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: 23
5
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 


So what you're trying to say is that you have no response to anything that's been said to you regarding equal rights and constitutional law but you're really angry and want to insult people who are different than you while continuing to blame us for any horrible events committed by white civilizations at any point in history.

Nobody said anything about white supremacy, only equal rights and protection for all people, including white people and heterosexual males, from discrimination and prejudice. Unfortunately, your prejudice and hatred are causing you to flip out and refuse to listen to anything that we're actually saying on the basis that we are white, heterosexual males and because you do not believe that white, heterosexual males should be allowed to speak out for their rights or even have any rights at all.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Epinephrine]

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Epinephrine]

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Epinephrine]




posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot


YOU ARE THE PRODUCT OF YOUR FOREFATHERS . Genetically ,socially, culturaly and spiritually .

I assume that's why we imprison the children of murderers... oops, sorry, we don't do that.


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 .

First of all, I have worked hard for thirty plus years to get what little I have. the only thing I have from my father is my portion of the land he worked hard for, and an old tractor he built out of scrap steel. So be careful what you assume about 'birthrights'. I never chose to be white, but I will also not apologize for it.

And I am always willing to share. Sharing is not the correct term when someone demands something in order to attack the giver with it. That's called 'criminal' and 'dumb'.


Empires founded on greed never last long . They lay the seeds of destruction in their very foundation stones .

Yeah, that communism idea went over pretty good in the USSR, didn't it?


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 .

I think history would disagree with you. You are taking the worst of what happens today, mixed in one now-extinct custom that was practiced world-wide at the time, and tried to apply it to a different era. Let me guess, all cats have sabre fangs too, right?



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.

On this issue, I see gays running around crying because they cannot change a traditional cultural acceptance, which was caused by judicial legislating they used to thwart democratic principles in the first place. There was no Prop 8 until a judge overturned Prop 22. Prop 22 was a legal definition change; the judicial legislation changed the very law it applied to, not just Prop 22 itself, so now in a backlash Prop 8 amended the Constitution of California. All because you and those like you couldn't stop yourselves from ignorantly bashing people's race, religion, lifestyles, and anything else that would anger them.

And still you don't get it.


When Rush Limbaugh...

Enough quoted. I adamantly refuse to listen to anything Limbaugh says. Find a new argument.


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're right, it's not about hate, on the side of traditional marriage anyway. On the other side, the one you argue for, I see more hate than I have ever heard in my entire lifetime living in ALABAMA. You remember Bama, right? The Selma civil rights struggles, George Wallace standing on the capital steps declaring white supremacy, the Scottsboro Boys trial... you have all of those combined beaten hands down when it comes to hatred.


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 .

Oh, yes, the carpetbaggers. They bashed everything about us as well, our intelligence, our society, our religion, our clothing, our independent spirit... you're right, you do remind me of them. Burned any good cities lately?



Who lend you money through the federal reserve so that they could bankrupt you and 'owe your soul to the company store'.

Irrelevant to the issue.


I dont hate White people . I despair about what some have allowed themselves to become .

Oh, so you just hate Christians, descendants of white people (aren't they white as well?) and anyone who disagrees with you?


Trouble is your fresh out of excuses for a failed war in Iraq

When did I serve in Iraq? Again, irrelevant.


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 .

Why would you want to pick on the gays, when you are doing such a thorough job of picking on my race, my ancestry, my religion, my country, my traditions, and my life?


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 .

I want you to please produce anything, any record, any documentation at all that identifies me with either the Democrats or Republicans. No, I don't want it, I demand it! Put up or shut up! Stop hiding behind that keyboard like some crying cowardly child, spewing your hate in every direction, and let's have some evidence that one statement you have made is anything less than a bald-faced lie.

I am an Independent, and have always been so.

TheRedneck


[edit on 16-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 


You know i know i shouldn't feed the troll But i just can't help it. You keep bashing our forefathers, well i have a question for you who are your forefathers? Where were you born? And by your reasoning, No i mean your out right hatred for white people why shouldn't you be held to task for the crimes your forefathers have committed in the past before you were even thought of.

See i know who i'm decendant from and i am very much aware of the bad things they did. But i also know the good things they did. and the Good outways the Bad. But by your reasoning the entire white population in america should be in jail. for things you say our forefathers did way before any of us were even born.

You mention russia and communism. last i looked that didn't turn out very well for the russian people or the people in the oppressed satelite states. And didn't communism fall in the 90's? under communism any religion was oppressed, the citizens were jailed without trial for just speaking out about the government. I tell you what take your communist propaganda bullcrap and shove it where the sun don't shine.

See your no matter what you say about your forefathers i'm sure they are guilty of things just as bad or worse than anyone elses forefathers.

Like redneck i demand that you show 1 document that says i'm a registered republican. You won't find it. i demand that you show 1 document that shows i'm a registered democrat. again you won't find one. Show 1 document that i have ever been a memebr of a church or have been baptized. again you won't find 1. and you know why you won't find any of those documents for me because they don't exist! also like Redneck Said PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!

YOur so full of hate and jealousy that you blindly accuse people of being racist, intolerant. When in fact its people like yourself that are racists and intolerant. There is nothing stopping gays from enjoying the same priviledge i enjoy. I can marry any woman that agrees to marry me.

I see more gay people and those against the ban committing forms of violence againts people that support the ban, than i do from straights against gays and their supporters. I see more racism from you and your side than i see from me and my side.

Lets face it. the gays only want to marry to change tradition, and money. they think the tax break married coules get is all that great its not. I never claimed it because i got better tax breaks filling seperate than jointly with my wife!

I have a question, If we in america are so racist, then how is it a black man got elected president? And since we now have a black president elect can we get rid of affirmitive action now? SInce it discriminates against white people.

I owned my own business and i ignored AA. i hired people based on their qualifications. not their race, their sex, or their sexual orientation!

So i say to you take your racist, intolorant BS and shove it up your...

YOur nothing but a racist troll that deserves to get banned.

I'm sure i'll get a nice little warning for this post but i don't care i'm tired of your racist BS.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


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 ?

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 .

You cant change what happened in the past but unless you confront your prejudices HONESTLY , you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes ,over and over and OVER AGAIN .

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 . The fact is its a property rights contract . As they say in british common law , ownership is 9/10ths of the law . I personally find the thought of 'owning' my wife abhorent so we left out the honour and obey crap in our ceremony . My wife retains the title to our property .

So unless you still believe you need a marriage contract to get a girl pregnant and be a good husband ,you stick to your silly religious prejudice . But you know , like an american accountant once boasted to me 'marry for love ,divorce for money '. A very american sentiment that .

I am not interested in disecting your damn fool american legal system anyway . Its a rats nest and Im glad i am out of it .

And it must really bug you having to outwit a white hetro who dares to question your values . See , in most civilised countries ,white men have left behind all that gung ho backwoods homophobia . They dont need a gun to feel like a real man .And in any event your firearms technology is primitive and outdated . Just wait til you see what a pulse rifle can do !

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 and now you are flailing around trying to cover your retreat in to christian fundamentalist ranting .

Like I have said repeatedly . Personally I dont think its worth all the fuss ,this need to have a legaly binding property contract between partners . If the love was real and abiding ,no contracts of any kind would be neccesary . Where I come from , a mans word and honour are all that is required . But you humans are greedy and treacherous and you feel the need to cover your ass . So you can win a bigger settlement in court .

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 .

And you dont like it when I use the words of jesus himself to undermine your bigoted arguments .

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 .

I know many gay men who were abused this way . Their self esteem destroyed by vicious beer swilling drunks . No wonder they escaped to the west coast .

This is what happens to people who have generations of innocent blood on their hands . You can run ,but you cant hide . Murder will out . And you right wing americans have been riding rough shod over soveriegn nations for fifty years .Corrupting democraticly elected governements , stealing their resources and calling it 'the spread of democracy '.

You wonder why the world hates America and all its proffeses to stand for ?

America is the terrorist and its beating heart is going to be bled dry by fools like you .



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot

You do love to show your ignorance, don't you?


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.

It was not addressed to me, but it was addressed to me (a Christian)? And then you go on to say that you don't believe all Christians are bad, even though you attack them?

Might I suggest a psychiatrist? It appears you have some schizophrenic tendencies going on there.


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

Yep, definitely schizo...


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 .

Actually, no I haven't. I was taught that carrying on a conversation with myself in the mirror was a sign of mental illness.

That's right, I have a good deal of Cherokee and Creek heritage (I'm told it shows around the mouth area). Care to mock that too?


As always you address my points by skewing them to avoid a straight honest answer . Its called denial .

Speaking of honest answers, do you have that proof I am a Republican yet?

I deny nothing. I accept history and try to learn from mistakes made therein.


Marriage does not sanctify anything really regardeless of sex .

Just because you see matrimony as a business arrangement does not mean others do. Now who's denying history?


And it must really bug you having to outwit a white hetro who dares to question your values .

Don't flatter yourself. All I need do is point out your hypocrisy and contradictions.



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 .

It seems you like to define 'honesty' as whatever you dream up. You're unique, I'll give you that. Just not accurate.



So now you have no choice but to infer I am in fact gay in the hope that slander will undermine my arguments .

When did I call you gay? You stated you were hetero several posts back. I said you sided with the gay agenda on this issue.

Wait a minute! You're a white hetero male... so that makes you a bigot too! AAAAH! THOUGHT POLICE! HELP!



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're actually right about this one. I was of the mind that there should be some way to assure equality. But then I retreated to a different position when I realized this has nothing to do with equality... just as your posts have nothing to do with reality.

The sad part is there are no doubt some who really were looking for equality. Thanks for messing things up for them in your haste to spew hatred.


You have exposed yourself as a hypocrite

Please point out my hypocrisy. That's three things you have been called on so far. I'm keeping count.


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 agree with the first sentence. I guess your interpretation of it leaves out those mentioned in the second sentence?


Everyone means exactly that: everyone. Even those who disagree with.... you!



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 .

Ah, yes, the generalizations... you really should read your posts sometime. They sound like an intolerant judgmental abused Southern Baptist wrote them.

I'm sorry you went through all that in your life, and I'm glad I didn't.


You wonder why the world hates America and all its proffeses to stand for ?

I can take a guess. Self-hating, intolerant, judgmental Americans who tell them lies about how terrible the country is with all those Southern Baptists and right-wing gun nuts?

Sheesh, I thought even you could give a better lashing out than that. Better luck next time, and remember, you have three challenges pending now...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Daily Kos is a lef leaning blog, but I was shocked to read a post there today:
www.dailykos.com...

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.


The First Page of the Memo

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4


I really think we have a 73 million dollar Conspiracy going on. I recommend looking at the memo images, and really think about how it makes you feel to know that the Catholic Church 'worked' with the Mormon Church to get this passed. Regardless of how you feel personally about the issue, it should make you feel outraged that these organizations have abused their tax exempt status in order to infringe on the rights of everyone. If you think it is solely about homosexuals losing the right to marry, you are only half right. The other abuses of rights involve the separation of Church and State, and how religious organizations are allowed to use their influence to abuse your rights.

DocMoreau



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau

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? Because that's all I saw, nothing about buying votes or tampering with voting results.

Sheesh, talk about 'equal rights for one group'...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 



Nor did I randomly barge into this thread shouting conspiracy nonsense.


Oh come on, you always say the same crap, none of it with any evidence, by the way, and repeat it over and over again. Opinions are fine, but you target homosexuals with nonsense, and when countered with logical conclusions or actual facts and or research you still say that is all part of the conspiracy. Not only are you the worst debater I’ve ever encountered on here, but you left me high and dry in the education thread, when I guess even you got tired of reading your own nonsense. Please do come back to that thread, you were such a good example of the utter denial that fuels some people. I don’t dislike your opinion; I dislike your methods and the hate and ignorance that comes through your post.

So far, according to what you have actually stated to me:

Gays are against the family structure and non-minorities

Gays are trying to force society to live by their values (hm, I know someone who does that, but it aint gays)

They are going after the minds of the oh so helpless children in our school system, to turn them gay or to destroy their sense of what is natural and the family unit

Most things in our society are the gay liberal’s faults, when it comes to problems with the family unit

Gays are not natural, they are icky and gross and can change and that is why I spend so much of my time convincing myself of the above.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by freethought
 


1. Voting for President is not the same as dealing with a civil rights issue.
2. Nothing was pushed on the people, absolutely nothing. They dealt with a legal matter, and gave rights. They did not take rights away, and they did not lawfully force anything on anyone who does not want to marry the same sex.

Those are the only replies I saw made to me in my absence, sorry if I missed any, please reply again, if you see this.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



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?


Do they tax non-religious organizations? Serious questions, I thought that was why some say their church’s money being used in politics is illegal, something to do with their tax status, but that could all be a farce; haven’t educated myself on that issue, yet.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I love a good debate redneck and out of the three ,your the most lucid and reasoned .

But my argument is very simple when you boil it right down .

I dont care if your black ,pink , cherokee , gay or straight , christian or atheist . As long as you respect other peoples right to choice .

marriage is as diverse a ceremony in meaning and legality as the many different cultures ,races and nationalities that have practiced it for millenia .

See , the problem is this .YOU live in a multicultural society where the constitution is SUPPOSED to respect cultural ,religious and racial differences and allow everyone to seek happiness HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT . And as you point out ,the constituion is a SECULAR DOCUMENT .RESPECT IT AS SUCH IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT SO MUCH .

IF You want to go to church every sunday , there's not one gay person who is trying to deny you that right . All they want is the SAME RIGHTS YOU CLAIM .

But those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them .

Now I dont know or care who you sleep with or what your sexual history is . As long as your not hurting or abusing anyone thats just fine by me.

But for some reason gays getting married just does not gel for you . Well fine , your entitled to feel that way if you want .

The difference between you and me is simply this .You are not prepared to give gay people the same rights you enjoy . I am . Even though I personally cant quite see why all the fuss .

So you can dance around the 'legal facts' as long and hard as you like but dont give me all that high minded crap about 'liberty and justice for all ' when you dont practice what you preach . Either you believe in the constitution as the supreme law of your country or you dont .

Assuming you have never served your country in front line combat ,you dont understand how that changes men and women . You dont realise how precious love ,life and freedom is until you have faced death and seen the ugly consequences of war .Perhaps You dont understand how violence can destroy people . Its easy to wave the flag from the rear and pat our boys on the shoulder when they come home ,destroyed inside by the shame , guilt and horror of war .

But its bible thumping right wing christians who sent your kids over there to fight . Thrash lamebutt leads the charge all the way for the US of A .
My country right or wrong . Dear god ,who invents these poor excuses for manhood . Fox News my butt .Fox propaganda .

I like to think your a better man than that redneck . I really do .

A good friend of mine's wife is an ex mormon .Her father used to regularly rape her and her sisters from early childhood . He justified it by saying a@$# rape is not sexual intercourse and therefore not a sin !
I bet he does not use the same argument for homosexuals though , hypocrite !
Interesting that the Mormon church has such a big stake in prop 8 .
The CIA uses the same recruiting techniques as the Mormons .

This beautifull young woman has struggled ever since to reconcile the brutality that was imposed on her by a 'pillar of the Mormon community' .

When you brutalise kids like that from a young age they never really get over it , EVER . RELIGION BRUTALISES PEOPLE WITH FEAR OF HELLFIRE AND OFTEN IT GETS PHYSICAL . It can be as bad as front line service when your only six/ seven years old, being raped ,beaten and abused by a 'hetro' parent who is supposed to be practicing love and compassion .
Guantanomo for innocent kids .

How many innocents have been killed in gods name and your almighty god ,your all powerfull god just stands by and lets it happen . I hear a lot of 'born agains' saying they have a 'personal relationship' with Jesus but they start wondering when he does not answer them on the front line.
They start asking hard questions when their limbs are blown off and the VA does not give them the same quality treatment as that west point officer down the hall way . No wonder they cry for their moms , its the only substantial and real love they have usually ever known .

Thats why so many vets come home atheists . Thats why they hit the booze hard and take drugs ,commit suicide in increasing numbers . They come home expecting a warm welcome, respect and understanding .Instead ,many find themselves treated the same way nam vets were . Like Crap .

They went over there thinking they would return heroes . Instead they find everything they were told by your governement was lies . They find out they were pawns of the oil companies . They find they are up against a force far more sophsiticated in its tactics than the bunch of 'towelheads' the intel officers told them about . And they start asking the hard questions YOU dont like to answer . WHY ? IS THIS RIGHT ? WHY DOES GOD ALLOW THIS ? HOW THE HELL COULD AN RPG VAPORISE AN A1 ABRAMS LIKE THAT ? WTF ARE WE DOING HERE ?

So when I see you three ranting on about gay marriage being a sin and a threat to the sanctity of hetro world Im thinking compared with the crap your president pulled in gods name I dont give a damn about a gay couple doing something as harmless as saying 'I do ' .

And epinephrine suggesting gay marriage affects his rights as a hetro !

What ? are you afraid a bunch of gays are going to crash your wedding ?
Then stomp up the steps of capitol hill with black leather whips to deal out some justice ? '

'Bend over Newt , we have had enough mister !'

Where do you get these ridiculously weak arguments ? Talk about irrational fear driving a pathetic argument . And then suggesting I am racist for saying SOME white people ,not all ,cannot handle the truth about themselves . Accusing me of being racist is not going to change the fact that your countries history is not all love tolerance and compassion.

Bring it on if you think the three of you colluding will give an advantage . Lets see if the your 'surge' brings you any luck , because I dont see jesus intervening any time soon . Three against one ? hell, Ive taken on much larger odds .

Prop 8 is pure psyops designed to deflect anger away from wall st and gov corruption .



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Equal rights for all. Is this so hard to understand? I find it somewhat distressing that we are having this discussion. Have we learned nothing from the civil rights movement? Did we assume it was just a "black thing" and leave it at that, and completely miss the actual message - that everyone is equal in every single respect.

This thread is an embarrassment to that which we call civilisation. Hopefully these are birthing pangs of a truly enlightened, tolerant civilisation. If it is, it's about bloody time.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I was wrong i did find 1 case that the U.S. supreme court did hear on same sex marriages. Baker v. Nelson


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.


SOURCE

So the precedent has been set and all federal courts MUST FOLLOW THAT PRECEDENT Until the U.S. supreme court agrees to hear another same sex marriage case and reverses that precedent.
*****
So since a state Supreme court ruled that not allowing Baker and McConnell to marry did not violate there rights granted under the constitution and The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question." The U.S. Supreme court agreed that their rights had not been violated.

So do the opponents of banning gay marriage still want to claim its unconstitutional?

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


The Supreme Court, in the past, dismissed that separate but equal for blacks was unfair:


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...


The Supreme Court often follows the opinion of the masses, the dominant approval or disapproval within a society, not the constitution.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I’m confused by some Prop 8 people in this thread and the arguments they jump between.

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?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


ahh but see that's where your wrong on the same sex marriage issue in the Supreme Court. they ruled on the merits of the case. not public opinion.

Some how i figured you'd try to deny the fact that they ruled it wasn't unconstitutional

Also they agreed that there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

they also blew out of the water your whole arguement about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



Some how i figured you'd try to deny the fact that they ruled it wasn't unconstitutional


Yeah, and I've showed you when the court ruled the same thing, in regards to segregation. You believe what you want about that ruling, as did those who believed in the “merit” judges expressed in the case I listed. Again, are we not seeing a similar historical pattern?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



they also blew out of the water your whole arguement about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.


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?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



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.


Correct the U.S. Constitution does not mention Marriage. Federal code does. big difference. States are the ones that regulate marriage. they are the ones that set the rules for marriage. there fore marriage is a state issue.


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.

Marriage is not a right it never has been. BY definition since it is regulated as in who can marry and who cannot it is a privilege.


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?


please show where i ever said that they had the same right as i did. IF IIRC i said they have the same privilege to marry anyone of the opposite sex just as i do along as the agree to it.


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?


No marriage is not a right. and no it is not a constitutional matter it is a state issue. But i can see if homosexuals continue to push the issue they will make it a constitutional issue by forcing congress to pass a Federal marriage amendment.

And so far the U.S. Supreme court agrees that its not a constitutional issue since they dismissed Baker v. Nelson for want of a substantial federal question.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   

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?



you do not have a right to marry. Marriage is regulated by each state and is not a right. if it was a right then marriages would have to follow the same laws in each state. Since each state defines the circumstances that a couple can marry it is not a right.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join