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.

 

OK Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Monument Must Be Removed From Capitol

page: 22
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
How does a marriage contract avoid gay marriage in the big picture of government?

If the government has laws pertaining to financial / tax ramifications and benefits, then wouldn't any contract allowing gays to marry still allow / impose the same ramifications.

If some state believes a contact isn't going to be honored by the government then the non gay marriages would not be valid either. What is the point to this?

edit:

Is there going to be a church marriage and a marriage contact so that some cannot be married in the eyes of the church?
edit on 7/1/2015 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Images of Moses and the 10 Commandments are all over government buildings all over the country - have been for a long time - here is FEW:

Library of Congress, DC
National Archive Building, DC
Appellate Courthouse, Brooklyn
Boston Public Library
US District Courthouse, DC
Cuyahoga Courthouse, OH
Minnesota Supreme Court, MN
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
US House of Representatives Chamber, DC
US Courthouse, IN
US Courthouse, Cleveland OH
US Supreme Court Building, DC

Seems like those right wing zealots have been busy lately...or maybe this has been a tradition in our country for a LONG time?





posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

Read the thread people have addressed that.
Great thread learning loads
.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Does the bible grant 2nd amendment rights?


Any country adopting a Mosaic-style system of law would look more like a Sharia-devastated hell hole than a tolerant, secular Republic.


Not to mention Mosaic law is jewish law, not christian!

Why all these "christians" seem hell bent (sic) on following jewish laws and practices is beyond me - if they want to be jews why not just convert??



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: irishhaf
a reply to: mtnshredder

Lot of Okies didn't care about the satanic black mass... Bet most didn't care about the monument that the satanic temple was working on till this ruling.


Trust me, they care. I live there.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

Sweet Mother of Yog-Sothoth, how many of those also have representations of other religions and historical figures in addition to the Ten Commandments?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw


There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.



visitation rights, property rights, child custody, inheritance, estate, pensions, workplace healthcare benefits, social security and dozens of other legal differentiators that are afforded a spouse vs. some person you just live with..

If religious zealots want to stop being legally married because some gay couple they have never met got married...they are welcome to..I kinda wish they would so that they might better understand the struggles that gay couples have faced not being able to legally marry..
edit on 1-7-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

What's clear is that politics are supposed to stay out of the church as ordered by 501(c)3 status. That is 100% clear in regards to the stipulations granted them by tax exempt status. It is also clear that there are no provisions saying that churches don't have to pay taxes.

Y'all have just gotten so used to the privilege that you believe it is a right.


Free must mean something else on your planet.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: grandmakdw

Images of Moses and the 10 Commandments are all over government buildings all over the country - have been for a long time - here is FEW:

Library of Congress, DC
National Archive Building, DC
Appellate Courthouse, Brooklyn
Boston Public Library
US District Courthouse, DC
Cuyahoga Courthouse, OH
Minnesota Supreme Court, MN
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
US House of Representatives Chamber, DC
US Courthouse, IN
US Courthouse, Cleveland OH
US Supreme Court Building, DC

Seems like those right wing zealots have been busy lately...or maybe this has been a tradition in our country for a LONG time?





Historical art and architecture in a secular context..not some idiotic monument dedicated singularly to the 10 Commandments. Specifically the Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK when it is presented in a secular manner.

Yes the Supreme Court has a sculpture of Moses..also Confucius, Mohamed, Chief Justice Marshall and Achilles and Shield, Lady Justice and a ton of other folks...the Architectural theme was lawgivers and enforcers throughout history.

Contrast that to erecting a singular marble plaque in front of a government building rattling off the 10 Commandments.

Nothing personal, but acting too stupid to know the difference for the sake of making an argument is self-abusive. Stop hurting yourself.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I just want to say it again, because it seems to be nothing more than a low speed-bump in this conversation ...

You do realize that the State of Oklahoma is moving the Ten Commandment sculpture merely because they don't want the Baphomet monument there ... right?

This isn't a case of progressive-liberal-socialist-atheist-sodomites suing to have the thing removed ...

They could not allow another religious monument, so they are getting rid of the one that is there ...

Is it just me, or doesn't this put a different light on the WHOLE question????




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Is there a difference between history and religion?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

What's clear is that politics are supposed to stay out of the church as ordered by 501(c)3 status. That is 100% clear in regards to the stipulations granted them by tax exempt status. It is also clear that there are no provisions saying that churches don't have to pay taxes.

Y'all have just gotten so used to the privilege that you believe it is a right.


Free must mean something else on your planet.

No that's the way the founders wanted it because churches can use their religion to sway peoples political opinions. To quote James Madison.



“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” James Madison — 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Is there a difference between history and religion?


Of course there is history can be proven religion cannot be proven.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Oh ye' who requires monuments of government to affirm thy faith, has no faith at all.

-feelin preachy


edit on 1-7-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: grandmakdw

Images of Moses and the 10 Commandments are all over government buildings all over the country - have been for a long time - here is FEW:

Library of Congress, DC
National Archive Building, DC
Appellate Courthouse, Brooklyn
Boston Public Library
US District Courthouse, DC
Cuyahoga Courthouse, OH
Minnesota Supreme Court, MN
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
US House of Representatives Chamber, DC
US Courthouse, IN
US Courthouse, Cleveland OH
US Supreme Court Building, DC

Seems like those right wing zealots have been busy lately...or maybe this has been a tradition in our country for a LONG time?





Historical art and architecture in a secular context..not some idiotic monument dedicated singularly to the 10 Commandments. Specifically the Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK when it is presented in a secular manner.

Yes the Supreme Court has a sculpture of Moses..also Confucius, Mohamed, Chief Justice Marshall and Achilles and Shield, Lady Justice and a ton of other folks...the Architectural theme was lawgivers and enforcers throughout history.

Contrast that to erecting a singular marble plaque in front of a government building rattling off the 10 Commandments.

Nothing personal, but acting too stupid to know the difference for the sake of making an argument is self-abusive. Stop hurting yourself.


Making a point, simply for the express purpose of making a point.

To be consistent, just, fair and to give equal treatment under the law. Yes all you mentioned above should be removed.

But it doesn't seem anyone is looking for what is just or fair or equal treatment.

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kromlech

Maybe they want to claim someone killed others over it? Ridiculous, really! Basic laws are based on those ten, and removing them is denying history. Some people won't be happy till they remove all traces of Christian beliefs from the world. Of course, if that happens, they won't be happy then, either.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

My only problem with that line of thinking is that it institutionalizes envy.

Its better to just say "None allowed" and be done with it. Because institutionalized envy can also look like the mob, where everyone up the chain expects their "cut", too.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: grandmakdw

I think we are way past the point of trying to change the definitions and parameters. Additionally, you get all those rights and benefits now when you sign your marriage license, the ceremony is superfluous.







The license would be superfluous, no one would need government permission to marry, followed by a ceremony (which is now required, be it a few words from a judge or a full fledged wedding.)

Any 2 adults could sign a marriage contract, ceremony completely optional. No government permission needed, it would be simply between the 2 adults - granting all the rights and privileges and whatever goes along with getting a license.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

And how do you handle all the laws and financial benefits now attached to marriage?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw


There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.



visitation rights, property rights, child custody, inheritance, estate, pensions, workplace healthcare benefits, social security and dozens of other legal differentiators that are afforded a spouse vs. some person you just live with..

If religious zealots want to stop being legally married because some gay couple they have never met got married...they are welcome to..I kinda wish they would so that they might better understand the struggles that gay couples have faced not being able to legally marry..


a marriage contract that doesn't involve government permission to marry
will offer all the same benefits you mention above

people can still marry, instead of getting permission from the government (which is what a license is)
any 2 adults can enter into a marriage contract with all the same benefits of a license
The only difference is one is a contract not involving government permission, versus a contract (ie license) that can only be obtained by government permission

People will still be legally married, except by a contract not involving the government and only involving the people who wish to marry, with no restrictions as to who can marry whom (except one must be old enough to sign a contract, and currently the contract can only be between 2 people; however with the latest lawsuit by a polygamist; the contract could probably also involve multiple contractual partners (giving them all the current benefits of legal marriage); the legal ability to contract marriage would for now at least restrict incest.

The marriage contract actually makes marriage more fair and equal and gives all contractual partners all the rights and benefits afforded to those with marriage licenses - that are only handed out to people who obtain permission from the government to marry. That is what a license is, permission to engage in an activity, like fishing, hunting, carrying a gun, it is bowing to the knee of the government and paying the government for permission to marry.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join