It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
YOU ARE THE PRODUCT OF YOUR FOREFATHERS . Genetically ,socially, culturaly and spiritually .
And now you fear your ill gotten privilages are gonna have to be shared out equally instead of being your 'white birthright' by virtue of succesfull conquest .
Empires founded on greed never last long . They lay the seeds of destruction in their very foundation stones .
Your forefathers founded the US gov on the same principals as the roman empire . The Roman empire was built on slavery, brutal oppresion and a dumbed down, greedy ,vain populace who liked throwing christians to the lions .
And whats so laughable is that now your 'white superiority' is being challenged you cry like poor innocent babies and start rattling your second amendement rights around in the hope you can put the genie back in the bottle . Its to late for that now.
When Rush Limbaugh...
This is not about hate , this is about putting right the injustices meeted out by your forefathers when they allowed greed to get the better of reason .
You know ,the carpet baggers who used slavery as an excuse to steal the wealth of the south . Who financed Hitler so they could steal the british Empire .
Who lend you money through the federal reserve so that they could bankrupt you and 'owe your soul to the company store'.
I dont hate White people . I despair about what some have allowed themselves to become .
Trouble is your fresh out of excuses for a failed war in Iraq
So you need someone , a soft target that cant hit back because they prefer peace to guns and pool bars . I know ,lets pick on the gays .
Truth is ,you are just stupid white republicans with guns , a chip on your shoulder and desperate to blame anybody except your selves for the crumbling of the american empire .
First off . MY last post WAS NOT addressed to you specificaly ,but right wing christians generally .
I have also stated a number of times that I dont think all white christians are bad or evil.
Nevertheless , if you dont feel comfortable with your countries history ,why dont you do something to change it ?
You cant change what happened in the past
have you ever looked a native american in the eye and said 'what we did to you people was wrong and we need to make amends ' ? I doubt it ,but you should . It will change the way you feel about your beloved country .
As always you address my points by skewing them to avoid a straight honest answer . Its called denial .
Marriage does not sanctify anything really regardeless of sex .
And it must really bug you having to outwit a white hetro who dares to question your values .
Epineprhine even admitted he had to CHOOSE NOT to embrace his homosexual desires ! well at least that makes him a little more honest than you .
So now you have no choice but to infer I am in fact gay in the hope that slander will undermine my arguments .
You played the liberal minded christian for a while just to win points ,only to retreat in the space of five days to your true and original opinions .
You have exposed yourself as a hypocrite
But my argument is and remains this . If you abridge the rights of some you end up abridging the rights of everyone. And deep down you just cant tolerate anyone who dares to dissagree with your outmoded ,outdated ,primitive religious prejudice .
I spent enough time working with southern baptists and the like to know how you guys think . You strut around all tough and manly , but you fight with broken beer bottles and pool cues because your fists are to soft and you dont know how to fight an honest duel .
And you dont like to remember how daddy beat you to within an inch of your life before bending you over and raping you .
You wonder why the world hates America and all its proffeses to stand for ?
I have received an internal memo from the Mormon Church dated March 4, 1997. This memo discusses strategies for what the memo calls "HLM" (gay marriage) in Hawaii and California (I assume that HLM refers to "homosexual legal marriage" but if you have your own preferred acronym, feel free to use it).
Like I said--this memo is devastating. And it demonstrates that they have been planning this Proposition 8 referendum for more than a decade.
Nor did I randomly barge into this thread shouting conspiracy nonsense.
Could you show me the code that states it is illegal for a religious organization to lobby even though non-religious organizations are allowed to do so?
On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell then sued Nelson, contending that Minnesota law permitted same-sex marriages, and arguing against Nelson's interpretation that it did not violate their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".
Later that year, the couple applied for and were awarded a marriage license by the Blue Earth County Commissioner in Mankato, Minnesota. Because of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision, the license was deemed invalid. The couple still claims it is valid to this day, and attempted to file a joint tax return in 2004. After the IRS rejected the joint return, McConnell filed an action in Federal District Court, seeking a federal income tax refund in the amount of $793.28 and a declaration that he is "a full citizen who is lawfully married and, by that fact, entitled to be treated the same as every other married Minnesotan, similarly situated". McConnell's action was rejected by the Court.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".
Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question."
Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.
"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) "[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction". Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way inconsistent with binding precedent. "[Summary decisions] prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)
This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. "[L]ower courts are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the Court informs [them] that [they] are not". Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d 537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)
Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.
It was not long after the Court's decision striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that southern states began enacting sweeping segregation legislation. In 1890, Louisiana required by law that blacks ride in separate railroad cars. In protest of the law, blacks in the state tested the statute's constitutionality by having a light-skinned African American, Homére Plessy, board a train, whereupon he was quickly arrested for sitting in a car reserved for whites. A local judge ruled against Plessy and in 1896 the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. The Court asserted that Plessy's rights were not denied him because the separate accommodations provided to blacks were equal to those provided whites. www.jimcrowhistory.org...
Some how i figured you'd try to deny the fact that they ruled it wasn't unconstitutional
they also blew out of the water your whole arguement about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Mainly you tell me the constitution does not mention marriage and that it is not a right, and that this issue should be dealt with on a state level.
Then you try to state that the constitution says we all should be given the same rights, and that gay people are, and that giving them the right to marry the same sex would be a special right.
But wait, is marriage a “right” to you or not? Why in one context do you state gays are given the same right, and then in another state that marriage is not a right at all?
Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you. Pleas clarify, do you consider marriage a “right” or not? Do you think this is a constitutional issue or not?
How can the court rule that a right is not being violated specifically in one group if that right does not exist? Still stating marriage is not a right?