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.

 

So it begins: Texas Has the Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   
It only applies to govt workers?

2015? Seems like someone forgot the most important part of marriage. Thanks obama.





posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Some of these posts are being very manipulative.

It is starting to become like gay people must prove harder that they have the right to behave in ways that heterosexual people behave without question in the modern age.

If heterosexual casual sex is cool and not questioned then neither should casual gay sex be questioned. What is good for one is good for all.

There is that constant entrapment that the majority use as a weapon on minority behavior and freedom; prejudice by stealth. No, the minority do not have to prove anything or be conforming to extra moral codes that the majority do not follow.

That is a very significant aspect of prejudice that goes often quite unnoticed. We have witnessed it often with migrants. If they put just a foot out of line it is ten times the judgement heaped upon them.

Remember, in the days of slavery, how the black person had to behave like a saint while being so abused? Just one step out of line would be the evidence and proof that they are inferior and reinforce every prejudice. It is a strange kind of blindness; one to which my quote from Christ and Aldous applies specifically. They would punish all for the acts of one and tar all with the same brush.

This is the true prejudice and pressure upon minorities. They have strict behavior enforced upon them less they be tarred with the same brush as just one in a million who did something the majority could hold up as evidence against the whole of the minority.

It is getting better, no doubt, but it is still there as a majority zombie automated prejudicial response. People might argue that it is just nature that people behave like this as an atavism to tribal behavior. Yes, it may very well be. That is NO EXCUSE. Cavemen behavior, we all know, is barbaric by today's moral standards of behavior.


edit on 5-12-2017 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Honestly, if sex isn't specifically for reproduction it is just for entertainment regardless of who is boinking whom. I mean what is the point if you aren't making a baby except for satisfying our basic instincts?

edit on 2017/12/5 by Metallicus because: sp



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: bgerbger


...Texas Supreme Court ruling that prevented same-sex spouses from having the same workplace insurance benefits as heterosexual couples.


Figures insurance would be behind that one.

Anything for a buck.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64


I know..."State's Rights" and all that, but wrong is wrong.

States Rights, is right. The supreme court bowed to it this case because that 'poker' is too hot to handle.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DAVID64


I know..."State's Rights" and all that, but wrong is wrong.

States Rights, is right. The supreme court bowed to it this case because that 'poker' is too hot to handle.

States rights to deny a specific subset of American equal treatment?

There was a war fought over a similar issue in this county once.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Why do people still care about who marries who?

It must be exhausting to be so constantly judgmental.
edit on 5-12-2017 by wheresthebody because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: wheresthebody
Why do people still care about who marries who?

It must be exhausting to be so constantly judgmental.


I don't like seeing an obvious double standard for how people are treated under the law. This doesn't seem equitable regardless of my personal disdain for homosexuals.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic marriage in my time frame


the 1800s?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

The supreme court is blind, the fed is meddler supreme. States rights, whats that?

Oh, the insurance mega corp gets their 'right' to deny payment based on discrimination.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: bgerbger




It was argued that city employees did not have a "fundamental right" to receive government-subsidized spousal benefits and that it was "perfectly constitutional" to extend benefits to some married couples and deny them to others.


I say do away with spousal benefits altogether - they are in themselves discriminatory.

Why am I not entitled to the same benefits for my partner, my girlfriend through more than a decade, as some one else is for their wife whom they might have met only a year ago?

In a world where you marry and divorce at a whim that does not make sense.

That is the real issue.


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Personally, I don't give a rat's patootie who marries who. The more I look at the issue of gay marriae, the more I am convinced of that fact. But...

Yes, there's a but... get your flamethrowers ready...

The problem here is that people pushing gay marriage went about it all wrong. Sometimes it matters how you do a thing. In politics, the idea is to build consensus, to convince others that your position is right. But that didn't happen. Instead of convincing others that marriage should be extended to all, they demanded that marriage would be extended to all, by court decision, like it or not, hahaha, in your face.

That's not going to stand. Never has, never will. It's a hollow, short-lived victory, because court decisions that rely on pure interpretation can be easily reversed.

The same thing happened with legalization of marijuana. Don't bother legalizing it, just get the President to stop enforcing the law. We win! Oh, wait, the next President had other ideas? Crap...

The same thing happened with DACA. Don't waste time getting the Congress to pass a law protecting them. Just have the President protect them. We win! Oh, wait, the next President follows the law? Crap...

With gay marriage, don't bother getting an Amendment ratified, or even a law passed... just get a court decision based on a loose interpretation of the Constitution. We win! Oh, wait, the court ruled again? Crap...

What's really sad about this issue over the first two I mentioned is that there is now animosity that didn't exist before. People had been forced to watch reports of gay pride parades, with some of the most disgusting, sexually-inappropriate attire and actions imaginable, and then were told that yes, you WILL accept this behavior... which to them meant their children would have to watch sexually explicit actions in public. So now that the court is ruling again, guess what they're going to press for? Every jot and tittle of repeal of any gains made toward gay marriage they can find.

Again, not my issue. I warned about this years ago and was told to shut up and stop hating. So I did. And I'm going to shut up again after this post. I'm not your enemy (although I will surely be treated as such). You, and the shortcuts you want to take, are your enemy.

Redneck out.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




People had been forced to watch reports of gay pride parades, with some of the most disgusting, sexually-inappropriate attire and actions imaginable, and then were told that yes, you WILL accept this behavior...


So gay pride parades are disgusting and sexually inappropriate but Mardi Gras and Halloween Parades are what, examples of morality and modesty?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck


The problem here is that people pushing gay marriage went about it all wrong. Sometimes it matters how you do a thing. In politics, the idea is to build consensus, to convince others that your position is right. But that didn't happen. Instead of convincing others that marriage should be extended to all, they demanded that marriage would be extended to all, by court decision, like it or not, hahaha, in your face.


Would have never happened otherwise; people who remain willfully ignorant can’t be built a convensus with. Ideologues would refuse to ever accept gay marriage and we’d still be arguing the point for centuries to come.

There’s a point at which you must stop negotiating with ignorance and tell it to # off and join everyone else in the damned present.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Once again proving to me libs don't really care about what the traditional institution of marriage actually represents, it's just about the benefits and cash and government overreach, with a healthy dose of poking people in the eye with sticks.

My stance is now what it always was, stop handing out 'marriage licenses' to everyone (even heteros) and start dispensing 'civil union contracts' that apply to any couple regardless of their genitalia. Get the word *marriage* out of the debate. Yes this means that a couple of heterosexual dudes or ladies could apply for the contract too, so what? It's not the government's job to judge the level of affection people have for each other.
edit on 5-12-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

An odd thing to feel disdain over.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: bgerbger

While I agree with most of the posters here in that same sex married couples should have the same rights as man/woman couples, this isn’t the meat of the issue here and dare I say that the OP has either knowingly or unknowingly misrepresented the issue from the source.

From the source...

Mayor Annise Parker defied the law by providing spousal benefits to same-sex couples at a time when same-sex marriage was illegal in Texas, and we intend hold the city accountable for Parker's lawless actions and her unauthorized expenditures of taxpayer money."


Now perhaps you see the other side of the coin and now you see why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:43 AM
link   
This will get ugly.

States rights are an odd thing.

Here they are denying benefits to gays.
Some states ignore federal drug laws and make pot legal.
We have cities that ban guns which are legal federally.
There are sanctuary cities that violate federal law.

Where is the line for the rights of the states?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I see your point where it comes to Congress actually passing the law instead of having the Executive branch just allowing things to happen. However, marijuana and DACA are not the same type of issue as the gay marriage issue...not even close.

The gay marriage issue is American citizens being treated unequally and unfairly. There is no gray area here (in my opinion). I don't have to like homosexuality to still support my fellow citizens right to equality under the law.

The thing with DACA is these are NOT American citizens. There IS a gray area. I am not saying that it is right or wrong I am saying you can argue the point for both sides. The same thing with marijuana.

There is no gray area when it comes to gay marriage.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   
It's sad watching our Constitution deteriorate in real time.
edit on 5-12-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join