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.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas signals that gay marriage will be law of the land

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

reality would be a civil union agreement that has the same perks as marriage but could be extended to anyone who wanted it regardless of sex or relationship status.

even two bums on the street could move in and then prosper easier by having those same rights.

The debate should not be about marriage at all but about extending those tax breaks and such to as many as possible.

marriage was only put in as a racist tool and should be removed

origionally it was never adressed in the constitution and was left up to the state

things like insurance companies and such now give us a need for a federal civil union law but not a faderal marriage law

cover more people not just sexers




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   


The reaction of many. (See above)

I hope it passes and this can be settled.


And then we can go back to the business of destroying the US with draconian laws and fewer freedoms.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Even I have higher hopes for the 114th Congress than that.

Although, almost six weeks in and ... nothing yet.

/sigh

#sameasiteverwas



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: GV1997

THE issue is irrelivent JUST get hitched.
WE have issues requiring ALL of our attentions right now OF COURSE it's legal to marry as you want.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Tell me where the logic is in a business saying if your sexual acts are contractually bound by the government then i can give you a break or discount.

Gov. needs to get out of the bedroom and focus on people struggling on making ends meet.

A civil union would simply recognize the people uniting together as a unit and have no regard in sexual preference or love or lack of either.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I don't think any homo or heterosexual person would wish to be married in a church who was forced to marry them. They're likely safe.

a reply to: sdubya



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Yeah and the Christian marriage people would look down on them saying "Well they arn't really married".
No it's Marriage for all or none.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

I'll bet that many people (say just on ats) would think that I would be homophobic-but I always knew (at least after the 4th grade)that people love who or whatever they want to love.

Good friends of mine have come out about being gay or lesbian in their mid twenties,thirties-and told me how messed up it was having to pretend to be straight because "my parents are religious and they would die if they found out" or "I was scared of being labeled a freak by everyone at school" etc..

There should be no reason for gay marriage to be illegal in the first place-just hundreds,thousands of years of religious bigotry.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
It's about time....

Why should gays be exempt from the misery and pain married hetero couples suffer.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
About time... why we ever drag ourselves through these decades long equal rights issues is freaking beyond me. One weight off our collective shoulders.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
About time... why we ever drag ourselves through these decades long equal rights issues is freaking beyond me. One weight off our collective shoulders.


There's something about majority support.

Whenever there's a social change, the idea is to get the majority of citizens to support it, by slowly introducing the idea, then moving in increments toward acceptance, before making it law.

I don't think there's anything official (in writing), it's just kind of how it's done.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I get that, it's just not supposed to be that way... so sad that it is.

The thing is, the minority never gives up. How can they? So it turns into decades of bitterness and fighting a growing tide. It just seems so pointless to me.
edit on 2/9/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Tell me where the logic is in a business saying if your sexual acts are contractually bound by the government then i can give you a break or discount.

Gov. needs to get out of the bedroom and focus on people struggling on making ends meet.

A civil union would simply recognize the people uniting together as a unit and have no regard in sexual preference or love or lack of either.


We've already had this discussion in another thread.

How many pages did it take for you to clearly state ---- you believe marriage belongs to religion/God?

So, let's start there, instead of talking all around it.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Annee

I get that, it's just not supposed to be that way... so sad that it is.

The thing is, the minority never gives up. How can they? So it turns into decades of bitterness and fighting a growing tide. It just seems so pointless to me.


Me too.

And it's pretty much all because of religion. Just a fact.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdubya
What part of the constitution are they using as a basis for overturning? I forget...


There hasn't been a decision yet, but I suspect it will be the 14th amendment. Basically, a state cannot make laws that deny equal protection of the law to all citizens of the state.



Next they will be forcing churches to perform the ceremonies. In my opinion, separation of church and state works both ways.


You're right. Separation works both ways and no one can force churches to marry anyone.



What do you guys think? Do you think that each state should get to decide? What about "full faith and credit"?


States shouldn't be able to violate the 14th amendment. And full faith and credit will apply, just as it does for marriage today.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I just had to stick this somewhere.



“You gotta look at the financial aspect of this as well,” State Sen. Del Marsh (R) told radio host Dale Jackson last week. “Let’s face it. If gay marriage is approved, I assume that those types of unions, those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance. Where does it end?”


thinkprogress.org...


edit on 9-2-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: deadeyedick



Yeah and the Christian marriage people would look down on them saying "Well they arn't really married".

No it's Marriage for all or none.


Thank you for the honesty in admitting this is not about helping people but it is just part of the mental war that goes on between two groups.

I really had hopes that even though i have a certain post history that many could take the high road with me and help more people by removing the topic of gov. approaved sex from the benefits debate.

Heck i even notice another member posting comments from a politician highlighting some of the rights view about extending benefits like ss to others.

Surely you can see that my position here is not represenative of either the right,left or religion but it is about actually making a big difference when faced with the choice.

How about let's leave the war between the two groups and start to make corporations and gov. work for more people by removing marriage and replacing with civil union that is federally recognized to have the rights that federal marriage did.
edit on 9-2-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yes i believe that marriage is a matter of love that is better represented by organizations that are not gov.

I believe that coroporate and government benefits for parternering together regardless of sex should be a matter of the gov and does not have to reflect love or sex to accuire those benefits.

A federal civil union will allow groups and gov. to extend benefits to more people than a marriage act ever could.

There are plenty of churches and other groups that will gladly marry two same sex people so that debate will take on a life of it's own outside of benefits packages based on the federal cival union.

think real hard about what i am saying and drop the war annd you may see the beauty



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




How about let's leave the war between the two groups and start to make corporations and gov. work for more people by removing marriage and replacing with civil union that is federally recognized to have the rights that federal marriage did.


Have you realized that what you are proposing would mean that the government could not recognize marriages?

Make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

People could still get married but it would only be worth bragging rights, if they wanted any type of benefits they would have to apply for a civil union. There is no seperate but equal there is only equal or not equal.

You understand all of that correct?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Many states do not permit it. How can you just get hitched if your state is telling you it's illegal?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join