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: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno

Ah, if only they could see. I have become convinced that the only thing most people on this subject can see is hatred... on both sides. your analogy is accurate though, and I only hope that hole they are digging isn't so large to swallow us all up. It's fanaticism like this that leads to war much more than religion or civil rights or any other reason I can think of.

I suggest, since you aren't in this country, you have a seat and watch the fireworks in comfort. It will be spectacular to witness, if disastrous for us.

TheRedneck




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
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.


After slavery Jim Crow laws were made to disenfranchise blacks but of course they would never stop fighting for their rights.

The hole will never be permanent because no matter how badly people want homosexuals to sit down and shut up homosexuality won't go away.

As this society increasingly becomes more enlightened and open minded homosexuality will just be another variable.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I believe the moderate supporters of Prop 8 fail to comprehend the true motivations of the most rabid supporters.

One of the primary financial supporter behind Prop 8 is Howard F. Ahmanson. This man inherited approx 300 million dollars from his family in the 80's. He was so mentally unbalanced he was committed to a mental institution. Several years later he found Jesus but not just your run of the mill Christion sect but the most radical sect. He financed a radical evangelical leader who believes that the USA should be under the control of a christion theocracy. Among the "christian" laws he supports is the stoning to death of homosexual. These are the types of good christians you think you are supporting.

In fact Sarah Palin is know to be a dominionist, in other words christians should take an active role in shaping the politics of the US. Which I guess is all well and good as long as you belong to their religion. If not well hell is the best you can hope for you and your family.

Are you beginning to get the pattern yet? They want to run the world because God told them to.

The campaign for Prop 8 has reaped massive funding from conservative backers across the country. Much of it comes from prominent donors like the Utah-based Church of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic conservative group, Knights of Columbus.

Prop 8 has also received a boost from Elsa Broekhuizen, the widow of Michigan-based Christian backer Edgard Prince and the mother of Erik Prince, founder of the controversial mercenary firm, Blackwater. So again we have the mercenary firm Blackwater supporting legislation to discriminate. Remeber Hitlers private army Brown shirts, gestapo, SS??? They were there to protect the purity of the good German people and their way of life. No Jews, Gypsys, homosexuals, or mixed race people allowed. Hitler allowed people to feel good about hating people who were different from themselves.

While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

The campaign to teach “intelligent design” in public school classrooms, the Republican takeover of the California Assembly, and the rollback of affirmative action in California—Ahmanson has been behind them all. He has also taken a special interest in anti-gay crusades. Ahmanson’s most controversial episode related to his funding of the religious empire of Rousas John Rushdoony, a radical evangelical theologian who advocated placing the United States under the control of a Christian theocracy that would mandate the stoning to death of homosexuals.

These christian fundamentalists have been used to great effect by the neocons. The time has come to challenge their agenda while there is still a chance. They are dangerous.
Let's get the US back to the separation of church and state as the founders intended!

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you! Can someone recall Jesus's remark about letting the Romans run Rome (paraphrase).

Jesus was offered an army and turned it down. He also turned the other cheek.

spelling



[edit on 7-11-2008 by Leo Strauss]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Since marriage is not a right it does not fall under the equal protection clause.

also Sexual orientation is not a protected right by the U.S. Constitution either so again the equal rights clause does not fit here.

What you don't understand is that Marriage is not a right protected by the constitution in any form. you have been shown that The U.S. constitution leaves a lot for the states and the people to decide. This issue was an amendment to the Constitution for the state of California and there for is very constitutional. An amendment to a constitution by definition can never be unconstitutional.

Marriage is regulated by the individual states not the federal government. It is not a right it is a privilege much like being able to drive a car.

And you really shouldn't make assumptions about people Because all you have done is make an arse out of yourself to put it politely. I am not religious never have been either. so you'll have to excuse me but I'm not going to discuss your BS rant about adultery since they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Gay marriage does effect me. whether you want to realize it or not. see when the minority wishes to impose their beliefs on the majority that is violating the rights of the majority. And by allowing same sex marriages the minority is trying to force their beliefs on the majority.

In all honesty you need to take a step back and take some deep breathes Since you completely ignored something i've said in previous post. I agree with you in principle that its not fair that Gays cannot get married. However trying to get this amendment over turned they should try and get an amendment banning all marriages. that would give them something to use to force a compromise on the issue.

I'm going to make an assumption about you right now based on your stance in this thread. Your an extreme liberal that believes since the majority is against your beliefs you should be able to force your beliefs on them. I'll Make another assumption, You voted for Obama and you support everything he and Nancy Pelosi want to do to this country. See those are safe assumptions because they are more than likely true.

And since you have said in this thread you really have no vested interest if Gays should be able to be married or not you should take your own advice and mind your own business.

Its liberal minded people like yourself that will do more damage to this country and cause a bigger divide than Bush and the Republicans did in 8 years.

edit speeling

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I only read the beginning of your post just so you know. I never said marriage is a right in the equal rights clauses. I told you what the legality is, expressed in the constitution, of denying a right or making a law against a right that has been deemed a right in another state. Again, this is your lack of understanding that complicates the issue, which I can not help or fix.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



Gay marriage does effect me. whether you want to realize it or not. see when the minority wishes to impose their beliefs on the majority that is violating the rights of the majority.


Gay marriage does not force you to do anything. Opposing gay marriage forces gays to live by your moral standards, the two are completely different. One lawfully affects a group and their families, the other does not.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I only read the beginning of your post just so you know. I never said marriage is a right in the equal rights clauses. I told you what the legality is, expressed in the constitution, of denying a right or making a law against a right that has been deemed a right in another state. Again, this is your lack of understanding that complicates the issue, which I can not help or fix.


See here's where your logic fails you.
1. states cannot tell other states what their laws should be. that would be like my state telling your state since we decided that our minimum wage is X above the federal minimum wage you have to do the same. it doesn't work that way!

no state has the power to tell another state how to govern there state. only the federal government can tell the states what to do as set out in the U,S, Constitution.

Also yes you have said that Marriage is a right in the equal protection clause you've based your whole argument on it!

2. marriage is not a right! (how many times do people have to tell you that sheesh!)Just because your liberal mind thinks its a right doesn't make it a right. and again this isn't a law its a constitutional amendment! it was passed by the state to be voted on by the People of California, they voted to approve changing their constitution. again how many times do you have to be told this.

believe me if anyone has a lack of understanding about the constitution it is you. and you really should read a persons whole post before you respond because it makes you look like a fool.


Gay marriage does not force you to do anything. Opposing gay marriage forces gays to live by your moral standards, the two are completely different. One lawfully affects a group and their families, the other does not.


yes Gay marriage forces me to do something. It forces me to put up with their lifestyle because liberal like yourself want to impose your will and beliefs on the majority. The same majority that has said twice now in California we are not ready to allow same sex marriages.

This issue only effects their "families" because they cannot except the fact that they are in the minority and the majority has said we aren't ready. but instead of dropping the issue they keep trying to impose their minority beliefs on the majority.

Again They are going about this the wrong way. again i agree with you that it isn't fair. But life isn't always fair,and we don't always get what we want, sometimes you have to accept that people aren't ready and try another approach to the subject.

That approach is propose a constitutional amendment banning all marriages. that will give them something to bargain with But both sides have to be willing to compromise.

And lets be honest here, the only reason gays want to get married is for the tax breaks, and to be able to get health care if they don't have it from their partners work. To be able to leave their property to their partner if they die.

Well ok, come up with away to allow them to have the same things married couples get, but with civil unions.

Some companies allow the partner in a civil union to have coverage under their health insurance policy.

you can leave property to anyone ever heard of a will?

the tax breaks would take an act of congress so i can't help you there. BUt to be honest the tax credits you get aren't that much when you make to much money!

*Snip*

MOD Note: Review this link: Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected: That's enough of the snide remarks

[edit on 11/8/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



See here's where your logic fails you.
1. states cannot tell other states what their laws should be. that would be like my state telling your state since we decided that our minimum wage is X above the federal minimum wage you have to do the same. it doesn't work that way!



Again, I stopped at the beginning because you already misunderstood, again. I never stated that states can tell other states what their laws can be. I said and showed you were the constitution expresses that no state can ignore civil agreements made in other states, and it also causes a contradiction that the constitution does not allow.


"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."


"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."





[edit on 8-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
this whole discussion is interestingly skewed by opinion when it falls right down to it, and sadly that is so off the mark of where the focus should be that it seems it wont get re focused ever because some just refuse to concede that equal rights mean EQUAL rights. you can say that taking a path to demand equality for all citizens will lead to some great catastrophe if you like though that seems to be exasperated for a purpose other than logic, and you may stand by "religious" concepts of why gay marriage is wrong, but the point still remains that anyone else can and by that measure why cant gays? its prejudice and no matter how you word it, it will ALWAYS be wrong to be prejudice, just like its wrong to be sexist and racist. Thats pretty much my final word on the issue though im sure the proponents of prop H8 as i call it will defend there stance by telling the rest of us (which is to say trying to reassure themselves) how they are correct in some form of justification and thats fine. But lets be real for a second and remember, if they are your rights being trampled its not so easy to be judgmental. for all you religious fanatics I got something for ya: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



Gay marriage does not force you to do anything.


Sure it does, you are asking a religious institution to redefine what marriage is. To be honest, I could care less what gay people do. Tat being said, I can understand the push back from the religious folks. You are basically trying to tell them to re write their religion, so that you can feel more equal. Even though the fact is, you're just as equal and with all the rights as anyone else. You just cant call what you do marriage, because its defined as between a man and woman.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



I suggest, since you aren't in this country, you have a seat and watch the fireworks in comfort. It will be spectacular to witness, if disastrous for us.

Unfortunately, borders only stop people, they don't stop ideas. There are more than a few in this country (Canada); especially in the party of our own Prime Minister, who would be more than happy to emulate what the voters of California have done. We have same sex marriage protection laws already passed, but some would repeal them if they thought they could get away with it. Mob mentality exists everywhere.
I watch what you guys are up to because what you do always has an influence everywhere else in the world. You probably have no idea how much that is so I am sure, but from our side, when the elephant farts, we all choke.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno

Ah, Canada. Yeah, you might want to invest in a set of asbestos undies to watch then. I was hoping you were in Europe, where I think the influence is a bit less solid from us.

I'm glad to hear you already have some protections in place on this issue. I just hope the furor from our coming fight doesn't spill over that border and mess things up for you.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

I said and showed you were the constitution expresses that no state can ignore civil agreements made in other states, and it also causes a contradiction that the constitution does not allow.

Again, despite my misgivings about doing so, I am going to try and show you what you are doing.

This decision will have to be made in Federal court, by a Federal Justice (no doubt the Supreme Court of the US). There are two possibilities to such a challenge: 1) Your legal argument will be rejected, and 2) your legal argument will be validated.

If you are dismissed, then there is now a legal precedent that will last for decades stating clearly that gay marriage is not a concern of the Federal government. This means Prop 8 will be vindicated and the people of California who voted for it will have won a total and complete victory. You will never again be able to challenge any true legal discrimination past the state level. Other states will probably follow suit, and there will soon be an entire country where gay marriage is unconstitutional, with the possibility of a few states still allowing such.

If you are vindicated and Prop 8 is struck down, your legal basis that other states cannot constitutionally refuse to honor gay marriages made in California will lead to the vast majority of the other 49 states (many of which are now rabidly against gay marriage), calling for an amendment to the US Constitution to prevent gay marriage from existing throughout the USA. Remember, Bush already mentioned such a thing. If such an amendment were to pass, and the Constitution of the US were to now state that gay marriage is not allowed, where would you appeal that decision to? What judge, whether state or Federal, is able to rewrite the US Constitution in favor of a higher document? That is a complete and total, absolute loss for your agenda, and fuel for more restrictions to be laced, this time with less chance of a successful legal challenge. you will have lost not just a state, but a nation, with nowhere left to turn, regardless of the outcome of your challenge.

Again, you lost already, twice, in large part due to the same arrogant and dismissive attitude you have been showing throughout this thread and others. Now, in your zeal, you are following the same path, but this time with even greater consequences. What will make you understand? How much true discrimination, how much negative public opinion, how many atrocities committed against those you claim to represent must happen before you stop and think your actions through?

You are a pawn in a game that doesn't care about your agendas. the other players who are your 'friends' in this debacle are simply getting rich off your money and false hopes. Of course they will tell you differently. A used car dealer will tell you there's low mileage on that expensive late-model repainted taxi too. It doesn't change the fact that it is about to break down, just as the false hopes from your 'friends' (attorneys) will not change the outcome for you. They'll already have what they wanted all along: money.

I admire your zeal, and again for the forty-eleven-dozenth time I agree with many of your statements. I do not agree with destroying everything that has been accomplished in recent history, and that is what you are doing, your words and intentions notwithstanding.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius
 



Sure it does, you are asking a religious institution to redefine what marriage is.


The US government is not a religious institution. And civil rights should not be defined by religious standards in a secular nation. This is not about making you upset that something goes against your personal beliefs, this is about legality, and legally gay marriage does not affect you, but your opposition legally affects gay families.


[edit on 8-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I said we could agree to disagree, that did not work, you continued stating the same things over again. Then I tried ignoring you, which has not worked. As much as I love you insulting me and telling me what you see in your crystal ball I’ll take my chances with fighting an unconstitutional amendment instead of letting it pass. As for those I personally fight this fight with you know nothing about them, and I find it laughable that you make all of these assumptions. But I can honestly say we are all guilty of such silly and extreme characterizations when dealing with matters like this. I disagree with your opinion and you disagree with my opinion. That I can definitely live with, but I’m tired of this useless back and forth with you. I do not agree with you, I think you are wrong, no matter how many times you state your opinion or put mine down based on your opinion on of how events might come to pass.



[edit on 8-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You could have sad that any group of people trying to get equal rights were in a way "hurting" them selves.

There is always a conservative backlash to change, even positive change.

Gay people aren't going to go away but eventually the people trying to make them go away will give up.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Gay people aren't going to go away but eventually the people trying to make them go away will give up

I hope you are right. I still fear that a lot of what Redneck says has merit - especially about strategy. On the other hand I respect those with dogged determination - that always goes a long way. Both are valid approaches and when used together often result in success, eventually.
I think you can safely take encouragement over your new president elect. He will certainly be calming the fears of the conservative element as he goes along (especially regarding this subject - he even acknowledged gays in his speech on winning the other day) - in contrast to the last one who constantly fanned the flames of ignorance.
best wishes....



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

That I can definitely live with, but I’m tired of this useless back and forth with you. I do not agree with you, I think you are wrong, no matter how many times you state your opinion or put mine down based on your opinion on of how events might come to pass.

If I have come across as attempting to denigrate you for your opinion, please forgive me. I have not tried to do so. what I have tried to do is state, as clearly as possible, my opinion and present factual evidence to back it up. You started the thread, I simply answered you.

I have not done this to insult you, I have done this in an attempt to help you, whether you believe that or not. Not once have I stated that I am against gay marriage. Instead I have stated many times that I actually agree with your position, just not your tactics. I have phrased my points many different ways, and each time have been answered with confusion. In such a case, I normally assume my point was not clear and needs to be rephrased.

This is an open forum. You posted a thread about how you intended to defeat the Prop 8 amendment. That is your prerogative. I have replied with the potential problems I see form a legal perspective. That is my prerogative. Your opinion carries no more weight than mine, and I believe herein lies the crux of the problem. You seem to see yourself as elitist and above having to explain your positions to those who are lowly and beneath you, and definitely above having to refute those arguments. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are not my Queen. You are not royalty. You are one person among 300,000,000, and your opinions count as much as your existence among those 300,000,000. So do mine. So do the opinions of every person who has posted here, or who are able to post anywhere. That is called 'equality'.

The difference between us in my opinion is this: I will look at all sides of an issue before making a final decision, and even after I have made that decision, I will continue to listen and examine the thoughts, opinions, and evidence presented by others. I have changed my views on issues several times in ATS alone because of this philosophy. You, on the other hand, will have no truck with dissension, because by definition it must be hateful in some way toward you.

Disagree with me all you want, but do not question my ability to respond to your public posts on this forum. The owners and staff of ATS, as their official positions on this private forum dictate, have the ability to tell me what may or may not be done on their 'property'. You are not one of them. Outside of ATS, in the true public forum, not even they can silence me. That right to speak my mind, even when such differs from your opinion, is specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.

I encourage anyone reading this who is torn between our positions to simply read the entire conversation, and decide for themselves who is speaking from the stronger position.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


So its okay for straight people to impose their will ?
Interesting concept , sounds rather fascist to me .

So how do you feel about equality for native americans having stolen their land from them ? Is that the will of the majority ? Or is it the will of the cowboy with the biggest gun ?


Unlike you white boys , the native americans were generally tolerant of gay men and had no issue with it like you do .

You guys rap on about your precious constitution , but equality only applies to the majority ?

strange logic .

If I were to take away your big gun , would you still be mr right ?

Marriage is just a private partnership between consenting parties protected If memory serves under articles reffering to the right to contract .

How many straight marriages are merely a marriage of conveniance for tax purposes ? How many women sit on the board of their husbands business for tax purposes ? How many straight marriages are an empty shell with no love , no sex and no meaning . I can think of plenty of straight marriages where the guy was a low down cheating ,abusive , gun slinging drunk who THINKS HE IS MR BIG but really is a coward when his compensating pistol is removed from his grip .

What business is it of yours to say two gay people cannot legaly bind themselves so they can enjoy the same privilages as you ? How does that hurt you ?

If you were gay you would be on the other side of this issue .

There is no point bragging about defending freedom for all then saying it only applies to some . but then thats the history of colonial america isnt it ?
Might is right , my way or the highway ? My country right or wrong .

But what are you going to do when the US is officially declared bankrupt ?
Blame the gay community ?

Now let me think . How did the US end up unserviceable . Was it that gun totin right wing Bush who put your beloved country on the economic trash heap or was it those 'fags in frisco' ?

Since when was a big tough guy like you afraid of a gay man ? Or is it you are afraid you may be one too ,deep inside that tough wrapped in the flag shell ?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join