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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Show me where in the u.s. constitution you have the right to marry?
Show me where in california's, or any states Constitution you have the right to marry?

Marriage is not a constitutional right, It is a privilege given by the state. supported by state codes.(laws)

The people that appose the ban can appeal to the SCOTUS, once it gets their they will either refuse to hear it or rule that it DOES NOT VIOLATE the constitution.

[edit on 11/6/2008 by Mercenary2007]




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Oh if you think it's over in CALI you are sadly mistaken!

Get ready to be pounded into submission you religous bigots!!

Move to Utah they'll love your immortal souls there! You can send your gay garbage back to us here in CA, we're used to welcoming them and providing homes and understanding!

Did you know the gays tend to be well educated, successful proffessionals.

So you can keep your "mouth breathers" and sign em up for the military!


WOW LEO!!!

I guess I'm not going to have you as a partner after all, I didn't realize what a hater you were, oh well, off to do a movie stars hair!

btw - many homosexuals also find an existance in the drug culture and prostitution, or even politics (but there isn't much difference between prostitution and politics now is there).

PEOPLE get educated or don't.
PEOPLE can be mouth breathers or not.
PEOPLE can be religious or not.
PEOPLE can be homosexual or heterosexual.
PEOPLE can keep to their core values or they fail.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



Marriage in itself is a religious institution. The government should not be involved in it at all, but if it does involve itself and makes marriage a right for some it should not impose religion’s standard of what marriage is.


Prop 8 addresses the issue of the legality of denying same-sex marriage, which is not allowed under our current constitution because no state can ignore civil agreements made in other states (Gay marriage is legal in other states in the US.).

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."


It also causes the constitution to contradict itself, which is not allowed.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."


States also do not have a right to pick and choose who they give rights to.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


One might say gays have the right to marry, just not each other. This mentality was struck down and found unconstitutional when the courts decided this mentality was not appropriate for segregation laws in which whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks, just not each other. Marriage in more than one state in the US now is defined as a right given to two consenting adults, despite gender or race. No state can make a law against this right; such is expressed in the constitution.




[edit on 6-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Show me where in the u.s. constitution you have the right to marry?
Show me where in california's, or any states Constitution you have the right to marry?
[edit on 11/6/2008 by Mercenary2007]


Well then, I propose that anyone with an income of less than $200,000 per annum should be restricted from marriage.

... no? Doesn't sound right?

Ok, anyone who isn't white should be restricted.

... still doesn't sound right?


Then why does it sound OK to restrict people who love each other based on ideals that are different from yours?


Clearly you are forgetting what FREEDOM is all about.
Somehow you've got the idea that the fascist ideals have some form of moral control over the minorities.

Take it up with the Nazis.
Oh... right... we kicked their asses a long time ago.

So maybe, just maybe, we should be looking toward giving people the right to chose who they want to marry, instead of attempting to dictate terms to them.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


You obviously have no idea what the phrase "law of the land" means.

Furthermore, the Constitution says nothing about gay marriage except that no one has the right to say what someone can and can't do if it's not hurting anyone else. Gay marriage hurts no one, not even the people who want it.

[edit on 11/6/2008 by iceofspades]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I think the way to go on this is to take the perks and government out of marrage. In other words, when straights get married lets keep it just that, a religious union between a man and a woman in the eyes of the Lord. No visitation, no tax breaks, no inheritance, no comunity property, etc. If straights want those perk, then just like gays, straights can get a civil union. Then things will be equal.

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY IN THE US. WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC. INDIVIDUAL CIVIL RIGHTS USURP MAJORITY RULE. Separate but equal doesn't work.

I have no doubt in time, gay marrage will be legal in ALL 50 states.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by 2stepsfromtop
 


I'm just sick and tired of the religous bigots from out of state stirring up trouble in California. You throw your gay kids out and they move to CA, MA, NY...and a few others. Then you follow them there to try and punish them more. Why can't you just stay in Utah with your loving God?

I believe it is time for a CA Proposition to remove "tax exempt" status from churches engaged in politics. Let's hit em in their pocket books and get some money to provide outreach programs for homosexuals in Utah! Let's start having kiss ins on Sunday morning in front of their churches in Salt Lake City!

One of the primary backers of the Prop 8 wants biblical law to supersede constitutional law and provides financial support for a man that would like to "stone homosexuals to death". Sounds like those Theocracies in the Middle East ya know Taliban, Saudi Arabia etc.

I guess the irony is lost on those "holier than thou" Mormons as they were persecuted and banished to Utah? Duh!

So yeah we are gonna fight em and fight em some more. In the words of "the Decider", bring it on!



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

I'm just sick and tired of the religous bigots from out of state stirring up trouble in California. You throw your gay kids out and they move to CA, MA, NY...and a few others. Then you follow them there to try and punish them more. Why can't you just stay in Utah with your loving God?



Leo do you honestly think that the majority of the people in California who have voted TWICE for this ban are just a bunch of religious bigots from out of State? Maybe, just maybe, they are the majority of the voters in the State of California, trying to get an amendment passed that they believe in.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saf85
Heck since deep down every homosexual has some feeling of what they do being wrong


Deep down you say, you seem to know a lot about this deep down feeling. You wouldn't have some deep down personal experiences with this would you?



I am not homophobe.


Oh I agree, eventually you'll show your true colors


It's funny that many blacks are so happy about Obama winning, and they're championing this at a new era where discrimination won't happen, yet we have stuff like this happening. As far as I'm concerned, we've learned nothing and we might as well be back in the days of slavery. Nothing has changed. It's a disgrace to pat ourselves on the back as a country that has supposedly moved past racism when homosexuals are having discrimination issues. Folks, we can't congradulate ourselves until the entire job gets done and all people have equality.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Exactly! You may have said things a bit more brashly than I would have, but bravo!

Prop 8 Gains Nationwide Attention with Big Spending on Both Sides

More than $40-million has been poured in to the debate over prop 8. And it's brought together celebrities, churches even people from out of state. The Mormon and Catholic Churches are top donors on the "yes" side… And other churches are rallying with Get out the Vote efforts. Pastor Rick Cole heads the Capital Christian Center in Sacramento.


emphasis mine...

I am sorry, but that statement right there should lead to an investigation into both the Catholic and Mormon churches tax status ASAP.

Churches, Ministers and Political Involvement

Not-for-profit organizations can elect a 501(c)(3) status under the Internal Revenue Code (Code). There are obvious benefits to doing so in that they secure tax exempt status under federal law, and contributions to the organization by donors are tax deductible. Individual donors who itemize on their tax returns can take a federal tax deduction for their contributions under Section 170 of the Code. Churches may apply to be exempt under 501 (c)(3) provided they are organized exclusively for charitable or religious purposes. However, they are not required to do so. So long as they are organized exclusively for charitable or religious purposes, they are exempt from federal taxes. IRS Form 1023 is the vehicle for applying for tax exempt status under 501 (c)(3). Along with the benefits of tax exempt status and tax deductibility of contributions, there come restraints on certain types of activities. The Code says:

"…no substantial part of the activities … is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation … and which does not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office"1. (Emphasis added.) According to treasury regulations2, an organization attempts to influence legislation if it: 1.) Contacts or urges the public to contact members of the legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation; or 2.) Advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

A 501(c)(3) organization that engages in legislative activities exceeding more than a substantial part of its total activities risks losing its tax exempt status. There is an absolute prohibition on this type of organization from engaging in a political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. That is, directly endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office is prohibited.


Maybe I am missing something, but it looks like the Mormon and Catholic Churches should be looking at the back taxes they owe to the IRS...

Also, the owner of the domain www.protectmarriage.com..., the Yes on 8 campaign website, is a group called California Family Council.
Here is their mission statement, from their website, www.californiafamily.org...

California Family Council is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3), educational organization. Our mission is to protect and foster Judeo-Christian principles in California’s laws, for the benefit of its families.

Our foundational pillars affirm:

The Protection of the Pre-born – Life is sacred, stemming from our Creator. CFC serves to protect the innocent and frail – including the preborn – from harm.
The Plan for Marriage – Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s design. Only in the union of a man and a woman can a godly legacy be fruitfully multiplied. Marriage is the building block of a stable society, and from the commitment of a man and woman in marriage comes the best opportunity for children to thrive.
The Authority of Parents – Parents have the responsibility of nurturing their children and equipping their children with a worldview. CFC serves to maintain this freedom, exposing and opposing legislation that attempts to usurp the authority of parents in child-rearing.

California Family Council participates with legislators, media outlets, churches and citizens, regarding current policy issues affecting family life.

CFC works directly with legislators, providing informed analysis of current research.

CFC provides media commentary on pro-family issues.

CFC equips and mobilizes citizens by providing relevant and reliable information to California’s residents.

California Family Council serves as the statewide family policy council associated with Focus on the Family, an international media ministry based in Colorado Springs, CO.


It seems like their mission is in direct conflict of tax law, but then again, I am a layman.

Unfortunately, the bigotry of the few may have an effect on everyone. I heard some local news radio pundits this afternoon (I live in California) discussing the possibility of an out right 'ban' on marriages in the State of California. That marriages will all become Civil Unions in the state, and if couples want to marry, they will do so only in the eyes of the Church. I think that opens up very strange 'dead bed civil unions' strictly for tax benefits and social services, but under the set of rules that the Political Churches are playing under, possibly the only 'fair' solution.

All men are created equal, even if they don't want to marry a woman I guess...
DocMoreau



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I'm just getting up to speed on this (living in the UK as I do) and have found a very interesting article on the money behind the bill here

From a conspiracy angle, it makes for very interesting reading, and whilst I realise this is a very emotive subject, I think this information should be viewed with an open mind


My own point of view is that if two people love each other and aren't harming anyone else, what's the problem?

Some people castigate Islam constatly for it's supposed intolerance - in this regard, it seems that Islam is not alone in having its share of extremists......



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
After catching up to the current point at which we stand in this thread alone I quite frankly am very disappointed in the comments made by some of the contributors.Lets start first by reiterating the point of opposing prop 8 since some of you seem to forget the main reason it is totally wrong. As rappinbats stated, its constitutionally wrong to deny any citizen rights which others have based on gender,gender preference,race,etc. It simply boils down to the FACT that its not about what YOU prefer, its about the ability to have the choice. We digress in all this talk about why its unholy and unnatural and all nonsense (and that is most deffinitely nonsense if ever i saw any). The point is that its about as wrong to deny two people the right to marry and be together in a way that doesnt hurt you or anyone else in any way as telling someone its wrong to vote for McCain as oppose to Obama, or vice versa. Its my right to persue happiness, even if what makes me happy isnt what makes you happy. We need to get passed sitting here defending some injustice to a minority because its not what we prefer, its not about preference its about absolute equality and that isnt present in this scenario in the same manner it wasnt present when women were not allowed to vote, when blacks were slaves, when latinos and blacks were not allowed to marry whites, its not like we've never had similar instances occur and its high time we take a glance at our history and realize we are repeating the same mistake with a different face. Wake up!



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Since moving to CA I've been kinda shocked that you can amend the State Constitution with a simple majority.

I'd much prefer it required a supermajority.

Otherwise you could get an Amendment where 52% of the people vote to throw 20% of the people into woodchippers or something


I'm disgusted that this thing passed, and IMHO basic rights should never be up for a direct majority vote anyway.

There is a reason we have a representative constitutional Republic, and not simple "mob rule"


If we left these things up to a majority vote, the Native Americans would have been totally wiped out, and we'd probably still have slavery or at the very least Jim Crow...



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I was speaking about this earlier with a friend and we both agree about the possibility that those unconcerned (read: not opposed to) may not have even voted on the matter, being not quite sure how to vote whereas those in the group strongly opposed (read: religious activists) will definitely strike the freedom down and be out in droves to do so. Whether the result really reflects the opinion of residents can be reasonably called into doubt.

Actually, to be honest, it isn't really a possibility but some informal polling points to it being reality. I just don't wish to get into details.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Government should be out of the business of marriage period. Marriage is indeed a religious celebration between yes a man and a woman. But its the governments job to uphold contracts. This is why I feel civil unions make sense. You do your state civil union or contract and I dont care if your man and woman or man and man or whatever its a contract between two people. Then if you want to celebrate by marriage on the side then by all means do it. The government should not be in the business of marriage. Its a religious celebration.

Full disclosure though Im not for same sexes being married. I feel that being gay is unnatural and that the ramification on society cannot and will not be good in my opinion at least, however I understand the constitution and the government should not be in the marriage business and really should open the doors to civil unions.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Full disclosure though Im not for same sexes being married. I feel that being gay is unnatural and that the ramification on society cannot and will not be good in my opinion at least, however I understand the constitution and the government should not be in the marriage business and really should open the doors to civil unions.


I am of the opposite opinion WRT same sex relationships, but I also agree that the ideal compromise would be to get government out of the marriage business entirely.

The definition of "marriage" should be an individual choice.

That seem to me the only compromise that preserves both legal equality and religious rights, and I am surprised the idea has not been proposed more often.

Good post



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Government should be out of the business of marriage period. Marriage is indeed a religious celebration between yes a man and a woman. But its the governments job to uphold contracts. This is why I feel civil unions make sense. You do your state civil union or contract and I dont care if your man and woman or man and man or whatever its a contract between two people. Then if you want to celebrate by marriage on the side then by all means do it. The government should not be in the business of marriage. Its a religious celebration.

Full disclosure though Im not for same sexes being married. I feel that being gay is unnatural and that the ramification on society cannot and will not be good in my opinion at least, however I understand the constitution and the government should not be in the marriage business and really should open the doors to civil unions.


Excellent idea, and those people that forego a Civil Union in favor of a Marriage can expect to get NO TAX DEDUCTION FOR BEING MARRIED, as tax deductions and benefits should only be for those with licensed, legally recognized Civil Unions.

As for Religious Organizations that contribute monies to political causes, they should expect to pay fair and equal taxes on the monies they get from all sources because they are acting as a business interest and not a Religious organization when they involve themselves in politics.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 2stepsfromtop
 


You can do both. The civil union is really just the contract between two people. The actual marriage is the religious celebration between two people. So basically you go get your civil union contract first which is the binding contract between two people. Then if you want you celebrate with a marriage or whatever. Civil Unions can be between man and woman too not just man and man.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


But the whole thing is that TWICE it's been voted on. and both times the margin of victory was substantial. You can't say "you didn't win because we (the opponents ) didn't really vote". What kinda crock is that? All the proper procedures were followed. If opponents of the amendment didn't get enough votes to turn out well phooey on them.

Since you don't seem to like the people getting legislation enacted by following the proper procedures, take your case to the U.S. Supreme Court and let them judge it on it's merits.

You are more than welcome to get a ballot initiative going to repeal that amendment. Follow the procedures in place, but please don't whine about why you lost.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I didn't like the results of the Presidential Election. Can I sue to overturn the will of the people also?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join