VIDEO ESSAY: Should Gay Americans Have the Right to Marry?

A clear-cut explanation of why the case for gay marriage in America is the case for all marriage in America.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• patriotism
• equal rights
• speech
• gay marriage
• Prop 8
• homosexual
• homophobia
• troops
• Mark Twain
• Huck Finn
• essay
• Sonneveld

[hiko73]

Same old, same old :)

How are you doing??

Hilz

[hiko73]

This really is a fantastic video Steve :)

[SaylaMarz]

You have a great voice. Thank you for speaking up. :)

[UnschoolingEagle]

Great video, very powerful 5*'s

[Sonneveld]

13. These great and learned men fulfilled their task to form a nation and charged the task of keeping its promises to future generations of Americans, from suffragettes to the Civil Rights Movement to the ongoing civil and equal rights of today. The revolution ended, but its spirit must live on.

[Sonneveld]

12. POINT THREE: The Constitution as a living document

The promises of the Founding Fathers are perhaps best epitomized by Jefferson on his deathbed granting his slaves their freedom. He spoke so eloquently of liberty; his mind, his soul were ahead of his time, but his flesh was not. He enjoyed the comforts slavery provided him. It was only in that moment when he would no longer be flesh that he could live up to his own ideals.

[Sonneveld]

11. C. The Court follows up by saying that childless heterosexual couples presented no more than a theoretical imperfection. By dismissing procreation and child-rearing as a key component, the Court, in effect, confirmed that the common usage of marriage was simply for ease of writing the law, and that interpretation of that usage was malleable.

[Sonneveld]

10. B continued: Perhaps they intended to adopt, which would satisfy child-rearing. As a matter of fact, the state had no laws or means in place to question/test any marriage applicant about their procreation and child-rearing plans, so it is evident that the couple was denied the license based on the discrimination of assumption.

[Sonneveld]

9. B. The Court reasoned that not allowing the gay couple to marry did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child-rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage. But the state never asked and therefore could never know what the gay couples intention was regarding procreation and child rearing. Perhaps they intended to donate sperm, find a surrogate and commence procreation.

[Sonneveld]

8. These are the legal questions that spring to my mind regarding Baker v Nelson:

A. The Minnesota Supreme Court contradicts itself by acknowledging the marriage statute was written using the common usage of the term marriage. Therefore, of course there would be gender-specific references in the law if the law was written based on common usage.