It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Gay Marriage Amendment Not Coming Soon

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 06:02 PM

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.

This is about the only statement I find worth replying to as a quote, because I find that everything else you've stated is simply an excuse for lazy citizenry (aaaw, it'd just be too hard to fix, so screw it.) If allowing that demographic to have equal rights causes the structure of our society, and economy to just fall apart at the seams, then there's something very wrong with the very foundation of this country.
And the comment about my analogy being a comparison of apples, and oranges because a soldier has no choice? Fine. Ten average guys out in the woods with not enough food. There, that should make it more relevant for you. And yes, equal acceptance can indeed be forced onto an unwilling population. I believe the volatile 60's, early 70's and pretty much anyone else who discriminates based on race/sex/creed is proof of that.

This post is relatively shorter than my previous. 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.

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:37 AM
Ghaleon offers,

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.
An apology is only offered when one feels GUILT over their actions, or social preassures (cultural values) would indicate one was nessisary.
As no one in this thread asked for one, i must assume guilt is the motive.

Do you feel guilty for supporting the LIE that this is a private (in the bedroom) issue, instead of one pushed into the public domain by those seeking entitlments from society?

Perhaps you feel remorse for supporting another LIE when you try and say this culture (and others) dont have plenty of criteria based entitlments which do NOT treat everyone as equals? Entitlments that seperate people based on race, creed, sex, age, economics etc etc etc....both private and public (from the government).

Perhaps you are apologizing to all the people you would paint as bigots, homophobes, bible thumpers, or any other forms of demonization used in order to essentially blackmail them into giving up their rights of opinion, choice of religious values, freedom of assembly, and democratic process. Mabey apologizing to all the voters of California that had thier votes usurped (stolen) by local officials in order to violate the law and will of the majority of citizenry to push a minority agenda upon them unwillingly is in order?

How about an apology for trying to "blame" the people that MIGHT support this agenda IF more examination of the rammifications of doing so were done BEFORE blindly adopting it culturally were to occur. Why are these people "bad" for asking for more info and consideration of these effects BEFORE just adopting a "feel good" stance?

I could continue to see reasons you could apologize for from the many apparent GAPS in your position, but this would be asking alot, as i feel any apology offered would be insincere.

As to the issue of an amendment banning gay marriage (or defining marriage), i dont feel this will ever come to pass, however i do see some kind of overall federal situation is needed because of states adopting many different rules governing this issue, where things would need to be standardized to work out differences between these state situations.
I would like to put this issue to a national reforendum instead of an amendment...let the people, as a nation decide, as to weather or not to adopt this ideology into the social identity of the nation, and if so how.

As Darth Vader once said,
"apology accepted...."

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:55 AM

You have voted CazMedia for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

You are a master rhetoritician, CazMedia!

I thought you did an excellent job of refuting the emotionally overwrought and demonizing arguments of people who disagree with you; from what I saw you did it with a great deal of wit, style, and dignity.

Like the Author of "Roberts' Rules of Order" said of democracy, "though the minority must be heard, the majority shall have its say."

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 12:31 AM

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.''
So it would appear that marriage is NOT a fundamental right for ANYONE. Can i say i told you so?

lets see what both sides say about the FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE,

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.''

the judge says otherwise,

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.''

As a side note to this issue,

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.

While it seems that a constitutional amendment is NOT going to happen, it does appear that some kind of federal "rules" for covering the various states interpretations are going to be needed.

More and More it seems that democratically derived laws establishing criteria for marriage being between one man/woman are going to be upheld, especially as as noted earlier in this thread, MARRIAGE IS BEING DEFINED AS NOT A RIGHT FOR ANYONE.

Now who was saying this stuff around here for how long?

[edit on 20-1-2005 by CazMedia]

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in