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.

 

Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

page: 52
67
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

To be fair... who is voting for Hillary?

*Disclaimer, i am of no political party because i feel no Government has Mine, the GLBTQ community, or anyone's best interest at heart*




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
It's time for a constitutional amendment to give states their rights back. This court is so rogue it's scary. I mean, they just took an amendment from 1868 and claimed it confers rights that the people who wrote it didn't even know about. Tell me, was gay marriage legal in 1868? Yet 125 years later it turns out that it was supposed to be? Riiiiiiiight.....

It's amazing how the four liberal justices never ever break ranks. It's almost like they're driven by ideology over the actual law.

It scares me how excited everyone is that the unelected supreme court can take on the role of legislator. Do you people not realize how dangerous this is? And you encourage it!?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

It was supposed to be, because we are still people who are protected under the same constitution as you. thus we get the same rights,privileges and protections as everyone else



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

If you're interested

www.hrc.org...

www.hrc.org...



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Can I suggest to the guys obviously still in the closet and think they are anti gay to take a long hard look at yourself and be who god made you to be.
Yeah you know who you are.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


The role of the Supreme Court has always been to rule on the constitutionality of laws. This protects ALL of us from states passing laws that are unconstitutional.

The founding fathers knew that they couldn't have a crystal ball to tell exactly how things would change in America, but the Constitution and it's amendments were written in a way to handle anything that came down the pike.

If a state passed a law that forced confiscation of guns from every law-abiding gun owner in that state, and you happen to live, work and be raising your family in that state - what recourse do you have? You sue and hope it goes to the Supreme Court to rule the law as unconstitutional.

Today you don't like the ruling because you don't like gays. Tomorrow, the SC could be ruling on something that is more dear to you.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Oh the IRONY !!

[springs flying all over the place now]



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

I'm not going to defend Hillary, but that was 11 years ago. A LOT can change in a person's point of view in 11 years. Or two years. Or one year. All it takes is for someone to make a point that resonates with them. Trust me, I've made points to people several times who have immediately changed their positions, not only about marriage equality, but about abortion and other topics...

So what point are you hoping this video will make? I see you didn't include even one word of opinion or explanation. I mean... she IS a politician, and her mouth IS moving.
edit on 6/28/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Dfairlite

It was supposed to be, because we are still people who are protected under the same constitution as you. thus we get the same rights,privileges and protections as everyone else


We've been over this, under state law any man (gay or straight) can marry any woman (gay or straight). You were not being discriminated against. Take, for example, green tax credits. If I buy a car that produces less than xx amount of pollution per mile I get a tax credit.

So party A) goes out an buys a prius that gets 50 mpg and qualifies for a tax credit.
Party B) goes out and buys a 16 cylinder 25 liter truck and does not qualify for a tax credit.

Using your logic this is unfair and not applied equally in violation of the 14th amendment. Now of course in the real world this is fair because party A) and party B) both chose their vehicles. It is not the fault of the state that one party chose a vehicle that didn't qualify. The same is true of homosexuals. You chose a relationship which was not recognized as marriage, which is not the fault of the state.

Using equal protection for this sort of thing is as laughable as anything I can think of. The fact that the court agrees with you.... well I hope someone challenges tax credits. This decision was the Dred Scott of our time.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

So when interracial marriage wasn't allowed, it was the fault of the people involved, and they shouldn't have allowed that either?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

First we didn't choose our sexuality, but i understand your ignorance dictates you to believe we get to choose our sexuality..

second shouldn't people be happy that people are free to Marry, isn't that freedom, isn't that a bit dictatorship to disallow people to marry who they love? do you support oppression and dictatorship?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Posted twice, i apologize..


edit on 28-6-2015 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
It's time for a constitutional amendment to give states their rights back.


The states never had the right to make laws and apply them to their citizens unequally.



I mean, they just took an amendment from 1868 and claimed it confers rights that the people who wrote it didn't even know about.


The 14th amendment is actually from 1866. And it doesn't confer any rights to anyone. It is a limit on the states, saying that if a state is going to make a law (like marriage), the law must apply equally to all citizens of the state.



It scares me how excited everyone is that the unelected supreme court can take on the role of legislator.


The Supreme Court did not make any laws. They did not legislate anything.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Annee

I hope we can get this taken care of sooner than later, i think and fear states will go this way since the ruling


So do I.

And believe it has come close prior -- but, now is critical.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

So, let's follow the logic of your post. Since the age of Amendments to the Constitution seem to weaken their force or applicability over time ... I guess those first ten or so are REALLY out of date then, according to your argument right?

So ... freedom of the press shouldn't apply to anything written on a computer, because they didn't have computers at the time?

And ... the right to bear arms should only apply to muskets and single shots?

Also ... since the Southern Baptist Association wasn't formed until 1948 1845, you think the 15.74 million Christians who are SB shouldn't have freedom of religion?

Does that follow from your logic? Women shouldn't vote? Slaves should return to the plantations?

SCOTUS only has the Constitutionally-mandated power to rule on what is brought before it. The system is working as intended.

Accept that you don't get everything you want all the time, and you don't have to agree with every decision ... many of us have had lots of practice with that in recent years.

Or, feel free to come out plainly and state that you are against the Constitution of the United States and are advocating for treasonous actions against the Republic.

/shrug
edit on 13Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:09:32 -050015p012015666 by Gryphon66 because: Correcctions



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

But here's the thing. You, as a heterosexual, could marry the person you love, without the state telling you that you couldn't. Let's say you meet the perfect girl for you. You two are so happy together, you want to spend the rest of your lives together and raise a family. You don't want to be with anyone else. Now imagine going to get the marriage license and being told "no, you can't marry that girl". Are you gonna just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, see ya honey, it was nice while it lasted - government says we can't get married."? No -You'd be pretty upset. This is what two homosexuals had to go through - being told they couldn't marry the person they loved and wanted to commit to. Heterosexuals had all the freedom in the world to marry the consenting adult person of their choice, but homosexuals didn't. Now, they do. Equal protection under the laws.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Dfairlite

First we didn't choose our sexuality, but i understand your ignorance dictates you to believe we get to choose our sexuality..

second shouldn't people be happy that people are free to Marry, isn't that freedom, isn't that a bit dictatorship to disallow people to marry who they love? do you support oppression and dictatorship?


I never suggested you chose your sexuality (Although, it's interesting that 27% of high school kids identify as LGBTQ in San Francisco, seems a little high for a genetic difference). I suggested you chose your partner, did you not? Is it the fault of the state that you want to be with the same gender?

As for dictatorship and oppression, that's what I'm warning about. It's neither here nor there whether or not gay people can marry, it's the way in which it was decided. With absolutely no legal standing, just feelings, and by a court of nine unelected officials who serve for life.
edit on 28-6-2015 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Dfairlite

But here's the thing. You, as a heterosexual, could marry the person you love, without the state telling you that you couldn't. Let's say you meet the perfect girl for you. You two are so happy together, you want to spend the rest of your lives together and raise a family. You don't want to be with anyone else. Now imagine going to get the marriage license and being told "no, you can't marry that girl". Are you gonna just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, see ya honey, it was nice while it lasted - government says we can't get married."? No -You'd be pretty upset. This is what two homosexuals had to go through - being told they couldn't marry the person they loved and wanted to commit to. Heterosexuals had all the freedom in the world to marry the consenting adult person of their choice, but homosexuals didn't. Now, they do. Equal protection under the laws.


In this situation I would head over to my religious official and ask them to be married. Dang I don't get to file joint tax returns but those are the cards I was delt. Maybe that's my lack of willingness to fight for government approval though.

So let me ask you, should I get a green tax credit for my giant truck as party B) in my above example?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


So ... freedom of the press shouldn't apply to anything written on a computer, because they didn't have computers at the time? And ... the right to bear arms should only apply to muskets and single shots? Also ... since the Southern Baptist Association wasn't formed until 1948 1845, you think the 15.74 million Christians who are SB shouldn't have freedom of religion?


Oh my, that is quite a leap. Were there gay people in the 1860's? Yep. and were they allowed to marry under the 14th amendment? nope. See the problem existed at the time unlike all of your examples. Try arguing with your mind, not your heart. You'll get there.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
It's not that complicated:

Marriage is a state-regulated covenant between two individuals (a contract) that allows for certain financial and social benefits.

Specifying the sex of a party to a contract violates the "equal protection of the laws" concept found in common law, the Fifth Amendment and specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment.

Those who are non compos mentis to enter contracts (animals, minor children, the dead, etc.) are obviously restricted.

(Before we go there for the humpteenth time).

Slavery was corrected, women's legal rights were corrected, racial segregation was corrected, ... it's an ongoing process.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join