marriage equality for all americans now

[video=youtube;FSQQK2Vuf9Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q[/video]

my new hero.

DOES this mean i can marry FDD now?>

RawBudzski said:

DOES this mean i can marry FDD now?>

Click to expand...

why do you want to marry an adult, pedobear?

Shitty thing is there are still a lot of people even after viewing this and listening to this young man speak, still feel it is a crime to marry someone of the same sex....Oh well at least I'm secure enough in my masculinity to say I don't give a fuck what consenting adults wanna do with each other...including marriage. Funny enough was just listening to Elton Johns husband(who is a Canadian) on the radio talk about the little baby boy they were able to adopt.

that was amazing

What an amazing post. My youngest brother is gay so this is an important topic in my mind. Thanks for posting!

the saddest part is that the people who needed to hear that speech the most were likely too busy eye rolling and making personal commentary under their breath and probably didn't hear a word the kid said.

I'm all for gay marriage. 50% of them statistically should end in divorce. Can you even imagine a gay divorce reality tv show?

EPIC.

Not ragging on gay marriage, to each his/her own, but if he's done so well without married parents why must they be allowed to marry? Dont think Im hating here cuz my ex wife's dad was gay and they were really cool people. Just wondering why they cant just be civilly unioned and alotted the same rights as married couples without being married. Please dont rant me guys i feel I have stated my questions thoughtfully and predominantly for debate purposes.

your hangup on this "marriage" word is exactly why they "need" to be married. excluding people from your "exclusive club" is the issue. it's like saying that bobby can't get a driver's licience because he's buddhist. it's disciminatory and unamerican. your use of words in a "marriage vs civil union" type context leads me to assume (correct me if i'm wrong) that there is a religious undertone in your argument. that is to say that marriage is for church and civil unions are for the unreligeous, and that is something i disagree with whether dealing with gays or straights.

I dont have a religious context or anything just wondering what the big deal is if they're already doing so well (i know that could be reversed to ask the anti-gays the same question)? I dont care either way like I said my ex's dad was gay and had a partner and we all got along great. I guess I really dont have a leg to stand on here just wondering. And i definitely agree with the bobby's driver license argument, discrimination should not be written into any laws.

I will also say that this young man is very well spoken and obviously not "polluted" by his parents sexuality as some of the antigays might argue

HarryCarey said:

Not ragging on gay marriage, to each his/her own, but if he's done so well without married parents why must they be allowed to marry?... Just wondering why they cant just be civilly unioned and alotted the same rights as married couples without being married.

Click to expand...

a good question. i would point to the words in the video, because to treat another group of citizens as second class, or to codify discrimination, is wrong.

i know you don't do that personally from the respectful tone of your question so please know that i am not saying you do that.

and for the record, this speech was in response to iowa wanting to ban gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships. it passed the house by 62 to 37 mostly among party lines (59 republicans & 3 democrats for it, 37 democrats against it, 1 republican did not vote). it must still pass the iowa senate and the next legislature to become law.

but still, my question to the iowa legislature is why would you want to outlaw existing gay partnerships? does it create jobs? does it make anyone's life better? why the fuck would you do this? it is cruel and mean.

That kinda points me back to my question. Its obviously a controversial issue and i feel it wont be solved by trying to get equal marriage rights in the legislature or courts, so why not take a different approach. Not settling for less, but gaining a smaller victory at first and then building on it, because no matter what some asshole will bring it back to court if gay marriage were legalized again.

HarryCarey said:

That kinda points me back to my question. Its obviously a controversial issue and i feel it wont be solved by trying to get equal marriage rights in the legislature or courts, so why not take a different approach. Not settling for less, but gaining a smaller victory at first and then building on it, because no matter what some asshole will bring it back to court if gay marriage were legalized again.

Click to expand...

well ,how about this solution: we give the gays full marriage, and heterosexuals only get civil unions. how about that instead? shouldn't that be just as viable an option?

edit - apparently you don't think the solution is equality for all americans. so my proposal that heterosexuals get domestic partnerships and gays get marriage instead keeps with this inequality that we apparently should strive for. also, since gays get discriminated elsewhere more often than heterosexuals, we should make it up to them by giving them full marriage instead of that whole domestic partnership thing. after all, no one is getting hurt either way, right?

Ya it would be but then some asshole would take that to court too! Im just offering up suggestions and also reality, a majority of people in america dont want to see the "sanctity" of marriage destroyed, now dont lump me in with them thats just reality, so you need to take baby steps just like with marijuana, we got medical first now we've had it on the ballot to be legalized and next step is total legalization. I myself believe the whole "sanctity" argument was blown up in the 60's when divorce rates skyrocketed. I myself have been married and divorced and its nothing special, just be comfortable with your partner you dont need marriage as long as you have the same rights, that you could try to gain in baby steps.

HarryCarey said:

Ya it would be but then some asshole would take that to court too! Im just offering up suggestions and also reality, a majority of people in america dont want to see the "sanctity" of marriage destroyed, now dont lump me in with them thats just reality, so you need to take baby steps just like with marijuana, we got medical first now we've had it on the ballot to be legalized and next step is total legalization. I myself believe the whole "sanctity" argument was blown up in the 60's when divorce rates skyrocketed. I myself have been married and divorced and its nothing special, just be comfortable with your partner you dont need marriage as long as you have the same rights, that you could try to gain in baby steps.

Click to expand...

i agree with you on the 'baby steps' theory. i thought prop 19 was a good step, too bad it failed.

i get a little peeved at legislation like in this video that wishes to strip away what few rights or sense of equality some already have. sorry to take it out on you there.

edit - unless gays have marriage, they do not have true equality even if they have equal rights of visitation, taxes, etc.

Cool man thought you were gona get angry. Legislation like this (abolishing gay rights previously given to them) shouldn't be introduced in the first place, stripping rights of any kind is unamerican and thats all there is to it. If a right is given it should not be taken away. Unfortunately as stated above the current majority is against gay unions and thats just how a rep. democracy works the majority usually wins. But morality also usually wins in the end (slavery as an example) and I believe discrimination of most kinds is on the way out the door in America, its just a waiting game now for "right" to win.

Everybody, gay or straight has the right to be left alone which is precisely why I find it humerous that some gay people want to fight
for the "right" to have more government in their lives.

If you think about that, there's a great deal of irony when people whose consensual private behavior was made criminal, now seeking to be blessed by the same organization that fucked them over for so long. To each their own.

I don’t think the government has any place in regulating marriage in the first place. Of course I’m a weirdo libertarian so what do I know.

Now before you guys get crazy on me for this next part read it all before reacting. Let it sink in. Homosexual people claim they do not have equal rights because states restrict marriage to be between a man and a woman. Under that law gay and straight people are treated exactly the same. The law doesn’t say that two straight same sex individuals can marry. So straight and gay people can only marry the opposite sex. I’m no legal scholar but that sounds like equal rights.

If I were an activist for gay marriage I would frame it as a cause of personal liberty and freedom of choice. Meaning as an American a person has a basic right to live your life how you want as long as it doesn’t infringe on others basic rights. The 14th amendment should fit the issue quite nicely. I actually just did a case study on Meyer vs. Nebraska anyway here is what the judge had to say in the majority opinion "the 14th amendment denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." If that doesn’t say you have a right to marry whoever you want then I’m a dumbass.