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.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: NavyDoc
So let's get this straight. Roberts upheld the ACA saying that it was not the job of the court to contradict the votes of the people in one case but then overturns laws voted for by the people in this case?
The ACA doesn't deny rights to a segment of the populace, while protecting rights of a "preferred" group.
The 14th amendment doesn't allow the majority of people in a state to deny the rights they enjoy to a minority.
It's really pretty simple.
originally posted by: Greathouse
Hmmm my statement could've been left at one simple response and not dragged through this thread . But 3 to 4 posters chose to respond and continue the debate because I hit a sensitive issue .
Next time instead of insulting someone just passed over it. But I like how you engaged me and then switch the blame to me that's hypocritical also .
originally posted by: Bone75
I just want you all to pay close attention to just how quickly things go from bad to FUBAR in this country from here on out.
Ever have one of those weeks or months or years where nothing seems to go your way? Prepare for that on a national level.
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: flammadraco
Ha, ha, they love to be in bed with you and observe what you do and how. I guess living other peoples life is more exiting than living their own because they are bore.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JohnFisher
They can pressure all they want, but that will go right back to the supreme court for a ruling, because now you are trampling on somebody else's rights. This is where I have a problem, gay couple X has never set foot inside church Y
and now they demand to be married by them to make a point. After being married you will never see them again.
Those churches that are going to follow the bibles commands will never give in, even if the court rules against them, they will cede all marrying to the state(justice of the peace) and not marry anybody even their own church members.
Because there were many states that, despite if you could find a church to perform the ceremony, it wouldn't be a "legal" marriage.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
My question is why did we have to do this?
Why should gov be involved in marriages at all?
Gay and want to get married, cool, there are many churches that will let you.......
The gov shouldnt be able to mandate if you can or if you cant, period......
Get the gov out of my bedroom
originally posted by: flammadraco
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: NavyDoc
So let's get this straight. Roberts upheld the ACA saying that it was not the job of the court to contradict the votes of the people in one case but then overturns laws voted for by the people in this case?
I think he used the 14th Amendment to strengthen his case in this.
As for ACA?
Supremo-care"
I'm just making the observation that there seems to be a bit of inconsistency in how the SCOTUS has been ruling as of late.
Doesn't matter now, the ruling has been made!
originally posted by: Battleline
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Yah, I doubt religion has much to do with the gay life style, but the laws of nature might have something to do with it...eventually .
Ah yes. The old "The gays can marry! We're just one step away from the globalist illuminati plans of One World Government! Soon the FEMA death camps will open up and the Christians are going first! It's the second holocaust I tells ya!"
originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: xuenchen
As usual, the Federal Government believes they have an imperative to impose majority moral opinions on all fifty states as one corporate conglomerate. As usual, they get their way and bully everyone into submission.
But running over states that disagree come with a heavy price, that less and less people take the largest corporation in the world seriously. Libertarians now think of the United States like they think of Monsanto and Bank of America. But now conservatives will begin to see it that way as well. Certainly Christians will begin to see it that way now, since they are now an irrelevant minority in politics.
Global government is the future. One world government. And this ruling is evidence of that.
originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
More like get the Religious right out of the bedrooms!!!!
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
My question is why did we have to do this?
Why should gov be involved in marriages at all?
Gay and want to get married, cool, there are many churches that will let you.......
The gov shouldnt be able to mandate if you can or if you cant, period......
Get the gov out of my bedroom
You know if the anti-gay marriage lobby had pursued this argument and course of action instead of steadfastly trying to prevent gays from marrying, I would have agreed with them for Libertarian reasons, because in the end the result would have been the same. Gays would be getting married.
originally posted by: raedar
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
That's a fine concept until your partner becomes ill or dies and you have no way to sign consent forms or have full property rights...the family can shut you out. It's really complicated and this is the ONLY way!