• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Face of Gay Marriage? Video clip from Maine newscast

jackalope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
1,328
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Face of Gay Marriage?

Maine television station WGME-TV led its local news broadcast last night with a video clip of 87-year old Philip Spooner, a lifelong Republican and World War II veteran, making the case for gay marriage in Maine.

The video has gone viral with nearly 500,000 views as of this morning. It's clearly the message of a man standing up for the principles he fought for -- and not the quality of the clip -- that has made it so popular.

Here's the video clip via Nick Seaver:

YouTube - Philip Spooner - www.EqualityMaine.org

The Face of Gay Marriage? -- Political Wire


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Philip Spooner - www.EqualityMaine.org[/ame]


"Do you believe in equality for gay and lesbian people .... I was surprised to be asked that. Finally I said to her: What do you think I voted for at Omaha Beach?"

This clip blew me away.
 
Last edited:
I meant to say, Maine passed a marriage equality law, there is a referendum question on the ballot in November seeking to repeal the law. So far, it's not clear whether the repeal will pass or not, but leaning towards no (slightly), I think. It depends on turnout, it being an off year, without even a gubernatorial election, they're not sure who will turn out to vote.
 
If I could thank the OP more than once I would
 
YouTube - Philip Spooner - www.EqualityMaine.org


"Do you believe in equality for gay and lesbian people .... I was surprised to be asked that. Finally I said to her: What do you think I voted for at Omaha Beach?"

This clip blew me away.

Marriage is not about equality as gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue. It never was. Also, his military service has absolutely nothing to do with gay-marriage in any way. Shame on pro-gm for using this vet as a tool.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is not about equality, and his military service has absolutely nothing to do with gay-marriage in any way. Shame on pro-gm for using this vet as a tool.
yes, gay marriage is about equality.
 
Marriage is not about equality as gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue. It never was. Also, his military service has absolutely nothing to do with gay-marriage in any way. Shame on pro-gm for using this vet as a tool.

Bull****, bull****, and bull****


You keep trying to spin gay marriage in any way you can, but the truth is, it is a civil rights issue, as he put it, every adult should be able to marry the adult of their choice. Your intense fear of gay's being able to marry is amusing, but it's hardly going to stop things from changing, and you are either going to have to get over it, or live in fear.
 
No, gay marriage is about changing the definition of marriage. It wasn't always that way, but for some decades now, at least until a few courts/legislatures started dickering with them, the marriage laws in every state were 100% equal for everybody. Every American, gay, straight, of whatever race, religion, culture, ethnicity, age, etc. was subject to exactly the same rules and regulation as every other American in every state in the union. THAT is what equality looks like. And, until some courts and some governments started dickering with it, the definition of marriage in every culture in every place on Earth for many millenia now has been a recognized legal union between a man and a woman.

If gays pushing to change the marriage laws were interested only in equality, then they would have gotten squarely behind those of us who have been pushing for a new institution called civil union or whatever that would provide protections and benefits to ALL Americans, gay, straight, etc. who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry under existing laws. And that also would be what equality would look like.
 
Marriage is not about equality as gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue. It never was. Also, his military service has absolutely nothing to do with gay-marriage in any way. Shame on pro-gm for using this vet as a tool.

Why are u always so bitter?
 
the definition of marriage in every culture in every place on Earth for many millenia now has been a recognized legal union between a man and a woman.

That is a totally false statement. Totally false.
 
No, gay marriage is about changing the definition of marriage. It wasn't always that way, but for some decades now, at least until a few courts/legislatures started dickering with them, the marriage laws in every state were 100% equal for everybody. Every American, gay, straight, of whatever race, religion, culture, ethnicity, age, etc. was subject to exactly the same rules and regulation as every other American in every state in the union. THAT is what equality looks like. And, until some courts and some governments started dickering with it, the definition of marriage in every culture in every place on Earth for many millenia now has been a recognized legal union between a man and a woman.

If gays pushing to change the marriage laws were interested only in equality, then they would have gotten squarely behind those of us who have been pushing for a new institution called civil union or whatever that would provide protections and benefits to ALL Americans, gay, straight, etc. who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry under existing laws. And that also would be what equality would look like.


Marriage is a contract between two people, from which some people can be excluded b/c of gender. Two people can marry, unless their gender is the same. It's so silly. Actually, silly diminishes the wrong done. It's most definitely a civil rights and equality issue. Nobody is changing the definition, it's not a new contract being defined, it's simply eliminating exclusion b/c it's two people of the same gender rather than two people of different genders.

It's still a simple, straight-up, two-party contract.
 
Last edited:
No, gay marriage is about changing the definition of marriage. It wasn't always that way, but for some decades now, at least until a few courts/legislatures started dickering with them, the marriage laws in every state were 100% equal for everybody. Every American, gay, straight, of whatever race, religion, culture, ethnicity, age, etc. was subject to exactly the same rules and regulation as every other American in every state in the union. THAT is what equality looks like. And, until some courts and some governments started dickering with it, the definition of marriage in every culture in every place on Earth for many millenia now has been a recognized legal union between a man and a woman.

If gays pushing to change the marriage laws were interested only in equality, then they would have gotten squarely behind those of us who have been pushing for a new institution called civil union or whatever that would provide protections and benefits to ALL Americans, gay, straight, etc. who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry under existing laws. And that also would be what equality would look like.
a civil union isn't a new institution, it's simply a new name for "marriage" outside a church. any marriage outside a church is a civil union, no more, no less.

so, gays should be allowed to civilly marry. get a license, go to a jp (lol.....hopefully) and marry.
 
No, gay marriage is about changing the definition of marriage. It wasn't always that way, but for some decades now, at least until a few courts/legislatures started dickering with them, the marriage laws in every state were 100% equal for everybody. Every American, gay, straight, of whatever race, religion, culture, ethnicity, age, etc. was subject to exactly the same rules and regulation as every other American in every state in the union. THAT is what equality looks like. And, until some courts and some governments started dickering with it, the definition of marriage in every culture in every place on Earth for many millenia now has been a recognized legal union between a man and a woman.

If gays pushing to change the marriage laws were interested only in equality, then they would have gotten squarely behind those of us who have been pushing for a new institution called civil union or whatever that would provide protections and benefits to ALL Americans, gay, straight, etc. who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry under existing laws. And that also would be what equality would look like.

You seem badly confused on alot of things, but I am only going to talk about one. When the law is such that it is the same for all, but really only effects one group, then it is not equal. Sometimes there is a good reason for this, but not in this case. There is no harm from allowing gays to marry, no reason to protect society from gays being married, and as such, there is no logical reason not to allow gays to marriage. Hell, gays can hardly do worse at it than strait people do.
 
See, we can find something we agree on!

LOL, it's hard not to agree on fact. It's not a philosophical debate that puts her false statement to rest. It's historical record. And you can't really argue with the facts behind that.
 
OK, I'll bite. How, pray tell, does CA prove gay marriage is not about equality?

Gays in CA have each and every single civil right as heteros under Domestic Partnership. That's equality under the law.

Seeking the word "marriage" is not about legal equality, it's about social acceptance. I would give the pro-gm movement a lot more respect if they would at least admit that so we could have an honest discussion from there.

Just as women's right to vote was not about equality until the 19th amendment, neither is gay-marriage.

Maybe we should make gay-marriage, but today the cut-n-dry matter of fact is it's not a civil rights issue and it's not about equality.
 
how so? heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals cannot. not equal. simple as that.

Homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Equality achieved.
 
Homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Equality achieved.

And when gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals can marry anyone of the same sex just like gays can. Equality achieved as well.
 
Gays in CA have each and every single civil right as heteros under Domestic Partnership. That's equality under the law.

Domestic partnership is a shadow of the legal rights marriage provides. How disingenuous of you.

Seeking the word "marriage" is not about legal equality, it's about social acceptance. I would give the pro-gm movement a lot more respect if they would at least admit that so we could have an honest discussion from there.

No, it is about equality. Separate but equal does not work. We learned this lesson once already.

Just as women's right to vote was not about equality until the 19th amendment, neither is gay-marriage.

:shock:

Maybe we should make gay-marriage, but today the cut-n-dry matter of fact is it's not a civil rights issue and it's not about equality.

I think this is the point that you and I should probably walk away from this conversation and just meet up on WoW later this weekend. :rofl
 
Homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Equality achieved.
that's a ridiculous statement, heard many times. what is your particular problem with gay marriage?
 
Domestic partnership is a shadow of the legal rights marriage provides. How disingenuous of you.

It's can't be accurately called a "shadow" when gays have everything the state also gives heteros.

No, it is about equality.

Without children involved the state has no reason to poke it's nose in your bedroom, so why you would invite the state in when a few documents from legalzoom.com would do the same thing is beyond me.

I think this is the point that you and I should probably walk away from this conversation and just meet up on WoW later this weekend. :rofl

In point of fact I'm posting while in flight, trying to complete Tricks and Treats of Eastern Kingdoms
 
It's can't be accurately called a "shadow" when gays have everything the state also gives heteros.

They don't. There's about 130 rights' difference between marriage and domestic partnership. More if you consider the federal level.

Without children involved the state has no reason to poke it's nose in your bedroom, so why you would invite the state in when a few documents from legalzoom.com would do the same thing is beyond me.

If having children were a requirement of marriage, you would have a point.
 
Back
Top Bottom