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.

 

US Supreme Court to Take on Gay Marriage

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Azdraik
Personally just strike marriage for all and remove it from the gov jurisdiction, also remove any tax bonuses. You should not get a discount on taxes for marriage.

The only thing the gov should do is enforce that a civil union presided by a judge meets all contractual obligations that a marriage would. So items like insurance, work benefits and such would be allowed to both parties whether you call it a marriage or civil union.



That is a different argument.

Right now its about everyone having the same rights.




posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Azdraik
But it is more than just a tax benefit. Would you be willing to give up all of the legal protections that are in a marriage? As much as those who would like this to be just a religious ceremony, have no idea on how much the laws are written to support such. So would you be willing to give up the right to the automatic power of attorney that one has with a spouse?

Or are you on good terms with your in-laws? Mind you that without those legal protections, if your spouse is in the hospital, and with no legal protections, then ultimately, the spouses blood realtitive could come in and over ride what you or your spouse wants.

And then there are the legal protections as well, could you deal with the sword of Democles hanging over your head at all times? There is a legal precedent that is on the books, that states if one spouse is in trouble with the law, the other spouse could not be compelled to testify in a court of law. Remove that and then a DA could arrest the spouse who was not in trouble and force them to testify in court, or go to prison.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Hey I am all for the states recognizing civil unions between people.

But, please stop trying to change the definition of marriage. It has never meant a union of 2 consenting adults, that is a resent fabrication that showed up over the last 20 years or so. It was a word that was derived in the middle ages and has a very easily documented etymological history. Due to the time frame and country where the word originated I have no doubt that the church was involved with is growth and spread.

Leave it to them, there are plenty of other terms that can be used. Stop calling it marriage and you would have less opposition if you ask me.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Guess you missed this part "enforce that a civil union presided by a judge meets all contractual obligations that a marriage would."

So kind of like how it already does, except they cannot deny same sex couples.

In the eyes of the law marriage = civil union. In the eyes of the people fighting against allowing same sex couples marriage = something religions blah blah family whatever.


edit on 4/30/2015 by Azdraik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Azdraik
Hey I am all for the states recognizing civil unions between people.

But, please stop trying to change the definition of marriage.



Please stop trying to make something into what it isn't.



The problem is that most of our assumptions about what marriage was like back in the day are complete bull#.

www.cracked.com...





5 Reasons 'Traditional Marriage' Would Shock Your Ancestors

www.cracked.com...





edit on 30-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Azdraik
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Guess you missed this part "enforce that a civil union presided by a judge meets all contractual obligations that a marriage would."



Except for the fact that is not true.

At least not in America.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Did you just honestly use cracked as a reference? Wow.. next you going to cite articles from the onion?

Look I speak of the historical meaning of the word. I stated make all states recognize same sex civil unions. They recognize heterosexual unions they have no good reason to deny homosexual unions. That legal document is what is needed for every single right the gay movement has been asking for equality on.

And yes civil unions hold weight just fine, my best friend is in a civil union, signed before a judge. For all legal purposes if he were to die or be bedridden in the hospital with no will she has the right to say what is going on not his family. So tell me where in the US do civil unions not grant the same rights?

I am sorry if you fail to see that they are the same but legally they are. Hence my reasoning that if the groups fighting for equal rights state they want the same right to a union under law instead of stating they want the same right to marry they would have many more people supporting them and many less people against them.

Personally I find marriage an antiquated thing and could care less about it. I just do not like seeing people warp the meaning of words to fit an agenda no matter how good the cause is.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Azdraik
a reply to: Annee

Did you just honestly use cracked as a reference? Wow.. next you going to cite articles from the onion?



I've been following this subject for at least 20 years. I know when something isn't bogus.

I just like the way he presents it.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Azdraik

Personally I find marriage an antiquated thing and could care less about it. I just do not like seeing people warp the meaning of words to fit an agenda no matter how good the cause is.


Bull Pucky!

No one uses Traditional Marriage as an argument unless they have belief that only a man and woman can be married.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Well feel free beating your drum for marriage when you should be pressing for civil union, I state simply that you would have more support if you used different words.

But alas as with the words gay and fag another word shall be crushed by mindless mobs.

(yes I know it was not the same sex community who did that do not like it either way)

edit on 4/30/2015 by Azdraik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Azdraik
Well feel free beating your drum for marriage when you should be pressing for civil union, I state simply that you would have more support if you used different words.

But alas as with the words gay and fag another word shall be crushed by mindless mobs.

(yes I know it was not the same sex community who did that do not like it either way)


You certainly do reveal yourself in your postings.

This is about Equal Rights. Everyone having the same Rights. Legal Marriage is what we have. That is what needs to be Equal for everyone.

Legal Marriage is a contract - - plain and simple. What gender enters that contract makes no difference what so ever.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Azdraik
No, I did not miss that. However, what was more interesting were some of the questions that the justices asked to the attorneys.

One of the questions was about the case themselves, where denial could be construed as a form of sexual discrimination. But that was what was not got my attention, but that of Justice Scallia. During the questioning about the second question, there was the point of the 14th admendment, and how it was not realevent in this case. However, as the Justice asked, would such be covered under Article III, where it covers what is legal in one state, in the way of a contract would be upheld and legal in all states.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I think Scalia has always stated the 14th amendment does not apply to gay marriage.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
dp
edit on 30-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

This one?

I don't even try to interpret what they say. So, I read various opinions from people who do seem to know/understand "legalize".



Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

As Joseph F. Whalen, the associate solicitor general from Tennessee, argued the second question, Justice Scalia made what,​ to many,​ was a surprisingly sharp intervention, asking why the traditional requirement that states recognize each others’ actions should not apply.

Joseph F. Whalen - - The Fourteenth Amendment does not require States with traditional marriage laws to recognize marriages from other States between two persons of the same sex.

Justice Antonin Scalia - - What about Article IV? I’m so glad to be able to quote a portion of the Constitution that actually seems to be relevant. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” Now, why doesn’t that apply?

Joseph F. Whalen - - Your Honor, this Court’s cases have made clear that the Court draws a distinction between judgments between States and the laws of each State. And the reason in part that the Court’s decisions have said that is that otherwise, each State would be able to essentially legislate for every other State.

www.nytimes.com...



edit on 30-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I don't know the context of his statement that the 14th doesn't apply, so I can't speak to that, but the 14th DOES apply to the laws of a state, in that those laws must apply to every citizen equally.

It's the Full Faith and Credit Clause that applies to marriage recognition from other states.

So, BOTH sections of the Constitution DO apply to marriage (gay or not), but they each handle different aspects of the marriage law.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azdraik
Hey I am all for the states recognizing civil unions between people.

But, please stop trying to change the definition of marriage. It has never meant a union of 2 consenting adults, that is a resent fabrication that showed up over the last 20 years or so. It was a word that was derived in the middle ages and has a very easily documented etymological history. Due to the time frame and country where the word originated I have no doubt that the church was involved with is growth and spread.

Leave it to them, there are plenty of other terms that can be used. Stop calling it marriage and you would have less opposition if you ask me.



Uh what the hell you smoking? Marriage has existed long before the middle ages.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee
While the 14th may not apply, however Article III would apply to same sex marriage, and I believe that was what Scalia was trying to get at. The point on that is if a couple were married in say New York, and were to move to say Arizona, they are still married in the eyes of the law. And that is the crux of the second question in itself.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

They said it will be mid to late June before we will hear the outcome of this.


Thing I see most that the "against gay marriage" crowd is concerned about is wording that would end up forcing Pastors of churches to conduct same sex weddings against their religious beliefs.

That seems to be the main concern, or the main issue for most.

I'm not sure if that would be a problem or not.. I actually don't see it as a legal issue, but it is perhaps that I am missing something.

I hold the stance that same sex marriages should be legal since marriage became something that had government oversight and government benefit, that it should be open to all people.

Additionally, I believe that religious people should keep their religious marriages completely out of the government, as it is a religious observance for the truly religious and not a matter for any government involvement. I believe in the privatization of marriage, for the religious (only)

edit on 1-5-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Azdraik

If you don't like Cracked, how about this article?

theweek.com...

Point is, the parameters and definition of marriage is whatever a culture makes it. It's never been set in stone. People can be so afraid of change, but in this case - they need to get over it.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join