It's so maddening! Love conquers all in the end.

Amanda there is nothing more for me to say, You said it all, Gay Marriage is about giving all Americans the same rights, The rights that America was founded on, It is simple. Anything less than this would be un-American.

Amanda there is nothing more for me to say, You said it all, Gay Marriage is about giving all Americans the same rights, The rights that America was founded on, It is simple. Anything less than this would be un-American.

Zadi, what about people that love to hate??

Well said, Amanda.

History shows that, in the long run, hate and fear won't win out. But it's a long and tiring road. Since the beginning of time, people have blamed their woes on those they perceive to be different (that's why supposed witches were hung in Salem).

As a heterosexual, I can't understand the argument that someone else's relationship will threaten my own marriage, but their arguments are built on fear and insecurity and it's impossible to rebut them with rational facts.

The good news is that our generation mostly understands this and our children's generation is even more clear on the issue.

State by state, the walls are coming down. And while it's terribly difficult to be patient, allowing this to be fought in the state legislatures and ballots is the right move, as a groundswell of support will result in many states legalizing gay marriage in the coming decade (and I'm sure California will be one of them). That will make for sustained change, rather than ongoing court battles.

Today, I am embarrassed by the California ruling, but know that ignorance and hatred will not win out in the long run.

How do you know everyone who is in the traditional marriage side is "hateful"?

I think we should keep marriage between a man and a woman. If we redefine marriage we will have to include other groups too not just homosexuals.

if prop 8 were to be reversed all it would do is expand discrimination. Given tax breaks to married people screws singles

not going to lie amanda, i am against it completely, think it is totally wrong and completely immoral.

Sotomayor and the SCOTUS will eventually be our Prop 8 saviors! Nice cat and skateboard collection, btw!

we're either all free or we're not

Most married couples fail 50%. Gay couples should be allowed to marry. Love is love!

Gay Mge.. how can it ever be a problem if two "people" love each other.. so much craziness in the world.. live and let be !

It shocks me that gay marriage is still an issue; you would think equality for all would have become a no-brainer long ago.

support gay marriage. pro-choice as well. believe in equal opportunity and protection under the law

Love your site, layout and vids! Why protect something that has a +50% failure rate! +1 for gay marriage.

Im happy because it isn't about rights, its about use of the word. And people forgot, the founding father were christians.

Marriage should be divided from Church & state. Religions can do their thing & govt should let people marry.

Most of my gay friends have been married in all but name longer than most of my straight friends.Both my straight parents were married three times. My gay best friend and his partner have been 2gether for nearly 2 decades.

as a republican I'm actually not against it. It needs 2 be defined in law though or what stops mult spouses/children etc?

Nothing against being gay, but let them have civil unions. Marriage has a different definition in my book.

WOW i love you !!! this is so true !!!

I like your broadcast... and I agree with most of it... I also think it is about people, free will, and equality.... You, however, are also very talented!

Hi Amanda. Me, I don't believe in same sex coz' if everybody in the world did it, humans will be extinct. The best is the more logical (and cheaper for baby-making, instead of going for test tubes or adoption), simpler, nature/God designed system, traditional opposite sex marriage:)

The ability to marry who you love is a civil right.

never heard a logical argument against same-sex marriage; rilly, what's the problem?

If you recall it was "Life, liberty, happiness... (for a certain group of white dudes.)" Not "for all." So I don't really think bringing up what the founder said is really relevant to the discussion. It should more be on the basic premise of government doing what the basic point government is for: providing order and safety to citizens. Within that... Read More context, Gay marriage is just another form of order. I don't really see why anyone would argue against it from a legal perspective.

Love and religion are separate from government, so any arguments that stem from that side have to remain within the context of that discussion. Should the Church allow gay marriage? That has nothing to do with the government, and everything to do with the leader of that church, for example.

I'm going to go ahead and share your broadcast with the rest of my FB people...

You'll get gay marriage in CA eventually. Until then, there's ME, MA, VT, NH, CT, and IA...so far. Also, my state, NY, has the Governor and the majority in the State Senate and Assembly to get gay marriage.
I otherwise can't share my opinion on this because I will be bashed and attacked for it; not to mention labeled a bigot. And I'm a center-right guy, not a far-right nut.

Not really furthering the dialogue, Amanda. Just another echo in the chamber.

I don't see what the big deal is - well, other than the fact that some people would be willing to burn down the house of people b/c of who they wish to sleep with. The hoopla might just be another great example of why world peace is only viable in theory. Too many short fuses and intolerant people in the world.

One side is never going to convince the other, I fear. But one only has to look at the history of marriage, which is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony. It is a legal contract which may also come with religious blessing, but which is legal without the blessing of a church. If total strangers can marry each other on TV to win $1 million, ... Read MoreI don't see what's so horrible about my friends who have been in monogamous relationships for >30 years also marrying.

For those who use the "procreation" argument, does that mean my 70 year old mother should have been denied marriage to the man she fell in love with?

Marriage is a powerful legal and social idea that protects and supports intimate family relationships by providing a unique set of rights, privileges, and benefits. Those who can marry often take these rights for granted, but for gay men and lesbians, these benefits are forever denied.

I'm glad I hit a nerve. I don't like boundaries, so I don't like the idea of stopping someone from getting married when they want to get married. What purpose does it serve except to display one part of society's dominance over another?

the implications/meaning of marriage have changed over time. maybe it is time to define different types of marriages.

No. Thanks for asking.

You go Mandy!

Nicely done, Amanda.

What do you think about straight people standing in solidarity and not getting married until marriage is available to all? What do you say, Amanda?

The redefinition of Marriage, (which in my mind is between a man and a woman), is unimaginable. Marriage is a religious ceremony. A marriage is a ceremony where two people dedicate their lives to each other and swear to up hold their vows before their deity and friends, and is not a state practice. BUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS: The states own ... Read Morereligious practices have confused the issue. The state has redefined marriage, to be a civil union. It regulates all marriages, (thru licenses, gender, etc). The state believes its own religion "Secularism" is superior. The lines in this simple issue are blurred by the state. So the real problem is not the definition of marriage by the religious, but by the states own religious practice of regulating the religious rights of others.

The civil union is going to be the law of the land. People don't really want to tell others what to do, the state is doing that. The term civil union <> marriage by definition. But by the states redefinition it is =. This is the beginning of the state religion rising to the top. It's evidenced by the strict persecution and removal of Judeo-... Read MoreChristianity in our society today (the ten commandments etc). The state will persecute other religions and proclaim it as the good for all people, etc. But it, like Judeo-Christianity, is made up of men and women, and prone to failure, so its existence is a fallacy too. So what is the solution: keep the definitions as they are. But, I think we this wont happen. We should all then realize that the states church, is but an infant now, but will grow in its power. And after it is strengthened, will actively remove all other religions. The 501 C3's are nearing their death. The state will soon regulate & tax them while it promulgates its own religion.

I'm so proud of you, Amanda. Thanks for standing up and voicing your opinion. I am right here beside you.

My question is this: if the Bible said the color red was illegal, would Christians force people of all religions to stop wearing the color red? That's precisely what's happening with marriage. Why should non-Christian couples be held to a Christian "law" that says marriage is only between a man and a woman?

I am a Christian. However, my stance on gay marriage has very little to do with my Christian faith. Keep in mind there are Christians on both sides of the issue. My Christian faith says adultery is a sin and we have not made adultery illegal.

To me the issue is the redefining of marriage. We have plenty of legal restrictions on marriage. Remember gay marriage is not the only restriction we have on marriage by long shot. I don't want to tear down these restrictions because it makes me feel good and tolerant. I also don't want marriage being named a "Constitution right" for heterosexuals or homosexuals. Marriage is NOT a Constitutional or civil right and shouldn't be labeled that.

Mary - Mario and I actually looked into domestic partnership... but it's only for gays! The irony!

Thank you, Mia! Always love to hear from you.

Andrew- interesting point, my brother.

Here's somethin' I wrote on the subject recently: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=2588

For me marriage is religious in nature. Government should have never stuck their nose into it to begin with. All of these "legal rights" everyone fights for were given by the government. "Marriage" is for a man and a woman. Everything outside of the church sanctioned relationship was given by the governemnt and can be taken away by the government.

Please throw only vegetables I can use for 'getti sauce, since many of you do not agree with me on this. Thanks for listening.

Amanda- what about the "equality" to be given to those who want to marry more than one person?

(My raising the issue of polygamy isn't at all a red herring, as it's been a pretty ubiquitous- and socially destabilizing and ruinous, e.g., look at the Islamic world- practice throughout human history. It's interesting to note here that the founding platform of the Republic Party was its opposition to "the twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery."...)