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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bullcat

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?



When is the next election?




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bullcat

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?



When is the next election?


LOL; yeah we look forward to Bush or Hillary. That's definitely going to be saving it.

Like voting matters.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Yes, I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about. I've lived in texas for almost 40 years and I can say the majority care about what they consider Christian values.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bullcat

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?



When is the next election?


Oh man are you optimistic.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You are cherry picking one state. Not all Union states had slaves, this is well documented. However some union state still allowed slavery, this also is well documented.

When was the 13th Amendment ratified

a reply to: stellawayten

This is a fallacy on your behalf. I have noticed most church going "Christians" only associate with other church going "Christians". This is why your perspective is skewed. You only associate with like minded people, and likely reject any 'liberal', 'queer', 'believers in evolution', ect.. types from your social circle.

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



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

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.


Because of his claim that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because of centuries of "customs". So I referenced another historical "custom".

You generally seem to comprehend what's being said in a thread. I wasn't equating definitions, I was (clearly) equating "customs". But it's your right to purposely "misunderstand" for the sake of arguing, I suppose.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Personally I think we should do away with the government being involved at all in marriage.

There should be no legal marriage at all.

There can be contractual unions, where people contract together to raise children, co-mingle their property, etc.

The government should be out of marriage altogether.

The Churches are then free to perform religious ceremonies as they wish that have no legal binding, and therefore be able to choose freely what ceremonies they will or won't perform.

People can still have "marriage" ceremonies, but they won't be binding or contractual without a contractual union. That way the government is out of deciding what is and isn't marriage.

Anyway can have any "marriage" ceremony they wish without government interference.

If people want legal protections and rights for their unions, they can have contractual civil unions to give them all the rights accorded to legal marriage now. But the government will no longer be in the marriage business. The contracts would spell out in advance what would happen if the 2 parties dissolved the union, and be mitigated as any other contract would be.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I agree wholeheartedly.




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Personally I think we should do away with the government being involved at all in marriage.

*snip*

The government should be out of marriage altogether.

The Churches are then free to perform religious ceremonies as they wish that have no legal binding, and therefore be able to choose freely what ceremonies they will or won't perform.


Well that's one way to separate the church from the state.
I noticed though that "The Churches are then free...." Another way to bring an outdated tenet into 21st century society?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bullcat

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?



When is the next election?


LOL; yeah we look forward to Bush or Hillary. That's definitely going to be saving it.

Like voting matters.



You say things like that then wonder why the government doesn't change... Tsk tsk...



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bullcat

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?



When is the next election?


Oh man are you optimistic.


Hey, he asked me when I plan to get around to fixing the government. Well the only thing I can do (unless I run for office which I'm not going to do) is vote.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: stellawayten
a reply to: Answer

Yes, I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about. I've lived in texas for almost 40 years and I can say the majority care about what they consider Christian values.


I don't care how long you've lived here, your perception is skewed by the people you keep within your inner circle.

That much is obvious by your statement that "the majority would have a heart attack" and your assertion that the state would secede.

2 other Texans in this thread have said that you don't know what you're talking about... which is why you should not go around pretending to know the thoughts of everyone living in Texas.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stellawayten

I've lived in Texas my whole life (which is almost 55 years). I know a few people who might be upset, but most people I know really don't care. I grew up in Houston, live in the Austin area now, and have friends and relatives from D/FW. The few relatives I have in west Texas (Odessa) are the only ones I know that are really against it.

It would be foolish to think that there aren't any conservative religious groups in Texas that would fight this hard, but they really are in the minority.

Oh and by the way, I will be the loudest one cheering when gay marriage becomes legal everywhere.
edit on 28-4-2015 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: stellawayten

Yes, I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about. I've lived in texas for almost 40 years and I can say the majority care about what they consider Christian values.


As a Christian born and raised in Texas, please tell me what these Christian values are? This majority you speak of, I don't know anyone myself who claim to be Christian that are judging or concerned about "gay marriage". Will it make Texas burst into flames and fall into the Gulf?

You have a very skewed vision of Texas. I do not recall you, or anyone else for that matter, being designated as a speaker for the majority of Texans. There are too many good and honest people here that do not need a spokesperson.

A rule to help you out.

Don't Mess With Texas!

Now, read my tagline.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Personally I think we should do away with the government being involved at all in marriage.

*snip*

The government should be out of marriage altogether.

The Churches are then free to perform religious ceremonies as they wish that have no legal binding, and therefore be able to choose freely what ceremonies they will or won't perform.


Well that's one way to separate the church from the state.
I noticed though that "The Churches are then free...." Another way to bring an outdated tenet into 21st century society?


No a way for Churches to get back some of their freedom from state interference;
and vice versa to make you happy.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Personally I think we should do away with the government being involved at all in marriage.

*snip*

The government should be out of marriage altogether.

The Churches are then free to perform religious ceremonies as they wish that have no legal binding, and therefore be able to choose freely what ceremonies they will or won't perform.


Well that's one way to separate the church from the state.
I noticed though that "The Churches are then free...." Another way to bring an outdated tenet into 21st century society?


No a way for Churches to get back some of their freedom from state interference;
and vice versa to make you happy.


What? Freedom for Churches? I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Constitution.... no matter how many wish it was.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Personally I think we should do away with the government being involved at all in marriage.

*snip*

The government should be out of marriage altogether.

The Churches are then free to perform religious ceremonies as they wish that have no legal binding, and therefore be able to choose freely what ceremonies they will or won't perform.



Well that's one way to separate the church from the state.
I noticed though that "The Churches are then free...." Another way to bring an outdated tenet into 21st century society?


No a way for Churches to get back some of their freedom from state interference;
and vice versa to make you happy.


What? Freedom for Churches? I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Constitution.... no matter how many wish it was.



Ever heard the phrase
Freedom OF religion
I believe that is in the constitution, meaning churches and people of faith are to be free to practice their faith, their religion without state interference.

the phrase that is NOT in the constitution is
Freedom from religion
liberals just made that one up


edit on 7Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:47:39 -0500pm42804pmk282 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Personally I think we should do away with the government being involved at all in marriage.

*snip*

The government should be out of marriage altogether.

The Churches are then free to perform religious ceremonies as they wish that have no legal binding, and therefore be able to choose freely what ceremonies they will or won't perform.



Well that's one way to separate the church from the state.
I noticed though that "The Churches are then free...." Another way to bring an outdated tenet into 21st century society?


No a way for Churches to get back some of their freedom from state interference;
and vice versa to make you happy.


What? Freedom for Churches? I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Constitution.... no matter how many wish it was.



Ever heard the phrase
Freedom OF religion
I believe that is in the constitution, meaning churches and people of faith are to be free to practice their faith, their religion without state interference.


You've got to be kidding. Look at the Constitution. It's built to disallow interference. That would include religious institutions. They were saying, "All your religions are OK, not to be used as a means to govern though."



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Here is the problem as I see it.

Marriage in religious terms is a holy covenant before God - blessed by God.

We, the religious in the United States, made a mistake. It was not us, but those generations prior to ours who did this. They took a deeply religious covenant, and gave state some measure of authority over it - and took benefit from the state as well due to it.

This was a mistake, it was wrong. It is the religious who need to secede our religious rites from state oversight. They have no business in a true marriage. Period.

For those who are not religious, they ALL should be allowed the same state privileges as anyone else gets... but marriage for the truly religious, should never be a part of the state.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods. Our marriage should forever be private, and not a part of the state. Anyone else, should be able to have a state sanctioned marriage if they like. But I don't believe in them at all... What is God's business and our vows before God have no business in state.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Since you folks are arguing about the intention of the First Amendment, the actual text is:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join