You're right, we could go on & on showing each other quotes from letters, speeches & treaties written by the founders to support or disprove your idea that "the constitution was based on...the bible"...but it would do no good to convince either of us to change our mind. As far as moving on though; I'm not about to let go of a civil rights struggle in my country just because the bigots have won a few battles. I'll work my entire life to see as much injustice removed from our society as I can.
@zxxxier You already know this but: PROP 8 and DADT WERE REPEALED. Allow me a moment to laugh maniacally. At you. Because "the people have spoken."
In any civil rights movement, NO ONE just "moves on with their lives" and accepts their miserable situation. I'm just letting you know that when they do eventually get their civil rights, you will have joined the ranks of those who didn't want to give black people or women their rights (i.e. the people who were WRONG)
@BitterFlower216 Yes I know prop 8 got repealled, only to find out the judge overturning the peoples vote was a homo judge who didnt disclose he was gay AND was currently in a relationship. Lets just say im not surprised. Cant belive u r happy that a government just spat on the peoples faces. If you like that kinda of government, you know where to move too.
Camparing the civil rights movement of blacks/women to this is laughable. You are so biased you dont even see your failed logic.
@zxxxier Should a hetero judge "disclose" his/her sexuality when hearing such cases? Please. When a judge or body of judges performs their function in our society by interpreting the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature, that is the essence of what makes our nation a constitutional republic, not a democracy. So it's always amusing to me to hear so many REPUBLICans suddenly favor popular majority rule over constitutional rule of law. Talk about failed logic...
@brouhajoe Of course the judge should when ruling on something this conflicting. U dont think that a judge who is a homo wouldnt have any biased at all? U gotta be kidding me. Its human nature(isnt a judge a human?) to have a bias when u own/have objects/feelings.
LOL do u even know what a republic is? Why dont u go look it up before posting a stupid remark. Who the hell said I was a republican wow. u just assume that cuz im not for gay marriage?
"Of course the judge should when ruling on something this conflicting"-OK, let's be clear that in reality, judges don't just disclose a potential conflicting bias and then continue to preside over the case...they recuse themselves. So in a case dealing with how civil rights are variably recognized by the state relative to gender and sexuality, if all homosexual and heterosexual judges have a conflicting bias...um, who will then officiate genius, a eunuch?
What about a religious test too. Should a Mormon judge have been recused? An atheist? A married judge vs one who's against marriage? Do you have an actual point to make, a direct example of how this judge's interpretation was incorrect?
"Its human nature to have a bias when u own/have objects/feelings."-All judges, in all cases, have their own personal feelings and biases, yes. It is their profession, their role in our society, to overcome or set aside their personal feelings and simply interpret the law as it's written, which each judge does to varying degrees of success from case to case. So I ask again, do you have a specific point you'd like to make regarding this judge's ruling in this case?
"LOL do u even know what a republic is?"-Yes, do you know what a constitutional republic is, because that's what we're talking about here...as I said.
"Who the hell said I was a republican?"-No one, including me, though I see the implication in how I worded it. Let's instead break it down into binary politics (as much as I disregard that standard generally) for the sake of this convorsation. It doesn't really matter if you're a registered Rep. or not, your argument was made by the conservative/libertarian/Republican "right" over and over following the ruling. From Hannity to Rush to Savage...etc
I commented on hearing the argument you used; which you've since reiterated saying a "homo judge pissed all over a MAJORITY vote," from Republicans, and how hypocritical that is given that traditionally it's the "right" complaining that the "left" doesn't follow the constitution and thinks this is a direct democracy rather than a constitutional republic.
And that's my point. Earlier you said "if you like that kinda of government, you know where to move too." What I'm trying to get across to you is that we HAVE that kind of gov't here in America. The one you seem to advocate sounds more akin to a direct democracy.
@brouhajoe sorry man, im not gonna waste my time reading your book. Like i said at the beginning, 2 years ago, u cant convince me and i cant convince you so just leave it alone.
@zxxxier Yet you've posted thrice in the past day and a half lol. If you can't back up your arguments when challenged then why make them? A possition is only as valid as the critisism it can withstand and address. To say nothing can change your mind is cowardly, arrogant and ignorant. Everyone is wrong about something, because no one is right about everything. If your opinions have never been challenged and altered due to new information coming in, then they are pathetically inept.
@brouhajoe this is my last response to you because somehow u figured i cant back up my pts or argue with your pts. your such a joke.
i dont wanna read your long winded book because its a waste of time responding to everything, i have much better things to do then argue on the internet. obviously you have all the time in the world
i posted 3 times WOW, and it took less than 1min to type.
but whatever makes you feel better at night buddy.
@zxxxier Doesn't matter whether the judge was gay or not, his ruling passed. And the government didn't spit on everyone's faces, it spit on the faces of stubborn bigots.
You don't think people found biblical justification (or even constitutional justification) for the subjugation of blacks and women? Look who's calling someone's logic failed and laughable!
Give it up, people who think like you are (thankfully) becoming a thing of the past.
@BitterFlower216 Of course it doesnt matter to u, u got what u wanted and could care less. the government didnt spit on everyone faces? U serious? That homo judge pissed all over a MAJORITY vote. get that through your head.
i wasnt even talking about bible justification lol. like i said, your logic is so fail you dont even realize it when comparing the two.
@zxxxier “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Constitution of the United States of America, The Bill of Rights, Amendment I
we go way back on this issue and I won't clutter up your comment section too much ;~}
This is an issue that I'm less willing to discuss but demand. The discussion is getting old and I'm also less inclined to be as tolerant as I once was with the "Marraige = one man and one woman" crowd since they seem so bewildered by our reaction to their intolerance.
JR, clutter away, I'm always very glad to hear from you, especially since you haven't made a new video in 8 months;)
"Bewildered" seems about right, especially when they are otherwise generally nice people (like Jack here, or Veritas48) it seems. The comment Jack left me on this video sums it up. The reason I try and keep these videos polite and conversational (when I can) is not because I'm not angry about this, but because it's usually a more fruitful tactic in the end.
Since when does equality = good? Isn't that the idea communist exploited? Equality is an impossibility especially legally. Also polygamist and incestuous couples been getting married too so what happens if they organize and rise up. Will there marriages be recognized or dismissed? Historically bigotry = more bigotry so we shall see.
Five big ones for this video — and I only wish I could thumbs-up your comments too — such a shame the video author doesn't get that facility themselves. Brilliant stuff!
Thanks very much Theramin. If (and only if) you find the time, I'd love your thoughts on my last video as well (War Abolition). By the way, I showed the family your new video over Christmas, and they all loved it as much as I do:)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"To be just frank, its more like you start to "notice" guys and your dick turning hard when you think of men"
loooooool.
Your ranting and raving (21 replies? LOL) would have been less long winded, and less filled with legal ineptitude, if you weren't so angsty and keen to include comical details like this. :)
I see what the ruckus is about. I simply don't understand why people cannot look toward and within the allowance of happiness. This is a subject which does not distinguish someone being upon harm, injury, or wrongdoing. Those who would be in favor to be together and receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples; life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I realize that the constitution being rewritten plays a role in this subject, but this is for favor of said pursuit.
1)I don't know why people say gay people are trying to change the definition of marriage. I have learnt that in the USA marriage laws are NOT defined between a man and women. Marriage on a federal level is GENDER NEUTRAL and thus is not defined between a man and a woman. If it were defined between a man and a woman why would there be a need for the PROPOSED Federal Marriage Amendment which is a proposed amendment to the US constitution that would re-define marriage between one man and one woman?
2) Is thsi true brouhajoe? Think about it, if marriage was already legally defined between a man and a woman then why would you need an amendment to the US constitution to re-define marriage in the US between a man and a woman? Straight people are trying to legally change
the definition of marriage not gay people. Gay people are demanding that CURRENT laws should be enforced. Marriage on a federal level is gender neutral.
3) If gay people are allowed to marry in the USA, NO current laws will change. This is because marriage laws in the USA are already gender neutral and already built for TWO HUMANS to enter into. If polygamy were to become legal it would mean a full change in current law and a redefinition of marriage
making existing marriages between a man and a woman null and void under the law. This is not the case for allowing two people of the same gender to marry.
4) I now this was not brought up but kids and animals will NEVER get marriage rights because USA laws are made for HUMANS and only humans and marriage is only a contract, and a minor cannot legally enter into a contract.
5) Same sex marriage has exised since the roman times as well so it's been around for a long time it's just now in this century getting political. Gay marriage is not a new thing. Its in recorded history. The first gay couple in the USA that LEGALLY asked for marriage rights was in 1972. Same-Sex marriage has been on the table in civil law for 36 years.
6) STRAIGHT PEOPLE are the ones trying to legally cahnge teh definition. And how are gay people trying to re-refine marriage in law? Look at Massachusetts. Gay people can get married there but Im pretty sure straight people still can. So what law did homosexuals re-define? NOTHING! The Supreme Court of Massachusetts simply enforced gay peoples CURRENT Constitution rights which includes gender neutral marriage.
7) For example, Prop 8 is a re-definition of marriage between a man aand a women. And any states in american that have banned same-sex marriage have only just created a law that RE-DEFINED marriage between a man and a women! So why dont all you straight people stop re-defining marriage and denying gay people their current Constitutional rights.
(brouhajoe: If I have said anything wrong/misleading in my comments please correct me)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
lol. What bullshit. Everything is wrong in your comments. Black's Law Dictionary has defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman" for more than a century. It is not "gender neutral."
And "no federal court has recognized that this right includes the right to marry a person of the same sex...the right to marry a person of the same sex is not a fundamental right under the Constitution." Wilson v. Ake.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your 1972 couple lost their case. The Supreme Court dismissed the case on the merits because it did not present a substantial federal question.
And what's this nonsense about Roman times and Roman gay marriage? The Theodosian code outlawed gay marriage. So 1. it's always been "political"; 2. even the Romans thought gay marriage was gay (and shouldn't be lawful); 3. what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition? America is not Rome.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why would existing marriages between a man and a woman be null and void if polygamous marriages are allowed? An illogical and unreasoned assertion, no different from asserting that gay marriages will render straight marriages "null and void."
A dumb argument from anti-gay marriage advocates, and a dumb argument from you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Marriage on a federal level is GENDER NEUTRAL and thus is not defined between a man and a woman."
Federal courts have ruled otherwise. So you're wrong.
"If it were defined between a man and a woman why would there be a need for the PROPOSED Federal Marriage Amendment"
To codify what has long been the conventional understanding, so that gaylords like you can't rely on judicial fiat to change the definition. Precedent might be against you today, but it can be overruled. Better safe than sorry.
(1of11)Regarding Wilson v. Ake and "Your 1972 couple lost their case" This does not mean that those were constitutional rulings. It will be over turned eventually. In 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick it was found legal to declare same-sex sex a crime and it was not unconstitutional to do so. This was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 by the Fourteenth Amendment. So what happened between those 17 years? The Fourteenth Amendment did not change. So why was same-sex sex suddenly protected via the
(2of11)14th amendment in 2003 but not in 1986? Its called progress! And what Wilson v. Ake shows is that gay marriages have no full faith and credit, which is unconstitutional and what ultimately makes this a federal issue. Same-sex marriage WILL eventually go to the Supreme Court. And secular law is on our side. Regarding "Black's Law Dictionary has defined marriage.... " & "even the Romans thought gay marriage was gay". "WAS GAY??" What meaning was behind the word gay when you wrote this?
(3of11)Was it to mean "stupid"? That meaning is not in the in the dictionary at all! So why do you use it? And you also used the word "Gaylord". Is that word in the dictionary? No! It's funny how straight people welcome this "new definition" of the word gay and say that "words change meaning all the time". But on the other hand you cry like idiots and tell us gay people to "stop "re-defining" the word marriage". Hypocrites! Straights will contradict themselves a 1000 times over if it will
(4of11) accomplish any negativity towards gay people in society. "what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition? " What does giving black people equal rights got to do with the American legal tradition? What does interracial marriage got to do with the American legal tradition? Equal treatment of black people just started to happen about 50 years ago! And how old is the USA? What does giving women equal rights in a marriage got to do with American legal tradition or traditional
(5of11) marriage in general? Or giving women any equal treatment? Its called progress you idiot! Your definition of marriage is a re-definition of marriage itself! Throughout history marriage meant many things. For example: One man, many women. One man and one girl. One man and sex slave. One man and religious idol. One man and a "holy spirit". Marriage has always been an evolving institution. Marriage of today, where a loving couple decides to get married on equal terms is still a
(6of11) relatively new idea, and still a novelty in much of the world (like in most muslim countries). Giving women equal rights in a marriage is a new concept! Marriage has been changed in every fucking way possible! And again like I said in my previous comments, same sex marriage is not something new at all. Its an old concept! So it has been part of some tradition in some cultures. So much for your "conventional understanding". Societys "conventional understanding" of marriage has been
(7of11) changing over and over before you was even born! You really think marriages between a man and a woman in the 1950s or before were like what it is today? Conventional understanding is changing to "marriage between two loving consenting adults regardless of gender". And some people in the USA and throughout the world already view that as their understanding of marriage. "Why would existing marriages between a man and a woman be null and void if polygamous marriages
(8of11) are allowed?" Because current marriage law does not care for gender or race. It does however on the amount of people entering into a marriage contract. So if marriage became polygamous, it would mean a change in current law as marriage would be defined between 1 man 3 wives or 1 women 3 husbands etc. This is not the case if same sex marriage was legal. "To codify what has long been the conventional understanding, so that gaylords like you can't rely on judicial fiat to change the
(9of11) definition." So basically what you are saying is that you want to CHANGE the definition before we do? Again why is that necessary if "Federal courts have ruled otherwise"? Why do they need to "codify what has long been the conventional understanding" IF THEY ALREADY HAVE???? Idiot. Like I already said: Look at Massachusetts. Gay people can get married there but Im pretty sure straight people still can. So what law did homosexuals re-define? NOTHING! The Supreme Court of Massachusetts
(10of11) simply enforced gay peoples CURRENT Constitution rights which includes gender neutral marriage. Any states in american that have "banned" same-sex marriage have only just created a law that RE-DEFINED marriage between a man and a women! "Precedent might be against you today, but it can be overruled." Youre right it will be. So quit changing current law and thus stopping people from getting their equal rights.
(11of11) And gay marriage is in past cultures, its part of tradition and same-sex marriage does not stop you practicing your tradition! This is not the first time the USA has defined marriage to suit their bigotry. Remember anti-miscegenation laws?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL. More lame racial comparisons. Anti-miscegenation laws deal with race. Discrimination based on race is presumptively invalid under federal law. By contrast, the Supreme Court has never placed sexual orientation in the same category as race. In fact, sexual orientation has been held by the Court to be a less protected category than race.
Your retarded racial comparisons have been rejected time and again by the Supreme Court. Once again, race != sexual orientation. Learn about it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Massachusetts used judicial fiat to re-interpret its own state constitution to allow for gay marriage -- it redefined "marriage" under state law, not federal law. This is what I mean when I said that precedent can be overruled.
You're the one changing current law by using the courts to overrule precedent to get a result in your favor (like in Mass.). At least be honest about what you're doing, instead of pretending that you're not changing anything. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"So basically what you are saying is that you want to CHANGE the definition before we do? "
No. Read that again. To codify "the conventional understanding" means to codify the current legal definition as expressed in federal law, common law, and authoritative legal dictionaries into statutory law.
Try learning the difference between codified law and the other sources of law. It'll save you from asking dumb questions next time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Because current marriage law does not care for gender or race."
Wrong. It cares for gender. Federal courts have held so. It's exactly the same situation with gay marriage. You're just discriminating against polygamists like you claim others are discriminating against gays.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"You really think marriages between a man and a woman in the 1950s or before were like what it is today?"
We're talking about the legal definition of marriage. Not "what it is like." The legal definition as defined by such authoritative dictionaries as Black's Law Dictionary has been the same for more than a century. Marriage is the "legal union between one man and one woman."
If you want to change the definition, try voting to amend your laws. That's how democracies work.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"What does giving black people equal rights got to do with the American legal tradition? "
Erm... the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? The Reconstruction era's Civil Rights Act? Among other things, a civil war was fought over it. LOL. This just goes to show how historically clueless you are. Women's rights? The democratically enacted 19th Amendment. These things have everything to do with American legal tradition.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL you tedious queen. It was a joke. I used it colloquially. (Just like how you're not really the queen.)
By contrast, courts don't usually indulge in colloquialisms. Casual word usage is one thing, legal definitions that depend on precedent and settled meaning is quite another.
You're confusing the two. So there's nothing "hypocritical" here. Legal definitions and casual usage are two different things. You're unable to tell the difference, which is why you're a gaytard. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes. Gay marriages "have no full faith and credit" under the Defense of Marriage Act. Read the FF&C clause: it empowers Congress to "prescribe...the effect" of "proceedings" like gay marriages, meaning that they can tell the states that they're not obligated to give effect to gay marriages from another state. It's not unconstitutional. Far from it -- it is a constitutional exercise of Congress's regulatory powers under the full faith and credit clause.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"This does not mean that those were constitutional rulings."
LOL. The same applies to gay marriage. Gay marriage was illegal at first. Then it was made legal in California. Then proposition 8 amended the state constitution and made it illegal again. What changed? Precedents can be overruled, constitutions can be amended,
What you're saying cuts against you as much as the other side. Prop 8 demonstrates this very well. You're just butthurt because you're an irrational, angry gay activist. :)
(1of21)"Anti-miscegenation laws deal with race". And the Defense of Marriage Act deals with orientation and gender. And discrimination based on sexual orientation will be presumptively invalid under law. What do you think is slowly happening in western countries?. "Supreme Court has never placed sexual orientation in the same category as race. In fact, sexual orientation has been held by the Court to be a less protected category than race." And race was once never protected via the federal court
(2of21) at all. For example, the fair housing act only protected religion etc. this law was changed. Race was added in 1964 and sex in 1974. The law changed. Sexual orientation will be added soon. And already has in some state constitutions. Whats your point in this argument? Laws change to recognise civil rights of others. Like the civil rights of homosexuals. And marriage is a civil right. Things will change to protect homosexuals. Again, what do you think is slowly happening in western
(3of21)countries? And you said "what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition?" What I meant was that American legal tradition had nothing to do with black rights AT FIRST. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments did not come originally in American law, they were added later. This and womens voting rights were not part of the American legal tradition for many years. They originally were NOT part of the American legal tradition! The 19th Amendment happened in the 1920s how many
(4of21)years was that after the 17th century? The American civil war did not happen until the 18th century. In 50-100+ years time gay rights will be part of the American legal tradition and laws such as Lawrence v. Texas have been part of the American legal system for five years and it will forever be. The civil rights that gay people are obtaining now is history in the making. So it was a weak and stupid argument when you said "what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition?"
(5of21)Traditions themselves change or get abandoned over time! Regarding full faith and credit: I meant its unconstitutional in the sense that you are denying gay people their fundamental right to marriage and it violates the equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment. Full faith and credit says that states must recognise marriage outside other states. What is the RATIONAL reason for not giving Full faith and credit to same-sex marriages? If one state finds it sensible to recognise
(6of21) same-sex marriage then why is Full faith and credit not given to these consenting adults? Because their marriages have two penises and two vaginas involved? To uphold a definition of marriage that was not in the Constitution? Or was it religion dogma? And the Defence of Marriage Act can be repealed. And it will eventually :) The reason it became legal in California is because current constitutional law allows it to be. The California Constitution Article One provides the same rights to
(7of21)its citizens as the Bill of Rights, plus the 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law. Judges have a job to objectively enforce the constitution rights of all its citizens, even if the decision is regarded as "unfair" or "wrong" by the bigoted masses. And thats what they did. Prop 8 changes current Constitutional law and re-defines that states marriage law which takes away a minoritys right. And that right is being denied based on a biological trait that is unchangeable
(8of21) because homosexuality is not a choice, thats what makes this a civil rights issue. Youre denying people their rights based on a physical biologic trait that we have no control over or a decision in. And Im Irrational? Gay people have been getting married for decades now with symbolic ceremonies and have been raising children for many years. They will keep doing this even if same-sex marriage becomes legal or not!. Whats your rational basis for denying a group of people their basic
(9of21) human rights under the constitutional law so they can protect their families? To get protection for something they were already doing for decades now and will continue to? This does not take away your right to get married to the opposite sex. So why then? Because the dictionary said so?! And Im angry? This might be an example of psychological projection. It's like saying, "Why are blacks so angry? Just because we oppress them?" You're stupid. And no, Im not discriminating against
(10of21) polygamists because polygamy is a decision. Homosexuality is not, its biologic where there is no choice, so equal rights for polygamists dont count. And why are you so eager to use heterosexual polygamy as an argument against same-sex marriage. Doesnt polygamy go against you vision of a one man one women marriage anyway? Dumbass. And there was a case in Utah and another in 2004 where two men tried to make their polygamy with their wives legal by comparing polygamy to homosexuality
(11of21) and same-sex marriage rights. What was the outcome of those cases? Homosexuality is not a behaviour anyway if thats what you think; it is a biologic state of being. Has been proven to be. Is heterosexuality a behaviour? One can be an abstinent homosexual for example or a heterosexual who enjoys anal sex. It is not a sex act or behaviour that defines one as homosexual or heterosexual, it is the biology of one attraction compulsion, regardless of how one acts on that compulsion.
(12of21)And remember that compulsion is not due to some sort of dysfunction. The medical definition of "dysfunction" is "impaired in function; especially of a bodily system or organ." Homosexuals have a perfectly functioning biochemical makeup. We find out we are gay the same way you find out you are straight. I knew I was gay when I hit puberty, when I was 11 years old. Its not a choice. To be just frank, its more like you start to "notice" guys and your dick turning hard when you think of men
(13of21) sexually. Change the words 'men' to 'women' and 'guys' to girls' and that is a typical STRAIGHT boy. Did I have prior sexual experiences before this? No. Not until MANY YEARS after. For lesbians its like straight girls go through - but with an attraction for women! Can you say all of this for a polygamist? Is polygamy a sexual orientation? Are there any 11 year old polygamists? You are wrong in equating homosexuality to polygamy. And im a gaytard? Idiot. Regarding "courts don't usually
(14of21) indulge in colloquialisms..legal definitions that depend on precedent and settled meaning is quite another." and your tedious and stupid dictionary arguments: You are still a hypocrite here. What you don't get is and what YOU established without realising it is that dictionary definitions don't control our lives. They don't on the word "gay" (for you) so why "marriage"? Both are in the dictionary. And same-sex marriage has been practiced in many past cultures so their definition of
(15of21)marriage was different (social or legal). And the definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a re-definition of marriage itself. Dictionary definitions change all the time. They do that naturally as we in society over generations change the way we use words. What we do is examined by the people writing dictionaries on how we use words and then dictionaries are written to reflect what we do, e.g. recognising legal same-sex marriages in society and to recognise that gay people are
(16of21) productive taxpaying members of society who are naturally compelled to pair with the same sex therefore deserve basic human rights to protect themselves and their families! We don't do what we do to conform to dictionaries you fucking moron. If our culture finds it sensible to expand our concept of marriage to same-sex couples (which does not take away your right to get married to the opposite-sex you dick! (So what's the fucking problem?)) then dictionary definitions will change over
(17of21) time to reflect that. This may/will be the case for countries like Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Nepal, and maybe Sweden.etc. and soon the USA. Even if the legal definition were one man and one woman (in Mass, California etc.) it does not matter, it matters what it can be. Once upon a time the definition of "voter" (legally and in the dictionary) was "white man". But now women can vote and people of other races can too. Why don't you bitch about the
(18of21)traditional definition of "voter" as you do with marriage you dickhead?! This idea that you have to stick with concepts 100-2000+ years old is stupid. Did they discover some ultimate truth 100-2000+ years ago? They got it right and we shouldn't touch that? Get real. Traditions are not valid things to point to and say "that is how we should live". We ought to live the way that works best for people that optimises happiness, freedom and equality (which is in American law). And crying out a
(19of21) legal definition, or a dictionary definition or a tradition to dictate to society "we have to do it like that" is closed minded and makes no sense. Should we stick to a definition of marriage that was created in a time where treatment of homosexuals was to kill them? Or should we move into the 21st century? Are you suggesting that people would not know how to live unless somebody rights it down for them? Like so many religious nuts? If barbaric and immoral books like the bible and the
(20of21)quran and the majority who follow them and see these books as the ultimate "truth" than anything else (that says gay people should be murdered no less!) will not stop homosexuals from getting their deserving rights, what makes you think your pathetic dictionary book arguments will have any impact? And is that the core of your reasons against gay marriage anyway? Do you even care that homosexuals get all marriage rights if it were called something else other than marriage? And in case you
(21of21) have not realised, but marriage rights for homosexuals and other rights (fair housing act to include sexual orientation, dont ask dont tell repeal, gaining sexual orientation and gender identity protection rights in employment across all of the united states etc.) will never be off the table. Ever. Until we get them. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually, it's the reverse. I'm all for homosexuals calling their unions gay "marriage" as long as they don't receive the same marital benefits as normal couples do. Resources are best allocated to traditional marriages as it encourages the social unit best situated for raising children.
Since gays tend not to have children, giving them all the monetary benefits designed to encourage child rearing is an inefficient use of resources. This is just sound public policy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Except that authoritative legal dictionaries have defined marriage as the "the legal union between one man and one woman" for more than a century.
You have no contrary authority. So you rant and rave about the settled common law definition of marriage and about how it will "change." So you're finally admitting that you're the one who is changing the definition of marriage from its original meaning in the American legal tradition.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"why is Full faith and credit not given to these consenting adults?"
Because under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, Congress may "prescribe...the effect" of "proceedings" like gay marriage and it has done so in the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that no state is obligated to give effect to gay marriages from another state. (I've explained this previously.) You must be retarded. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Regarding full faith and credit: I meant its unconstitutional in the sense that you are denying gay people their fundamental right to marriage and it violates the equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment."
LOL. Do you even know what you're typing? The FF&C clause is separate from the EP clause. It can't "violate" the EP clause as I've explained several times already. Sorry, you're just an angry gay activist bleating ignorantly about laws that you don't understand. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL. You're the weak and stupid one dicklick. So the 13th-15th Amendments are not part of American legal tradition? That's what YOU said earlier. Now you're trying to change your tune after you were owned the fuck out on it. :)
So, what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition? You can't answer.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
My point is that the laws haven't changed. And in the case of Prop 8, they've changed back to the status quo. And as I've repeatedly said, feel free to convince your fellow citizens to vote with you. If they vote for gay marriage, by all means! What you're being bitchslapped on are your multiple false claims that the Constitution and federal law has ALREADY been changed to "allow" gay marriage. That's just a false statement of the law.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"discrimination based on sexual orientation will be presumptively invalid under law."
Wrong. Read Romer among other cases. Laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation need only pass augmented rational basis review -- the laxest possible standard. Such laws have a strong presumption of validity "even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous." Romer v. Evans, at 632.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"And race was once never protected via the federal court"
Sure. Before the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. But once those democratically enacted amendments passed, race became "protected" under federal law. Until and unless you defeat Proposition 8 via democratic means, or amend the Constitution via democratic means to give maximum protection to sexual orientation, you simply have no case.
This weird S&M dude and his wife. They call me "The People,"...but it's just me down here. 'S'OK though, I've escaped into the walls and I fuck with them constantly.
does sklanger come over and stick his peen through the steps sometimes when he is fapping to his own ego -- or does he only do that here in the comments on youtube?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The Defense of Marriage Act is...an unconstitutional law."
You didn't read the full clause. Article IV also provides that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" -- Congress may therefore "prescribe...the effect" of "such acts, records, and proceedings" hatched in another state. DOMA prescribes that gay marriages are not to be given effect in a different state.
I hope everyone takes note that you quoted the whole claus, then re-quoted it, removing the middle part so that it better fits what you want it to mean. It does not say Congress can "prescribe...the effect" of such acts, as you put it, it says Congress can prescribe the "manner in which such acts, records, & proceedings SHALL BE PROVED" (emphasis added), & the "effect" of their being proved. Most Sup Court cases regarding this claus have dealt with how sentences are applied from state to state.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And? You've just admitted that Congress may prescribe the effect thereof -- of the manner in which "acts, records, and proceedings" shall be authenticated (i.e., "proved").
Authenticated marriages from a different State can thus be prescribed by Congress to have nil effect. "DOMA is an example of Congress exercising its powers under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to determine the effect that any public act, record, or judicial proceeding [etc.] has on the other States." WIlson v. Ake.
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
if my religion believes that glbt marriage is a sacrament, to deny my religion the same rights as other religions is unconstitutional... yes?
Not necessarily, as the Supreme Court ruling on Reynolds v. US established and defined the "separation of church and state," and argued against polygamous marriages as a religious right. Basically, they said that the establishment clause did not mean you can do whatever you want, like...say...murder someone, and say it's your religious duty. Also, nobody is talking about forcing churches to recognize or perform homosexual marriages, we're talking about civil marriage.
"to deny my religion the same rights as other religions is unconstitutional... yes?"
No. Reynolds v. U.S. held that the regulation and criminalization of polygamous marriage is a valid and constitutional exercise of federal power, and does not violate the First Amendment.
For "to permit [religious polygamy] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Brown v. Board? LOL.
Brown only said that "separate but equal" is impermissible in the context of race. It does not apply to sex or sexual orientation. Indeed, "separate but equal" is fine in the sexual context -- separate restrooms for males and females are obviously constitutional.
"Brown only said that "separate but equal" is impermissible in the context of race."
No, it didn't. Race, and more specifically segregation in public schools and Plessy v. Ferguson, was the context in which the court made it's decision, but the scope and application of the decision was not restricted by race. The court ruled that "separate but equal" violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes it did. Brown concerned race. Its scope is restricted to race, or at best, other suspect classifications like alienage, ethnicity, or nationality. See Carolene Products.
Sex is NOT a suspect classification under the Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence. Nor is sexual orientation.
"or at best, other suspect classifications like alienage, ethnicity, or nationality."-Exactly, so again...NO, it's not restricted to race. Sex is not orientation, & orientation is not included or precluded in Brown v. Board (obviously)...I'm arguing that it applies, as one's sex, orientation, race...& so on, are all biological matters. Bathrooms are not analogous, as there is no state or federal law restricting unisex restrooms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It IS restricted to race. Can you cite any case that extends the scope of 'separate but equal' impermissibility to sex, or sexual orientation? You can't. You're clueless.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
" there is no state or federal law restricting unisex restrooms."
It doesn't have to be state or federal law. Public schools with separate restrooms for males and females would be enough to trigger an equal protection claim under your ridiculous theory. What, you think only promulgated laws are subject to equal protection challenge? More cluelessness.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm still waiting for you to name a case in which "separate but equal" impermissibility doctrine has been extended to sexual orientation. Has it even been extended outside of the racial context?
Please name that case. If you can't, you concede that Brown is restricted to race, and applicable only to race.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"there is no state or federal law restricting unisex restrooms."
Even this is wrong. Maryland public restroom legislation and the California Code of Regulations mandate that "separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex."
I'm quite sure other states or a federal agency like the OHSA has some byzantine law requiring the same.
Separate restrooms for men and women -- "separate but equal" -- are unconstitutional? LOL. Try again.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And you haven't answered my question. If Brown, as you claim, does not concern race, does it mean that separate male and female toilets -- "separate but equal" -- are unconstitutional?
The impermissibility of "separate but equal" applies only to race. That the Supreme Court has never held sex to be in the same category of 'protected' classes like race says it all.
"If Brown, as you claim, does not concern race..."
I never claimed Brown v. Board doesn't "concern" race, I said it is not restricted to race. I've repeated this point a few times now, yet you insist on misstating my arguments. You too have admitted that Brown is not restricted to race alone, mentioning nationality and alienage, neither of which are races...so what's the disagreement?
"the Supreme Court has never held sex to be in the same category of 'protected' classes like race" Yes, as stated above in another comment, The Supreme Court holds sex and orientation in different categories of discrimination from race, a detail that is lacking in your argument.
"The Court holds sex and orientation in different categories of discrimination from race, a detail that is lacking in your argument."
More like you can't read. I wrote that sexual orientation is "accorded less constitutional protection than laws targetting religion" because unlike religion, it is not a suspect class. If it's not a suspect class, it is naturally understood to be in the category along with all other non-suspect classes, and subject to rational basis review aka "less protection."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
By "concern" I meant concerning race ONLY, synonymous with "restricted to race." This was implicit, but apparently you have difficulty grasping the point. No one is misstating your argument. You're claiming that Brown does not concern race only, whereas I do. Consequently, you disagree with me.
But there's more. You ALSO claim that Brown extends to non-suspect classes like sex and orientation -- something I never claimed, and an obvious point on which we disagree.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now that we're obviously disagreeing, I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. If Brown's "separate but equal" impermissibility doctrine applies to sex, separate restrooms for men and women that are "separate but equal" would be unconstitutional. But they aren't. Why? Because SBE is not, in fact, impermissible in the sexual context -- Brown does not extend beyond the racial context. If you disagree, cite a case that extends Brown beyond race, and into sex.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"You too have admitted that Brown is not restricted to race alone"
I admitted no such thing. I said that AT BEST, the impermissibility of "separate but equal" MAY potentially be extended to other suspect classes. I did not say that they were. Accordingly, it is restricted to race.
You're also being disingenuous. Because ultimately, the impermissibility of "separate but equal" does not extend to sex or orientation, which are not suspect classes.
Pederasty, Polygamy...Cannibalism (lol)...YES, all of these things have existed in the past. I NEVER, however, said that this fact makes these things OK...you're just making that shit up to argue against because you have no argument against what I DID say.
The fact that homosexual marriages have been practiced throughout recorded history, and recognized in many cultures, means that it is a false statement to claim that "1 Man, 1 Woman" is the "traditional" form of marriage......THAT"S ALL I SAID, I never said anything about that making it OK.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You're claiming it is "traditional" hence it's OK. You curiously neglect to mention that these traditions are not the traditions of the United States.
The "fact" that some cultures in history practised homosexual marriage has no bearing on whether Americans under American law and American legal tradition should do the same.
If you cast your net wide enough, you're bound to dredge up historical cases for any crap you care to justify. It's just not relevant to AMERICAN legal tradition.
"You're claiming it is "traditional" hence it's OK."-NO, I AM NOT.
I'm claiming that the classification of "1 Man, 1 Woman" as "traditional" is not accurate. I honestly don't know how I can make that point any clearer for you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I'm claiming that the classification of "1 Man, 1 Woman" as "traditional" is not accurate."
It is accurate, since he meant AMERICAN tradition, especially AMERICAN legal tradition. A century's worth of Black's Law Dictionaries define marriage as a "union between one man and one woman."
How is gay marriage in Greece or Rome or Japan or some remote culture relevant to American legal tradition? They're an irrelevance. The Romans outlawed gay marriage too. Is that relevant?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Our Constitution does not define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman."
So polygamous marriages are fine? If not, why not? Why should gays be allowed to marry, but polygamists not?
Right, the Supreme Court has already ruled on that. "So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed." Reynolds v. United States (1878).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's not a separate issue. Why should gays but not Mormons be allowed to marry in a non-traditional manner? 'Equal protection' for gays but not for Mormons?
Also, you cited Reynolds v. US, have you read the sections where they explain why they believed polygamy was a burden on/danger to society? Are you arguing that homosexual marriage would have the SAME effects on society as addressed in the ruling?...Because if not, then YES, it is a separate issue.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Religion, like race, is a suspect class under Supreme Court equal protection jurisprudence. Since sexual orientation is not a suspect class, it is accorded less constitutional protection than laws targetting religion. So no, it's not a separate issue at all.
If religious marriage practices may be validly circumscribed under the Constitution, homosexual marriage practices may be, a fortiori, validly circumscribed.
"Religion, like race, is a suspect class under Supreme Court equal protection jurisprudence." Correct, and homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is currently under Rational Basis, which means that the gov't can discriminate by law against a group if, and only if, it can be shown to relate to a legitimate gov't interest. I'll leave it to you to argue the legitimate gov't interest of denying equal marriage rights.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down attempts to discriminate against homosexuals at the state level...see Romer v. Evans, 1996, and another case in '03 regarding sodomy laws, the name of which ( I apologize) I can't remember at the moment.
Except Romer v. Evans is not about gay marriage. The fact that SOME discriminatory laws did not pass rational basis review does not mean that all discriminatory laws will not pass rational basis review.
To the contrary, such laws have a strong presumption of validity "even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous." Romer v. Evans, at 632. Romer merely restates what I've been saying all along -- that race != orientation.
lol? The case you "can't remember" is Lawrence v. Texas, and you're citing it for authority? That's funny because it owns you. It explicitly disclaims being about gay marriage, and specifically states that the case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." It is therefore inapplicable to gay marriages.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Correct? So you withdraw your silly "biological traits" argument, since religion -- like race -- is a suspect class, but has nothing to do with biology. That took you long enough.
There's no need for me to reinvent the wheel. Courts have already held that there is a legitimate rationale for keeping to the traditional notion of marriage, which is that it encourage[s] procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." CEP v. Bruning.
Quote where the word "marriage" is defined in our Constitution, the law of the land, as that is clearly to what I am referring in this video. There are people who are trying to "change" our Constitution to federally define "marriage" as being exclusively between a man and woman.
As stated in the video as well, homosexual marriages have been practiced and recognized throughout recorded history...So, the Black's Law Dictionary notwithstanding, this Amendment (or change) to our Constitution would be a "change" to the way marriages have been practiced and recognized historically.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"throughout recorded history."
Roman, Chinese, or Greek law is not American law. American law is based on English common law at the time of the founding. And there is no common law recognition of gay marriage.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Constitution is not the only source of legal definitions. You said "legal definition." I quoted you several legal definitions of marriage from the standard law dictionary in use in the United States.
You are trying to change the definition. Not anyone else.
Yes, in talking about the Constitution, I said the words "legal definition." You are taking those 2 words from a 10+ minute video and arguing against their use completely out of context.
"You are trying to change the definition. Not anyone else." So you don't believe that an Amendment to the Constitution would "change" it?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL. So you're withdrawing your legal definition claim now? Good.
An amendment to the Constitution would only constitutionalize the pre-existing legal definition of marriage as defined in Black's Law Dictionary. It won't change the "definition" of marriage.
"LOL. So you're withdrawing your legal definition claim now?"
No, I'm putting the words you cherry picked out of my video to argue against back into their original stated context. I've "withdrawn" nothing, I'm simply rejecting your characterization of what I said, and attempting to clarify it for you.
No cherry picking involved. You said "legal definition." Since you admit that the Constitution does not define marriage, you cannot claim to derive its "legal definition" from the Constitution, which is silent on the subject. Either you're withdrawing your definitional claim, or you contradict yourself on whether or not the Constitution defines marriage. Saying "legal definition" = "Constitutional legal definition" contradicts your own admission that the Constitution does not define marriage.
And since your "clarification" doesn't change the legal definition of marriage, that definition remains defined by subsidiary legal sources, such as authoritative legal dictionaries, which have consistently defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman."
im at 3.26 in your video and your saying 'gay people have been getting married' which of course is a use of the word marriage that i don't see as being accurate. certainly people can say they've married whatever they want but these doesn't make it an accurate use of the word marriage. which is why i posed my question and perhaps would have been a better way to start your video.
my question was NOT who gets to decide what marriages in society are recognized. hmmm somewhat frustrated here as my video was quite clear and straight forward and yet you still didnt address my question. im stopping at 6.48
Well, here's the question(s) I heard in your video:
"In the secular arena, who gets to decide what is the essence of marriage? What IS the essence of marriage? When should we change it? Who gets to decide when we should change it? Should we change it?"
My response to that question was: The Constitution, the laws that we, in a secular society, set up. I guess what I didn't really get into, and maybe what is frustrating you with my response, is the word "essence."
This has been flagged as spam show
You like marry this girls ** rockmycity.info **
aviishabegam 1 year ago
I think homosexuals should be able to experience the joys, and troubles, of marriage just as hetrosexual people.
DVincentW 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the constitution does not define it exclusively as between a man and a women because they didnt think they HAD too.
guess y?
the constitution was based on what when they wrote it? o right, the BIBLE.
look lets not beat around the bush, your not gonna convince me and im not gonna convince u.
but the people have spoken(twice) and prop 8 passed move on with your lifes gays/lesbians people.
i can go on and on but like i stated above, i rather not waste my time.
zxxxier 2 years ago
You're right, we could go on & on showing each other quotes from letters, speeches & treaties written by the founders to support or disprove your idea that "the constitution was based on...the bible"...but it would do no good to convince either of us to change our mind. As far as moving on though; I'm not about to let go of a civil rights struggle in my country just because the bigots have won a few battles. I'll work my entire life to see as much injustice removed from our society as I can.
brouhajoe 2 years ago
Here here. Right here with you dude.
Norskdrummer 2 years ago
@zxxxier You already know this but: PROP 8 and DADT WERE REPEALED. Allow me a moment to laugh maniacally. At you. Because "the people have spoken."
In any civil rights movement, NO ONE just "moves on with their lives" and accepts their miserable situation. I'm just letting you know that when they do eventually get their civil rights, you will have joined the ranks of those who didn't want to give black people or women their rights (i.e. the people who were WRONG)
BitterFlower216 10 months ago
@BitterFlower216 Yes I know prop 8 got repealled, only to find out the judge overturning the peoples vote was a homo judge who didnt disclose he was gay AND was currently in a relationship. Lets just say im not surprised. Cant belive u r happy that a government just spat on the peoples faces. If you like that kinda of government, you know where to move too.
Camparing the civil rights movement of blacks/women to this is laughable. You are so biased you dont even see your failed logic.
zxxxier 7 months ago
@zxxxier Should a hetero judge "disclose" his/her sexuality when hearing such cases? Please. When a judge or body of judges performs their function in our society by interpreting the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature, that is the essence of what makes our nation a constitutional republic, not a democracy. So it's always amusing to me to hear so many REPUBLICans suddenly favor popular majority rule over constitutional rule of law. Talk about failed logic...
brouhajoe 7 months ago
@brouhajoe Of course the judge should when ruling on something this conflicting. U dont think that a judge who is a homo wouldnt have any biased at all? U gotta be kidding me. Its human nature(isnt a judge a human?) to have a bias when u own/have objects/feelings.
LOL do u even know what a republic is? Why dont u go look it up before posting a stupid remark. Who the hell said I was a republican wow. u just assume that cuz im not for gay marriage?
you just lost all credibility, what a joke.
zxxxier 7 months ago
@zxxxier long chain of replies coming, please read in the "sort by thread" format.
brouhajoe 7 months ago
"Of course the judge should when ruling on something this conflicting"-OK, let's be clear that in reality, judges don't just disclose a potential conflicting bias and then continue to preside over the case...they recuse themselves. So in a case dealing with how civil rights are variably recognized by the state relative to gender and sexuality, if all homosexual and heterosexual judges have a conflicting bias...um, who will then officiate genius, a eunuch?
brouhajoe 7 months ago
What about a religious test too. Should a Mormon judge have been recused? An atheist? A married judge vs one who's against marriage? Do you have an actual point to make, a direct example of how this judge's interpretation was incorrect?
brouhajoe 7 months ago
"Its human nature to have a bias when u own/have objects/feelings."-All judges, in all cases, have their own personal feelings and biases, yes. It is their profession, their role in our society, to overcome or set aside their personal feelings and simply interpret the law as it's written, which each judge does to varying degrees of success from case to case. So I ask again, do you have a specific point you'd like to make regarding this judge's ruling in this case?
brouhajoe 7 months ago
"LOL do u even know what a republic is?"-Yes, do you know what a constitutional republic is, because that's what we're talking about here...as I said.
brouhajoe 7 months ago
"Who the hell said I was a republican?"-No one, including me, though I see the implication in how I worded it. Let's instead break it down into binary politics (as much as I disregard that standard generally) for the sake of this convorsation. It doesn't really matter if you're a registered Rep. or not, your argument was made by the conservative/libertarian/Republican "right" over and over following the ruling. From Hannity to Rush to Savage...etc
brouhajoe 7 months ago
I commented on hearing the argument you used; which you've since reiterated saying a "homo judge pissed all over a MAJORITY vote," from Republicans, and how hypocritical that is given that traditionally it's the "right" complaining that the "left" doesn't follow the constitution and thinks this is a direct democracy rather than a constitutional republic.
brouhajoe 7 months ago
And that's my point. Earlier you said "if you like that kinda of government, you know where to move too." What I'm trying to get across to you is that we HAVE that kind of gov't here in America. The one you seem to advocate sounds more akin to a direct democracy.
brouhajoe 7 months ago
@brouhajoe sorry man, im not gonna waste my time reading your book. Like i said at the beginning, 2 years ago, u cant convince me and i cant convince you so just leave it alone.
im done with this thread
zxxxier 7 months ago
@zxxxier Yet you've posted thrice in the past day and a half lol. If you can't back up your arguments when challenged then why make them? A possition is only as valid as the critisism it can withstand and address. To say nothing can change your mind is cowardly, arrogant and ignorant. Everyone is wrong about something, because no one is right about everything. If your opinions have never been challenged and altered due to new information coming in, then they are pathetically inept.
brouhajoe 7 months ago
@brouhajoe this is my last response to you because somehow u figured i cant back up my pts or argue with your pts. your such a joke.
i dont wanna read your long winded book because its a waste of time responding to everything, i have much better things to do then argue on the internet. obviously you have all the time in the world
i posted 3 times WOW, and it took less than 1min to type.
but whatever makes you feel better at night buddy.
zxxxier 7 months ago
@zxxxier Doesn't matter whether the judge was gay or not, his ruling passed. And the government didn't spit on everyone's faces, it spit on the faces of stubborn bigots.
You don't think people found biblical justification (or even constitutional justification) for the subjugation of blacks and women? Look who's calling someone's logic failed and laughable!
Give it up, people who think like you are (thankfully) becoming a thing of the past.
BitterFlower216 7 months ago
@BitterFlower216 Of course it doesnt matter to u, u got what u wanted and could care less. the government didnt spit on everyone faces? U serious? That homo judge pissed all over a MAJORITY vote. get that through your head.
i wasnt even talking about bible justification lol. like i said, your logic is so fail you dont even realize it when comparing the two.
zxxxier 7 months ago
@zxxxier “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Constitution of the United States of America, The Bill of Rights, Amendment I
BitterFlower216 7 months ago
How is we and who is you - are how you think? R U gay?
eperalta011 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very well articulated.
bearnurse1 2 years ago 2
This is a great video. You should make more of them ; )
CitizenWorm 3 years ago 2
...said the woman who's internets exploded and who hasn't made a video in 23 years.
I'm so very glad to have you back with us:)
brouhajoe 3 years ago
not sure how I missed this...
we go way back on this issue and I won't clutter up your comment section too much ;~}
This is an issue that I'm less willing to discuss but demand. The discussion is getting old and I'm also less inclined to be as tolerant as I once was with the "Marraige = one man and one woman" crowd since they seem so bewildered by our reaction to their intolerance.
jrsnyderjr 3 years ago
JR, clutter away, I'm always very glad to hear from you, especially since you haven't made a new video in 8 months;)
"Bewildered" seems about right, especially when they are otherwise generally nice people (like Jack here, or Veritas48) it seems. The comment Jack left me on this video sums it up. The reason I try and keep these videos polite and conversational (when I can) is not because I'm not angry about this, but because it's usually a more fruitful tactic in the end.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
Since when does equality = good? Isn't that the idea communist exploited? Equality is an impossibility especially legally. Also polygamist and incestuous couples been getting married too so what happens if they organize and rise up. Will there marriages be recognized or dismissed? Historically bigotry = more bigotry so we shall see.
lukewarmstorm 3 years ago
Five big ones for this video — and I only wish I could thumbs-up your comments too — such a shame the video author doesn't get that facility themselves. Brilliant stuff!
TheraminTrees 3 years ago 4
Thanks very much Theramin. If (and only if) you find the time, I'd love your thoughts on my last video as well (War Abolition). By the way, I showed the family your new video over Christmas, and they all loved it as much as I do:)
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"To be just frank, its more like you start to "notice" guys and your dick turning hard when you think of men"
loooooool.
Your ranting and raving (21 replies? LOL) would have been less long winded, and less filled with legal ineptitude, if you weren't so angsty and keen to include comical details like this. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Tommy was here !! Merry Christmas !!
TOMMYfromtheBRONX 3 years ago
Merry Christmas Tommy, to you and yours.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
I see what the ruckus is about. I simply don't understand why people cannot look toward and within the allowance of happiness. This is a subject which does not distinguish someone being upon harm, injury, or wrongdoing. Those who would be in favor to be together and receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples; life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I realize that the constitution being rewritten plays a role in this subject, but this is for favor of said pursuit.
ReasonOfAbortion 3 years ago 6
well said
armando3210 3 years ago 2
jow
BellaTheHappyLoser 3 years ago
LOL. Hello Iva:)
brouhajoe 3 years ago
1)I don't know why people say gay people are trying to change the definition of marriage. I have learnt that in the USA marriage laws are NOT defined between a man and women. Marriage on a federal level is GENDER NEUTRAL and thus is not defined between a man and a woman. If it were defined between a man and a woman why would there be a need for the PROPOSED Federal Marriage Amendment which is a proposed amendment to the US constitution that would re-define marriage between one man and one woman?
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
2) Is thsi true brouhajoe? Think about it, if marriage was already legally defined between a man and a woman then why would you need an amendment to the US constitution to re-define marriage in the US between a man and a woman? Straight people are trying to legally change
the definition of marriage not gay people. Gay people are demanding that CURRENT laws should be enforced. Marriage on a federal level is gender neutral.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
3) If gay people are allowed to marry in the USA, NO current laws will change. This is because marriage laws in the USA are already gender neutral and already built for TWO HUMANS to enter into. If polygamy were to become legal it would mean a full change in current law and a redefinition of marriage
making existing marriages between a man and a woman null and void under the law. This is not the case for allowing two people of the same gender to marry.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
4) I now this was not brought up but kids and animals will NEVER get marriage rights because USA laws are made for HUMANS and only humans and marriage is only a contract, and a minor cannot legally enter into a contract.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
5) Same sex marriage has exised since the roman times as well so it's been around for a long time it's just now in this century getting political. Gay marriage is not a new thing. Its in recorded history. The first gay couple in the USA that LEGALLY asked for marriage rights was in 1972. Same-Sex marriage has been on the table in civil law for 36 years.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
6) STRAIGHT PEOPLE are the ones trying to legally cahnge teh definition. And how are gay people trying to re-refine marriage in law? Look at Massachusetts. Gay people can get married there but Im pretty sure straight people still can. So what law did homosexuals re-define? NOTHING! The Supreme Court of Massachusetts simply enforced gay peoples CURRENT Constitution rights which includes gender neutral marriage.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
7) For example, Prop 8 is a re-definition of marriage between a man aand a women. And any states in american that have banned same-sex marriage have only just created a law that RE-DEFINED marriage between a man and a women! So why dont all you straight people stop re-defining marriage and denying gay people their current Constitutional rights.
(brouhajoe: If I have said anything wrong/misleading in my comments please correct me)
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol. What bullshit. Everything is wrong in your comments. Black's Law Dictionary has defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman" for more than a century. It is not "gender neutral."
And "no federal court has recognized that this right includes the right to marry a person of the same sex...the right to marry a person of the same sex is not a fundamental right under the Constitution." Wilson v. Ake.
Oops!
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your 1972 couple lost their case. The Supreme Court dismissed the case on the merits because it did not present a substantial federal question.
And what's this nonsense about Roman times and Roman gay marriage? The Theodosian code outlawed gay marriage. So 1. it's always been "political"; 2. even the Romans thought gay marriage was gay (and shouldn't be lawful); 3. what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition? America is not Rome.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why would existing marriages between a man and a woman be null and void if polygamous marriages are allowed? An illogical and unreasoned assertion, no different from asserting that gay marriages will render straight marriages "null and void."
A dumb argument from anti-gay marriage advocates, and a dumb argument from you.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Marriage on a federal level is GENDER NEUTRAL and thus is not defined between a man and a woman."
Federal courts have ruled otherwise. So you're wrong.
"If it were defined between a man and a woman why would there be a need for the PROPOSED Federal Marriage Amendment"
To codify what has long been the conventional understanding, so that gaylords like you can't rely on judicial fiat to change the definition. Precedent might be against you today, but it can be overruled. Better safe than sorry.
sklanger 3 years ago
(1of11)Regarding Wilson v. Ake and "Your 1972 couple lost their case" This does not mean that those were constitutional rulings. It will be over turned eventually. In 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick it was found legal to declare same-sex sex a crime and it was not unconstitutional to do so. This was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 by the Fourteenth Amendment. So what happened between those 17 years? The Fourteenth Amendment did not change. So why was same-sex sex suddenly protected via the
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 3
(2of11)14th amendment in 2003 but not in 1986? Its called progress! And what Wilson v. Ake shows is that gay marriages have no full faith and credit, which is unconstitutional and what ultimately makes this a federal issue. Same-sex marriage WILL eventually go to the Supreme Court. And secular law is on our side. Regarding "Black's Law Dictionary has defined marriage.... " & "even the Romans thought gay marriage was gay". "WAS GAY??" What meaning was behind the word gay when you wrote this?
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 3
(3of11)Was it to mean "stupid"? That meaning is not in the in the dictionary at all! So why do you use it? And you also used the word "Gaylord". Is that word in the dictionary? No! It's funny how straight people welcome this "new definition" of the word gay and say that "words change meaning all the time". But on the other hand you cry like idiots and tell us gay people to "stop "re-defining" the word marriage". Hypocrites! Straights will contradict themselves a 1000 times over if it will
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 2
(4of11) accomplish any negativity towards gay people in society. "what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition? " What does giving black people equal rights got to do with the American legal tradition? What does interracial marriage got to do with the American legal tradition? Equal treatment of black people just started to happen about 50 years ago! And how old is the USA? What does giving women equal rights in a marriage got to do with American legal tradition or traditional
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(5of11) marriage in general? Or giving women any equal treatment? Its called progress you idiot! Your definition of marriage is a re-definition of marriage itself! Throughout history marriage meant many things. For example: One man, many women. One man and one girl. One man and sex slave. One man and religious idol. One man and a "holy spirit". Marriage has always been an evolving institution. Marriage of today, where a loving couple decides to get married on equal terms is still a
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(6of11) relatively new idea, and still a novelty in much of the world (like in most muslim countries). Giving women equal rights in a marriage is a new concept! Marriage has been changed in every fucking way possible! And again like I said in my previous comments, same sex marriage is not something new at all. Its an old concept! So it has been part of some tradition in some cultures. So much for your "conventional understanding". Societys "conventional understanding" of marriage has been
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 2
(7of11) changing over and over before you was even born! You really think marriages between a man and a woman in the 1950s or before were like what it is today? Conventional understanding is changing to "marriage between two loving consenting adults regardless of gender". And some people in the USA and throughout the world already view that as their understanding of marriage. "Why would existing marriages between a man and a woman be null and void if polygamous marriages
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 2
(8of11) are allowed?" Because current marriage law does not care for gender or race. It does however on the amount of people entering into a marriage contract. So if marriage became polygamous, it would mean a change in current law as marriage would be defined between 1 man 3 wives or 1 women 3 husbands etc. This is not the case if same sex marriage was legal. "To codify what has long been the conventional understanding, so that gaylords like you can't rely on judicial fiat to change the
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(9of11) definition." So basically what you are saying is that you want to CHANGE the definition before we do? Again why is that necessary if "Federal courts have ruled otherwise"? Why do they need to "codify what has long been the conventional understanding" IF THEY ALREADY HAVE???? Idiot. Like I already said: Look at Massachusetts. Gay people can get married there but Im pretty sure straight people still can. So what law did homosexuals re-define? NOTHING! The Supreme Court of Massachusetts
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(10of11) simply enforced gay peoples CURRENT Constitution rights which includes gender neutral marriage. Any states in american that have "banned" same-sex marriage have only just created a law that RE-DEFINED marriage between a man and a women! "Precedent might be against you today, but it can be overruled." Youre right it will be. So quit changing current law and thus stopping people from getting their equal rights.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(11of11) And gay marriage is in past cultures, its part of tradition and same-sex marriage does not stop you practicing your tradition! This is not the first time the USA has defined marriage to suit their bigotry. Remember anti-miscegenation laws?
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL. More lame racial comparisons. Anti-miscegenation laws deal with race. Discrimination based on race is presumptively invalid under federal law. By contrast, the Supreme Court has never placed sexual orientation in the same category as race. In fact, sexual orientation has been held by the Court to be a less protected category than race.
Your retarded racial comparisons have been rejected time and again by the Supreme Court. Once again, race != sexual orientation. Learn about it.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Massachusetts used judicial fiat to re-interpret its own state constitution to allow for gay marriage -- it redefined "marriage" under state law, not federal law. This is what I mean when I said that precedent can be overruled.
You're the one changing current law by using the courts to overrule precedent to get a result in your favor (like in Mass.). At least be honest about what you're doing, instead of pretending that you're not changing anything. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"So basically what you are saying is that you want to CHANGE the definition before we do? "
No. Read that again. To codify "the conventional understanding" means to codify the current legal definition as expressed in federal law, common law, and authoritative legal dictionaries into statutory law.
Try learning the difference between codified law and the other sources of law. It'll save you from asking dumb questions next time.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Because current marriage law does not care for gender or race."
Wrong. It cares for gender. Federal courts have held so. It's exactly the same situation with gay marriage. You're just discriminating against polygamists like you claim others are discriminating against gays.
You're a hypocrite. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"You really think marriages between a man and a woman in the 1950s or before were like what it is today?"
We're talking about the legal definition of marriage. Not "what it is like." The legal definition as defined by such authoritative dictionaries as Black's Law Dictionary has been the same for more than a century. Marriage is the "legal union between one man and one woman."
If you want to change the definition, try voting to amend your laws. That's how democracies work.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"What does giving black people equal rights got to do with the American legal tradition? "
Erm... the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? The Reconstruction era's Civil Rights Act? Among other things, a civil war was fought over it. LOL. This just goes to show how historically clueless you are. Women's rights? The democratically enacted 19th Amendment. These things have everything to do with American legal tradition.
I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL you tedious queen. It was a joke. I used it colloquially. (Just like how you're not really the queen.)
By contrast, courts don't usually indulge in colloquialisms. Casual word usage is one thing, legal definitions that depend on precedent and settled meaning is quite another.
You're confusing the two. So there's nothing "hypocritical" here. Legal definitions and casual usage are two different things. You're unable to tell the difference, which is why you're a gaytard. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes. Gay marriages "have no full faith and credit" under the Defense of Marriage Act. Read the FF&C clause: it empowers Congress to "prescribe...the effect" of "proceedings" like gay marriages, meaning that they can tell the states that they're not obligated to give effect to gay marriages from another state. It's not unconstitutional. Far from it -- it is a constitutional exercise of Congress's regulatory powers under the full faith and credit clause.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"This does not mean that those were constitutional rulings."
LOL. The same applies to gay marriage. Gay marriage was illegal at first. Then it was made legal in California. Then proposition 8 amended the state constitution and made it illegal again. What changed? Precedents can be overruled, constitutions can be amended,
What you're saying cuts against you as much as the other side. Prop 8 demonstrates this very well. You're just butthurt because you're an irrational, angry gay activist. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
(1of21)"Anti-miscegenation laws deal with race". And the Defense of Marriage Act deals with orientation and gender. And discrimination based on sexual orientation will be presumptively invalid under law. What do you think is slowly happening in western countries?. "Supreme Court has never placed sexual orientation in the same category as race. In fact, sexual orientation has been held by the Court to be a less protected category than race." And race was once never protected via the federal court
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 2
(2of21) at all. For example, the fair housing act only protected religion etc. this law was changed. Race was added in 1964 and sex in 1974. The law changed. Sexual orientation will be added soon. And already has in some state constitutions. Whats your point in this argument? Laws change to recognise civil rights of others. Like the civil rights of homosexuals. And marriage is a civil right. Things will change to protect homosexuals. Again, what do you think is slowly happening in western
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 2
(3of21)countries? And you said "what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition?" What I meant was that American legal tradition had nothing to do with black rights AT FIRST. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments did not come originally in American law, they were added later. This and womens voting rights were not part of the American legal tradition for many years. They originally were NOT part of the American legal tradition! The 19th Amendment happened in the 1920s how many
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 3
(4of21)years was that after the 17th century? The American civil war did not happen until the 18th century. In 50-100+ years time gay rights will be part of the American legal tradition and laws such as Lawrence v. Texas have been part of the American legal system for five years and it will forever be. The civil rights that gay people are obtaining now is history in the making. So it was a weak and stupid argument when you said "what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition?"
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 3
(5of21)Traditions themselves change or get abandoned over time! Regarding full faith and credit: I meant its unconstitutional in the sense that you are denying gay people their fundamental right to marriage and it violates the equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment. Full faith and credit says that states must recognise marriage outside other states. What is the RATIONAL reason for not giving Full faith and credit to same-sex marriages? If one state finds it sensible to recognise
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(6of21) same-sex marriage then why is Full faith and credit not given to these consenting adults? Because their marriages have two penises and two vaginas involved? To uphold a definition of marriage that was not in the Constitution? Or was it religion dogma? And the Defence of Marriage Act can be repealed. And it will eventually :) The reason it became legal in California is because current constitutional law allows it to be. The California Constitution Article One provides the same rights to
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(7of21)its citizens as the Bill of Rights, plus the 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law. Judges have a job to objectively enforce the constitution rights of all its citizens, even if the decision is regarded as "unfair" or "wrong" by the bigoted masses. And thats what they did. Prop 8 changes current Constitutional law and re-defines that states marriage law which takes away a minoritys right. And that right is being denied based on a biological trait that is unchangeable
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(8of21) because homosexuality is not a choice, thats what makes this a civil rights issue. Youre denying people their rights based on a physical biologic trait that we have no control over or a decision in. And Im Irrational? Gay people have been getting married for decades now with symbolic ceremonies and have been raising children for many years. They will keep doing this even if same-sex marriage becomes legal or not!. Whats your rational basis for denying a group of people their basic
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 4
(9of21) human rights under the constitutional law so they can protect their families? To get protection for something they were already doing for decades now and will continue to? This does not take away your right to get married to the opposite sex. So why then? Because the dictionary said so?! And Im angry? This might be an example of psychological projection. It's like saying, "Why are blacks so angry? Just because we oppress them?" You're stupid. And no, Im not discriminating against
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 4
(10of21) polygamists because polygamy is a decision. Homosexuality is not, its biologic where there is no choice, so equal rights for polygamists dont count. And why are you so eager to use heterosexual polygamy as an argument against same-sex marriage. Doesnt polygamy go against you vision of a one man one women marriage anyway? Dumbass. And there was a case in Utah and another in 2004 where two men tried to make their polygamy with their wives legal by comparing polygamy to homosexuality
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 4
(11of21) and same-sex marriage rights. What was the outcome of those cases? Homosexuality is not a behaviour anyway if thats what you think; it is a biologic state of being. Has been proven to be. Is heterosexuality a behaviour? One can be an abstinent homosexual for example or a heterosexual who enjoys anal sex. It is not a sex act or behaviour that defines one as homosexual or heterosexual, it is the biology of one attraction compulsion, regardless of how one acts on that compulsion.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 3
(12of21)And remember that compulsion is not due to some sort of dysfunction. The medical definition of "dysfunction" is "impaired in function; especially of a bodily system or organ." Homosexuals have a perfectly functioning biochemical makeup. We find out we are gay the same way you find out you are straight. I knew I was gay when I hit puberty, when I was 11 years old. Its not a choice. To be just frank, its more like you start to "notice" guys and your dick turning hard when you think of men
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 3
(13of21) sexually. Change the words 'men' to 'women' and 'guys' to girls' and that is a typical STRAIGHT boy. Did I have prior sexual experiences before this? No. Not until MANY YEARS after. For lesbians its like straight girls go through - but with an attraction for women! Can you say all of this for a polygamist? Is polygamy a sexual orientation? Are there any 11 year old polygamists? You are wrong in equating homosexuality to polygamy. And im a gaytard? Idiot. Regarding "courts don't usually
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 4
(14of21) indulge in colloquialisms..legal definitions that depend on precedent and settled meaning is quite another." and your tedious and stupid dictionary arguments: You are still a hypocrite here. What you don't get is and what YOU established without realising it is that dictionary definitions don't control our lives. They don't on the word "gay" (for you) so why "marriage"? Both are in the dictionary. And same-sex marriage has been practiced in many past cultures so their definition of
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 4
(15of21)marriage was different (social or legal). And the definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a re-definition of marriage itself. Dictionary definitions change all the time. They do that naturally as we in society over generations change the way we use words. What we do is examined by the people writing dictionaries on how we use words and then dictionaries are written to reflect what we do, e.g. recognising legal same-sex marriages in society and to recognise that gay people are
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 4
(16of21) productive taxpaying members of society who are naturally compelled to pair with the same sex therefore deserve basic human rights to protect themselves and their families! We don't do what we do to conform to dictionaries you fucking moron. If our culture finds it sensible to expand our concept of marriage to same-sex couples (which does not take away your right to get married to the opposite-sex you dick! (So what's the fucking problem?)) then dictionary definitions will change over
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 5
(17of21) time to reflect that. This may/will be the case for countries like Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Nepal, and maybe Sweden.etc. and soon the USA. Even if the legal definition were one man and one woman (in Mass, California etc.) it does not matter, it matters what it can be. Once upon a time the definition of "voter" (legally and in the dictionary) was "white man". But now women can vote and people of other races can too. Why don't you bitch about the
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 8
(18of21)traditional definition of "voter" as you do with marriage you dickhead?! This idea that you have to stick with concepts 100-2000+ years old is stupid. Did they discover some ultimate truth 100-2000+ years ago? They got it right and we shouldn't touch that? Get real. Traditions are not valid things to point to and say "that is how we should live". We ought to live the way that works best for people that optimises happiness, freedom and equality (which is in American law). And crying out a
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 5
(19of21) legal definition, or a dictionary definition or a tradition to dictate to society "we have to do it like that" is closed minded and makes no sense. Should we stick to a definition of marriage that was created in a time where treatment of homosexuals was to kill them? Or should we move into the 21st century? Are you suggesting that people would not know how to live unless somebody rights it down for them? Like so many religious nuts? If barbaric and immoral books like the bible and the
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 5
(20of21)quran and the majority who follow them and see these books as the ultimate "truth" than anything else (that says gay people should be murdered no less!) will not stop homosexuals from getting their deserving rights, what makes you think your pathetic dictionary book arguments will have any impact? And is that the core of your reasons against gay marriage anyway? Do you even care that homosexuals get all marriage rights if it were called something else other than marriage? And in case you
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 4
(21of21) have not realised, but marriage rights for homosexuals and other rights (fair housing act to include sexual orientation, dont ask dont tell repeal, gaining sexual orientation and gender identity protection rights in employment across all of the united states etc.) will never be off the table. Ever. Until we get them. :)
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
21? 21 replies of legally inept, factually worthless drivel? LOL. You're just ranting because you're owned on the facts and law. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, it's the reverse. I'm all for homosexuals calling their unions gay "marriage" as long as they don't receive the same marital benefits as normal couples do. Resources are best allocated to traditional marriages as it encourages the social unit best situated for raising children.
Since gays tend not to have children, giving them all the monetary benefits designed to encourage child rearing is an inefficient use of resources. This is just sound public policy.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Except that authoritative legal dictionaries have defined marriage as the "the legal union between one man and one woman" for more than a century.
You have no contrary authority. So you rant and rave about the settled common law definition of marriage and about how it will "change." So you're finally admitting that you're the one who is changing the definition of marriage from its original meaning in the American legal tradition.
You're owned.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Can you say all of this for a polygamist? Is polygamy a sexual orientation? "
Bisexuals by definition will have to engage in polygamy if they're "in love" with both a man and a woman. You're owned again, gaytard. :)
Why are you discriminating against bisexuals? Oops. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"why is Full faith and credit not given to these consenting adults?"
Because under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, Congress may "prescribe...the effect" of "proceedings" like gay marriage and it has done so in the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that no state is obligated to give effect to gay marriages from another state. (I've explained this previously.) You must be retarded. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Regarding full faith and credit: I meant its unconstitutional in the sense that you are denying gay people their fundamental right to marriage and it violates the equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment."
LOL. Do you even know what you're typing? The FF&C clause is separate from the EP clause. It can't "violate" the EP clause as I've explained several times already. Sorry, you're just an angry gay activist bleating ignorantly about laws that you don't understand. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL. You're the weak and stupid one dicklick. So the 13th-15th Amendments are not part of American legal tradition? That's what YOU said earlier. Now you're trying to change your tune after you were owned the fuck out on it. :)
So, what do the Romans have to do with American legal tradition? You can't answer.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My point is that the laws haven't changed. And in the case of Prop 8, they've changed back to the status quo. And as I've repeatedly said, feel free to convince your fellow citizens to vote with you. If they vote for gay marriage, by all means! What you're being bitchslapped on are your multiple false claims that the Constitution and federal law has ALREADY been changed to "allow" gay marriage. That's just a false statement of the law.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"discrimination based on sexual orientation will be presumptively invalid under law."
Wrong. Read Romer among other cases. Laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation need only pass augmented rational basis review -- the laxest possible standard. Such laws have a strong presumption of validity "even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous." Romer v. Evans, at 632.
You're quite simply ignorant of the law.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"And race was once never protected via the federal court"
Sure. Before the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. But once those democratically enacted amendments passed, race became "protected" under federal law. Until and unless you defeat Proposition 8 via democratic means, or amend the Constitution via democratic means to give maximum protection to sexual orientation, you simply have no case.
Deal with it.
sklanger 3 years ago
SUP BRO !!
TOMMYfromtheBRONX 3 years ago
Heyyy, what's up Tommy!
brouhajoe 3 years ago
who is making you live under the stairs?
bubonicnate 3 years ago
This weird S&M dude and his wife. They call me "The People,"...but it's just me down here. 'S'OK though, I've escaped into the walls and I fuck with them constantly.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
does sklanger come over and stick his peen through the steps sometimes when he is fapping to his own ego -- or does he only do that here in the comments on youtube?
bubonicnate 3 years ago
Haha. Thankfully, so far, only here in the comments...but don't give him/her any ideas.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The Defense of Marriage Act is...an unconstitutional law."
You didn't read the full clause. Article IV also provides that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" -- Congress may therefore "prescribe...the effect" of "such acts, records, and proceedings" hatched in another state. DOMA prescribes that gay marriages are not to be given effect in a different state.
Sounds constitutional to me.
sklanger 3 years ago
I hope everyone takes note that you quoted the whole claus, then re-quoted it, removing the middle part so that it better fits what you want it to mean. It does not say Congress can "prescribe...the effect" of such acts, as you put it, it says Congress can prescribe the "manner in which such acts, records, & proceedings SHALL BE PROVED" (emphasis added), & the "effect" of their being proved. Most Sup Court cases regarding this claus have dealt with how sentences are applied from state to state.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And? You've just admitted that Congress may prescribe the effect thereof -- of the manner in which "acts, records, and proceedings" shall be authenticated (i.e., "proved").
Authenticated marriages from a different State can thus be prescribed by Congress to have nil effect. "DOMA is an example of Congress exercising its powers under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to determine the effect that any public act, record, or judicial proceeding [etc.] has on the other States." WIlson v. Ake.
sklanger 3 years ago
so only certain religions have rights?
TheUndeniable 3 years ago
you make the BEST vlogs....this is no exception! 5 stars and favd!
jakluk4 3 years ago
regarding the constitution...
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
if my religion believes that glbt marriage is a sacrament, to deny my religion the same rights as other religions is unconstitutional... yes?
TheUndeniable 3 years ago
Not necessarily, as the Supreme Court ruling on Reynolds v. US established and defined the "separation of church and state," and argued against polygamous marriages as a religious right. Basically, they said that the establishment clause did not mean you can do whatever you want, like...say...murder someone, and say it's your religious duty. Also, nobody is talking about forcing churches to recognize or perform homosexual marriages, we're talking about civil marriage.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
"to deny my religion the same rights as other religions is unconstitutional... yes?"
No. Reynolds v. U.S. held that the regulation and criminalization of polygamous marriage is a valid and constitutional exercise of federal power, and does not violate the First Amendment.
For "to permit [religious polygamy] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Brown v. Board? LOL.
Brown only said that "separate but equal" is impermissible in the context of race. It does not apply to sex or sexual orientation. Indeed, "separate but equal" is fine in the sexual context -- separate restrooms for males and females are obviously constitutional.
sklanger 3 years ago
"Brown only said that "separate but equal" is impermissible in the context of race."
No, it didn't. Race, and more specifically segregation in public schools and Plessy v. Ferguson, was the context in which the court made it's decision, but the scope and application of the decision was not restricted by race. The court ruled that "separate but equal" violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes it did. Brown concerned race. Its scope is restricted to race, or at best, other suspect classifications like alienage, ethnicity, or nationality. See Carolene Products.
Sex is NOT a suspect classification under the Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence. Nor is sexual orientation.
LOL. Who are you trying to kid?
sklanger 3 years ago
"Brown concerned race"-Yes
"Its scope is restricted to race,"-No
"or at best, other suspect classifications like alienage, ethnicity, or nationality."-Exactly, so again...NO, it's not restricted to race. Sex is not orientation, & orientation is not included or precluded in Brown v. Board (obviously)...I'm arguing that it applies, as one's sex, orientation, race...& so on, are all biological matters. Bathrooms are not analogous, as there is no state or federal law restricting unisex restrooms.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It IS restricted to race. Can you cite any case that extends the scope of 'separate but equal' impermissibility to sex, or sexual orientation? You can't. You're clueless.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
" there is no state or federal law restricting unisex restrooms."
It doesn't have to be state or federal law. Public schools with separate restrooms for males and females would be enough to trigger an equal protection claim under your ridiculous theory. What, you think only promulgated laws are subject to equal protection challenge? More cluelessness.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm still waiting for you to name a case in which "separate but equal" impermissibility doctrine has been extended to sexual orientation. Has it even been extended outside of the racial context?
Please name that case. If you can't, you concede that Brown is restricted to race, and applicable only to race.
Time to put up or shut up. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"there is no state or federal law restricting unisex restrooms."
Even this is wrong. Maryland public restroom legislation and the California Code of Regulations mandate that "separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex."
I'm quite sure other states or a federal agency like the OHSA has some byzantine law requiring the same.
Separate restrooms for men and women -- "separate but equal" -- are unconstitutional? LOL. Try again.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And you haven't answered my question. If Brown, as you claim, does not concern race, does it mean that separate male and female toilets -- "separate but equal" -- are unconstitutional?
The impermissibility of "separate but equal" applies only to race. That the Supreme Court has never held sex to be in the same category of 'protected' classes like race says it all.
sklanger 3 years ago
"If Brown, as you claim, does not concern race..."
I never claimed Brown v. Board doesn't "concern" race, I said it is not restricted to race. I've repeated this point a few times now, yet you insist on misstating my arguments. You too have admitted that Brown is not restricted to race alone, mentioning nationality and alienage, neither of which are races...so what's the disagreement?
brouhajoe 3 years ago
"the Supreme Court has never held sex to be in the same category of 'protected' classes like race" Yes, as stated above in another comment, The Supreme Court holds sex and orientation in different categories of discrimination from race, a detail that is lacking in your argument.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
"The Court holds sex and orientation in different categories of discrimination from race, a detail that is lacking in your argument."
More like you can't read. I wrote that sexual orientation is "accorded less constitutional protection than laws targetting religion" because unlike religion, it is not a suspect class. If it's not a suspect class, it is naturally understood to be in the category along with all other non-suspect classes, and subject to rational basis review aka "less protection."
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
By "concern" I meant concerning race ONLY, synonymous with "restricted to race." This was implicit, but apparently you have difficulty grasping the point. No one is misstating your argument. You're claiming that Brown does not concern race only, whereas I do. Consequently, you disagree with me.
But there's more. You ALSO claim that Brown extends to non-suspect classes like sex and orientation -- something I never claimed, and an obvious point on which we disagree.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now that we're obviously disagreeing, I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. If Brown's "separate but equal" impermissibility doctrine applies to sex, separate restrooms for men and women that are "separate but equal" would be unconstitutional. But they aren't. Why? Because SBE is not, in fact, impermissible in the sexual context -- Brown does not extend beyond the racial context. If you disagree, cite a case that extends Brown beyond race, and into sex.
You have no case.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"You too have admitted that Brown is not restricted to race alone"
I admitted no such thing. I said that AT BEST, the impermissibility of "separate but equal" MAY potentially be extended to other suspect classes. I did not say that they were. Accordingly, it is restricted to race.
You're also being disingenuous. Because ultimately, the impermissibility of "separate but equal" does not extend to sex or orientation, which are not suspect classes.
Your race = sexual orientation analogy is bunk.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pederasty has also been around in many cultures throughout recorded history. It's known as pedophilia today. Is pederasty ok then?
Cannibalism has also had a long and storied history in several cultures throughout history. Should it be legal then?
LOL. What a lame argument.
sklanger 3 years ago
Lame indeed;)
Pederasty, Polygamy...Cannibalism (lol)...YES, all of these things have existed in the past. I NEVER, however, said that this fact makes these things OK...you're just making that shit up to argue against because you have no argument against what I DID say.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
The fact that homosexual marriages have been practiced throughout recorded history, and recognized in many cultures, means that it is a false statement to claim that "1 Man, 1 Woman" is the "traditional" form of marriage......THAT"S ALL I SAID, I never said anything about that making it OK.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're claiming it is "traditional" hence it's OK. You curiously neglect to mention that these traditions are not the traditions of the United States.
The "fact" that some cultures in history practised homosexual marriage has no bearing on whether Americans under American law and American legal tradition should do the same.
If you cast your net wide enough, you're bound to dredge up historical cases for any crap you care to justify. It's just not relevant to AMERICAN legal tradition.
sklanger 3 years ago
"You're claiming it is "traditional" hence it's OK."-NO, I AM NOT.
I'm claiming that the classification of "1 Man, 1 Woman" as "traditional" is not accurate. I honestly don't know how I can make that point any clearer for you.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I'm claiming that the classification of "1 Man, 1 Woman" as "traditional" is not accurate."
It is accurate, since he meant AMERICAN tradition, especially AMERICAN legal tradition. A century's worth of Black's Law Dictionaries define marriage as a "union between one man and one woman."
How is gay marriage in Greece or Rome or Japan or some remote culture relevant to American legal tradition? They're an irrelevance. The Romans outlawed gay marriage too. Is that relevant?
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Our Constitution does not define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman."
So polygamous marriages are fine? If not, why not? Why should gays be allowed to marry, but polygamists not?
Right, the Supreme Court has already ruled on that. "So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed." Reynolds v. United States (1878).
A bit unfair on the Mormons, no?
sklanger 3 years ago
I love Reynolds v. US, it's a great read.
Anyway, is it unfair on the Mormons? Well, maybe, maybe not...but either way, it's a separate issue.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's not a separate issue. Why should gays but not Mormons be allowed to marry in a non-traditional manner? 'Equal protection' for gays but not for Mormons?
sklanger 3 years ago
Is Mormonism a biological trait?
Also, you cited Reynolds v. US, have you read the sections where they explain why they believed polygamy was a burden on/danger to society? Are you arguing that homosexual marriage would have the SAME effects on society as addressed in the ruling?...Because if not, then YES, it is a separate issue.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Religion, like race, is a suspect class under Supreme Court equal protection jurisprudence. Since sexual orientation is not a suspect class, it is accorded less constitutional protection than laws targetting religion. So no, it's not a separate issue at all.
If religious marriage practices may be validly circumscribed under the Constitution, homosexual marriage practices may be, a fortiori, validly circumscribed.
sklanger 3 years ago
"Religion, like race, is a suspect class under Supreme Court equal protection jurisprudence." Correct, and homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is currently under Rational Basis, which means that the gov't can discriminate by law against a group if, and only if, it can be shown to relate to a legitimate gov't interest. I'll leave it to you to argue the legitimate gov't interest of denying equal marriage rights.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down attempts to discriminate against homosexuals at the state level...see Romer v. Evans, 1996, and another case in '03 regarding sodomy laws, the name of which ( I apologize) I can't remember at the moment.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
Except Romer v. Evans is not about gay marriage. The fact that SOME discriminatory laws did not pass rational basis review does not mean that all discriminatory laws will not pass rational basis review.
To the contrary, such laws have a strong presumption of validity "even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous." Romer v. Evans, at 632. Romer merely restates what I've been saying all along -- that race != orientation.
sklanger 3 years ago
lol? The case you "can't remember" is Lawrence v. Texas, and you're citing it for authority? That's funny because it owns you. It explicitly disclaims being about gay marriage, and specifically states that the case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." It is therefore inapplicable to gay marriages.
Who do you think you're kidding?
You have no case. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Correct? So you withdraw your silly "biological traits" argument, since religion -- like race -- is a suspect class, but has nothing to do with biology. That took you long enough.
There's no need for me to reinvent the wheel. Courts have already held that there is a legitimate rationale for keeping to the traditional notion of marriage, which is that it encourage[s] procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." CEP v. Bruning.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Black's Law Dictionary (1891): marriage is "one man and one woman united in law for life."
Black's Law Dictionary (1990): marriage is the "legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Black's Law Dictionary (1999): marriage is the "union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
Black's Law Dictionary (2004): marriage is the "union of a couple as husband and wife," a husband is "[a] married man;" a wife is "[a] married woman."
Who is changing the legal definition again?
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Black's Law Dictionary (1891): marriage is one man and one woman united in law for life."
Black's Law Dictionary (1990): marriage is the "legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Black's Law Dictionary (1999): marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
Black's Law Dictionary (2004): marriage is the union of a couple as husband and wife," a husband is [a] married man; a wife is [a] married woman.
Who is changing the legal definition again?
sklanger 3 years ago
Quote where the word "marriage" is defined in our Constitution, the law of the land, as that is clearly to what I am referring in this video. There are people who are trying to "change" our Constitution to federally define "marriage" as being exclusively between a man and woman.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
As stated in the video as well, homosexual marriages have been practiced and recognized throughout recorded history...So, the Black's Law Dictionary notwithstanding, this Amendment (or change) to our Constitution would be a "change" to the way marriages have been practiced and recognized historically.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"throughout recorded history."
Roman, Chinese, or Greek law is not American law. American law is based on English common law at the time of the founding. And there is no common law recognition of gay marriage.
So your historical nonsense is irrelevant.
sklanger 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Constitution is not the only source of legal definitions. You said "legal definition." I quoted you several legal definitions of marriage from the standard law dictionary in use in the United States.
You are trying to change the definition. Not anyone else.
sklanger 3 years ago
Yes, in talking about the Constitution, I said the words "legal definition." You are taking those 2 words from a 10+ minute video and arguing against their use completely out of context.
"You are trying to change the definition. Not anyone else." So you don't believe that an Amendment to the Constitution would "change" it?
brouhajoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL. So you're withdrawing your legal definition claim now? Good.
An amendment to the Constitution would only constitutionalize the pre-existing legal definition of marriage as defined in Black's Law Dictionary. It won't change the "definition" of marriage.
sklanger 3 years ago
"LOL. So you're withdrawing your legal definition claim now?"
No, I'm putting the words you cherry picked out of my video to argue against back into their original stated context. I've "withdrawn" nothing, I'm simply rejecting your characterization of what I said, and attempting to clarify it for you.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
No cherry picking involved. You said "legal definition." Since you admit that the Constitution does not define marriage, you cannot claim to derive its "legal definition" from the Constitution, which is silent on the subject. Either you're withdrawing your definitional claim, or you contradict yourself on whether or not the Constitution defines marriage. Saying "legal definition" = "Constitutional legal definition" contradicts your own admission that the Constitution does not define marriage.
sklanger 3 years ago
And since your "clarification" doesn't change the legal definition of marriage, that definition remains defined by subsidiary legal sources, such as authoritative legal dictionaries, which have consistently defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman."
sklanger 3 years ago
That was great. Now, will it help educate theists? Sadly I'm pessimistic.
tecnoblix 3 years ago
im at 3.26 in your video and your saying 'gay people have been getting married' which of course is a use of the word marriage that i don't see as being accurate. certainly people can say they've married whatever they want but these doesn't make it an accurate use of the word marriage. which is why i posed my question and perhaps would have been a better way to start your video.
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
my question was NOT who gets to decide what marriages in society are recognized. hmmm somewhat frustrated here as my video was quite clear and straight forward and yet you still didnt address my question. im stopping at 6.48
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
Well, here's the question(s) I heard in your video:
"In the secular arena, who gets to decide what is the essence of marriage? What IS the essence of marriage? When should we change it? Who gets to decide when we should change it? Should we change it?"
My response to that question was: The Constitution, the laws that we, in a secular society, set up. I guess what I didn't really get into, and maybe what is frustrating you with my response, is the word "essence."
brouhajoe 3 years ago