Reader comments · Video: Indiana official Jim Bopp gets laughed at for saying gay people are ‘intolerant’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Video: Indiana official Jim Bopp gets laughed at for saying gay people are ‘intolerant’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I’ve listened to so many people argue against our equality both in the USA and throughout Europe and if I’m honest, I struggle to understand WTF they are so scared of or even at times what their argument is – other than the bible says so, I need the publicity to further my career with the stupid or the money is good.
    I also don’t understand why in the USA the decision cannot be made to legalise same sex marriage- by those who can at the centre – and that be the end of it. How can a state by state decision argument be doing a country any favours.
    I wonder if the individual states were trying to block any other group having equality they would be allowed to – why are we such a political tool for those seeking power. So many seem to have so much to hide.
    I listen to idiots like this guy and think he’s being paid to talk this sh*t and that’s really disgusting. Hope his kids/family are proud of the business he’s in.

    1. Colin (Queenstown/London) 14 Jan 2014, 8:24pm

      Perfectly put. I so agree
      This goes back to how the USA became one country. The constitution allows for some state independence to protect what were separate states before they united.

      I used to be non plussed about religion. It was a personal conviction. However I now see it’s political. I now hate it in any form. Interesting.

    2. ironic serendipity 15 Jan 2014, 9:06am

      The US does not have a unitary form of government, rather it’s a federal state. Each of the 50 states has their own states constitutions and laws and are autonomous on things like marriage. However the federal system is supreme to all the states and can strike down a state law (in the courts) that’s in violation of the federal constitution (as is the case in Utah and Oklahoma). If this eventually goes to the Supreme Court, any ruling will apply to all the states, as SCOTUS is the final say (except if a federal constitutional amendment were to be ratified banning gay marriage which wouldn’t likely happen now).

      It does look messy and disjointed, but that’s how federalism works as it has the balance the federal system with that of the states as well as ultimately and most importantly individuals’ rights. What is good about the way this is happening is that public opinion is changing exponentially in the last 5 years of so in favour of gay marriage, so there is public buy-in.

      1. Was just reading that it wasn’t until 1967 that SCOTUS stepped in and deemed the interacial sex and marraige bans in the 16 remaining states unconstitutional and not until 2001 that Alabama actually repealed their laws Wow.

  2. Some heterosexuals want to retain special legal privileges because it makes them feel superior to gay people, that’s all this issue is really about.

    1. Hmm, I think the issue may be that spectacularly stupid people are offered the chance to participate in decision making more than perhaps they should be

  3. All I heard was blah, blah, blah bollox. People are going to look back at this in a few years the way we look back at the flat earthists. And the flat earthists didn’t have the luxury of experience to prove them wrong.

    The ‘sky will fall in’ brigade sound daft now, but soon we’ll wonder why they were allowed to be part of the discussion rather than just left to bark at the moon where they belong.

  4. After being around the NYC gay ghetto for years, I’d say he’s correct about a large percentage of gays. Not all, though.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.