A Message from the Canada Party: Gay Marriage has been added as a related post - related requested by messenger.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/A-Message-from-the-Canada-Party-Gay-Marriage

it's all about interpretation. Interpretation has huge ramifications. When SCOTUS rule that gay marriage was legal, it was under the premise that gay marriage fell under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. SCOTUS didn't make any new laws, they just interpreted existing ones.

Same thing with the 2nd amendment. It hasn't changed at all, since it was put into effect, but legal battles over interpretation rage today and will continue to rage probably long after we're all dead.

Interpretation tends to fall along the lines of whatever your politics and personal biases are.

If everything was settled, we wouldn't need courts and majority opinions change all the time. It's a rather pesky aspect of this thing we call humanity and civilization.

@RedSky
Does he really glorify it any more than we already glorify drinking or smoking (smoking to a lesser extent). Advertising still tells us that it's not really a party unless you're getting hammered, depending on what you're drinking you are hipper, sexier, or just plain more fun. I see most glorification of pot as just a response to the over the top demonization of pot, so just decriminalize it already and eventually it will all reach equilibrium.
@VoodooV
Like he said, it's the corporate interests that will make the difference. They might pay lip service to social conservative causes like abortion, gay rights, etc but the only thing they really care about is the bottom line.
Gay marriage was a total non issue to them, but big pharma, law enforcement, the military industrial complex, tobacco, the prison industrial complex, and many others have a vested interest in keeping pot illegal. They will spend millions or even billions to keep the status quo. Once people saw gay marriage as an issue of civil rights it got a huge boost, but the legalization of marijuana is still seen by many as just a cause for stoners, pot heads and junkies, so nobody is really going to care.

I'm genuinely curious. Why won't support for legalization play out like gay marriage? If anything it will go faster.

pot has been legal for a long time before it became illegal. It's only illegal because of corporate interest and a decades long fear campaign against it.

Meanwhile homosexuality gaining acceptance is pretty astounding considering for how long it has been rejected and ostracized.

Now of course, homosexuality acceptance is about human beings and marijuana legalization is about a plant so I'll grant you a difference there. But once it's shown that the states that did legalize it aren't falling into chaos and lawlessness, the fear mongering is going to die a quick death.

He was actually pretty even handed and a major point of his talk was that pot legalization was not going to play out like gay marriage, it was hardly cheer leading.
You agree with the stupidity of the way pot is currently handled under the law and then in your next breath you quote the standard anti pot party line. So I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you genuinely of two minds on the issue?

Christ....

Odd how Republicans always scream about "redistribution of wealth", but are fine with the fact that most employers no longer pay living wages the way they used to. They are fine if it's some rich guy taking his wealth generated by his employees' hard work for himself, but god forbid that the government take anything to help those that rich guy is leaving behind. Over half the people who work for Walmart qualify food stamps (only about 30% actually take it), despite the fact Walmart's profits are so high it could pay them all living wages, give them benefits, higher more, give more hours, and still make a huge profit while not raising prices... but it's the people needing food stamps that are bad, not the people who own and operate the company and take so much from their workers.

The one true small government candidate that the Republicans had was Rand Paul, and they rejected him for big government, tough talk, candidates that capitalize on their fears... most of which are fairly unjustified. Americans aren't lining up on the streets to get the sort of jobs that they accuse Mexican's of coming here to take. Our own actions of telling Muslims how to live is the reason they want to kill us, leave them alone and govern themselves... stop preemptively attacking... you know be more Christ like who wouldn't support such things...

And as @oritteropo basically noted, Reagan was far to the left what today's Republican party is. Reagan wouldn't even get through the Primary process. Fox News, Rush and all of them would be ripping him a new asshole for not being "conservative enough". Obama is far closer to Reagan style politics and economics than most today's primary candidates. McCain once upon a time was close to Reagan, but he swung to the right to appeal to the extreme right base, and then added an idiot running mate. Had he ran down the center as he used to be, and got a centralist running mate, he would have had a chance of winning... though Obama sort of captured a hope for progressive change that never came, he turned out to be a Democrat in Name Only and was closer to a Reagan Republican than a true progressive.

Let's also not forget that Congress controls the purse strings and the US economic outlook (at least to what degree the government can, since the rest is in the hands of investors and business owners). Congress has been obstructionist for the last 6 years, and haven't allowed ANY of Obama's policies through, any of his attempts to help fix the economy. Want to blame somebody in the government for the mess, blame Congress, not Obama... if they attempted his stuff, then yes it would be his fault, but they haven't tried a single one of them. You can't say no to trying something, then when what you did instead doesn't work blame the person you said no to.

For the price of the F35 program so far, a plane that only barely passed some of it's flight tests, the rest still failing, we could have bought every homeless person a $600,000 home.... in this area a $150,000 home is very nice (good 3 bedroom home, nice safe neighborhood with good schools), let alone what $600,000 would get you... for the price of it this year, we could fund the school lunch program for 24 years. Now to be fair, I haven't fully vetted those two "facts" myself, but what I have vetted, is for the price of the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011, we paid more than NASA's entire history, even after adjusting for inflation. It's all a question of priorities. Republican's don't care how much the military costs the taxpayer, but suggestions to help the people being left behind as the rich take more and more for themselves (redistributing the wealth generated by their workers to themselves, rather than their workers) and suddenly they start screaming bloody murder.

Every time a Republican opens their mouth and spouts such things like this video I hate their gullibility... and all too often they talk about their faith and Christ... and I've already covered how the Republican views are 100% opposed to the teachings of Christ and it's why I first lost faith in God as he'd be screaming at them and trying to convict them that their views are wrong were he real. Don't just trust the first few Google results you see, as they filter their results to appeal to you and your views. Don't listen to the echo chamber. Learn to truly vet sources and understand what is actually going on. Don't parrot claims about a "liberal media" or whatever, when over 95% of the news sources out there are controlled by the same 5 companies, none of which have an incentive on letting people know just how bad they are being fucked by the business interests in this country... supporting gay marriage, supporting a minimum level of help isn't liberal, it's being a decent person... being against equal rights under the law because somebody sins differently than you, or not wanting to help somebody because they aren't working 80-100 hours a week is being a heartless asshole. But feel free to keep living in your echo chamber of stupidity, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity."

Here, let me see if you agree.

Basically, there were three camps around Ron Paul.

1st was the conservative camp. 2nd was the liberal camp. 3rd was the everyone who voted for Paul camp.

In the 1st one people hated Paul because he didn't follow their platform. He didn't want to ban abortion at the level of the federal government, he didn't want to make gay marriage illegal with a broad pen stroke and he wasn't keen on telling people they could drink but not smoke pot. He believed the states should decide.

In other words, this camp was solely based on their own selfish beliefs. Me me me, greed greed greed. Give me. Fuck the honest guy.

In the second camp people hated Paul because he didn't follow their platform. He didn't want federal government handouts, one-sized fits-all approach to education or legalization of gay marriage or abortion at the federal level. He believed states should decide.

In other words, this camp was solely based on their own selfish beliefs. Me me me, greed greed greed. Give me. Fuck the honest guy.

Then there was the 3rd camp. They valued him as a candidate, and said fuck the platform. Platform voting has been destroying our country and polarizing our nation since the beginning.

What makes me so pissed is that the first 2 camps believe they were doing the right thing. Like a rapist in India trying to make a lesbian straight...yeah, great morals there guys...these delusional whack jobs disgust me. Yeah, it is fine to vote against Ron Paul without being labeled as such, so long as you 100% believed your candidate was morally superior to Paul. And as long as that belief had nothing to do with platform...

Or am I just being a prick?

Gay Milo doesn't believe in gay marriage. Something about him i don't trust. http://videosift.com/video/Boy-George-and-Self-Loathing-Gay-Catholic-Talk-Marriage

Shouldn't there be a circle outside the fundamentalist circle? I'd think the way she's talking she's outside that circle too. The sheer numbers in all the discussed circles is certainly something to be weary of, and I agree the issue needs to be addressed more by those outside the fundamentalist circle.

The same circles can be applied to Christians as well. The inner circle includes people like that guy who killed those at the Planned Parenthood. The next Islamist circle would be mostly the Tea Party type Christians, those that want to force one type of Christian view on others via political action. The Fundamentalist include fundamentalist Christians, those that think gay marriage is a sin and should be outlawed. Now beyond that inner circle, most of Christianity has outgrown it's radical violent past... though their support of the death penalty and stand your ground and murder somebody for stealing your TV sort of suggests they haven't... They criticize Muslim support for chopping off hands of thieves as barbaric, but believe in stand your ground for theft... And those in the fundamentalist circle and further to the center are the ones who do all the speaking for Christianity. There was no outpouring from Christians after the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack about how he doesn't represent Christianity. There is no mass outpouring from the majority of Christians who have no issue with gay marriage to stand up for those who sin differently than them, instead letting the fundamentalist rule the show and present their views as the dominant Christian view, which appears to be that it is worth judging homosexuality as a far worse sin than the ones that they committing... The same arguments she's making for the moderate Muslims to be standing up against fundamentalist to Jihadist Muslims should be applied to Christians as well... no, they radicalized Christians generally aren't as big a threat in terms of violence, but the growing public image of Christians as being bigoted, self-righteous, feeling repressed demigods is a real problem for Christianity as well, and is in large part to blame for its shrinking numbers.

Violence and war against Islam though helps grow the radical elements. As much as Christians love to play the "help help we're being opposed" card, Muslims are increasingly more able to play that card with legit purpose. Trump's call to stop them all from even visiting the US, to register all US Muslims into a database and track them is an open invitation to radicalize more, to move more of them from moderate to fundamentalist and to move fundamentalist towards jihadist... and if it was just one radical idiot like Trump that would be one thing, but he has a huge swath of support, which makes it again easier to radicalize more as they can point out that their faith is under a real and legit attack... which proves their faith is the one true faith as the enemy is working so hard to attack it... this is an argument made by Christians all the time with the we are being oppressed cries, that prove that Christianity is the one true faith, because the devil is working so hard to push Christianity down, yet they don't recognize their attempts to push Islam down proves the exact same point to the Muslims...

I think they all show that religion does far more harm than good.

1. I believe all gays should be forced to own guns. No gay marriage without the exchange of revolvers!
2. Gerry Mander deserved better than this.
3. Apparently that's the freedom those muslim terrorists hate. First WTC, now Paris. Go figure.

Yeah, they do.

And funnily enough, no, I'm not tolerant of your homophobic, racist nonsense.

In case you missed it, the fucking Supreme Court told you to get over it. For fucks sake, Ireland (previous winner of the "most catholic place on the planet" 70 years running) legalised gay marriage.

So yeah, the game is over, your team lost (in fact, they got utterly spanked). You're just the spoilt kids throwing a temper tantrum on the field while the rest of the civilised world has gone to the bar.

Eventually, it'll start to rain, and (like you did with slavery and women's rights) you'll come to the bar and feel embarrassed that you made such a dick out of yourselves in the first place. Luckily for you, by that time, we'll be drunk and in a good mood, so we'll forgive you.

That was good.

I might disagree with Obama's near-blanket statement at the end - "government (at large) works better than when I came into office".

That's a hard statement to evaluate because government is a BIG thing. I think that the portion that he is responsible for (Executive branch) definitely works better than it did under Bush (which, to be fair, isn't saying much). The Judicial branch just made a hugely positive wave with the ruling on gay marriage, so I'd tick their "better than before" box also.

But the Legislative branch is a complete f*cking disaster. To be fair (again, on the other side), Obama technically has no control over that. But still, with Congress being such a complete and total epic fail, I take issue with the "government works better than when I came into office" quote.

I don't see how things can improve much, shy of taking a mulligan and replacing every last Senator and Representative.

...Hey, maybe Obama should have let Iran have *1* nuke, so long as they.... /sarcasm

Crazy Christian Woman Loses It Over Gay Marriage Again has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Your video, Jimmy Kimmel asks kids to explain gay marriage, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.