Morgan Freeman narrates ad touting sa...

Morgan Freeman narrates ad touting same-sex wins

There are 126 comments on the WMTW-TV Auburn story from Nov 25, 2012, titled Morgan Freeman narrates ad touting same-sex wins. In it, WMTW-TV Auburn reports that:

One of Hollywood's most recognizable voices has been put to use narrating a spot marking Election Day achievements for proponents of same-sex marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WMTW-TV Auburn.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#61 Nov 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you assume much. what is the real cultural value of ssm? i'm just wondering if there is any real reason to be for it?
The real reason for ssm, as you call it, is that we have no right to stop it, either constitutionally or morally.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#62 Nov 27, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to ALL persons in the United States, NOT some mythical "special class" designation that you just invented. Constitutional protections apply to ALL people in the U.S.
Are you REALLY THAT stupid ?!
Meaning a concealed carry weapons permit issued in Florida must be recognized in New York and Massachusetts, right?

So much for equal protection.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#63 Nov 27, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Meaning a concealed carry weapons permit issued in Florida must be recognized in New York and Massachusetts, right?
So much for equal protection.
No, because that is NOT a state "act." A civil marriage IS a state "act".

Also, for instance, if a person or company is sued, and loses the suit, the mere fact they then crossed state lines to another state, does not mean that the state they are now in can ignore the judgment of teh court from another state. In fact SCOTUS has said EXPLICITLY that states MUST legally recognize those acts.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#64 Nov 27, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because that is NOT a state "act." A civil marriage IS a state "act".
Also, for instance, if a person or company is sued, and loses the suit, the mere fact they then crossed state lines to another state, does not mean that the state they are now in can ignore the judgment of teh court from another state. In fact SCOTUS has said EXPLICITLY that states MUST legally recognize those acts.
A CCW permit is certainly a state "act" .

Act-an instrument or document stating something done or transacted.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#65 Nov 28, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The real reason for ssm, as you call it, is that we have no right to stop it, either constitutionally or morally.
the supreme court may feel differently as they have already agreed with laws that prevent polygamy.
the "no right to stop it" is only your opinion. what else do we have no right to stop?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#66 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're nuts.
LOL
you might think so but it is the reality of your position;

"how does it affect me. it will put a burden on our national financial situation. it will end up limiting free speech. religious freedom goes out the window. it will force all to accept a life style that is not natural. if for any reason we don't rent to them they can always play the discrimination card. and it opens the door to give "rights to other strange positions such as polygamy, polyandry, group marriages and bestiality [already promoted by peter singer at princeton university]. where does it stop? and what greater social good is accomplished by it?"

you after all seem to be ok with two 14 year olds marrying

now, who is nuts?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#67 Nov 28, 2012
Priest wrote:
Morgan Freeman can say what he wants to. It's his right. Thankfully, that same sex marriage crap will NEVER fly in Oklahoma. If you friut pies want a "civil union" move your ass to another state.
God love you. Unless you're queer.
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Colossians 1:16

Your knowledge of the Bible isn't that good for a priest.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#68 Nov 28, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you might think so but it is the reality of your position;
"how does it affect me. it will put a burden on our national financial situation. it will end up limiting free speech. religious freedom goes out the window. it will force all to accept a life style that is not natural. if for any reason we don't rent to them they can always play the discrimination card. and it opens the door to give "rights to other strange positions such as polygamy, polyandry, group marriages and bestiality [already promoted by peter singer at princeton university]. where does it stop? and what greater social good is accomplished by it?"
you after all seem to be ok with two 14 year olds marrying
now, who is nuts?
In most States if the parents consent a 14 y/o can marry.
And that marriage would be valid in every State.

now, who is nuts?

14-year-olds can legally marry in the U.S.?!

see:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthrea...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#69 Nov 28, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Meaning a concealed carry weapons permit issued in Florida must be recognized in New York and Massachusetts, right?
So much for equal protection.
Can you imagine the chaos if every single marriage dissolved every time a person crossed another state's borders?

Are you proposing that?
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#70 Nov 28, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you imagine the chaos if every single marriage dissolved every time a person crossed another state's borders?
Are you proposing that?
All states recognize man/woman marriage as the real thing so that would not happen.
My point was that not every state "act" is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A person with a legal Florida concealed carry permit becomes a felon if he travels to New York state with a concealed weapon which is ironic when one considers that the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to allow freed slaves to travel from one state to another while armed.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#71 Nov 28, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
All states recognize man/woman marriage as the real thing so that would not happen.
My point was that not every state "act" is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A person with a legal Florida concealed carry permit becomes a felon if he travels to New York state with a concealed weapon which is ironic when one considers that the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to allow freed slaves to travel from one state to another while armed.
While what you say regarding concealed carry permits may be true at present, in light of SCOTUS rulings regarding an INDVIDUAL'S RIGHT to bear arms (and NOT ncesserily "firearms"), in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),in which SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, such laws such as New York's probably would not survive court scrutiny.

Since the second Amendment protections are FEDERK RIGHTS, how can one suddenly constitutionally lose those FEDERAL RIGHTS merely by crossing a state line, OR a city line ? For instance, nasau County on Long Island is adjacent to Queens County, part of The City Of New York, and it's gun laws are not as astringent as New York's [city]. How can one say it is constitutional that whenone merely drives down the Long Island Expressway and crosses the [unmarked] border into Queens, you sudednly lose FEDERAL RIGHTS ? If you can constitutonally defend that, could the city also say you lose your FIRST Amendment Rights as well as your SECOND Amendment Righs as well ? What about your THIRD, SEVENTH, and EIGHTH Amendment Rights ? Could tehy do that too ? I submit it is obviously unconstitutional because a city, nor a state, can take away, or restrict in any way, your U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#72 Nov 28, 2012
WITH corrections due to poor keyboarding in the above post:

While what you say regarding concealed carry permits may be true at present, in light of SCOTUS rulings regarding an INDVIDUAL'S RIGHT to bear arms (and NOT ncesserily "firearms"), in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), in which SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's RIGHT to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, such laws such as New York's probably would not survive court scrutiny.

Since the Second Amendment protections are FEDERAL RIGHTS, how can one suddenly constitutionally lose those FEDERAL RIGHTS merely by crossing a state line, OR a city line ? For instance, Nassau County on Long Island is adjacent to Queens County, part of The City Of New York, and it's gun laws are not as stringent as New York's [city]. How can one say it is constitutional that when one merely drives down the Long Island Expressway and crosses the [unmarked] border into Queens, you suddenly lose FEDERAL RIGHTS ? If you can constitutonally defend that, could the city also say you lose your FIRST Amendment Rights as well as your SECOND Amendment Rights as well ? What about your THIRD, SEVENTH, and EIGHTH Amendment Rights ? Could they do that too ?

I submit it is obviously unconstitutional, because a city, nor a state, can take away, nor restrict in any way, your U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#73 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
While what you say regarding concealed carry permits may be true at present, in light of SCOTUS rulings regarding an INDVIDUAL'S RIGHT to bear arms (and NOT ncesserily "firearms"), in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),in which SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, such laws such as New York's probably would not survive court scrutiny.
Since the second Amendment protections are FEDERK RIGHTS, how can one suddenly constitutionally lose those FEDERAL RIGHTS merely by crossing a state line, OR a city line ? For instance, nasau County on Long Island is adjacent to Queens County, part of The City Of New York, and it's gun laws are not as astringent as New York's [city]. How can one say it is constitutional that whenone merely drives down the Long Island Expressway and crosses the [unmarked] border into Queens, you sudednly lose FEDERAL RIGHTS ? If you can constitutonally defend that, could the city also say you lose your FIRST Amendment Rights as well as your SECOND Amendment Righs as well ? What about your THIRD, SEVENTH, and EIGHTH Amendment Rights ? Could tehy do that too ? I submit it is obviously unconstitutional because a city, nor a state, can take away, or restrict in any way, your U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
You may feel it is unconstitutional but the fact remains when I lived on Long Island my Suffolk County ccw permit was not recognize in NYC and it still wouldn't be.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#74 Nov 28, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
You may feel it is unconstitutional but the fact remains when I lived on Long Island my Suffolk County ccw permit was not recognize in NYC and it still wouldn't be.
I'm from Suffolk County also (owned my own home in Patchogue for 25 years until moving here to southern Arizona last year), and while what you say is true, I don't thnk it would stand up to court scrutiny. How can a county, city, or state, constitutionally deprive you of your FEDERAL Rights ?

For instance, could the City Of New York constitutionally say you cannot wear a political campaign button on your coat ? I don't think so.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#75 Nov 28, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
All states recognize man/woman marriage as the real thing so that would not happen.
My point was that not every state "act" is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A person with a legal Florida concealed carry permit becomes a felon if he travels to New York state with a concealed weapon which is ironic when one considers that the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to allow freed slaves to travel from one state to another while armed.
Funny but I don't see anything in 14 that supports your claim about travel by slaves:

"Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#76 Nov 28, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
All states recognize man/woman marriage as the real thing so that would not happen.
My point was that not every state "act" is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Then why aren't SSM from one State legal in all?

You've confused the Full Faith and Credit Clause found in Article 4 sec 1 with 14 again. And DOMA was an end run around applying the FF&C to marriage laws. In fact SCOTS has never applied the FF&C to marriage laws.

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Perhaps before you make claims about the Constitution you should learn what 's in it and where.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#77 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
While what you say regarding concealed carry permits may be true at present, in light of SCOTUS rulings regarding an INDVIDUAL'S RIGHT to bear arms (and NOT ncesserily "firearms"), in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),in which SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, such laws such as New York's probably would not survive court scrutiny.
Since the second Amendment protections are FEDERK RIGHTS, how can one suddenly constitutionally lose those FEDERAL RIGHTS merely by crossing a state line, OR a city line ? For instance, nasau County on Long Island is adjacent to Queens County, part of The City Of New York, and it's gun laws are not as astringent as New York's [city]. How can one say it is constitutional that whenone merely drives down the Long Island Expressway and crosses the [unmarked] border into Queens, you sudednly lose FEDERAL RIGHTS ? If you can constitutonally defend that, could the city also say you lose your FIRST Amendment Rights as well as your SECOND Amendment Righs as well ? What about your THIRD, SEVENTH, and EIGHTH Amendment Rights ? Could tehy do that too ? I submit it is obviously unconstitutional because a city, nor a state, can take away, or restrict in any way, your U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
The only answer is the idea of "States Rights".

People who quote States rights (Amendment 10) often forget 10 includes the words "or the people".

Frankly I think the whole idea of States Rights is wishful thinking if we apply Article 6 to those questions.

"....This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/artic...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#78 Nov 28, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>The only answer is the idea of "States Rights".
People who quote States rights (Amendment 10) often forget 10 includes the words "or the people".
Frankly I think the whole idea of States Rights is wishful thinking if we apply Article 6 to those questions.
"....This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/artic...
Are you saying that the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment, part of our revered BILL OF RIGHTS, are of NO effect ?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#79 Nov 28, 2012
And States DO HAVE RIGHTS. The U.S. Constitution limits those Rights, but it does NOT eliminate ALL states' RIGHTS.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#80 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment, part of our revered BILL OF RIGHTS, are of NO effect ?
Of course not. Stop being obtuse.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 4 min MormonThirdReichAge 6,626
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 5 min WeTheSheeple 1,802
Poll Will Jade Ever Post Again? 9 min Buford 4
News GOP proposes protections for already protected ... 22 min WeTheSheeple 13
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 22 min Abe 24,122
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 26 min Frankie Rizzo 8,162
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 29 min ELH 842
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 47 min NorCal Native 1,211
More from around the web