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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
(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.