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.

 

Impeach Kagan and Ginsburg (should they have recused themselves from Gay Marriage Vote?)

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: notmyrealname

The funny thing is, most people should be in agreement on this.

I think everyone has dealt with SC decisions that they disagreed with. Does that mean they were wrong, and the Supreme Court was right?

We have recent cases like;

Citizen United
Hobby lobby
Marriage

Not everyone has agreed with all 3 cases.

Does that make them dumber than the Justices?

Or does that make the justices just as opinionated as the rest of us?


Was there an outcry to impeach Justices or charges of bias after the first two cases ... anything like on the scale we're seeing now (and in the OPs article)?

There is a vast difference between disagreeing and claiming that the other side is "overthrowing the government" ... isn't there?


Not sure.

Googled this right away about Hobby Lobby.

Now I spent 30 seconds looking. . . . . . .

www.huffingtonpost.com...




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

One person, Seth Rogan, called the Justices a naughty name.

Did he call them traitors? Did he suggest that we impeach Justices?

Nope. He stated his disagreement rather colorfully ... you know, that First Amendment thingy?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
My opinion is quite simply that I do not believe that any government office (state Federal or other) should be involved with the institution of marriage; it should be a union between connecting adults. I feel there should be tax benefits or regulations that are related to marriage whatsoever.

I mean really, Wow Baby, This love we have is really amazing; I want to spend the rest of my life with you! I really love you so much so… Let's get the government involved!'

Does that make sense to anyone here?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure. Now if I spent an entire minute, maybe 2 whole minutes, I would bother to obtain more.

But I don't think it'd do any good.

Oh well.

Opinions.

We're still marginally free enough to have them!




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname


originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: seeker1963
I am not discussing that aspect of the gay marriage decision. Please kindly read the original source article so that you can try and stay relevant; I will be patient.

By the way, I also support gay marriage; I just do not think any government should rule over marriage.



originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny
Thank you for actually reading the article!



originally posted by: notmyrealname
For those that do not want to click the link there is this that came as a surprise to me:



originally posted by: notmyrealname
C'mon, red herring alert. Did you even read the article?



I'm unsure of what there is to discuss here. There is absolutely no evidence of bias or reason to argue that they should be impeached. Every time we chill this "Blob" with our fire extinguishers of evidence and truth, and we think it's dead, folks keep saying that "this issue is not clear." I fail to see anything more than gossip and anti-lgbtq bias here, and that just needs to end.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: beezzer

It's a damned shame. I was hoping that there would be some in DC who could rise above the fray.


But the ruling was great. I can now use my WA state concealed license in all 50 states with same ruling that they used on gay marriage ruling. I'm really wondering what else will be affected too as a result in this ruling.

Hey, tell me that is so !!!!
That would truly be great. While we are at it, legalize drugs because many states already have.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   


You're right. I spent the extra 30 seconds.

There were people calling for impeachment after both Citizens United and Hobby Lobby.

My god, we've become a nation of spoiled whiny crybabies.
edit on 23Thu, 02 Jul 2015 23:38:02 -050015p112015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: rationalconsumer
a reply to: notmyrealname


originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: seeker1963
I am not discussing that aspect of the gay marriage decision. Please kindly read the original source article so that you can try and stay relevant; I will be patient.

By the way, I also support gay marriage; I just do not think any government should rule over marriage.



originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny
Thank you for actually reading the article!



originally posted by: notmyrealname
For those that do not want to click the link there is this that came as a surprise to me:



originally posted by: notmyrealname
C'mon, red herring alert. Did you even read the article?



I'm unsure of what there is to discuss here. There is absolutely no evidence of bias or reason to argue that they should be impeached. Every time we chill this "Blob" with our fire extinguishers of evidence and truth, and we think it's dead, folks keep saying that "this issue is not clear." I fail to see anything more than gossip and anti-lgbtq bias here, and that just needs to end.

Please kindly point out any instance of me portraying an "anti-lgbtq" attitude here….
are you upset that I do not just take your opinion at face value? If so just agree to disagree and move on as I do not remember requiring you participate here….



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Would it do any good if I did?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
My opinion is quite simply that I do not believe that any government office (state Federal or other) should be involved with the institution of marriage; it should be a union between connecting adults. I feel there should be tax benefits or regulations that are related to marriage whatsoever.

I mean really, Wow Baby, This love we have is really amazing; I want to spend the rest of my life with you! I really love you so much so… Let's get the government involved!'

Does that make sense to anyone here?


How about legal benefits? Ignoring the tax implications these are the legal benefits attached for marriage, are you in favor of abolishing them?

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Lets sum this up with a very real application of what may happen without these benefits. You can be charged with a crime (for arguments sake lets say you're actually guilty), without these protections in place the government can "convince" your spouse to testify against you.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Don't Mind if I do!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Would it do any good if I did?


Sorry, googled, and edited.

You were right, and I was wrong.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
That is a really nice long post about all the benefits of marriage. I do not see the relevance of it to this conversation as I am not speaking about the abolishment of marriage; I am talking about getting the government out of administering the marriage. In this manner, the government and society can get on with the things that matter instead of dedicating too much time making legal issues out of what is easily decided between two adults.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Would it do any good if I did?


Sorry, googled, and edited.

You were right, and I was wrong.


I don't think either of us are wrong.

I think it's an indictment on society.

No beer, but I'll share a single malt.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I was wrong that there was no public outcry after CU and HL for impeachment, or raving that the Justices were anti-American.

Enjoy your Scotch. Glenlivet?

/sigh I remember those days.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

I was wrong that there was no public outcry after CU and HL for impeachment, or raving that the Justices were anti-American.

Enjoy your Scotch. Glenlivet?

/sigh I remember those days.


I see it more of the way all of us are manipulated by the media.

You and I are both smart.

We both watch news stations, read news articles, listen to a variety of pundits.

Why is it you have a different recollection than I?

It's like we're in different countries. that's the way the media and government keep us divided on issues. They're good at it.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

I was wrong that there was no public outcry after CU and HL for impeachment, or raving that the Justices were anti-American.

Enjoy your Scotch. Glenlivet?

/sigh I remember those days.


I see it more of the way all of us are manipulated by the media.

You and I are both smart.

We both watch news stations, read news articles, listen to a variety of pundits.

Why is it you have a different recollection than I?

It's like we're in different countries. that's the way the media and government keep us divided on issues. They're good at it.


I concur utterly; glad to give you a star!



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Gov. involvement isn't something you can just do away with. Marriage is a contract between 3 parties actually only the 3rd party, the Government, is some what silent. The same goes for a Religious Marriage only the 3rd party there is God or the Church who handles God's affairs here on earth.

It is this 3rd party that does play a significant role too. That is why you get things like Tax Breaks for getting married. It is the 3rd party of Government which makes this possible. It is also why if you choose to divorce it is the Government that is involved again in settling who get's what and why. Again, same goes for Religious Marriage. That is why the Church can literally deny a couple the option of divorce even if they no longer want to be married. Or why the Church can also deny them marriage in the first place if they don't agree with the type of marriage based on various reasons.

Nothing is stopping 2 people from making their own contract between just the two of them and calling it marriage and each other husband and wife or husband and husband or wife and wife. However the Gov. isn't going to give you tax breaks or anything else for such a contract because they aren't involved with it. It's not official by Government standards and won't be recognized by them as official.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


...since the primary opposition to same sex weddings is based on Christian doctrine and that would have meant the government was placing one religion above others (many of which support same sex marriage).


Good point! Some people think Freedom of Religion means Freedom for them to force their religious beliefs on others. Not everyone has anti-gay marriage religious beliefs. People who believe in gay marriage have Freedom of Religion, too. Making gay marriage illegal because of another person's religious belief is unconstitutional.
edit on 3-7-2015 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join