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 U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   


Yet another useless bill by idiots who know nothing of the constitution. Even if the Supreme Court were to make gay marriage legal it cannot force a church to marry a gay couple because that would violate Freedom of Religion. Abbot seems to be an even bigger idiot than Perry. Btw Texas what's it like living under the Christian version of Sharia?
a reply to: buster2010

It's awesome actually, no beheadings, no women being gang raped or forced into sex trade, people can smoke cigs or cigars if they want, people can even drink, we have running water, electricity, women don't have to cover their bodies, oh yeah women can actually drive cars here, and I CAN EAT ALL THE BACON I WANT!!!!

Sharia practiced in many areas of the ME deny all of those rights to the people.




posted on May, 23 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

It takes time to change things. Civil Rights for blacks happened already and some are still fighting it. So you can see that being tolerant of opposing views will still be with us for a while even with equal rights in place.

I agree that not all change is good but in this case I'd say it is. Even you admit you support their right to marry so why would you feel that this is not a good thing???

If it's the right thing to do then it's the right thing to do. If it's right and it causes trouble for some, then those who have trouble adjusting must be in the wrong. So is it better to support what is right and expect people to adjust or support what is wrong just to keep some people quiet???

One argument I keep hearing is "It's only 3% of people who are gay". Well, so what. Does that mean it's ok to treat people as subhuman based on their number??? When is it not ok then, 4%, 10%??? Or is it wrong simply because it's wrong and it doesn't matter how many of them they are.

The same can be said about any other "group". How many innocent prisoners is too many??? How many innocent casualties of war is too many??? I don't see it as a matter of numbers, it's a matter of principle. If you're going to have equal freedom for everyone then have it. If not then don't have it at all. But don't be hypocrites and claim equal freedom but not have it.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I can support the rights of gays to marry AND support the rights of religious institutions to disagree with it.

What I don't want is one right to supersede the other.

As someone who is religious, I fight this battle in my own church, but that's a personal issue and not important to this discussion.

I just don't think, in this political climate that both "sides" will be able to keep their freedoms.

One is going to lose. And that is the right to religious freedom.

And even if you aren't religious, any loss of freedom will affect everyone.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
The State should be absolutely uninvolved with matters of the Church. Though this 'law' gives the appearance of balancing other opposing State action ... it is merely the second step down the rabbit hole.

For those who are whooping and hollering in support ... think about what it is that you are supporting.


The only way this could happen is if the state stops recognizing marriages. Stops any tax breaks and any benefits and returns it back to the church again. If the state recognized no one's marriage than it becomes a religious rite again.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

I can support the rights of gays to marry AND support the rights of religious institutions to disagree with it.



That's how I see it too. Letting them marry shouldn't change anything with the church because this doesn't and shouldn't effect the church or what it does.

I don't want it to go any farther then simply allowing them to marry like anyone else. It should be exactly the same. Same legal benefits as any other marriage. Same everything. No more no less. Since it's just legal marriage it shouldn't effect the church at all.

But even now, we have a judge who is religious who is saying that even if by law he is supposed to allow marriage he will refuse to do it. That is when we'll have trouble. He's allowing his Religious Views trump his Legal Duties. That will be a problem and I'm curious what will happen there.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

The problem we face then is something I like to call Schrödinger's Opinion. Both options appear inside the box, but only one will survive observation.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Well, we'll find out soon enough.

Although apparently the TPP just passed the senate so it looks like we're all screwed anyway. We will soon have new masters to serve and all this may very well be a pointless debate anyway.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

It has always been a pointless debate.

Regardless of what we say, do you really think we'll be able to enact change?

But it's always nice to have a discussion while the Titanic sinks. Something to do, so to speak, before the waterline hits us.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Sometimes I like to imagine that people of influence might read some of these debates to help form their opinions or at least to help them judge which way to go on some issues. That or maybe someone will read them and help them understand things more. I realize it's just wishful thinking but it could happen.

But you're probably right. Cheers to you man. When the ship has sunk and we're just floating in the endless black ocean waiting for death, feel free to float on my bloated carcass if you want. Or use me as a shield against the sharks if you think it will help.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Cheers and a respectful salute.

Perhaps we can meet in Valhalla, share a tankard or three and laugh at all of this one day.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

It has always been a pointless debate.

Regardless of what we say, do you really think we'll be able to enact change?

But it's always nice to have a discussion while the Titanic sinks. Something to do, so to speak, before the waterline hits us.



One plus side is it may force all these muslims to start having to transport alcohol or like that cashier who refuses to touch pork but thinks he should still be able to check out people in a grocery store. Lots of lawsuits would be overturned or stopped.
edit on 5/23/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

And even if you aren't religious, any loss of freedom will affect everyone.


You know, I may not always agree 100% with you, but I have a lot of respect for what you said right there.

Relevant because I'm a huge nerd:




"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Picard is a wise man.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Snarl
The State should be absolutely uninvolved with matters of the Church. Though this 'law' gives the appearance of balancing other opposing State action ... it is merely the second step down the rabbit hole.

For those who are whooping and hollering in support ... think about what it is that you are supporting.


The only way this could happen is if the state stops recognizing marriages. Stops any tax breaks and any benefits and returns it back to the church again. If the state recognized no one's marriage than it becomes a religious rite again.

Eggszacktalakctly!!

Why should I get a tax break just because I'm married?

Now ... I'm not saying the State can't figure out some way to decide two individuals are a couple, but beyond that ... how far do we want to invite the government into our personal and private lives. They got a foot in the door on pretense. Before you know it they're gonna be pissin' on the carpet. Oh wait ... they've already done that and they're sniffing around lookin' for a place to go number two.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
That ... and it's so easy to put a ring through people's noses and lead them around wherever you like.

The government has no business recognizing that a State of Marriage exists between two people. Marriage is an institute of the Church. This is why I was very insistent on my wife and I being married by the Church. We had already been married twice before "by the State" and that wasn't good enough to cover all the bases. The 'bonds of matrimony' are a curious thing indeed ... thanks to the meddling of the State.

I see this issue running along the same lines as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's a given ... and several words in the Bill of Rights are too often casually overlooked. Do the words "Shall Make No Law" and "Shall Not Be Infringed" carry so little weight?

Everyone and anyone who has ever trifled with those words should have their citizenship stripped and be summarily thrown into the ocean to 'swim for it'.


The government unfortunately has to be involved in marriage, otherwise concepts such as spousal privilege can't exist if they don't recognize marriage. Once you get into that territory you end up having to either accept that anyone can marry, or that you're going to have laws that are discriminatory and we haven't even gotten into the tax benefits.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

I can't marry my father. Two heterosexual men can't marry each other, either, just for the legal advantages.


Surely a gay man should be able to marry his father? The prohibition against that is to stop getting inbred deformed babies. Also, wouldn't it be discrimination if heterosexuals were forbidden from the inheritance scams available to homosexuals?

Still, at least Christians aren't allowed to run cake shops any more. I never trusted those guys.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I can tell right now I know religious minsters who would rather resign the ability to marry all together.
In other words their congregations would no longer marry anybody, all would have to go the justice of the peace to marry.

It may be the ultimate price that must be paid to maintain the morality that the bible and God has directed.
And if you think hetro's are ticked now, stop them from getting married in a traditional church because of the LGBT rights, and watch a backlash happen. You can only push people so far before they start reacting negatively.
edit on 23-5-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

And I can see the day when a church's whole congregation threatens to leave if same-sex marriages aren't performed there. The pressure to evolve or completely lose your congregation will force a change of attitude. It sounds rough, and there will be some rough times ahead - there always are in times of social progression. But we always get through it, with time and subsequent generations.

So I have a much more positive outlook than you and Beezzer, based on what I have seen happen in the past here in this country.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Texas is losing what little brains it had left. Two bills in short order that make what already is law... law again? double the pleasure, double the fun? Texas is so big it has to do everything twice?

Yeehaw y'all!





Been sitting in the rafters watching the show for a few days...

But... This deserved a response.





I'm not too advanced on constitutional matters...
For an Londoner I have a decent grasp, but do need correcting now and then...

With that said, doesn't separation of C&S work both ways?

So Church will never be able to control State, & vice versa!



Have to say I'm surprised that this topic has taken so long to be sorted out over there.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlessedLore



Yet another useless bill by idiots who know nothing of the constitution. Even if the Supreme Court were to make gay marriage legal it cannot force a church to marry a gay couple because that would violate Freedom of Religion. Abbot seems to be an even bigger idiot than Perry. Btw Texas what's it like living under the Christian version of Sharia?
a reply to: buster2010

It's awesome actually, no beheadings, no women being gang raped or forced into sex trade, people can smoke cigs or cigars if they want, people can even drink, we have running water, electricity, women don't have to cover their bodies, oh yeah women can actually drive cars here, and I CAN EAT ALL THE BACON I WANT!!!!

Sharia practiced in many areas of the ME deny all of those rights to the people.

We are talking about America not the middle east.
No gang rapes you say?
Six Texas Men Accused of Gang-Raping a 15-Year-Old Girl Face 1,600 Years In Prison: Justice?
You do know that the alcohol and cig prohibition only applies to Muslims right? Non Muslims can have those things in most of the nations.
So your freedom rests on bacon what sad life.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join