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.

 

Is this even news? Pa gay marriage ban overturned by Federal courts.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Seriously, is this even news nowadays? It has become plainly obvious that no state can protect its gay marriage ban after the recent Supreme Court ruling. I think they're just going through the motions anymore fighting in court to try to keep them upheld.


Pennsylvania gay marriage ban overturned by judge

Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage was overturned by a federal judge Tuesday in a decision that legalizes same-sex marriage throughout the Northeast.

Jones declined to put his ruling on hold during a potential appeal by the governor's office, which defended the ban in court. The order was therefore expected to go into immediate effect Tuesday, unless Republican Gov. Tom Corbett successfully moved for a stay while he appealed.

State marriage bans have been falling around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. If Jones' decision stands, Pennsylvania would become the 19th state to legalize gay marriage.

Yahoo News

I think the only question that remains is; Will Gov Corbett waste the state's time and money trying to overturn this decision or will he bow out gracefully, having seen which way the wind is blowing across the nation?

Its an election year and he's facing a tough road ahead. He may need to keep up the fight to shore up the party faithful. Then again, he may decide the drop the whole issue to take it out of the election and maybe, fool some folks into thinking he's more progressive than he really is. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.


edit on 5/20/14 by FortAnthem because:




posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
It's probably important to religious bigots and gay rights campaigners, but less of an issue for folk not of those groups.
edit on 20-5-2014 by grainofsand because: Changed 'Christian' to 'religious'



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I tell ya one thing: I will be THRILLED the day that it is truly no longer news that the supreme court upholds equal rights.

It should be a given.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
I tell ya one thing: I will be THRILLED the day that it is truly no longer news that the supreme court upholds equal rights.

It should be a given.


While I support gay and equal rights; I don't really see that a ban on gay marriage is against the Constitution. First of all, every one has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex right now. Secondly, it is a NEW right that allows someone to marry someone of the same sex. I am not saying it isn't a fairness issue or even morally imperative, but I don't think it has anything to do with the constitution (which nevers mentions marriage of any kind to the best of my knowledge) or having an equal right as it is technically a NEW right.

What we actually need is new laws that specify marriage is between two consenting adults. THAT would be the right way to approach this issue rather than using the Constitution. I would ask that before you tear me apart for this opinion you would actually understand what I am saying. Thanks.




posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MetallicusWhat we actually need is new laws that specify marriage is between two consenting adults.

Why two and not three or more?
...just curious how you support two as a number of people solely defining marriage - the man-man woman-woman definition is a NEW right, WHY not the number of people involved...just wondering.

*Edit*
I don't actually give a # what governments or religions define marriage as.

edit on 20-5-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

Agreed. I wait for the day when we look at news headings like this and think "wow, they actually had to fight for this?"



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I fully understand what you are saying. I dont agree, but I fully understand.

The right to marriage is not constitutionally guaranteed at all. Thus, limiting who can and cant get married becomes an equal rights issue.

That said, im with you 100% on the 'consenting adults' provision.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
First of all, every one has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex right now.


Our right to marry is not restricted to marrying someone of the opposite sex. There is no federal definition of marriage. Each state has its own marriage laws. Marriage is a contract available to the citizens of a state. Here is the 14th amendment (in part):



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.


I have bolded the relevant part.

In short, a state cannot make a law that applies to some citizens and deny it to others. States cannot offer the legal contract of marriage to some and not to others. They CAN set limits like age, but they cannot legally offer marriage to white adults but not black adults, or offer it to Christians but not atheists, or offer it to straight people but not gay people.

Each couple defines their own marriage - whether there will be kids or not, whether they will both work, how the kids will be raised, how they will handle conflict, etc. Each couple makes their own rules.



What we actually need is new laws that specify marriage is between two consenting adults.


We don't need any new laws on marriage. We need to abolish the restrictions imposed on it.

Many states already define marriage as:



mar·riage
[ márrij ]

legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners


Done.

edit on 5/20/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join