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.

 

Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because … gay marriage

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


People have a 60% + chance of failure, and the remaining 40% I'm sure can be divided up into sub categories, leaving a select group who are truly happy in marriage.

The problem with a contract in marriage is lawyers, and the legal system itself. I studied pre-law and had many friends go on to practice, some of which now have well known law firms here in the Detroit area. When I was going through my divorce the advice they gave was "Do not!" let it go to an attorney, settle all your matters between the two of you. The final agreement was done by us and we only had one court appearance to dissolve the marriage.

I asked "Why"and their answer was if two attorneys get involved the unwritten law is, evaluated the assets, then keep it going as long as possible, then have them settle, after depletion of assets. Warms one's heart thinking how ethical the legal system is.

Contracts are only good if the people and system enforcing them are decent.

Personally I didn't agree with what my ex did, but I would rather have the money go to her and my children, then some douche-bag attorneys.

Everyone including the judges, arbitrators, lawyers, friend of the court, etc.... make their livings proceeding over divorces.

The judge in this case is actually doing them harm, because the lawyers will continue to drain their assets.

No one wins in divorce, only degrees of loss.



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




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth




People have a 60% + chance of failure,

Source?


The problem with a contract in marriage is lawyers, and the legal system itself.
That's not what you said before. But how is it different from other legal contracts? You think legal contracts are a bad idea because, lawyers?



No one wins in divorce, only degrees of loss.
I agree. So what? Your solution is no contract. How does that fix things?
edit on 9/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dreamwatcher
business insider

huffington post




"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote in his decision last week.


Is this circus ever going to end ? Has there ever been such back lash on an official level to a supreme court ruling?

I can almost understand, even if grossly misguided, a lower level official like a county clerk showing disregard for court rulings and law, but now a sitting state judge.

Where does he think he is going go with this ? What about other supreme court rulings ? States can rule to outlaw guns? How about sates that rule that corporations are not people ? In this theory, does he think state can just ignore the parts of the constitution they do not agree with or interpret as they wish regardless of the supreme court?

The Supreme Court no longer exists. The individuals sitting in that court have been replaced by political lemmings who can be convinced, bought and coerced into any "ruling" and therefore...they are NOT the Supreme Court. Not the one that was supposed to exist. When judges ignore the law, ignore the Constitution and allow their or other's political views to override the law...the states (as far as I'm concerned) are REQUIRED to ignore them, issue laws that ARE legal and constitutional.

Until the outlaws in government, congress and the courts are removed or better yet...jailed...justice in this country has been raped and tossed in the gutter. Eventually, America will come to it's senses (or taken there) and all the individuals that contributed to our attempted destruction will have to pay for their acts, be that jail or something more permanent.

In the end...we will either be ruled by criminals, or we will hang the criminals and take our country back. Your choice.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Maybe the 60% was a bit high for first marriages overall, but in Michigan and some other states it did reach those numbers.

Second marriages are 60 to 70% failure rate.

Here is a fairly good source with links to stats.

www.wf-lawyers.com...

Phage I'm not sure what the solution is.

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



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

Phage I'm not sure what the solution is.

The Tennessee judge sure doesn't have one.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IridiumFlareMadness
Why is everybody so interested in marriage these days? That tired old patriarchal institution doesn't seem too progressive to me!


Its not about marriage.

Its about equal rights.


What the hell does getting a divorce have to do with equal right?

Also why in the hell do people need the government to approve a marriage? Love is love! Asking the government for permission is one of the reasons I find marriage and it's licensing process as total BS!

Follow the money?


In the rest of the civilized world, marriages are acknowledged by the state. By removing government from marriage in America, youre essentially telling Americans traveling abroad to do so at their own risk. Get injured on vacation or have a life threatening injury? Well the hospital won't recognize your spouse or let them make treatment decisions.

That's only one thing to consider.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog




Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.


And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution ? And bet ya didnt know it is left up to each state to define marriage and the rights thereof . FAIL (you are slipping here lately Phage)

No he's not.

Marriage doesn't per se. But equal rights does. You can't offer some people the right to marry, and not others.


Of course you can!

And it has been done the world over for thousands of years.

Funny stuff this "equal rights" jargon....



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO




And it has been done the world over for thousands of years.

And that makes it right, of course.
Like slavery. Done for thousands of years.


Funny stuff this "equal rights" jargon....

Yeah. Like blacks marrying whites. Never should be allowed because...I don't know why. Can you explain it?
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 9/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

LOL, interracial marriage and gay "Marriage" aren't even in the same ball park. The reason that interracial marriage was illegal is the same reason that any society that any society that has classes layered based on race/caste system. The "higher" class/caste doesn't want the "lower" classes moving up. Take President Obama's family, his ancestry.com supposedly shows that he is a descendent from the 1st American Negro slave, but before that slave line became president of America, it had multiple generations of white slave owners. The only way to keep classes/casts system based on race, is not allow the races to merge. Homophobic evolution dictates that it takes a man and a women to reproduce. Since ZERO homosexual couples can reproduce, comparing interracial and gay marriages is a fallacy on many levels



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: thinline

Homophobic evolution dictates that it takes a man and a women to reproduce. Since ZERO homosexual couples can reproduce, comparing interracial and gay marriages is a fallacy on many levels


I see. Good response.

Then, I suppose, infertile women and men should not be allowed to marry, since they cannot produce children.


BTW, what is "homophobic evolution?"


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



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I think what some people are trying to get at, is that no man has authority as to who you should or can be with as long as the two(man or woman) involved agree themselves that they wish to be together or not.

Allowing the government to get involved is like asking a another man to sleep in the same bed with your wife. Love is a private thing, not a government thing.

That said, no man has authority over me as long as I follow a set of rules, codes, and ethics along with the resolve to co-exist peacefully with thy neighbors. Allowing someone to dictate your every move is the equivalent of slavery, and noone will ever change this fact no matter how much they say 2 + 2 =5.

Solution to this problem?

Don't get married, its a sham and always will be. Better to just live with the person, no strings attached. And if they believe in God? Then invite a minister in the privacy of your own home, a few witnesses and get the blessing, with no need of licenses. The true christian is an anarchist. (Which does NOT i repeat does NOT mean chaos. It simply means without rulers or masters. Anarchy is anti enslavement.)


I fully support a world without government (which literally translates to Mind Control, same thing applies to religion. You don't need to be in a religion to believe in God. It is a personal and private thing, same applies with love. Private.


As for the judge ruling to this case and those criticizing the judge, well.. if you don't like the ruling, why play their game? Just turn your backs on what you don't agree with. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play the game.

edit on th2015000000Mondayth000000Mon, 07 Sep 2015 23:14:19 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoMon, 07 Sep 2015 23:14:19 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

I think what some people are trying to get at, is that no man has authority as to who you should or can be with as long as the two(man or woman) involved agree themselves that they wish to be together or not.
I agree. There is no law (anymore) which governs that.


Allowing someone to dictate your every move is the equivalent of slavery, and noone will ever change this fact no matter how much they say 2 + 2 =5.
A marriage license does not govern your every move. It specifies, legally, your rights and resposibilitys in the partnership. Just like any contract does.



Better to just live with the person, no strings attached.
Groovy, man. What about the kids? For starters.



edit on 9/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

First off, thank you for the decent response. I always did enjoy your posts as they do seem more factual, we just tend to disagree on a few points based on perception and fields of research. So I wanted to apologize for any past angry words hurled your way. But you do make alot of other great points since I am afterall, mostly after facts, and the more people who have facts the better.

Back on topic




A marriage license does not govern your every move. It specifies, legally, your rights and resposibilitys in the partnership. Just like any contract does.


That is understandable, because people do need reminders every now and then on such responsibilities. (which people rarely do these days anyways.) In a way it is no different than playing a game with rules. However, if the people are responsible enough, and feel they can do well without marriage or playing with such rules, they have the option to opt out of said rules by avoiding the game entirely. I mean, come on lol if you don't like the nature of the game, why even play it? But, then again, it all depends on how responsible people really are.





Groovy, man. What about the kids? For starters.


Well, to be honest, looking at how the world is today, with possible economic meltdowns, and other possible events that could be (could be) catastrophic globally. (assuming that rumors are true). Is it wise to have children this day in age as events continue to unfold? One thing for sure, I do not want my child to suffer, so why bring a child into a world where things does not look good for humanity as a whole?

As a responsible human being, we must weigh our options on whether or not to do certain things in life. If we can't barely manage to take responsibility for ourselves, how can we take responsibility for others? Doing so would be insanity and places us in a heavy situation of unneeded stress when it simply could have been avoided through common sense and logical thinking.

The problem is that people under certain... "urges" don't really think about the consequences of their actions until after the deed was done. Then comes situations like the original post and the judge. People regret, and try to turn back time when they have already fallen into the "trap". The judge is not at fault, the blame lies within those who choose to play the game to begin with.

I think we can both agree that, people rarely think about the consequences and focus more on what they are feeling through those urges. It is kinda like Mas***snip***. (use imagination for that *snip** to keep this PG13). People feel the urge, and after the "deed" was done. They have regret, and a then comes the feeling of shame. "What the **snip*** was I thinking?"

I think the problem is people focus more on "urges" than logic, hence we have the world today, due to being unable to control those urges.

With that said, I find this (image below) conversation (allegory/metaphor) to be highly reflective on the society we have today. I feel this conversation from the movie "the matrix" holds a key as to why we are where we are as a species. And it has a lot to do with the dark side of human nature. I enjoy metaphors and allegories because they tend to speak more truth than most sources. But the problem with allegories, is that discernment is needed to understand certain points of views. Sadly, not many people know how to discern, because people prefer the latest trends rather than education.



Discernment, in a way can be thought of as a scientific method, that is, if you know what you are doing. I guess that depends on how responsible the person is.





Edit: Thinking about the judge's ruling a bit more clearly, and analyzing what I myself stated in this post, I conclude that the judges ruling on incompetence, is correct. For the same reasons that I already stated in this very post.




in·com·pe·tence inˈkämpədəns/ noun noun: incompetence; plural noun: incompetences inability to do something successfully; ineptitude. "allegations of professional incompetence"

synonyms: ineptitude, ineptness, inability, lack of ability, lack of skill, lack of proficiency; inadequacy, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, deficiency, insufficiency;
amateurishness, clumsiness;
informaluselessness
"her dismissal was based only on her incompetence"


It is interesting, because it shows that the knight who is right in this case is actually the judge. Incompetence and irresponsibility fits perfectly together. Many here may not like what I said just now, but like I said, if you place yourself under someone else's rules, and play their game, the one responsible is the one who chooses to play the game. There is a reason for this sentence. "Their house, their rules". Where have we heard this one before?


edit on th2015000000Tuesdayth000000Tue, 08 Sep 2015 09:01:48 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoTue, 08 Sep 2015 09:01:48 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The tennessee judge is butt hurt because last year, or a couple years ago or sometime ago, supposedly the people of Tennessee voted (the question was worded vaguely and a lot of people misvoted) to define marriage as between a man and a woman. When SCOTUS basically overturned that earlier this year, a lot of local and state officials got pissy about it, such as this judge.

As always, whenever Tennessee makes national news, its usually because of some biased stupid individual.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I think it's an interesting issue. Perhaps I'm reading to much into it. But, I'm assuming that the laws on the books in Tennessee only allow for "traditional" marriage and the divorces associated with them. The SCOTUS rulling says the state must allow same sex marriage. Technically it said nothing about divorce. The state must allow them to marry as per the SCOTUS ruling. But there is no law or court ruling at the state or federal level saying they must allow divorces for them.

interesting situation.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years. Obama delivering on hs promise of "fundamentally changing this country and the world"( for the greater good of the party)...Sound familiar ?
He has learned well from the 12 Rules of Alinsky.


The SCOTUS has had that power since 1803. You may want to go pick up a history book there buddy.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog




Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.


And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution ? And bet ya didnt know it is left up to each state to define marriage and the rights thereof . FAIL (you are slipping here lately Phage)


Actually that is YOUR second fail. SCOTUS has already ruled on marriages in the past.
Loving v. Virginia

Again, may I suggest a history book?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan




The SCOTUS rulling says the state must allow same sex marriage.


The SCOTUS ruling shot down the discriminatory laws, that denied same sex couples equal rights, based on the 14th Amendment. There's no need for a new ruling for same sex divorce, as divorce is just as much a part of "marriage equality", as marriage is.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: XTexan
The SCOTUS rulling says the state must allow same sex marriage.


Actually, the ruling is everyone has the same right to marry.

There is no change - - other then Equal Rights.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gothmog
Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years. Obama delivering on hs promise of "fundamentally changing this country and the world"( for the greater good of the party)...Sound familiar ?
He has learned well from the 12 Rules of Alinsky.


The SCOTUS has had that power since 1803. You may want to go pick up a history book there buddy.

What power do you speak of they gained in 1803 ?




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join