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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
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.


Say what you will of it being a crock. It's not a crock and I haven't given details of what I mean but it is not said willy nilly. My concerns go beyond such slight notions of legality and there are levels of agument I am not willing to engage except one-on-one, face-to-face.

The main problem in people's thinking is the idea that rights are enumerated by a document. It is exactly the opposite and this way of thinking was one of the reasons the framers objected to having a bill of rights in the first place. The 9th amendment is supposed to make that clear:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Nearly ignored, it seems. Negative rights are the basis and is evidenced in the many "congress shall not" and similar phrases. Positive rights apply to the government and are specifically delegated. The 10th amendment plays are role in stating:

The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, States are not allowed to usurp the U.S. Constitution and our protections can be enforced Federally. It should be fought in the Supreme Court and in my opinion it should wait until the court becomes more liberal.

I will sound like a broken record on those points but they are some of the most important things to "get".

Also, I didn't lose since I am neither from California nor considering marriage to the same sex. I am quite a happy hetero so this isn't about "what I get"-- at least directly; it is about divine laws (a label that will convey the idea to most).

Bah, I'm done here. Hopefully I have planted a Good seed in a few minds but they must nurture it themselves.




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
This is just what I mean about stirring up trouble in another state. Most Californians could care less who marries who! But the religous folks come in with their millions of donated dollars from the collection plates and purchase television ads threatening everyone's immortal soul and the weak minded are frightened! It is politics pure and simple it turns a non issue into a wedge issue.

Utah mind your own polygamist business and your own dubious prophets.

Seems like you've got enough on your own plate! Maybe it's time for a hard hitting investigation on church elders and their complacency in the rape of children. You know when old men get to marry 13 yr old girls!

Maybe the Knights of Columbus could help out with the epidemic problem of priest sexual abuse of children. Funny how the catholic church hierarchy protected those criminals and sent them to new parishs to start over...and they took up right where they left off. abusing even more children.

Every homosexual that I have known who were treated with respect and love by their family and friends, but particularly their family, were successful by all measures. Couldn't you say the same about straights??

So what I am saying is that it is important to treat all human beings with respect and dignity.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I really wish I had more stars to give! fantastic stuff.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Fair enough.

Now there's the matter of waiting until it gets overturn again by the courts throwing out the voice of the people.

Let the cycle begin!

Seriously, whoever, whomever thought it was a nice idea to open a law that plays with a traditional thing in California, has open a can of worms.

NO ONE will be pleased by the decisions. Expect the decision to be temporary (those who support it and those who don't).

It will never stop



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Alright we will have to agree to disagree because I don’t understand how I can explain this to you any simpler. The constitution is not up for interpretation on this one, it expresses very clearly the equal rights clauses and how they involve separate states. It does not factor in if those separate states are in the minority. Either you don’t understand the constitution or you don’t want to.

I’m curious…

According to your religious morals pre-marital sex and adultery are sins, sins which in the past women could be severely punished for. Women in fact are still punished for this “sin” in other countries. Would you support a constitutional amendment that made pre-marital sex and adultery illegal? I doubt you would, because it doesn’t directly affect you unless you involve yourself in it, does it? When it comes to these issues you probably don’t believe in a secular nation that you have the right to make laws based on your morals; or do you? Gay marriage doesn’t directly affect you, and it imposes your morals and ideals of marriage on everyone in the state, preventing two consenting adults from sharing the same civil rights you do because of your personal belief system when their union does not affect you. I wonder when this reasoning stops for people like you. This line of reasoning is a much more slippery slope than allowing gay marriage, I fear it, oppose it, and will do everything in my power to see that it does not affect gay marriage.

Religious people should mind their own business, if they don’t believe in gay marriage guess what? No one is forcing them to marry someone of the same-sex. They have every right to their opinion, but in a secular nation when you force your morals on someone when something will not affect you that is entirely something different. That is something selfish and hateful that comes from fear and ignorance.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
There are two constitutions here being discussed, the California Constitution and the US Constitution. They serve different purposes and have different legal domains. You seem to have the two mixed up.


Sorry but the “confusion” is all yours. I’ve posted the quotes where the constitution expresses very clearly the equal rights clauses and how they involve separate states. If you wish to ignore what the constitution states itself or pretend the clauses don’t exist then by all means do, I’ll just have to agree to disagree and keep cringing on my side of the computer. I’m reading those sections of the constitution over again right now; I find it interesting how anyone could misunderstand them, unless they were working very hard to.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

I’m reading those sections of the constitution over again right now; I find it interesting how anyone could misunderstand them, unless they were working very hard to.

Strange, that is exactly what I was thinking.

Well, I tried. We will just have to agree to disagree until one of us is proven wrong. With all the misery that may entail for all parties...

My best wishes to you on your quest. You're probably going to need it. My support, now, that I may or may not be able to give you. I place my country before you.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


No problem, I realize in my zeal that my math was way, way off....

Deny Ignorance, even unintended ignorance.

Thanks for keeping us on our toes ATS, stay classy....
DocMoreau



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I find it interesting that all the people supporting the gay marriage, also seem to vitriolically hate religious people. Than you have this whole movement to re-define a religious institution, simply so a minority of people can call what they have marriage? Why cant they just get civil unions? Why must they stick their thumbs in the eyes of religious people?

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be surprised religious people are fighting you on this. The gay movement seems to like to poke the bear, no pun intended.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
I find it interesting that all the people supporting the gay marriage, also seem to vitriolically hate religious people. Than you have this whole movement to re-define a religious institution, simply so a minority of people can call what they have marriage? Why cant they just get civil unions? Why must they stick their thumbs in the eyes of religious people?

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be surprised religious people are fighting you on this. The gay movement seems to like to poke the bear, no pun intended.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]


I don't hate religious people-- that would mean I hate my maternal grandmother. Really, it has to do with whether they follow the core teachings or whether they profanely twist their code into a vehicle of hatred.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I can't help but think how completely bizarre it is that people would spend so much money and time to stop other people from doing something that will...

1. Make them happy.
2. Not effect other people.

I’m blind to you Haters
Can’t touch me war instigators
Mi say, where is the love lately
Mi say, how the world a run so
Say I’m blind to you Haters
Can’t touch me rumor creators
Mi say, where is the love lately
Ask you how the world a run so



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I agree. I think the hierarchy in this country absolutely loves it, dividing us nearly down the middle on an issue that does not affect people who are already given the same privilege while there are far more important issues that affect all of us that we should be focused on collectively.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I agree EnlightenUp, I do not hate religious people. I however dislike living in a secular nation where religious people try to force their will and standards on me; affecting me and people I love’s rights under the justification of their own morality, though the issue does not affect them lawfully in any way. This I will not like or tolerate and I am not ashamed to say so.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


How are your rights in anyway infringed on? What cant you do that straight couples can? The way you guys conflate this with civil rights is one of the main reasons people don't support you. I think there is a feeling among a lot of people that this is all just theater.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Heliodromus]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliodromus
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


How are your rights in anyway infringed on? What cant you do that straight couples can? The way you guys conflate this with civil rights is one of the main reasons people don't support you. I think there is a feeling among a lot of people that this is all just theater.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Heliodromus]


How about the tax status that comes with marriage for one? dont you think thats a bit more than an opinion on whats "holy" or not? cuz unions are just signatures that have no hold on tax status and you get no pre-nups,or power of attorney, or any of that. thats definitely something married hetero couples get that their gay counterparts dont. And while we are at it how about respect? you dont see blacks having to drink from separate fountains anymore do you? they dont have to sit in the back of the bus either right? Women can vote now cant they? Infact harassment in the work place is taken majorly serious these days for the very reason that women are no longer to be treated as minorities you can bully, same as african americans, and latinos aswell. What makes homosexual couples any different in that the respect given to other minorities should not be paid to them?

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Averysmallfoxx]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliodromus
 



I’ll re-post another post of mine that goes over how our rights and lives are affected and why the opposers are wrong:

Gay marriage does not affect straight couples. It only allows gay couples the same privileges. This would be a non-issue if the government did not involve itself in marriage in the first place and gave some rights only to married couples. Prop 8 is a huge mistake; it accepts the separate but equal mentality that has never served our nation well. And for what?
Let us examine the arguments against gay marriage,

Religion-

Why in a secular nation should anyone be held accountable to someone else’s belief system? This is the worst. Prop 8 was driven by scare tactics involving children and religious bias. Our constitution makes it clear laws and amendments can not be made that favor a religion, yet religion is the only solid argument against gay marriage. The others are created by the religious right to excuse their opposition.

It would destroy our country and morality-

It has yet to do so in several countries. Including Scandinavian countries where civil unions and marriage has been legal among same-sex couples for years. Anyway this is poor reasoning because gay couples in general have not been proven to have an adverse affect on society what so ever, to assume marriages would with no basis is unfounded.

Taxes cuts awarded to straight couples because they raise families should not be awarded to gay couples-

1. Gay couples raise families as well. I think the statistic is at 44% now?
2. There are many married people in our country who do not nor do they wish to have children. The simplest solution is to not give the tax breaks to those who do not have children or abolish them altogether, duh.


It will change the tradition of marriage-

The tradition of marriage has been changed through out our history, this is why women are not men’s property and blacks can marry whites. Our current tradition is an already tampered version of marriage, so there is no reason why we should not change it again to include gay couples; especially since it does not affect straight couples in any way.


If you think a majority possibly being against gay marriage makes denying this right to people okay you are DEAD WRONG. The majority has been for segregation and slavery in our country previously, this does not make something constitutional. This is why this issue should not be put to a vote, if the integration of schools was put to a vote we may still be educationally segregated, it is our politicians responsibility to see through our nations bigotry and injustice.


Also it can not be ignored that our countries health system has declared that homosexuality is not a choice, that “ex-gay” methods fail, and that to be a healthy, fully function adult one must accept their sexuality. Also it has been concluded that children raised by homosexuals are at no disadvantage. What is wrong with this country? It’s infuriating. (The American Psychological Association www.apa.org/)

Addressing other arguments made against and for gay marriage:


(NOTE: I did not write these counter arguments, this is from the site www.bidstrup.com... by Scott Bidstrup)


Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of this argument are really hard pressed to explain, if that's the case, why infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings and sleep in separate bedrooms.


Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.


Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue


When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.


-we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency.Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners.If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?


-Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?


-If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do.


-These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.



[edit on 7-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



I think the issue is that the side supporting same sex marriages thinks that it is a right Guaranteed by the US Constitution. The act of marriage is a State, not Federal run operation, hence people getting marriage licenses from the State not Federal Government. It (marriage) is obviously a State issue and as such can be regulated by each State as they see fit. The residents of California have followed the proper procedures in their State to change laws and indeed it's own Constitution to make clear what Marriage is in the State of California.

Sexual preference is not a protected class in the Federal sense, not saying it couldn't be but as of now, it is not one. But that isn't even the point as this is a State issue, not a Federal issue. The people of California have decided with the Prop 8 Vote what they want the term "marriage" to be in the State of California. I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court would even hear the case based of the above facts mentioned. For the same reason, the Supreme Court has not stepped in to challenge the various ages people can get married in each State. The Laws surrounding marriage are State based, not Federal based. If they did decide not to hear it that would mean the U.S.S.C. would believe the matter to be a State's right issue.

As TheRedneck has said, in your zeal to get Same Sex marriage's recognized, you are indeed creating legislation that further blocks your stated goals. Most countries do not recognize same sex marriages. If you try to push this on the Federal scene, you will have it blow up in your faces.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

You see, this is where I get confused. You have plenty of good legal arguments on your side. Why not use them instead of beating your head against an unmovable wall of constantly skewed public opinion?

You're right in that the government should never have been involved in a marriage. A marriage is inherently a religious ceremony, but it is also a prominent religious ceremony and thus has become a part of our culture. And public opinion will not allow you to change it. You're also right that two people should have the same legal status as any other two. So why not try this instead?

Remove all legal considerations from marriage, and designate it as a religious function that can then only be controlled or granted by recognized religious organizations. No more going to the Justice of the Peace to get married; instead, designate a Civil Union as having the exact same rights and privileges as marriage now does.

A Civil union can be between any two consenting adults, performed by anyone who can now legally perform a marriage. But in order to obtain the title of 'married', a title that now carries no weight as to legalities, the parties must locate a minister/rabbi/priest/whatever to perform a strictly religious ceremony. As marriage would no longer carry any legal weight, it need not be regulated.

Sure, you'd probably have to make some sacrifices from the ultimate goal of rubbing people's faces in your agenda... maybe like making all present marriages (and maybe all future ones) an automatic Civil Union. But is that such a huge price to pay for true equality? It's far cheaper than the price you are about to pay, and far easier to convince the voting public of.

The door is just down to your left, and it's easier on your head than those bricks.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Also, don't forget that many states (when custody of children is concerned) side AGAINST an adulterer, male or female, VERY STRONGLY and rightly so.
A man or woman who can't be trusted in an adult relationship, (They could file for divorce BEFORE the out of wedlock relation) will not be very trustworthy with the children's best interest and THAT is the main thing.
Tax breaks? The only one that has even been noticeable is the child tax credit, IMO.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


There is always a bigger picture, isn't there, and I have decided that you have it clearly in focus.
I am not American and so can only scratch my head sometimes at what goes on there, but for sure it is interesting.
... and complex
People struggling for gay rights in the U.S.A against a religious/conservative populace seem to be digging themselves into a deeper hole as of late. Their opposition also appears to be at the ready with cement trucks to make that hole permanent.
I respect your insight and advice. I hope people see what you are attempting to get across.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join