NEW YORK, NY – Jon Stewart‘s Daily Show interviewed statistician Nate Silver to ask him which state he believes will be the last to legalize gay marriage. Silver believes without a doubt that it will be either Mississippi or Alabama. But Silver has never been to either state, and claims he doesn’t need to! So the Daily Show sent a ‘gay couple’ down to find out how people react. Guess what?
Not only was there not a backlash to the couple, but people were actually celebrating their love. They set up a marriage proposals at Waffle Houses in both states to test people’s responses. You have to watch to see what happened.
62 comments
marriage is a religious ceremony. Government should uphold a civil union between consenting adults(no mater race, gender, or quantity) just like any other contract. Government should NOT be in marriage. At all. If a church wants to marry gay people, or a dozen women to one man, let em. but that marriage doesnt hold any rights. its a ceremony.
I agree, but there are ignorant people voting to have anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions…
like california? the people democratically(we are a democracy ONLY at local levels, and a republic at national level) voted to block gay marriage. the courts decided the people didnt count, and their will was higher.
Like the will of the people’s Jim Crow law? You fuckers are NOT libertarians. Just some douchebag super religious Republicans. Get the fuck out of here with your bullshit.
I am no repub but don’t get it mixed up. The democrats were the prominent party behind Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow was a democrat.
doesnt matter which side of the aisle you are on, youre still a douchebag. stop trying be a good republican/ democrat, try being a good american.
Sorry, but when the will of the people violates the constitution then that IS what the courts are for. They are meant to over rule those unconstitutional laws. A high school civics class should have taught you this.
“marriage” is not a right. it is NOT in the constitution. NOT being in the constitution, while the freedom of religion IS, means that banning gay “marriage” IS constitutional under freedom of religion. Same-sex or Polygamist Civil unions SHOULD be recognized, with all the same property rights granted to any other race or gender identity civil contract..
also, any church that wants to marry gay people, or even marry a fence to the sky, should have that right to do so, as long as they dont force that “marriage” on anyone else, or demand that the government recognize it.
I think the problem here is that not enough people understand that ‘marriage’ is and has always been a religious institution. People are confusing ‘marriage’ with the contract the government assigns to it. Personally I can’t stand religion, it is the source of a lot hate and death. But, in this case, they are right. If a church doesn’t want to marry someone, it is their right. States and the Fed should not be proposing a ‘ban’ on anything and should instead, separate the terms ‘marriage’ and ‘civil-union’.
it is nice to actually hear that brad. that is precisely what i was meaning. Glad some people out there share the same dislike for organized religion, while defending their rights, and wanting LESS government.
The Constitution allows you the right to practice whatever religion you want, even none if that’s what suits you. There is no correlation between being allowed to practice your religion and using your religion to persecute other citizens.
@ jsetu32: you’re an idiot if you think because im against forcing a church to
recognize a gay couple, that im for slavery/segregation. What i
clearly said was government shouldnt be in ANY marriage, and the state
had the right to re-enforce freedom of religion. The people of the US
have the right to freedom of expression and can say they are married all
they want, but marriage should be out of the government entirely. so,
with all YOUR tolerance, how bout YOU get out of here.
No the courts determined that the will of the many should not infringe upon the rights of the few. Kind of like when the government started chipping away at segregation. It wasn’t because the majority in the public was for it.
A person — including a small business owner — should have a right to express their personal views about what is — or is not — a correct “marriage.” The problem with state recognized redefinition of “marriage” is that it forces people to call something a “marriage” that they don’t feel is one. This has definitive legal consequences.
Currently, a small business owner (a baker who owns and operates a small sole proprietorship) is being sued by a homosexual couple for declining to bake a gay wedding cake. The courts have already determined that a sole proprietorship is the same as the person, but this doesn’t matter to some in terms of lawsuits. They see anyone who doesn’t recognize or celebrate their union as “unlawful discrimination.”
What about a religious bookstore that is NOT a sole proprietorship? If a business with particular religious or doctrinal stand (like a Christian bookstore, Muslim clothing store, Jewish bookstore, etc…) refuses to hire a transvestite or openly homosexual individual, they could face legal consequences.
This is why there should be a “conscience clause” in matters that are controversial. A person should not be protected solely upon the basis of how they CLAIM to prefer sexual relations.
As a Christian, I wouldn’t sue a Muslim company for refusing to cater to my religious preferences or desires. However, homosexual groups do have a tendency to sue groups that don’t recognize or embrace their views.
I agree that “marriage” should not be a government issue. The government should only issue “civil contract” and allow churches, individuals, organizations, etc… — to call something a “marriage” or whatever equivalent they are seeking for.
Most people — including religious individuals — would not have fought civil contracts for homosexuals that were gender-specific (same sex) and provided all of the same rights and protections as a traditional marriage. Yet, this wasn’t good enough. Homosexual activist groups are pushing for “marriage” to be redefined BECAUSE they want to use it to force everyone else to legally recognize their sexual preference. Period.
It is not the job or responsibility of the government to proclaim one morality or moral perspective over another. Liberty is key — whether personal or with society.
Whatever your personal views are, they are just that – personal. BUT when you own a business that sells to the PUBLIC, you do NOT have the right to force YOUR view on the PUBLIC. IOW, you do NOT have the right to discriminiate.
Again, your views are PERSONAL and NOT to be forced on the PUBLIC you deal with.
you dont have the right to force your view on anybody, but you dont have the right to FORCE anybody to come into your store(unless youre the government). If i wanted to open a store that ONLY sold pork products, and a jewish or muslim person came in the store, would i be required to sell kosher products too?
Businesses are selling a product., if you dont like that product, or the views held by that business, you are free to go elsewhere, or start your own business and compete by offering what they dont.
Your example is VERY specific. It would preclude those who do not eat pork but NOT who is gay/straight.. However, when a business sells or deals with the GENERAL public (which includes EVERYONE) and markets a service or product geared for non-specific, it does NOT have the right to discriminate.
ok. then what about marriage photography. or wedding cakes. should the person selling a wedding cake be FORCED to make something against their beliefs, even if it is against their beliefs? there are other businesses that make cakes and pictures, so the RIGHT of the person to buy whatever they want isnt stopped. However, forcing someone to do something against their religious beliefs, when owning a business, DOES infringe on rights.
When you have a business that caters to the general public, you have no right to discriminate whatsoever. Do you have a right to discriminate re gender or ethnicity or race? NO, you don’t. And if you think you do, running a business that caters to the PUBLIC, you have no business in business if you don’t understand that. Whatever YOUR personal beliefs are, they are PERSONAL. You do NOT discriminate when you run a business that caters to the PUBLIC. Jeez! This IS the 21st Century. I can’t believe there are people out there that actually think they can. What is WRONG with you people? So, do you discriminate against someone who is black or Chinese or Jewish? Someone who is Catholic, Jewish, Muslim? How very ignorant and VERY stupid.
Force all businesses to bend to YOUR will of what YOU think the 21st century should be. So tolerant. not allow everyone to be themselves, but to force people to be more like YOU. Freedom of religion or freedom to force people to make things, or do things, for people they don’t think are right. If i walked into a business, and happened to mention i was and the owner said “all you are evil” i would NOT say they MUST provide me a service. i would leave, and use the free market choice to give someone else my business. but not YOU. you would stand there and force them to give you what is against their values, or have them arrested, even though YOU have the right to go elsewhere. http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
Right on point. I would think a private business owner would be able to deny service to anyone and they do not have to explain the reason for their decision. You are able to deny and you do not need to give a reason. That is a right.
Right and wrong! He does have personal views! and he can’t force his views on others, but he also has Constitutional rights, one of which is freedom of religion. And you and I can’t force him to go against his religious belief. If others don’t like his views, they have a right to trade else where, and If his religion is like mine and most religions, they believe you are to love all, but never accept their practices.
And most if not all Protestants believe they are to come apart from “The World” in their day by day fellowship, and make their friends from their church followers.
A verse, that says do not be unequally yoked is often heard.
As for hiring, it is their business and should be their choice, As for no right to discriminate, you do that on a daily basis and you know it.
I always prefer strawberry ice cream to Chocolate. It’s a preference, and my preference is strawberry, His is Straight over not straight. He has a preference and you want to make him chose something he does not want.
It depends on where you are. Forcing someone to enter into a transaction isn’t the answer either.
Completely agree!! We need to eliminate the government’s role in “marriage” and move to a union for governmental purposes (taxes, insurance etc).
THANK YOUUUUUU!
That is true they should not be involved in any of it.
That is one of the best definitions and best ways I’ve hear it put so far and it infringes on no one. I like Staci’s reply as well…time to get the courts, the government, the lawyers, and the IRS out of our bedrooms.
This distinction doesn’t really make sense to me, it’s very obvious that different people define marriage differently, the government should not be involved in enforcing one persons religious beliefs over another’s, if you don’t agree that two people are really married then don’t believe it, but would you want the government to make that determination for everyone? People all over the world get married not just christians, you are basically saying regardless of what your religious beliefs are you must abide by MY religious beliefs. So you don’t recognize their marriage as legitimate, that’s your right, but other people may recognize it as legitimate and that is their right.
So you say the union should be upheld, I assume this is because since its 1 person marrying 1 other person you see that the benefits can work exactly the same way as they do for hetero-couples, I assume you wouldn’t want the government to uphold a civil union between more then 2 people because that would be a distinctly different set-up which would unfairly allow more then 2 people to share the legal benefits of marriage. I think it’s a misleading characterization to lump 1-on-1 marriages in with marriages between 3 or more people when you yourself draw a distinction(disregard the last sentence if the assumption is incorrect).
I just don’t agree that the government gets to determine what is and isn’t a religious ceremony, if a gay couple is religious and they believe the marriage ceremony is a religious one, who is the government to say it isn’t allowed to be religious.
Anyways that’s my two cents, good post.
To speak to your last point regarding how the government should not have a say in whether a ceremony is not religious: that is exactly my point! The government should not have a say in whether it IS or IS NOT a religious ceremony and in my theory they would not have any need to determine this. The government would only be involved in unions for governmental purposes. Any religious ceremony would not be their business whatsoever.
As to the situation of unions of three or more people, I haven’t put much thought into it and am unsure of how that could be handled. Multiple wives are allowed in certain religions and cultures and it would need to be addressed somehow.
” People all over the world get married not just christians, you are
basically saying regardless of what your religious beliefs are you must
abide by MY religious beliefs.” <<< No, what im saying is EVERY group of people(2, 20, or 20000) that wants shared rights, whether property(in general) or taxes, then they, should be required to sign a civil contract, to protect all sides. I don't care if a woman wants 10 husbands, or a man wants another man, or anything inbetween. civil contracts should be upheld, but NO church or government institution should uphold a "marriage" from any church, sea captain, or justice of the peace.
"So you say the union should be upheld, I assume this is because since its 1 person marrying 1 other person you see that the benefits can work exactly the same way as they do for hetero-couples, I assume you wouldn't want the government to uphold a civil union between more then 2 people because that would be a distinctly different set-up which would unfairly allow more then 2 people to share the legal benefits of marriage." <<< see above. a "marriage" between two men or 20 women, or 50 billion people(living or dead) should not be recognized as a legal binding contract, and instead a MORAL contract. the CIVIL contract is a legal document protecting rights, that the government enforces. If you want, you can "marry" whomever you want, but that doesnt mean you get a tax break. You can however enter into a contract to buy a house, or a car, or have a joint bank account by signing a LEGAL document.
Government shouldn’t be involved, but they should uphold? These conflict at a cursory glance. “Government” should not be involved. End. I believe we have repeated the same, thus I will clarify both with specificity in vocabulary for those who may read otherwise.
Only the civil courts, upon claim of breach of contract, have intervening jurisdiction, and then only upon such a claim. The legislature or executive has nil authority. This, I believe, is what you mean.
The implication, for those of you considering yourselves libertarian of a left-based social-economic stance, is that all laws currently regulating heterosexual marriage ought to be void and of no force. Taxes are premier in this respect; as in none.
Staci Levasseur’s position implies that there is still some legislative role in this legal contract, which further implies that direct taxation (read:rent) on property, real estate, income, etc will remain a valid practice. This violates the Constitution in spirit, if not in word.
Couldn’t have said it better Perso.
I believe the gubmint needs to get out of marriage altogether. No taxes or tax benefits going either way.
Tolerance vs. Acceptance? I hate it that the English language is being dictated by progressives. Lets get our definitions straight.
Tolerance is the acceptance of a different ideas or the acts of others. This does not mean that one has to agree or like it.
Acceptance is the willingness to be open to the possibility of an idea being correct.
The great irony of this video is the passive-aggressive comedic intolerance of the Daily Show writers. They paint Southerners as bigots and then there is a moment of “ah-ha!” that they are more tolerant than expected. Yes, I know this is the big funny they are going after.
It is one thing to be disapproving of someone because of public bigotry, but to classify an entire region, religion, race or culture as being backwards is intolerant in itself.
Take an example of a Muslim who is against homosexuality. The show integrity to remain consistent with their religious beliefs. In a pluralist society, they might show tolerance towards the homosexual person, but they do not change their views on the subject. They may not have acceptance, but this is not really even necessary if they show tolerance.
In return, those who disagree with the above Muslim who is being tolerant, must in return show respect for his integrity because he is showing tolerance in spite of the disagreement.
Unfortunately, we now live in a society that is mostly incapable of having the respect for our differences and tolerance for those who are contrary to our own ideas.
I am very tolerant of these freaks of nature. But please don’t push your views on me. Thank you.
How are they pushing it on you? I mean, I’m tolerant of bigots, but please don’t try to force me to become one.
How do all political issues get pushed on the public? Through media of course. You can’t turn on a TV without seeing gay people. Acceptance of gays is being pushed as a just another progressive agenda to degrade traditional family values.
Whose tradition? It doesn’t degrade the values of love, compassion and kindness as taught by Jesus.
It sure does degrade the value of love.
So does Kim Kardashian
Yeah and we shouldn’t watch her stupid show either!
Kim Kardashian!! You watch her? What a total effete both of you are.
The people who jesus maligned were those who were full of their own correctness, they followed all the rules but looked down on sinners believing themselves to be the most pious. They called jesus and his followers out for not obeying religious law, but jesus rebuked them and instead kept the company of money-cheats and prostitues. The theme of his teaching was to not condemn or degrade, do not put yourself above others, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
You told me you did not “believe anyone in this day and age would “prefer” to believe in fables and fallacies like god an religion when the wonder of science and the universe is all around you.” You speak out of both sides it seems. You do know you can’t have it both ways don’t you?
I’m not a bigot but I do have preference! I do prefer wellness over illness, smart over dumb, educated over ignorance, straight over queer. so just like my preference of strawberry over chocolate ice cream, it does not make you a bigot to prefer one over the other.
You are genetically predisposed to be straight; it’s not a preference any more than having brown eyes is a “preference.” By using that language, you are showing a form of ignorance and bigotry.
I disagree that anyone is genetically predisposed to be straight or not, I believe it is a phony argument to justify a horrible life style. But if I was wrong, knowing that most people consider it to be an abomination and if you believe in God or the Bible it condemns it to death, and I wanted to not offend either, I would reject that life style and look for help. How in hell is having a preference a form of bigotry?
I cannot believe anyone in this day and age would “prefer” to believe in fables and fallacies like god an religion when the wonder of science and the universe is all around you.
Well I guess you are smarter then this list of scientist who do believe in God and creation and the list includes the scientist who was voted by his peers as the greatest scientist that ever lived. here it is, check it out sir. But first let us take a little deeper look. First of all, who invented science? It was Francis Bacon, who is credited with having been the inventor of the scientific method, that combination of induction and deduction,of hypothesis and proof ( empirical proof ).
Bacon was a devout Christian. He believe in the Bible, and he believed in Creation. He said that God had giving us two books. He has given us the book of
nature to understand the world, and the book of Scriptures—-and we are to read both of them, said the founder of science. Wasn’t a Christian ? Hardly. Who was the greatest scientist that ever lived ?
A poll taken of scientists just a few years ago concluded that the greatest scientist that ever lived was Sir Isaac Newton. If you read a list of the things that he discovered, it is awesome. The mathematical laws of Gravity are just one piece of that huge puzzle
from this gigantic intellect. He was also, among other things, the co-discoverer of calculus. Sir Isaac Newton. Newton believed in God, he believed in Christ, he believed in the Bible, and he believed in
creation. To the utter chagrin of modern evolutionary scientists, he wrote more books on theology then he did on science. He still became the greatest scientist that has ever lived, according to them.
Chantel Cummings here is a list of Christian Scientist,
CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS
*The inventor of Antiseptic Surgery was Joseph Lister a Christian
*Bacteriology-Louis Pasteur Christian.
*Calculus Sir Isaac Newton AS I said.* Dynamics Newton
*Chemistry—Robert Boyle who left a large sum of money in his will that a series of
lectures should be taught in his university in England defending the Christian faith. An unbeliever ? Hardly.
*Comparative Anatomy—George Cuvier
*Computer Science —Charles Babbage
*Dimensional Analysis—Lord Rayleigh
*Electrodynamics–James Clark Maxwell
*Electromagnetics—Michael Faraday, who had about twenty two honorary doctorates. He was being given a huge award by the King at a banquet on a
Wednesday night. After the banquet, the people talked for awhile, and then he was called up to receive his award, and they found that he had slipped out to go to a prayer meeting. That is what you would of
done, isn’t it? After all, what is an award from the king compared to worshiping God.
*Electronics—Ambrose Fleming
*Energetics—Lord Kelvin A great Christian
*Entomology of living Insects —Henri Fabre
*Field Theory—- Michael Faraday
*Fluid
Mechanics—-George Stokes
*Galactic
Astronomy —William Herschel
*Gas
Dynamcs —Robert Boyle (Boyle’s Law )
*Genetics—-Gregor
Mendal
*Glacial
Geology—Louis Agassiz of Harvard A great Christian man.
*Gynecology—-James Simpson
They were all Christians, all believers in creation.
I know not all scientist are believers, but a lot are! so I feel I’m in good company.
Benjamin Solomon “Ben” Carson, Sr., (born September 18, 1951) is a retired American neurosurgeon. He is credited with pioneering work on the successful separation of conjoined twins joined at the head. In 2008, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush. After delivering a widely publicized speech at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, he became a popular figure in conservative media for his views on social issues and the federal government. And he is a Christian believer, probably not one of your favorites.
How many of them lived in a time when they had to believe or else? What training or teaching did they receive outise of churches and church funds? I don’t believe in any god and find it extremely odd that people can run around believing something written by men thousands of years ago. Where are the burning bushes and loaves and fgishes? Seems like when science caught up, ghod and his minions stopped putting in provable appearances. When you can empirically prove the excisternbce of ghod, I’ll start listening to you.
Given that God is someone defined outside the boundaries of empirical data, that would be utterly futile.
Then “God” should not be used as a form of proof and relied upon as a reasonable argument.
Only for the the naturalist reductionist does that hold any weight. There is no reason that an un-provable cause can’t explain what can be proved.
Also, those men you are refuting had other options. Christianity has always been at odds with alternative worldviews. Really, if I said the same thing about you as an atheist in a humanist society, you’d take my head off! I wouldn’t blame you either. It would be bogus. You choose to believe what you believe based on being well informed. I would never deny you that credit, and you shouldn’t deny renowned scientists of the past that same credit. Jerry O’neil’s argument still holds weight.
I agree!
Yay! My state didn’t make themselves look bad! lol That’s a first… O.O
its the politicians! They pretend to represent us but in the end they represent shit.
This is about the bigotry on the left. Nothing more. The left practices NBC. That is to first make a bigoted statement out of whole cloth then fake a news story to prove it. Looks like Stewart set at least part of the record straight. No wonder they hate him.
nice now put the words into deeds and let them legalize the same sex marriages.
The whole thing of gay marriage is bullshit liberals aka uber leftys dont want tolerance they want to push homosexuality into kids faces. But in actuality the uber left are the intolerant ones.
Guess what! We don’t give a shit who loves who, we just don’t like being told how to do it by the Government!
I bet Jon Stewart was shocked by that but really couldn’t edit that for his purposes!