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.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#81 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
And States DO HAVE RIGHTS. The U.S. Constitution limits those Rights, but it does NOT eliminate ALL states' RIGHTS.
I never claimed otherwise.

My point was that the idea of "States Rights" has been used by people and courts to disregard many parts of the Constitution over our Nations history.

The civil rights movement of the 60's is a good example. Those opposed to inter-racial marriage used it to justify banning inter-racial marriages.

I believe you yourself have said DOMA violates "States Rights" since it doesn't give equal protection to all States marriages.

If I'm mistaken about that I apologize.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#82 Nov 28, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Of course not. Stop being obtuse.
Then what ARE you saying regarding states' rights ?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#83 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what ARE you saying regarding states' rights ?
If my previous explanation was too difficult for you to understand there is no point trying to make it clearer. The concept came from the Federalist papers not the U.S. Constitution itself.

Maybe this link will help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

The balance of federal powers and those powers held by the states as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was first addressed in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#84 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what ARE you saying regarding states' rights ?
Are you trying to say the concept of "States Rights" gives States the power to disregard the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment?

That was the rational for banning marriage for blacks (even to other blacks), the handicapped and mentally retarded.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#85 Nov 28, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Are you trying to say the concept of "States Rights" gives States the power to disregard the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment?
That was the rational for banning marriage for blacks (even to other blacks), the handicapped and mentally retarded.
No, I'm not saying that at all, but you SEEM to be saying that all states' rights have been completely usurped by the federal government.

Since you sort of claim taht you're NOT saying that, then what ARE you saying ? And what rights do states have according to the Bill Of Rights' 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment ?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#86 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not saying that at all, but you SEEM to be saying that all states' rights have been completely usurped by the federal government.
Since you sort of claim taht you're NOT saying that, then what ARE you saying ? And what rights do states have according to the Bill Of Rights' 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment ?
I'm sorry you think that is what I'm saying because I'm not.

Frankly your thought process is pretty puzzling to me most the time.

I'm not going to even try to pretend to be a good enough Constitutional scholar to answer your last question.

In fact that is a question most still debated by them even now.

What rights do you believe are solely retained by the States if the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land as the Constitution says?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#87 Nov 28, 2012
(I can't believe I'm even asking these questions to someone who says there is no Constitutional right to vote in spite of what it says in Amendments 17, 19, 23 and 26.)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#88 Nov 28, 2012
DNF wrote:
(I can't believe I'm even asking these questions to someone who says there is no Constitutional right to vote in spite of what it says in Amendments 17, 19, 23 and 26.)
There IS NO Constitutional RIGHT to vote ! You clearly do NOT understand the U.S. Constitution, nor Constitutional Law. Ask a judge, a lawyer, or other competent person really knowledgeable in Constitutional Law about this, and they will tell you that there there is no constitutional right to vote.

The amendemnts you cite merely say upon what basis a state cannot deny a person a right to vote IF the state chooses to grant a general right to vote. The state is under no obligation, according to the U.S. Constitution, to allow ANYBODY to vote (at least in federal elections). Now if you insist on disagreeing with that, then pleaseexplain why as late as the 1830's (sic) many states did NOT allow their citizens to vote for POTUS nor VEEP, if you insist that teh U.S. Constitution says that there is a general "right to vote".

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#89 Nov 28, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
There IS NO Constitutional RIGHT to vote ! You clearly do NOT understand the U.S. Constitution, nor Constitutional Law. Ask a judge, a lawyer, or other competent person really knowledgeable in Constitutional Law about this, and they will tell you that there there is no constitutional right to vote.
The amendemnts you cite merely say upon what basis a state cannot deny a person a right to vote IF the state chooses to grant a general right to vote. The state is under no obligation, according to the U.S. Constitution, to allow ANYBODY to vote (at least in federal elections). Now if you insist on disagreeing with that, then pleaseexplain why as late as the 1830's (sic) many states did NOT allow their citizens to vote for POTUS nor VEEP, if you insist that teh U.S. Constitution says that there is a general "right to vote".
Sigh. Because MOST of those amendments were enacted AFTER the 1830's you dolt!

Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]

Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)]

Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920)]

Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)]

Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]
Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C.(1961)]

Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)]

It's 2012 now dear. Try to keep up on current events, OK?.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#91 Nov 29, 2012
Or simply write a leter to SCOTUS and ask them.

I'm sure they will get one of their law clerks (who are always the cream of the crop of law schol graduates) to answer you and say that I am correct.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#92 Nov 29, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Or simply write a leter to SCOTUS and ask them.
I'm sure they will get one of their law clerks (who are always the cream of the crop of law schol graduates) to answer you and say that I am correct.
Here's an early Christmas gift for you. It involves SCOTUS, The right to Vote and the NAACP.

I just know it will drive you nuts!

SCOTUS Upholds Voting Rights: NAACP Applauds High Court’s Decision to Continue Early Voting in Ohio

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/scotus-uphol...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#93 Nov 29, 2012
It was not until the 1960s that the Supreme Court affirmatively addressed the constitutional right to vote. In Baker v. Carr (1962), the Court reversed its earlier decision of Colegrove v. Green (1946), holding that the courts could hear disputes involving reapportionment and redistricting (see Reapportionment Cases). Then in Reynolds v. Sims (1964), it embraced the principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people—one person, one vote. More important, in Reynolds the Supreme Court ruled that the right to vote in federal elections was located in the Article I, section 2 of the Constitution description of the House of Representatives as “chosen.… by the People of the several States,” and in the references to the election of senators found in the Seventeenth Amendment.2

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/right-to-vote-1#...

Merry Christmas!
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#94 Nov 29, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Funny but I don't see anything in 14 that supports your claim about travel by slaves:.........
"
SECURING CIVIL RIGHTS
Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms
By Stephen P. Halbrook

From the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), Halbrook paints a vivid portrait of a political and legal system grappling with the true meaning of civil rights.

“Trusting ex-slaves to own firearms was, by any definition, the cutting edge in true belief in civil rights,” Halbrook writes.“It remains to be seen whether contemporary society will accommodate the same rights of the freedmen that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to guarantee.”

“In the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook,[Securing Civil Rights:] Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms.”
—Antonin G. Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller

“The Heller Court also analyzed post-Civil War case law and commentary to conclude a key purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure freed blacks had the right to keep and bear arms. Id. at 2810-11; see generally Stephen P. Halbrook,[Securing Civil Rights:] Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms.”
—Richard B. Sanders, Justice, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, in State of Washington v. Christopher William Sieyes

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#95 Nov 29, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
SECURING CIVIL RIGHTS
Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms
By Stephen P. Halbrook
From the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), Halbrook paints a vivid portrait of a political and legal system grappling with the true meaning of civil rights.
“Trusting ex-slaves to own firearms was, by any definition, the cutting edge in true belief in civil rights,” Halbrook writes.“It remains to be seen whether contemporary society will accommodate the same rights of the freedmen that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to guarantee.”
“In the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook,[Securing Civil Rights:] Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms.”
—Antonin G. Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller
“The Heller Court also analyzed post-Civil War case law and commentary to conclude a key purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure freed blacks had the right to keep and bear arms. Id. at 2810-11; see generally Stephen P. Halbrook,[Securing Civil Rights:] Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms.”
—Richard B. Sanders, Justice, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, in State of Washington v. Christopher William Sieyes
Thank you for such an informative and well researched post.

I just hope I live long enough to see the day when American Children can recite the Pledge and know it's not a lie when they say the words, "with freedom and justice for all."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#96 Nov 29, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
SECURING CIVIL RIGHTS
Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms
By Stephen P. Halbrook
From the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), Halbrook paints a vivid portrait of a political and legal system grappling with the true meaning of civil rights.
“Trusting ex-slaves to own firearms was, by any definition, the cutting edge in true belief in civil rights,” Halbrook writes.“It remains to be seen whether contemporary society will accommodate the same rights of the freedmen that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to guarantee.”
“In the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook,[Securing Civil Rights:] Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms.”
—Antonin G. Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller
“The Heller Court also analyzed post-Civil War case law and commentary to conclude a key purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure freed blacks had the right to keep and bear arms. Id. at 2810-11; see generally Stephen P. Halbrook,[Securing Civil Rights:] Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms.”
—Richard B. Sanders, Justice, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, in State of Washington v. Christopher William Sieyes
Oh and thank you for pointing how the priories of some people are so out of whack. They have no trouble calling gun ownership a civil right but not marriage?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#97 Nov 29, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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?
People's quest for happiness, as long as they do you no harm.

Personally I hope a more liberal Supreme Court will strike down the ugly and offensive Defense of Marriage Act.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#98 Nov 29, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Oh and thank you for pointing how the priories of some people are so out of whack. They have no trouble calling gun ownership a civil right but not marriage?
I think it has something to do with the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights. They saw the right to life and the means to defend that right as a God given gift. Same sex marriage,..... not do much.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#99 Nov 29, 2012
typo-Not so much.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#100 Nov 29, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it has something to do with the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights. They saw the right to life and the means to defend that right as a God given gift. Same sex marriage,..... not do much.
What does the Constitution say about marriage, and who can participate in it?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#101 Nov 29, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What does the Constitution say about marriage, and who can participate in it?
It doesn't. Marriage is left to the states exclusively as per the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights (except for areas under exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as Washington, D.C., federal territories, the military, etc.)

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 Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 4 min guest 1,638
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 13 min Frogface Kate 364
News AIDS Walk New York and Gay Men's Health Crisis:... 1 hr Rev Don Wildmoan 10
News Two men caned in Indonesia for gay sex 1 hr Sonny 1
Gay oovoo (Dec '12) 3 hr Mrmeeseeks 63
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 hr The Troll Stopper 25,593
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 4 hr The Troll Stopper 170
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr The Troll Stopper 5,941
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 49,151
News More 11 hr Little Cheerleader 15
More from around the web