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.

 

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure

page: 18
5
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   

You don't have to choose a lawyer to be your agent, but it is important to select someone you trust. The relative, friend or business you choose to be your Agent will be acting on your behalf regarding your financial or health care issues. You need to choose someone who won't abuse the powers you grant to them and will look out for your best interests.

In general, an agent is only held responsible for misconduct that's intentional, not for unknowingly doing something wrong. This type of protection is included in most power of attorney documents to help encourage people and organizations to accept the responsibility of being an Agent. Usually there is no financial incentive to serve as an Agent, most serve without compensation

Signing the Document
A power of attorney must be signed by the person granting the authority (known as the "Principal"). The Principal must be mentally competent at the time of the signing in order to make the document legally binding. If there is any question about the Principal's mental competence, a physician may be asked to certify in writing that the person understands the document and the consequences of signing the document.

The signature on a power of attorney should also be notarized. Notarization makes it harder for someone to challenge the validity of the signature. It also allows the document to be "recorded" for use with real estate transactions.

Power of attorny

and
Online medical Power of attorny form


as for the health insurance do a little searching online for different plans and see for yourself.

I did a search here Online Health insurance quotes the cheapest family plan was $124 a month the cheapest single plan was $83 a month

as for the marriage tax breaks depending on the couples income. if they make around the same amount of money they would be better off filling seprately. if their is a big difference in their income then they will do better filing jointly. however. whether you file jointly or single you get the same tax breaks the only difference is if you are married you do not Qualify for Earned income credit. you can find this info on any federal 1040 booklet!



You:

wheres your proof that it hasn't happened in these other countries?




Me: Show me where one of those countries has approved sexual abuse, sex with animals, or polygamy?

I'm still waiting for an answer.


See you were the one that stated as fact that those things have not occurred. i said it was a possiblity so since you claimed it as fact the burden of proof is on you since your claiming it as fact.




posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

federal defense of marriage act


Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Iowa[8], California, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.
thought you might also like to see that. Seems the supreme court has decided not to get involved in the issue.

Oh looky here

DOMA Section 2 is occasionally argued to be unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. Federal courts have been reluctant in the past to compel any state to apply the laws of another state when so doing would contravene its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity.
same source!

see if the issue continues then something like this could be passed.

DOMA Section 2 is occasionally argued to be unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. Federal courts have been reluctant in the past to compel any state to apply the laws of another state when so doing would contravene its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity. It would also prevent any state from legalizing same-sex marriages entered into within the state. Another alternative, endorsed by the 2004 Republican Party political platform, is for Congress to pass a law protecting DOMA from judicial scrutiny.


just thought you would like to see the 1 federal law that does deal with marriage and the states right granted under it. and i thought you would also like to see that it is still very much in effect and has never been struck down.


Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.


California prop 22 was the law that was over turned. so they took prop 22 turned it into prop 8 and changed it from a ballot initiative to a constitutional amendment. it has the exact same wording. and the main point in both props is this


Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.


So given what i have shown you. your fighting a loosing battle. instead of fighting the state you should fight the federal law that allows the state to ban same sex marriage. Oh but doing that might cause an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage and forever injecting the federal government into the business of marriage. and what good does that do?

And Polls don't translate into votes my friend. and since the defense of marriage act has passed 30 states have banned same sex marriages clearly the majority so far hasn't agreed with you no matter what your polls say.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by Mercenary2007]

[edit on 11/12/2008 by Mercenary2007]

[edit on 11/12/2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
If you fight to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow same sex marriage you will lose since you will not get a majority vote to amend it.


Then again it doesn't really matter what the majority believes. This is the very tyranny against the natural liberties of man, which the Constitution is supposed to protect them from, the oppression of the minority Thomas Jefferson had warned us of to exist in any direct democracy.

All this civil oppression has accomplished is the creation of a large radical movement. And why do we call them far left? I hope that's not derogatory. To be honest, I don't believe this issue can be applied to any relative political spectrum.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



The judges overstepped there bounds when the ruled against the ballot initiative.

I still don’t see evidence that any bounds were over stepped, some judges have differing opinions on this, I still don’t see how that trumps all the reasons given in the court case that got rid of the amendment in the first place?

The California supreme court decided they wanted to be activist and not remain nuetral and rule on the merits of the case.

What they did was completely legal.

If the supreme court ruled that only some jim crowe laws were unconstitutional they should have ruled they all were

Glad we can agree on that, it is pretty ridiculous to think rights issues that were this important should have been put to a vote.

And no they were not perfectly legal!

Based of fwhat? Your opinion of your understanding of the law? Just because you think it was wrong does not make it automatically illegal.

clearly the majority is on the side that same marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I didn’t say the majority, yet, I said the trend of support is going our way, all polls and exit polls clearly show this.

as for the health insurance do a little searching online for different plans and see for yourself.

I have, mostly I see the same things stated about civil unions. Your medical links don’t mention civil unions. The link I gave you goes over what families in civil unions deal with; one of the issues was medical. I have yet to see you post any links that tackle what you claim those in civil unions really go through medically. I’m still waiting, you've just been quoting a few medical sites that do not mention civil unions. Though I think you may be right about the medical issue in some states none of the medical statements you list mention civil unions, that is what we are discussing, can you find me one that counters that civil unions do not go through that trouble medically in every state they are legal in?

as for the marriage tax breaks depending on the couples income.

What about the other issues listed? Clearly the marriage tax is not the most important. Do you disagree with gays having those other rights while being in a committed relationship?

See you were the one that stated as fact that those things have not occurred.

Just Google it, there are no sites that say “hey, we didn’t legalize any of those other things in this country after we allowed gay marriage” it just isn’t out there. They haven’t prepared for people to make stupid slippery slope assumptions that they need to defend. You made the “slippery slope” argument and I countered it, please produce proof that this argument is in any way valid with gay marriage, or drop it.

your fighting a loosing battle.

Nope, the Prop 8 people are fighting the inevitable, but you have a right to that opinion.

And Polls don't translate into votes my friend. and since the defense of marriage act has passed 30 states have banned same sex marriages clearly the majority so far hasn't agreed with you no matter what your polls say.

Please, show me research that shows all of those polls that have been showing support swinging our way for thirty years are wrong? I look forward to this. The exit polls alone show this, where Prop 8 won by a narrow margin and the majority of support against it was from younger voters.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Schwarzenegger: Proposition 8 fight isn't over

SACRAMENTO - As protesters took to the streets for a fifth day, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage


"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," he said about the same-sex marriage ban. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."


Looks like a passed ballot initiative, overruled by judicial review, passed again with 73 million dollars in ad wars, and looks to be overturned again.

Hundreds of protesters gathered near Saddleback Church in the Orange County city of Lake Forest as congregants attended services on the religious campus. The pastor of the megachurch brought Barack Obama and John McCain together last summer for a "faith forum."

In Oakland, a large protest at the city's Mormon temple led the California Highway Patrol to close two highway ramps to ensure pedestrian safety.

The pastor of the 4,000-member All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena spoke out against Proposition 8, calling the religious community's support of it "embarrassing." The church announced that while it could no longer legally marry same-sex couples, it would continue blessing gay civil unions.

"We will continue to bless same-sex unions here until we can legally celebrate same-sex unions again," the Rev. Ed Bacon told congregants. All Saints Episcopal has blessed same-sex unions for 16 years.

"It's very unfortunate and embarrassing that the [Christian religion] is in large part responsible for this act of bigotry," Bacon said.


I am glad to see that at least some 'sects' seem to be able to fully grasp the bigotry involved in amending the Law in this way.

DocMoreau



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 



I am glad to see that at least some 'sects' seem to be able to fully grasp the bigotry involved in amending the Law in this way.

I know, people try to make this about religion versus us but there are plenty of religious people and tolerant churches that grasp this situation. It was a preacher who first listed to me all of the other ridiculous things people do not follow in the bible that are among the sections speaking of homosexuality, and told me Jesus did not mention gays. He also went over with me why he thinks many of the reference involve putting down lust more than homosexuality and that one famed reference seems to be about a man being raped more than it is about homosexual sex.

I really don’t like to bring religion into this issue at all in a secular country, but I’ve been researching this ever since I spoke to that wonderful man. God does say in the Christian bible that marriage is between a man and a woman in a religious context, that I have no trouble with, but this is now a lawful issue, not a religious issue. I think religious people really misunderstand gay rights activist side of this argument, we would be fine if religious people had marriage all to themselves, the government has decided it is more than a religious right or privilege, not us, therefore homosexuals should be entitled to the same “right” or “privilege”.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



The law that bans same sex marriage in Massachusetts was left intact!


Okay, how about Connecticut? Laws against gay marriage or imposing Civil Unions have been struck down in California and Connecticut this year.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 

Same sex marriage is against the laws of nature, so are gays adopting children. They cannot of their own power concieve a child without tampering. i.e. in vitro, etc. If they can not do it as obviously originally designed then it shouldn't be allowed any other way.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Yep ,there you go ,quoting corporate law instead of the constitution .

All persons who are sucked in to obtaining a social security card become bound by these laws and are considered a business entity or 'person' as opposed to a citizen protected by the constitution .

*Snip*

no suprises for guessing who's agenda YOU serve .

MOD Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory: Review this Link: Enough of the Snide Remarks

[edit on 11/12/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JustTheFacts
 


OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE UP FOR A VOTE!!!! MAYBE WE SCARE YOU, BECAUSE YOU SEE A LITTLE OF YOURSELF IN US!!!



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



Judicial powers

In common law countries, such as the United States, and those with roots in the Commonwealth of Nations, judges have a number of powers which are not known to exist, or are not acknowledged to exist, in civil law legal systems, which collectively make the judiciary a more powerful political force than in civil law countries.

One of these powers is the "contempt of court" power. In a common law system, a judge typically has the power to summarily punish with a fine or imprisonment any misconduct which takes place in the courtroom, and to similarly punish violations of the court's orders, after a hearing, when they take place outside the courtroom. This power, in turn, may be used by common law judges to enforce orders for injunctive relief, which is a court order to take or refrain from taking some particular act, directed at the individual who must do so. This power is a vestige of authority that members of the nobility had when they personally presided over disputes between their subjects. It has the effect of giving common law country judges great power to fashion remedies, such as school desegregation orders and restraining orders directed at individuals. Civil law judges, in contrast, outside of specialized courts with narrowly delineated powers, generally lack contempt power or the power to impose injunctive relief.

Another power of every judge in the United States, generally right down to the level of the magistrate, is the power to declare a law unconstitutional and invalid, at least as applied in a particular case. In contrast, most civil law countries limit this power to a special constitutional court, and all other judges are required to follow the enacted laws, even if the judge personally believes those laws to be unconstitutional, in the absence of an order from the constitutional court. However, if a person believes that a law applied against them in court is unconstitutional, they can apply for consideration in the constitutional court and, if the law is indeed declared unconstitutional, file an appeal against the ruling based on the now-invalidated law.


role of judges

So since California's law on the books at the time Prop 22 was passed said this


section 300 defined marriage as:

a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. [5]

Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere:

A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.


Law before prop 22

The California supreme court justices should have not overturned the prop and followed the existing laws in California. Instead they decided to not stay nuetral and try and shape society as they seen fit. which is against the oath that a judge takes. Simple fact of the matter is judges are suppose to remain in the middle follow existing laws and rule on the case at hand and keep their personal feelings out of it. By not doing that 4 of the justices that ruled on prop 22 overstepped their bounds and became activists not judges!

oh and lets see those reasons they gave

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."


They went against what the constitution says since sexual orientation is not a protcted class, also sexual orientation is a choice, race is not a choice. gender isn't a choice when you are born but you can later choose to change your gender.


What they did was completely legal.

wrong! they violated the very same constitution they are suppose to use not to mention violates Californias own law that was already on the books!


I didn’t say the majority, yet, I said the trend of support is going our way, all polls and exit polls clearly show this.

you provided old polls And just look at past elections for your proof (2000,2004) that you can't depend on exit polls or on younger voters under the age of 30. since usually most high school seniors and college students do not vote in elections.


I have, mostly I see the same things stated about civil unions. Your medical links don’t mention civil unions. The link I gave you goes over what families in civil unions deal with; one of the issues was medical. I have yet to see you post any links that tackle what you claim those in civil unions really go through medically. I’m still waiting, you've just been quoting a few medical sites that do not mention civil unions. Though I think you may be right about the medical issue in some states none of the medical statements you list mention civil unions, that is what we are discussing, can you find me one that counters that civil unions do not go through that trouble medically in every state they are legal in?


It soesn't matter if your gay or straight when it comes to power of attornies. You assign a person to be your agent or attorny-in-fact. they have the exact same powers yuo would have if you were making your own decissions. Hospitals also provide the forms when you check in so you can use them at a later date.

You walk into a hospital and say so in so is my husband,wife whatever and hand them the forms they will look at them, give you the consent for treatment foms and take it from their. no different if you were legally married or not. even if your married you still have to take the time to show you atleast have the same lastname as the patient, and sign the forms!

Continued

[edit on 11/13/2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Just Google it, there are no sites that say “hey, we didn’t legalize any of those other things in this country after we allowed gay marriage” it just isn’t out there. They haven’t prepared for people to make stupid slippery slope assumptions that they need to defend. You made the “slippery slope” argument and I countered it, please produce proof that this argument is in any way valid with gay marriage, or drop it.


again maybe you need top learn to read! did i say they legalized it? no i did not! i said that it could open the door up to those possiblities and guess what it has. people have already tried to do it in the U.S.


The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity.


So see i already proved you wrong on the issue!



Okay, how about Connecticut? Laws against gay marriage or imposing Civil Unions have been struck down in California and Connecticut this year.


Do you do any research on your own? once again the law In The state of Connecticut was left standing since it allowed civil unions it was the bill was amended to include marriage. theres a difference between being struck down and ordering an amendment esspecially since the law allowed civil unions.

And prop 22 wasn't struck down this year and so far prop 8 hasn't been struck down either. now are you going to continue posting statments that you know are false?


I know, people try to make this about religion versus us but there are plenty of religious people and tolerant churches that grasp this situation.


Maybe because YOU falsely accused people of being religious and only supported the ban because of their religion!

[edit on 11/13/2008 by Mercenary2007]

[edit on 11/13/2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 


See there you go showing yor complete ignorance. law is law. their isn't corporate law and civil law and constitutional law. its all law. the same laws that anyone in the United States has to follow!

I see once again you either issued a personal attack or was just an out right bigot. Its people like your self that hurts gay rights. you fit in just perfect with those people that assaulted that old lady and the ones that burst into a church yelling at the members of the church.

Yeah way to go their good buddy way to get people to be more tolorant to gays and try to sway their oppinion.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



They went against what the constitution says since sexual orientation is not a protcted class,

Wait, wasn’t race not a protected class when those laws were struck down as well?

race is not a choice. gender isn't a choice when you are born but you can later choose to change your gender

Um, oxymoronic?

they violated the very same constitution they are suppose to use not to mention violates Californias own law that was already on the books!

They’re meant to interpret it as well are they not?

you provided old polls And just look at past elections for your proof (2000,2004) that you can't depend on exit polls or on younger voters under the age of 30. since usually most high school seniors and college students do not vote in elections.

You can google the exit polls. Simple, this is fresh info. The polls I gave you were only two years old, I did so because they mapped out the trend, and the most conclusive collect polls have not been outlined, they should be next year and added to the trend. Please debunk the polls I gave you, I look forward to it. You can’t though, which is why you whine about the date, that is not the point, they show the trend.

since usually most high school seniors and college students do not vote in elections.

Really? Have you not seen the exit polls in relation to young voters this year? That's been changing lately. I’d actually be glad if this were true, that’d mean in a few years we’ll have even more people voting our way.

It soesn't matter if your gay or straight when it comes to power of attornies.

I’m still waiting for just one medical site, just one, that supports what you say about civil union medical problems being incorrectly listed.

i said that it could open the door up to those possiblities and guess what it has.

Yes and my point is this opinion is based on nothing and that no such thing has happened in those other countries. So the slippery slope argument is silly, there is no evidence to support it.

So see i already proved you wrong on the issue!

Proved me wrong about what? You said a slippery slope is plausible, I said it was not and you have no evidence to support this. That quote is not evidence.

Do you do any research on your own? once again the law In The state of Connecticut was left standing since it allowed civil unions it was the bill was amended to include marriage. theres a difference between being struck down and ordering an amendment esspecially since the law allowed civil unions.

And prop 8 wasn't struck down this year and so far prop 8 hasn't been struck down either. now are you going to continue posting statments that you know are false?

I wasn’t talking about Prop 8, you do know what happened before it was put to a vote right?

Okay my wording was wrong, forget "struck down", they were overturned.

Conn. court overturns same-sex marriage ban
www.msnbc.msn.com...


Maybe because YOU falsely accused people of being religious and only supported the ban because of their religion!

Correct, with you I did assume you were religious because you are so zealously against something that does not lawfully affect you.


[edit on 13-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 13-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Again:

What about the other issues listed? Clearly the marriage tax is not the most important. Do you disagree with gays having those other rights while being in a committed relationship?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 

Do the research, before you post. Or share more of what You may know! (2 million p p?)



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Wait, wasn’t race not a protected class when those laws were struck down as well?

yes race was a protected class whats your point? Sexual orientation is not a protected class. and being homosexual is not a race. so again whats your point?


Um, oxymoronic?

How? i want to hear your explaination of this. A person cannot choose their race, and a person does not choose their gender before they are born. But after your born you can choose to have a surgury to change your gender!

and being homosexual is a choice. you can choose to follow those impulses or you can choose not to follow them! a person is not born gay or straight. its not until they get older and choose to explore sexuality that they decide what type of person they are attracted to.


They’re meant to interpret it as well are they not?

Yes they are suppose to interprete it as long as their ruling does not violate laws already on the book and since they were state judges they are bound to follow the laws in California. which at the time they ruled on prop 22 the law said marriage is difined as:


a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.

and another section governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere:

A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.


Basically all prop 22 did was not reconize same sex marriages from other states. which a state is within its right to do if they choose.


Proved me wrong about what? You said a slippery slope is plausible, I said it was not and you have no evidence to support this. That quote is not evidence.

Tell me again just how you proved it wasn't possible again? i don't see anywhere you posted a link that staed this as fact unless you just expect us to take your word for it. And yes it is very well possible. There are some people that believ its ok to have more than one spoouse (mormons come to mind) Some people feel its ok to marry family members and some people feel its ok to marry Children. did you know Mississippi i think it is allows a girl to get married at the age of 12 with parental consent?


I wasn’t talking about Prop 8, you do know what happened before it was put to a vote right?


you might want to go look i corrected my mistake while you were repling


Correct, with you I did assume you were religious because you are so zealously against something that does not lawfully affect you.


Thanks for being big enough to admit it. However Gays forcing their beliefs on myself or other people that don't agree with them does lawfully effect me and the people that don't agree with you. We have a right to not agree with your beliefs and we also have a right to not have your beliefs forced on us. People that don't agree with you also have the right to protest and have their voice heard after all most of us allow gays to say what they want to say. also people that do choose to attend a church service have the right to not have it interrupted by Gays comming in and bashing their chosen god!

You keep saying those of us that don't agree with you on this issue need to be more tolorant. Honestly have you seen the news lately? which side has been more tolorante and which side hasn't?

By bursting into churches and assaulting old ladies that don't agree with you. and i'm not pointing the finger at you but they people on your side that are doing this are only hurting your cause not helping it.

Like i've said before yes its unfair that gays can't marry, but after the actions of the last few days i'm beginning to feel they don't deserve the same priviledge as heteros. the saying the bad apples of the group ruin it for the rest really does happen!

[edit on 11/13/2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



so again whats your point?

In some states gays are a protected class, as I imagine one day they will be everywhere. That’s not my point. Race did not become a protected class until after The Civil Rights Act; judges did not need them to be a protected class to correct injustice or to rule laws against them as discriminatory.
en.wikipedia.org...

A person cannot choose their race

You can not choose your orientation, you can only choose to act on it or not. Those are two different things.
www.apa.org...

Yes they are suppose to interprete it as long as their ruling does not violate laws already on the book

And what law did they violate again? Was it up for interpretation too? They’re the ones that interpret it, aren’t they?

Tell me again just how you proved it wasn't possible again?

Where did I say it wasn’t possible? Anything is possible, that’s why this is a poor legal argument. There is not evidence that what you say will happen. As for what you say about marriage laws, yes that law should be changed including twelve year olds and it came long before gay marriage was legal, it isn’t even legal in that state, gay marriage is not the cause of it so it does not belong in this discussion.


you might want to go look i corrected my mistake while you were repling


I was talking about the court ruling in favor against the prop from the previous vote.


does lawfully effect me


How does gay marriage lawfully affect you?


Honestly have you seen the news lately?



people on your side


Have you? Just this year a thirteen year old was shot for his orientation, sorry if I don’t get worked up over gays disrupting a church service. I hear about intolerance fueling gay bashing constantly and it makes me sick. The two are not comparable.
As for the actions of some upset gays lately, I don’t condone them. They only enforce an us versus them mentality that helps no one.


Like i've said before yes its unfair that gays can't marry, but after the actions of the last few days i'm beginning to feel they don't deserve the same priviledge as heteros. the saying the bad apples of the group ruin it for the rest really does happen!


I’m really saddened that you are so full of crap right now. If people judged people like you who vote yes on props like this because of a couple intolerant thugs the world would not be on your side, your side is the one who fuels intolerance that causes murders, beatings, and dangerous ignorance.


[edit on 13-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I'll ask again:

What about the other issues listed? Clearly the marriage tax is not the most important. Do you disagree with gays having those other rights while being in a committed relationship?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join