Gay Marriage

The Gravy Train October 21st, 2008 Language Guide

I don't know why I am attracted to the hot bed issues. I just am! But remember, please Flame Responsibly!

Uh Oh! No video. You will need the Flash player and Javascript enabled to watch this show.

I don’t know why I’m attracted to the hotbed issues. I just am. It’s a curse. I just can’t help myself.

In California, Florida, and Arizona they’re voting about marriage this November. But Camera-guy and I, we live in California – so we’re just going to narcissistically focus on our own state. First of all, in order to really understand what’s going on, we have to jump back in time to the year 2000 and Proposition 22.

This old ballot initiative basically defined marriage as ‘between a man and a woman’, and it passed by a 61% majority. Kind of a headscratcher when you consider how liberal California’s voting is. “We’re the People’s Democratic Republic of California” – That sounds kind of communist – and it kind of is. Anyway, back to the topic – the gay community was not happy about Prop 22, and so they started lobbying and litigating in court to get it changed. And on May 15th, 2008, it happened. The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, decided Prop 22 was un-Constitutional. That’s right, 4 judges, vs. 4.6 million voters, and the judges won! “That’s because they’re judges.”

Their decision claimed that society’s feelings or perceptions about the issue had changed. “Of course, California voters must have been confused back in 2000. Judges are really in touch with public opinion. Even moreso than People Magazine.” No matter how you feel about gay marriage, you should be very scared at this point.

It’s a dangerous thing to be happy about this kind of cavalier legislation from the bench. It’s tempting for some people to believe that the ends justifies the means. But that is just not true. It’s only a matter of time before something you don’t approve of takes the same backdoor approach, overturning laws and making changes that undermine the will of the people. Judges aren’t supposed to be politically motivated, and Proposition 8 was already on the ballot. If those 4 judges were even remotely responsible, they should’ve waited until the election results came out. Especially when they were basing their decision on public opinion. “Or their perception of public opinion.” It’s tempting to vote ‘Yes’ on 8, just to stick it to those judges. But that would be irresponsible.

So here’s what you ought to know. Prop 8 would add the words, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” And unlike Proposition 22, it adds it to the California state constitution. That means that the California Supremes wouldn’t be able to change it. Unless they find a way to declare the California constitution unconstitutional. Which I’m pretty sure they can’t. But that might not stop those 4 rebels from trying. “It’s just laws – public opinion – it doesn’t mean anything!”

Those in favor of Prop 8 claim that homosexual marriage will have a large-scale effect on heterosexual marriage and religious freedom. Those who oppose Prop 8 say that their civil rights are being stripped away, and that it won’t change the way children are taught in school, or your religious freedom… or anything else. And technically they’re correct; correct, but not honest. You see, this is where I get really frustrated. The same back-door approach is being used.

You see, the same individuals and organizations that claim ‘No’ on 8 doesn’t mean homosexual lifestyle gets taught to kindergartners, are currently lobbying to accomplish that very thing in this state, and others. While voting ‘No’ doesn’t make this possible outright, it opens the door for activists to sue anyone who disagrees with them. It’s happening now, people are already being sued for discrimination! A photographer was sued in Arizona for not photographing a gay wedding. A doctor in San Diego was sued for not performing artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. A church in New Jersey was sued for not allowing a gay marriage to be performed in one of their buildings. These were not hate crimes, the people being sued were denied service on grounds of religious reasons. And they’re not the only ones. We’ll post a link on our website to an NPR article that cites several other examples.

Gay used to mean happy, but with all these lawsuits – nobody’s happy. And if Prop 8 doesn’t pass, you can be sure there will be more to come. Hey, there might be more anyway. “Suing people to get your way!” It seems like the new gay motto. “It just doesn’t sound very tolerant to me….” “Oh well, we’ll sue the people that think it isn’t tolerant.”

Okay, religious freedom I get. But what about schools, and education? Well, if you go to the website,, you’ll see an article in the LATimes that claims, “Despite what proponents say, its defeat would not change what California schools teach.” “That’s right, it wouldn’t change it, ’cause there’s already been a school-sponsored first-grade field trip to a teacher’s lesbian wedding!” “And you thought your kids weren’t getting a balanced education.”

Let me pause here and say that I’m not a homophobe. Even though some of you have probably already called me one. In fact, I recently made friends with a gay man, who violated my first amendment rights by taking down my ‘Yes On Prop8′ sign. His name’s Robert by the way. “Hi Robert!” I replaced the sign, and I wrote, “Tolerance goes both ways. Please don’t take away my right of freedom of speech and expression by removing this sign.” When he saw what I wrote, he felt so bad, he came to my house and apologized. We clearly see differently on this issue, and I can understand that the sign upset him. But we resolved it amiably – and respected each other’s rights.

To my friends in the gay community – if you want lasting change, remember that bitter hostility and lashback legal action will not work. Using activist judges to usurp a right, and then claim it’s being taking away, is not honest, or democratic. There are religious institutions that will never change their standing on homosexual marriage. And if you’re not tolerant of them, how can you possibly expect them to tolerate you back?”

You probably think I have no idea what it’s like to be gay – or persecuted. But you know what’s funny? I have absolutely no idea what it’s like to be gay. But people assume I’m gay all the time. I even got assaulted by a guy who thought I was gay!

Transcribed by: Joshua Z.

Video Correction

The photographer was sued in New Mexico, not Arizona. Thanks esmily for pointing this out. The link below to the NPR story explains the details.

News Links

NPR story about all the suing going on!

First grade field trip to a lesbian wedding.

No On Prop 8 –

Yes for Prop 8 –

Prop 8 violence – intolerance goes both ways.

Prop 8 split – not necessarily down party lines.

Lost rights in Canada – Not long after Quebec approved gay marriage, the legislature discretely changed the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms so that parents no longer have any say in religious instruction of their children in schools.

Justice Baxter’s Dissenting opinion – This is a brief excerpt citing just a few problems with the court’s ruling:

“In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.”
“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.”
“The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling.  The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative.”
He also states that the Court has chosen to “overturn[], in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deep-rooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law. That approach creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory.”

The full text of the court’s decision, dissentions, etc.

Share the show:

Copy this code onto your site or blog:


  • 6/2/11 @ 17:26

    The Perspicacious Loris

    Ok, right. The United States Supreme Court has nine judges. (which I only recently realized are called Justices)

  • 6/2/11 @ 0:00


    @The Perspicacious Loris – Here’s the Wikipedia Article about the California Supreme Court:

    Look in the box at the far right side of the page. There it says “Number of Positions: 7″ There’s the four-to-three ruling. :) Hope this helped!

  • 6/1/11 @ 18:32

    The Perspicacious Loris

    How do you have a four to three ruling on the Supreme Court? Aren’t there nine judges?

  • 4/13/11 @ 23:48


    I don't know why people don't acknowledge that the gay LIFESTYLE is a choice. Its a LIFESTYLE, and nobody is born with a lifestyle...punk, metallic, or whatever. Further, I don't know why people don't acknowledge that homosexual CONDUCT is also a choice. One is not born with the CONDUCT of a pedaphile, necrophile, beastaphile, or selfaphile. They learn it. (Ok I may have made up some word or ... (more)
  • 4/13/11 @ 23:03


    I once asked a spokes"person" (woman) who was lecturing on gay marriage after she clearly stated that the agenda was to gain the same rights that married couples get. (medical "spouse" benefits, tax "spouse" breaks, etc.) if she would be satisfied that the laws were changed to allow all such "equalities" EXCEPT the acknowlegement that they were married and she said "no." Thus the true agenda is ... (more)
  • 3/6/11 @ 17:07

    How would you defend DOMA?

    [...] contrary to how they'd voted and without waiting to see how they'd vote again – a major point made here. At any rate, according to our own Declaration of Independence, we should be abiding by the will [...]

  • 12/6/10 @ 12:10


    I should have known this one would cause quite a raucous. I lived in Cali during the 2000 prop 22. And even though I currently live in Utah it was and still is frustrating to find a govt. who is not listening to the people! Good luck to you, and keep up the good work.

  • 10/16/10 @ 19:46


    I love your show! However, this one had me scratching my head. Religion has nothing to do with me paying my taxes and wanting equal rights like every one else. That means explicit and implicit rights such as pooling household taxes as a married couple and taking advantage of our established marriage rights such as social security benefits for a surviving spouse. To argue that this is about rel ... (more)
  • 12/2/09 @ 12:58


    in response to "Lost Rights in Canada", a child doesn't have his or her own religion. just as a child has no political affiliation. i would see teaching a child any specific religious doctrine as fact as being a loss of rights, more so than not. adults are free to choose any religion they want; and this is how it should be. if the schools want to teach noahs ark, let them teach it alongside the st ... (more)
  • 11/30/09 @ 14:07


    i hate trying to sift through all the religious bullshit to get to the facts. this site is satire, poorly conceived/executed satire. religious propaganda.

  • 7/26/09 @ 18:54


    i dont see what the problem is with gay marrige, if that is what they want, that is what they want. if religons (though i do not agree) believe that that is wrong then have it there way, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with gay marrige, if a man loves another man, or a woman loves another woman, then that is perfectley acceptible. and as a hetrasexual can be married if they love eachother ver ... (more)
  • 3/18/09 @ 8:45


    Gays should not be allowed to Marry in secular law, Marriage is a religious ideal, and should not apply to law at all. So goes the same for heterosexual marriage, nobody should be allowed to "marry" in our secular courts. Marriage should only apply to religion and what ever religion deems marriage to be. Marriage comes from religion. Everybody who does not get married by a church, temple, ... (more)
  • 3/12/09 @ 8:54


    Amen brothers.

  • 2/5/09 @ 15:34


    This is a respectable and intelligent assessment of the issue, but the claim that the Supreme Court is “legislating from the bench” is simply not true. The Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 passed in 2000 unfairly and unconstitutionally revoked the rights of a minority simply because it was a popular sentiment at the time. This clearly and absolutely violates the protection of the minori ... (more)
  • 12/3/08 @ 10:50


    Oh wow, this is some more great stuff! I don't think the gay rights community realizes that even people like me who are on the fence about whether or not they should have additional constitutional rights are being alienated and turned off by their attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution. As much as I happen to think the gay lifestyle is sinful, and while I don't think the definition of ... (more)
  • 12/3/08 @ 0:39


    o and just a thought from civics class that im sure someone else has talked about in this sea of comments, aren’t the judges not supposed to listen to the public. I was under the impression that their only job was to interpret constitutionality as they see fit, not to listen to what people want

    again i’m sure someone already cleared this up but im too lazy to look

  • 12/3/08 @ 0:37


    you helped me write my english paper with this. thank u!

  • 11/28/08 @ 11:55


    Veganboy; yes, I do have the right to vote against something I don't like. I have the right to discriminate if I don't agree with something. If I don't want a certain person as leader of my country, I discriminate; if I don't like certain flavours of icecream, I discriminate. Discrimination, in and of itself is not illegal or wrong. I don't, however have the right to commit illegal acts of vi ... (more)
  • 11/28/08 @ 11:47


    The law of the USA and it's states is designed to uphold the moral standards of the majority. Whether the standards of said majority are "right" or "wrong" is not the issue on whether it passes for law. Without the democratic right of the majority to make and have enforced laws it deems acceptable, then we are left to the tyranny of minorities or individuals. We call the latter groups oligarchi ... (more)
  • 11/19/08 @ 0:02


    I am not "showing hatred" to homosexuals when I show abhorrence to the idea of teaching strictly adult material (alternate sexual relationships) in schools. I am not "discriminating" when I state that religious institutions should not have to alter or redefine their practices (THAT change would be discriminatory) because a homosexual couple wants the title of being "married" (ask yourself, and be ... (more)
  • 11/17/08 @ 20:06


    So, people feel they should have the right to discriminate because they don’t like something? Doesn’t ever occur to people that just because you don’t like something/someone, that doesn’t mean you should be able to make laws to deny them their right. Sometimes the majority is wrong.

  • 11/7/08 @ 9:26


    boredalum: Or, a vote for 8 means we are traditional marriage supporters and has nothing to do with gays or any other groups at all. Anyways, Prop 8 passed. I'm very very happy it did so. It's stupid how there are so many protesters right now, especially attacking the LDS community. They are literally saying "the constitution is unconstitutional" *facepalm* The vote could have gone either wa ... (more)
  • 11/4/08 @ 18:00


    boredalum said: . "A vote for 8 means you support amending a constitution to eliminate rights for a group of people" - Like the right to marry your sister, or your cousin, or a ten-year-old, or someone who is already married? But they love each other, doesn't that give them the right to be married? No, I'm sorry, but it doesn't. . ". . . you condone the lies. . . " - Like the notion that i ... (more)
  • 11/4/08 @ 11:12


    Short and Simple: . A vote for 8 means you support amending a constitution to eliminate rights for a group of people without benefiting anyone; you condone the lies (every debunked ad), racist propaganda (the disgusting ad misrepresenting Obama's position on prop 8 sent only to African American homes), scare tactics (the deceptive ads claiming 8 has anything to do with church tax exemptions and ... (more)
  • 11/4/08 @ 10:26


    -boredalum Thank you. If I have lightened your life with humor, my instruction has not been entirely in vain. . Unfortunately, you have not recognized that emotional language, however justified you believe it to be, tends to repel the very people your are attempting to persuade. . I could say more, but today the people decide. If they are the source of your rights, that should settle it. ... (more)
  • 11/4/08 @ 9:15


    I'm tired of how people who are against Prop 8 are for "love and tolerance" when they go around and attack those who are for it; vandalize public and private property, slash tires, and even go as far as to physically injure people who are for Prop 8. Those people are the true bigots. Look all over the internet, and you will find only ONE case of a Prop 8 supporter doing any of the sort back. ... (more)
  • 11/3/08 @ 10:21


    boredalum: . "If a fanatical religious movement tried to amend the constitution to take away the rights. . . I would use the same words." - So by extension a fanatical religious movement is currently trying to limit marriage to a man and a woman. I just read another forum where it is now Mormons, Fundamentalists, and Radical Islamists supporting Prop 8. It can't just be people who care about ... (more)
  • 11/2/08 @ 12:59


    graybeard: . You're hilarious. I stand by my charged words and their dictionary meanings as applied to prop 8. It is hateful, discriminatory, repugnant, etc. If a fanatical religious movement tried to amend the constitution to take away the rights of the elderly, infertile couples, left handed people, or any minority - I would use the same words. Bigotry does not deserve my respect and I wil ... (more)
  • 11/2/08 @ 8:09


    -boredalum On a light note, be careful to accurately paraphrase others. There are differences between a tired which aches and an ache which is tired. Let’s itemize your remaining problems. . 1. Your documentation is inconsistent. You made a reasonable start but an extremely poor finish. Always try to end with your strongest supported arguments. . 2. Supporting your own statements degene ... (more)
  • 10/31/08 @ 20:43


    To Scott, graybeard, and all others still reading who challenge my claims: . Sorry for making your ache tired. I didn't know that I was submitting a dissertation thesis to such a critical professor. Here I thought this was an informal online forum. But of course, you are right. I am making serious claims and some people who are still following this debate might be undecided on how to vote on ... (more)
  • 10/31/08 @ 14:30


    -boredalum You make my tired ache. I am simply trying to make your “one anonymous voice” more persuasive. Here are some things to consider. . 1. Use references carefully and consistently. Citing two letters as support for all your claims is not worthy of a passing grade. I know others may not do this, but if you want to represent ideas which are not common knowledge, you must document th ... (more)
  • 10/31/08 @ 11:03


    OK, I got the link to this video and since I enjoyed it so much I started watching the other videos....and I am HOOKED!!! You can expect to see much more of me on here now. I also loved the video about languages in other countries....AMEN!! And thanks for posting this video about Prop. 8!! I am so tired of hearing negative stuff, it's nice to see things presented in such a lighthearted but tru ... (more)
  • 10/30/08 @ 17:41


    boredalum: Hello again. I was going to try and keep this short, but that didn't happen. Sorry everyone. Also kudos to Russ for the line spacing trick. It really does help. . "Whether Prop 8 has anything to do with California church tax exempt status" - Pretty likely considering the precedent it sets and the inevitable lawsuits that will follow. . "Whether Prop 8 has anything to do wit ... (more)
  • 10/30/08 @ 1:53


    Those of you who have been following the discussion on this thread for the past week or so have probably noticed a rather cyclical debate concerning three primary issues: whether Prop 8 has anything to do with California church tax exempt status; whether Prop 8 has anything to do with school curricula; and whether Prop 8 benefits anyone or merely and repugnantly hurts one group of people without d ... (more)
  • 10/29/08 @ 21:45



  • 10/29/08 @ 14:42


    What takes away all of my sympathy for gay marriage is the fact that they didn't earn it. they have only had the right for half a year and they act like they have had it forever. And then they claim to keep government out of the issue when a 4 judges (employed by the government) decided they should have the right. Also what makes me so indifferent is the fact that they pretend that they are fine ... (more)
  • 10/28/08 @ 19:46


    Heh thanks guys for making the really long posts a little shorter looking at first glance. I’m appreciateing the mores and lots mores to hide all the words until I am ready to read them.

  • 10/28/08 @ 17:06


    Russ, you didn't read what I wrote but read what you had hoped I had written. It's common when emotions flare. You wrote: 1) Women’s Suffrage DID pass nationally. (See the Nineteenth Amendment.) It passed, as is necessary to make an Amendment to the Constitution, I originally wrote: Had the decision for women to vote gone to a national referendum it would not have passed for it was ... (more)
  • 10/28/08 @ 16:57


    @keelhaulbill "That means at best natural selection has targeted gays for extinction." You seem to not be aware of group selection, homosexuality is common in mammalian species, and appears to provide a population control mechanism, but the genetic mechanism which creates homosexuality is not selected against, it is selected for, because populations with homosexual members grow in a more contr ... (more)
  • 10/28/08 @ 16:41


    for Russ[22] I appreciate it Russ, thank you. Loads of stuff. After checking our own law libraries I checked other Canadian uni. library links but the compendium is indeed very new, I see 0809 as the publication date on the American sites. Don't think I'll bother asking the library to get it on a loan from the States. Plus you gave me loads of other stuff. But they do have a couple of his earlier ... (more)
  • 10/28/08 @ 14:13


    @ effamy: I'll never quite understand the logic that says a statement from my mouth carries more weight when it was first spoken by someone else. The unequal application of that criterion against me alone is equally confusing; however, I will take it as a compliment, as I think it demonstrates the strength of my arguments on their own merits. . Regardless, I agree that citations are important ... (more)
  • 10/28/08 @ 12:18


    Russ[22] Just to point out your illogic: Re: 3 The Greater Harms You're correct in saying that law is based on morality. But law is based on injustice to a person and a person's property. So, yes, this is exactly the case for theft and murder. Homosexuality is not a threat to person or personal property. A definition of family is not the pervue of the law. You are confusing personal moralit ... (more)
  • 10/28/08 @ 10:56


    -boredalum Thank you for the legal lesson (post 10/27). I am relieved to know that immutable does not mean immutable. Perhaps I can reciprocate with a lesson on persuasive writing. Making statements which are not common knowledge without any supporting references is like saying, “It’s my opinion, and it’s very true.” Supporting references have two advantages First, they keep your emo ... (more)
  • 10/28/08 @ 10:31

    Meandering {207}

    Hey gang, is everyone still talking about this? I know I put my 2 cents in with the rest of you, but as I was waiting for the next episode I thought I would come back and check. Over 135 comments is great. I have not read all of them (or even most of them) but I wonder who here has changed their original view on the matter of Gay Marriage and Prop 8. Anyone? Just curious. I look forward to th ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 23:40


    3. THE GREATER HARM . I think the more relevant discussion here is the question of morality. I believe that homosexuality is immoral. And while this belief has never led me to hate any homosexuals, I do believe that gay marriage undermines our social morality. But worse than this, judicially imposed gay marriage threatens destruction to that social morality. That is the greater harm. . No ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 23:38


    2. HARMS . Many previous posters have claimed that there is no harm to gay marriage, whether that be to society generally, to the family as a unit, or to children raised within the family unit. Take care; your arguments partake of a logical fallacy, which proves fatal. Taken at its base, this is what your arguments boil down to: . Gay marriage harms less than other social ills and instituti ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 23:38


    There are a few things that I think need clarification. 1. IMMUTABILITY . Immutability is definable, and in fact defined simply as those characteristics that cannot be changed, such as race, national origin, or gender. Despite some claims to the contrary made by certain other posters, race is not something a person can change (no matter how much bleach or dye he may use), nor is gender as d ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 15:33


    What happened to flaming Responsibly?!?

  • 10/27/08 @ 14:48


    Not gonna be taught in schools, huh? This article seems to indicate otherwise. But wait! That means that the No on Prop 8 people are lying! See for yourself.

  • 10/27/08 @ 12:58


    Back at ya boredalum: (I hope you aren't quite so bored these days)? "Courts make law all the time, let’s not pretend like that’s not part of their historic role." - Oh well, there goes separation of powers. Or I guess I should say there went separation of powers. You will recall that courts making the law was my working definition of an activist judiciary. So, what you are saying i ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 12:51


    @ Boredalum - Your selfproclaimed certainty about the original intent of the framers with respect to the court is laughable when you consider how little of the court's present day power is given to them in the Constitution. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that (since there is no way you can back up your claims about the framers intent for the court) and like many of you other pos ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 12:06


    I think the argument is very simple in regards to rights for anyone. You have the right to believe, act and do what you will, however the moment those actions and/or beliefs violate those of other people, it's wrong. The argument to sue a religious organization because they choose not to recognize your mariage is not right. They are religious. You CHOOSE to belong to that organization or not. ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 10:42


    @Diego "The evidence (yeah like all of it) suggests that sexual prefrance is biologically determined". Really? All of it? Are you sure you want to make that argument? If you do you have to accept the conciquences. That means at best natural selection has targeted gays for extinction. If there is no desire / means to reproduce, the gene will work itself out of the population. Genetics would dicta ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 10:34


    graybeard: Immutability is a legal term of art, and like many other terms of art, its legal meaning and application may not be in accord with its every day dictionary definition and usage. You know what it means by looking it up in a legal dictionary and checking its usage in legal opinions published by the highest court of the relevant jurisdiction. Equal Protection under the California Const. ... (more)
  • 10/27/08 @ 8:43


    Your postings contain quite a number of unsupported statements. Is anything really immutable? If so, how do you know?

  • 10/26/08 @ 23:06


    IMMUTABILITY AND EQUAL PROTECTION: Constitutional law DOES NOT require immutability for suspect (protected) classification. The best examples of this are: religious preference and alienage. Both of these categories get suspect classification even though people can volitionally change their religious affiliation and aliens can become citizens. An argument can be made also that race can be changed ... (more)
  • 10/26/08 @ 22:46


    To Scott: Courts make law all the time, let’s not pretend like that’s not part of their historic role. They state, define, and interpret common law, and make law by interpreting statutes, and constitutional provisions. That’s been our system since the very founding of this country and it’s not a new concept invented by the Cal. S. Ct. or any other court solely in the last few decades. Exa ... (more)
  • 10/26/08 @ 20:03


    Nice haircut

  • 10/26/08 @ 13:48


    "I may not always agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I admit I am reluctant to comment on this video. However, I appreciate this video (so I'll go ahead and comment anyways). It sparked discussion. It took a topic that has been floating around and gave it an outlet. I'm sure that the Brother's Winn appreciate everyone's comment, whether they are in ag ... (more)
  • 10/26/08 @ 13:19


    And there are of course bisexuals that like both men and women and can be equally happy with either sex.

  • 10/26/08 @ 12:54


    @keelhaulbill The evidence(yeah like all of it) suggests that sexual prefrance is biologically determined, just as having asian apperance is. The fact that more gay people pass as straight then asians as white does not change the underlying arbitrary basis for inequality. Being out, or pretending to be straight, those are choices, They are simply different strategies on how to be gay in our ... (more)
  • 10/26/08 @ 10:43


    yeah aren’t all the posts great? Nice and even tempered too. It’s pretty obvious a lot of viewers have passionate and differing opinions on this subject. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: A toast to civility!

  • 10/26/08 @ 2:15


    thanks heaps! wow, I’ve never seen this many comments…

  • 10/25/08 @ 19:30


    @Diego Your Asian/Gay analogy isn't really working for me. You see, someone that is Asian cannot change that fact where as someone that is gay can. There are many examples of people that are gay becoming straight and straights becoming gay. In fact sexual orientation used to be called sexual preference... as in choice. (But that implies accountability. And we can't have that.) - I'll quote Russ ... (more)
  • 10/25/08 @ 16:06


    In America we have done a lot of environmentally stupid things in the name of rights. People have exercised water rights, property rights, and numerous other sorts of rights to make decisions which have had disastrous downstream consequences. Now we try to prevent such shortsightedness by requiring environmental impact studies to determine long term consequences of decisions. The subtleties of ... (more)
  • 10/25/08 @ 12:57


    If prop 8 took away Asian's equal marriage rights would you support it? If you do support 8, what's the difference? The Cable act did just that, it was the law in California. In 1948 the equal rights of Asians to marry was reinstated by court decision. In Perez vs. Sharp, the California Supreme Court ruled against anti-miscegenation laws, stating that they were based on racial distinctions t ... (more)
  • 10/25/08 @ 9:11


    pkw I think you hit the nail on the head as far as declining marriage rates in general. Many upon many people aren't feeling any need to be married whatsoever. Those "rewards" of marriage that you spoke of are appealing to some, and it is an upside to marriage. Of course then there are all the legal resposnibilites that comes with marriage when say... you don't want to be married to that person ... (more)
  • 10/25/08 @ 8:07


    I have to ask a question, and no, I haven't read through the posts. Why be married? I mean, I personally believe it's right for religious reasons, but other than that, what's the point of the whole instution of marriage? Societal recognition? Since when should I care what other people think? A symbol of commitment to my partner? My partner works with a guy who loves his live-in-girlfriend li ... (more)
  • 10/24/08 @ 22:23


    To motr_man: I'll keep this short. Constitutions and courts are anti-majoritarian. That's how the Framers invisioned them, and that's how they should be. And when the People votes in an initiative, it acts as super-legislature, so in that sense, a court should be able to check it, the way judicial review checks any other law passed by a legislature for constitutionality. If we are talking ab ... (more)
  • 10/24/08 @ 19:27


    To: Jennifer McKenzie I'm afraid that I lost you on your argument. Even supposing that 100 percent of the "homosexual community" voted in a state wide election, the community would represent what, maybe 5 percent of the entire statewide electorate, maybe even less. Is it really a fair argument that because lesbian and gay folk are often associated with liberal movements, that it's ok to str ... (more)
  • 10/24/08 @ 18:50


    @ Boredalum, Your arguments are consistantly bursting with ethos and lacking in logos. I will site only one of your flawed arguments, since to address them all might require a post as long as your own (and long posts become tedious). You say - "Courts exist, in part, to protect minorities from majoritarian rule." The voice of the MAJORITY establishes what is and is not a part of the Constitutio ... (more)
  • 10/24/08 @ 18:32


    To boredalum: Mob rule is a bad thing. Judicial activism is defined in several ways. What seems most activist to me is when court rulings make law rather than interpret it. It is funny that people are spending so much time talking about the "right" of homosexuals to marry. What does the United States legal system consider to be the source of these rights? "We hold these truths to b ... (more)
  • 10/24/08 @ 18:17


    This is the best video I’ve seen Re: prop 8. Great job handling a very tough issue by making it both informative and funny, and appropriate for little viewers too! I’m passing it on to everyone I know!

  • 10/24/08 @ 18:09


    @Jennifer McKenzie : Its Ok, i tend to eat words.

  • 10/24/08 @ 16:06

    Jennifer McKenzie

    And I apologize for my awful spelling!
    *has a tendency to edit AFTER pressing ‘post’*

  • 10/24/08 @ 16:04

    Jennifer McKenzie

    I'm afraid the argument that the majority acquired through an election isn't valid because on 15% voted doesn't sway me in the least. It irritates me that those who are quick to demand their rights rarely come out to vote for them. It also irritates me that the side that often uses the "fear tactics" (Like guns being in the hands of criminals and drive by shootings) to get THEIR laws passed ar ... (more)
  • 10/24/08 @ 14:39


    Ok this how i understand it . the minority has overruled the majority by circumventing the voteing system.

    Now the minority is imposing their views on the majority.And calling the majority intolerant for not wanting to change their views.

    Is that about gist of it????

  • 10/24/08 @ 10:43



    The link you posted was from a Focus on the Family publication. They’re not overly fond of gays and lesbians amd support therapy in an effort to try to cure homosexuality. The APA thinks such practices do more harm than good, so I’m a tad skeptical of articles that come from them. Just my opinion though. (shrugs)

  • 10/24/08 @ 9:05

    Another reason Gay marriage is not a good idea, especially when children are involved.

  • 10/24/08 @ 6:56


    ain’t it though effamy? Nothing like a good spirited debate that doesn’t degreade into name calling and shouting matches.

  • 10/24/08 @ 5:26


    wow, excellent dialogue.

  • 10/24/08 @ 3:17


    To Curtis: To avoid missing the forest for the trees - my reference to the mob is really not all that controversial. It's a common way of expressing the idea that sometimes purely majoritarian societies allow the will of the majority to suppress the rights, participation, or freedoms of minorities. This is frequently referred to by scholars, historians, political theorists, etc. as tyranny of ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 21:01


    And to life and family! And to the parents of children who were either procreated or adopted. The children of parents who are either traditional or alternative gay, straight, or bi. Single or coupled. As long as your children know that they are loved, safe, and cherished. I salute.

  • 10/23/08 @ 20:55


    Russ Typically I use the term civil rights when reffering to the Civil Rights Movement that we're all pretty familair with back in the 60's. I use the term Gay Rights when talking about this stuff, mostly because I just want to distingusih what I am talking about. I do understand what you mean about other civil rights leaders who have mentioned what you said. There was one I am very familiar with ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 20:52


    @Potential Thanks for questioning my intelligence of the English language. Thanks for the clarification of my message. Yes, I do agree with you on the last part response. It's a moral imperative to protect and bolster our children with love, respect, and acceptance. Our children should grow knowing it is okay to be who they are. They should grow up in a world living honestly, proud, and happy ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 20:38


    Boredalum It was a shame you stated, "4.5 million people voted for Prop 22 in 2000. But this state has something like 38,000,000 people - so 4.5 million can hardly be said to represent the entire will of the state." Are you suggesting the voting public can't choose laws or vote in candidates for office unless 100% of the public actually votes? Who will you recognize as President in January if Ob ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 20:02


    JohnnyWhat: . Re: Women's Suffrage. Yes, I was aware of its original failure for a super majority in the Senate (it lost by just 3 votes the first time around -- that means that it did garner far better than 50%, just not the two-thirds majority needed). The campaign to unseat those Senators who dared to vote against it, to me at least, is the more important aspect of the history. It clearly ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 19:07


    Weggles Yeah I heard about some serious flame fanning on secondpersonpronountube. At first I was told I should check it out then a quick maybe not. I decided not to cause I'd hate to see people bad mouth this show when they probably don't know much about it. Uninformed opinions are the worst. Informed opinions that I disagree with are totally ok. Oh and Russ, Did you know that the first time th ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 18:50



    More or less a “Ruckus” as in causing people to voice their opinions on, since it’s such a polarizing issue.

    It seems odd they’d go from ICE, PMS for me, Glowing fish to… Gay Marriage.

    I am quite impressed at how well behaved the internet can be, though. :) (Too bad the youtube comments for the same video can’t be as civil :[ )

  • 10/23/08 @ 18:41


    Russ I hate to contradictory but Ms. King was an avid supporter of gay rights examples are below: On April 1, 1998 at The Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, King called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny t ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 18:32


    It actually hasn’t caused much of a ruckus. For the most part people have stated their opinion in very respectful terms. Sometimes in snide, sarcastic, or hyperbolic terms but those were usually just funny. It’s obviously an issue people are passionate about and that’s a beautiful thing. After all action is caused when emotions run high.

  • 10/23/08 @ 18:31


    All hail Russ! I haven’t witnessed a spanking like that in a long time. You’re amazing.

  • 10/23/08 @ 18:11


    Rebutting "jeffinputnam": Your history needs some serious brushing up. . 1) Women's Suffrage DID pass nationally. (See the Nineteenth Amendment.) It passed, as is necessary to make an Amendment to the Constitution, by super majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It then went to the states where EACH AND EVERY STATE ratified it (granted, Mississippi took until the 198 ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 17:45


    To The Brothers Winn:

    Successful Troll Successful?
    Was the point of this “episode” to just cause a ruckus?

  • 10/23/08 @ 17:12


    Rebutting "boredalum": Thank you, sir, for showing your hand. Within two paragraphs you go from wanting to tolerate everyone's religious beliefs to accusing those who act on those beliefs, "namely Mormons," of being "spiteful religious groups." You sir, are a bigot, and can be dismissed as such. . Point 2: Your Constitutional analysis is terribly weak. Loving v. Virginia was based (correctl ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 16:54


    you homophobe.

    P.S. there sure are a lot of 22′s around here. *hint* i sure would like to join them *hint*

  • 10/23/08 @ 16:41


    If we’re talking about intimate acts performed by two people, I’d like to state that nothing is done by gay couples in that regard that straight couples can’t/don’t do.

  • 10/23/08 @ 16:14


    We need to get off the 'rights' garbage and look at biology. All the bacteria, virus and other things, needed to breakdown and dissolve meat (read human body) can be found in the human intestines, so when 'things' get transfered from "out area" to the human body, those microbes just do what they know how to do - breakdown and destroy tissue. Once the microbes that should be in the intestines get i ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 15:54


    Actually sandynj, asking if the ends justify the means is a legitimate argument. All that question is asking is, was the method appropriate for achieving the solution. If there is a crime problem, one solution is to put everyone in jail. No people free on the streets means no crimes can be committed. Problem solved. However, is the means(throwing everyone in jail) justified because the crime p ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 15:45


    I'd like to expand a bit on "boredalum's" comments. Had the decision for women to vote gone to a national referendum it would not have passed for it was never a national majority opinion. Most western states were in favor, having already granted women that right. Most eastern and southern states would not agree to such a thing and the population at the time was, well, in the east and south. ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 15:23


    My only problem is that the announcer says that believing that “The end justifies the means.” is an incorrect belief. Actually, if ends do not justify means then NOTHING can. What most people mean when they trot out this philosophically meaningless canard is that good ends do not justify bad means.

  • 10/23/08 @ 14:12


    I liked and agreed in part with aspects of that video - but a lot of it was oversimplified, misleading, or dismissive of certain underlying issues. I hate when people keep referring to 4 activist liberal judges in San Francisco to underscore the idea that somehow the May 2008 decision was an act of legislative activism from the bench. These were 4 California Supreme Court Justices (most of who ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 12:24


    Soul Sister: there have been a lot of researches about the subject of mental health of children raised in 'alternative' families (like single parents) and most do actually conclude that children resulting from such marriages are no different from other kids. I'm not really ready to go into a statistics fight however I just want to say that it's a very bold statement to say that having homosexual ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 12:09


    Because I oppose the radical redefinition of time-honored, historic and sacred institutions;
    Because I oppose the degrading culture of individual gratification as the highest social ideal;
    Because I oppose activist judges that diminish the stature of the courts through their anti-democratic, anti-majoritarian, anti-constitutional edicts:
    I support Proposition 8.
    I hope you will, too.

  • 10/23/08 @ 12:08


    I went to high school in San Francisco. I have several gay friends. I also worked extensively on the (yes on) Proposition 22 campaign back in 2000 (my district was the only one to vote yes in the Bay Area). Please understand, this is not a gay rights issue; under the civil unions and domestic partnership acts, homosexuals were accorded all the benefits and responsibilities that accrued to marri ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 11:57


    Previous post was in direct reference to Niron04′s posting.

  • 10/23/08 @ 11:53


    You speak of the benefit of "exposing children to the world around them", I am curious if you live in the same world that I do? Are you aware of the actual meaning of the word expose??? Expose: to lay open to danger, attack, harm, etc. The responsibility of schools is NOT to EXPOSE, as you say, but to educate in a secular realm and ONLY secularly. The responsibility of TEACHING children regarding ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 11:22


    Wow!! Lots of Flaming! Great show! :)

  • 10/23/08 @ 10:53


    Video mentions photographer sued in Arizona. I know this happened in New Mexico; did it also happen in Arizona?

  • 10/23/08 @ 9:24


    Good job as usual guys

  • 10/23/08 @ 8:26


    Wow… 70 comments… well now 71. Most posts are responsible responses too. I am amazed with the amount of discussion on such a hot bed issue.

  • 10/23/08 @ 7:44

    Soul Sister

    Drecon, I want to respond to your comment. I agree whole heartedly with adoption, although adopting instead of having your own kids just because you want there to be less children in the world is a grey area that I'm not really sure how to figure out. I'm also not sure about your comment about single moms. Of course they can raise their children. Many women do that all over the world. What I'm say ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 6:27


    I think your video was very well thought out and respectful. I agree totally, and I can point out one other even more insidious result of the acceptance of homosexuality as "just a different lifestyle". It has caused us all to be a little bit more reserved and less able to be close to each other as friends. You can't be as good of friends as two females for fear it will be perceived as a sexual ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 6:12


    OOOOO…you made the Picture/Video of the day on Glenn Beck!!

  • 10/23/08 @ 4:39


    I would just like to say that I too have been an avid viewer of the WYOTK podcast, and while I live over the pond in England, things are a little different to the situation over in california than here. Now I say california because unfortunately I do have a huge understanding of the American legal system and your constitution. Over here there too has been recent up-roars about gay marriages. W ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 2:40


    To add my 2 cents and make it an even dollar, I think that, putting aside the whacko gay activists that are trying to use this issue to put a stake in organized religions (and are likely a small part of the overall gay community), the problem here is that the term “marriage” is being used to define multiple things. Some use marriage to define a religious ceremony to “bless a union” while ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 2:40


    @moded: you clearly did not read my later comments in which I clarified that statement (ok I used the word tolerance, but isn't that basically the same thing) in where you should be able to think and do what you think is right, but only if you are NOT hurting anyone. So no, raping and murdering is not right. However if you feel it is right to vote against gay marriages, yes, than that is your r ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 2:27


    I have a lot of problems with the statement that gay marriage is bad because you can't have children within such a marriage (I know there are more reasons but this one is the most cited here and it's the one I have the most problems with. . Let's look at a few grey areas first. If you need a man and a woman to raise a child how do you feel about single moms? Are they unable to raise a child? Wa ... (more)
  • 10/23/08 @ 0:25


    Wow maybe we should just send all the gays to Mars. Everyone is afraid of same-sex marriage, I just don't understand how same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. The Judeo-Christian Bible interprets marriage between a man and woman. Government shoul interpret marriage as between two willing and conscience human individuals who have a commitment for each other, with respect to family ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 22:45


    Wow! What a video and subsequent responses. It took the video a few minutes to run, but it took me well over an hour to read, and re-read, and re-re-read the comments. These comments were so well contructed and thought-provoking, I must admit my view about gay marriage may have been moved. I noticed a couple of things in the comments I found especially interesting. Meandering's point about marr ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 21:25

    Soul Sister

    So this has been an amazingly interesting forum to read. And an excellent distraction from my homework! :) So I'm not the brightest star in the sky, but I'm excited to share my opinion. Here it goes! 1) I think how quickly the judges struck down Proposition 22 is scary. It takes years upon years to pass laws to build something that might threaten the environment, but the Supreme Court struck d ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 21:02


    And let me know if you have information that contradicts what I posted. I'd like to know if I'm wrong. I may not change my mind, but I'll at least admit that I was misinformed :) By the way, I also think it's neat that in general, the comments have been very respectful. And I thought that this episode was exceptionally well-done. Particularly that of how tolerance goes both ways. I wish we could ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 20:50


    My biggest beef with passing a law that allows gay marriage is what happened in Massachusetts. A second grade teacher read a book to her class about gay marriage. The student's parents felt that it was their responsibility to teach sexuality to their child at that age; the school should wait at least until sex ed. in the fifth grade. They went to court, and the judge ruled that the parents had no ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 20:36


    WOW!!! Lots of people have lots to say, and I'm already getting lost in all the mess, no wonder I'm being sucked into a black hole... You want my beliefs? ( I know your answer is no, but I'm posting anyways) Why is it alright for heterosexuals to be married, but not homosexuals? Doesn't that take away from their unalienable rights? You know, the ones that your Creator endowed everyone with? ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 20:14


    what I like about all of these comments is that hwile the show a difference in opinion from person to person, no one is really getting flamed. Sure there is the sarcasim the snide comment and the hyperbole but everyone seems to be maintaining a fairly cool head about it. A toast to civility!

  • 10/22/08 @ 20:05


    Lots of interesting arguments going on in the comments... I find it ironic that Rob B seem to argue for seperation of church and state by demanding an officially athiestic religious outlook for the state. It is no more absurd to vote according to one's religious texts than it is to vote according to whatever the chemical reactions in your brain produced by natural selection and mutation over m ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 18:44


    Kudos to Meandering! Those are some level-headed comments.

  • 10/22/08 @ 17:41

    Rob B

    Jeez it’s getting hot in here, somebody better find a fire extinguisher or something, and fast.

  • 10/22/08 @ 17:34


    ow and the last thing... @dherrera31, I think stop watching this show because you do not agree with what the brother are saying is plain right stupid! (mind, I'm not saying dherrera31 himself is stupid, i'm just saying that I THINK that him stopping to watch this show for those reasons is stupid) You are really going to stop watching a show which you have liked a lot for the past, what, months ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 17:32

    Rob B

    fdisk2, I was about to post that but decided to save myself the trouble of being yelled at. You got balls man.

  • 10/22/08 @ 17:23


    Look at all the comments. Hey Brothers Winn, if you want more forum posts, looks like hot topics are the way to go! Maybe not Hot Topic the store though…

  • 10/22/08 @ 17:13


    Ow and one more thing, I am not saying tolerate everything! I’m just saying tolerate those things that make people happy for some reason, without them hurting anyone else. So terrorism should not be tolerated, because they ARE hurting other people.
    One should be able to believe what they want and be able to act on those believes, without hurting someone else.

  • 10/22/08 @ 17:09


    Wait … you aren’t gay?

  • 10/22/08 @ 17:01


    owkeej, I gave the show a second chance and I think I understand it better now. So I agree, that backdoor thingy shouldn't be possible. When the people vote no, I think it should stay no. . Well, since I'm not an American I think I'm not really entitled to an opinion, but I'm going to give one anyway. I think everyone should let everybody else do what they feel or think is right. I cannot ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 16:47


    I think you've missed the point. Regardless of what the SC judges say, they must base their decisions on whether or not a law works within the framework of he Constitution. It has nothing to do with the "will of the people" and everything to do with what the will of the people was when the Constitution was enacted. Moreover, I simply cannot imagine how allowing same-sex couples to marry would affe ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 15:29


    I love this video guys! It is so amazing! I complety agree too. And that field trip, totally ridiculous! How is taking the students to a gay wedding have anything to do with learning anything in school.

  • 10/22/08 @ 15:04


    Ingrid: Technically in the best case senario that's how it would work on this side of the pond too, unfortunately some people ahve an itchy litigation finger, and there are lawyers who take about any cas. It would seem to me that in such a case on grounds stated in the constitution no church would be forced to marry a gay couple because of the first amendment, which not only outlines religious ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 14:50


    OW and btw, I like the way things are over here. In the Netherlands gay marriages are allowed. So gay's have the right to get married. BUT the people who marry them (don't know the English name) do have the right to refuse to perform a gay wedding if they don't feel comfortable with the idear. So gay's can marry, they just have to find someone who is willing to perform the wedding. (and there are ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 14:50


    Actually Meandering {207} the Supreme Court of the United States wrote in its opinion in the case of Loving vs. the State of Virginia that and I quote "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directl ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 14:37


    Hilarious Rob B! Now I can’t look at it without seeing it too heh. I’m reminded of seeing a sign for a casino that claimed to have “the loosest slots” That sure wasn’t what I read the first time I saw it lol

  • 10/22/08 @ 14:35


    Hi I’m a new member of the site and I really enjoy watching these videos, the host is really funny. This is the first time I’m posting a comment, and it might sound negative but you insistent effort to prove your not a homopho makes you sound like your trying convince more then just the audience.I applaud you taking a stance on public record dispite the controversy behind the topic though.

  • 10/22/08 @ 14:33

    Meandering {207}

    dherrera31, I like the passion, its what makes the USA the best country, the people. I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandlier, but I think I know how to "critically think" about the issues. Especially about religion. I confess I am a believer, but not because of my parents. The real indocrination only happens in the school system. My parents did take me to church, but always encouraged me ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 14:28

    Rob B

    oh I just remembered, when I first saw the page, without playing the video, I read Gay Marriage, attracted, and flame. Then I burst out laughing, and watched the vid.

  • 10/22/08 @ 14:16


    dherrera31, I don't believe you would change your mind no matter what I presented to you. Hell, I didn't even mention religion. But If you want facts, why didn't you read any of the articles they posted up top. This one is from a harvard educated democrat anthropologist that scientifically claims gay marriage is bad for society. ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 14:13

    Rob B

    exactly dherra. (excuse my spelling) Most gays aren't lobbying to force the christian church to marry them, but the ones that do are being just as intolerant as their opponents ;) Most just want a normal, non-religious, legal marriage. Just because this country's laws were originally based on the bible doesn't mean we have to follow it now. Now I'm not saying we ban all religions and their beliefs ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 14:05

    Meandering {207}

    garykwf - I appreciate your comments (All of them) it helps to see others ideas and beliefs. I don't recall talking about the "Gay Agenda" or anything, just giving a brief overview of what happened and my thoughts as to the publicity around the issue verse the overall out come. There are strong arguments on both sides and though I have my opinions as well I feel the best for the country (or stat ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 13:59


    keelhaulbill, Nice try, but I'm saying that you're extending your "tolerance" to accommodate your unconstitutional view on rights, but not far enough to "tolerance of everything." You made a stance first (religiously backed), and then defending it... rather than checking the evidence, and then forming an opinion from your actions (scientific method). You shouldn't come into an argument with ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 13:54


    Actually I had a thought; Let’s say for example Prop 8 fails in California. The proponants of it wouldn’t sue the state would they? Cause that might look kinda akward after some of the arguments made for it.

  • 10/22/08 @ 13:48


    Do you actually believe that they were claiming people should “tolerate everything.” I think so, seeing as how you based your entire terrorist bombing analogy on it. Perhaps it’s time to re-examine the critical thinking skills of your untainted mind.

  • 10/22/08 @ 13:39


    That's really too bad dherrera31, I also disagree with the stance of this podcast, but it doesn't mean that I don't understand where the podcasters are comming from. I lived In Cincinnati for awhile, and for almost the entire time I lived there Amendment 13 existed in the city's charter. Basicly stated it meant that gays/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered persons were not a protected class in the city ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 13:19


    Well first off, I must say I've been an avid watcher of your podcast. Up until this point, I've pretty much loved every podcast (even the bacon one). But now with this piece, I can no longer watch this show. As an atheist, college aged student (at UC Berkeley), who lives in California, I'm suppose I've been in the "California bubble," but I'm thankful that it's allowed me to have an untainted ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 12:30

    The Brothers Winn

    We love you too CrazyDave.

  • 10/22/08 @ 12:25


    I just want to say…I Love You All :)

  • 10/22/08 @ 12:23


    Wow, this must have been good show, because I totally got blown away by all the political english terms and rights, and laws and… wow…
    I might try again to understand this show when my head is less pounding with all the knowledge I crammed into it for my exams.
    I guess I’m just I happy I live in the Netherlands where everything seems to be a lot less complicated… (at least it does to me)

  • 10/22/08 @ 12:22


    I've watched this podcast for awhile, but never really felt like leaving a comment. I guess I am not really much of a forum person. In cases like this though I am cursed with being able to see both sides of the argument. As a gay guy I'd like to get married to my partner of 7 years. I do not think suing a state to get married is really the best way to go about it. All it causes is reactionary situ ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 12:13

    steph {207}

    Well see the video in my opinion... WAS GREAT and it makes me equals D (=D)!! I have so much to coment on, its going to be a long one... I totally agree with the statement about California and I do wonder how 61% voted for it. Also your so right no matter what your opinion is on gay marriage you should not think what the judges did was right or justified. It goes against our whole constitution and ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 12:10


    There are thought to be two types of law. An illegal act is either : "malum in se" (bad in itself) or "malum prohibitum" (not inherently bad but illegal by policy). What is defined as "malum in se" can vary greatly from one culture to the next: public drunkenness, cannibalism, owning a dog, urinating in the street, etc. It is the public sense of what is right and wrong -- morality. It always ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 12:08

    Rob B

    It's all about separation of state and religion. We should NEVER base our laws on any religious text, because not all people would follow that religion. I'm not saying we can't introduce laws that are already in texts such as bible, like don't kill etc, but to say "the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, so that's what the law should be," is completely absurd. On the flip side, homos ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 12:00



    and garykwf, its not about a SINGLE hetrosexual marriage threatened by a homosexual marriage.

    “Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults”

  • 10/22/08 @ 11:59


    Jennifer McKenzie wrote: “the government should not be able to tax a couple as if they were two single people”

    Your outrage is a little misplaced. Look up “Marriage Penalty” to see what I mean.

  • 10/22/08 @ 11:51


    Wow, ther have been alot of posts in a couple of hours. Please don’t read anything I say as attacking anyone, that is not my intent. It seems to me the most important question in this debate is how to define marriage. It seems to me the two predominant arguments are that marriage is a natural, objective, institution to reproduce or that marriage is a social construction (and therefore subjective ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 11:44

    Jennifer McKenzie

    I voted against Prop 22 because I thought Gay Marriage should be approved and the government should not be able to tax a couple as if they were two single people. BUT after the Proposition passed, the complete disregard for the people's will was so heinous that I was totally pissed off. How would they feel if I disregarded some of the gun bans they've seen fit to clamp on ME and my family? An ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 9:17



    I brain you even more! No homo. (wink)

    I agree . . . tolerance goes two ways.

  • 10/22/08 @ 8:52


    i am a libertarian so my question is always: why is the government having any say over the personal lives of its citizens? the american model (based on what the founding fathers envisioned) was at one time the best model of a progressive libertarian state. seeing how far some politicians like ron paul can get in your screwy electoral system is heartening that some day we'll see a more libertarian ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 8:20


    Oh, can't resist wondering what the frock religious instruction is doing in public schools in the first place? Oh, it's Quebec! They do not reflect majority opinion in the rest of Canada according to my Canadian friends, they have always gone their own way. In this country, fortunately, public schools are not generally allowed to teach one religious belief in preference to another, though they ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 8:13


    I would suggest Meandering from Wisconsin reread my post just below theirs. Even if the so-called Gay Agenda were totally passed, no religious body would be forced to accept a situation contrary to their doctrine, the Constitutional Freedom of Religion provision covers that. Gays who chose to marry could seek out a sympathetic minister or simply do without the whole wedding ceremony. The Suprem ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 8:11


    I personally feel that marriage is a religious term, and should be only manipulated by religion. However, that being sad, I believe that all individuals should have access to the same rights and benefits of "marriage" no matter their religion or sexual choice. I voted NO in Florida for defining the marriage between a man and a women, for the sole reason that it had an additional line that denies ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 8:07


    What the Bible says is irrelevent in civil law. Google treaty of tripoli, I believe around 1802/3 passed by congress and signed by President Jefferson. The prologue reads, in part "The United States of America is in no respect founded upon the Christian religion..." We have never officially been a "Christian" nation, just a nation with a lot of Christians who may worship(or not) as they please. ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 8:00


    P.S. and I promise my last word - Marriage is and ought to be between one man and one woman is what people say. How would this change if gay people were allowed the same right? Marriage would be still between one man and one woman, with the addition of two men or two women. Would that be so terrible, and how would allowing more people to marry undermine the institution. Frankly if anybody's ma ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 7:57

    Meandering {207}

    A very sensitive issue. Here in Wisconsin we had a similar amendment that defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman in 2006 and it passed by 59% to 41%. It was a huge issue here and despite all the advertising and all the money that was poured into defeating the amendment, it still passed. I appreciate your comments that we ALL need a little tolerance. I think most people cry for tolerance ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 7:52


    Oh, I forgot to mention. Are you and your viewers aware that thousands of kids across the nation have been brought up in same-sex foster homes, with the blessing of their states? And that now many states are being sued because they cannot adopt the same kids they have fostered, sometimes for years? If reproduction is the main qualification for marriage what about those too old or genetically un ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 7:44


    (sigh). Here we go again, blaming the victims. I watched the CAL Sup Ct pleadings and was sorry to see the same kind of logic displayed in your video employed, which is why the defendents lost. Yes, the court did say that opinion in society had changed, but the LEGAL basis for the decision was that to deny a protected class with a documented history of discrimination the right to marry would be ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 7:43


    I just recently moved to Wisconsin from California and was surprised to find out about the Prop 8 thing being that the whole Prop 22 passed and well I thought gay marriage was covered. But I agree with huscarl Marriage isn't about just love it's about the children and the family that is attached to the Married couple. Gay couples can't make babies... naturally. So I don't see why they want "v ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 6:38


    clap Clap Clap Clap!!!!!

  • 10/22/08 @ 5:55


    Great video! I too have had one of my political yard signs destroyed recently (Arg!), fortunately I got a free Yes On 8 Sign the day before that I replaced the destroyed sign with. I have already voted yes on prop. 8. I don't think the almighty Gov. has the right to decide what people can and can't do with their bodies (of course as, as long as it dosn't transgress the rights of another). As for m ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 4:55


    The way I see it is they should be allowed to be married, and it should be up to the churches to decide whether or not they marry them. Marriage isn't a strictly religious ceremony. My uncle was married to my aunt by a justice of the peace. It wasn't even in a church. I also think the sneaky tactics the gays are employing are the wrong ways to go about things. Telling the teacher because the st ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 3:55


    This is gonna piss some people off but Marriage is and should always be between 1 man and 1 woman. if Gays want to live together then so be it, if they enter into a relationship then yeah after a certain time they should be allowed the benefits of insurance and benefits incase one passes away but marriage? NO. and as for teaching kids about Homosexuality in public schools that should not be allowe ... (more)
  • 10/22/08 @ 0:46


    I have heard that American judges have begun to site international law to undermine our own. I would not be surprised if, within the next few years, Canadian or European laws were invoked to repeal the marriage amendment, or any other law a circuit judge finds incongruous with their own personal beliefs.

  • 10/21/08 @ 23:36


    Personally I think all this lobbying, legal action, and general disgruntled behavior has actually done more to harm the advocation of gay rights. From what I understand of the situation, most states allow homosexual couples to file for domestic partnership, which pretty much entitles them to all the benefits of a marriage. If that truly is the case than all the activist, lobbyist, and judges, ar ... (more)
  • 10/21/08 @ 23:19


    Wow, first post. This is new, but I digress. Oh the joy of California! You know there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson call the Judiciary Branch the tyrannical branch of government.

  • 10/21/08 @ 23:17


    I completely agree that all this ruckus is counterproductive in many aspects. As a gay college student, I'm fine with religions having their way with "Marriage." Like you said, religions changing their views is never going to happen. As long as there ends up being a COMPLETELY EQUAL (as in benefits/acknowledgment/legal/etc) establishment for gay couples other than "Marriage" I'll be perfectly happ ... (more)

Sorry, we're getting way too much spam.
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't already, register here.

Recent Shows

Recent Comments

The Brothers Winn

Just two brothers making a podcast. We both research and write the show.

Get a hold of us here:

Notice: Use of undefined constant - assumed '' in /home/media/public_html/wyotk/show/wp-content/themes/wyotk/single.php on line 87