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.

 

If the SCOTUS decides to legalize gay marriage, will the states secede?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Oops. Meant secede. I will edit it since you all can't look past it.




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
What about the pure stupidity of the idea of a state leaving just because two people want to get married. ObamaCare, NSA, Taxes, regulations, Education mandates....but none those issues are important enough to leave...but whoa! The wrong two people want to get married and....



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: stellawayten
Supreme Court to Hear Argument about fay marriage today.

If the supreme court decides to legalize gay marriage for the whole USA I think the state I live in (Texas) will fight it. I'm not sure what they would be able to do about it besides try to secede From the union. I predict this will cause a HUGE uproar if they legalize it. What says you???


Nope. Some people will bitch about it for a while and then it will fade off as more important things take precedent.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: stellawayten

Well, first of all, no.

Civil unions are fine as long as all of the legal privileges and punishments are maintained.

There is no need to call it "marriage", to repeatedly insist upon calling it "marriage" collapses the entire logical argument and makes it seem like an attack on religion.

In the end, the reason it won't occur at the federal level is because the DOJ won't allow spousal privilege to be expanded so the word "marriage" itself is actually off the table for legal purposes anyway.


This is incorrect. And not only is it incorrect, but it has been incorrect for over a year now.

U.S. Justice Department to expand rights of same-sex couples


The changes, being unveiled by Holder in a speech on Saturday in New York, are designed to keep pushing for gay rights in the United States after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year said the federal government cannot refuse to recognize same-sex marriages carried out in states that allow them.

Gay marriage is permitted in only 17 of the 50 U.S. states, as well as the District of Columbia.

U.S. law has long included a "spousal privilege" that protects communications between a husband and wife so that they cannot be forced to incriminate one another in court.

In addition to extending the privilege to same-sex couples in situations involving the Justice Department, Holder said he plans to put same-sex couples on the same legal footing as opposite-sex couples in other areas, including how certain debts are handled in federal bankruptcy proceedings and visitation policies at federal prisons.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

I didn't say I was for or against gay marriage. I said most people I know are against it.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

It is a bit ironic that many of the Red states are also the most dependent of US government handouts.

I just have to laugh at how the people continually vote against their interests and get all roused up of minor issues and ignore bigger one. I have to laugh, otherwise I would go insane from the madness of our politics.

a reply to: stellawayten

Way to appeal the fallacy of your anecdotal evidence. Just because you perceive that most oppose gay marriage does not make it true, nor it it evidence that it is true.


edit on 28-4-2015 by jrod because: add reply



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

It's not about gay marriage. It's about state rights. Just like the civil war.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting, though Holder is out the torch may be passed but, I wouldn't hold your breath.



Perkins noted that while the Supreme Court last year required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow them, the justices were "conspicuously silent on the status of such couples when they reside in a state which considers them unmarried."


It also doesn't address the primary concern of any religious folks who hold the word to mean a particular thing.

If it is the recognition of rights that is desired, then the terminology is at best secondary is it not?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: stellawayten

Here is the official White House response to a State's right to secede.

We already have a civil war being fought in the US.

Ever heard of the War on Drugs?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
*sigh*

And on top of all the other reasons why a state won't break away, I thought any state that decides to secede has to pay it's portion of the national debt back to the Feds?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tallcool1
The title say "succeed", so I was wondering what you were asking about what states success would be - but I see that you meant "secede" to which I would say - it's the state's right to secede (or at least it used to be), but why would you secede over legalizing gay marriage? I may lean a little to the right, but I don't understand why we as a country would have any argument against two adults loving each other and enjoying the same benefits and pitfalls of being married.


The title says secede.


If the SCOTUS decides to legalize gay marriage, will the states secede?


Two adults loving each other...that is the basis for your argument for marriage? Two people can love each other and never get married.

You can't change a 10,000 year old definition to accommodate a current popular culture idea that might change in 100 years.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting, though Holder is out the torch may be passed but, I wouldn't hold your breath.


That article was from February of last year, so it was before he posted his resignation. I'd think that since then nothing has changed. I also wouldn't expect Yellen to change that status much either.


It also doesn't address the primary concern of any religious folks who hold the word to mean a particular thing.


Why is that important? Marriage is a government issued privilege now. The only connection it has with religion is how your particular religion celebrates and honors it.


If it is the recognition of rights that is desired, then the terminology is at best secondary is it not?


No. Calling it a civil union is the same argument used for Segregation. Separate, but equal. Yet, we all know how that turned out.

For instance, any changes to the way the government handles marriage would HAVE to be reflected on civil unions as well, otherwise its no longer equal. Except that doesn't usually happen in practice. States will specifically target civil unions with restrictions or specifically target marriages with benefits while leaving the other institution out of the bills. We've seen it in the past, and we can be assured it will happen again. If we want to side step that nightmare, JUST call it marriage and say to hell with the Christians crying about their definition of marriage. They don't own it anyways.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
*sigh*

And on top of all the other reasons why a state won't break away, I thought any state that decides to secede has to pay it's portion of the national debt back to the Feds?


I would agree with that if the federal government first settled up with them for their entire populations direct income taxes to the IRS since the inception of the accumulated debt, quid pro quo.

That way, if the state really did cost the federal government more than it received the number would be well established and fair, however small or large. The opposite would be true as well, if the citizens of a state have been paying in more than they have received, they get a refund.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: stellawayten
a reply to: amazing

It's not about gay marriage. It's about state rights. Just like the civil war.


Ha. NO, the civil war was about Slavery. Freedom for humans trumps states rights every time.

I'll be fair, and say that states rights was a minor issue that led to the civil war, just as were some social and economic issues, but mainly it was about slavery and the growing Abolition Movement and issues like Kansas and the fight over whether that would be a pro or anti slave state and then Abraham Lincoln. South Carolina left the Union because they knew he was anti slavery and South Carolina was one of the big catalists. Lot's of issues but Slavery was front and center.
edit on 28-4-2015 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting, though Holder is out the torch may be passed but, I wouldn't hold your breath.


That article was from February of last year, so it was before he posted his resignation. I'd think that since then nothing has changed. I also wouldn't expect Yellen to change that status much either.


It also doesn't address the primary concern of any religious folks who hold the word to mean a particular thing.


Why is that important? Marriage is a government issued privilege now. The only connection it has with religion is how your particular religion celebrates and honors it.


If it is the recognition of rights that is desired, then the terminology is at best secondary is it not?


No. Calling it a civil union is the same argument used for Segregation. Separate, but equal. Yet, we all know how that turned out.

For instance, any changes to the way the government handles marriage would HAVE to be reflected on civil unions as well, otherwise its no longer equal. Except that doesn't usually happen in practice. States will specifically target civil unions with restrictions or specifically target marriages with benefits while leaving the other institution out of the bills. We've seen it in the past, and we can be assured it will happen again. If we want to side step that nightmare, JUST call it marriage and say to hell with the Christians crying about their definition of marriage. They don't own it anyways.


You are sort of proving my point, to insist on a preexisting term which has significant religious connotations could only be interpreted as an unnecessary intentional slight.

I personally don't believe in marriage at all as a legal construct but, the term is undeniably associated with a very specific set of circumstances. As I said, as long as all of the privileges and punishments are maintained, civil unions are perfectly adequate to the task.

Also, it seems that there is a compromise already available which more or less satisfies all interested parties, not sure why I never noticed civil marriage before.
edit on 28-4-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: stellawayten
a reply to: jrod

Have you ever been to texas? I can guarantee you almost every person I know would have a heart attack if it goes thru.


What the hell sort of people are you hanging out with?

I think this says a lot more about you and your inner circle than it does the people of Texas.

The vast majority of people I've met in the DFW area couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to marry. If you stay away from podunk towns and churches, you'll be hard-pressed to find people who strongly oppose gay marriage.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Well that is the term that exists for what the government recognizes couples do when they want to live together for the rest of their lives. The only way to get around that is to completely remove ALL government benefits from Marriage and attach them to Civil Unions. That way you can get married by your religion, but the state doesn't recognize it unless you have a civil union. You'd have to extend Civil Unions to straight couples though.
edit on 28-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   


The title says secede.

If the SCOTUS decides to legalize gay marriage, will the states secede?



The original title read "succeed". The OP has already acknowledged the change.



Two adults loving each other...that is the basis for your argument for marriage? Two people can love each other and never get married.

You can't change a 10,000 year old definition to accommodate a current popular culture idea that might change in 100 years.



You're against gay marriage because of old customs?
Slavery was condoned for centuries. Are you still ok with owning slaves too?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy


You can't change a 10,000 year old definition to accommodate a current popular culture idea that might change in 100 years.



There are a lot of 10,000 year old ideas that we have changed or downright ignore because we now realize how incredibly small-minded we were as humans when those ideas were developed.

The idea that gay people deserve equal rights is not a "popular culture idea that might change in 100 years." Society is moving toward more tolerance and acceptance.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: stellawayten

Oh good lord. Yes, you're the first person here that's ever happened to. The tissues are in the mail.

Not one person I know gives a crap about gay marriage and would have zero interest in secession over it.

Fortunately it seems your friends are in the minority. Too bad they can't look past it.

My two cents. Since people couldn't look past my first comment.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join