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.

 

Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos

Timeline of same-sex marriage



On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota students, Richard John Jack Baker and James Michael McConnell applied to Hennepin County District Court clerk Gerald Nelson for a marriage license.

1971: October 15: The Supreme Court of the U.S. state of Minnesota upholds the decision of a lower court that denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the U.S. Constitution."

1975 - March 26: Boulder County clerk Clela Rorex issues first U.S. same-sex marriage license. During the following month, she issued five more same-sex marriage licenses.


There are MANY examples at the source, including Supreme Court cases... Hardly "unheard of".
edit on 9/7/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

Because it has nothing to do with the discussion that I can see, which is why I question whether you know what the discussion is you decided to jump into.


Enlighten me.

Does "being born that way" automatically make it alright and acceptable just by virtue of having been born that way.


The answer remains the same: Pedophile has a victim -- basic logic

Some scientists via brain scan study believe murders are: "born that way".

Science has evolved to understand the brain is extremely complex. Even that sexual orientation is determined by the brain, not physical gender.

The brain tells us who we are. Sometimes the "born" brain, sometimes a "damaged" brain.

The logic is: if the brain is programmed to harm (whether by birth or damage) - - that is not OK.




edit on 7-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

What would you say if I told you I have a coworker who was straight, was married, unhappy in her marriage, and decided to be a lesbian. Dated only girls for about 6 years. Then she decided girls were too much drama and now she is back to dating guys and considers herself heterosexual now.


I would say she was actually bisexual. It happens.


I really love the new term: "sexually fluid".



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The usa isn't a democracy.
Mob rule is a true democracy.
You want that?.


I agree, the US is not supposed to be a democracy, it is supposed to be a Republic. It is improbable that it would devolve into mob rule, the oligarchs will more than likely prevent that from happening.

What I don't understand is why there is still all this bitching and moaning about something you already have? Is it because you want us all to actually think like the LGBTQ crowd and you won't be satisfied until everyone thinks the same way? Certainly that is selfish and a means of devolving society into is lowest denominator.

I've watched this happen in schools where they either dumb down the entire curriculum or give everybody the same awards on the honour roll. Equalizing everything does not help society. It promotes a lie. As far as individual rights, they should be the same for everyone, however, your rights end where mine begin and the reverse is only reasonable as well. It's a two way street.

I will defend your right to be who you are as long as you're not infringing on or hurting others, but don't expect me to think or be like you.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Telos

There are many books that go back to the early 1900's that espouse the same principals and plans. You just have to read almost any communist manifesto ;-) However, they are well on their way, obfuscation, confusion through sexual orientation, elevating the material and personal pleasure over sacrifice and personal growth, class and gender warfare, etc. We have become a society of dysfunctional tools.

Mussolini promoted the idea of fascism as corporatism or a corporatocracy. People are catching on so the new buzzword for a ruling elite is meritocracy or again corporate fascism.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




What I don't understand is why there is still all this bitching and moaning about something you already have?

You know that in many states it is lawful to discriminate in the workplace against gays, right? "I won't hire no gays! Too bad though, that guy is pretty good, but he's gay. I guess I'll hire that straight guy, even though his resume sucks." Perfectly legal.

You know that in many states it is lawful to discriminate in housing against gays, right? I won't rent to no gays!


Is it because you want us all to actually think like the LGBTQ crowd and you won't be satisfied until everyone thinks the same way?
People can think anyway they wish. They can think that killing somebody would be a good idea. That doesn't mean that acting on it is a good thing. People will always hate people because of what they are. Putting that hate into action by discrimination is the problem. Equal rights does not mean changing the way people think, it means giving people the same rights to do the same things that other have.

edit on 9/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Why can't this guy just do his job and not push his beliefs on people?
When did his rights become more important then others?



Why are gay rights more important than religious rights? Bottom line is this is a contrived conflict that could be easily resolved by someone else performing the ceremony. No one has to lose unless the goal is to be vindictive. The only reason we have conflict here is because some a-holes want their pound of flesh.
I agree somewhat, but the problem I have is two points:
1) It's a hate crime!
... Yes, even if it's based on religious grounds, I think refusing to grant marriage licenses is eventually judged a hate crime. I saw evidence of this in a Kim Davis video. She was talking with some people and a gay couple said "You disrespected us." That sounds eerily like discrimination, no?
2) If you don't like the laws of this land then go somewhere else
... Isn't this true? Why should we cater to every individual who doesn't like the laws? Switching of hands is costly too.
3) If you don't like the laws of the land then change them, but don't obstruct justice or government functions or commit crime
... Isn't that what Kim Davis is doing, given the circumstances? Of course some of the blame falls on how the systems works.

"The system" cannot "fire" Kim Davis because she was elected. It's the responsibility of the people who elected her to "fire" her but unfortunately many of them are supporting her which is why she's in jail. The government cannot "fire" her, so it puts her in jail. This perhaps is the biggest problem in this whole mess. The government can't simply "fire" her.
edit on 9/7/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




What I don't understand is why there is still all this bitching and moaning about something you already have?

You know that in many states it is lawful to discriminate in the workplace against gays, right? "I won't hire no gays! Too bad though, that guy is pretty good, but he's gay. I guess I'll hire that straight guy, even though his resume sucks." Perfectly legal.

You know that in many states it is lawful to discriminate in housing against gays, right? I won't rent to no gays!


Is it because you want us all to actually think like the LGBTQ crowd and you won't be satisfied until everyone thinks the same way?
People can think anyway they wish. They can think that killing somebody would be a good idea. That doesn't mean that acting on it is a good thing. People will always hate people because of what they are. Putting that hate into action by discrimination is the problem. Equal rights does not mean changing the way people think, it means giving people the same rights to do the same things that other have.


I agree with your last paragraph. There should be no discrimination for housing or the workplace either and I was under the impression that was a thing of the past as well. But an owner of a property or a business should have the right to hire or rent to whom they feel is the best fit with the least amount of risk. I am not justifying discrimination as there are consequences for both businesses and property owners when they make bad decisions.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
One way I understand the cultural changes is just to look at what the liberals/progressives are saying and then project that into the next few hundred years. Liberals are always free floating and want to break old boundaries. They don't see/know everything and so it has limited facility, but for me it's a good guide, maybe the best one.

So if I want to picture what the world will be like in 200 years I first look at our liberals and what they're wanting to do. Then I look at other boundaries in our culture and try to break them down or remove them. Then I add technology and things get interesting. The more you start to add to the mix the less linear it's. Litle better than a random guess.

Problem is there're so many interacting variables it's impossible to accurately predict the future, so it's futile to aim for it. BUT it's fun. It's a puzzle. It's like the question of God or existence.
edit on 9/7/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I was under the impression that was a thing of the past as well.
You are mistaken. And that is why you continue to hear the "bitching and moaning."



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Telos

Timeline of same-sex marriage



On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota students, Richard John Jack Baker and James Michael McConnell applied to Hennepin County District Court clerk Gerald Nelson for a marriage license.

1971: October 15: The Supreme Court of the U.S. state of Minnesota upholds the decision of a lower court that denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the U.S. Constitution."

1975 - March 26: Boulder County clerk Clela Rorex issues first U.S. same-sex marriage license. During the following month, she issued five more same-sex marriage licenses.


There are MANY examples at the source, including Supreme Court cases... Hardly "unheard of".


No, they're not. Just a few that don't make a MANY. Not enough to predict what he wrote. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
edit on 7-9-2015 by Telos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I was under the impression that was a thing of the past as well.
You are mistaken. And that is why you continue to hear the "bitching and moaning."



Well business is business, so until businesses go out of business for their decisions, there is no point in bitching and moaning. Stop feeding the beast.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


Well business is business, so until businesses go out of business for their decisions, there is no point in bitching and moaning.

Yeah. Those damned blacks should have shut the hell up and let things be. Their bitching and moaning got them nowhere.
Wimmen too.




edit on 9/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
One way I understand the cultural changes is just to look at what the liberals/progressives are saying and then project that into the next few hundred years. Liberals are always free floating and want to break old boundaries. They don't see/know everything and so it has limited facility, but for me it's a good guide, maybe the best one.

So if I want to picture what the world will be like in 200 years I first look at our liberals and what they're wanting to do. Then I look at other boundaries in our culture and try to break them down or remove them. Then I add technology and things get interesting. The more you start to add to the mix the less linear it's. Litle better than a random guess.

Problem is there're so many interacting variables it's impossible to accurately predict the future, so it's futile to aim for it. BUT it's fun. It's a puzzle. It's like the question of God or existence.


We need Isaac Asimov and his psychohistory probabilities machine/programs from the Foundation series. Then you would have a very good idea of where things are going. Actually, I can tell you anyway, right into the crapper.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 9/7.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


Well business is business, so until businesses go out of business for their decisions, there is no point in bitching and moaning.

Yeah. Those damned blacks should have shut the hell up and let things be. Their bitching and moaning got them nowhere.
Wimmen too.



Disabled too.

How many businesses have fought in court not to accomodate the disabled.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Im just going to leave this here.
Gay Judge Refuses to Marry Straight Couples



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

When the supreme court ruled on the rights of citizens, those that were pursuing the banning of same sex marriage base on religious grounds were encouraging those in jobs at state level to start denying their rights base on religion also.

So, while some of us were celebrating the supreme court ruling we also talked about what was going to happen down the road in order to challenge the ruling.

We are going to see more on this issue as the time goes by, but this is going to back fire on the religious groups pushing this agenda because is just going to make them look for what they are and is not looking good.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

That story is 3 years old. Here is a more recent one.
www.wfaa.com...

Her stance was not based on religion.





edit on 9/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Woops I guess I should have read all the pages before posting, my bad.




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

What I posted had nothing to do with what you said.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join