. Though hate is mentioned as well quite often in the bible as a sin punishable by HELL eternal so I guess if gays are going to hell then these hate filled hypocritical ass holes will be leading the way.

[pranksterguy1]

@kennyddd1 Well said Kenny!

[darbone]

sorry, the stripper pole might have been going to far. You are just an adorable smart guy. I stand by the speedo idea.

[Yakriiii]

@darbone haha, thanks! ^_^ I don't really mind the stripper pole/speedo comments. :P

[darbone]

I forgot to mention, you make great points. I think you could make those same points in a speedo hanging onto a stripper pole and it would be just as effective.

[darbone]

I am gay. I am also a fan of reason. yes it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. The judge did find that prop 8 was unconstitutional. I don't know why gay marriage threatens straight marriage? how does that work, I really don't get it. by the way, I was born this way, I was never recruited into the gay agenda. I wish I had been "recruited" earlier in life, would have saved me a few years of misery and suicidal thoughts. Gay teen years really suck, and those kids need support.

[u2hubbard]

Hows about no government recognition of any union. I'm a male who has joined the marriage strike. I got a child out of wedlock and advise men that it's ok to do so. You can still have a cool relationship with the babies mother. If she cares about you she will respect your stance on joining the marriage strike. If she's one of those marry me or leave me chicks then you shouldnot be with her.

[Yakriiii]

@u2hubbard I think that's perfectly reasonable, my parents stayed unmarried until they needed to get married for legal reasons after an accident, and I have no plans of ever getting married myself, even if I do start a family.

However, like religion, marriage means a lot to some people, and at least up to the point of civil unions, is a fairly useful legal measure. That's why I personally push more for the legalization of marriage for everyone, rather than removing it as a legal measure.

[u2hubbard]

@Yakriiii Well what would you say if they did away with child support? Which is based on if the kids mom and dad were married. The mom has the right to safe haven the child without the fathers consent and without the state charging her for money. But if she decides to keep the baby and the father is not present, they could take him for child support. If we are about gender equality both parents should get the same right upon the birth of a child. Mom has the right to walk so should the dad.

[Yakriiii]

@u2hubbard I suppose that sounds reasonable, but it isn't really related to the topic of this video, or even gay marriage.

[JVROSS25]

This is a great video and it is too bad that most people are NOT like this guy. Because he is willing to be bipartisan and look at the FACTS and draw the logical conclusion. I think that Prop 8 is a joke and a waste of money. Now of course looking at the date of my post you can see that this is after Prop 8 was past, but I am happy to say that it was 48% to 52% vote and that is an improvement so I am happy about that. I just hope the courts do their job and nix this bullisht law.

[FeatureMarineOfficer]

Nice video, like the burps. Hits all the points though...

[SouthernR0cker4Life]

Yes, it is the "Christian" Repent or Perish Extremests that were against Gay

Marriage. It's always Religious.

[FeatureMarineOfficer]

@SouthernR0cker4Life No it's not, it's a union between two people, no matter the race, religion or sex.

[eastwick1026]

omg you made me laugh..."they got married, that got WORST" LOL

[mikeyrobins022585]

I can argue with it. Walker "made up" a right that doesn't exist.

[bimboblacky]

But NOW, if you go to Wikipedia and type in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, you will find a TREASURE TROVE case decided by the SCOTUS, RIGHT before Walker's ruling, with statements in it primarily by Her Honor, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgh (writing for the majority), which could EASILY trigger a heightened level of scrutiny when it comes to laws directly and exclusively affecting the rights (or lack thereof) of GLB people. Also, of course, it is on the current SCOTUS site 4 free.

[Pilgrim812]

Simply put,to deny any person to marry the person of their right tomarry the

person of their choice is to deny themof their dignity and spirutuality as a

a human being.

[EPRVa62]

Nice job.  The guy is probably a racist as well.

[bimboblacky]

SO, somebody just *had* to bring up the "biased gay judge" concern back there somewhere (I WONDER who that could have been? 3 guesses). LET me see, based upon that logic (and the comment was SPAMMED, by the way), we should have Justice Clarence Thomas RECUSE himself any and every time a case is heard where the NAACP or the Ku Klux Klan is on either side; we should have Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor RECUSE *herself* any and every time a case is presented involving NOW or LULAC, ETC., ETC., ETC.

[EPRVa62]

@bimboblacky And every issue involving religion should be decided by an atheist, otherwise there will be a bias.

[Pilgrim812]

In the 1920's we had the Scopes monkey trial.

In 2010 we have Perry V. Schwarenegger.

Imagine, gay people have been fighting for their 14th amendent rights for

over 40 years.

[bimboblacky]

Former President George Walker Bush actually TRIED to get the Federal Marriage Amendment placed into the Constitution of the UNITED STATES (then Senator Obama voted against it, BTW). With a Republican House of Representatives and a Republican Senate at the time, he could NOT get the votes. Remember that amending THAT Constitution requires: A) 2/3 majority vote in BOTH Federal chambers, and B) 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment! Somehow I do not think THAT will ever happen now anyway

[Yakriiii]

@bimboblacky Well, I'm glad that didn't pass, so that banning gay marriage can remain properly unconstitutional.

[Yakriiii]

Note: To people of various religions whom do not want gay marriage for religious reasons. Marriage is NOT solely the property of your religion, or religion in general.

If any religion at all WILL allow gay marriage, than it's none of your goddamn business; Literally.

If you think otherwise, you are interfering with their religion, other than being rude, we have a constitutional amendment about that. Freedom of religion is something we all get.

[EPRVa62]

@Yakriiii Furthermore, every marriage license issued in the US is issued by a government entity. No license is issued by any church.

[pyrrhios]

Polygamy is inherently gender discriminatory, and therefore violates equal protection. Ah yes, the "lifestyle" argument. Pure religious bigotry at its finest. The trolls have learned well from these ones.

[Yakriiii]

@pyrrhios I'm not exactly sure what your point was, but since you mentioned it, I'm also a big fan of polyamorous relationships, and I think getting legal consensual group marriage(or other variations) put into law would be a great idea.

The one man one woman family unit thing is kinda lame anyway.

[pyrrhios]

@Yakriiii Someone was asking questions about why we should allow polygamy. Polygamy and polyandry are gender discriminatory, and therefore not supported by the ruling. Polyamory is a different matter on the gender conversation, but also lacks legal precedent. As an aside, polygamy has been the most prevalent sort of marriage for the majority of human history, with monogamy only becoming the "traditional" norm for the last couple centuries. I am of course, not being western-centric.

[beegbolt]

How was the judge "wrong"???? He took alot of time to DO HIS JOB the right way. He went as far as to write a 137 page explanation of why he made the proper decision. There's no way around it, he did his job per the laws! Bottom line? Prop 8 should have NEVER been allowed to go on the ballot. "MOB rule" is unconstitutional.

[Yakriiii]

You are correct Ken, as far as I can tell. However, that isn't really the issue here, the question is if California can ban gay marriage. They can't, since under amendment 14, the states of the united states of America are not allowed to "abridge" the rights of American citizens.

Even if 'gay' marriage isn't a right, gay marriage is just a term, technically, they are banning gay couples from getting married, and getting married is one of the privileges of US citizens.

Sorry for poor wording.

[MrDavidh1973]

You admit in your post that you agree marriage is not a RIGHT. Marriage (as you state you believe) is a privilege and privileges are protected by the 14th Amendment. So you are correct in stating that marriage is not a right, but you are incorrect in stating that it's not protected under the constitution. So really your siting of the case that determined marriage to be a RIGHT supports your opposition.

[MrDavidh1973]

kenballer00, You're absolutely correct. Marriage is not a RIGHT guaranteed in the Constitution. However, when you read the 14th Amendment it specifically states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Therefore your argument that marriage is not protected as a RIGHT does not apply here.

[Yakriiii]

@MrDavidh1973 Exactly! :x should have read this before going off and trying to explain it in an overly complex way myself.

[kenballer00]

@MrDavidh1973

From Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic CIVIL RIGHTS of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

[MrDavidh1973]

@kenballer00 We'll see what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say. Even though this quote came from Loving v. Virginia it will not supercede the Supreme Court. What a mighty fine day it will be when every state in the union that amended their state constitutions have to acknowledge same-sex marriage. Gay marriage is coming. No matter what any of us say. Wednesday's ruling marked the beginning of the end of this issue.

[kenballer00]

@MrDavidh1

ON THE CONTRARY, i am afraid its the other way around. the last people who tried to redefine marriage for their own self-righteous agenda were the Mormons who tried to use marriage as a way to exploit women in the polygamy battles and the U.S. supreme court rejected that as well.it took 50 years of litigation in keeping the polygamists Mormons from deluting the institution of marriage like what your sides doing and look where they ended up:

IN THE DUST-BIN OF AMERICAN HISTORY

[pyrrhios]

@kenballer00 someone has obviously not bothered to read the ruling.

[Clemburke1111]

WOW,,your so calm and logical ,,your parents did a good job.

[kenballer00]

your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. Being gay may not be a choice but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with.

[pyrrhios]

@kenballer00 Sexual orientation IS an immutable characteristic, even according to the so-called "ex-gay" "ministries".

[kenballer00]

if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today

so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy

[Yakriiii]

@kenballer00 When I was comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage I was speaking morally, not legally. Morally, it's the same, legally speaking, it isn't.

[kenballer00]

@Yakriiii

what do you mean its morally the same?

[Yakriiii]

@kenballer00 Because in the case of interracial marriage ban, you're restricting a sub-group of Americans from a privilege which the rest of Americans enjoy. That's the same as banning gay marriage in the sense that you are restricting a different sub-group of American citizens from a privilege the rest of us enjoy.

That's my reasoning, but this is of course, subject entirely to opinion.

[kenballer00]

@Yakriiii

Bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart and based on the Brown v. Board decision, segregation is another form of discrimination. When we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated the races but the sexes which is what marriage has always been about: INTERGRATION for procreation and rearing of kids. so unless you think integration is another form of discrimination like segregation as well, NO its not the same concept.

[Yakriiii]

@kenballer00 I'm not really sure how you are countering my argument.

It might have been discrimination for different reasons, against a different group of people, but it's still discrimination in both cases.

Also, with consideration to world population, why on earth would anyone want to promote procreation?

And that isn't really an issue between adoption and surrogate parents, for gay couples.

[kenballer00]

its not about creating more children because we don't need encouragment to do something that is already naturally encouraged or have more people. its about responsible procreation and rearing them into society to have a country thats as functional as it can possibly be. this is achieved by encouraging its citizens using the term "marriage" to channel those natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within the stable environments

[kenballer00]

@Yakriiii

Also, it depends on how you are defining discrimination in this situation that i would agree with you. if you are saying discrimination is happening to a category of citizens, then thats not happening because men and women equally have the right to marry each other and vice versa. Same goes with gays and straights. this is INTEGRATION not segregation

[kadeshow]

well said dude!