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.

 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Condemns SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Nyiah

Understand there was no law that protected anyones right tp msrriage. It never ecisted until today and it only applies th gays

Yeah...you go right on ahead & keep thinking that. Loving V Virginia never happened, black folks always had the legal right to marry white folks, white folks & asians, asians & hispanics, etc. Pick your combo, they all legally could & no one needed their right to marry protected until today.

Sure, bud.




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I know.

My face right now:



People died because of their love for someone of a different color.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Hetro marriage between races was allowed except in bigotted US. Moses had a black wife, Ham had a black wife as did Solomon.

But gay marriage never until the modern era existed. Now it has protection hetero marriage does not.

For proof just wait and see what happens in the days to come and you will see there is no equal rights o this issue



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Because you obviously missed it the first time, and seem to be refusing to say so, here you go, quoting Zaphod's full post:


originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Hetero marriage is protected under the Due Process clause. All marriage is protected under that clause.


The Fundamental Right to Marry Under the Due Process Clause. As a general matter, the Due Process Clause prohibits the government from infringing a fundamental right unless such is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest. In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the “freedom to marry” was a fundamental freedom that could not be denied “on so unsupportable a basis as [a] racial classification,” thus rendering Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional.[22] Many have argued that this holding recognizing a fundamental right to marry applies with equal force to homosexual relationships as it did to interracial relationships, but does it?

Significantly, the Supreme Court in Loving defined marriage as a “fundamental” right because it is one of the “‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

www.heritage.org...


Too TL;DR for your tastes? In short, it's protected. Marriage is specifically defined as a "fundamental" and "basic civil right".



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74


So true...we don't see this kind of turnout, now or ever, to the continuing revelation and excuse-making for the abominable behaviour perpetrated on innocent children...the above mentioned bishops should be 'outing' those they know are committing abominations, and marching in the streets on this issue alone...instead...tumbleweeds from the bishops...hypocrisy at its finest...

Å99



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
End your tax exemptions or shut your face


so its equity not equality ?


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

When you declare yourself infallible, you can't truly change your mind.

I have changed my mind, I think it's time for everyone else to accept that some people are born gay, and we need to stop calling them liars.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ChesterJohn

So you're saying in Alabama, in 1943, an interracial couple could have gotten married?

No?

What happened then?


Well according to the wording of their arguments of marriage between a man and a woman would suggest yes it was OK,but so many idiots were un educated it was dangerous. UNLESS they didnt consider anyone but a white person a man. and ditto for a woman.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

" Could be a gray area has been created. "


More like a gay area has been created.........



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: seagull

The irony is now no one can oppose gay-marriage because it is a protected right.

But hetero-marriage can be opposed by anyone and everyone because their marriages are not protected by the constitution.

I thought it was an issue of equal rights but the outcome makes it clear it is not equal.


Which states had laws against "hetero-marriage"?

The Supreme Court would never have needed to address the issue if states hadn't made it ILLEGAL for same-sex individuals to get married.

You keep trying to make a point about "hetero-marriage not being protected" but it's total nonsense. As soon as someone tries to pass a law saying it's illegal for a heterosexual couple to get married, you'll have an argument.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
to: Answer

Itis not about legality it us about one group having a protected right that never was given to hetero marriage, ever.

people claim civil liberty but this does not secure the right to marriage. There was never any rights given that made marriage a right under the constitution until today and that only applies to gays.

My point is marriage was nevera protected right under the US Constitution even interacial marriages was not given a constitutional right butwhat the SOCTUS did was give a special group a protected status for mariage that no other group ever had.

This is about equality under the constitution yet hetero marriage is not prorected under the US Constitution even Justice Roberts pointed that out.

Interacial mariages were not given a specfic protection and declared uncostitutional but simplyput was said it was not legal for states to deny them marriage as it was defined as one man and one woman.

Justices who ruled against one man and one woman changed the deffinition without due process to change such definition from thatthat had been followed and understood to be the norm of marriage.

Hense the only thing to be done was to give a small group a protected right that does not exist for everyone else.
edit on 27-6-2015 by ChesterJohn because:

edit on 27-6-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I love how you're totally ignoring the post that proves you wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is protected under Due Process, as a fundamental right. Marriage. Not gay marriage, but marriage period. It's protected under the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I love how you're totally ignoring the post that proves you wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is protected under Due Process, as a fundamental right. Marriage. Not gay marriage, but marriage period. It's protected under the Constitution.


Only gay mariage was protected under due process and that as of todays ruling.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: xuenchen

i find this claim most interesting


will "harm the....................... most vulnerable among us."


Yet the church of Rome does not seem to mind priests abusing children, they do their best to cover that up!



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Uh, wrong. It was pointed out a page ago, and you totally ignored it. In Loving v. Virginia in 1967 they ruled marriage was a fundamental right.


The Fundamental Right to Marry Under the Due Process Clause. As a general matter, the Due Process Clause prohibits the government from infringing a fundamental right unless such is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest. In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the “freedom to marry” was a fundamental freedom that could not be denied “on so unsupportable a basis as [a] racial classification,” thus rendering Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional.[22] Many have argued that this holding recognizing a fundamental right to marry applies with equal force to homosexual relationships as it did to interracial relationships, but does it?

Significantly, the Supreme Court in Loving defined marriage as a “fundamental” right because it is one of the “‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

www.heritage.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: ketsuko

Give it up. I don't give a rip what the gays do. They can go off and marry for all I care, but the history of the issue here is simple. They don't want to live and let live. They want revenge, so they won't leave it alone.

Basically, most of the gay rights movement is and has been a bait and switch as acknowledged by activists themselves.


For someone that doesn't care about what us evil gays do you seem to post a lot about it. No one is forcing churches to marry anyone and no one will.

No one will need to either, there will be churches perfectly willing to marry same sex couples. Not all churches are against gay marriage.
edit on 27-6-2015 by Megatronus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It only affects government.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
If jesus really existed he would be rolling on is cloud, equality and love won today.



Oh wow are you talking about the same guy that said man and woman together in marriage for life was the way the creator intended it? We could all say like Jesus as to gay marriage...."in the beginning it was not so".



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Uh, wrong. It was pointed out a page ago, and you totally ignored it. In Loving v. Virginia in 1967 they ruled marriage was a fundamental right.


The Fundamental Right to Marry Under the Due Process Clause. As a general matter, the Due Process Clause prohibits the government from infringing a fundamental right unless such is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest. In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the “freedom to marry” was a fundamental freedom that could not be denied “on so unsupportable a basis as [a] racial classification,” thus rendering Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional.[22] Many have argued that this holding recognizing a fundamental right to marry applies with equal force to homosexual relationships as it did to interracial relationships, but does it?

Significantly, the Supreme Court in Loving defined marriage as a “fundamental” right because it is one of the “‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

www.heritage.org...



This ruling is sopped up by hacks. It has zip to do with gay marriages. Its reasoning has noting that can apply to gays but only by the most dozy minded.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I love how you're totally ignoring the post that proves you wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is protected under Due Process, as a fundamental right. Marriage. Not gay marriage, but marriage period. It's protected under the Constitution.



A political interpretation by a lopsided court. They managed to change the definition of marriage without even addressing the question. Pure lazy and reactionary.

At least in race cases the nature of citizen standing and rights under the constitution were demonstrated as "all men" and all men means all men. In the gay marriage ruling these dumb asses changed the definition of marriage without even looking at it. As if 1000s of years of what marriage is, demonstrated the world over can be overturned by some robe wearing fatheads out of their element.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join