It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Strikes Down Idaho Same-Sex Marriage Ban - Yahoo! News

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Freenrgy2

One answer to your "query" can be made by simply replacing each of your references to the word "gay" or "gays" with the words "American citizen" or "American citizens."

I think that will make both the general issue and the issue you seem to be having quite clear.

You see, no one deserves anything BECAUSE of their sexual orientation, but BECAUSE of their natural rights as human beings and BECAUSE of their civil rights as American citizens.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.




posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

If you don't know, then you don't know the bible.

"God hates fags" is widely used by the Westboro nuts, and I flatly deny any resemblance to them through your assertion.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

So there you go, they have rights, they have equality....so why marriage. Why THAT WORD. WHY THAT CEREMONY. WHAT DOES IT GIVE THEM? Does it somehow make it all spiritually nice? Does it mean that by doing this that they are trying to convince people that it is condoned religiously (i.e. God condones)?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Freenrgy2

Oh I do I want you to show me the actual quotes from the bible...which book etc.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Freenrgy2

I have shown you how it is mot equal already.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Freenrgy2

You made the claim btw so back it up please...show me.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Freenrgy2

You made the claim btw so back it up please...show me.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Hey Beez, missed you on the show last night, be sure to listen to the repeat when it's posted, I think you'll have a laugh or three.


I think that the more we accept same-sex weddings, the less we'll hear from this very vocal minority on any given subject and we can return our focus on issues that actually have an impact on all of us.

I think that you're mistaken on this, because this "issue" is rooted in an agenda. I'm not sure what the real root of this agenda is, but it's not a matter of "let the gays have a marriage certificate and all is right with the world" -- as you and I have discussed before, we've seen that once this right is granted, those who receive it do not hesitate to immediately encroach on the rights of others, suing cake bakers, wedding photographers, and anyone who thinks differently, and the courts are happy to go along with it and say "if you don't believe what we want you to believe, there are some jobs that you are not allowed to hold."

That isn't some nutter prediction about the future, that is something that has happened, multiple times, in multiple states. The government is mandating a moral belief, and dissent is punished by economic repression.

And what people who are cheering all of this along fail to realize is that it WILL come back to bite them in the butt, because once precedent has been set that the government can dictate beliefs, their own personal position is left to the whim of whatever administration is in power, or whatever single judge happens to hold sway over the issue.

We've gone from absolute rights, bestowed on all men by their creator, to subjective rights, bestowed on various groups by legislating judges.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: Aleister

So there you go, they have rights, they have equality....so why marriage. Why THAT WORD. WHY THAT CEREMONY. WHAT DOES IT GIVE THEM? Does it somehow make it all spiritually nice? Does it mean that by doing this that they are trying to convince people that it is condoned religiously (i.e. God condones)?


A strange question. Why does anyone want to get married? If they love each other, go for it. And you do know no law in the U.S. can force a religion to marry anyone, these are all marriages before a judge or a mayor. I personally think that the gays have it worse by having marriage given them - it puts that weird pressure on a relationship that straights have had to endure. And then there's the question of the in-laws.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

This is spot on. Christian business owners were being selectively targeted by those seeking a same-sex wedding; knowing full well that the business owner's services would be denied to the couple. This places Christian business owners in a no win situation. They follow their beliefs and deny service, or they deny their belief and provide service. When the obvious happens, their livelihoods and personal lives were destroyed by the courts.

Therein lies the agenda. It's not just about equality. It's about the complete and utter suppression and destruction of those whom speak against them.


I wonder what would happen if a person went into an establishment that supported same-sex marriage, or was owned by a same-sex couple, and asked for services that went against their beliefs.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

I don't believe the government is dictating what can or can not be believed. You can believe that blacks are the scourge of the earth -- but you cannot lynch every black you see because of that belief. You won't be arrested or fined for simply having that belief (KKK for example), but you WILL be arrested for lynching a black person.

You can believe that gay marriage is wrong, but you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to someone simply because they are gay. Believe what you want, but act according to the rules in our society.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

There are 2 separate issues here.

1.) Should same-sex marriage be allowed?

2.) The current societal (PC) meme of; not only do you have to accept something, you have to endorse it/like it/applaud it as well.

To issues #1, as previously stated, I don't see a problem with this. It's all about equality for everyone.

To issue #2, however, this smacks of social engineering and goes far beyond same-sex marriage and it invasive of every aspect of our culture and society.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
Yet another example of one person thinking that they know how people should behave, rather than the majority of voters in the state, who just had their voice overruled.


This country is not run by "majority rule". A majority cannot deny rights to the minority. ALL of us have equal rights. Just because the majority might want blacks to sit at the back of the bus does not mean it should be a law.



The Founders believed in natural rights theory, which holds that rights come from nature or from God, and cannot justly be taken away without consent. Therefore, the majority has no legitimate power to vote away or otherwise abridge the natural rights of political, ethnic, religious, or other minorities.


Bill of Rights Institute



Anyone who sees this as a victory for anything other than the government mandating beliefs needs to think through how they'd feel if the opposite had happened


This has nothing to do with beliefs. You can believe whatever you want.


Legislating judges should be impeached. They're supposed to interpret the law, not create it.


The law is already created. See the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. A state banning gay marriage is a violation of federal law.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv


You can believe that gay marriage is wrong, but you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to someone simply because they are gay.

That isn't what happened. In the case of the wedding photographer, for example, she didn't refuse to serve someone because they were gay, she refused to take pictures of a ceremony. She told the woman that she'd be happy to photograph her and her partner, she just couldn't, in good conscience, take pictures of their ceremony. If she discriminated against anything, it was a ceremony, not a person.

But she got sued, and the court said that if she refused to set aside her objections to gay marriage, she could no longer be a wedding photographer.

Think like us, or we'll ruin you. It amazes me that people fail to see what's going on here.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


A state banning gay marriage is a violation of federal law.

What Federal law? Did Congress pass a gay marriage bill recently that I missed?

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a right to be married?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Marriage laws are State and local laws.

State and local laws are either compliant with the Fourteenth Amendment, or they aren't and are unconstitutional.

The judiciary is (once more) waking up to the fact that laws that create a separate class of citizen are unconstitutional no matter how many people vote for them.

It's not judicial "legislation" ... it's the rule of law over the tyranny of the majority.

The question is also entirely separate from the questions of public accommodation being mixed in as red herring.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
What Federal law?


The US Constitution, fourteenth amendment. The STATE cannot make a law that treats it's citizens differently.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.




Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a right to be married?


It doesn't. But it does say that the state cannot make or enforce a law that denies equal protection of the laws.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: Aleister

So there you go, they have rights, they have equality....so why marriage. Why THAT WORD. WHY THAT CEREMONY. WHAT DOES IT GIVE THEM? Does it somehow make it all spiritually nice? Does it mean that by doing this that they are trying to convince people that it is condoned religiously (i.e. God condones)?


Because marriage isn't just a purely Christian institution. The Christians allowed it to be absorbed by the state so that the state can pass out benefits to married couples over single couples, like tax breaks for dual filing and stuff. Therefore, since it is now part of the state, it needs to be recognized as a secular concept because of separation of church and state. Therefore if a guy and a girl are allowed to marry it is not right to prohibit a guy and a guy or a girl and a girl from marrying to receive the same benefits as a guy and girl marrying.

If Christians want marriage back and for it to be a religious event again, they need to lobby to have it decoupled from the state and the state shouldn't be sanctioning marriages anymore. So if the state is involved, anyone can get married to anyone (secular) if it isn't involved, Christians can decide the rules (religious). You can't have it both ways.

Also, Christians aren't the sole owners of marriage. Marriage predates Christianity and not to mention every culture in the world practices some form of marriage. Christians trying to claim that marriage is a Christian thing is a lie and misrepresenting the truth.
edit on 15-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


The judiciary is (once more) waking up to the fact that laws that create a separate class of citizen are unconstitutional no matter how many people vote for them.

So, are you going to fight for the cause of the polygamists when they complain that they can't marry two people that they are in love with? If it is prejudicial to say that marriage is one man and one woman, it's just as prejudicial to say that it's only two people.

This is not some grand "waking up", this is is a handful of liberal judges that have personally decided that not being able to be married has somehow created a "separate class of citizen", as if marriage is the thing that defines a person, and overruled properly passed state law.


edit on 15-5-2014 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
Why THAT WORD. WHY THAT CEREMONY. WHAT DOES IT GIVE THEM? Does it somehow make it all spiritually nice? Does it mean that by doing this that they are trying to convince people that it is condoned religiously (i.e. God condones)?


My husband and I are atheist. We're certainly not trying to convince people of anything, let alone that our relationship is condoned by something we don't even believe exists...

To answer why, each couple has their reason for wanting to marry. I'm sure mine are different from yours. So, to answer your question of "why", I'd say it's really no concern of yours. What's important is equal treatment under the LAW, not the church.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join