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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:41 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.



This is an appeal to tradition fallacy.




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: stellawayten




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 part of TX are you from? The only Texans I can imagine giving a damn are the redneck, backward, illiterate and grammatically challenged variety and they pretty much stick to the panhandle and leave the rest of us alone. You could even say we "succeed" just fine without cretins like that making us look bad. Definitely not the majority, thank goodness.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

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.


SW is right. The Civil War was about economics and state rights. Abolishing slavery was just a byproduct.

As to would a secede? Highly unlikely. It's not as easy as one thinks it is. We're used to this in Canada. Quebec has tried to secede twice. Even at the height of the sovereignty movement, the majority still wanted to remain in the country. I see few states that could actually go on their own and then I doubt you would get the votes necessary from them to not call themselves "Americans" anymore.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

People in the south will say differently. I've always heard people say it was about state rights.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Yet throughout the course of the Civil war slavery was still legal in the Northern States. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in rebellious states. It was a tactical move that aimed at causing unrest in the South as they hoped the former slaves would fight for the union.

Slavery was a major issue in the Civil War, but there were many other factors that most ignore today.

But hell, the Bible says owning slaves is okay and homosexuality is a condemnable act. Maybe if Texas secedes over the Gay Marriage ruling, they can bring back slavery too!



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: stellawayten
a reply to: amazing

People in the south will say differently. I've always heard people say it was about state rights.


History tells us otherwise. Research Abraham Lincoln and then South Carolina seceding and the Kansas and I think they were called Border Ruffians? Something like that and then the Abolition movement. It was already growing before the war was on the Horizon and there was enormous growing sentiment in the North that slavery was wrong and should be stopped. The states rights played and issue but a big part of that was economics of...you guessed it slavery.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

I'm pretty sure you just described the majority of texans. That's why we have abbot as governor.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing




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....



It would never happen, and she/he/it knew that before she/he/it posted such a ridiculous load of crap.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Why do people seem to get all huffy and puffy over this when there are more important issues, such as your government trampling all over your constitution?

You will all act on this but not the other?

Priorities?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


That works for me.




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: stellawayten

Ahh, so you live in the panhandle then. Well, that explains the spelling anyway. My condolences.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: tallcool1

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


Equating the definition of marriage with owning slaves is a bit of a stretch. Why don't you just call him racist while you're at it? Then condemn his heritage or something equally invalid.

To the topic: No, states will not secede over this, and secession has never worked anyway. About half a million people, most all of them white males, already settled that issue. It's a moot point.
edit on 4/28/2015 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

It works for me too, but that HAS to be the way they implement it, otherwise it is no good.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: bullcat
Why do people seem to get all huffy and puffy over this when there are more important issues, such as your government trampling all over your constitution?

You will all act on this but not the other?

Priorities?


You are aware that people can hold multiple opinions and priorities correct?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

I didn't say they would succeed at seceding. But I bet a lot of people would call for it.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bullcat
Why do people seem to get all huffy and puffy over this when there are more important issues, such as your government trampling all over your constitution?

You will all act on this but not the other?

Priorities?


You are aware that people can hold multiple opinions and priorities correct?


Of course, so when do you plan to get around to fixing your government?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: stellawayten
a reply to: amazing

People in the south will say differently. I've always heard people say it was about state rights.


Yes it was about state's rights on both sides actually and it was the northern non-slave holding states who actually first claimed state's rights against the fugitive slave laws.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

No actually I live in central texas. And geez, get over the spelling error. You are disrupting the thread.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: stellawayten
a reply to: tigertatzen

I'm pretty sure you just described the majority of texans. That's why we have abbot as governor.


You need to move to a different part of Texas then and stop trying to speak for the whole state when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
edit on 4/28/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Was the proclamation supposed to free all those slaves in states where slavery was already abolished?

I mean, Vermont abolished slavery in 1777. The utter nerve of Lincoln to not make sure he took Vermont to task for slavery though. That guy, I tell ya....




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join