The best way to fight the bigotry of NOM is to support the organizations that are fighting against NOM and other hate groups. You can look up both the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal on Google, and you can go to their websites and lend them support.
I love this video. I wrote the Emmer campaign and ask many of these questions. No repsonse. I asked, truly, would he actually call for a vote when it is likely that gay marriage would pass? Of course they would probably have a loaded vote, one simply to ban gay marriage. That means if it passes, gay marriage is banned. If it fails, nothing changes. I also asked how he can use his religion against gay marriage since it is a civil right. No answer yet.
@brigantty - All born again children of God are called upon to warn, warn, warn all who have ears that God has standards and and He demands repentance. If I don't, your blood is on my hands. As it stands, because you have been warned and refuse to repent, your blood is on your own hands and your sins will take you to Hell.
@MaryWaterton well, thanks for the warning.. although i think you have it wrong, and i'll follow reason and fairness on my path thru life.. i'll try kindness and empathy in my world.. thanks for the warning, i'm sure in your own way you mean well....
Each gay or lesbian couple will be more committed to the relationship once they're married. Monogamy rates will increase.
LGBT people will increasingly be regarded as fully equal and fully human. Hence, gaybashing, gaybaiting and antigay bullying will decrease, perhaps dramatically.
But the Radical Christian Right would speak of these consequences as if they are bad and scarey things.
Complete list of the consequences of Gay Marriage:
1. Gays will get married.
2. Bakeries will have to start making wedding cakes with two little plastic guys in tuxedos or chicks in white dresses on top instead of one plastic dude and a chick. This may either save or destroy the economy, but the risk for the latter is too great.
NOM always uses the argument that "the people should vote" on marriage. Well, marriage is a right that should NEVER be voted on. Exactely what our judicial system has protected minority rights for in the constitution. We never voted to disallow the women's right to vote, or to abolish slavery, or interracial marriage, etc.. People need to accept change for the better and cultural progression. NOM needs to go away...
@MrRockythesquirrel We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights down the future or marriage recognition elsewhere without having to redefining marriage for everyone.
@kenballer00 Nobody wants to change the definition of your marriage, trust me. Legalized gay marriage doesn't make it compulsory that you have to marry someone of the same sex, any more than legalization of miscegenation meant you had to marry someone of a different race.
@kenballer00 That if they're not trying to change the definition of *your* marriage, they're obviously not trying to change the definition of marriage for "everyone," as you claimed. Marriage for straight people remains the exact same thing as it did before. I'm not particularly sympathetic if you think that your ice cream cone doesn't taste as good if you can't ensure that gay people don't get one too.
Oh please, this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach our children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
@kenballer00 Yep, and that's great. If my taxes have to go toward the government confirming that people like Britney Spears or Newt Gingrich are married, then they can bloody well go toward it saying that two men or two women who love each other are married as well.
well good for you, if you want to vote for something like that when you have the opportunity to have your say in the ballot box, then thats fine by me. I on the other hand will be going a different route whenever the opportunity presents itself for me
Pardon my late response to your query. Since others have answered it so eloquently, let me address an issue you had in another vid:
You said: "we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy."
This is wrong, sir. We do not live in a "democracy." We live in a "representational republic," meaning that we ELECT officials to vote on most issues rather than voting on all of them ourselves. That said, the issue of marriage equality is not even a VOTE-ABLE Issue.
Let me explain. The ballot box DOES NOT have sovereignty over the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the highest law in the land. Period. Like it or not, that's how our founding fathers crafted this government. Consider this: the Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental human right (Loving v. Virginia). The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has declared that NO RIGHT shall be denied ANY citizen without due process of the law.
Here is the exact wording: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Does the gay marriage ban infringe on these fundamental, civil rights? Well, in the immortal words of Mr. Big from Sex & The City: "Abso-fucking-lutely."
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
Oh yeah? Where does the 14th Amendment specify that it applies to SOME legal protections under US law, but not ALL? Where does it say, anywhere else in the Constitution, that interracial couples are deserving of "special" rights that gay couples are not?
Marriage is a right for EVERYBODY. Just because not all legal precedents agree that tax-paying LGBT citizens also count as EVERYBODY, it doesn't mean their civil rights can be constitutionally put up for vote.
you are Begging the Question. YES, it has been determined that you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister.The right to marry someone of the same sex would need to be established by the supreme court first. For example, a bisexual who has this simultaneous feeling for both genders may argue that he has a fundamental right to marry.The answer is YES, however at this point in time he does not have a right to marry two people in a threesome.
Now, I am not trying to make a slippery slope but just explaining why your argument is logically flawed and that you need to explain and prove when and how the U.S. supreme court established that there was a right to marry someone of the SAME SEX not the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Before Loving v. Virgina, there was NO Supreme Court precedent for the right to marry outside you own race, either. Are you saying that the current lack of Supreme Court precedent for EVERYBODY'S right to marry will somehow bar that possibility in the future? I don't think so.
Consider this: every time in US history that the rights of a minority group (to vote, enjoy unsegregated dining, ect) were put to popular vote, they were taken away. "Activist" judges put a stop to that.
The American Psychological Association has determined that sexual orientation is as out of our own control as the color of our skin. If legal precedent has determined that skin color is not an adequate reason for barring a marriage, why is sexual orientation a valid reason?
No one wants to marry their sister. That's disgusting. And, your friendly, neighborhood, fundamentalist Mormon is far more interested in amassing spouses than any gay friend I've ever had.
The only thing that the LGBT community wants is their constitutional right to marry the person they want. You know, like everybody else.
We've established that marriage is a fundamental human right, correct? And that none of us dictates our own sexual orientation? It's the willful and malicious denial of the 1000 + LEGAL protections with marriage that is unconstitutional.
Remember what the 14th Amendment said re: "abridging privileges and immunities?" It's kind of a no-no.
The U.S. supreme court has been 100% consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents.
The US Supreme Court did not even HEAR Baker v. Nelson, if my reading of Wikipedia is correct. All the one-sentence dismissals in the world won't get them out of Perry v. Schwartzenegger.
"The purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation..."
And that is a patently false statement, sir. If "reasonable procreation" were the sole litmus test for validating a marriage, you can bet they're be no geriatric newlyweds.
Since the Baker was on MANADATORY appellate review, this was not just any dismissal. A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases like Hicks v. Miranda. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts.
Thus, the same-sex union as a constitutional right argument was so frivolous them the U.S. supreme court rejected it without any further review.
Up until 1973, homosexuality was regarded by the American Psychological Association as a mental disorder. The time period in which Baker v. Nelson took place is not irrelevant here. 1971. Almost 40 years have passed since then, and the gays-as-psychiatric-cases argument has been debunked into oblivion.
No. The Supreme Court WILL hear Perry v. Schwartzenegger, but with a fair trial, and the consideration of more reputable testimony and evidence than: "because I said so."
in a case called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning, it dealt with a federal 8th circuit court OVERRULING a lower district court decision that somehow there was no rational basis under the equal protection clause to deny gay marriage in an attempt to overturn the people's vote.The higher court reversed that decision to criticize the judge's fallacious ruling and explained exactly why there is rational basis, which means your case means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
There IS no rational basis for denying gay marriage, and that will be determined sooner or later. If the Supreme Court won't uphold Walker's decision, the issue will keep coming up until human decency finally catches up.
Up until recently, states were free to impose anal sex bans on their people, and one by one, those laws were overturned. I have no reason to believe that DOMA, and other such shit, will be treated any differently by the children I'll conceive out of wedlock. :)
PS: Thank you for a stimulating and Bible-free argument. Having grown up Catholic myself, I never would have imagined a practicing fellow to be capable of such a feat. Kudos to you. And I mean that with all sincerity.
I'm never going to agree with you, of course, but I am not going to argue any further at this point because it's late and I'm going to bed.
you just dont get it do you. Even if the supreme court overturns Baker or the country establishes gender neutral marriage into our constitution, same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because its impossible by nature. there is no such thing as gay marriage. What societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature. it is a relationship that we apply the word "marriage" to, but the relationship is what comes first
and the central aspect of that relationship is the sexual union that brings about and develops the next generation which is an absolute necessity for the civilization to continue or any civilization for that matter. sense the continuation of society is the first concern of the state. the government has a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage (the relationship).
this is why every government in the history of the world even the most simple tribes regulated marriage.
In the case called Pace v. Alabama, it was not about interracial marriage because the plaintiffs in that case never raised Due process clause claims back then which confers the right to marry. It purely decided it based on the equal protection claims of the 14th amendment. In the Loving v. Virginia case, it dealt with the Due process and equal protection clause.
What this means is that the U.S. supreme court has indeed been 100% consistent and will remain that way.
Therefore, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
From the 10th amendement:
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE."
Our Constitution was established in order to defend people's rights from what James Madison described as the "temporal passions" of the majority which he feared to a degree equivalent to a monarchy. The courts have a constitutional obligation to defend gays against even a majority of people who hate others so much they'd deny them their rights.
This gay-hater candidate misrepresents MLK Jr. who was champion of equal rights and he couldn't pass a high school civics class.
@MikeHeath1 - Preservation of marriage's traditional meaning of "one man, one woman" is hardly a "temporal passion" given that it was the majority view since the founding of the country. Not even Madison would agree that fag marriage is endorsed by the Constitution. And MLK? I think he would agree that homosexuals and pedophiles do not constitute a newly discovered race or sex.
@MaryWaterton First, lumping homosexuals and pedophiles in together shows that you obviously don't know the difference between the two. Homosexuals are less likely to molest children, most pedophiles are straight identified and usually members of the family or close to the child. No one can make laws against homosexuals and prove that it has rational basis in court, the only reason people rule against it in court is becuase of the judge's own biases.
@MikeHeath1 - Neither James Madison nor MLK ever wrote or spoke favorably of homosexuality, you lying piece of crap. Madison never extended civil rights protection to murderers, child rapers, homosexuals, and other reprobates. Both men believed sodomy to be immoral behavior and I challenge you to find written statement or a tape recording where they personally endorsed it.
I'll also point out that according to *snirk* Good King Leviticus, eating shellfish was an abomination, so any right-wing bigot who's ever eaten a shrimp cocktail should be stoned to death. But of course they'll quietly pretend THAT Bible rule4 doesn't exist while they harp on ones that actually don't unless you intentionally misread them.
And B) the famed and beaten into the ground Leviticus quote, "Thou shalt not lie with man as though lie with woman" yadda yadda, has nothing to do with sexuality. In English, at the time of the Bible's first translation into English, the words lie and lay were NOT interchangable as they are now. Lie meant ONLY to tell a lie. Lie did not develop it's double meaning until it became slang in the Great Depression. The quote is basically the Bible's version of "Bros before ho's dude!"
Before some Christian whackadoodle (who is nothing like a true Christian ought to be and who likely hasn't actually read the Bible) brings this up as a defense of bigotry, I'll pre-emptively shoot it down.
Sodom was destroyed because of it's rampant rape, being bad hosts in the desert. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with punishing gay men, the Sodomites raped women and children too, and only raped men to humiliate them, NOT because of any gay attraction.
@FrancesFife yep, it's true. they were punished for their being unkind to strangers and uncaring to the poor and needy.. not for homosexuality per say.. the religious folk always manage to leave that out...
To declare that sexual orientation is, by itself, grounds for exclusion from a legal institution and 1000+ federal protections is laughable. I pity all the NOMers who operate under the delusion that the US Constitution somehow confers upon *them* the right to strip fundamental, civil rights from others.
Yeah, um. 14th Amendment, anyone? It bats for every team. :)
how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
@kenballer00 Okay, look at the stupidity of your own statement. You're touting the right to enter into a loveless marriage, garaunteed to be miserable and unhappy, which would negatively impact any children conceived from it, as an "equal right", while condemning the right to marry the one you love as a "special right", COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that A) equality is NOT a "special" right, and B) you are actively advocating causing emotional damage to children.
the state is not there to issue love licenses. The main purpose of civil marriage is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children. The same reason we don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamist marriages. this is why it is a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships( not individuals) for legitimate state interests
@kenballer00 Your bullshit is the same bullshit NOM and the like parrot every day and it's been REPEATEDLY proven wrong by facts and logic. Try again Bigot Boy.
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
@kenballer00 nope not true, that's why we have the constitution... to protect against the whims of the majority (public opinion) the rights of the minority... and we're not forcing you to be gay or attend a gay wedding or in any way participate in our lives, so stop trying to legislate our sex lives and loves...
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"...the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.....This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."
The point of all the quotes I've given you is that traditional marriage is a universal SECULAR reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here.
It is people like you and gay activists who are actually using the government or the law to super impose their will and misguided convoluted idea of equality, civil rights, and liberty not the other way around.
@kenballer00 again, not true. there is religious encroachment on civil matters, because the arguments of opponents to marriage equality are based on religious dogma belief... we (the gays}, are not imposing nor taking away anything from the religious conservative right. we're not asking christians to switch from jesus to gay.. also fairness and equality are not convoluted ideas.... its pretty much what jesus and all the great holy man of our times espoused....
How do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children which is what the state promotes according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. What your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense.
@kenballer00 sure it's in the constitution, it's called the 14th amendment... all citizens of the usa must be treated equally under the law... all citizens....not just straight conservative evangelicals, cathoiics, mormons..all citizens.. you can't have one thing for one group and say to another group, no not for you.. and by the way are you just cookie cutting your responses to everyone...i noticed you put up the same exact word for word answer to someone else...
Again, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
@kenballer00 no special rights, just the same ones everyone else has, and no, we're not redefining anything for anybody, just including ourselves... i personally don't give a crap about the" will of the people," i just want to get married and live a happy life, you're not invited obviously hehe... by the way what the hell do aristocrats have to do with anything.. i don't get that, what school did you go to...
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children.
Voting isn't present in every fabric of our government. Law-making would take years. It would take centuries for anything to pass, because the people didn't vote on it. So why are they complaining? Because they're losing in the courts. Why? Because their arguments are moronic and involve nothing more than superstition, bias and lies.
LAWL GAYS WILL CORRUPT THE FABRIC OF SOCIETY they say.
Honey, we've existed since the beginning of time and we're here to stay.
And you've been the most deceptive of human beings to crawl this earth, Henry. Homosexualists are MAD at NOM because the TRUTH about THEM and what they're REALLY doing is all "coming out" an it hurts like hell. Sure. Hoosexualists are doing their VERY BEST to destory the male/female dynamic and humanity on a whole. That doesn't mean you'll win the war (even though you started it). You can cry out "lies" all you want, but can you PROVE that they are lies? --The Final Justice
@FinalJusticeMovement You're wasting syllables with your 'homosexualist' bull. We're mad about the lies. There is no truth in what NOM says about gay people. Not a speck. I know this because I myself was born gay, I know tons of gay people, and we are all normal people just like everyone else.
Your foregone, neurotic conclusions about gay people don't even deserve to be talked about. I'm only seeing hysteria, "those evil gays trying to destroy the foundations of society" bull. Where's the logic?
Hysteria? I don't see you crying hysteria when men (such as yourself... so-called) are being falsely incarcerated on false charges of rape or domestic violence. I don't see you crying "hysteria" when homo-feminazis verbally abuse and then attack an innocent man because of his gender. I don't see you crying "hysteria" when 2 homosexual men are excused (in principal) for raping and murdering a 13-year old boy. I don't see you crying "hysteria" about VAWA. Where's the "hysteria"? -FJ
@FinalJusticeMovement first of all "we" didn't start anything. you jesus people came after us, you initiated this crap by trying to legislate your moral view onto everyone else. we are and have been around since the beginning of time.. and what truth are you talking about, that bullshit which nom and friends are putting out? please...furthermore we are not trying to destroy heteros, remember we didn't spring from eggs, we came from moms and dads just like everyone else.
@FinalJusticeMovement ok, let me put it this way we're not found on the gay pumpkin patch in a field. how's that... and of course we're talking because only some of us are gay... not all.. does that clarify it for you..oh and even if every gay person on the planet would die today, more will be born... it's just the way it is.. what you really think homosexuality just sprang up these past few years... come on, you know better than that...
The best way to fight the bigotry of NOM is to support the organizations that are fighting against NOM and other hate groups. You can look up both the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal on Google, and you can go to their websites and lend them support.
RCSVirginia 2 months ago in playlist More videos from stop8org
@AmericaDevil Are you saying God is straight?
HenhousetheRed 1 year ago
Thank you so much for this amazing video. I couldn't have said it better myself. Homophobia is the evil.
philip0460 1 year ago
I love this video. I wrote the Emmer campaign and ask many of these questions. No repsonse. I asked, truly, would he actually call for a vote when it is likely that gay marriage would pass? Of course they would probably have a loaded vote, one simply to ban gay marriage. That means if it passes, gay marriage is banned. If it fails, nothing changes. I also asked how he can use his religion against gay marriage since it is a civil right. No answer yet.
dimgrund 1 year ago
"Give us the ballot" Dr King said those words trying to end discrimination.
"Give us the ballot" Brian Brown & NOM now have stolen Dr King's words trying to advance their discrimination.
"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
AdamTh1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD HATES FAGS
MaryWaterton 1 year ago
@MaryWaterton now you speak for god too... dang...
brigantty 8 months ago
@brigantty - All born again children of God are called upon to warn, warn, warn all who have ears that God has standards and and He demands repentance. If I don't, your blood is on my hands. As it stands, because you have been warned and refuse to repent, your blood is on your own hands and your sins will take you to Hell.
MaryWaterton 8 months ago
@MaryWaterton well, thanks for the warning.. although i think you have it wrong, and i'll follow reason and fairness on my path thru life.. i'll try kindness and empathy in my world.. thanks for the warning, i'm sure in your own way you mean well....
brigantty 8 months ago
But there ARE consequences to gay marriage!
ALL of them are intrinsically good.
Each gay or lesbian couple will be more committed to the relationship once they're married. Monogamy rates will increase.
LGBT people will increasingly be regarded as fully equal and fully human. Hence, gaybashing, gaybaiting and antigay bullying will decrease, perhaps dramatically.
But the Radical Christian Right would speak of these consequences as if they are bad and scarey things.
EdM021 1 year ago
@Ivan351103 And what's shameful about it, exactly?
HenhousetheRed 1 year ago
Well done!!! Well done and bravo!!
jesselukes 1 year ago
Complete list of the consequences of Gay Marriage:
1. Gays will get married.
2. Bakeries will have to start making wedding cakes with two little plastic guys in tuxedos or chicks in white dresses on top instead of one plastic dude and a chick. This may either save or destroy the economy, but the risk for the latter is too great.
ShadowPa1adin 1 year ago
@ShadowPa1adin lol, oh the humanity...lol
brigantty 8 months ago
I LOVE THIS !! Rock ON ! This is great !! Thank YOU for posting
/creating this....
dumplingeater 1 year ago
I LOVE THIS !! Rock ON ! This is great !! Thank YOU for posting/creating this....
dumplingeater 1 year ago
Maybe you should get a shave.
redtimmy 1 year ago
NOM always uses the argument that "the people should vote" on marriage. Well, marriage is a right that should NEVER be voted on. Exactely what our judicial system has protected minority rights for in the constitution. We never voted to disallow the women's right to vote, or to abolish slavery, or interracial marriage, etc.. People need to accept change for the better and cultural progression. NOM needs to go away...
beegbolt 1 year ago 2
@MrRockythesquirrel We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights down the future or marriage recognition elsewhere without having to redefining marriage for everyone.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Nobody wants to change the definition of your marriage, trust me. Legalized gay marriage doesn't make it compulsory that you have to marry someone of the same sex, any more than legalization of miscegenation meant you had to marry someone of a different race.
Rillion12 1 year ago 3
@Rillion12
I agree, what is your point though?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 That if they're not trying to change the definition of *your* marriage, they're obviously not trying to change the definition of marriage for "everyone," as you claimed. Marriage for straight people remains the exact same thing as it did before. I'm not particularly sympathetic if you think that your ice cream cone doesn't taste as good if you can't ensure that gay people don't get one too.
Rillion12 1 year ago
@Rillion12
Oh please, this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach our children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
Rillion12 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Yep, and that's great. If my taxes have to go toward the government confirming that people like Britney Spears or Newt Gingrich are married, then they can bloody well go toward it saying that two men or two women who love each other are married as well.
Rillion12 1 year ago 2
@Rillion12
well good for you, if you want to vote for something like that when you have the opportunity to have your say in the ballot box, then thats fine by me. I on the other hand will be going a different route whenever the opportunity presents itself for me
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Pardon my late response to your query. Since others have answered it so eloquently, let me address an issue you had in another vid:
You said: "we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy."
This is wrong, sir. We do not live in a "democracy." We live in a "representational republic," meaning that we ELECT officials to vote on most issues rather than voting on all of them ourselves. That said, the issue of marriage equality is not even a VOTE-ABLE Issue.
(Cont)
2MixFix 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Let me explain. The ballot box DOES NOT have sovereignty over the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the highest law in the land. Period. Like it or not, that's how our founding fathers crafted this government. Consider this: the Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental human right (Loving v. Virginia). The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has declared that NO RIGHT shall be denied ANY citizen without due process of the law.
(Cont.)
2MixFix 1 year ago
Comment removed
2MixFix 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Here is the exact wording: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Does the gay marriage ban infringe on these fundamental, civil rights? Well, in the immortal words of Mr. Big from Sex & The City: "Abso-fucking-lutely."
2MixFix 1 year ago
@2MixFix
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
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Oh yeah? Where does the 14th Amendment specify that it applies to SOME legal protections under US law, but not ALL? Where does it say, anywhere else in the Constitution, that interracial couples are deserving of "special" rights that gay couples are not?
Marriage is a right for EVERYBODY. Just because not all legal precedents agree that tax-paying LGBT citizens also count as EVERYBODY, it doesn't mean their civil rights can be constitutionally put up for vote.
2MixFix 1 year ago
@2MixF
you are Begging the Question. YES, it has been determined that you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister.The right to marry someone of the same sex would need to be established by the supreme court first. For example, a bisexual who has this simultaneous feeling for both genders may argue that he has a fundamental right to marry.The answer is YES, however at this point in time he does not have a right to marry two people in a threesome.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@2MixFix
Now, I am not trying to make a slippery slope but just explaining why your argument is logically flawed and that you need to explain and prove when and how the U.S. supreme court established that there was a right to marry someone of the SAME SEX not the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Before Loving v. Virgina, there was NO Supreme Court precedent for the right to marry outside you own race, either. Are you saying that the current lack of Supreme Court precedent for EVERYBODY'S right to marry will somehow bar that possibility in the future? I don't think so.
Consider this: every time in US history that the rights of a minority group (to vote, enjoy unsegregated dining, ect) were put to popular vote, they were taken away. "Activist" judges put a stop to that.
2MixFix 1 year ago
@kenballer00
The American Psychological Association has determined that sexual orientation is as out of our own control as the color of our skin. If legal precedent has determined that skin color is not an adequate reason for barring a marriage, why is sexual orientation a valid reason?
No one wants to marry their sister. That's disgusting. And, your friendly, neighborhood, fundamentalist Mormon is far more interested in amassing spouses than any gay friend I've ever had.
(Cont)
2MixFix 1 year ago
@kenballer00
The only thing that the LGBT community wants is their constitutional right to marry the person they want. You know, like everybody else.
We've established that marriage is a fundamental human right, correct? And that none of us dictates our own sexual orientation? It's the willful and malicious denial of the 1000 + LEGAL protections with marriage that is unconstitutional.
Remember what the 14th Amendment said re: "abridging privileges and immunities?" It's kind of a no-no.
2MixFix 1 year ago
@2MixFix
The U.S. supreme court has been 100% consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents.
I hardly call this an aberration
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
2MixFix 1 year ago
@kenballer00
The US Supreme Court did not even HEAR Baker v. Nelson, if my reading of Wikipedia is correct. All the one-sentence dismissals in the world won't get them out of Perry v. Schwartzenegger.
"The purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation..."
And that is a patently false statement, sir. If "reasonable procreation" were the sole litmus test for validating a marriage, you can bet they're be no geriatric newlyweds.
2MixFix 1 year ago
@2MixFi
Since the Baker was on MANADATORY appellate review, this was not just any dismissal. A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases like Hicks v. Miranda. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts.
Thus, the same-sex union as a constitutional right argument was so frivolous them the U.S. supreme court rejected it without any further review.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Up until 1973, homosexuality was regarded by the American Psychological Association as a mental disorder. The time period in which Baker v. Nelson took place is not irrelevant here. 1971. Almost 40 years have passed since then, and the gays-as-psychiatric-cases argument has been debunked into oblivion.
No. The Supreme Court WILL hear Perry v. Schwartzenegger, but with a fair trial, and the consideration of more reputable testimony and evidence than: "because I said so."
2MixFix 1 year ago
@2MixFix
in a case called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning, it dealt with a federal 8th circuit court OVERRULING a lower district court decision that somehow there was no rational basis under the equal protection clause to deny gay marriage in an attempt to overturn the people's vote.The higher court reversed that decision to criticize the judge's fallacious ruling and explained exactly why there is rational basis, which means your case means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
There IS no rational basis for denying gay marriage, and that will be determined sooner or later. If the Supreme Court won't uphold Walker's decision, the issue will keep coming up until human decency finally catches up.
Up until recently, states were free to impose anal sex bans on their people, and one by one, those laws were overturned. I have no reason to believe that DOMA, and other such shit, will be treated any differently by the children I'll conceive out of wedlock. :)
2MixFix 1 year ago
@kenballer00
PS: Thank you for a stimulating and Bible-free argument. Having grown up Catholic myself, I never would have imagined a practicing fellow to be capable of such a feat. Kudos to you. And I mean that with all sincerity.
I'm never going to agree with you, of course, but I am not going to argue any further at this point because it's late and I'm going to bed.
Peace.
2MixFix 1 year ago
you just dont get it do you. Even if the supreme court overturns Baker or the country establishes gender neutral marriage into our constitution, same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because its impossible by nature. there is no such thing as gay marriage. What societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature. it is a relationship that we apply the word "marriage" to, but the relationship is what comes first
kenballer00 1 year ago
@2Mix
and the central aspect of that relationship is the sexual union that brings about and develops the next generation which is an absolute necessity for the civilization to continue or any civilization for that matter. sense the continuation of society is the first concern of the state. the government has a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage (the relationship).
this is why every government in the history of the world even the most simple tribes regulated marriage.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@2MixFix
In the case called Pace v. Alabama, it was not about interracial marriage because the plaintiffs in that case never raised Due process clause claims back then which confers the right to marry. It purely decided it based on the equal protection claims of the 14th amendment. In the Loving v. Virginia case, it dealt with the Due process and equal protection clause.
What this means is that the U.S. supreme court has indeed been 100% consistent and will remain that way.
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
2MixFix 1 year ago
Comment removed
2MixFix 1 year ago
Comment removed
2MixFix 1 year ago
@2MixFi
Therefore, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
From the 10th amendement:
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE."
kenballer00 1 year ago
Your videos are very nice at breaking them down the entire other commercial, you should be one!
NesselEss 1 year ago
@MrRockythesquirrel
the topic is CIVIL marriage not marriage in general
kenballer00 1 year ago 2
Our Constitution was established in order to defend people's rights from what James Madison described as the "temporal passions" of the majority which he feared to a degree equivalent to a monarchy. The courts have a constitutional obligation to defend gays against even a majority of people who hate others so much they'd deny them their rights.
This gay-hater candidate misrepresents MLK Jr. who was champion of equal rights and he couldn't pass a high school civics class.
MikeHeath1 1 year ago 13
@MikeHeath1 - Preservation of marriage's traditional meaning of "one man, one woman" is hardly a "temporal passion" given that it was the majority view since the founding of the country. Not even Madison would agree that fag marriage is endorsed by the Constitution. And MLK? I think he would agree that homosexuals and pedophiles do not constitute a newly discovered race or sex.
MaryWaterton 1 year ago
@MaryWaterton First, lumping homosexuals and pedophiles in together shows that you obviously don't know the difference between the two. Homosexuals are less likely to molest children, most pedophiles are straight identified and usually members of the family or close to the child. No one can make laws against homosexuals and prove that it has rational basis in court, the only reason people rule against it in court is becuase of the judge's own biases.
vidhead85 1 year ago
@MikeHeath1 - Neither James Madison nor MLK ever wrote or spoke favorably of homosexuality, you lying piece of crap. Madison never extended civil rights protection to murderers, child rapers, homosexuals, and other reprobates. Both men believed sodomy to be immoral behavior and I challenge you to find written statement or a tape recording where they personally endorsed it.
MaryWaterton 8 months ago
I'll also point out that according to *snirk* Good King Leviticus, eating shellfish was an abomination, so any right-wing bigot who's ever eaten a shrimp cocktail should be stoned to death. But of course they'll quietly pretend THAT Bible rule4 doesn't exist while they harp on ones that actually don't unless you intentionally misread them.
FrancesFife 1 year ago 3
Good job dismantling the NOM bullshit.
kd1s 1 year ago 3
And B) the famed and beaten into the ground Leviticus quote, "Thou shalt not lie with man as though lie with woman" yadda yadda, has nothing to do with sexuality. In English, at the time of the Bible's first translation into English, the words lie and lay were NOT interchangable as they are now. Lie meant ONLY to tell a lie. Lie did not develop it's double meaning until it became slang in the Great Depression. The quote is basically the Bible's version of "Bros before ho's dude!"
FrancesFife 1 year ago
Before some Christian whackadoodle (who is nothing like a true Christian ought to be and who likely hasn't actually read the Bible) brings this up as a defense of bigotry, I'll pre-emptively shoot it down.
Sodom was destroyed because of it's rampant rape, being bad hosts in the desert. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with punishing gay men, the Sodomites raped women and children too, and only raped men to humiliate them, NOT because of any gay attraction.
FrancesFife 1 year ago
@FrancesFife yep, it's true. they were punished for their being unkind to strangers and uncaring to the poor and needy.. not for homosexuality per say.. the religious folk always manage to leave that out...
brigantty 8 months ago
Excellent video. Keep exposing their lies.
dkj63tube 1 year ago 3
To declare that sexual orientation is, by itself, grounds for exclusion from a legal institution and 1000+ federal protections is laughable. I pity all the NOMers who operate under the delusion that the US Constitution somehow confers upon *them* the right to strip fundamental, civil rights from others.
Yeah, um. 14th Amendment, anyone? It bats for every team. :)
Another resounding rebuttal, sir -- Bravo!
2MixFix 1 year ago 4
@2MixFix
how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Okay, look at the stupidity of your own statement. You're touting the right to enter into a loveless marriage, garaunteed to be miserable and unhappy, which would negatively impact any children conceived from it, as an "equal right", while condemning the right to marry the one you love as a "special right", COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that A) equality is NOT a "special" right, and B) you are actively advocating causing emotional damage to children.
FrancesFife 1 year ago 2
@FrancesFife
the state is not there to issue love licenses. The main purpose of civil marriage is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children. The same reason we don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamist marriages. this is why it is a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships( not individuals) for legitimate state interests
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Your bullshit is the same bullshit NOM and the like parrot every day and it's been REPEATEDLY proven wrong by facts and logic. Try again Bigot Boy.
FrancesFife 1 year ago
@FrancesFife
what exactly are those facts and logic you speak of High and Mighty?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Several in this video alone, sevewral more easily found online if your lazy ass goes and googles it.
FrancesFife 1 year ago
@FrancesFife
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 nope not true, that's why we have the constitution... to protect against the whims of the majority (public opinion) the rights of the minority... and we're not forcing you to be gay or attend a gay wedding or in any way participate in our lives, so stop trying to legislate our sex lives and loves...
brigantty 8 months ago
@brigan
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"...the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
kenballer00 8 months ago
From the U.S. supreme court in Baker v. Nelson:
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.....This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."
kenballer00 8 months ago
@brigantty
The point of all the quotes I've given you is that traditional marriage is a universal SECULAR reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here.
It is people like you and gay activists who are actually using the government or the law to super impose their will and misguided convoluted idea of equality, civil rights, and liberty not the other way around.
kenballer00 8 months ago
@kenballer00 again, not true. there is religious encroachment on civil matters, because the arguments of opponents to marriage equality are based on religious dogma belief... we (the gays}, are not imposing nor taking away anything from the religious conservative right. we're not asking christians to switch from jesus to gay.. also fairness and equality are not convoluted ideas.... its pretty much what jesus and all the great holy man of our times espoused....
brigantty 8 months ago
@brigantty
How do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children which is what the state promotes according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. What your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense.
kenballer00 8 months ago
@kenballer00 sure it's in the constitution, it's called the 14th amendment... all citizens of the usa must be treated equally under the law... all citizens....not just straight conservative evangelicals, cathoiics, mormons..all citizens.. you can't have one thing for one group and say to another group, no not for you.. and by the way are you just cookie cutting your responses to everyone...i noticed you put up the same exact word for word answer to someone else...
brigantty 8 months ago
@brigantty
Again, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
kenballer00 8 months ago
@kenballer00 no special rights, just the same ones everyone else has, and no, we're not redefining anything for anybody, just including ourselves... i personally don't give a crap about the" will of the people," i just want to get married and live a happy life, you're not invited obviously hehe... by the way what the hell do aristocrats have to do with anything.. i don't get that, what school did you go to...
brigantty 8 months ago
@France
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children.
kenballer00 1 year ago
*Standing Ovation* Brava!!!!!! Brava!!!!!!
ZhyKitty 1 year ago
Awesome video!
hbfarker 1 year ago 2
Well done - BRAVO!
SeanChapin1 1 year ago 2
Voting isn't present in every fabric of our government. Law-making would take years. It would take centuries for anything to pass, because the people didn't vote on it. So why are they complaining? Because they're losing in the courts. Why? Because their arguments are moronic and involve nothing more than superstition, bias and lies.
LAWL GAYS WILL CORRUPT THE FABRIC OF SOCIETY they say.
Honey, we've existed since the beginning of time and we're here to stay.
HenhousetheRed 1 year ago 13
FinalJusticeMovement 1 year ago
@FinalJusticeMovement You're wasting syllables with your 'homosexualist' bull. We're mad about the lies. There is no truth in what NOM says about gay people. Not a speck. I know this because I myself was born gay, I know tons of gay people, and we are all normal people just like everyone else.
Your foregone, neurotic conclusions about gay people don't even deserve to be talked about. I'm only seeing hysteria, "those evil gays trying to destroy the foundations of society" bull. Where's the logic?
HenhousetheRed 1 year ago
FinalJusticeMovement 1 year ago
@FinalJusticeMovement first of all "we" didn't start anything. you jesus people came after us, you initiated this crap by trying to legislate your moral view onto everyone else. we are and have been around since the beginning of time.. and what truth are you talking about, that bullshit which nom and friends are putting out? please...furthermore we are not trying to destroy heteros, remember we didn't spring from eggs, we came from moms and dads just like everyone else.
brigantty 8 months ago
BRIGANTTY:
"first of all "we" didn't start anything. you jesus people came after us. you
initiated this crap by trying to legislate your moral view onto everyone else."
>> First of all, you -- the homosexualist sect -- DID come after society
infecting it with your IMMORAL views AND behavior..
Secondly, I am not a "Jesus" person, but thanks for the presumptive
compliment. I'd rather be a "Jesus person" than a morality-hating
Satanist anyday.
(to be continued)
--The Final Justice
FinalJusticeMovement 8 months ago
BRIGANTTY:
"we are and have been around since the beginning of time.."
>> You know that you've already lost this argument, right? Because,
if that were the case, you would not have said the following right after:
"remember we didn't spring from eggs, we came from moms and dads
just like everyone else.".
>> We DID spring from eggs -- the EGGS that are held in a WOMAN'S WOMB,
planted by the SEED of a MAN! If homosexuality was here from the beginning,
WE wouldn't be talking!
--The Final Justice
FinalJusticeMovement 8 months ago
@FinalJusticeMovement ok, let me put it this way we're not found on the gay pumpkin patch in a field. how's that... and of course we're talking because only some of us are gay... not all.. does that clarify it for you..oh and even if every gay person on the planet would die today, more will be born... it's just the way it is.. what you really think homosexuality just sprang up these past few years... come on, you know better than that...
brigantty 8 months ago