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: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux
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?


Not in the eyes of the government, you have not committed yourself on paper. About 100 years ago you might have been considered married under common law (7 years of cohabitation) but that was never legally binding.


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

That is the real issue.


Agreed. No-fault divorce was a big mistake, one that Reagan regretted starting in the US. Making the egress from a marriage license less onerous was one of the first steps to weaken the actual institution.
edit on 5-12-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
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?

What's the point of doing anything except to satisfy some sort of baser instinct? Humans are creatures of instinct. What you just said is a tautology dressed up as wisdom. I could make that same argument about any action humans undertake. Including having children.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's sad watching our Constitution deteriorate in real time.


Welcome to the party. I've been saying that for years.

Oh, you're talking about marriage. Something that isn't in the Constitution, but doesn't stop people from trying to scribble it in there.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
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?


Let’s start with the one that means American citizens are being treated unequally AND NOT COMPARE THAT ONE TO THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

1) Convincing everyone is impossible. This is doubly so in today's hyper-partisan climate.
2) Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming towards the right thing.
3) The Supreme Court has determined things like this in the past. Interracial Marriage is an example.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's sad watching our Constitution deteriorate in real time.


Welcome to the party. I've been saying that for years.

Oh, you're talking about marriage. Something that isn't in the Constitution, but doesn't stop people from trying to scribble it in there.

No. I'm talking about the SCOTUS allowing a state to discriminate against a group of people despite already ruling on this matter. Nice try with the weak sarcasm though. I'll give you a 5/10 for it.
edit on 5-12-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

I gave several examples where states skirt federal laws which is exactly what the thread is about and states that restrict the second amendment are treating citizens unequally.

Chill out



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Thorneblood




Top 7 answers on the board. What's the most derogatory way to define marriage between same sex couples? Survey says... #2 - Unnatural DING!


naturally...male of species looks for a female of species. It's that way...nature wanted it that way. That's why...it enabled women to give birth by being inseminated by a male. It's the basis of procreation. It's the reason why we're all here.

Yes...gay is not natural. And honestly...nature thinks so too.

I'm not saying it's evil. Just unnatural. Deal with it. It's the (not so) ugly truth.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: eNumbra

I gave several examples where states skirt federal laws which is exactly what the thread is about and states that restrict the second amendment are treating citizens unequally.

Chill out

The difference between this situation and gun laws is that gun laws effect everyone statewide. This law selectively effects a minority segment of the Texas population. That is called discrimination and is wrong.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Guys you are missing the actual issue here. The issue at hand from he source in the OP is that the previous governor had gave same sex couples benefits BEFORE same sex marriage was legal in Texas.


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."



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Thorneblood




Top 7 answers on the board. What's the most derogatory way to define marriage between same sex couples? Survey says... #2 - Unnatural DING!


naturally...male of species looks for a female of species. It's that way...nature wanted it that way. That's why...it enabled women to give birth by being inseminated by a male. It's the basis of procreation. It's the reason why we're all here.

Yes...gay is not natural. And honestly...nature thinks so too.

I'm not saying it's evil. Just unnatural. Deal with it. It's the (not so) ugly truth.

Homosexuality is natural... Otherwise it wouldn't exist in nature and humans wouldn't be born gay. You are just appealing to the majority and ignoring minority situations that contradict you with your reasoning.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
It appears the Mayor overstepped her authority at the time...


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."




originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: bgerbger

I dare I say that the OP has either knowingly or unknowingly misrepresented the issue from the source.





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



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

And why is that a problem?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I don't think this will have the effect hat texas is hoping for.
My guess this is being done in the hopes that the only reason gay people are together was for those sweet sweet government benefits. And that this will result in less gay people getting married.

But the truth that they refuse to see is this, gay people wanted to get married for the same reason straight people do, because they are in love. Most of them just wanted the acknowledgement of that love from the state. The benefits are unimportant to most.

Once texas sees that the gay marriage population doesn't decrees because of this they will try something else I'm sure.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Not to get too philosophical or hung up on semantics, but nothing outside of nature can exist, so if something exists at all, then it is natural.

It's a completely moot point.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Of course it's wrong.
I never said otherwise.
The number of people effected doesn't make the situation worse or better.
I have always felt gays should be afforded the same rights federally as other people.
Marriage is a legal contract that should apply to all.
But.
The question still remains.
Where are the lines for state rights drawn?
They seem to be able to pick the laws they want to follow but only in some cases.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

That's a good question, but for this particular instance it really isn't an apt point. The discrimination is clear here. Texas is singling out the gay community. Particularly those who want to get married by denying them benefits they'd receive in a heterosexual marriage. Then the fact that SCOTUS isn't even hearing the case is more alarming.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I sure you wont except this as truth but I thought I would try anyway.




posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: eNumbra

I gave several examples where states skirt federal laws which is exactly what the thread is about and states that restrict the second amendment are treating citizens unequally.

Chill out

You’re question “where do we draw the line for states rights?” Was an ignorant one.

You have example that sit on complete opposite ends of the spectrum of what is and isn’t acceptable and that you’d even include discrimination in the list is abhorant.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: DupontDeux
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?


Not in the eyes of the government, you have not committed yourself on paper. About 100 years ago you might have been considered married under common law (7 years of cohabitation) but that was never legally binding.


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

That is the real issue.


Agreed. No-fault divorce was a big mistake, one that Reagan regretted starting in the US. Making the egress from a marriage license less onerous was one of the first steps to weaken the actual institution.


Yeah, that is my point - the dicorce rate is closing in on 50 percent. 1,750,000 Americans get divorced each year, on average after just eight years. Marriage is no longer a life long commitment. It has losts it right to be eligible for exclusive benefits.


My (then) girlfriend and I just married, so my opinions does not stem from feeling left out. I just think the state/government should be totally oblivious to my marriage - don't give me rights, don't interfere, just stay out of out.

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



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join