Unfortunately, Jon didn't have any more candy to give out, so he slipped a righteous takedown into the kid's bag. --Dave, and yeah, that bowtie needs propellor capacity, stat!
+QuikVidGuy And its's so fucking ridiculous. Do dogs have a legal standing? Can they sign a marriage contract? Like, stop pulling random bs arguments out of your ass, and just admit you're prejudiced.
Besides: if dogs were sentient, they'd be MUCH nicer than we are. Heck, they already are, they're just not in positions of power (and before you point out how lots of them bark, and some of them might even bite, here's a point to consider: if they were sentient, they'd be able to know and understand that we don't like and/or are annoyed by the first behavior, and that the second behavior is something that they should never do, except in self-defense).
track355 Because public ignorance of how well LGBT people raise children is vast and easy to exploit. Its not about the quality of the arguments, its about the lack of information in the people who hear them. Religious fascists have built power structures on that for thousands of years, so naturally thanks to global digital communication and distribution of facts, evidence and empirical data, their power is dying.
track355 I'm kind of surprised that I'm the only one who has responded in this manner. You say, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" How does this involve children?" Well, a man and a woman is the only way to make a child.
+crassenti Yeah, but God will punish us now that we did it because He likes us. Wait, why do it work like that again? Oh, to show that people should join Him so that when they mess up they can be punished too? This seems...like the exact opposite of what would happen...
+crassenti I don't know... I was in London, Ontario last week and saw a man proposing to a wombat, and a woman working out a pre-nup with her electric toothbrush. Ever since Robin Sparkles became Robin Daggers, Canada has become a cesspool of depraved and immoral behavior. [see "How I Met Your Mother" for the Robin reference if you are not familiar with good, wholesome, Amurkin TV] :-)
Those were some entertainingly abysmal arguments right there. Especially the last one. That either showed an incredible lack of ability to think ideas through or just how desperate the anti-marriage-equality side is.
Bogwedgle I concur...christ. I've seen how bad these arguments are in a damned CLASSROOM for crying out loud. One class, introduced me to these arguments, and the whole class practically unanimously concluded that it was horribly to define marriage by procreation alone. The moment this guy chucked out that argument, was the moment you could tell they were wasting everyone's time. I hope there's at least some competent arguments in there. Gay Marriage is going to happen whatever the case I believe (Woo!), but I'd rather a fair chance than a clean sweep.
Steven Wang The view is in the belief procreation is needed for a marriage to be valid. Where those who are infertile, too old, or not interested in sex but have a traditional male-female pairing are capable of marriage, while those of matching sex are invalid, even if they did want children, via adoption, or by insemination with a willing donor or child-bearer. And beyond that, single moms or dads are allowed to raise and adopt children, yet two people of the same gender would have people argue otherwise. And more controversial is do we really need more kids and entice that viewpoint of marriage? We're kind of overpopulated as whole and growing. Might be nicer to decline back a bit to more manageable levels. Marriage/Civil Unions as a whole were really just based on assigning who the father was back in the day and that's where it derived the whole traditional woman/man thing. But we're evolving as a people.
She has to survive for 7 more months. It would have been 4 years 7 months until the coronavirus hits. Trump's incompetence in dealing with something that isn't self-imposed is honestly actually hurting his chances.
I myself am bi-sexual, and my philosophy is this: Our country was made according to three Inalienable Rights: Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. My, or anyone else's, sexuality does not limit any of those rights from you. However, when you discriminate against us because of our sexual orientation, you are limited one, if not all, of those rights from us. To be clear, I am not someone who forces my belief on others, that would be wrong. The reason I speak out so often is because America is a Democratic Republic where the people hold the power, and a major asset we have to exercise that power is our voice. If we don't peacefully speak our mind, we can't expect our politicians to so what we want them to do.
I'm kind of tired of seeing the definition of marriage being reduced to the purpose of procreation. I'm also tired of the U.S. dragging its feet about marriage equality. Plenty of women are married or want to get married and are past a point where they can't have any children. Thanks for pointing that out Jon.
Also.. some people (both men & women) can't have children/are infertile, and others simply don't want kids. People also have to realize that a woman who doesn't want/can't have children are no less of a woman than those who do. Don't reduce us to our uterus being our "sole purpose" for existing. Don't reduce us to nothing but a baby machine.
Infertile people, old people, people with certain disabilities, people who have gotten certain surgeries, etc. can't have children and yet they are allowed to marry too.
I love how Chief Justice John Roberts qualified his statement "prior to a dozen years ago." Wouldn't it be great if we could do that? I mean, every definition of marriage before 100 C.E. said polygamy is okay. So I guess having a second wife should be legal.
"Only a dozen years ago blacks were all defined as slaves, and freedom was only something for hetero white men, so we... we can't just go around redefining words. I mean, the dictionary is far more important than the Constitution, or people..."
Can I actually ask why people are so opposed to gay marriage? Like, I understand it is for religious reasons, but if we have the separation of church and state, there really is no reason for anyone to be opposed to it. I don't give a damn who gets married to who, and I firmly believe that religious beliefs should be let out of politics. This is not one nation under God, that phrase wasn't even added to our pledge until after World War II, long after our nation had been established. For people who believe that the founding fathers founded this country based on religious beliefs are absurd, because people like George Washington and John Adams have been known to speak out against those who use religion to push their own discriminatory agenda.
Look at it this way: over 90% of atheists/agnostics in America believe that gays should be allowed to marry. So if you think about it, that means virtually all of the anti-gay crowd must be religious. Such correlation is highly unlikely unless there is a causation relationship going on... do with that information what you will.
SuicidalChef No, religion is not the problem, people are. I am a strong Catholic. I sing at church, my mother runs the religious school, I was an altar server, I go to Mass every week often singing at two Masses. Guess what! I'm bisexual! Religion is not the problem. The problem is how it is interpreted. If it's a healthy, strong and true love, there is no reason for such discrimination. God will meet send a Man to hell of he loves another man, not send a Women to hell because she loves another women. People will read and enforce their religion in ways it doesn't actually read. Evolution is an example, more than one priest has said that the story of Adam and Eve is more of a parable than fact. Yes the Bible can be read and taken literally, but most of its teaching are less literal and more intuitive. Islam is not an evil religion, Radical Islamists are. It's the same argument here, you can't do an action that's wrong, and defend it with "I'm following my religious beliefs." because my response will be: "BULLSHIT! Ten-to-one, I'm stronger in my faith than you are."
Lord Draken religion IS the problem like it is anytime it is in the picture. Religion is a mental disease and it has chosen YOU as one of its brainwashed hosts.
SadieBear the Steeler Fan Heiress and them being religious affects you in what way? they're clearly someone who takes the Bible in its true meaning (not the one the church people made up in the 13th century to stop people having sex all them time) as a largely metaphorical guidance as to how to live your life then they're going to have a good moral foundation and respect others, surely whether you agree or not then you should allow them to have their views peacefully and not verbally abuse them about it.
+Lord Draken And I, as a (sorta) Presbyterian (PCUSA specifically), generally agree with you. We're a little /more/ progressive, but my raised-Catholic mother has told me that it was easy to convert because they have similar social works-related goals. Also: it's not even "radical Islam". The closest the "terrorist" version of Islam could POSSIBLY be to the ACTUAL Islamic faith is that it's a PERVERSION of Islam. And on your last point: additionally, there's two parts of the bible that come to mind that tell us, effectively, to be nice to one another. In the Old Testament, one of the Ten Commandments is to (roughly) "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", and in the New Testament, Jesus sought to teach us how to be forgiving and loving.
All of those who argue against gay marriage are also those who argue that government should stay out of peoples lives-- less government regulation. Same with abortion or any other issue... they become pro-government when it's an issue they disagree with.
Justin Cate There is one that although isen't strong enough to deny them the right it is important enough to discuss. The children. I am not saying gay people will not make good parents but the fact of the matter is other kids are brutal. I remember kids being bullied for the smallest differences. Also a few people raised by gay parents have stepped forward and said that their child hood was significantly more difficult because of haveing two moms or two dads.
***** "Their argument is, it should go through the voters and not the Supreme Court. Which I would say is a fair argument." So, should things like the intergration of races in school should have been voted upon by normal citizens back then and not "imposed" on by the courts? It ain't a fair argument when you replace this issue with other issues the courts had discided upon back then.
***** You can still fuck people over in a mass vote, and keep them fucked over. The idea you are pushing is an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. If something is popular amoung a large group of people, it must be right or true way of doing things. The thing is, that's *not always* the case. It's popular to install the Ten Commandments as laws of the land, does that mean it's the right thing to do in the land of "seperation of church and state" and "religious freedom?"
***** Polygamy IS the traditional form of marriage, so the 1 man,1 woman argument is just nonsense. If Christians would actually read their bible, instead of bashing people with it, then they would know that.
Know what's awesome? The fact that most of the comments here are talking about how stupid the anti-gay marriage argument is. When even the internet is becoming open minded, you know it's time to change toward that openness.
This is 2018 calling. ... can we pretty please go back to it being as sane and reasonable and happy as "Arrrrrw"? --Dave, srsly, past you would not BELIEVE what's been happening
Seriously? How does his bow tie or his physical appearance have anything to do with his sexual orientation? I wish people would stop with the whole "all homophobes are secretly gay" trope. It's not helpful, and honestly, even if not intended, it really makes you sound like homophobes yourselves :/
Yes. The world would be a better place if closet cases accepted who they are instead of self-loathing and rallying others to join them in undermining gay rights.
This is my one argument I always gave to the whole same sex marriage argument...."Let them get married and find out that it's a heartless, evil, soulless institution like the rest of the world....The hard way!"
My question to those anti-gay marriage people is this, 'If a man living down the street were to marry another man, will you miraculously die of a heart attack?' What I'm saying is... why should gay-marriage be an issue when we have more important things to worry about... like economy stagnation, war in the Middle East, maintaining world peace.
I come from Teh Future to comment! Aaaaand no, unfortunately, those a-g-m people did not in fact die of heart attacks. They're still around, but most of them have gone really quiet on the subject. Possibly because it turns out it really DIDN'T make their own marriages any more of a mockery and sham than they already were, and didn't suddenly draw otherwise-God-fearing folks into unwanted gay marrige... just into wanted ones. Meanwhile, weather of almost Biblical proportions is responding to America's first orange President's office residency. --Dave, alas, Puerto Rico, we hardly knew ye
The way the extreme anti-marriage equality lobby carry on, they would have you believe that all those issues are _caused_ by accepting gay marriage. At best, according to them, it's a sign of our "liberal" mentalities travelling so far from God's word that we no longer know what's right and therefore allow all sorts of evil to happen. At worst, God is literally crying and is trying to destroy us because we accept gays.
A true conservative doesn't want a government telling him who or why he can't marry. It doesn't matter if you want kids. If you want to marry someone, you have the liberty and freedom to do so. The government, serving the people, has no more right to define marriage than they do to define what food you are allowed to eat. I say allowed, fully aware of the fda, because there are many unhealthy foods on the market, yet we have the freedom to choose to eat from them. Let them marry. If it's not what you consider as marriage, then consider it a different type of marriage. It doesn't matter. A marriage is a union. A civil union is a marriage. Why do we still discuss this?
/I/ could be the one getting things mixed up a little, but: are you sure you don't mean libertarians? (Political ideology, like conservatism or progressive, not political party, like Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or Green.)
Okay. Most of the people I've talked to who support the "one man, one woman" argument are very religious. Do these people not remember that the bible has other types of marriage? That many religions allow a man and many wives? That Islam allows a man and a female child? Marriage is different all over the world, and changing all the time. The one man, one woman argument is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. You know what I think? I think that adults should be able to decide for themselves who they love. If all parties involved in the relationship are consenting adults and the relationship is not abusive, why should we stop love?
This is why I support a more-than-two marriage. It two consenting women and a consenting man, two consenting men and a consenting woman, or any other combination of men, women, hermaphrodites, WHATEVER, want to get married, then it is the LAND of the FUCKING FREE that should allow that. It's stupid how hypocritical that slogan is "land of the free"
+nerdatheart94 It's the WORD OF GOD!... As defined by the past few hundred years of extreme Euronationalist revisionism, cultural translation and deep-seated insecurities among competing groups.
This is old (for me) but I just noticed something about the argument that a “70-Year old man can still have children.” A healthy, 20-something gay man can still have children. In fact, both of them can. But, just like the 70-year old couple, having children would require going outside of the marriage.
It's a terrifying concept that the country should vote on providing equal rights to it's own citizens. The entire idea of trying to put a label on the way people choose to make their personal relationships (marriage), then point at that label to declare your defending it's definition, is one huge straw man. If it's the home of the free, then we're all free together, and consenting adults can marry whomever they please. It's up to you to make these decisions for yourself, but not for anyone else. That's the definition of liberty, and it's what this country has always strived to be like. I pray to God for equal rights under the law for all of the lovers in this world
I'm.... I'm sorry, but.... did John Roberts just say "People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts"?????? Had he not heard of ABORTION in April of 2015??? The irony is so thick here that it's......................I can't even think of anything. Jesus.
To paraphrase the point of a tedx talk I just enjoyed watching, government should just get the hell out of marriage altogether. As long as there's informed consent, let people form whatever family structures they want to form.
Mark Love Government through legislation is still necessary to ensure the contractual obligations and rights involved in the "Marriage". I agree it should have the same treatment as a business agreement.
its not that easy. back in 2004 Hillary was shitting on gays asking for the right to marry, as at the time most states did not allow gays to marry. a natural, much more nationally accepted opposition came together and have been fighting till today. Logically marriage isnt a thing the government wants involvement in, but they have to when it involves a lersons rights, such as a gay mans right to marry.
The problem is, that these "family structures" often are tied to legal concepts where the state has something to say. Like tax-paying. So, there are reasons, why the government is involved. I'm not necessarily saying, that it SHOULD be involved. I'm just saying that there are a lot of things that we have to consider, if we want to make "marriage" an entirely personal (and essentially symbolic) matter.
Please put an asterix at the end stating that the people involved _have_ to be adults, please! (Also a thing that they shouldn't be intoxicated at the time etc, stuff that impaires judgement, you know, those kind of things)
Let's use the slippery slope argument, cause I actually am quite fond of it. Change of perspective, though. You've already went down it a loooong time ago. Once upon a time, marriage had nothing to do with love. Marriage wasn't some sort of victory for 2 love birds over their families opposing them for a conflict unrelated to their wills. Marriage was about political status, financial matters or many other factors beyond the 2 individuals. Conversely, said individuals try to put thei differences aside and make it work for their family. You know what got in this system's way? Love. Now you can marry out of love or the old fashioned arranged way, and guess which one resulted in higher divorce rates? Maybe people mistook love for convenience and marriage is too big of an inconvenience. Now let's talk about sex. As in allowing people the choice to do it outside of marriage. What has that led to? Unplanned pregnancies, the issue of abortion and a negative stereotypes surrounding black people. But it's ok, cause sex is an activity that a man and a woman only need to love each other so much. Huh, there's that word again. What's next? Homosexuality. It can only happen when 2 same sex individuals love each other so much, going against the nature of humans to find attraction in the opposite gender in order to reproduce. All because of this thing called love. Say, what was the slogan when gay marriage was legalised? I think it was "Love wins". So what have we learned about love? Well, love leads to divorce, unplanned pregnancies, abortion issues and homosexuality in general. Also, love is evol spelled backwards, that could be an acronym for evolution. And evolution occurs by having mutants mate with none mutants. X-men are mutant superheroes. Superman is the iconic definition of superheroes, and was made by Jews around WW2. Hitler killed Jews in order to make Germany great again. Trump is trying to make America great again. Which means... Trump is really trying to date his daughter!!! He wants to legalise incest!
This was great, but it would have been 10 times better if they used the "real dogs, fake paws" footage from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. That improves any supereme court argument
How did we get stupid people in the Supreme Court? Oh right, Bush was in charge and appointed religious republicans..... Please vote, we deserve better, much better.
***** I'm sorry there was logic to debate? Let's start over. Give me your stance. Do you think gay marriage should be legal? I'm not sure if it's a "yes and this stuff should be too" or if it's a "no because this stuff isn't." If you'd be so kind, please clarify.
***** Incest being nasty isn't the issue, what happens when a child is born of it is. I agree that it is disgusting to me, but I would assume it is so because of my culture more than anything. Anything other than the health issues is irrelevant to me when considering laws about it. I've always thought the anti polygamy arguments were stupid. If you can call them arguments. It's just the same bigoted misguided nonsense that people use against gay marriage.
The Chief Justice, John Roberts, reasoned that because we humans defined a word a certain way (which just reflects how we see a word’s meaning at some point in time) changing the definition would crumble the infrastructure of the “institution”. I thought judges were supposed to be smart...
4:47 for the person who works in the Greko-Roman building it's kinda ironic that he forgot that the greeks and romans were not exacty just marying woman either.
"Is there any grounds for a group of people to.not be married." yes....one consenting adults human with one consenting adults human No slope. Not slippery
Quick question what the hell did he mean by a group of Two Men and two women getting married like the four of them marry each other because I think that's legal in Utah either that or sister wife is something a lot weirder than I thought it was and how the hell was that made legal before same-sex marriage
HipsterShiningArmor similarly Lesbian women can also have children via invetro. But you know that is logical and factual, therefore can't be a part of the anti-marriage equality thought process.
DarkKuno Yes, lesbian women can also have children, whether via in vitro fertilization or good old fashioned penis in vagina fertilization. Anti-gay marriage people also forget that gay people aren't incapable of sex with the opposite gender, they're just generally uninterested in it.
HipsterShiningArmor Don't forget. They expanded their "think of the children" argument by saying the legalization of gay marriage would account for 900,000 abortions ... within the next twenty years I think it was, as well as lower birthrates. Seriously. where the f*ck did that number come from?
Fireshadow And how can a same-sex couple get pregnant in the first place in such circumstances that would make an abortion necessary? If anything, the opposite is true.
Mohamed Musse FUCK THESE TYRANTS ! GUYS WE HAVE TI GO OUT A BECOME EXTREMLY POLITICALY ACTIVE FROM THIS ELECTION CYCLE AND ON ! AND KEEP CALLIN CONGRESS AN LETTING THEM KNOW TO STOP THIS SHIT !!!! DISARM THE PEOPLE AN THE EARTH WILL BE ENSLAVED AND TYRANNY WILL REIGN EXTRA HEAVY ILLEGAL SHIT LIKE CHILDREN SERVICES TAKING YOUR BABY'S WITHOUT THE NEED FOR TRIAL AND KEEP THEM AN JUST FUCKING U OVER WHEN EVERY "PEACE" OFFICER KNOWS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH EVIL !!!! WE MUST BE READY TO SHOOT TO KILL ANY BRAINWASHED PERSON WHO BREAKS INTO OUR HOUSE WHEN WE DONE NOTHING WRONG TO DISARM US BECAUSE OF THE CHEMICALS IN THE FOOD WATER AND AIR TO POSION US AND THE PHYSCO DRUGS PERSCRIBED FOR THOSE AILMENTS THAT MAKE SHIT WAY WORSE !!!!! I DON'T CARE IF THEY ARE LEO'S U CROSS THE ULTIMATE LINE WHEN U TRY TO DISARM THE PEOPLE !!!!!! OVER MY COLD DEAD HANDS AND U BETTER NOT FUCKING TAKE THAT STATEMENT LIGHTLY!!!!!!
The notorious RBG is definitely my second favorite Justice. She's right behind Scalia, speaking of him, I wonder what he's been saying. I'll check online, I can probably find the transcript and audio file.
I'm not liberal, but honestly, who cares if your gay or straight or want marry a bowl of beer battered fish sticks? Seriously?! Why does it matter? Live and let live is what I say
Jon missed one. Scalia: "Which means you - you would - you could - you could have ministers who - who conduct real marriages that - that are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the State power to make a real State marriage." *Real marriages?*
the govt has no business being involved in marriage at all; consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever contracts they want, and the government shouldn't be giving special privileges to anybody because of their status
Although I am starkly in favor of marriage equality, the point Chief Justice Roberts makes at 2:45 is reasonable. We have seen public perception change drastically as a result of the national conversation on marriage equality. Even if it becomes legal, many people will face discrimination from the prejudiced. Now, I don't think this is enough to sway the decision, certainly, but it is important to keep the conversation going to hopefully enact more positive change.
The Courts should back out of marrying people altogether. If you want to have a wedding, have one. Should you desire to qualify that relationship further, record a domestic corporation; much more detailed than the quasi-religious jabber of civil marriages, full of hearts and roses, signifying nothing. That's why divorces are so messy. Corporations list things like assets and their disposal upon dissolution, all down in black and white. Many would second think the whole adventure when faced with the reality of many marriages. Again, the only kind of relationships of the couple variety the government should recognize are civil unions.
do couples require a license after all the manner which we use to construct laws requires respect for substance of equality of different sex marriage to marry without that license as well being that their counter parts are not required to do this
"first of all, let me say I... love your lawyer costume" LOLX
Unfortunately, Jon didn't have any more candy to give out, so he slipped a righteous takedown into the kid's bag.
--Dave, and yeah, that bowtie needs propellor capacity, stat!
The sad thing is, people did bring up that dog argument for women's suffrage.
QuikVidGuy It was just as bad/worse on the arguments against minority voting rights as well.
+QuikVidGuy And its's so fucking ridiculous. Do dogs have a legal standing? Can they sign a marriage contract? Like, stop pulling random bs arguments out of your ass, and just admit you're prejudiced.
+Harini Raghavan In other words: Two consenting adults wanting to get married is completely different than an animal and an adult.
Besides: if dogs were sentient, they'd be MUCH nicer than we are. Heck, they already are, they're just not in positions of power (and before you point out how lots of them bark, and some of them might even bite, here's a point to consider: if they were sentient, they'd be able to know and understand that we don't like and/or are annoyed by the first behavior, and that the second behavior is something that they should never do, except in self-defense).
If you shoot a police dog....
I hate when they starting running out of thing to say and say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" How does this involve children?
track355 Because public ignorance of how well LGBT people raise children is vast and easy to exploit. Its not about the quality of the arguments, its about the lack of information in the people who hear them. Religious fascists have built power structures on that for thousands of years, so naturally thanks to global digital communication and distribution of facts, evidence and empirical data, their power is dying.
+InCont , ? ? io non sono ancor am5z dti,
marco lattanzi
What?
track355 I'm kind of surprised that I'm the only one who has responded in this manner. You say, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" How does this involve children?" Well, a man and a woman is the only way to make a child.
spike8088
How long did it take to think that up?
Canada has had legal gay marriage for nearly a decade now and we seem to have avoided this mythical slippery slope....
crassenti I dunno... I'm in Ontario and I just married 6 dogs, a cloud, the abstract concept of loneliness and a lawn chair...
crassenti Yeah, gay marriage in Canada happened and everyone was just shrugged and said, "okay".
+crassenti Yeah, but God will punish us now that we did it because He likes us. Wait, why do it work like that again? Oh, to show that people should join Him so that when they mess up they can be punished too? This seems...like the exact opposite of what would happen...
+crassenti
I don't know... I was in London, Ontario last week and saw a man proposing to a wombat, and a woman working out a pre-nup with her electric toothbrush. Ever since Robin Sparkles became Robin Daggers, Canada has become a cesspool of depraved and immoral behavior. [see "How I Met Your Mother" for the Robin reference if you are not familiar with good, wholesome, Amurkin TV] :-)
+Teth47 really! How has lawn chair been? We didn't part on great terms but I still care for it.
There is no argument for opposing gay marriage . They are human beings . Live and let live . There is bigger shit in the world to care about .
Buffsbeard yes!
There’s plenty of arguments against it
@@lightarc7126 Yes. They're plenty of arguments against gay marriage . . . It's just that none of them are any good.
Those were some entertainingly abysmal arguments right there. Especially the last one. That either showed an incredible lack of ability to think ideas through or just how desperate the anti-marriage-equality side is.
Bogwedgle either? Both, I think.
both works too.
Bogwedgle I concur...christ. I've seen how bad these arguments are in a damned CLASSROOM for crying out loud. One class, introduced me to these arguments, and the whole class practically unanimously concluded that it was horribly to define marriage by procreation alone.
The moment this guy chucked out that argument, was the moment you could tell they were wasting everyone's time. I hope there's at least some competent arguments in there. Gay Marriage is going to happen whatever the case I believe (Woo!), but I'd rather a fair chance than a clean sweep.
maplegal2000 I'm curious, though.
What's wrong with a procreation-centered view of marriage?
Like, what are the specific reasons why it's bad?
Steven Wang The view is in the belief procreation is needed for a marriage to be valid. Where those who are infertile, too old, or not interested in sex but have a traditional male-female pairing are capable of marriage, while those of matching sex are invalid, even if they did want children, via adoption, or by insemination with a willing donor or child-bearer. And beyond that, single moms or dads are allowed to raise and adopt children, yet two people of the same gender would have people argue otherwise.
And more controversial is do we really need more kids and entice that viewpoint of marriage? We're kind of overpopulated as whole and growing. Might be nicer to decline back a bit to more manageable levels.
Marriage/Civil Unions as a whole were really just based on assigning who the father was back in the day and that's where it derived the whole traditional woman/man thing. But we're evolving as a people.
When the judge asked about the 70 year old couple I died😂😂😂😍
All hail Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Nicole S The Notorious RBG, hitting a Grand Slam.
May she live long and prosper (for at least, until the Trump abomination is over).
She has to survive for 7 more months. It would have been 4 years 7 months until the coronavirus hits. Trump's incompetence in dealing with something that isn't self-imposed is honestly actually hurting his chances.
Welp...
@@eoinconnolly5046 She almost made it
why can't Ginsburg be on the dollar... She's awesome.
+Quiet Lamb Because she's alive
The only non-president permanently on denominations is Alexander Hamilton because he founded the US financial system.
@@snivy8776 benji franklin
@@TheKYLEdavid how about now?
@@throwawayaccount4156 Sure, why not?
I just read about RGB's death and I thought of this video. I love her argument here (6:14) and she will be missed. RIP
Ruth Gader Binsburg?
@@alexandertoro-quinones9984 😂
I myself am bi-sexual, and my philosophy is this:
Our country was made according to three Inalienable Rights: Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. My, or anyone else's, sexuality does not limit any of those rights from you. However, when you discriminate against us because of our sexual orientation, you are limited one, if not all, of those rights from us.
To be clear, I am not someone who forces my belief on others, that would be wrong. The reason I speak out so often is because America is a Democratic Republic where the people hold the power, and a major asset we have to exercise that power is our voice. If we don't peacefully speak our mind, we can't expect our politicians to so what we want them to do.
I'll go to bat for your rights, because I know you will do the same for mine ☺️
I've never seen anybody refer to themselves as bi-sexual.They usually just say bisexual.
I'm kind of tired of seeing the definition of marriage being reduced to the purpose of procreation. I'm also tired of the U.S. dragging its feet about marriage equality. Plenty of women are married or want to get married and are past a point where they can't have any children. Thanks for pointing that out Jon.
Also.. some people (both men & women) can't have children/are infertile, and others simply don't want kids.
People also have to realize that a woman who doesn't want/can't have children are no less of a woman than those who do. Don't reduce us to our uterus being our "sole purpose" for existing. Don't reduce us to nothing but a baby machine.
Infertile people, old people, people with certain disabilities, people who have gotten certain surgeries, etc. can't have children and yet they are allowed to marry too.
I didn't know McLovin became a lawyer 😂🤣
And that's a Ginsburn.
I love how Chief Justice John Roberts qualified his statement "prior to a dozen years ago." Wouldn't it be great if we could do that? I mean, every definition of marriage before 100 C.E. said polygamy is okay. So I guess having a second wife should be legal.
"Only a dozen years ago blacks were all defined as slaves, and freedom was only something for hetero white men, so we... we can't just go around redefining words. I mean, the dictionary is far more important than the Constitution, or people..."
Can I actually ask why people are so opposed to gay marriage? Like, I understand it is for religious reasons, but if we have the separation of church and state, there really is no reason for anyone to be opposed to it. I don't give a damn who gets married to who, and I firmly believe that religious beliefs should be let out of politics. This is not one nation under God, that phrase wasn't even added to our pledge until after World War II, long after our nation had been established. For people who believe that the founding fathers founded this country based on religious beliefs are absurd, because people like George Washington and John Adams have been known to speak out against those who use religion to push their own discriminatory agenda.
Look at it this way: over 90% of atheists/agnostics in America believe that gays should be allowed to marry. So if you think about it, that means virtually all of the anti-gay crowd must be religious. Such correlation is highly unlikely unless there is a causation relationship going on... do with that information what you will.
SuicidalChef No, religion is not the problem, people are. I am a strong Catholic. I sing at church, my mother runs the religious school, I was an altar server, I go to Mass every week often singing at two Masses. Guess what! I'm bisexual! Religion is not the problem. The problem is how it is interpreted. If it's a healthy, strong and true love, there is no reason for such discrimination. God will meet send a Man to hell of he loves another man, not send a Women to hell because she loves another women. People will read and enforce their religion in ways it doesn't actually read. Evolution is an example, more than one priest has said that the story of Adam and Eve is more of a parable than fact. Yes the Bible can be read and taken literally, but most of its teaching are less literal and more intuitive. Islam is not an evil religion, Radical Islamists are. It's the same argument here, you can't do an action that's wrong, and defend it with "I'm following my religious beliefs." because my response will be: "BULLSHIT! Ten-to-one, I'm stronger in my faith than you are."
Lord Draken religion IS the problem like it is anytime it is in the picture. Religion is a mental disease and it has chosen YOU as one of its brainwashed hosts.
SadieBear the Steeler Fan Heiress and them being religious affects you in what way? they're clearly someone who takes the Bible in its true meaning (not the one the church people made up in the 13th century to stop people having sex all them time) as a largely metaphorical guidance as to how to live your life then they're going to have a good moral foundation and respect others, surely whether you agree or not then you should allow them to have their views peacefully and not verbally abuse them about it.
+Lord Draken
And I, as a (sorta) Presbyterian (PCUSA specifically), generally agree with you. We're a little /more/ progressive, but my raised-Catholic mother has told me that it was easy to convert because they have similar social works-related goals.
Also: it's not even "radical Islam". The closest the "terrorist" version of Islam could POSSIBLY be to the ACTUAL Islamic faith is that it's a PERVERSION of Islam.
And on your last point: additionally, there's two parts of the bible that come to mind that tell us, effectively, to be nice to one another. In the Old Testament, one of the Ten Commandments is to (roughly) "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", and in the New Testament, Jesus sought to teach us how to be forgiving and loving.
All of those who argue against gay marriage are also those who argue that government should stay out of peoples lives-- less government regulation. Same with abortion or any other issue... they become pro-government when it's an issue they disagree with.
They are all hacks with no principles.
When they say limited government they mean less taxes....they want big gov to enforce their social views
My favorite RBG moment hits different after she died
It's actually funny to watch people try and make arguments against gay marriage
Justin Cate There is one that although isen't strong enough to deny them the right it is important enough to discuss. The children. I am not saying gay people will not make good parents but the fact of the matter is other kids are brutal. I remember kids being bullied for the smallest differences. Also a few people raised by gay parents have stepped forward and said that their child hood was significantly more difficult because of haveing two moms or two dads.
***** "Their argument is, it should go through the voters and not the Supreme Court. Which I would say is a fair argument."
So, should things like the intergration of races in school should have been voted upon by normal citizens back then and not "imposed" on by the courts? It ain't a fair argument when you replace this issue with other issues the courts had discided upon back then.
***** I can see alot of problems with the idea of having mob rule.
***** You can still fuck people over in a mass vote, and keep them fucked over. The idea you are pushing is an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. If something is popular amoung a large group of people, it must be right or true way of doing things. The thing is, that's *not always* the case. It's popular to install the Ten Commandments as laws of the land, does that mean it's the right thing to do in the land of "seperation of church and state" and "religious freedom?"
***** Polygamy IS the traditional form of marriage, so the 1 man,1 woman argument is just nonsense. If Christians would actually read their bible, instead of bashing people with it, then they would know that.
Know what's awesome? The fact that most of the comments here are talking about how stupid the anti-gay marriage argument is. When even the internet is becoming open minded, you know it's time to change toward that openness.
Gay (adj): Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement.
ur gay
4 years later and I’m still crying with laughter XD 😂 🤣
I like that Jon made the point about how the meaning of marriages has changed.
"She asked me to treat her like a princess. So I married her off to a stranger in order to secure a political alliance."
It's FEB 2, 2020, and I am here getting my random edition of Daily Show Therapy. I feel better already!
I am so disappointed that Jon did not yell, "Oh, snap! You got Ginsberged!"
To be fair, "Arrrrrw." would be a brilliant state of the union. Who else thinks so?
This is 2018 calling. ... can we pretty please go back to it being as sane and reasonable and happy as "Arrrrrw"?
--Dave, srsly, past you would not BELIEVE what's been happening
Am I the only one who is convinced John Bursch is gay?
+yunikage I thought that's what Jon Stewart and the audience were laughing about after hearing him talk... I think he's probably just in denial.
If he's not, his facial structure and bowtie ought to be informed.
Possibly he IS gay but really didn't want to marry his boyfriend and that is why he was against it
Seriously? How does his bow tie or his physical appearance have anything to do with his sexual orientation? I wish people would stop with the whole "all homophobes are secretly gay" trope. It's not helpful, and honestly, even if not intended, it really makes you sound like homophobes yourselves :/
Yes. The world would be a better place if closet cases accepted who they are instead of self-loathing and rallying others to join them in undermining gay rights.
It was passed on my Birthday! As a huge supporter and gay marriage activist, it was the best birthday present, ever. Ever ever ever. 😍
RBG, badass as usual.
Took RUclips 5 years to give me this gem, and I’m already crying at “why don’t we summon the ancient Hebrews to answer that” 😂
This is my one argument I always gave to the whole same sex marriage argument...."Let them get married and find out that it's a heartless, evil, soulless institution like the rest of the world....The hard way!"
My question to those anti-gay marriage people is this, 'If a man living down the street were to marry another man, will you miraculously die of a heart attack?' What I'm saying is... why should gay-marriage be an issue when we have more important things to worry about... like economy stagnation, war in the Middle East, maintaining world peace.
+waste25sec Fallacy of relative privation.
waste25sec Was joking and quoting them.
waste25sec Because that's how I think they justify they're priorities.
I come from Teh Future to comment! Aaaaand no, unfortunately, those a-g-m people did not in fact die of heart attacks. They're still around, but most of them have gone really quiet on the subject. Possibly because it turns out it really DIDN'T make their own marriages any more of a mockery and sham than they already were, and didn't suddenly draw otherwise-God-fearing folks into unwanted gay marrige... just into wanted ones.
Meanwhile, weather of almost Biblical proportions is responding to America's first orange President's office residency.
--Dave, alas, Puerto Rico, we hardly knew ye
The way the extreme anti-marriage equality lobby carry on, they would have you believe that all those issues are _caused_ by accepting gay marriage. At best, according to them, it's a sign of our "liberal" mentalities travelling so far from God's word that we no longer know what's right and therefore allow all sorts of evil to happen. At worst, God is literally crying and is trying to destroy us because we accept gays.
shout out to the women on the supreme court we couldn't have done it with out you.
+Saiya _Goten Also Breyer, I'm down with him
A true conservative doesn't want a government telling him who or why he can't marry. It doesn't matter if you want kids. If you want to marry someone, you have the liberty and freedom to do so. The government, serving the people, has no more right to define marriage than they do to define what food you are allowed to eat. I say allowed, fully aware of the fda, because there are many unhealthy foods on the market, yet we have the freedom to choose to eat from them. Let them marry. If it's not what you consider as marriage, then consider it a different type of marriage. It doesn't matter. A marriage is a union. A civil union is a marriage. Why do we still discuss this?
/I/ could be the one getting things mixed up a little, but: are you sure you don't mean libertarians? (Political ideology, like conservatism or progressive, not political party, like Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or Green.)
Okay. Most of the people I've talked to who support the "one man, one woman" argument are very religious. Do these people not remember that the bible has other types of marriage? That many religions allow a man and many wives? That Islam allows a man and a female child? Marriage is different all over the world, and changing all the time. The one man, one woman argument is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.
You know what I think? I think that adults should be able to decide for themselves who they love. If all parties involved in the relationship are consenting adults and the relationship is not abusive, why should we stop love?
Islam does not follow the teachings of Christ. Get it right
...I never said it did.... The only thing I said about Islam is that it allows child marriage.
+nerdatheart94 I'll take Reading Comprehension for $300, please.
This is why I support a more-than-two marriage. It two consenting women and a consenting man, two consenting men and a consenting woman, or any other combination of men, women, hermaphrodites, WHATEVER, want to get married, then it is the LAND of the FUCKING FREE that should allow that. It's stupid how hypocritical that slogan is "land of the free"
+nerdatheart94
It's the WORD OF GOD!...
As defined by the past few hundred years of extreme Euronationalist revisionism, cultural translation and deep-seated insecurities among competing groups.
Land of Freedom MY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
Solitude Nice ass, btw. ;)
+Solitude
More like the land of security, no wait......
2:21 IS the State of our Union!!! Sad!
john bursch looks like john oliver's long lost brother xD
Devon van Dort He's Oliver's repressed gay Midwestern cousin
This is old (for me) but I just noticed something about the argument that a “70-Year old man can still have children.” A healthy, 20-something gay man can still have children. In fact, both of them can. But, just like the 70-year old couple, having children would require going outside of the marriage.
When the Attorney John J Bursch Came on the screen did anyone else think PeeWee Herman
2:26 the Speaker always seems to be the opposition :D meow :D
This aged great for Jon but awful for the court
I didn't know McLovin went to law school
Did nobody notice the dude blowing the horn was holding a Korean newspaper
This reminded me how terrifying it is that John Roberts and people like him have so much power over our rights.
It's a terrifying concept that the country should vote on providing equal rights to it's own citizens. The entire idea of trying to put a label on the way people choose to make their personal relationships (marriage), then point at that label to declare your defending it's definition, is one huge straw man. If it's the home of the free, then we're all free together, and consenting adults can marry whomever they please. It's up to you to make these decisions for yourself, but not for anyone else. That's the definition of liberty, and it's what this country has always strived to be like.
I pray to God for equal rights under the law for all of the lovers in this world
Sweet Jeebus I miss Stewart. Bigly.
I'm.... I'm sorry, but.... did John Roberts just say "People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts"?????? Had he not heard of ABORTION in April of 2015??? The irony is so thick here that it's......................I can't even think of anything. Jesus.
To paraphrase the point of a tedx talk I just enjoyed watching, government should just get the hell out of marriage altogether. As long as there's informed consent, let people form whatever family structures they want to form.
Mark Love Exactly. Well put!
Mark Love Government through legislation is still necessary to ensure the contractual obligations and rights involved in the "Marriage". I agree it should have the same treatment as a business agreement.
its not that easy. back in 2004 Hillary was shitting on gays asking for the right to marry, as at the time most states did not allow gays to marry. a natural, much more nationally accepted opposition came together and have been fighting till today.
Logically marriage isnt a thing the government wants involvement in, but they have to when it involves a lersons rights, such as a gay mans right to marry.
The problem is, that these "family structures" often are tied to legal concepts where the state has something to say. Like tax-paying. So, there are reasons, why the government is involved.
I'm not necessarily saying, that it SHOULD be involved. I'm just saying that there are a lot of things that we have to consider, if we want to make "marriage" an entirely personal (and essentially symbolic) matter.
Please put an asterix at the end stating that the people involved _have_ to be adults, please!
(Also a thing that they shouldn't be intoxicated at the time etc, stuff that impaires judgement, you know, those kind of things)
Lawyer costume 🤣
I didn't know McLovin passed the BAR
Let's use the slippery slope argument, cause I actually am quite fond of it. Change of perspective, though. You've already went down it a loooong time ago.
Once upon a time, marriage had nothing to do with love. Marriage wasn't some sort of victory for 2 love birds over their families opposing them for a conflict unrelated to their wills. Marriage was about political status, financial matters or many other factors beyond the 2 individuals. Conversely, said individuals try to put thei differences aside and make it work for their family. You know what got in this system's way? Love. Now you can marry out of love or the old fashioned arranged way, and guess which one resulted in higher divorce rates? Maybe people mistook love for convenience and marriage is too big of an inconvenience.
Now let's talk about sex. As in allowing people the choice to do it outside of marriage. What has that led to? Unplanned pregnancies, the issue of abortion and a negative stereotypes surrounding black people. But it's ok, cause sex is an activity that a man and a woman only need to love each other so much. Huh, there's that word again.
What's next? Homosexuality. It can only happen when 2 same sex individuals love each other so much, going against the nature of humans to find attraction in the opposite gender in order to reproduce. All because of this thing called love.
Say, what was the slogan when gay marriage was legalised? I think it was "Love wins". So what have we learned about love? Well, love leads to divorce, unplanned pregnancies, abortion issues and homosexuality in general. Also, love is evol spelled backwards, that could be an acronym for evolution. And evolution occurs by having mutants mate with none mutants. X-men are mutant superheroes. Superman is the iconic definition of superheroes, and was made by Jews around WW2. Hitler killed Jews in order to make Germany great again. Trump is trying to make America great again.
Which means... Trump is really trying to date his daughter!!! He wants to legalise incest!
borot man Finally. A theory I can get behind.
Did... did I just get red pilled?
This was great, but it would have been 10 times better if they used the "real dogs, fake paws" footage from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. That improves any supereme court argument
I would bet $100 that the guy who was arguing on behalf of the gay marriage ban is now married to another man.
Things seemed so hopeful back then.
How did we get stupid people in the Supreme Court?
Oh right, Bush was in charge and appointed religious republicans.....
Please vote, we deserve better, much better.
***** No, there is not 1 good argument against to people that love each other being together except ignorance and hatred.
***** Dude why are you so concerned with incest and polygamy? Got a couple of hot sisters or something?
***** I'm sorry there was logic to debate? Let's start over. Give me your stance. Do you think gay marriage should be legal? I'm not sure if it's a "yes and this stuff should be too" or if it's a "no because this stuff isn't." If you'd be so kind, please clarify.
***** Incest being nasty isn't the issue, what happens when a child is born of it is. I agree that it is disgusting to me, but I would assume it is so because of my culture more than anything. Anything other than the health issues is irrelevant to me when considering laws about it.
I've always thought the anti polygamy arguments were stupid. If you can call them arguments. It's just the same bigoted misguided nonsense that people use against gay marriage.
***** Yeah in some cultures racism is ok. You gonna defend that?
oh so John Oliver got his Dog Court idea from here.
That "kid" arguing in the Supreme Court for the ban, he's so closeted. You can hear it in his voice.
The Chief Justice, John Roberts, reasoned that because we humans defined a word a certain way (which just reflects how we see a word’s meaning at some point in time) changing the definition would crumble the infrastructure of the “institution”. I thought judges were supposed to be smart...
4:47 for the person who works in the Greko-Roman building it's kinda ironic that he forgot that the greeks and romans were not exacty just marying woman either.
"Is there any grounds for a group of people to.not be married."
yes....one consenting adults human with one consenting adults human
No slope. Not slippery
John Bursch totally didn’t study his health and biology classes hahaha
2:20 when you look at what you have now a dog is pretty close dont you think?
Quick question what the hell did he mean by a group of Two Men and two women getting married like the four of them marry each other because I think that's legal in Utah either that or sister wife is something a lot weirder than I thought it was and how the hell was that made legal before same-sex marriage
I like to rewatch this often
Will McDaniel same)
The "Ti-kiah" joke was so good
I would pay to go back in time to buy a ticket for one of his shows!
70+ year-olds having children? Does he know nothing of human biology?
HipsterShiningArmor similarly Lesbian women can also have children via invetro. But you know that is logical and factual, therefore can't be a part of the anti-marriage equality thought process.
DarkKuno Yes, lesbian women can also have children, whether via in vitro fertilization or good old fashioned penis in vagina fertilization. Anti-gay marriage people also forget that gay people aren't incapable of sex with the opposite gender, they're just generally uninterested in it.
HipsterShiningArmor Don't forget. They expanded their "think of the children" argument by saying the legalization of gay marriage would account for 900,000 abortions ... within the next twenty years I think it was, as well as lower birthrates. Seriously. where the f*ck did that number come from?
Fireshadow Gene Schaerr's ass apparently.
Fireshadow And how can a same-sex couple get pregnant in the first place in such circumstances that would make an abortion necessary? If anything, the opposite is true.
AND THIS IS THE AMERICAN SUPREME COURT?
Scary huh?
Mohamed Musse FUCK THESE TYRANTS ! GUYS WE HAVE TI GO OUT A BECOME EXTREMLY POLITICALY ACTIVE FROM THIS ELECTION CYCLE AND ON ! AND KEEP CALLIN CONGRESS AN LETTING THEM KNOW TO STOP THIS SHIT !!!! DISARM THE PEOPLE AN THE EARTH WILL BE ENSLAVED AND TYRANNY WILL REIGN EXTRA HEAVY ILLEGAL SHIT LIKE CHILDREN SERVICES TAKING YOUR BABY'S WITHOUT THE NEED FOR TRIAL AND KEEP THEM AN JUST FUCKING U OVER WHEN EVERY "PEACE" OFFICER KNOWS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH EVIL !!!! WE MUST BE READY TO SHOOT TO KILL ANY BRAINWASHED PERSON WHO BREAKS INTO OUR HOUSE WHEN WE DONE NOTHING WRONG TO DISARM US BECAUSE OF THE CHEMICALS IN THE FOOD WATER AND AIR TO POSION US AND THE PHYSCO DRUGS PERSCRIBED FOR THOSE AILMENTS THAT MAKE SHIT WAY WORSE !!!!!
I DON'T CARE IF THEY ARE LEO'S U CROSS THE ULTIMATE LINE WHEN U TRY TO DISARM THE PEOPLE !!!!!! OVER MY COLD DEAD HANDS AND U BETTER NOT FUCKING TAKE THAT STATEMENT LIGHTLY!!!!!!
Those who scream the loudest is the one's deep in the closet, and that bowtie kid is a prime example of how true that is lol.
Thats my favorite X-man...the 'Bowtie Kid'
This whole issue seems like such a no-brainer that it is surprising same-sex marriage wasn't legal anywhere until 2001
Still watching the goat in 2018
The notorious RBG is definitely my second favorite Justice. She's right behind Scalia, speaking of him, I wonder what he's been saying.
I'll check online, I can probably find the transcript and audio file.
It's been almost a year since the ruling!
RIP RBG !
Well here it is 2019 & the legalization of gay marriage has literally affected nothing except their right to marriage.
guy at 1:00 misspelled "Judgement"
The state of our union is AROO? can that please be a sit com that airs for a season or two, and then is canceled, but brought back again for the fans
1:31 perfectly describes Kennedy
John Bursch was actually around 40 years old when he argued Obergefell.
I'm not liberal, but honestly, who cares if your gay or straight or want marry a bowl of beer battered fish sticks? Seriously?! Why does it matter? Live and let live is what I say
holy shit, a Gins-burn!
Jon missed one.
Scalia: "Which means you - you would - you could - you could have ministers who - who conduct real marriages that - that are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the State power to make a real State marriage."
*Real marriages?*
He called it !!!
2:18... actually people did say that. "let the cows vote" was a quote from a newspaper in britain
They should have used John Oliver's Supreme Court Dogs footage
Lol the judges really ripped into him for that having kids bullshit i wonder if the sheer stupidity of that statement pretty much sealed the deal XD
How about a sterile man and a barren woman?
the govt has no business being involved in marriage at all; consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever contracts they want, and the government shouldn't be giving special privileges to anybody because of their status
couldn't agree more
we need more female supreme justices, I like voices for reason more than hate.
I miss you john...
3:50 = McLovin'!
Although I am starkly in favor of marriage equality, the point Chief Justice Roberts makes at 2:45 is reasonable. We have seen public perception change drastically as a result of the national conversation on marriage equality. Even if it becomes legal, many people will face discrimination from the prejudiced. Now, I don't think this is enough to sway the decision, certainly, but it is important to keep the conversation going to hopefully enact more positive change.
The Courts should back out of marrying people altogether. If you want to have a wedding, have one. Should you desire to qualify that relationship further, record a domestic corporation; much more detailed than the quasi-religious jabber of civil marriages, full of hearts and roses, signifying nothing. That's why divorces are so messy. Corporations list things like assets and their disposal upon dissolution, all down in black and white. Many would second think the whole adventure when faced with the reality of many marriages. Again, the only kind of relationships of the couple variety the government should recognize are civil unions.
At 5 minutes is that Putin?
do couples require a license after all the manner which we use to construct laws requires respect for substance of equality of different sex marriage to marry without that license as well being that their counter parts are not required to do this
Who else is watching this to prepare for his new show?
yes, he has been sorely missed. jon does it best
A 70 year old man is capable of fertilizing an egg however, it is EXTREMELY unlikely.
+Go17Gabe If his wife is 70 years old though, it's not gonna happen
TheKyleDavid It's possible, but it's so damn unlikely that they practically are infertile.
"Enough with democracy" wow just wow.
Please come back jon
And so it is
that “tekiah” joke went right over the audience’s head. dammit.