No Constitutional Amendment for present prohibitionism; the war in prosecuted, and otherwise self-determining adults are persecuted, because the war on drugs is as much a war on the individual as it is a culture's metabolism: that of scapegoating the "other". There is only bureaucratic-administrative fiat that has perpetuated this war and scapegoating of drugs and its users. What is more dangerous, ideas or drugs? Shouldn't ingestion of drugs be protected as that of the ingestion of ideas?
Many so-called "liberal" legislation and political movements, past and present, are more so inspired by a political backlash, more inspired by cultural Marxists, than that of truly conservative (and classic liberal) socio-political ideals. There are plenty of "groups" that have been galvanized by the politics of blame and victimhood, and of the need to create a "synthesis" within the mainstream society,i.e., by way of radicalized protest, albeit that respective groups Constitutional right.
As a gay libertarian, I do enjoy the concepts put forth in this video, agreeing and disagreeing with them. SA speaks with common sense and truth in the idea of the states' right to decide on marriage legality. However, it should be the moral obligation of the state to allow for all citizens to have the capability for their ideal standard of living, and even if a majority decides against gay marriage, it is doing a disservice to their fellows by preventing the minority from reasonable equality.
@bassatizemecaptain As a libertarian as well, I'm surprised you even agree with the premise that the government should be involved in any way, shape, or form. What business is it of theirs with whom you engage in a social contract?
The 14th Amendment is a sham. True Free citizens are protected under the body of the Constitution and by their state the only legitimate entity capable of granting citizenship. The federal Government can only grant servitude, make subjects as it overrules it's controlling mechanism in doing so, the states. It sets itself up as a supreme entity. Citizenship is supposed to flow like this; State - - - > Feds (through your state you are member of the union)
@TheCrookedTimber That is true. We are supposed to have a diverse competitive Union. This is the only way to promote good moral values. People will migrate to other states to get away from bad legislation. it's easy and doesn't hit the wallet 1 millionth as hard as leaving the whole union. It keeps the legislation pure. It keeps the culture of those states stable and secure and keeps the states carrying out the wants of the people there. Personally I love Weed. If I had to go to say Utah I would
Marriage is a religious ceremony it has no place in Government. If two people want to be together I don't care, doesn't affect me and what I think about it does not matter. I am not going to waste time or spend my money and power to stop people from loving each other. It does not affect me. Just because I find something uncomfortable or even have a dislike towards it (which I don't I have found many fine gay people) doesn't make it law.
While I am certainly all in favor of government getting out of the marriage business, so long as people gain benefits from the state for marrying, I don't see any rational reason for gay couple not to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals do.
@Akatam0t0ma See that's the problem nobody should be getting any federal benefits. People can't help their sexuality. I know that is a very controversial statement right there but we can all agree that less Government and more State control is what we want.
Anyone can get married....Everyone is allowed to marry. That is to say...every man can marry a woman. That is the meaning since the dawn of mankind. Walk means walk....talk means talk...marriage means what it means. Get over it.
Inventing words and meanings is a short path to long problems. For instance, words like homophobia... it doesnt even make sense... nevermind medical dictionaries.
A good start to such nonsense..abolish Dept of Education.
I think gay marriage is morally wrong but that is just my opinion. I accept the idea that I have no power over the choices of others but those same people must accept that they have no power over my choice of my own beliefs. This gives me the right to either accept or reject anything anyone else is trying to push onto me.
Libertarianism is starting to make me sick. It sounds good on the surface but underneath is just another push with everyone else for blatant immorality. Immoral people who are immoral to each other are immoral to everyone. How can we expect our country to survive with everyone promoting immorality? It makes absolutely no sense at all if you think about it even for a little while.
@freedomseeker01 I think you are missing the point of self-governance where individuals decide how they are going to live. I am with you about gay marriage and think it is pretty f'd but the single biggest argument in favor of gay marriage is that someone's rights are being denied. Think what would happen once you remove all the laws. What argument can they come up with about denying someone their rights when their is no law regulating this institution. Its a way to defeat this argument
it is not the state's business to condone or accept or deny anybody from marrying any other body or thing. This country was founded on the principles of freedom & that is how it should remain. You should be FREE to do whatever you want as long as that freedom doesn't infringe upon the rights of another as it is guaranteed in the constitution.
The government should get of marriage. That being said homo-sexuality is not normal nor moral and if you think that recognizing homo-sexuality as a valid from of human behavior is normal then you've lost it. It doesn't take a religious zealot to see that it's madness and nothing positive will come from a society which promotes it. Show me a society in history, which ever promoted homos, that was on it's way up the ladder of success... always on the way down.
@BlueRidge27 Right on! Keep on telling it like it is. The idiots who oppose your viewpoint are the very people of whom you speak. I know of no animals who are animal enough to do the kinds of things the homos are doing. To be worse than animals is pretty low.
I whole heartedly agree that it is none of the Federal Government's business. (And that the 14th Amd argument is bizarre.) But, should the mob be allowed to decide how other people live their lives? “…[The governor] would stand by his constituents’ original referendum …” Are you saying you support the will of the mob even when that mob intends to infringe upon the Liberties of a minority (judged to be immoral based on religious dictates)? Should democracy trump Liberty in California?
I keep thinking marriage is something more protected by the first amendment than it is by the fourteenth. But I am crazy like that, thinking a traditionally religious union between people some how fits into freedom of religion.
Now, by the 10th amendment rather a state recognizes a marriage or a civil union is a whole different kettle of fish and certainly no individual by the same definition of freedom of religion should be forced to recognize a marriage as legitimate. Again, I'm crazy right?
The best case scenario is that we totally cut government out of marriage, which means without marriage benefits and other government perks, gays wouldn't NEED marriage. They could just be together, unless they really want to get married religiously, in which case they could find a gay friendly church.
Hm, seems the best solution to EVERYTHING these days is to shrink the fed.
vital point-there is nothing in Christianity about homosexuality being "sin". Christ never mentions it, the verses twisted to claim the Bible OK's homophobia do not really. Discrimination and bigotry aren't American or Christian.
If homosexuals want civil unions, fine I don't care but if they are trying to force religious establishments to recognize and perform homosexual marriages then I will oppose that.
@Blairtim69 So you've found an independent church that recognizes gay marriage good for you. I'm Catholic and the mainstream Catholic Church does not recognize or perform them. Would you force the Catholic Church to perform and recognize them and violate the Constitutional Rights of the Catholic Church?
Allowing gay marriages to be recognized by the government will would not force any church to perform marriages.
The only way any church organization would be forced to do anything for gays is if a church or church sub organization accepted public funding from the government. If a religious group accepts public funding, then it would have to be fair, but only if we get added to the federal anti discrimination laws, which are not even close to debate.
although i do agree with what you say southern aveger i think there are certain things you just don't put up for a vote like first admendment and lets face it: Sometimes, and I really do mean only sometimes, the majority is totally, completely, 100% WRONG
As much as I hate prop 8, I have to agree here. I really don't recognize the authority of either side here. On one hand, I don't recognize the authority of the Federal government to strike down a state decision and on the other hand I don't recognize the rights of the majority to intrude on the rights of the minority. Really though, we just need to get the government out of marriage and this whole thing would become a non-issue.
I deem that personal business is people's personal business. However, I do not believe this should be publicly and nationally determined. As some kind of ad campaign for it.
I believe as a Christian that a man and a man or a woman and a woman, is by definition, immoral. But the state should not be determining morality for people, one way or the other. Therefore, as a religious and moral decision, I think we should keep the state out of moral and religious decisions. As it was previously here.
@MarkBH70 Letting the state into religious and moral decisions is a great mistake. I would be, perhaps, one of the few people here that would be happy to go to a homosexual wedding, if I knew the people, or one of them, well. Previously, a pastor or priest would marry. This is the way it should be. Now. I do not need, though due to propriety would go to, the government's approval for my behavior. Nor should others. The government is trying to sway morality, and cause division.
This is one of the hardest but most important concepts for most Americans to understand.
Regardless of how you feel about any of these social issues (abortion, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc.) if you care at all about individual freedom and the liberties our founding fathers fought for; you MUST oppose the federal government's supremacy on these issues.
We had a civil war to decide if the majority can trump the rights of a minority. The majority lost and basic rights were given to the individual not to the states.
BTW - 7 million voters voted for Prop. 8 in California. That is far from a majority of the 37 million individuals who live there unless you want to overturned the laws of simple math too.
I generally agree w/ Jack, but I think he needs to realize here, the same way the Federal Government has No rights dictating who does or does not get married, nor should the States or Voters. The real violation of the constitution here is not the one of the fed violating the State, which that is a violation, but the truest violation is the one of any government, either federal or state, getting in the way of an Individual, or in this case individuals having the right to choose how to live life.
My position is that States don't really have rights, neither do gay people, nor do the Feds; only individuals do. I recognize marriage as a form of the freedom of association, and I cannot see how anyone or anything can have the right--in your argument, the state of California--to abrogate the individual rights of its citizens. The whole notion is a contradiction that the Constitution had resolved since day one, in fact. And I would apply the same logic to Chicago and guns. What do you think?
Here's something to consider, Jack. Hasn't Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution always authorized this kind of federal activity in THIS context? If marriage between any two human beings is their natural right derived from the freedom of association, is it not therefore protected by the ninth amendment? Do State governments really have RIGHTS, or is that just individuals do and federal powers are limited when dealing with the states?
I agree that the federal government has no business in marriage. But I also believe that states don't, either ironic solutions -- Either we ban all marriage laws, or we allow gay marriage.
If we ban all marriage laws, and take away government regulations on marriage, we eliminate the problem, and marriage becomes quaint and out-dated.
If we allow gay marriage, then gay people will be able toshare all the disappointment, pain and suffering that married couples do. ;)
Majority vote does not make law. There are 3 equal parts of our government -- Executive, legislative, and judicial, and laws can only be made when they are in line with the US Constitution. States do not have the right to make a law that violates the US constitution. Anyone who suggests that a majority vote by the population can make or break a law doesn't know jack about the constitution or it's history.
I disagree with this commentary. Civil rights have NEVER been achieved through majority vote. Had it been left up to the states, we might very well still have Jim Crow laws and sodomy laws. Women, non-property holders and other minorities might still be forbidden to vote in some states. Interratial marriages might still be forbidden. And the drug laws are addressed by the Dept. of Justice, not the federal judiciary.
I'm getting extremely annoyed at political parties finding loopholes in the constitution for their BS agendas! Constitutional amendments were made difficult to achieve for a good reason!
This is the only time I have disagreed with the SA, and I think this is where some libertarians part way with constitutionalist. Any ban on gay marriage is necessarily an unjust law and thus cannot be enforced, so a court can correctly overturn said law, no matter the constitution. This is because the constitution does not trump individual rights, nor natural law.
Actually, I think the court was right in this case. Prop 8 was against equal protection under the law for all people.
I agree the motivation is wrapped up in the government privileges extended to those with the state marriage license.
It would have been better if those who supported prop. 8 had demanded that the state get out of the marriage business. Their efforts should have been for marriage privatization. George and Martha Washington didn't have a state marriage license.
This is what i don't understand, what if voters decide thru a democratic election that they want to ban interracial marriages? do we all as libertarians just ignore it as par of state right? or fight the obvious govt discrimination.
Govt should be stripped of the ability to discriminate whether done thru executive, legislative or voting process. Thats my take on it, no to prop 8. If u want to discriminate dont ever call of govt to assist with enforcement
Jack has such excellent commentary. Seriously I wish this guy was on the radio where I live. He has such a balanced and principled approach. I could never understand why marriage needed to be yet another government dictated institution. Even more, why is there so little concern for how the Federal Government feels entitled to impose itself on every aspect of our lives? How come more people are not insulted and even terrified by this?
I am all for removing all recognition for Heterosexual marriage in the state institutions. However, in the case of a gay marriage BAN. As a libertarian, it quickly becomes apparent what a BAN means... the Gun pointed at the individual for disobeying state edicts. And as a principled libertarian - I oppose ALL bans by the state, whether the state is defined as the state of california, or the "one nation" created by lincoln's constitution.
No one, including state or federal gov, has the right to regulate who I choose, do not choose, to associate with for any reason saving criminal conduct. Since most marriages are conducted by and in churches, don't you think those institutions aught to be able to decide whether or not to marry any two people? That gov is even engaged in defining or deciding what marriage is or isn't is madness. The US Const specifically prohibits Cong passing any law regulating association. No state can either.
14th has an "equal protection clause" so no state has a constitutional right to discriminate against it's own people of the majority doesn't like them, duh!
@FREEAMERICANOW69 you miss the point. He's saying Marriage shouldn't be sanctioned by the government in the first place. He DID say he doesn't care if gay people marry so therefore he's okay with gay marriage. The point is, if the state passes a law/proposition it's their law and the federal government can't just override the state's law just because it's not politically correct (they did the same thing against Arizona)
no, sweetheart, he said his opinion about govt and marriage at first seconds of the video, but the rest of the video was he bitching about so-called state's rights to "discriminate" by voters and the 14th amendment.
sorry, the 14th amendment's "equal protection clause" wins hands down over the 10th amendment or whatever the voters wanted= that how the constitution works.
@FREEAMERICANOW69 Gay marriage is a public policy issue, not a civil rights issue. The rules of marriage are the same for every human, irrespective of skin color, sexual orientation, nose size, hair color or religion. Gays want the rules changed, and the public said no. Case closed.
@FREEAMERICANOW69 The analogy doesn't fit. The rules were different for black men - the law took into consideration the black skin. In California, the rules were the same for everyone - gay, straight, black, white - same rules.
rules= discrimination by whites (heteros) because some whites (hetero) didn't like black (gay) people by making law against their rights that wasn't legally justified and there was no public safety at risk.
and just like Jim crow was struck down, anti-gay marriage laws will be too.
@FREEAMERICANOW69 There are no laws against their rights - gays are free to get married, just like heteros. Same rules apply. A hetero man can't marry a hetero man. I can't marry someone just because i want to - i can't marry my sister, mother, first cousin, a 5 year old, my pet rock, or another man. No discrimination whatsoever - but i don't think you understand the word "discrimination" because this word undercuts your argument.
Greene VS Sonoma is only a recent case where all the legal papers in the world can't protect you from bigotry. They can be denied or contested by family or courts. How is it fair treatment to have to have contracts drawn up by attorneys? No contract will protect us from discrimination in the work place, housing, or receiving services.
These agreements won’t add us to the federal antidiscrimination law that includes race, age, gender, religion, and national origin.
Currently in most states and communities gays don’t have the right to jobs, housing, and services without discrimination.
We do have the right to get married. We have been getting married in churches for decades. There are over 100 churches in Florida that will marry same sex couples.
It is the government that does not recognize our marriages, and denies us access to medical, inheritance, and other rights and responsibilities.
In most of the country we don't have access to jobs, housing, and services without discrimination.
We also can't openly serve in the military. Our spouses receive no military benefits, and don't even receive the basic respect of notification when a spouse is killed. We are kicked out of our homes, communities, and churches.
Only recently have we been able to start moving out of the gay ghettos.
@Blairtim69 Are you living in the 50's? Kicked out of your homes? Bull. And all this discrimination is because of what - you have a tattoo "gay" pasted on your forehead?
In the 50’s we would have been arrested, and our names, addresses, and photos printed in the paper.
We would have lost our jobs, and homes. This is why we have been living in ghettos.
Thousands of teens are kicked out of their homes, when they tell their parents they are gay. A large number are forced into harmful reparative therapy facilities.
In most communities gays have to lie about who they are to get jobs and housing.
@cro-magnon1,gay marriage is a civil right,not some policy issue. what l.g.b.t. americans want is full and unconditional EQUAL RIGHTS under the law.we ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY. we are as SECULAR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. translation; personal religious biases and theologies,and the insecurites of many women and men regarding gender roles are left out of the countries courts and government bodies.those personal prejudices should NEVER BE CODIFIED INTO LAW
@FREEAMERICANOW69 indeed, equal protection if marriage was an institution the government had any right to sanction in the first place. Which they don't - which he pointed out. If your point is he shouldn't be backing Prop 8 in the first place based on that notion, then I agree. I think he backs out because he believes in States rights
legal marriage is a institution by govt because marriage law offer legal protection for parties. saying that heteros can get married and gays can't= discrimination because there's no "legal reason" and no"threat to public safety" to prevent them from getting married, it's just people don't like gays.
they didn't sanction it because Gay rights wasn't big as it is now and those politicians want to keep their jobs.
no, your point that SA forgot that 14th amendment trump the 10th
Fact is Prop 8 shouldn't have been on the ballot in the first place. It was just another step in making this country a theocracy which is a frightening thought. It basically paid for by the fucking mormons which is also frightening.
Marriage is a private voluntary association among adults.Americans should not be fighting for Gay marriage to be allowed by the state,instead they should fight for the state to get out of the marriage industry altogether.Then people can get married in what ever they deem fit.
@TiaSaysSo I agree with you. But why is it that most of the supporters for gay marriage tend to take the proggressive dumbcrat side? Don't you think that gay marriage supporters should most likely take the liberterian side? Or could it be, that most gay marriage supporters side with proggressives because they favor population control, and gay couples are gaurenteed to never conceive children?
@ericlebo The federal government affords all kinds of 'benefits' to straight marriages.Gay couples want this too. In America, non-libertarians always look to get into an established welfare scheme (including corporatism).It takes greater integrity and intellectual honesty to resist subsidies,handouts and 'free' services.
or maybe, gays are having their 14th's "equal protection cause" discriminated against by people like libertarians and conservatives, who doesn't know HOW the constitution works and the difference between a legal marriage and spiritual one.
legal marriage= legal rights and legal protection.
@TiaSaysSo Government still needs to recognize it (in laws, in courts, etc.), otherwise it is legally meaningless. So you either have private voluntary associations that are legally meaningless or you do have legal meaning assigned to them but that automatically means government involvement. You cannot have it both ways.
@shamusername Legally meaningless sounds great to me. My marriage is important to my wife, myself, and my family. Everyone else can go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut as to what they think of it--and that is as it should be.
The main point is were it says NO state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Rednecks and other white trash, like the Southern Avenger, aren't fit to manage their own lives, much less understanding the penumbras and emanations involved in interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should stick to NASCAR and sniffing paint thinner, and leave the business of managing the government to their betters. If they don't like it, let them eat (gay wedding) cake.
I don't recall asking for your opinion, prole. I'm not interested in your, or any other trailer-dweller's, proto-human articulations. You *will* eat your broccoli and you will *like* it. Now, STFU or you'll get tazers and tear gas, then off to bed without your Big Mac.
Regarding God and government: any government acting contrary to the laws of God is wrong and is not to be adhered to. Marriage can never be between two men - regardless of what civil government says.
@kentuckypreacher you still have to acknowledge that not everyone feels the same way as you and allow them the FREEDOM to make their "mistakes." Thats what being american is all about. Freedom of religion, freedom to pursue happiness. Jesus never defined marriage. He did have ideas on how to treat your "enemies." In this case turning the other cheek means allowing gay people to get married as they see fit even if you dont count those marriages as real. I'm talking state by state here.
Glad to see you are trying to participate in an intelligent fashion. Now, how about instead of telling me to shut up, why don't you explain to me the fallacy of my argument.
If you're a Christian, you should look to your bible:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Romans 13: 1-2
Pretty clear. Judge Walker was appointed by god and you should stfu.
Forgive me I'm wrong but wasn't the purpose of a Republic to protect individuals from the mob rule? I suppose it's all about what the majority wants is the best, just trample over everyone and protect no one. I'd much prefer Individual Representation in my government.
Yeah, I agree. How is fifty federation-democracies better then one federal democracy? I think that constitutional rights should be protected at a state level. That being said, I don't see how the 14th amendment covers this. I think it would be protected under the 1st amendment, seeing as how marriage is a religious institution and therefore the government has no right telling us who we can or can marry through our faiths.
I wonder how many people are either too simple or too emotionally blinded to understand the states-rights implications of this topic. I know someone who sees a state outlawing gay marriage as some kind of homophobic offense and sees federal intervention as a morally-just cause.
I suppose if I were gay I'd want to side with federal intervention so I could "have it my way" but I don't honestly give a shit if uncle sam recognizes a marriage or not. Love and government are worlds apart in my mind.
The Southern Avenger refuses to fit in any box. In California, he would be considered a homophobe while he would be considered a gay rights supporter in Vermont. That's a better position than the typical spin of the right which is about making gays & lesbians out to be second class citizens. Don't worry; I am not letting the left off the hook either. While they would be correct to support same sex marriage, many are PC about it themselves which is as bad as the dark side of the extreme right.
@PsychoPunk1965 "The Southern Avenger refuses to fit in any box. In California, he would be considered a homophobe while he would be considered a gay rights supporter in Vermont"
Unfortunately, too many individuals appear to uneducated to understand the above. Many appear to even be unwilling to engage in critical thinking of any kind, but rather allowing the federal government to accomplish this task for them.
Note: in England they have it right. The couple marry in the Church and the Priest signs the marriage document and keeps it as record. THEN, for tax and legal purposes, the couple go to the court house for the appropriate documents. The state does not sign the church document, the church does not sign the state forms. BINGO! So, what about the CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF Marriage and separation of church and state?? Constitutionally isn't it none of the state's business????
Brilliantly reasoned.The fools who self-servingly approve of expansive Constitutional interpretations don't realize that with each passively accepted judgment the Central Government seizes more power over We the People,and the terrible Sword it wields grows more lethal.These dunces also seem unaware that Swords are indifferent servants.To wit:soon they will awaken to find the very sword they helped fashion being used to slit their throats. But, alas,their tiny epiphany will have come too late.
This all could have been avoided if the government stayed out of marriage. But just because the people voted against gay marriage doesn't make things right.
What if there was a State PROP48 that banned INTERRACIAL Marrigage.....???
It would be absurd to think that ANY WHERE in the UNITED STATES such a ban should be allowed..... I would say the same holds true for Non-Intergender Marriage (or Union, so as not step on the rights of the Church(es)).
Jack isn't this why we are a republic and not a democracy so that 51% of the population can't takeaway the rights of the other 49% of Americans. The Constitution protects every individual so even 99% of Americans can’t take the rights away from 1% of Americans. In this case I believe the Federal government was right to protect the individuals Constitutional rights. The drug laws are a whole other story.
SA, you shouldn't be surprised by disagreements here and I'm sure you're not. - Marriage is not a right, obviously, but far too often stating that something isn't a right gives the impression that government can put their noses into it, which it this case it's not supposed to. Based on that, I don't consider marriage a privilege, either. Marriage is a religious union and as such does have ties to a right. (more)
(continued) Marriage is a product of the 1st amendment. Freedom of religion. Given that there are churches (small number as it may be) that would be ok with marrying gays, I find it interesting the judge didn't overturn it that way.I know why he didn't, but it still amuses me all the same. I agree with the point on states rights as the Constitution only applies to the federal government, not to the states (though I always like to see my state respect it as its own, anyways). (more)
I get the point but...this is a republic, there for the minorities are protected against majorities... this is why it was completely constitutional for an over turn, as that is what that power is for. example... blacks are a minority.... and yet no one would think twice about saying they cant marry. If a state some how got it passed to law that blacks couldnt, it damn well better be over turned as it should. States rights are not higher than individual freedom, nor should they ever be.
Since marriage isn't something the federal government should regulate, let's drop all tax benefits for married couples. I'm sure they'll understand and support the moral stand against applying the Equal Protection Clause to the Defense of Marriage Act.
But wait, that's an expansion of taxes! You've got us over a barrel, liberals!
I'm not sure I understand. As far as I'm concerned, a majority had no right to restrain a minorities power to marry in the first place. Prop 8 was one of the most malevolent acts of dictatorship of the majority I've ever seen. This is not a democracy, it's a republic. What the judge did was constitutional in my eyes because no one should be able to take another persons freedoms away in the first place.
@WintersAscension agreed. I like most of this guy's videos, but he has a strange interpretation of the constitution. he sees it as an list of rights that the federal government cannot take away. Yet he believes that the states CAN take away those rights. he lays out this view in his vid aobut gun control. As far as i've heard, the states can make any laws they want so long as constitutional rights are not infringed upon, in which case the federal govt has to step in.
@killatop I'm not going to bother finding it. but he talked about a case where a state ruled that guns were illegal or something. the supreme court overturned the state's ruling on the basis of the second amendment. jack said it was a loss for conservatives because the bill of rights are only an outline of what the federal government can't take away, not the state governments. obviously the implications are that states can take away any rights, which i don't agree with.
I'm from California and we've beaten around this bush so long it's like a bad soap opera. Gay marriage gets voted on and it's not allowed by vote but then it gets overturned by courts. If people vote on something it should mean something not if a judge thinks it's OK afterwords. Gay marriage advocates who use this avenue should take this video into serious thought. Use elections not courtrooms for your cause because this is a genie you MUST NOT let out of the bottle!
@bittergunowner12 So people should be subject to the tyranny of the majority? One day the majority changes colors and makes laws that you don't particularly like, I have a feeling you would feel different.
Well put Jack. I keep telling the two sides of the stupid (including some on this tube) that all you have to do is get government out of the business of marriage, After that, if you can find a priest, I could care less if you marry your mother to a cow.
I don't want the state or the federal government to decide who I get to marry . Remember Miscegenation laws? Remembe jim crow laws? history shows that the state government can be just as corruptible as the federal government. Did you know that the stateof oregon one time were able to outlaw private schools. Both the state government and the federal government can create laws that are antithetical to the advancement of individual liberty. I don't understand why you only pounce on the federal govt
I usually don't disagree with you SOUTHERN AVENGER , but The bill of rights are absolutely the Federal government's business when they are threatened . Civil rights are not to be voted on PERIOD !
There is a difference between 'Natural Rights' and 'Civil rights' learn it. What they want is a privilege i.e. marriage license issue by a state, that's not a Natural Right but a privilege.
@josacape But if the government is in the business of issuing a civil right, like voting rights, or marriage rights, what right does the government have to administer these rights unequally?
Because they're PRIVILEGES! Not Rights! They're Legislated into existence! They have been Unequally applying these Privileges to different sectors of the population at different times! Though, I agree, if they are in the business of giving licenses to marry - it should be equal to all.
Marriage is a right..... a collective populous doesn't determine your rights SOUTHERN AVENGER ..Your born with those rights......Southern Avenger you seem more of the majority rule then a real libertarian ....Considering the views of Goldwater who you seem to admire im shocked at your opinion on this ......There are unconstitutional gun laws in which the majority voted for but it shouldn't determine a right to bear arms
@tynitty516 youre confusing a state license with the freedom to have a relationship with another person. Marriage has more to do with regulaion than allowing people to enter into a commited relationship. Gays will hook up regaurdless of the law. He is correct about a fed judge not having authority over Cal prop 8
There is a big difference between universal health care (positive right) and gay marriage (negative right). I don't prefer the tyranny of the state over the tyranny of the federal government. I prefer NO TYRANNY! No politician, or majority has the right to take away the inherit liberty that each human deserves.
A majority of southerners voted against interracial marriage. It didn't mean that their 10th amendment rights were ignored, it just means that the majority cannot suppress the rights of the minority, and the court is there to rectify that. Once government became involved in issuing marriage certificates that were recognized state to state, the government is then responsible for making sure that the law is fair for ALL.
You are wrong. One of the few things the federal gov should do is try to provide equal protection. Should a state be allowed to let a majority vote remove the rights of the minority? Perhaps you think a state should be allowed to legalize slavery. I don't. If california wants to equally ban all marriage, then I would agree that the fed should stay out of it. But to make something legal for some and not others is wrong.
3) IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Our gov't is supposed to remain secular on religious Issues. I am part of the atheist community on youtube and despite how diverse we are politically NONE of us are against gay marrage. Ask how many people appose gay marrage strictly because "god hates fags"
"Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This also applies to the states and Prop 8 was Funded $20M by the Morman Church. Blatantly viotlates the 1st ammemendment.
2) We live in a Republic, Not a democracy, and giving the majority the right to vote against a minority is a discrace to that fact as well as it is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about esp John Locke. People Should be able to do what ever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone or break the rule of law...Continued.
American citizens are denied to have joint health plain, joint tax filing, or power for medical decisions on the behalf of their partner. All because they are gay. Since when is it up to the states to grant or deny civil rights? The 14th makes it clear that the states can't abridge rights any more than the federal government can. That is what the federal government is for, to ensure our rights. But to imply a slippery slope by allowing oversight of rights is absurd.
@TheAtheistPaladin They are not denied these things you mention because they are gay. The govt is to involved in our personal lives and as a result if a couple is unable to get a marraige license they are denied these things. homosexuals can and will still have relationship whether the state will recognize and license it or not. The root of this problem is with taxes and money issues. That is where we should focus
You are not making any sense. You deny that they are not denied of these right because they are gay but rather blame govt involvement...? WTF? They are the only group not allowed to get a license. What does it matter if they can still have a relationship? They still can't get joint accounts or be under one policy. Why do straights have the only rights to that? To have the federal govt sit on its hands is NOT a solution. It is the problem.
Your right that the gov't shouldn't be involved in marrage...BUT... I live in California and I was thrilled that this was over turned...heres my take :
1)As a Libertarian, I believe it is one of the federal gov't legitimate functions to protect the rights of indaviduals EQUALLY and not discriminate against anyone reguardless of race, reilgion, sexual oreintation, etc.
No Constitutional Amendment for present prohibitionism; the war in prosecuted, and otherwise self-determining adults are persecuted, because the war on drugs is as much a war on the individual as it is a culture's metabolism: that of scapegoating the "other". There is only bureaucratic-administrative fiat that has perpetuated this war and scapegoating of drugs and its users. What is more dangerous, ideas or drugs? Shouldn't ingestion of drugs be protected as that of the ingestion of ideas?
whiff1962 8 months ago
Many so-called "liberal" legislation and political movements, past and present, are more so inspired by a political backlash, more inspired by cultural Marxists, than that of truly conservative (and classic liberal) socio-political ideals. There are plenty of "groups" that have been galvanized by the politics of blame and victimhood, and of the need to create a "synthesis" within the mainstream society,i.e., by way of radicalized protest, albeit that respective groups Constitutional right.
whiff1962 8 months ago 2
As a gay libertarian, I do enjoy the concepts put forth in this video, agreeing and disagreeing with them. SA speaks with common sense and truth in the idea of the states' right to decide on marriage legality. However, it should be the moral obligation of the state to allow for all citizens to have the capability for their ideal standard of living, and even if a majority decides against gay marriage, it is doing a disservice to their fellows by preventing the minority from reasonable equality.
bassatizemecaptain 1 year ago
@bassatizemecaptain As a libertarian as well, I'm surprised you even agree with the premise that the government should be involved in any way, shape, or form. What business is it of theirs with whom you engage in a social contract?
masterriftsgm 7 months ago
The 14th Amendment is a sham. True Free citizens are protected under the body of the Constitution and by their state the only legitimate entity capable of granting citizenship. The federal Government can only grant servitude, make subjects as it overrules it's controlling mechanism in doing so, the states. It sets itself up as a supreme entity. Citizenship is supposed to flow like this; State - - - > Feds (through your state you are member of the union)
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@TheCrookedTimber That is true. We are supposed to have a diverse competitive Union. This is the only way to promote good moral values. People will migrate to other states to get away from bad legislation. it's easy and doesn't hit the wallet 1 millionth as hard as leaving the whole union. It keeps the legislation pure. It keeps the culture of those states stable and secure and keeps the states carrying out the wants of the people there. Personally I love Weed. If I had to go to say Utah I would
Luigi84289 1 year ago
Marriage is a religious ceremony it has no place in Government. If two people want to be together I don't care, doesn't affect me and what I think about it does not matter. I am not going to waste time or spend my money and power to stop people from loving each other. It does not affect me. Just because I find something uncomfortable or even have a dislike towards it (which I don't I have found many fine gay people) doesn't make it law.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
While I am certainly all in favor of government getting out of the marriage business, so long as people gain benefits from the state for marrying, I don't see any rational reason for gay couple not to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals do.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma See that's the problem nobody should be getting any federal benefits. People can't help their sexuality. I know that is a very controversial statement right there but we can all agree that less Government and more State control is what we want.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
Anyone can get married....Everyone is allowed to marry. That is to say...every man can marry a woman. That is the meaning since the dawn of mankind. Walk means walk....talk means talk...marriage means what it means. Get over it.
Inventing words and meanings is a short path to long problems. For instance, words like homophobia... it doesnt even make sense... nevermind medical dictionaries.
A good start to such nonsense..abolish Dept of Education.
tonysshadow 1 year ago
I think gay marriage is morally wrong but that is just my opinion. I accept the idea that I have no power over the choices of others but those same people must accept that they have no power over my choice of my own beliefs. This gives me the right to either accept or reject anything anyone else is trying to push onto me.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
Libertarianism is starting to make me sick. It sounds good on the surface but underneath is just another push with everyone else for blatant immorality. Immoral people who are immoral to each other are immoral to everyone. How can we expect our country to survive with everyone promoting immorality? It makes absolutely no sense at all if you think about it even for a little while.
freedomseeker01 1 year ago
@freedomseeker01 I think you are missing the point of self-governance where individuals decide how they are going to live. I am with you about gay marriage and think it is pretty f'd but the single biggest argument in favor of gay marriage is that someone's rights are being denied. Think what would happen once you remove all the laws. What argument can they come up with about denying someone their rights when their is no law regulating this institution. Its a way to defeat this argument
timbosforporn 1 year ago
it is not the state's business to condone or accept or deny anybody from marrying any other body or thing. This country was founded on the principles of freedom & that is how it should remain. You should be FREE to do whatever you want as long as that freedom doesn't infringe upon the rights of another as it is guaranteed in the constitution.
ubetcha13 1 year ago
@ubetcha13
Get the government out of marriage! But, a marriage license (which is what they want) issue by the State is a privilege not a natural right.
"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.
josacape 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch: How Proposition 8 Went Down (Part 1 of 2)
see HOW got it SA is wrong because he doesn't KNOW anything about the 14th amendment.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
Comment removed
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
You are a fair dude,Thank you for carrying,and educate people like me.
putointaft 1 year ago
The government should get of marriage. That being said homo-sexuality is not normal nor moral and if you think that recognizing homo-sexuality as a valid from of human behavior is normal then you've lost it. It doesn't take a religious zealot to see that it's madness and nothing positive will come from a society which promotes it. Show me a society in history, which ever promoted homos, that was on it's way up the ladder of success... always on the way down.
BlueRidge27 1 year ago
@BlueRidge27 Haha, oh wow. (Get the fuck out of here)
Golobit 1 year ago
@BlueRidge27 Right on! Keep on telling it like it is. The idiots who oppose your viewpoint are the very people of whom you speak. I know of no animals who are animal enough to do the kinds of things the homos are doing. To be worse than animals is pretty low.
freedomseeker01 1 year ago
@freedomseeker01 Well the good part is that the homos, and those performing abortions, aren't reproducing. So there's hope for mankind yet!
BlueRidge27 1 year ago
I whole heartedly agree that it is none of the Federal Government's business. (And that the 14th Amd argument is bizarre.) But, should the mob be allowed to decide how other people live their lives? “…[The governor] would stand by his constituents’ original referendum …” Are you saying you support the will of the mob even when that mob intends to infringe upon the Liberties of a minority (judged to be immoral based on religious dictates)? Should democracy trump Liberty in California?
chrstsldr 1 year ago
I keep thinking marriage is something more protected by the first amendment than it is by the fourteenth. But I am crazy like that, thinking a traditionally religious union between people some how fits into freedom of religion.
Now, by the 10th amendment rather a state recognizes a marriage or a civil union is a whole different kettle of fish and certainly no individual by the same definition of freedom of religion should be forced to recognize a marriage as legitimate. Again, I'm crazy right?
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
Tired of the same political double speak? Tired of both parties doing the same thing? We have the answers! anp14.com
SouthernNationalist 1 year ago
The best case scenario is that we totally cut government out of marriage, which means without marriage benefits and other government perks, gays wouldn't NEED marriage. They could just be together, unless they really want to get married religiously, in which case they could find a gay friendly church.
Hm, seems the best solution to EVERYTHING these days is to shrink the fed.
MrUnicorn1995 1 year ago
vital point-there is nothing in Christianity about homosexuality being "sin". Christ never mentions it, the verses twisted to claim the Bible OK's homophobia do not really. Discrimination and bigotry aren't American or Christian.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
You sound like a Republican.
default013 1 year ago
If homosexuals want civil unions, fine I don't care but if they are trying to force religious establishments to recognize and perform homosexual marriages then I will oppose that.
nbenicewicz 1 year ago
@nbenicewicz
Gays can already get married in churches.
I received a marriage certificate after my church wedding
We have been having religious weddings for decades.
There are over 100 gay friendly churches in Florida.
It is the secular government that won’t recognize our marriages, and allow medical, inheritance, and over a 1000 other benefits and responsibilities.
After we receive the privilege to marry, you and your church can continue their discrimination.
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@Blairtim69 So you've found an independent church that recognizes gay marriage good for you. I'm Catholic and the mainstream Catholic Church does not recognize or perform them. Would you force the Catholic Church to perform and recognize them and violate the Constitutional Rights of the Catholic Church?
nbenicewicz 1 year ago
@nbenicewicz
Allowing gay marriages to be recognized by the government will would not force any church to perform marriages.
The only way any church organization would be forced to do anything for gays is if a church or church sub organization accepted public funding from the government. If a religious group accepts public funding, then it would have to be fair, but only if we get added to the federal anti discrimination laws, which are not even close to debate.
Blairtim69 1 year ago
although i do agree with what you say southern aveger i think there are certain things you just don't put up for a vote like first admendment and lets face it: Sometimes, and I really do mean only sometimes, the majority is totally, completely, 100% WRONG
Chriseycarlyeah324 1 year ago
As much as I hate prop 8, I have to agree here. I really don't recognize the authority of either side here. On one hand, I don't recognize the authority of the Federal government to strike down a state decision and on the other hand I don't recognize the rights of the majority to intrude on the rights of the minority. Really though, we just need to get the government out of marriage and this whole thing would become a non-issue.
theInversion99 1 year ago
I deem that personal business is people's personal business. However, I do not believe this should be publicly and nationally determined. As some kind of ad campaign for it.
I believe as a Christian that a man and a man or a woman and a woman, is by definition, immoral. But the state should not be determining morality for people, one way or the other. Therefore, as a religious and moral decision, I think we should keep the state out of moral and religious decisions. As it was previously here.
MarkBH70 1 year ago
@MarkBH70 Letting the state into religious and moral decisions is a great mistake. I would be, perhaps, one of the few people here that would be happy to go to a homosexual wedding, if I knew the people, or one of them, well. Previously, a pastor or priest would marry. This is the way it should be. Now. I do not need, though due to propriety would go to, the government's approval for my behavior. Nor should others. The government is trying to sway morality, and cause division.
MarkBH70 1 year ago
This is one of the hardest but most important concepts for most Americans to understand.
Regardless of how you feel about any of these social issues (abortion, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc.) if you care at all about individual freedom and the liberties our founding fathers fought for; you MUST oppose the federal government's supremacy on these issues.
What the feds giveth, the feds can taketh away.
spacehabitats 1 year ago
We had a civil war to decide if the majority can trump the rights of a minority. The majority lost and basic rights were given to the individual not to the states.
BTW - 7 million voters voted for Prop. 8 in California. That is far from a majority of the 37 million individuals who live there unless you want to overturned the laws of simple math too.
eelzen 1 year ago
I generally agree w/ Jack, but I think he needs to realize here, the same way the Federal Government has No rights dictating who does or does not get married, nor should the States or Voters. The real violation of the constitution here is not the one of the fed violating the State, which that is a violation, but the truest violation is the one of any government, either federal or state, getting in the way of an Individual, or in this case individuals having the right to choose how to live life.
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
My position is that States don't really have rights, neither do gay people, nor do the Feds; only individuals do. I recognize marriage as a form of the freedom of association, and I cannot see how anyone or anything can have the right--in your argument, the state of California--to abrogate the individual rights of its citizens. The whole notion is a contradiction that the Constitution had resolved since day one, in fact. And I would apply the same logic to Chicago and guns. What do you think?
henry770 1 year ago
Here's something to consider, Jack. Hasn't Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution always authorized this kind of federal activity in THIS context? If marriage between any two human beings is their natural right derived from the freedom of association, is it not therefore protected by the ninth amendment? Do State governments really have RIGHTS, or is that just individuals do and federal powers are limited when dealing with the states?
henry770 1 year ago
So long as marriage stays a legal, binding contract via the gov't, homosexuals should have the legal right to marry via the gov't.
That is all.
MagnusIan 1 year ago
I agree that the federal government has no business in marriage. But I also believe that states don't, either ironic solutions -- Either we ban all marriage laws, or we allow gay marriage.
If we ban all marriage laws, and take away government regulations on marriage, we eliminate the problem, and marriage becomes quaint and out-dated.
If we allow gay marriage, then gay people will be able toshare all the disappointment, pain and suffering that married couples do. ;)
MinstrelKrampf 1 year ago 5
@MinstrelKrampf that will never ever happen, sadly...
lockwoodisafaggot 1 year ago
Your right southern avenger,this is a states right issue,when will the states stand up and tell the federal government where to get off?
lucas5101 1 year ago
Majority vote does not make law. There are 3 equal parts of our government -- Executive, legislative, and judicial, and laws can only be made when they are in line with the US Constitution. States do not have the right to make a law that violates the US constitution. Anyone who suggests that a majority vote by the population can make or break a law doesn't know jack about the constitution or it's history.
MinstrelKrampf 1 year ago
I disagree with this commentary. Civil rights have NEVER been achieved through majority vote. Had it been left up to the states, we might very well still have Jim Crow laws and sodomy laws. Women, non-property holders and other minorities might still be forbidden to vote in some states. Interratial marriages might still be forbidden. And the drug laws are addressed by the Dept. of Justice, not the federal judiciary.
freerangebiped 1 year ago
As always right on time!!!
MrGETitGOTit 1 year ago
I'm getting extremely annoyed at political parties finding loopholes in the constitution for their BS agendas! Constitutional amendments were made difficult to achieve for a good reason!
MsWanderer1 1 year ago
This is the only time I have disagreed with the SA, and I think this is where some libertarians part way with constitutionalist. Any ban on gay marriage is necessarily an unjust law and thus cannot be enforced, so a court can correctly overturn said law, no matter the constitution. This is because the constitution does not trump individual rights, nor natural law.
tfboyle 1 year ago
@tfboyle Prop 8 didn't ban gay marriage - feel free to get married at your local church - the state just doesn't acknowledge it. That's all.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
Actually, I think the court was right in this case. Prop 8 was against equal protection under the law for all people.
I agree the motivation is wrapped up in the government privileges extended to those with the state marriage license.
It would have been better if those who supported prop. 8 had demanded that the state get out of the marriage business. Their efforts should have been for marriage privatization. George and Martha Washington didn't have a state marriage license.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
All I know isa fought in the AF for rights of all Americans that includes gay Americans!
Clemburke1111 1 year ago
This is what i don't understand, what if voters decide thru a democratic election that they want to ban interracial marriages? do we all as libertarians just ignore it as par of state right? or fight the obvious govt discrimination.
Govt should be stripped of the ability to discriminate whether done thru executive, legislative or voting process. Thats my take on it, no to prop 8. If u want to discriminate dont ever call of govt to assist with enforcement
uche007us 1 year ago
WELL GAYS SUCK ITS A PROVEN FACT LOL I HATE FAGS AND LIBERAL FAG SUPPORTERS!!!!!
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
@SouthernwhiteTrash63, AND WE DON'T LIKE REDNECKS EITHER
borisgoodenough1988 1 year ago
@borisgoodenough1988 TO BAD MORE THAN YOU REALIZE IN AMERICAN HENCE THE ARIZONA STATE IMMIGRATION LAW LOL
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
Jack has such excellent commentary. Seriously I wish this guy was on the radio where I live. He has such a balanced and principled approach. I could never understand why marriage needed to be yet another government dictated institution. Even more, why is there so little concern for how the Federal Government feels entitled to impose itself on every aspect of our lives? How come more people are not insulted and even terrified by this?
Excellent work as always from Jack.
TulliusVII 1 year ago
I am all for removing all recognition for Heterosexual marriage in the state institutions. However, in the case of a gay marriage BAN. As a libertarian, it quickly becomes apparent what a BAN means... the Gun pointed at the individual for disobeying state edicts. And as a principled libertarian - I oppose ALL bans by the state, whether the state is defined as the state of california, or the "one nation" created by lincoln's constitution.
utubehayter 1 year ago
No one, including state or federal gov, has the right to regulate who I choose, do not choose, to associate with for any reason saving criminal conduct. Since most marriages are conducted by and in churches, don't you think those institutions aught to be able to decide whether or not to marry any two people? That gov is even engaged in defining or deciding what marriage is or isn't is madness. The US Const specifically prohibits Cong passing any law regulating association. No state can either.
bbburton 1 year ago
Tenth amendment? Isn't that the one that says this one dosen't matter so ignore it?
nicodemous52 1 year ago
This whole debate is a polarizing issue that just continues the states strangle hold on it's "citizens".
xxstealyourface 1 year ago
14th has an "equal protection clause" so no state has a constitutional right to discriminate against it's own people of the majority doesn't like them, duh!
SA you dropped the ball, again!
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69 you miss the point. He's saying Marriage shouldn't be sanctioned by the government in the first place. He DID say he doesn't care if gay people marry so therefore he's okay with gay marriage. The point is, if the state passes a law/proposition it's their law and the federal government can't just override the state's law just because it's not politically correct (they did the same thing against Arizona)
Chad9976 1 year ago
@Chad9976
no, sweetheart, he said his opinion about govt and marriage at first seconds of the video, but the rest of the video was he bitching about so-called state's rights to "discriminate" by voters and the 14th amendment.
sorry, the 14th amendment's "equal protection clause" wins hands down over the 10th amendment or whatever the voters wanted= that how the constitution works.
so again SA dropped the ball.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69 Gay marriage is a public policy issue, not a civil rights issue. The rules of marriage are the same for every human, irrespective of skin color, sexual orientation, nose size, hair color or religion. Gays want the rules changed, and the public said no. Case closed.
megagagnon1 1 year ago 2
@megagagnon1
first of all, public don't have a right to discriminate against others and either does the state----when the public safety is not a risk.
so gay marriage is a civil rights issue- just like what blacks fought for in 60's.
gay= blacks
hetero= white; and the analogy fits perfectly.
the 10th amendment and voters doesn't give any state a right to discriminated against it's own citizens, what world do you live in?
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69 The analogy doesn't fit. The rules were different for black men - the law took into consideration the black skin. In California, the rules were the same for everyone - gay, straight, black, white - same rules.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1
rules= discrimination by whites (heteros) because some whites (hetero) didn't like black (gay) people by making law against their rights that wasn't legally justified and there was no public safety at risk.
and just like Jim crow was struck down, anti-gay marriage laws will be too.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69 There are no laws against their rights - gays are free to get married, just like heteros. Same rules apply. A hetero man can't marry a hetero man. I can't marry someone just because i want to - i can't marry my sister, mother, first cousin, a 5 year old, my pet rock, or another man. No discrimination whatsoever - but i don't think you understand the word "discrimination" because this word undercuts your argument.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1
there's a difference between a legal marriage and spiritual one, but legal one has certain rights that they (gays) are being discriminate against.
god, if you can get a spiritual and still be protected by law because you are blood related, so you get visitation rights and stuff from a will.
but the gays don't even have that option! they no rights to get marriage= no legal protection= discrimination.
pet rock?! lol.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69 Visitation rights and a will are very easy to get - give a lawyer a few hundred bucks and you're set.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1
Greene VS Sonoma is only a recent case where all the legal papers in the world can't protect you from bigotry. They can be denied or contested by family or courts. How is it fair treatment to have to have contracts drawn up by attorneys? No contract will protect us from discrimination in the work place, housing, or receiving services.
These agreements won’t add us to the federal antidiscrimination law that includes race, age, gender, religion, and national origin.
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@megagagnon1
Currently in most states and communities gays don’t have the right to jobs, housing, and services without discrimination.
We do have the right to get married. We have been getting married in churches for decades. There are over 100 churches in Florida that will marry same sex couples.
It is the government that does not recognize our marriages, and denies us access to medical, inheritance, and other rights and responsibilities.
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@megagagnon1
We do know what discrimination means.
In most of the country we don't have access to jobs, housing, and services without discrimination.
We also can't openly serve in the military. Our spouses receive no military benefits, and don't even receive the basic respect of notification when a spouse is killed. We are kicked out of our homes, communities, and churches.
Only recently have we been able to start moving out of the gay ghettos.
We will have our Liberty
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@Blairtim69 Are you living in the 50's? Kicked out of your homes? Bull. And all this discrimination is because of what - you have a tattoo "gay" pasted on your forehead?
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1
In the 50’s we would have been arrested, and our names, addresses, and photos printed in the paper.
We would have lost our jobs, and homes. This is why we have been living in ghettos.
Thousands of teens are kicked out of their homes, when they tell their parents they are gay. A large number are forced into harmful reparative therapy facilities.
In most communities gays have to lie about who they are to get jobs and housing.
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@cro-magnon1,gay marriage is a civil right,not some policy issue. what l.g.b.t. americans want is full and unconditional EQUAL RIGHTS under the law.we ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY. we are as SECULAR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. translation; personal religious biases and theologies,and the insecurites of many women and men regarding gender roles are left out of the countries courts and government bodies.those personal prejudices should NEVER BE CODIFIED INTO LAW
borisgoodenough1988 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69 indeed, equal protection if marriage was an institution the government had any right to sanction in the first place. Which they don't - which he pointed out. If your point is he shouldn't be backing Prop 8 in the first place based on that notion, then I agree. I think he backs out because he believes in States rights
Perhaps he is trying to have it both ways.
When else did he "drop the ball"?
Chad9976 1 year ago
@Chad9976
legal marriage is a institution by govt because marriage law offer legal protection for parties. saying that heteros can get married and gays can't= discrimination because there's no "legal reason" and no"threat to public safety" to prevent them from getting married, it's just people don't like gays.
they didn't sanction it because Gay rights wasn't big as it is now and those politicians want to keep their jobs.
no, your point that SA forgot that 14th amendment trump the 10th
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
Fact is Prop 8 shouldn't have been on the ballot in the first place. It was just another step in making this country a theocracy which is a frightening thought. It basically paid for by the fucking mormons which is also frightening.
badtown88 1 year ago
elena looks like such a butch.
FFarmerCharlie 1 year ago
I love the smell of exposed hypocrisy in the morning. It smells like....victory.
Wormtail81 1 year ago
Marriage is a private voluntary association among adults.Americans should not be fighting for Gay marriage to be allowed by the state,instead they should fight for the state to get out of the marriage industry altogether.Then people can get married in what ever they deem fit.
TiaSaysSo 1 year ago 39
@TiaSaysSo EXACTLY! You are so right.
datavortex 1 year ago
@TiaSaysSo
"they should fight for the state to get out of the marriage industry altogether"
exactly
chrstsldr 1 year ago
@TiaSaysSo I agree with you. But why is it that most of the supporters for gay marriage tend to take the proggressive dumbcrat side? Don't you think that gay marriage supporters should most likely take the liberterian side? Or could it be, that most gay marriage supporters side with proggressives because they favor population control, and gay couples are gaurenteed to never conceive children?
ericlebo 1 year ago
@ericlebo The federal government affords all kinds of 'benefits' to straight marriages.Gay couples want this too. In America, non-libertarians always look to get into an established welfare scheme (including corporatism).It takes greater integrity and intellectual honesty to resist subsidies,handouts and 'free' services.
TiaSaysSo 1 year ago
@ericlebo
or maybe, gays are having their 14th's "equal protection cause" discriminated against by people like libertarians and conservatives, who doesn't know HOW the constitution works and the difference between a legal marriage and spiritual one.
legal marriage= legal rights and legal protection.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@TiaSaysSo Government still needs to recognize it (in laws, in courts, etc.), otherwise it is legally meaningless. So you either have private voluntary associations that are legally meaningless or you do have legal meaning assigned to them but that automatically means government involvement. You cannot have it both ways.
shamusername 9 months ago
@shamusername Legally meaningless sounds great to me. My marriage is important to my wife, myself, and my family. Everyone else can go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut as to what they think of it--and that is as it should be.
masterriftsgm 7 months ago
The main point is were it says NO state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Acorvettes 1 year ago
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Acorvettes 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rednecks and other white trash, like the Southern Avenger, aren't fit to manage their own lives, much less understanding the penumbras and emanations involved in interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should stick to NASCAR and sniffing paint thinner, and leave the business of managing the government to their betters. If they don't like it, let them eat (gay wedding) cake.
2minuteh8 1 year ago
@2minuteh8 way to not watch the video all the way through.
gangreneday 1 year ago
@gangreneday
I don't recall asking for your opinion, prole. I'm not interested in your, or any other trailer-dweller's, proto-human articulations. You *will* eat your broccoli and you will *like* it. Now, STFU or you'll get tazers and tear gas, then off to bed without your Big Mac.
2minuteh8 1 year ago
the right is going to lose this ... the right is going to lose this ... the right is going to lose this .... na na na na na
sage0857 1 year ago
Regarding God and government: any government acting contrary to the laws of God is wrong and is not to be adhered to. Marriage can never be between two men - regardless of what civil government says.
kentuckypreacher 1 year ago
@kentuckypreacher you still have to acknowledge that not everyone feels the same way as you and allow them the FREEDOM to make their "mistakes." Thats what being american is all about. Freedom of religion, freedom to pursue happiness. Jesus never defined marriage. He did have ideas on how to treat your "enemies." In this case turning the other cheek means allowing gay people to get married as they see fit even if you dont count those marriages as real. I'm talking state by state here.
gangreneday 1 year ago
@CarolinaCountryGuy
Glad to see you are trying to participate in an intelligent fashion. Now, how about instead of telling me to shut up, why don't you explain to me the fallacy of my argument.
johnqpublic81 1 year ago
If you're a Christian, you should look to your bible:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Romans 13: 1-2
Pretty clear. Judge Walker was appointed by god and you should stfu.
filmstocker 1 year ago
Forgive me I'm wrong but wasn't the purpose of a Republic to protect individuals from the mob rule? I suppose it's all about what the majority wants is the best, just trample over everyone and protect no one. I'd much prefer Individual Representation in my government.
pink3y 1 year ago 2
@pink3y
Yeah, I agree. How is fifty federation-democracies better then one federal democracy? I think that constitutional rights should be protected at a state level. That being said, I don't see how the 14th amendment covers this. I think it would be protected under the 1st amendment, seeing as how marriage is a religious institution and therefore the government has no right telling us who we can or can marry through our faiths.
DoomHippie 1 year ago
I wonder how many people are either too simple or too emotionally blinded to understand the states-rights implications of this topic. I know someone who sees a state outlawing gay marriage as some kind of homophobic offense and sees federal intervention as a morally-just cause.
I suppose if I were gay I'd want to side with federal intervention so I could "have it my way" but I don't honestly give a shit if uncle sam recognizes a marriage or not. Love and government are worlds apart in my mind.
mrd999 1 year ago
Why is marriage defined by gender? Why not define it by race as well?
Also, tyranny of the majority.
Why should rights be subject to a popularity contest?
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
The Southern Avenger refuses to fit in any box. In California, he would be considered a homophobe while he would be considered a gay rights supporter in Vermont. That's a better position than the typical spin of the right which is about making gays & lesbians out to be second class citizens. Don't worry; I am not letting the left off the hook either. While they would be correct to support same sex marriage, many are PC about it themselves which is as bad as the dark side of the extreme right.
PsychoPunk1965 1 year ago 2
@PsychoPunk1965 "The Southern Avenger refuses to fit in any box. In California, he would be considered a homophobe while he would be considered a gay rights supporter in Vermont"
Unfortunately, too many individuals appear to uneducated to understand the above. Many appear to even be unwilling to engage in critical thinking of any kind, but rather allowing the federal government to accomplish this task for them.
Mechanized0 1 year ago 2
Note: in England they have it right. The couple marry in the Church and the Priest signs the marriage document and keeps it as record. THEN, for tax and legal purposes, the couple go to the court house for the appropriate documents. The state does not sign the church document, the church does not sign the state forms. BINGO! So, what about the CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF Marriage and separation of church and state?? Constitutionally isn't it none of the state's business????
billyboy647 1 year ago 4
Brilliantly reasoned.The fools who self-servingly approve of expansive Constitutional interpretations don't realize that with each passively accepted judgment the Central Government seizes more power over We the People,and the terrible Sword it wields grows more lethal.These dunces also seem unaware that Swords are indifferent servants.To wit:soon they will awaken to find the very sword they helped fashion being used to slit their throats. But, alas,their tiny epiphany will have come too late.
billyboy647 1 year ago 3
I think if you start with a wrong assumption, all your reasoning will also be wrong.
The assumption is marriage is granted by the state.
I would say, marriage is between the people involved and, if religious, their God.
Gays already have the right to marry. They can file contracts binding their lives together, have a ceremony, and call each other husbands or wives.
Straight libertarians should also do this.
Buffalo122333 1 year ago
This all could have been avoided if the government stayed out of marriage. But just because the people voted against gay marriage doesn't make things right.
19TEC85 1 year ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
sagehawk12: "States rights are not higher than individual freedom, nor should they ever be. "
+1
barccy 1 year ago
One of the first I don't agree with you. I think the courts are their for when laws step over bounds and prop 8 does just that.
Still a thumbs up and I appreciate your perspective.
yostevoak1 1 year ago
What if there was a State PROP48 that banned INTERRACIAL Marrigage.....???
It would be absurd to think that ANY WHERE in the UNITED STATES such a ban should be allowed..... I would say the same holds true for Non-Intergender Marriage (or Union, so as not step on the rights of the Church(es)).
UnderseaCaveman 1 year ago
Jack isn't this why we are a republic and not a democracy so that 51% of the population can't takeaway the rights of the other 49% of Americans. The Constitution protects every individual so even 99% of Americans can’t take the rights away from 1% of Americans. In this case I believe the Federal government was right to protect the individuals Constitutional rights. The drug laws are a whole other story.
BOMangles 1 year ago
SA, you shouldn't be surprised by disagreements here and I'm sure you're not. - Marriage is not a right, obviously, but far too often stating that something isn't a right gives the impression that government can put their noses into it, which it this case it's not supposed to. Based on that, I don't consider marriage a privilege, either. Marriage is a religious union and as such does have ties to a right. (more)
Ovalshine 1 year ago
(continued) Marriage is a product of the 1st amendment. Freedom of religion. Given that there are churches (small number as it may be) that would be ok with marrying gays, I find it interesting the judge didn't overturn it that way.I know why he didn't, but it still amuses me all the same. I agree with the point on states rights as the Constitution only applies to the federal government, not to the states (though I always like to see my state respect it as its own, anyways). (more)
Ovalshine 1 year ago
(cont) Ooops. I said more, but I didn't have more to say. My bad. In any case, feel free to rip my opinion to shreds. LOL
Ovalshine 1 year ago
I get the point but...this is a republic, there for the minorities are protected against majorities... this is why it was completely constitutional for an over turn, as that is what that power is for. example... blacks are a minority.... and yet no one would think twice about saying they cant marry. If a state some how got it passed to law that blacks couldnt, it damn well better be over turned as it should. States rights are not higher than individual freedom, nor should they ever be.
sagehawk12 1 year ago
completely constitutional??? come on man, at least read the constitution before you invoke it's name
killatop 1 year ago
Since marriage isn't something the federal government should regulate, let's drop all tax benefits for married couples. I'm sure they'll understand and support the moral stand against applying the Equal Protection Clause to the Defense of Marriage Act.
But wait, that's an expansion of taxes! You've got us over a barrel, liberals!
reginaldgoldthwaite 1 year ago
I'm not sure I understand. As far as I'm concerned, a majority had no right to restrain a minorities power to marry in the first place. Prop 8 was one of the most malevolent acts of dictatorship of the majority I've ever seen. This is not a democracy, it's a republic. What the judge did was constitutional in my eyes because no one should be able to take another persons freedoms away in the first place.
WintersAscension 1 year ago
@WintersAscension agreed. I like most of this guy's videos, but he has a strange interpretation of the constitution. he sees it as an list of rights that the federal government cannot take away. Yet he believes that the states CAN take away those rights. he lays out this view in his vid aobut gun control. As far as i've heard, the states can make any laws they want so long as constitutional rights are not infringed upon, in which case the federal govt has to step in.
samsf90 1 year ago
i don't believe he thinks the states can take those rights away... what right are you talking about that he thinks he can take away?
killatop 1 year ago
@killatop I'm not going to bother finding it. but he talked about a case where a state ruled that guns were illegal or something. the supreme court overturned the state's ruling on the basis of the second amendment. jack said it was a loss for conservatives because the bill of rights are only an outline of what the federal government can't take away, not the state governments. obviously the implications are that states can take away any rights, which i don't agree with.
samsf90 1 year ago
I'm from California and we've beaten around this bush so long it's like a bad soap opera. Gay marriage gets voted on and it's not allowed by vote but then it gets overturned by courts. If people vote on something it should mean something not if a judge thinks it's OK afterwords. Gay marriage advocates who use this avenue should take this video into serious thought. Use elections not courtrooms for your cause because this is a genie you MUST NOT let out of the bottle!
loszhor 1 year ago
5 stars.
prayfortruejustice 1 year ago
Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.
Ronald Reagan
pete226 1 year ago
man o man
pete226 1 year ago
Too me this isn't about marriage anymore, its about an idiot judge overturning the WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
bittergunowner12 1 year ago 2
@bittergunowner12 So people should be subject to the tyranny of the majority? One day the majority changes colors and makes laws that you don't particularly like, I have a feeling you would feel different.
pink3y 1 year ago
Well put Jack. I keep telling the two sides of the stupid (including some on this tube) that all you have to do is get government out of the business of marriage, After that, if you can find a priest, I could care less if you marry your mother to a cow.
shiftstart 1 year ago
I don't want the state or the federal government to decide who I get to marry . Remember Miscegenation laws? Remembe jim crow laws? history shows that the state government can be just as corruptible as the federal government. Did you know that the stateof oregon one time were able to outlaw private schools. Both the state government and the federal government can create laws that are antithetical to the advancement of individual liberty. I don't understand why you only pounce on the federal govt
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
I usually don't disagree with you SOUTHERN AVENGER , but The bill of rights are absolutely the Federal government's business when they are threatened . Civil rights are not to be voted on PERIOD !
k3w1b3an5 1 year ago
@k3w1b3an5
Civil "rights" are Privileges PERIOD! And what they are fighting for are State Privileges PERIOD! And the State can giveth and taketh away.
josacape 1 year ago
@josacape Rights are not privileges in the United States.
cjjc0 1 year ago
@cjjc0
There is a difference between 'Natural Rights' and 'Civil rights' learn it. What they want is a privilege i.e. marriage license issue by a state, that's not a Natural Right but a privilege.
josacape 1 year ago
@josacape But if the government is in the business of issuing a civil right, like voting rights, or marriage rights, what right does the government have to administer these rights unequally?
cjjc0 1 year ago
@cjjc0
Because they're PRIVILEGES! Not Rights! They're Legislated into existence! They have been Unequally applying these Privileges to different sectors of the population at different times! Though, I agree, if they are in the business of giving licenses to marry - it should be equal to all.
josacape 1 year ago
@josacape I understand where ur coming from.
cjjc0 1 year ago
probably his best vlog/blog to date!
Chad9976 1 year ago
Marriage is a right..... a collective populous doesn't determine your rights SOUTHERN AVENGER ..Your born with those rights......Southern Avenger you seem more of the majority rule then a real libertarian ....Considering the views of Goldwater who you seem to admire im shocked at your opinion on this ......There are unconstitutional gun laws in which the majority voted for but it shouldn't determine a right to bear arms
tynitty516 1 year ago
@tynitty516
State Marriage License is a Privilege not a Right. Government should get out of the Marriage business!
josacape 1 year ago
@tynitty516 youre confusing a state license with the freedom to have a relationship with another person. Marriage has more to do with regulaion than allowing people to enter into a commited relationship. Gays will hook up regaurdless of the law. He is correct about a fed judge not having authority over Cal prop 8
utmost11 1 year ago
@tynitty516
In fact, Each and Every single right you have, was determined by a collective populous and were voted upon, albeit by delegates.
What gives you the right to speak freely, but not the right to expose yourself in public?
The collective populous, that's what.
KarateKidX 1 year ago
There is a big difference between universal health care (positive right) and gay marriage (negative right). I don't prefer the tyranny of the state over the tyranny of the federal government. I prefer NO TYRANNY! No politician, or majority has the right to take away the inherit liberty that each human deserves.
Mattes50A05 1 year ago
A majority of southerners voted against interracial marriage. It didn't mean that their 10th amendment rights were ignored, it just means that the majority cannot suppress the rights of the minority, and the court is there to rectify that. Once government became involved in issuing marriage certificates that were recognized state to state, the government is then responsible for making sure that the law is fair for ALL.
johnqpublic81 1 year ago
@johnqpublic81
Pretty much right. When the government became involve in giving privileges it should be an equal privilege, but sometimes is not really equal, LOL.
josacape 1 year ago
You are wrong. One of the few things the federal gov should do is try to provide equal protection. Should a state be allowed to let a majority vote remove the rights of the minority? Perhaps you think a state should be allowed to legalize slavery. I don't. If california wants to equally ban all marriage, then I would agree that the fed should stay out of it. But to make something legal for some and not others is wrong.
keithrockerboblewis 1 year ago
3) IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Our gov't is supposed to remain secular on religious Issues. I am part of the atheist community on youtube and despite how diverse we are politically NONE of us are against gay marrage. Ask how many people appose gay marrage strictly because "god hates fags"
"Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This also applies to the states and Prop 8 was Funded $20M by the Morman Church. Blatantly viotlates the 1st ammemendment.
CelticAlphabet 1 year ago
2) We live in a Republic, Not a democracy, and giving the majority the right to vote against a minority is a discrace to that fact as well as it is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about esp John Locke. People Should be able to do what ever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone or break the rule of law...Continued.
CelticAlphabet 1 year ago
American citizens are denied to have joint health plain, joint tax filing, or power for medical decisions on the behalf of their partner. All because they are gay. Since when is it up to the states to grant or deny civil rights? The 14th makes it clear that the states can't abridge rights any more than the federal government can. That is what the federal government is for, to ensure our rights. But to imply a slippery slope by allowing oversight of rights is absurd.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 year ago
@TheAtheistPaladin They are not denied these things you mention because they are gay. The govt is to involved in our personal lives and as a result if a couple is unable to get a marraige license they are denied these things. homosexuals can and will still have relationship whether the state will recognize and license it or not. The root of this problem is with taxes and money issues. That is where we should focus
utmost11 1 year ago
@utmost11
You are not making any sense. You deny that they are not denied of these right because they are gay but rather blame govt involvement...? WTF? They are the only group not allowed to get a license. What does it matter if they can still have a relationship? They still can't get joint accounts or be under one policy. Why do straights have the only rights to that? To have the federal govt sit on its hands is NOT a solution. It is the problem.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 year ago
Your right that the gov't shouldn't be involved in marrage...BUT... I live in California and I was thrilled that this was over turned...heres my take :
1)As a Libertarian, I believe it is one of the federal gov't legitimate functions to protect the rights of indaviduals EQUALLY and not discriminate against anyone reguardless of race, reilgion, sexual oreintation, etc.
Continued:
CelticAlphabet 1 year ago
@CelticAlphabet
You can't call yourself a libertarian and support the whim of a federal judge over the written law
KarateKidX 1 year ago
@KarateKidX
Dont know what CelticAlphabet said, but supporting written law over decision of a federal judge OR VICE Versa has nothing to do with libertarianism.
utubehayter 1 year ago