Відео

Still gives me tears of joy!!!!!!!! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

Hello! I was the AP bureau chief in Minnesota that night and I was the one (with a team of people helping me) who made the call that the measure would be defeated. I was just rememembering that night and wondered if this video was still out there on the internet. Glad to see it is.

I come to this video every time it's hard to believe people are decent. That's pretty common these days. Thank you for this.

Almost nine years later and for some reason, this moment popped into my head this morning. And I'm so glad it did.

I may not be gay, bi, pan, aesexual, I am straight but I support my LGTBQ+ family

This came up in my memories on FB and it still makes me cry. We worked so hard for this victory. Eighteen months before this moment, just after the Minnesota House passed the bill to put this amendment on the ballot, as state Senator Scott Dibble spoke to those of us who had been at the capital for more than a week holding a vigil, we changed "Love will prevail." And it did.

Almost 7 years later and this beautiful moment still brings tears to my eyes♥️

Had to come back and watch this again. So good. Notice how the troll's comments cannot be found but the comments of many people taking them on are still here... Another reason to not engage with trolls... They rely on the knee jerk reactions of lots of people, otherwise they are too small in number to have an impact. Just report the comments and step away.

This makes me cry every time I see it. Love in Action, that's what this is.

Pure effing joy.

This is easily one of my favorite videos of all time. cc: Minnesotans United for All Families

You will see something of the error of your ways before we all die. I think that it must be a dim seeing, for your eyes are shrouded in this sad idea you seem to be carrying as a shroud, but I have been wrong before. Make no mistake, just as our black brothers and sisters still find strange and grotesque barriers in their path, just as our white brethren still get fed madness by some that they trust, this is not an issue that will be quickly solved. But we will overcome,with time and love.

I am so glad that marriage is now the law in Minnesota, and now with the Supreme Court striking down DOMA you now have federal benefits as well. I am soooo proud of Minnesota!

And Minnesota passes the bill for full marriage equality via legislation.

Love, and know that you are loved. It is a hard commandment, but we were not called into being for only easy things.

No, wfmkk. You are not to be the last comment on this. Not as you were then. To any who come after and may look at this and these comments, take heart! For Creation and we within it are dark and terrible things, but also there is within and without us much goodness, much love. Ever will you have to rise to the occasion, ever will you have to stand against the loathsome impulses that anger and fear can bring us, as long as you live, but that is not a call to despair. For ever do we slowly grow.

What? HAHAHA All sterile? Are you on dope?

No one cares because marriage isn't just about being a baby factory. Otherwise why do we extend benefits to opposite sex couples that either don't want or can't have children?

"Marriage regulates procreation"? What does that mean? Procreation can occur in a variety of ways today. That variety increases every year. Soon, anyone who wants to have a kid will just order one. Marriage is about two people who want to form a union. If two wounded (possibly infertile) veterans return from war with a desire to marry, because they love one another & want to share the benefits granted to married couples, what does the combination *or* the functionality of their genitals matter?

When you are ready, there is still a place at the table for you.

Your other comment here, ""Sweeping Claims + Zero Evidence + Projection = Homosexual Marriage Advocate"" that was removed, is nothing but your stupidity.

Look at you, trying to argue a hateful position from a position of self-claimed moral superiority. Isn't that cute! *ruffles your hair* The key difference between the two sides here is that the pro-gay rights group is arguing for a position of equality and the anti-gay rights group is arguing from a position of suppressing a minority. This is why the anti-gay rights groups are doomed to failure.

Yeah, you are a bigot. And you are so disconnected from reality that you're really beyond hope. So we're going to ignore you, and convince everyone who thinks with reason. And you and those like you will become increasingly isolated in your circle jerk of baseless hatred and false information. Have a nice day.

Oh look, yet another yet another fucking bigot. You know, the American Psychological Institute has said there are no problems with children being raised by a same sex couple. You think you know better than professional, psychologists who only publish in peer reviewed journals? What a fool you are. Oh wait, you'll probably cite some non-reviewed paper full of cherry-picked data by someone. You are using this as an excuse for your bigotry, a convenience. Too bad it has no basis in reality.

You have no idea if that would come to pass. For someone that purports to being informed and intelligent, speaking in absolutes is unbecoming of that persona. I will suggest the following. If this is truly such a ordeal, a disaster waiting to happen, you should be out there volunteering and advocating against this and NOT wasting your time with people you've made clear, you consider to be lesser than you. Really. Lead by example. It's what the people in the vid had the courage to do. Do you?

Haha. Impressive how you still failed to perceive my facetiousness on that reply, when I literally spelled it out. And yet again, you went out of your way to insult me in similar fashion. Bravo!

Once again, you still don't see that I am not comparing race and sexual orientation. I am simply saying, you are antiquated in your views and seem stuck in the past.

What does the middle ages have to do with the discrimination experienced by lgbt people in our current society? if a whole group of people is being discriminated against because of something they can't control, they deserve equality. What don't you understand or agree with?

...presenting your own, which in itself is quite self-defeating. If homosexuality occurs with a frequency of less than 2 % in the population (as you stated) what's the big deal here? What's the fear and worry about the possible lack of conception, of giving back to the state? Less than 2%! This is quite worrying indeed. It sounds like the end of the world.

Hiding under the guise of rationality is a nice one. Yet it's quite obvious that if you did not have such a powerful motivation which stems from a clear and present dislike for gay people, you'd really not be going on about this for the time that you have been so far, would you? Especially towards people that you (from your comments) consider lesser, inept and incapable of basic reading comprehension. Using stats to hide. Amusing. And still interesting how you dodge every bit of logic Karen used

The fundamental purpose of marriage is the union of two people, for better or for worse, etc. Got it? Ok. Now onward to the state. You got problems with gay couples raising kids? I don't. You have problems that those kids might end up gay? I don't. Why? I rather see a couple, gay or not, adopting, raising kids, giving them opportunities in life that will lead to everyone involved giving back to society than seeing foster home kids (just an example) ending up poor, uneducated and criminals.

Ah, if only I had used "ad hominem" as you said, firstly and not lastly, after presenting my point. The funny bit, is that I didn't even really used it. I wasn't trying to win anything. Simply defuse it. Interesting how you read far too much into comments and still don't grasp them.

Look at you, bringing out the big words, over lil sarcastic and facetious me. My point was, in those days, if you, yourself would be living in them, you'd probably one of those defending slavery and keeping onto the "old ways", not accepting change. Sorry for using allegories. Clearly too complicated for the likes of you.

Thankyou Minnesota for setting the historical precedence. These "amendments" are unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS will look to your hard fought victory to declare prop 8 and DOMA "BULLSHIT"!

Yeah, but you'll notice he doesn't say that it is required that the children be the result of the sexual union between the two parents in order for there to be a legal institution... only that the production of children from sexual relations requires it. In fact, Bertrand Russell seems to be saying that it's *straight* couples that need to be controlled and restricted, not gay ones, since it's only the straight couples that even have the potential to be irresponsible with their child-producing!

obvious troll is obvious...

just hit 3:03 over and over again. endless joy.

You pretend you know what you're talking about.

You haven't answered the question. If marriage is all about children in the eyes of the state, then why does the state not require people to have children? Why are people with children allowed to get divorced? Why are women past the age of menopause allowed to get married? (Hint: It's your premise that's wrong. Marriage isn't just about children no matter how much you want it to be.)

Wait, the state simply stating that it had a legitimate interest was enough to set someone's rights aside. That's enough for you? Really? the state might have a legitimate interest in building a road, doesn't mean it can grab a bunch of citizens of the street, press them into a chain gang and force them to build it. And you call me obtuse. Dress it up in all the legalese you want, Gay people can't marry because they can't have babies is an asinine argument, and doesn't hide your bigotry.

Equal right under equal circumstances. Single? Then you don't have the same circumstance you have when married and don't have the same benefits, no matter who you are. Married? Then you don't have the same circumstance you have when single and don't have the same benefits. The state of being married is determined not if you can have children or not. Besides, the Supreme Courts already sided FOR gay marriage, so no matter what you say, you are wrong.

You are citing a single reference. Your evidence lacks validity. In addition, from looking at your other comments, you're a moron.

your 3rd party argument too absurd to be taken seriously. You may have noticed that children are often produced outside of marriage? Then the science, and the Supreme Court of California found the science you deny compelling enough. Twice now you have ignored my argument that this is a free country, and the state needs a reason to make something illegal, not a reason to make something legal. Until you address that issue, I'm done with you.

You have quoted existing law, congratulations. The argument is not what the law is, but what it should be. The defense of existing law is that 1) only straight couples can produce children and 2) only straight couples can properly raise those children. For 1, there is adoption and in vitro fertilization, so much for that. 2) study after study show homosexual couples raise healthy children. so that's gone. We are a free country, the state needs a reason to take a right away, not give it.

Coming back to work at 10 AM? "NO! NO! NO!" So glad y'all got to sleep in :D

That does not take away the fact that US law should treat people equally. Distinguishing between the ability to have children or not is clearly against that, thus unconstitutional. People get married and get benefits, not matter if they will have children or not.

You know, heterosexual people do get married WITHOUT the ability to procreate. So should marriage benefits be taken away from them?

It was back in the middle ages.

If god is so against sodomy, than why did he create so many assholes?

"So what? So is left-handedness. Shall we make left-handedness a protected class under the Constitution too?" left-handed people aren't discriminated against. lol