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: 8
67
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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.


But that's not what they put in their majority decisions

ACA does discriminate, albeit based on income rather than sexuality.

The overturned one unjust law saying that the people couldn't vote away the rights of their fellow citizens but kept another unjust law by saying they didn't want to interfere with voting away the rights of the fellow citizens.

It seems inconsistent an opinion




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: raedar

Yaaas! welcome to the celebration



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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 .


Conversations are a two way street buddy. You are just as guilty as the rest of us for continuing the conversation. Wait you started the conversation, we wouldn't have even been talking about it if it weren't for you.


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 .


I didn't insult you. I asked you what Islam has to do with gay marriage, but the blame has ALWAYS been at your feet. You posted an offtopic point in the thread, not me. The most I'm guilty of is being trolled.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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.


Sounds like a threat....

I think an explanation is in order!



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
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.
edit on 26-6-2015 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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.



Ewwwww really???? Dirty gits!

I've read about more sexual deviancy from religious folks than anyone else, they seem so suppressed!!



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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.



But this logic is flawed. As a heterosexual woman I can't get married to a man in a Catholic or other church because I'm not any of those faiths and I've never set foot in their church. If I wanted to get married in that church, even for aesthetics reasons I have to convert.

No loving couple, homosexual or heterosexual, would sue a church for political reasons.
We all want to be married to the one we love and there are plenty of religious and non religious ways of doing it.
edit on 26-6-2015 by collietta because: autocorrect



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

The two aren't even remotely related.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You appeared to be agreeing with it.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
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 .

edit on 26-6-2015 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

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
Because there were many states that, despite if you could find a church to perform the ceremony, it wouldn't be a "legal" marriage.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

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!


Well, of course it matters. Regardless what side of this issue you fall on, I think we all agree that we want consistency in our judiciary and do not want them to rule differently on each time based on the politics behind each and every law. It sort of invalidates the entire reason behind the SCOTUS.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Christians shouldn't have anything to do with politics, it's a belief system and you can't control laws or other peoples lives by using "Religion"

We are human and deserve the rights as any other Heterosexual human, that is simple



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

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 .


Laws of nature? Where exactly are those written down? Would you care to show the location so the rest of us can see them? I'm sure many scientists would LOVE to see these supposed laws of nature so that we can finally get some direction for science and all.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

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.
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!"

It makes me giggle.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

More like get the Religious right out of the bedrooms!!!!


Really? Because Gay people arent ever religious? Almost every single one of my many gay friends goes to church every sunday......

But hey I guess your white wash was in the name of "diversity" right?

Its clear you cant understand the context of what I posted.....



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

I know, no wonder we see more religious leaders coming out of their closet in scandals to get "cleansed and cure" in their gay camps.

The hypocrisy and the irony.

To spread love and faith without hate, in religious base believes is almost impossible, because it tends to contradict themselves.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

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


Good question. Why DID states decide to ban gay marriage in the first place, necessitating this Supreme Court ruling? If the states had stayed out of the equation as they should have, this ruling wouldn't have been necessary.

Also, I posted this on page 1:

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.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

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!


No its not........its quite simple....

it means that the gov cant mandate if you can or cant get married based on your sexual orientation........

That doesnt mean that they dont honor the legal binding there of.......

Again we shouldnt have the gov mandating either way......

Why is this concept so hard for people to comprehend?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, the gov shouldnt be involved at all.. either way............please dont try to pigeon hole me with the "Well why did they make it illegal"

I was quite clear where I stood on the issue

The fact that I keep having to repeat this same thing over and over blows my mind....

edit on 6/26/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join