Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom & Gomorrah is great & their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21) The inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrah were guilty of homosexual activity. So far gone were they in this vice that the men of the town would not even accept heterosexual license with Lot’s daughters, both virgins, as a means of sating their lust (see 19:8-9).
@teton99 the bible also says to stone your kids if they talk back and don't apologize deut. 21:18-21, eph. 6:5 says that slaves need to be obedient to their masters, so if you take literally everything that the bible says, like most christians do then you should be stoning your kids and forcing other people to be obedient slaves. Do you believe in doing those things? If you don't then you are picking and choosing the bible verses convenient for you, and shoving them in other people's faces.
@teton99 I imagine you know that the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" did not exist in the time of the Bible. There were no equivalents to those words. So ask yourself what really happened. What was really written and why. And why people are trying to shove down your throat just how "immoral" homosexuality is. There is nothing rational or true that you could say against homosexuality.
@TheBlitzProof If all homosexuals would marry each other, the net amount of homosexuals in the world would still be the same. They'd just be happier. The Quran is not the Bible. I have absolutely no knowledge about the contents of the Quran, but I never mentioned it. I didn't make a sweeping "Holy Books" analogy. I only mentioned the Bible, with which I'm familiar. There are many societies against women's rights. That makes it totally OK, right?
no you didn't understand what i've said...I mean when two homos marry eachother they can't have children right then they'll die and won't leave kids? why is it unnatural I'll tell you
first. when they're having sex-apart from there genere-one of them should be the man role and the other will be the woman
second. Adam and Eve express our nature and they're stright and if you don't believe in them how about to imagin the first man who loved the first woman...
@TheBlitzProof Umm... I really don't mean to intrude, but... Okay, if homosexuality is so bad, and is against nature, then why do so many creatures display homosexual behavior? Seriously, so many different species of animals are, *ahem*, "gay". And, though it is easy to forget, humans are animals. Also, I don't see the problem with a lack of pregnancy. Enough people got pregnant for us to have 7 billion people on this Earth; I think we can safely allow two men to have sex...
First, my dear The person who shows a tendency toward sexual person of the same gender is a person who is mentally ill and the same person can be sexually inclined towards his father or mother or even his sisters!
This is called a disease and I do not accompany my part of the homosexuals because they (may) ...
No, my friend that God distinguished human from animal's mind and make him think of it as making him upright back
@TheBlitzProof First off, be I a homosexual or not (both, actually), I am nobody's "dear".
Secondly. Provide evidence, please, that each and every homosexual on this planet, be they flamboyant, closet, or bisexual, is a diseased maniac who oversexualizes anything and everything.
Lastly, I ask you: If humans are so different from animals, why does sex motivate us to fly into a primal rage and kill another fellow human? Why does primal rage even exist for us?
In fact I think that God has planted in us love to be a motivation for us in this world In order to reconstruct the earth, God said: ((Lord said to the angels, I will create a successor in the earth))
Homosexuality is the epidemic that affects society like the cancer it's dying slowly but it eventually it will die, For this, we find that mentally troubled homosexuals suffer from psychological problems
and again god give us mind to suppress our desires
0. First and foremost A brother and Priest of Jesuit of Roman Catholic order have verbalized to me when i was a young 19 year old boy that The Church and all those in their religious image, (other religions), need breeders to produce economic funds.
1. Now, without them making more babies that grow up and give money to the roman catholic empire church shall fade to dust. The planet earth is brains washed by these religions, slave trader religions for the harvest. Christianity, Islamism, Judaism and all others ever-so in their moral, ethical, family values are economic sheeple machines and thats it.
2.I have no problem with heterosexuals or their pedophile roman catholic priests, lesbian nuns, criminal ethical moral family values of conditional bias love for their young, other(un)wise they shun their breeder offspring children as unwanted cattle if they turn gay, more the past.
3. Nor do I feel offended by their fairy-tale ONE God in which is a perpetual religious parity lie -i.e. Judaism, Islamic, Christian, and all others ever-so in their image that acquired their mythological origins from Sumerian religious views *ONLY* which was a slave/servitude oriented race and culture.
4. Sumerian cultured religious views details a messiah exactly as the roman catholic do and all other similar as all above mentioned in same image, but the beings, (the messiah, angels, warrior angels, and so on), are of another planet, of a technology and will return to harvest them from the Earth and use them as servants, slaves, and the harvesters shall do ever-so as they may choose afterwards is acceptable.
If I'm correctly understanding anti-gay marriage logic - using the word "logic" loosely, of course - the church wants gay marriage to be illegal because the bible says homosexuality is a "sin". So... shouldn't it require that all "sinners" be denied the right to marriage, as opposed to only homosexuals? If that's true, I guess they also have to deny marriage to individuals who steal, commit adultery, have tattoos/piercings, gamble, fornicate and lie.
Why do we even have state marriage? Why can't marriage simply be an agreement between two individuals and or the God of their choosing like it used to be. The government should not butt into people's personal lives in such a way.
They denied that the purpose of marriage is for procreation when they allowed people who have no possibility of procreating access to the institution. (And in all fairness, you’re right it wasn’t explicit)
And don't start talking about polygamy please. Another red herring.
if you Google Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy.
And they were wrong. SCOTUS has time and time again stated marriage is a fundamental right. Regardless of what lower courts have said, SCOTUS's stance is quite clear in that respect.
Let me ask you this. If you think same sex marriage is so fundamentally different from interracial marriage, what do you base this on IN THE EYES OF THE LAW? Because you cannot base it on the fourteenth amendment, which immediately rejects any distinction, you must have other reasons.
Baker v. Nelson case was also decided by the SCOTUS.
In fact, the U.S. supreme court has been 100% consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children.
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942)."
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Wait a moment, you should not keep Church and State together according to non-Christians, right? Therefore, since marriage is a Christian cult practice, between man and woman, I would say this should be kept separate from any court decisions.
You cannot call marriage "gay marriage" and then ask where the fundamental right to "gay marriage" is, just as you cannot call marriage "interracial marriage" and then ask where that right is. It’s about whether “marriage” should be extended to gay couples just as it was extended to interracial couples. There is no reason not to, especially not any reason that trumps the fourteenth amendment, especially not “procreation” (thanks for conveniently avoiding my counterpoint by the way).
You need to learn something about constitutional law, or maybe the actual purpose of the judicial branch. Or maybe just how democracy works in general.
I'm glad that Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional I am getting sick of marriage being defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman, because Christians and Anti-Gay I won't say homophobic, because i don't think it's a phobia necessarily.
I'm really getting tired of Anti-Gay people telling homosexuals how they should live and depriving homosexual couples, especially the ones that have been together longer than heterosexuals the 1,138 that Heterosexual Married couples get. It's not fair..
Lol... all the little trolls in the comments below are hilarious... People are saying that homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, which is apparently true, but does that make it right? (slavery)... Someday theres gona be a giant standoff between who stands for moral values and who doesn't, and THAT is going to be the day I stick to my guns... and praise God for them=)
i dont think its should be called marriage since its such a sensitive issue. however, i do believe if two people feel it necessary to be united & live as a married couple would...they should have some legal status & recognition if they are law abiding & tax paying citizens...a life long partner is just that..regardless of your sexual orientaion.
i want say one thing... if your with them or against them ,well is that means your in the middle!
and as result you like what they do!! because you did not show them your upset! u don't accept ..This is not what God has prescribed for us on all religions ..am I say something wrong?
you poeple that keep voting against gay people getting married are tottal TOOLS!...dont you people understand...keeping them from getting married is not going to save america's values or anything of the sort. get real, as you take your kids to go see jackass 3D you act like letting gay people get married is going to ruin america...idiots. Keep letting this issue going on being an issue and our poloticians will keep using it to devide us to get re-elected, this is a non issue! fuck tards!
"If anyone is struggling with the sins of homosexuality, adultry, masturbation, porn, abortion, etc., PLEASE, turn to Christ for healing. Christ loves you and offers everyone mercy, forgiveness and salvation for God desires that none should perish.
Wow...Well america..We should just give them their rights.. The end is near...Why care about this country any longer? Soon their gonna get what they want no matter what people do.
@TFAFanBabe Fuck you, and I would love to hang you and watch your fucking head fall off you worthless dick kissing slut. Also you'll be welcomed to Hell I'd enjoy watching the natives eat your fucking brains out.
Because you have the ADMINISTRATION OF MAHJONGTIME are idiots. You are all a pathetic and arrogant. And the game of you is a real trap, you should be excluded from the Internet, you're a band of thieves as well as their players EASTWIN And MISSLOVELY.
I find it very strange that the administration's relationship with the players MAHJONGTIME EASTWIN MISSLOVELY And, today day 19/10/2010 wrote "EASTWIN AND KNOW WHAT YOU DO, DO NOT DO IT, DO NOT MATCH WITH ATTITUDE OF PEOPLE WELL. PUT YOUR FINGER ON Conscience and out.You THINK THEY WERE SO FAR ARE STARTING TO HARM PEOPLE THAT JUST WANT TO HAVE FUN. Think about it "simply banned me for no offense, I would like to know the relationship with the players of MAHJONGTIME EASTWIN And MISSLOVELY?
@panatiychuk74 are you sure this time? christians have been setting judgement day dates for 2000+ years now. it's prrrrrrrobably better to not make dates, or make any claims that can be testable in reality. better to keep it faithy and magic-y.
Sorry If did not clarify what I said too well - here goes - ( no I am not homophobic )
A phobia is an irrational fear is it not - I have no problems associating with anyone who happens to gay - I was just mearly pointing out the hippocracy and highlighting the -- percieved danger-- mind control scenario ( perpetrated by the bigots ) . You are right about homophobia being manufactured as social control .
H.I.V was manufactured in the lab by the c.i.a. / fear and manipulation / peace bro.
@DblOSmith mm law school IS awefully expensive.. but that's what LOANS are for!!! you should make enough money to pay it back. Assuming you are Gay...or even not...Gay Americans need more legal adovocates to defend our civil liberties...which r constantly under attack. Maybe there are grants as a "minority" you can get.. I'm glad the legal system gives you a boner. i hope u get them in other ways as well.
@Pisces31660 Maybe I should look into that. I would love to go to law school, right now, it's my dream, but between the money, my shot credit from being laid off for a while and not being able to find a job, and me currently working night, I don't see how it's possible to afford it or to physically do it.
I'd ideally want to be an employee rights lawyer. Maybe I'll dabble in civil rights too, sure. I have my heart set on University of Oregon... If I were to ever get the chance.
You're not going to like Quantum Physics much either. Especially when you get to the part where it says "hasta la vista" to Materialism. Its required that "Law" be dismantled, much in the same manner that Johnny Cochran used to do it... one little technicality at a time, in order for it to be agreeable to you & to homosexuals. Quantum Physics is not going to be agreeable to you either as the latest discoveries simply confirm the Biblical account of life & the universe
I see nothing wrong with two people declaring their love for one another weather they be same sex or not; after all - I think a good deal of homophobia stems from the percieved promiscuousness, and the danger of contraction and spread of sexually transmitted diseases etc.- at least marrige may make the individuals concerned less likely to stray - and therefore less danger- if any- to the rest of us self righteous hapily married -ahem! hetros !!! peace n love has no gender !! x
Simply the fact that you haven't been capable of correctly discerning the matter of "homophobia", indicates why you can't correctly discern the matter of protection of marriage. "Homophobia" was fraudulently manufactured to be used as a negative reinforcement coercive tool for social engineering & gaining a political advantage.
This is made evident by the fact that one is labeled homophobic for simply disagreeing with homosexuality.
Yet, those who condescendingly call heterosexuals "Breeders", are never considered to be "Heterophobic". In fact, "Heterophobia" is not even said to exist. The thinking behind this is that its considered ridiculous to suggest that there would exist any persons with any irrational fears regarding heterosexuality. This is because heterosexuality is so obviously natural & normal. Realizing there may exist fears regarding homosexuality is due to its unnaturalness & abnormality, thus, not irrational
In other words, Chief Judge Walker, there’s no legal difference per say. It’s just that my client’s feelings are hurt because God said that what they choose to do is an abomination; too many people in society hold that same view. We have the right to feel justified so everyone else must change! – I say there are a lot of agendas on display here but the search for truth is not one of them. Equality under the law is not enough for the homosexual lobby, they want God and all the world to change.
Did Olsen say "Marbury v. Mason" or was that the actor's mix up? I'm guessing it's the former, because, purely based on what the transcript said, not how the actor read it, he doesn't seem like he's not quite the advocate people say he is.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@demonicrubberducky you are not very smart are you? republicans trying to suppress your rights? first of all NO ONE is more opposed to faggots getting married then blacks. blacks as a group are 99% democrats. second males do not have the right and never did have the right to marry another male. so how can one suppress a right that is not a right? they cant. please kill yourself
@RainRancid So what you're saying is that a law that has been passed should stay that way? There' s never been an unconstitutional law? This isn't unconstitutional? Nice logic LOL
Im not sure where your facts are coming from regarding child rearing. The American Psychiatric Association. American Pediatrics Association. American Medical Association. American Social Workers Association. and many others endorse Same sex relations as a great place for children and child rearing. Most are check out before adoption or foster care. Unlike heterosexual people who procreate and end up loosing there children to Abuse. Neglect, and substance abuse. what about the kids?
Thank you all so much for all the effort it took to make these videos! Just reading the transcripts made me cry. I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like in real life, and I can't believe America was robbed of the opportunity to witness, to experience this truly historic event for themselves. A huge thank you to all the livebloggers and reenactors and awesomelawyers and everyone else who's making this happen!
401RoadWarrior, it's not social dictatorship any more than marrying someone of a different race is. Why? Because no one is forcing you to get a same-sex marriage. If they forced you to do that, that would be social dictatorship. Besides, even if 70% of the country were against atheism, you can't vote to ban atheism.
mogul1265, you ought to give a shit. One day, you will be in the minority for something, and maybe then no one will care to defend you.
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
@kenballer00 I see religion as the hobgoblin of little minds... There is court decision after court decision that have said. "Marriage is a private institution" so not subject to a vote. To vote on a persons right to privacy negates due process, Additionally the right to the peaceful pursuit of happiness. Look again at the closing arguments and debate the court cases.. Civil rights are not up to a vote, Common public opinion are moot. I respect your repeated opinion. Its the hobgoblin of ltl-
On the contrary, the U.S supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents. something same sex couples cannot do
If we consider the idea that your statement was actually true (which I'm sure it isn't), then it (the U.S. Supreme Court) has failed. The number of children born to parents that are not legally married is on the rise, and has been for some time. So much for the promotion of 'responsible procreation'.
Also, considering the fact that there are many children awaiting adoption, the idea that marriage should be denied homosexuals based on their inability to bear children is ridiculous.
my statement is actually 100% true. if you think that it is not, then explain how so. are you saying that the U.S. supreme has not been consistent and if you think that denying marriage to same sex couples based on their inability to procreate is stupid, then again explain how so or why?
its not about creating more children because we don't need encouragment to do something that is already naturally encouraged or have more people. its about responsible procreation and rearing them into society to have a country thats as functional as it can possibly be. this is achieved by encouraging its citizens using the term "marriage" to channel those natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within the stable environments
@kenballer00 right and only straight people bring up functional people.. you have no idea how many gay people have raised great people. and what if they just never adopt . no harm no foul. poor argument.. just poor greed.
so now its the governments job to enforce whats natural?
thats almost a good argument.. i hope they use that argument at the appeal.. theyll surely lose then.
i wish you were representing them. thats one of the worse arguments ive ever heard
@dcderek24 this is a quote from the federal 8th circuit court case called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning:
"The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage." By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples...." cont....
in this case it involves another district court judge attempting to overturn a state ballot referendum amending the Constitution banning gay marriage. it was ultimately overruled by the 8th circuit court
@kenballer00 yea thats nice.. its all bullshit for religious purposes.. hopefully the judges make the right decision and dont discriminate for selfish reasons
ah yes why the hell does it matter if they get married.. their gay anyway
"....such laws "encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committedheterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry...." cont....
".... But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."
Every study says a child a natural family is the ideal environment.How do children get male & womanhood bonding available only in a natural marriage?Saying marriage is a civil right is an insult to Dr. King & Malcolm X.Sodomy is not a civil right.Dr. Robert Spitzer, who got this off the list of mental diseases in the 1980's said 2001: "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue some people can and do change"
@kenballer00 If the purpose of marriage is to promote procreation then why don't we have a requirement that people have to be checked out by fertility clinics before getting married? And why don't we require married couples to produce a minimum number of children within a certain period of time? And why do we allow post-menopausal women to get married? Or men who've had vasectomies?
There has been state efforts in the past to prohibit them but a law excluding infertile couples is constitutionally unenforceable because marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right. Also, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and fertility may reverse the prognosis. Since there are so many situations like this, this clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish.
Thus, its costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.
By contrast, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like this. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage or plural marriage for that matter.
Nor does there need to be, just as there didn't need to be a fundamental right to interracial marriage for that right to be extended to the minorities. It's not about "gay marriage", it's about whether gays have a right to the already existent institution of "marriage".
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children which is what the state promotes according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. What your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense.
"Whites and blacks have always been allowed to marry people of their own race, they're not being denied the right to marry if they can't marry someone of the opposite race."
Bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart. Based on the Brown v. Board decision, segregation of individuals is another form of discrimination. Marriage has always been about INTEGRATION of the sexes for responsible procreation and rearing of children. So unless you think integration is another form of discrimination lke segregation as well, NO its not the same argument. Sorry TRY AGAIN
Red herring. No one is arguing that denying homosexual couples the right to marry is discriminatory based on sex or gender but rather on sexual orientation.
In fact, SCOTUS has explicitly denied that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and that marriage on fourteen occasions has been defined as a fundamental human right, to the extent that they have affirmed that even inmates who will be in prison for life (and thus have no chance of reproducing) still have this right.
I beg to differ. The plaintiffs in Baker and the Perry case have made arguments that the right to marry is discriminatory based on sex or gender as well as sexual orientation. Judge Walker himself said it does discriminate against sex as well. You need to do more research. Also, when did the SCOTUS ever explicitly deny that the purpose of marriage is for procreation? Where is your evidence for this?
Lastly, I think we have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy.
YES, it has been determined that you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister.The right to marry someone of the same sex would need to be established by the supreme court first. For example, a Mormon or a bisexual who has this simultaneous feeling for both genders may argue that he has a fundamental right to marry. The answer would be YES, however at this point in time he does not have a right to marry two people in a threesome.
I knew that very well. I wasn't going to go into it because I assumed you weren't aware of the intricacies, seeing as how you (seemingly) aren't aware of one of the most basic parts of the case, that being that SCOTUS has established marriage as a fundamental human right.
The point I was trying to make is that the U.S. supreme court has always defined marriage between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage or plural marriage for that matter. In fact, in both cases, the supreme court directly or indirectly rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past.
Based on your argument, I literally would have the fundamental right to marry 80 people.
Wait, if you (general, not you (necessarily)) keep going, pretty soon some will be all-encompassing (marrying anyone, even a married person, incest, look at the governments, please answer is it not hypocritical that majority should rule in Democratic country (just man & woman marriage, no incest, . . .) yet they do not. . .can't pray in public school (in this country, U.S.--(so) much for liberty (only in this case, I think).
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
I think bigotry is indefensible. Changing one's mind on issues where one hates an entire class of people is advisable. The struggle to love is an opportunity for growth.
although being able to get married seems like an apparent right for gay people to be able to have. (in the same way, it would be considered immoral and unconstitutional to prevent straight people from getting married). I will admit that not everyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobe (etc.). You do feel at least repulsed or weirded out enough to deny them basic civil rights. these reasons i don't exactly understand, but i do know that it's been proven that being gay happens at birth.
Sad is the day when democracy has been raped and used by a majority to enforce their religious beliefs upon a minority. And THIS from a country that calls itself a beacon for freadom and justice. The US is a country full of racists and homophobics where freedom and justice were murdered by hate and prejudice yet for most americans it only takes a TV show or a B movie for them to start living in la-la-land. Very sad in deed.
@mcmlxvi BLA BLA BLA DRAMA MELODRAMATIC BLA BLA ECT ECT RHETORIC...BLA BLA . Really dude you sound like a fucktard talking like that. What fucking dog do you have in this fight? Shut the fuck up. Let these fucking drama queens fight it out. They are fucking morons on both sides. This will never effect you in any way so who gives a shit.
@mogul1265 It's ok, as long as I don't sound like a stupid american I really don't care how you believe I sound.... dude! Now go watch your Bruce Willis movie saving the world by himself with nothing but an old shoe, and let this forum for people that actually not only care but have something inteligent to say about it. Just go..... duuuude.
@mogul1265 By the way, I understand that for most americans "bla bla bla" is an actual sentence since it is the best their brains can pick up when someone with intelect is talking, but you should know that it really isn't, so don't quote it, it makes you sound stupid or american for the same matter.
@mcmlxvi What YOU want is called SOCIAL DICTATORSHIP, when a minority DICTATES thru UNELECTED judges to the rest of the society how that society should function in order to accomodate your personal lifestyle, ok? It was done in Canada in 2003 when COURTS ORDERED the Ontario gov to change the Marriage Act and then the Federal Gov, LIBERALS like Obama, refused to go for a national referendum on this very controversial issue, why? about 70% of Canadians at that time were AGAINST homo marriage !!!
It doesn't matter how this court or any other court rules, homosexuality is a disease and always has been. Everywhere sodomites go they have to announce what they are. Normal people don't do this. Also, sodomites have had to change their name to gay and lesbian so to make their vile unholy behavior sound more palatable. Be not deceived, sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of God.
@mrchiefofsinners yeah more or less. there are real gay people but they are 1% of the ones the claim it and they could give a shit about this bill. Not with you the god thing though. Like you just said it mostly disease/mental illness. How can they help that lol. We all some issues.
@mogul1265 Next time, take a deep breath, ignore the smoke comming out of your hears, focus on the keyword and write down what you want to say, only this time write all the fucking words down so whatever it is at least is understandable. Try it.
@mcmlxvi That would be you big guy. You're the one posting the big dramatic emo comments... 3 in a row....lol I just took a quick motorcycle ride, you must have been banging away the whole time i was gone...I dont give a shit about the faggots or the religious nutters. They are all one big happy family who would be lost without each other, you included..You can resume you're pointless rhetoric now. I would throw in a france insult for good measure but i hate to kick a country when its down.
@mrchiefofsinners . The Sodom had nothing to do with Sodomy. And everything to do with how it treated the lest of them with in its own community. Rape, and in hospitality. Know your facts before you spout your venom. Gay men to not lay with women as they would with a man.... THey are gay. no women. and vise versa. All the not laying with a man as you would with women is towards idolatry and idle worship. gets your facts straight. gays were respected then, and are now..
The splitscreen has the court's name wrong. The trial court is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, not the "Northern District of San Francisco."
Most of the trial (and re-enactment) is over, nothing new happening. But the defense won their quest to obtain documents from the No on 8 campaign relating to the messaging about the campaign. This is due March 31. I believe it's expected that closing arguments will be sometime in mid-April. I'm not sure when a decision is expected...
hey thanks for posting these guys. was about to get into the religious debate in this thread but decided to stay out of it. i don't understand why people can't understand the difference though between civil and religious marriage. you can get married by a priest in a church and you still are not legally married unless you get a marriage license from the government and register.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Not a good reinactment
the actor playing the judge has it all wrong. This reinactment is unfortunately way off base. No self-respecting appellate judge would engage in such testy behavior. (this is not Judge Judy)When a real appellate judge asks questions, he won't be impatient or hostile, he will be inquisitive. He is merely trying to probe counsel's logic and clarify his reasoning.
I give the producers kudos for their efforts, but unfortunately they lack courtroom consultation.
The case is not in an appellate court, but rather a trial court. Our attorney consultants, as well as correspondents from the courtroom, have advised our actors on the demeanor of their counterparts.
I believe this comes directly from the transcript's . I don't know about you but watching these homophobes try to demonize a minority group for no reason makes me "testy" as well.
Everyone who disagrees with gay marriage come talk to me after I vote on your right to marry. Your right to love. We'll see how fair you think it is then.
Prop 8 was a load of propaganda, and should never introduced. Even if it's passed now, look at the younger generations and ask them if they care. They don't care. We have no right to vote on their love. Separation of Church and State? Marriage is NOT a religious institution. Gays aren't going away.
I think you fail to understand the prevalence of homosexuality through out history. Alexander the Great had a lover who was his number 1 and second to no woman.
What is the difference between marriage and civil union? You wanna go biblical? It isn't called marriage in the bible. the hebrew word for marriage is chatunah.
So who cares if gays can get married? Is it really that ancient or is that some type of justification? Slavery is an ancient concept. Should blacks be re-enslaved in the US?
Okay first off, thats great that you found the Hebrew word, and translated into English, it is Marriage.
Second, I understand how prevalant Homosexuality is throughout history, Im just saying that it was never considerd marriage. Alexander the Great was married to Roxana, Stateria, and Parystatis. He was never married to Hephaestion who is said to have been his lover. So using Alexander the Great in a Pro Homosexual Marriage means Nothing.
@MikeJGallagherJr check out Gay christian 101 web site.. very interesting coverage.. you can google ancient greek and roman laws and catholic marriages and blessid same sex unions that went on until 1821 marriage changed just with in the last 200 yrs... and has always included same sex relations...
7 people dislike this are straight (in thoughts first)
then in the body
TheBlitzProof 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no God you morons
Stanly2031 4 months ago
Sodomy
Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom & Gomorrah is great & their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21) The inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrah were guilty of homosexual activity. So far gone were they in this vice that the men of the town would not even accept heterosexual license with Lot’s daughters, both virgins, as a means of sating their lust (see 19:8-9).
teton99 7 months ago
@teton99 the bible also says to stone your kids if they talk back and don't apologize deut. 21:18-21, eph. 6:5 says that slaves need to be obedient to their masters, so if you take literally everything that the bible says, like most christians do then you should be stoning your kids and forcing other people to be obedient slaves. Do you believe in doing those things? If you don't then you are picking and choosing the bible verses convenient for you, and shoving them in other people's faces.
AlexanderMccarthey87 6 months ago 2
@teton99 I imagine you know that the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" did not exist in the time of the Bible. There were no equivalents to those words. So ask yourself what really happened. What was really written and why. And why people are trying to shove down your throat just how "immoral" homosexuality is. There is nothing rational or true that you could say against homosexuality.
poetaviolinista 6 months ago 2
@poetaviolinista Yes there is actually in the holy Quraan (Muslims holy book)
There is a clear reference to the prohibition of homosexuality if you want it from the religon view
there is also a lot of people and socities whom against the whole idea of being homo
from the scincntific point of view
if all the homos married eachother population will decrease people will become old without havin a new generation
if you want to discuss it further please contact with me
TheBlitzProof 1 month ago
@TheBlitzProof If all homosexuals would marry each other, the net amount of homosexuals in the world would still be the same. They'd just be happier. The Quran is not the Bible. I have absolutely no knowledge about the contents of the Quran, but I never mentioned it. I didn't make a sweeping "Holy Books" analogy. I only mentioned the Bible, with which I'm familiar. There are many societies against women's rights. That makes it totally OK, right?
poetaviolinista 1 month ago
@poetaviolinista
no you didn't understand what i've said...I mean when two homos marry eachother they can't have children right then they'll die and won't leave kids? why is it unnatural I'll tell you
first. when they're having sex-apart from there genere-one of them should be the man role and the other will be the woman
second. Adam and Eve express our nature and they're stright and if you don't believe in them how about to imagin the first man who loved the first woman...
TheBlitzProof 1 month ago
@TheBlitzProof Umm... I really don't mean to intrude, but... Okay, if homosexuality is so bad, and is against nature, then why do so many creatures display homosexual behavior? Seriously, so many different species of animals are, *ahem*, "gay". And, though it is easy to forget, humans are animals. Also, I don't see the problem with a lack of pregnancy. Enough people got pregnant for us to have 7 billion people on this Earth; I think we can safely allow two men to have sex...
TheSPARTANJ13 1 month ago
@TheSPARTANJ13
First, my dear The person who shows a tendency toward sexual person of the same gender is a person who is mentally ill and the same person can be sexually inclined towards his father or mother or even his sisters!
This is called a disease and I do not accompany my part of the homosexuals because they (may) ...
No, my friend that God distinguished human from animal's mind and make him think of it as making him upright back
Human are not animals (you are not animal)
TheBlitzProof 1 month ago
@TheBlitzProof
And the last thing I would like to say is an old dictum:
If you're not ashamed Do whatever you want
If you're not ashamed go naked on the street
If you're not ashamed grab your brother and give him a full moth kiss
If you're not ashamed make shit in the middle of the class with the students looking
If you're not ashamed grab a mic and tell your deepiest secret in the middle of the central park
but remebre oneday you won't wake up n you'll meat your god
won't wake up
TheBlitzProof 1 month ago
@TheBlitzProof Actually, if I meet God, the only way it can end is with me waking up. Because the world can only be a dream if God exists in it.
TheSPARTANJ13 1 month ago
@TheBlitzProof First off, be I a homosexual or not (both, actually), I am nobody's "dear".
Secondly. Provide evidence, please, that each and every homosexual on this planet, be they flamboyant, closet, or bisexual, is a diseased maniac who oversexualizes anything and everything.
Lastly, I ask you: If humans are so different from animals, why does sex motivate us to fly into a primal rage and kill another fellow human? Why does primal rage even exist for us?
TheSPARTANJ13 1 month ago
@TheSPARTANJ13
In fact I think that God has planted in us love to be a motivation for us in this world In order to reconstruct the earth, God said: ((Lord said to the angels, I will create a successor in the earth))
Homosexuality is the epidemic that affects society like the cancer it's dying slowly but it eventually it will die, For this, we find that mentally troubled homosexuals suffer from psychological problems
and again god give us mind to suppress our desires
TheBlitzProof 1 month ago
@TheBlitzProof Die out? Prove it.
TheSPARTANJ13 1 month ago
0. First and foremost A brother and Priest of Jesuit of Roman Catholic order have verbalized to me when i was a young 19 year old boy that The Church and all those in their religious image, (other religions), need breeders to produce economic funds.
.
Symbiont5 7 months ago
1. Now, without them making more babies that grow up and give money to the roman catholic empire church shall fade to dust. The planet earth is brains washed by these religions, slave trader religions for the harvest. Christianity, Islamism, Judaism and all others ever-so in their moral, ethical, family values are economic sheeple machines and thats it.
.
Symbiont5 7 months ago
2.I have no problem with heterosexuals or their pedophile roman catholic priests, lesbian nuns, criminal ethical moral family values of conditional bias love for their young, other(un)wise they shun their breeder offspring children as unwanted cattle if they turn gay, more the past.
.
Symbiont5 7 months ago
.
3. Nor do I feel offended by their fairy-tale ONE God in which is a perpetual religious parity lie -i.e. Judaism, Islamic, Christian, and all others ever-so in their image that acquired their mythological origins from Sumerian religious views *ONLY* which was a slave/servitude oriented race and culture.
.
Symbiont5 7 months ago
4. Sumerian cultured religious views details a messiah exactly as the roman catholic do and all other similar as all above mentioned in same image, but the beings, (the messiah, angels, warrior angels, and so on), are of another planet, of a technology and will return to harvest them from the Earth and use them as servants, slaves, and the harvesters shall do ever-so as they may choose afterwards is acceptable.
.
Symbiont5 7 months ago
5. Who is against the LGBT life styles, the empire that serves a fairy-tale.
.
Your empire is falling, give up, shut-up, or be processed into FEMA boot CAMPS for slave labor till you are reprogrammed.
---
Symbiont5 7 months ago
If I'm correctly understanding anti-gay marriage logic - using the word "logic" loosely, of course - the church wants gay marriage to be illegal because the bible says homosexuality is a "sin". So... shouldn't it require that all "sinners" be denied the right to marriage, as opposed to only homosexuals? If that's true, I guess they also have to deny marriage to individuals who steal, commit adultery, have tattoos/piercings, gamble, fornicate and lie.
Damn, I guess we're all "sinners".
loloandrayray 7 months ago
Wait a minute, how does legalizing gay marriage affect heterosexuals? Oh right, it doesn't.
Prejudiced individuals simply hate and fear those who are different from them.
loloandrayray 7 months ago
Why do we even have state marriage? Why can't marriage simply be an agreement between two individuals and or the God of their choosing like it used to be. The government should not butt into people's personal lives in such a way.
MrLoganDunleavy 10 months ago
penal court tua laih ma le,hehehehe
pmawi 11 months ago
hahahaha
pmawi 11 months ago
any word on whether this will become a film or play?
NominatedShortFilm 11 months ago
see charlie sheen say something that shocks barbera walters at:
youtube/watch?v=5FV1m3qGQHw
MrMinetoo 11 months ago
did anyone actually watch the entire series??
muxmedia7 1 year ago
They denied that the purpose of marriage is for procreation when they allowed people who have no possibility of procreating access to the institution. (And in all fairness, you’re right it wasn’t explicit)
And don't start talking about polygamy please. Another red herring.
kennyjburke 1 year ago
@kennyjburke
if you Google Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
And they were wrong. SCOTUS has time and time again stated marriage is a fundamental right. Regardless of what lower courts have said, SCOTUS's stance is quite clear in that respect.
Let me ask you this. If you think same sex marriage is so fundamentally different from interracial marriage, what do you base this on IN THE EYES OF THE LAW? Because you cannot base it on the fourteenth amendment, which immediately rejects any distinction, you must have other reasons.
kennyjburke 1 year ago
@kennyjburke
Baker v. Nelson case was also decided by the SCOTUS.
In fact, the U.S. supreme court has been 100% consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children.
I hardly call this an aberration.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kennyjburke
From Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942)."
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kennyjburke
Wait a moment, you should not keep Church and State together according to non-Christians, right? Therefore, since marriage is a Christian cult practice, between man and woman, I would say this should be kept separate from any court decisions.
SARAHBBRIGHT 1 year ago
You cannot call marriage "gay marriage" and then ask where the fundamental right to "gay marriage" is, just as you cannot call marriage "interracial marriage" and then ask where that right is. It’s about whether “marriage” should be extended to gay couples just as it was extended to interracial couples. There is no reason not to, especially not any reason that trumps the fourteenth amendment, especially not “procreation” (thanks for conveniently avoiding my counterpoint by the way).
kennyjburke 1 year ago
This is the WORST thing for our nation. A fair election trying to be overturned by a disgruntled minority? Maybe in Cuba or Iran. NEVER IN AMERICA!!!
These sore losers should cry a river, build a bridge, AND GET OVER IT!!!!
elkabong1961 1 year ago
@elkabong1961
You need to learn something about constitutional law, or maybe the actual purpose of the judicial branch. Or maybe just how democracy works in general.
kennyjburke 1 year ago
@kennyjburke the united states is not a democracy.
deepjew 1 year ago
@elkabong1961 its bad for the constitution to not be contradictory?
mermaidsareppl2 11 months ago
gay
runswithscissorsalot 1 year ago
Try Latino women online now ** rockmycity.info **
TenaaUoila 1 year ago
I'm glad that Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional I am getting sick of marriage being defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman, because Christians and Anti-Gay I won't say homophobic, because i don't think it's a phobia necessarily.
I'm really getting tired of Anti-Gay people telling homosexuals how they should live and depriving homosexual couples, especially the ones that have been together longer than heterosexuals the 1,138 that Heterosexual Married couples get. It's not fair..
breemystic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol... all the little trolls in the comments below are hilarious... People are saying that homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, which is apparently true, but does that make it right? (slavery)... Someday theres gona be a giant standoff between who stands for moral values and who doesn't, and THAT is going to be the day I stick to my guns... and praise God for them=)
gunlover94 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fine Russian wife gettop5.info
MrAlexahankrj 1 year ago
i dont think its should be called marriage since its such a sensitive issue. however, i do believe if two people feel it necessary to be united & live as a married couple would...they should have some legal status & recognition if they are law abiding & tax paying citizens...a life long partner is just that..regardless of your sexual orientaion.
jollyrogers011 1 year ago
I am so happy these videos were made. People need to see this.
billwenham 1 year ago
i want say one thing... if your with them or against them ,well is that means your in the middle!
and as result you like what they do!! because you did not show them your upset! u don't accept ..This is not what God has prescribed for us on all religions ..am I say something wrong?
10fabregas 1 year ago
you poeple that keep voting against gay people getting married are tottal TOOLS!...dont you people understand...keeping them from getting married is not going to save america's values or anything of the sort. get real, as you take your kids to go see jackass 3D you act like letting gay people get married is going to ruin america...idiots. Keep letting this issue going on being an issue and our poloticians will keep using it to devide us to get re-elected, this is a non issue! fuck tards!
GarIicjr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If anyone is struggling with the sins of homosexuality, adultry, masturbation, porn, abortion, etc., PLEASE, turn to Christ for healing. Christ loves you and offers everyone mercy, forgiveness and salvation for God desires that none should perish.
mrchiefofsinners 1 year ago
Wow...Well america..We should just give them their rights.. The end is near...Why care about this country any longer? Soon their gonna get what they want no matter what people do.
WESTSIDEGENIUS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Asian women want to be your wife lushfmlk.info
koleenxnamilan 1 year ago
Have the faggots lost yet? Someone tell me.........
PreppyPoser1 1 year ago
@PreppyPoser1 Errmm...what do cigarettes have to do with anything?
TFAFanBabe 1 year ago
@TFAFanBabe Fuck you, and I would love to hang you and watch your fucking head fall off you worthless dick kissing slut. Also you'll be welcomed to Hell I'd enjoy watching the natives eat your fucking brains out.
PreppyPoser1 1 year ago
@PreppyPoser1 No the dumbfuck Christians have lost.
billyboylb 1 year ago
@billyboylb Fuck you.
PreppyPoser1 1 year ago
I voted yes and I'm proud of my person choice like it or not!
WESTSIDEGENIUS 1 year ago
@WESTSIDEGENIUS you mean "personal" choice, "genius."
BillKiernan 1 year ago
Because you have the ADMINISTRATION OF MAHJONGTIME are idiots. You are all a pathetic and arrogant. And the game of you is a real trap, you should be excluded from the Internet, you're a band of thieves as well as their players EASTWIN And MISSLOVELY.
cleitodasilva1000 1 year ago
I find it very strange that the administration's relationship with the players MAHJONGTIME EASTWIN MISSLOVELY And, today day 19/10/2010 wrote "EASTWIN AND KNOW WHAT YOU DO, DO NOT DO IT, DO NOT MATCH WITH ATTITUDE OF PEOPLE WELL. PUT YOUR FINGER ON Conscience and out.You THINK THEY WERE SO FAR ARE STARTING TO HARM PEOPLE THAT JUST WANT TO HAVE FUN. Think about it "simply banned me for no offense, I would like to know the relationship with the players of MAHJONGTIME EASTWIN And MISSLOVELY?
silviosarefim 1 year ago
Judgment Day May 21,2011
panatiychuk74 1 year ago
@panatiychuk74 are you sure this time? christians have been setting judgement day dates for 2000+ years now. it's prrrrrrrobably better to not make dates, or make any claims that can be testable in reality. better to keep it faithy and magic-y.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
they should of just had the whole thing recited by Stephen Fry
gudldj 1 year ago
Mr. Cooper sounds a little like Christopher Walken with a southern accent <.<
sciencemile 1 year ago
Sorry If did not clarify what I said too well - here goes - ( no I am not homophobic )
A phobia is an irrational fear is it not - I have no problems associating with anyone who happens to gay - I was just mearly pointing out the hippocracy and highlighting the -- percieved danger-- mind control scenario ( perpetrated by the bigots ) . You are right about homophobia being manufactured as social control .
H.I.V was manufactured in the lab by the c.i.a. / fear and manipulation / peace bro.
55mandreck 1 year ago
what does it mean to be married?
MrPointyarrow 1 year ago
Jesus Christ I need to become a lawyer. I have a giant boner for the judicial system.
DblOSmith 1 year ago
@DblOSmith beautiful statement!! :-D
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@Pisces31660 heh, thanks. Only way for me to make that unfortunately would be to win the lotto, but I can always pretend.
DblOSmith 1 year ago
@DblOSmith mm law school IS awefully expensive.. but that's what LOANS are for!!! you should make enough money to pay it back. Assuming you are Gay...or even not...Gay Americans need more legal adovocates to defend our civil liberties...which r constantly under attack. Maybe there are grants as a "minority" you can get.. I'm glad the legal system gives you a boner. i hope u get them in other ways as well.
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@Pisces31660 Maybe I should look into that. I would love to go to law school, right now, it's my dream, but between the money, my shot credit from being laid off for a while and not being able to find a job, and me currently working night, I don't see how it's possible to afford it or to physically do it.
I'd ideally want to be an employee rights lawyer. Maybe I'll dabble in civil rights too, sure. I have my heart set on University of Oregon... If I were to ever get the chance.
DblOSmith 1 year ago
@evilsoxkitty
You're not going to like Quantum Physics much either. Especially when you get to the part where it says "hasta la vista" to Materialism. Its required that "Law" be dismantled, much in the same manner that Johnny Cochran used to do it... one little technicality at a time, in order for it to be agreeable to you & to homosexuals. Quantum Physics is not going to be agreeable to you either as the latest discoveries simply confirm the Biblical account of life & the universe
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
I see nothing wrong with two people declaring their love for one another weather they be same sex or not; after all - I think a good deal of homophobia stems from the percieved promiscuousness, and the danger of contraction and spread of sexually transmitted diseases etc.- at least marrige may make the individuals concerned less likely to stray - and therefore less danger- if any- to the rest of us self righteous hapily married -ahem! hetros !!! peace n love has no gender !! x
55mandreck 1 year ago
@55mandreck
Simply the fact that you haven't been capable of correctly discerning the matter of "homophobia", indicates why you can't correctly discern the matter of protection of marriage. "Homophobia" was fraudulently manufactured to be used as a negative reinforcement coercive tool for social engineering & gaining a political advantage.
This is made evident by the fact that one is labeled homophobic for simply disagreeing with homosexuality.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Yet, those who condescendingly call heterosexuals "Breeders", are never considered to be "Heterophobic". In fact, "Heterophobia" is not even said to exist. The thinking behind this is that its considered ridiculous to suggest that there would exist any persons with any irrational fears regarding heterosexuality. This is because heterosexuality is so obviously natural & normal. Realizing there may exist fears regarding homosexuality is due to its unnaturalness & abnormality, thus, not irrational
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
In other words, Chief Judge Walker, there’s no legal difference per say. It’s just that my client’s feelings are hurt because God said that what they choose to do is an abomination; too many people in society hold that same view. We have the right to feel justified so everyone else must change! – I say there are a lot of agendas on display here but the search for truth is not one of them. Equality under the law is not enough for the homosexual lobby, they want God and all the world to change.
CYCROFT 1 year ago
@evilsoxkitty haha. that was awesome. i think quantum science would be more interesting and probably very fun.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah!
AstoundedAtheist 1 year ago
Did Olsen say "Marbury v. Mason" or was that the actor's mix up? I'm guessing it's the former, because, purely based on what the transcript said, not how the actor read it, he doesn't seem like he's not quite the advocate people say he is.
kissfan7 1 year ago
Amazing! Thanks for posting this!
bigsteakjoe 1 year ago
Any religion that is threatened by two people loving each other has a pretty weak deity. ;3
Dubblecast 1 year ago 2
@Dubblecast - Awesome! I love that quote, I'm totally going to use it!
LibertyObserver 1 year ago
HEAR ABOUT THE APPELLATE RULING? PROP 8 OVERTURNED!!!
Go Uncle Ted!
It's still going to the supreme court, but still, kudos this legal victory!!!
sbwpolo14 1 year ago
@kenballer00 public policy has no standing with the law if it's unconstitutional. Which is why it was overturned today.
microflex22 1 year ago
how is it an hour long??????
InternalGamingClan 1 year ago
@InternalGamingClan
there is still about 10 hours worth of this.
lildread1 1 year ago
@lildread1 that sucks haw...why do faggs have to do this...
vi20RickrMetaL12us 1 year ago
@vi20RickrMetaL12us
because everyone deserves equal rights
lildread1 1 year ago
Hey, look, it's republicans trying to suppress our rights! New shit.
demonicrubberducky 1 year ago 34
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@demonicrubberducky you are not very smart are you? republicans trying to suppress your rights? first of all NO ONE is more opposed to faggots getting married then blacks. blacks as a group are 99% democrats. second males do not have the right and never did have the right to marry another male. so how can one suppress a right that is not a right? they cant. please kill yourself
RealityVersusEgo 1 year ago
@RealityVersusEgo Ooh, look, it's a troll.
demonicrubberducky 1 year ago
@RealityVersusEgo
Wow, a fake statistic.
Nice job you ignorant troll.
isaiasnaruto 1 year ago
Comment removed
RainRancid 1 year ago
@RainRancid So what you're saying is that a law that has been passed should stay that way? There' s never been an unconstitutional law? This isn't unconstitutional? Nice logic LOL
gaylolful 10 months ago
@demonicrubberducky
LOL its not a right to marry it is a privilege.
dragnet53 11 months ago
@dragnet53
LOL and who reserves the right to grant that privilege.
wakniss 10 months ago
@dragnet53 Yes...just like it's a privelege to live...all of our rights are CLEARLY defined in the constitution right? LOL
gaylolful 10 months ago
TL;DW
jackedupcrackersman 1 year ago
Vaughn Walker is clearly christo-biased. This trial is joke and an embarrassment to the United States.
Plaintiff counsel needed more ballz.
shankarsingam 1 year ago
@ziggySF
prop 8 was perfectly constitutional
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Im not sure where your facts are coming from regarding child rearing. The American Psychiatric Association. American Pediatrics Association. American Medical Association. American Social Workers Association. and many others endorse Same sex relations as a great place for children and child rearing. Most are check out before adoption or foster care. Unlike heterosexual people who procreate and end up loosing there children to Abuse. Neglect, and substance abuse. what about the kids?
GpressNPS 1 year ago
Thank you all so much for all the effort it took to make these videos! Just reading the transcripts made me cry. I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like in real life, and I can't believe America was robbed of the opportunity to witness, to experience this truly historic event for themselves. A huge thank you to all the livebloggers and reenactors and awesomelawyers and everyone else who's making this happen!
wobster109 1 year ago
401RoadWarrior, it's not social dictatorship any more than marrying someone of a different race is. Why? Because no one is forcing you to get a same-sex marriage. If they forced you to do that, that would be social dictatorship. Besides, even if 70% of the country were against atheism, you can't vote to ban atheism.
mogul1265, you ought to give a shit. One day, you will be in the minority for something, and maybe then no one will care to defend you.
wobster109 1 year ago
@wobster109
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I see religion as the hobgoblin of little minds... There is court decision after court decision that have said. "Marriage is a private institution" so not subject to a vote. To vote on a persons right to privacy negates due process, Additionally the right to the peaceful pursuit of happiness. Look again at the closing arguments and debate the court cases.. Civil rights are not up to a vote, Common public opinion are moot. I respect your repeated opinion. Its the hobgoblin of ltl-
GpressNPS 1 year ago 2
@GpressNPS
On the contrary, the U.S supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents. something same sex couples cannot do
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
If we consider the idea that your statement was actually true (which I'm sure it isn't), then it (the U.S. Supreme Court) has failed. The number of children born to parents that are not legally married is on the rise, and has been for some time. So much for the promotion of 'responsible procreation'.
Also, considering the fact that there are many children awaiting adoption, the idea that marriage should be denied homosexuals based on their inability to bear children is ridiculous.
SexedUpAtheist 1 year ago 9
@SexedUpAtheist
my statement is actually 100% true. if you think that it is not, then explain how so. are you saying that the U.S. supreme has not been consistent and if you think that denying marriage to same sex couples based on their inability to procreate is stupid, then again explain how so or why?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 its stupid because their are straight couples that can't procreate. and couples that choose not to
and the world is overpopulated you act like we have an underpopulation issue.
oh no 3 percent of our population gets married so now the population is going to suffer...
we have too many people already with not enough jobs to go around.
procreation is not neccesary for marriage.
thats why its stupid.. would deny a couple that couldnt procreate the right to marry?
no
dcderek24 1 year ago
@dcderek24
its not about creating more children because we don't need encouragment to do something that is already naturally encouraged or have more people. its about responsible procreation and rearing them into society to have a country thats as functional as it can possibly be. this is achieved by encouraging its citizens using the term "marriage" to channel those natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within the stable environments
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 right and only straight people bring up functional people.. you have no idea how many gay people have raised great people. and what if they just never adopt . no harm no foul. poor argument.. just poor greed.
so now its the governments job to enforce whats natural?
thats almost a good argument.. i hope they use that argument at the appeal.. theyll surely lose then.
i wish you were representing them. thats one of the worse arguments ive ever heard
dcderek24 1 year ago
@dcderek24 this is a quote from the federal 8th circuit court case called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning:
"The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage." By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples...." cont....
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 u huh and it lost .
dcderek24 1 year ago
@dcderek24
in this case it involves another district court judge attempting to overturn a state ballot referendum amending the Constitution banning gay marriage. it was ultimately overruled by the 8th circuit court
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 yea thats nice.. its all bullshit for religious purposes.. hopefully the judges make the right decision and dont discriminate for selfish reasons
ah yes why the hell does it matter if they get married.. their gay anyway
dcderek24 1 year ago
@dcderek24
"....such laws "encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committedheterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry...." cont....
kenballer00 1 year ago
@dcderek24
".... But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every study says a child a natural family is the ideal environment.How do children get male & womanhood bonding available only in a natural marriage?Saying marriage is a civil right is an insult to Dr. King & Malcolm X.Sodomy is not a civil right.Dr. Robert Spitzer, who got this off the list of mental diseases in the 1980's said 2001: "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue some people can and do change"
BlackRepublican2010 9 months ago
@kenballer00 If the purpose of marriage is to promote procreation then why don't we have a requirement that people have to be checked out by fertility clinics before getting married? And why don't we require married couples to produce a minimum number of children within a certain period of time? And why do we allow post-menopausal women to get married? Or men who've had vasectomies?
fedos 1 year ago
There has been state efforts in the past to prohibit them but a law excluding infertile couples is constitutionally unenforceable because marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right. Also, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and fertility may reverse the prognosis. Since there are so many situations like this, this clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish.
kenballer00 1 year ago
Thus, its costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.
By contrast, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like this. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage or plural marriage for that matter.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Nor does there need to be, just as there didn't need to be a fundamental right to interracial marriage for that right to be extended to the minorities. It's not about "gay marriage", it's about whether gays have a right to the already existent institution of "marriage".
kennyjburke 1 year ago
@kennyjburke
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children which is what the state promotes according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. What your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"Whites and blacks have always been allowed to marry people of their own race, they're not being denied the right to marry if they can't marry someone of the opposite race."
kennyjburke 1 year ago
@kennyjburke
Bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart. Based on the Brown v. Board decision, segregation of individuals is another form of discrimination. Marriage has always been about INTEGRATION of the sexes for responsible procreation and rearing of children. So unless you think integration is another form of discrimination lke segregation as well, NO its not the same argument. Sorry TRY AGAIN
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Red herring. No one is arguing that denying homosexual couples the right to marry is discriminatory based on sex or gender but rather on sexual orientation.
In fact, SCOTUS has explicitly denied that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and that marriage on fourteen occasions has been defined as a fundamental human right, to the extent that they have affirmed that even inmates who will be in prison for life (and thus have no chance of reproducing) still have this right.
kennyjburke 1 year ago
@kenny
I beg to differ. The plaintiffs in Baker and the Perry case have made arguments that the right to marry is discriminatory based on sex or gender as well as sexual orientation. Judge Walker himself said it does discriminate against sex as well. You need to do more research. Also, when did the SCOTUS ever explicitly deny that the purpose of marriage is for procreation? Where is your evidence for this?
Lastly, I think we have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kennyjburke
YES, it has been determined that you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister.The right to marry someone of the same sex would need to be established by the supreme court first. For example, a Mormon or a bisexual who has this simultaneous feeling for both genders may argue that he has a fundamental right to marry. The answer would be YES, however at this point in time he does not have a right to marry two people in a threesome.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
@kenballer00
I knew that very well. I wasn't going to go into it because I assumed you weren't aware of the intricacies, seeing as how you (seemingly) aren't aware of one of the most basic parts of the case, that being that SCOTUS has established marriage as a fundamental human right.
kennyjburke 1 year ago
@kenny
The point I was trying to make is that the U.S. supreme court has always defined marriage between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage or plural marriage for that matter. In fact, in both cases, the supreme court directly or indirectly rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past.
Based on your argument, I literally would have the fundamental right to marry 80 people.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Wait, if you (general, not you (necessarily)) keep going, pretty soon some will be all-encompassing (marrying anyone, even a married person, incest, look at the governments, please answer is it not hypocritical that majority should rule in Democratic country (just man & woman marriage, no incest, . . .) yet they do not. . .can't pray in public school (in this country, U.S.--(so) much for liberty (only in this case, I think).
SARAHBBRIGHT 1 year ago
@wobster109
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
kenballer00 1 year ago
I think bigotry is indefensible. Changing one's mind on issues where one hates an entire class of people is advisable. The struggle to love is an opportunity for growth.
Squidz0rz 1 year ago
Thank you for your time in making this piece and for your bravery!
kathreener 1 year ago
although being able to get married seems like an apparent right for gay people to be able to have. (in the same way, it would be considered immoral and unconstitutional to prevent straight people from getting married). I will admit that not everyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobe (etc.). You do feel at least repulsed or weirded out enough to deny them basic civil rights. these reasons i don't exactly understand, but i do know that it's been proven that being gay happens at birth.
donotoperateoncrack 1 year ago
Sad is the day when democracy has been raped and used by a majority to enforce their religious beliefs upon a minority. And THIS from a country that calls itself a beacon for freadom and justice. The US is a country full of racists and homophobics where freedom and justice were murdered by hate and prejudice yet for most americans it only takes a TV show or a B movie for them to start living in la-la-land. Very sad in deed.
mcmlxvi 1 year ago
@mcmlxvi BLA BLA BLA DRAMA MELODRAMATIC BLA BLA ECT ECT RHETORIC...BLA BLA . Really dude you sound like a fucktard talking like that. What fucking dog do you have in this fight? Shut the fuck up. Let these fucking drama queens fight it out. They are fucking morons on both sides. This will never effect you in any way so who gives a shit.
mogul1265 1 year ago
@mogul1265 It's ok, as long as I don't sound like a stupid american I really don't care how you believe I sound.... dude! Now go watch your Bruce Willis movie saving the world by himself with nothing but an old shoe, and let this forum for people that actually not only care but have something inteligent to say about it. Just go..... duuuude.
mcmlxvi 1 year ago
@mogul1265 By the way, I understand that for most americans "bla bla bla" is an actual sentence since it is the best their brains can pick up when someone with intelect is talking, but you should know that it really isn't, so don't quote it, it makes you sound stupid or american for the same matter.
mcmlxvi 1 year ago
@mcmlxvi What YOU want is called SOCIAL DICTATORSHIP, when a minority DICTATES thru UNELECTED judges to the rest of the society how that society should function in order to accomodate your personal lifestyle, ok? It was done in Canada in 2003 when COURTS ORDERED the Ontario gov to change the Marriage Act and then the Federal Gov, LIBERALS like Obama, refused to go for a national referendum on this very controversial issue, why? about 70% of Canadians at that time were AGAINST homo marriage !!!
401RoadWarrior 1 year ago
It doesn't matter how this court or any other court rules, homosexuality is a disease and always has been. Everywhere sodomites go they have to announce what they are. Normal people don't do this. Also, sodomites have had to change their name to gay and lesbian so to make their vile unholy behavior sound more palatable. Be not deceived, sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of God.
mrchiefofsinners 1 year ago
@mrchiefofsinners yeah more or less. there are real gay people but they are 1% of the ones the claim it and they could give a shit about this bill. Not with you the god thing though. Like you just said it mostly disease/mental illness. How can they help that lol. We all some issues.
mogul1265 1 year ago
@mogul1265 Next time, take a deep breath, ignore the smoke comming out of your hears, focus on the keyword and write down what you want to say, only this time write all the fucking words down so whatever it is at least is understandable. Try it.
mcmlxvi 1 year ago
@mcmlxvi That would be you big guy. You're the one posting the big dramatic emo comments... 3 in a row....lol I just took a quick motorcycle ride, you must have been banging away the whole time i was gone...I dont give a shit about the faggots or the religious nutters. They are all one big happy family who would be lost without each other, you included..You can resume you're pointless rhetoric now. I would throw in a france insult for good measure but i hate to kick a country when its down.
mogul1265 1 year ago
@mrchiefofsinners . The Sodom had nothing to do with Sodomy. And everything to do with how it treated the lest of them with in its own community. Rape, and in hospitality. Know your facts before you spout your venom. Gay men to not lay with women as they would with a man.... THey are gay. no women. and vise versa. All the not laying with a man as you would with women is towards idolatry and idle worship. gets your facts straight. gays were respected then, and are now..
GpressNPS 1 year ago
thanks for posting this. my uncle took part in this trial.
sbwpolo14 1 year ago
The splitscreen has the court's name wrong. The trial court is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, not the "Northern District of San Francisco."
warszawianka 1 year ago
@warszawianka because its a mock trial and you can not post the real seal....
GpressNPS 1 year ago
Its NONSENSE to think anyone with a different opinion that yours is intolerant or judgmental or hateful or has a phobia.
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
does anyone know when the trial will end or how close they are to coming to the end of the trial?
Azrael666Azazel 1 year ago
Most of the trial (and re-enactment) is over, nothing new happening. But the defense won their quest to obtain documents from the No on 8 campaign relating to the messaging about the campaign. This is due March 31. I believe it's expected that closing arguments will be sometime in mid-April. I'm not sure when a decision is expected...
rg0057 1 year ago
hey thanks for posting these guys. was about to get into the religious debate in this thread but decided to stay out of it. i don't understand why people can't understand the difference though between civil and religious marriage. you can get married by a priest in a church and you still are not legally married unless you get a marriage license from the government and register.
Azrael666Azazel 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not a good reinactment
the actor playing the judge has it all wrong. This reinactment is unfortunately way off base. No self-respecting appellate judge would engage in such testy behavior. (this is not Judge Judy)When a real appellate judge asks questions, he won't be impatient or hostile, he will be inquisitive. He is merely trying to probe counsel's logic and clarify his reasoning.
I give the producers kudos for their efforts, but unfortunately they lack courtroom consultation.
fozmubi 2 years ago
The case is not in an appellate court, but rather a trial court. Our attorney consultants, as well as correspondents from the courtroom, have advised our actors on the demeanor of their counterparts.
We truly appreciate your interest in our project.
MarriageTrial 2 years ago 6
I believe this comes directly from the transcript's . I don't know about you but watching these homophobes try to demonize a minority group for no reason makes me "testy" as well.
samgd9 1 year ago
this is all a re enactment?
this looks so real. nice job
ThinkerMister11 2 years ago
Everyone who disagrees with gay marriage come talk to me after I vote on your right to marry. Your right to love. We'll see how fair you think it is then.
Prop 8 was a load of propaganda, and should never introduced. Even if it's passed now, look at the younger generations and ask them if they care. They don't care. We have no right to vote on their love. Separation of Church and State? Marriage is NOT a religious institution. Gays aren't going away.
HideyoAndItachi 2 years ago
It might not be religious, and I don't mean any disrespect, but it is Ancient, and since its invention it has always been the same thing:
Man+Woman
Homosexuality was common throughout history, but it would not have been considerd a marriage.
Should Civil Unions and Marriages be equal?
Absolutly, and we should crack down on insurance companys, and government offices who think that they are different.
And a religous gay couple can still get married in a church, just not legally.
MikeJGallagherJr 2 years ago
I think you fail to understand the prevalence of homosexuality through out history. Alexander the Great had a lover who was his number 1 and second to no woman.
What is the difference between marriage and civil union? You wanna go biblical? It isn't called marriage in the bible. the hebrew word for marriage is chatunah.
So who cares if gays can get married? Is it really that ancient or is that some type of justification? Slavery is an ancient concept. Should blacks be re-enslaved in the US?
tunisianspice 2 years ago 5
Okay first off, thats great that you found the Hebrew word, and translated into English, it is Marriage.
Second, I understand how prevalant Homosexuality is throughout history, Im just saying that it was never considerd marriage. Alexander the Great was married to Roxana, Stateria, and Parystatis. He was never married to Hephaestion who is said to have been his lover. So using Alexander the Great in a Pro Homosexual Marriage means Nothing.
MikeJGallagherJr 2 years ago
@MikeJGallagherJr check out Gay christian 101 web site.. very interesting coverage.. you can google ancient greek and roman laws and catholic marriages and blessid same sex unions that went on until 1821 marriage changed just with in the last 200 yrs... and has always included same sex relations...
GpressNPS 1 year ago 2