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.

 

Pointing out the double standard

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Ok, show me the part of prop 22 which made it illegal to issue same sex marriage licenses.


CA Family Code 308.5 (2000)



If she had been doing something illegal why was she not arrested for it?


I'm not getting into a cyclical argument.




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: windword

We both know that majority public opinion wins the day.


What does that have to do with, or how does it prove the double standard that the OP is trying to say exists?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Where's the part which makes it illegal to issue a license?


I'm not getting into a cyclical argument.
Then why did you start one?

You have provided nothing that says that it is illegal to either issue, or not issue marriage licenses.


edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Another question. So you are saying that when they issued licenses to gays it wasn't against the law, it just wasn't the law?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Phage

Another question. So you are saying that when they issued licenses to gays it wasn't against the law, it just wasn't the law?



clearly there was a violation of the law because the courts got involved and told him to cease issuing the liscenses, that wouldnt have happened if there was no law surrounding issuing liscenses where gay marraige was illegal



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
double post


edit on 02/08/2015 by kellyjay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




So you are saying that when they issued licenses to gays it wasn't against the law, it just wasn't the law?

That would seem to be the case, yes.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Phage

Another question. So you are saying that when they issued licenses to gays it wasn't against the law, it just wasn't the law?



clearly there was a violation of the law because the courts got involved and told him to cease issuing the liscenses, that wouldnt have happened if there was no law surrounding issuing liscenses where gay marraige was illegal


I'll wait on the person I asked the question of. That will be fact, not opinion.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay




clearly there was a violation of the law because the courts got involved and told him to cease issuing the liscenses, that wouldnt have happened if there was no law surrounding issuing liscenses where gay marraige was illegal

No.
And never mind the fact that the court order was obeyed. Another non-equivalence.

edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Let's define marriage license:


a written authorization granted by a qualified governmental official or ecclesiastic to a named man and woman to marry

Merriam-Webster

So, it would seem to me that the authorization is not valid, recognized, or legal by Prop 22. Maybe that's why the judge told him to quit issuing them in 2004.

You're starting this cyclical nonsense by a clear refusal to acknowledge what happened on face value. You can twist it any way you'd like in an attempt to obfuscate what's going on. But it's not going to work.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
That would seem to be the case, yes.


It would seem to me that the judge in 2004 and the judge in 2015 both disagree with you.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

So, it would seem to me that the authorization is not valid, recognized, or legal by Prop 22. Maybe that's why the judge told him to quit issuing them in 2004.
Yes, that's right. The licenses were not valid.



You're starting this cyclical nonsense by a clear refusal to acknowledge what happened on face value.
What cyclical nonsense. If something illegal was being done a court order would not have been required.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Phage

Another question. So you are saying that when they issued licenses to gays it wasn't against the law, it just wasn't the law?



clearly there was a violation of the law because the courts got involved and told him to cease issuing the liscenses, that wouldnt have happened if there was no law surrounding issuing liscenses where gay marraige was illegal


I'll wait on the person I asked the question of. That will be fact, not opinion.


cool...but there is this




The California supreme court yesterday declared the marriages of thousands of same-sex couples in San Francisco void, after ruling that the city's mayor exceeded his authority by granting them marriage licences.
The ruling was the latest setback to efforts by the gay community to challenge laws that restrict the institution of marriage to heterosexual couples.

The court said the mayor, Gavin Newsom, and city officials violated the law when they issued the certificates, since legislation and a state voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The judges decided by a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 gay marriages performed in the city between February 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.

The court ordered officials in San Francisco to "undo" their previous "unauthorised" actions, correct official records and notify the newlyweds that their marriages were void.



www.theguardian.com...

so yah...broke the law
edit on 02/08/2015 by kellyjay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


If something illegal was being done a court order would not have been required.


If something legal were being done, a court wouldn't have get involved at all. Call it a grey area if you must, but when a court has to tell you to stop what you're doing, it kind of makes it illegal to continue doing so.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
they both broke the law,

but one broke it in 2004 because he was against repression due to sexual preference, and one was for it.

its hard to be right when surrounded by powerful people who are wrong. the law was broken and gay marriage licenses were issued back in SF some 10+ years later its now illegal to deny gay people marriage licenses.

ill stand by right any day. even if i go to jail.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

Did you miss the point that this was from 11 years ago? Google can be your friend if you know how to use it.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: kellyjay

Did you miss the point that this was from 11 years ago? Google can be your friend if you know how to use it.




doesnt matter when it was from, he still broke the law like kim did based on his personal opinion thus is a double standard, nice try at trying to shift the goal posts though...no really, bravo



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay




so yah...broke the law

Thank you.
Yes, the California Supreme court decided that it was illegal.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

No he didn't. Exceeding his authority is not breaking the law. The Court deemed what he was doing exceeded his authority and he backed down like he was supposed to. If he didn't back down after the Court slapped his wrist... then he would breaking the law.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: kellyjay

Did you miss the point that this was from 11 years ago? Google can be your friend if you know how to use it.




doesnt matter when it was from, he still broke the law like kim did based on his personal opinion thus is a double standard, nice try at trying to shift the goal posts though...no really, bravo


I didn't move them. The First World has been here for decades. It's some in the US that can't get with even the 20th century. No matter how much one wants to spin it or try to justify it, this bigotry is on it's way out. Accept that humanity is actually moving on or be dragged kicking and screaming. It's going to happen. Most don't allow theology to dominate their ethics anymore. Thank Christ. Pun intended.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join