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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

WOW! Unbelievable is right!


"The federal government is trying to act to create moral standards, and that's just not acceptable," Bell said.


I guess he thinks it's the state's job to create moral standards.

Even if it does pass, I don't see how they could enforce it. Fortunately, there is precedent against it.



“This bill is retreading very well-established precedent here. In 1869, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White that no, Texas does may not ignore federal law whenever it wants,” Williams said. “Beyond it ignoring federal law, it would actually punish state employees who follow the law.”


Leave it to Texas... It will be the last hold out.

We'll Defeat the Homosexuals This Time!





Oh, there you go, that will work, well done, boy genius! If the goldarn fedrul gummit (pew pew pew!)* says we gotta change our laws so some ho-mo-Tex-i-can can marry some big city feller name-a Brandon or Derek, not on my watch boy howdy! I’ll make sure I ruint the career and livelihood of any employee who thinks the gummit of the US and A is higher than the laws of Texas and Cecil Bell, Jr.! And oh, now yew gon take me to court? Tricked ya ‘gin, ya wiseass libtard. My bill gets rid-a courts altogether! Can’t sue, can’t do ‘nothin! I’m Cecil. Cecil Bell, Jr. But my momma calls me “Tiny.” You can call me that if you like. “Texas Justice” will be back after these messages!
Read more at wonkette.com...




posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Tunnel vision?

Isn't the government trying to stop certain groups from dictating their moral beliefs on others?



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
The precedent that Mike is proposing is a dangerous one and one that he should hope never comes to pass. If states decide to ignore the US Supreme court ruling on same sex marriage, as he would propose and has suggested, the question would be what is to stop a state from ignoring any and all other rulings done by the the courts if it was something politically unpopular? What if the Us Supreme court rules on something more important, is he willing to deal if a state says, no we do not like that ruling and turn around and ignore the court ruling? How about something like water or energy? What if there is a case that goes before the US Supreme court about such, a dispute between 2 states on the price of such, what then, how would the people react to that? Would they be so wiling to ignore the court rulings then?

There are far reaching consequences that could have serious implications that I do not think that anyone is prepared or ready to deal with. And here is how it can be exploited. If the Justices decide that a marriage does not have to be recognized from different states or even countries, then if a state could look at anyone moving into their state, and proclaiming that marriages from another state or country are no longer valid, and make couples then have to get remarried again. It would allow for men, who decide they no longer want to be married or support a family to simply pick up and leave, get another wife, and use this law to avoid all responsibility, or even break the law and the states could do no thing to stop such. Think about it a man decides to bypass the laws, not get a divorce and simply move to another state and as the state does not have to recognize his marriage, frees him from any sort of divorce proceedings. Further more, a person could use the precedent in the ruling to say negate a business dealings with other people in another state.

If the courts rule that the state government really have no power to regulate marriage, well that opens up a whole new can of worms that I do not think some would want to be in. The first would be divorce, now if the state is no longer in the marriage business, and it is part of the church, then legally a judge could refuse to hear such cases, and it would have to go back to the church to decide if a divorce is granted or not. And it gets better, as it would also mean that the state can now, as the marriage is no longer in the interest of the government, allow for the rights that are entailed in a marriage. Take Bernie Madoff, his wife, by law was not compelled to testify against him, but if the state is no longer allowed to regulate marriages, well that right can go away. And for a person who has wealth, and his family does not like his spouse, well they now have legal standing of stripping the surviving spouse of the assetts in the marriage left to them by the spouse who passed away.

Bell is an idiot and if it passes, my hope is that the LGBT community sues him and all of the legislators who voted for this and the state of Texas to bankrupt it and leave the state, to move to a state of their choosing and live in a lifestyle they can become accustomed to.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
... my hope is that the LGBT community sues him and all of the legislators who voted for this


You made some great points.

Looks like this could prove to be quite a battle. But you know what they say about the battle and the war. If the Texas legislature wages a war against a segment of their citizens (which it appears they are doing), I have a feeling the state will lose badly.

Texas Lawmakers Face Pile of LGBT-related Bills

Seems Texas is dealing with four bills against LGBT citizens of its state, mostly giving the OK to Texas businesses to legally discriminate against them and to prevent any non-discrimination ordinances in the state, whatsoever.



The other three anti-LGBT proposals target municipal nondiscrimination ordinances. Two are resolutions, HJR 55 and SJR 10, that would enshrine a “license to discriminate” against LGBT people in the Texas Constitution. The third, which has not yet been introduced, would prohibit cities from enacting LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances and nullify those that have already been passed.

On the bright side, at least 15 pro-equality measures have been introduced. They range from legislation to repeal Texas’ same-sex marriage bans to bills that would remove the state’s unconstitutional sodomy law from the books.

As the session nears its third week, here’s a rundown of LGBT-related legislation that’s been introduced thus far.


I didn't realize that South Carolina (GOP Rep. Bill Chumley) also has similar bills. Here's what the legal experts have to say:

Pro-Gay, No Pay? No Way!



In one last, pathetic, legislative gasp against marriage equality, lawmakers in South Carolina and Texas have introduced bills that would revoke the salaries of state employees who issue or recognize same-sex marriage licenses.
...
Even though we already knew these bills were unconstitutional, it's still reassuring to hear experts confirm that Bell and Chumney won't be able to deprive any gays of their wedding cake. After all, it's been obvious since our first post about Bell last week that he's a fan of the stuff, and now we've uncovered even more evidence from his Facebook page showing that when it comes to anti-gay wingnuts, he really takes the cake:


Quite a waste of tax-payer's money, if you ask me.
edit on 1/23/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
The really sad part of this entire thing, is that instead of focusing on really big issues that could have a significant impact on the states in a good way and the country, these nut jobs are focusing on the small insignoficant things to give them face time.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Quite honestly I think it is just a matter of time, before it gets accepted.
Homesexuality is slowly becoming more popular and accepted in society (how weird it may sounds).
Besides homosexuality supports the destruction of masculinity in society which is NEEDED in this world desperately.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Undergroundman04
Homesexuality is slowly becoming more popular and accepted in society (how weird it may sounds).


It does sound weird... More "popular"? I can understand and agree that it's becoming more accepted, but how can it become more popular?



Besides homosexuality supports the destruction of masculinity in society which is NEEDED in this world desperately.


Homosexuality doesn't support the destruction of masculinity. Can you explain your statements? Why is the destruction of masculinity needed?

Very confused by your post...



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Undergroundman04
Quite honestly I think it is just a matter of time, before it gets accepted.
Homesexuality is slowly becoming more popular and accepted in society (how weird it may sounds).
Besides homosexuality supports the destruction of masculinity in society which is NEEDED in this world desperately.


Equality, Equal Rights, Acceptance I suppose could be referred to as becoming more popular.

Sexual orientations just are. All of them. You don't usually choose one or the other for reasons of popularity.

How does homosexuality affect anyone, besides the individual?

Personally, I'd say the NEED for macho men no longer exists on a large scale. Society is always changing. Today's requirements are more along the line of intelligence and social skills.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Personally, I'd say the NEED for macho men no longer exists on a large scale.


Ah! I see. Machismo is very different from masculinity to me.



Masculinity (also called manliness or manhood) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with boys and men. Masculinity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological male sex, as both men and women can exhibit masculine traits and behaviors.
...
Machismo is the sense of being macho or "manly," the concept associated with "a strong sense of masculine pride... the supreme valuation of characteristics culturally associated with the masculine and a denigration of characteristics associated with the feminine." It is associated with "a man’s responsibility to provide for, protect, and defend his family."


Both from Wikipedia



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Annee
Personally, I'd say the NEED for macho men no longer exists on a large scale.


Ah! I see. Machismo is very different from masculinity to me.



Masculinity (also called manliness or manhood) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with boys and men. Masculinity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological male sex, as both men and women can exhibit masculine traits and behaviors.
...
Machismo is the sense of being macho or "manly," the concept associated with "a strong sense of masculine pride... the supreme valuation of characteristics culturally associated with the masculine and a denigration of characteristics associated with the feminine." It is associated with "a man’s responsibility to provide for, protect, and defend his family."


Both from Wikipedia



I agree with you.

You know how I reduce to simplicity. Sometimes it just doesn't work.

There are gay men with masculine behaviors. Not all gay men are the stereo type.


edit on 23-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
GO ALABAMA! #37

BREAKING: Federal Judge Strikes Down Alabama Marriage Ban

No stay unless an emergency one is issued.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I pray God bring equality ("love thy neighbour as thyself"). Marriage promotes fidelity (although the possibility of cheating is still there).

Anyway, Liberty and Justice for All.

Peace



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I am surprised that the various state governments have not been paying attention to what all has been going on or how the court has been ruling. In the past, the US Supreme court has been refusing to grant stays or hear challenges when the federal courts have joined and have the same opinion and rulings.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee

I am surprised that the various state governments have not been paying attention to what all has been going on or how the court has been ruling. In the past, the US Supreme court has been refusing to grant stays or hear challenges when the federal courts have joined and have the same opinion and rulings.


It's a process.

It sux they spend tax money to fight the inevitable. But, it is their right in the process of law.

The latest:



With Stay Denied, Alabama Couples Could Marry Next Week
Unless the U.S. Supreme Court grants the state's request for a stay, same-sex couples in Alabama can start marrying February 9.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals this morning rejected a request from Alabama to extend a hold placed on a federal ruling that would establish marriage equality in the state, leaving Republican leadership with only one option to delay the arrival of the freedom to marry. www.advocate.com...



edit on 3-2-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No, they do not have to take this up to the next level, they can abide by the decision and wait. But they choose not to wait, rather seeking to stop what has been determined by a lower court as a right. And what they do not realize is that the US Supreme court can neither grant anything where it comes to same sex marriage at this time frame, as to do such would make questions on how unbiased the court really is. So that means the request for a stay will be denied, and they will not hear any more petitions on any same sex marriage cases until after the one in April, and then 2 months later the country, and the entire world will be watching and listening to the decision that the court puts out, including the opinions and discents that the court has done.

I would hazard that the Justices have already had their clerks working overtime on this, getting all of the relevant documents and laws out where it comes to marriage, thus starting of their opinions. And the different laws and decisions that will sway them.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
the whole marriage thing is stupid, only if a poor gay, or an immigrant (mostly asiatics) finds a stupid old man with lots of bucks and they want to get all his wealth. Thats the only reason to justify official marriage between gay couples. I lived for a couple of years in the UK and it was a hype at that time, lots of eastern immigrants, move over the UK and find wealthy old men, divorce them if they were married, flee in eastern countries and take all the bucks. I heard a couple of incidents from other people, while I stayed there.

So plz all of you, justify me why you want to get officially married with same sex. Even if I dont care and support peoples choices in their personal lives, whatever this choices are (except extreme things abnormal), I consider gay marriage as an extra tool of corruption.

Let me tell you a story in ancient Hellas (greece for u) couples, not gay couples, had to marry because it was a society thing, not because they had to. People get married mainly because

1) to make children
2) their children to take care of them when they grow up and become elders.
3) and for the bucks, heritage

and let me tell you a different story from the same period of time. In ancient years and in my language they used the word "Kynaidos" for gay people and it was a disgrace, bad thing..

but if we read some ancient texts for what actually kynaidos is, is the licentious humans, not gay.

There is a very famous story for a court/trial in ancient Athens against Timarchus, they accused him with the title of Kynaidos (licentious) and they removed all his rights, to vote, to be elected, to work, everything because he lived in ahouse with a lover and at nights he visited other homes, with other lovers for money and his boyfriend reported him! About 20 men, I cant remember the names. Athens was a monogamy constitution and very cruel some times if you had licentious behaviors, you could even be accused to death.

Today some conservative people, purposely mistranslate the meaning of this story, just to accuse gay people, as a standalone meaning (ur gay? ur kynaidos). But if you read this little story, they didnt call in the court the 20 or 30 men Tirmarchos was having fun with, or his boyfriend, but Timarchos alone. My point for this story is, today we see gay people or many other group of people, with licentious behaviors. gay prides, nude prides, porno prides, walk with bicycle naked, riot naked, etc, etc...media, beauty stuff for men or men who shave them selves to be like twinks... lol all these are licentious behaviors - Kynaidies. This is corruption we live on today.

if you love your partner, you can make a symbolic marriage in your home, doesnt have to be official. Official marriage is about interest, about someone's wealth and I am against it. Because, we live in a society, that if a man or a woman have a family with kids, but this man/woman is a ba$#@d and abandon his/her family for a teen and get married with and this teen take all the money out of him or her and take all his/her wealth. The structure of this society today, will never support his prev family and the kids he/she had, will be the victims out of it.

for that alone I am against it, because I ve seen it. Some western countries have very conservative way of life, medieval, so many gay men or women get married with the oposite sex because they are forced to, now if this societies allow same sex marriege, it will explode. So yes, you should think before you act, because at the end, you will have to face the consequences of your actions and bad decisions.

If our ancients find a way to travel in time and in today age, they would commit suicide.

You should protect the meaning of family, especially at this time, that they try to destroy the meaning of nations and open borders, so 3rd world invades the wealthy societies and destroies everything and there is nothing you can do about it, because of "human rights" is it.. It will destroy everything. There are many countries very antigay and many countries who have lots of freedom and things that not even str8 people have. But they keep asking more and more and more, its not a balanced society - not healthy.

@am dyslexic.
edit on 4-2-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Ploutonas

Why someone chooses to marry is no one else's business.

What matters is everyone has the same right of choice.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ploutonas
So plz all of you, justify me why you want to get officially married with same sex.


Do you ask the same of straight couples? I am a woman married for 22 years to a man. We don't (and can't) have children and don't need money from each other... Now, what's my justification for getting married and why is it ANY of your business?


People get married mainly because

1) to make children
2) their children to take care of them when they grow up and become elders.
3) and for the bucks, heritage


Again, none of that has any relation to why I married.



if you love your partner, you can make a symbolic marriage in your home, doesnt have to be official.


They CAN, but they can also get legally married, just as I did. What's the problem with it?



Official marriage is about interest, about someone's wealth and I am against it.


Maybe marriage is about wealth TO YOU, but that has NOTHING to do with my marriage. And if you are against marriage, don't get married. Who do you think you are telling others they can't get married unless they justify it to you?



now if this societies allow same sex marriege, it will explode.


What is going to explode, now? Have things "exploded" in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay? Because gay marriage is legal there. And it's legal most places in the US.



There are many countries very antigay and many countries who have lots of freedom and things that not even str8 people have.


May I suggest you relocate to one of those countries? I'm sure you'd be much more comfortable there, where only SOME people have freedom. Me? I'll stay here in the US, where the founding documents hold freedom for ALL in high esteem.
edit on 2/5/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Ploutonas
Having read your posting the following can be said:

With any marriage, there is always going to be those who are gold diggers. They marry a rich spouse, and then end up divorcing said spouse and asking for a large sum of money. And most of the time they get it as part of the settlement and divorce proceedings. Or they rob their spouse blind and leave them in the dark, or they kill their spouse for the inheritance. This is nothing new, it has happened long before gay marriage started or happened.

Your argument about marriage makes no sense and does not stand up to reason.
1) To make children. By that argument, then people who are incapable of having children, such as the elderly or the infertile, that would make their marriage invalid. And what about all of the unwed mothers, or the baby mamma’s out there, that hook up with different men, having children and yet having no husband around to help raise the children. Too many times this is happening more and more, or the couple gets married, have a child and then split, the child is left in the middle between 2 parents, dealing with that mess. Children are no longer an excuse to get married.
2) Children grow up to take care of their parents. Well that is no longer valid, if it was then why all of the retirement homes, nursing facilities and other places where the older generation tends to end up, rather than staying at home and having their families take care of them. And what is worse, is that with the modern day and the diseases, the reality is that families can no longer take care of their elderly parents, as it is to much. Have you ever seen the effects on a family that is watching their loved one dying from a disease like cancer or say Alzheimers? The facts are that most family who end up caring for a loved one, often ends up sick or worse from the constant care that they give, and it is a thankless job, often exhausting all in the family and all resources.
What wealth are you talking about? Many who have wealth, do not share it, and their children are often limited on what they can get access to or have. And those who do have access to it, do such from say a trust fund or other means where it is slow and does not pay out in one lump sum, due to the taxes that are often associated with such. And what wealth there is, often is spent in taking care of the elderly parent who needs more and more in the way of care and staffing.

And those with wealth are not so willing to give such up, prenuptial agreements still exist, and are often used to prevent divorce and stopping of getting married and then losing it in a divorce settlement.

So being that as it may, what is a marriage, but 2 consenting adults who love each other, share with each other and ultimately want to be together, having the same legal rights as all others who are in the same kind of relationship under the same contract.

And here is a few things that you are not mentioning and it should be:

There have been studies conducted and it seems that most marriages, on the average last: 13.6 years.
Those who divorce are more likely to do such in the next marriages, the percentage goes up more and more with every relationship after the first one has ended.
There are a lot of programs and news events that point out more divorces than those marriages that go on for more than 20 years.
When someone famous or rich divorces it makes news.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

1) You see? Gluten, vaccines, chemtrails dont let people think... In you first question and second answer, you should first understand that this was the constitution of ancient Athens. This was the bases, WHY athenians should get married.

In ancient years, it was a obligation to the progenies, to care for the parents when they get old, it was an obligation for young couples to get married for the name and heritage. And lets add the today society, if someone gets a divorce and re-marry, while he or she abandoned their previews family. The system will do nothing to protect the children they left behind and their feature. It was also an obligation to be loyal to their lovers forever if possible and never cheat because it was punishable even by death.

It was a healthy system that protected family. Today, they do whatever they can to destroy family.

I gave you all this stories, for the reason to justify my denial to your more and more needs and the reason " I believe its a tool of corruption" - an extra tool. Because youth cannot find easily jobs in nowadays and elders feed their children till they die.

1) Today we have agenda 21 with the message " I lived a good life" lol lol lol - so you dont have to live any more is it.
2) children cannot care of their parents even if they want to...
3) now lets destroy the last part of it...

its vise verse...
edit on 5-2-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join