It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perhaps not (not a guarentee), however, why is this nessisary? what criteria is used to determine who gets in now? Any discussion as to how this can be done, will everyone fit without collapsing the structure or at the same time? Why force the clubhouse to do so when not everyone even wants to be inside? There are enough BASIC questions here, without having to go into minutia, to see that the issue has not been examined enough to just impliment inclusion to the clubhouse, reguardless of the desires or intent of either side.
An apology is only offered when one feels GUILT over their actions, or social preassures (cultural values) would indicate one was nessisary.
I owe everyone an apology for allowing myself to be led off on tangents that stray from the true core of this problem. CazMedia, I apologize to you for nothing.
You have voted CazMedia for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.
So it would appear that marriage is NOT a fundamental right for ANYONE. Can i say i told you so?
In his ruling, Moody rejected arguments that the federal law discriminates on the basis of sex ``because it treats men and women equally.''
Moreover, the judge wrote, ``although the court recognizes the importance of a heterosexual or homosexual individual's choice of a partner, not all important decisions are protected fundamental rights.''
Rubin argued, in part, that the faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize all marriages performed in other states. That clause provides that ``full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state; and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.''
Moody held that Congress acted appropriately under the Constitution when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act. ``Adopting plaintiffs' rigid and literal interpretation of the full faith and credit [clause] would create a license for a single state to create national policy,'' the judge added. ``Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts' same- sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida's legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage.''
Last year, a federal bankruptcy judge in Washington state ruled another section of the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional when a lesbian couple sought to file for bankruptcy as a heterosexual couple would. That ruling dealt with the law's definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman but did not address the issue of states' recognition of marriages performed elsewhere, Staver said.