Two minutes of Marriage Hate from Minnesota August 14, 2012Posted by truthspew in Uncategorized.
Tags: Kalley Yanta, Marriage Minute, Minnesota for Marriage
I’ve blogged on this before:
They have an interesting map in this video. Note the northeast. We are a DIFFERENT country than the rest of the United States. Maybe it’s because we’ve been around for 376 or more years. When the rest of the country is significantly younger.
Let me say it again, I cannot stand the smugness of Kalley Yanta. My rights trump your religious beliefs peaches.
Minnesota Marriage Minute Debunk #28 July 17, 2012Posted by truthspew in Uncategorized.
Tags: Assholes, Bigots, Kalley Yanta, Minnesota Marriage Minute
add a comment
That smug bitch Kalley Yanta starts by outlining what issues children would face if marriage is redefined.
First of all let me state, we are not seeking to redefine marriage. We are seeking to redefine the prerequisites. It simply changes the terms “man and woman” to “spouse and spouse”.
And I find it interesting that the ONLY examples the bigots can bring up are that of the Parkers an the Wirthlins, which is now over 7 years ago. You mean to tell me that they couldn’t find any more examples?
And yes Kalley – you are a bigot. Luckily there’s no legal requirement to call you that.
The bigots are guilty of emotivism – the personal, moral, cultural, or religious emotions the drive their bigotry.
Tags: Animus, Anti-gay, bigotry, Kalley Yanta, Minnesota for Marriage, Minnesota Marriage Minute
1 comment so far
I’ve been watching these inane Minnesota Marriage Minutes for some time and I always find it interesting that the bigots don’t allow you to comment on their YouTube videos. They even disable ratings. It is akin to someone holding their hands over their ears and shouting ‘La la la la la’ in order to not hear something that would cause cognitive dissonance.
But in this case I’ve decided that I will make my comments in the most logical place, my blog. And I know I’ve been lax on tagging posts but you can bet your ass I’ll be certain to tag these appropriately. I want them to be very easy to search out on Google and other engines.
I’ll take it point by point with my responses:
1) First of all they use stock photography : Family with kids, couple no kids, couple no kids, and then just a bunch of kids. You can read a lot into this. First of all they try to make it appear that those are the norm. Of all of the photos, the last one of just kids is the most normal of all without any baggage.
2) Calling Judge Walker’s judgment ‘preposterous’ is interesting. It wasn’t that traditional marriage violates the Federal Constitution, oh no. It was that law violated the constitution, more specifically the BAN of same-sex marriage in California’s Prop 8. And calling into question Walker’s alleged homosexuality is a false flag tactic. I say that because any jurists try and balance a case against the Constitution. And the arguments made against Prop 8 which btw, have been confirmed at the Appellate level, were solid. That’s the thing about law, you have to PROVE you case with facts, not superstition and personal feelings, something our opponents cannot do.Yanta saying it “… may have colored…” is interesting. She’s essentially telling us that this is her OPINION.
3) Yanta tries to bring up a 1972 court case in Minnesota. That it was 40 years ago says it all. 1972 saw the country still being Neanderthal in it’s thinking about gay rights even then. You didn’t have any preponderance of people that were living out and productive lives. For us to live openly took time. As we have done so many people, in fact more than half the average sample population in surveys on marriage equality, have been supportive. She says that no other Federal court has ever reached such a ‘radical’ conclusion. Well yes peaches, that’s because in 1972 you didn’t know a whole lot of gay people. Now you do.
4) She calls Minnesota’s law ‘defining marriage as a man and a woman’ is not only rational but profoundly in the common good’ – that may be so however changing marriage law to be gender free would only ENHANCE marriage not destroy it. She continues to say ‘It is motivated by a sincere and well placed to ensure that children born are known by and cared for by their natural parents. Children need a mother and father” and she goes on to quote the ideal environment for children. This is the standard falsehood spread by the likes of NOM. It is false because what about the unwanted children out there? Would Yanta want them to languish in an orphanage or in state care, rather than let a gay couple adopt and rasise those kids? That right there is the epitome of animus.
5) Yes Ms. Yanta, it is about hatred and animus. You can try to mask it any way you wish but you have animus towar the LGBT community.
So if you don’t want to have yourself called out on your shit, maybe you shouldn’t even make the videos in the first place.