gavin6942
An indictment of closeted politicians who lobby for anti-gay legislation in the United States.I found something missing here, though I am not sure what. I feel like there was some muckraking going on, but the film never completely raked the muck -- there was still something more they could have done. For one thing, they never really touched the religion connection -- perhaps a gay man is in the closet to try to appease what he sees as God's wishes? Most interesting is viewing the 2009 film from a 2013 vantage point. Here we have the Republicans pushing for a same-sex marriage ban through a federal amendment. Four years later, we have same-sex marriage spreading to more states and even Rush Limbaugh saying the conservatives have lost the issue. What was seemingly impossible a decade ago is almost common sense now. And what this film shows is a step in that path we have taken as a country.
filmalamosa
This movie made me really angry. It is a partisan attack on republicans who happen to be gay. Where is Bill Clinton in all this the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act? No where, but poor old Bush is made to be the devil incarnate. The documentary is so biased it made me sick.I am a conservative republican who happens to be gay. I vote for politicians I think will help promote the economy and make the country stronger and wealthier...if they have to pirouette on issues like gay marriage to get elected it does not matter to me. If you extend the logic of this documentary to its ultimate conclusion, I myself am some sort of dysfunctional cognitively dissonant closet case for voting for republicans. I am apparently only allowed to vote for people with pro gay rights agendas and records irregardless of whatever else they stand for and have accomplished in their careers. These people like Michael Rogers running around like gossipy old maids exposing gay republicans are the ones who are morally compromised. What right do they have to ruin these men's careers? The mind set of this documentary is the sort of thing that gives gays a bad name and sets us back. They should also remember when attacking these politicians that these politicians are supporting their constituencies norm; they are not actively seeking out novel ways to harm gays. 99.99% of their legislation does not involve gay issues. The end result of Roger's crusade will be to get people in those elected posts who truly have zero sympathy for gay issues. It is wrong from every angle.Apparently this country will be a paradise if only the Congress was filled with Barney Franks---now there is a real nightmare.
pthornton-2
Most of the comments left previously do not address the actual legal aspects of this. The worst offender is lady moon.The Constitution of the U.S. guarantees each and every one of us Freedom of (and FROM) religion. The separation of Church and State is VERY important in this issue. The word "marriage" is semantics, yet it is the most commonly used term world-wide and that is why advocates use it in attempting to secure the rights they were born with but are being denied.It is organized religion which is fighting this tooth and nail. Yet it is not organized religion which issues "marriage" licenses; It is states, counties, and cities. States who have changed their constitutions denying same-sex marriage will eventually lose this fight because it it is unconstitutional (at the Federal level) to deny any group the same rights as others.Granting same-sex couples the right to marry will in no way affect organized religion. Why? Because of their right to practice their religion(s) without government interference; "The Freedom of religion" will protect them, which is as it should be.Additionally, saying those rights are available through various legal avenues is ridiculous! Does a heterosexual couple have to pay (as much as) $60,000.00 to secure only SOME of the rights? No.And I'm not gay - I have been happily married to the same woman for over 20 years. I just happen to believe that denying a segment of society the same rights that others enjoy is wrong. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, just as was the case for inter-racial marriages until 1967, it is going to take the US Supreme Court to guarantee those rights.
scope_72
Here is a much better logistical argument.1.The government is involved in marriage. 2.All adult citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal protection under law.3.Therefore, the government has two choices.A.Not be involved with marriage at all -OR- B.Treat all adult citizens equallyThis whole debate is not complicated guys. So if you do not like the idea of gay marriage get used to it, because the authors of the constitution laid down the groundwork for this centuries ago.p.s. as for your "slippery slope" theory about people one day marrying their pets, it should first be noted that a pet does not have a choice in the matter so it would not be able to be defined as marriage. The pet would not even know that it had been married. In other words, that part of your comments is laughable, and can be construed as very rude. Very similar to a comment like this, "I mean, why would anyone be religious, thats just left over tradition from cavemen." Don't be inconsiderate of others please.
AD
