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: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 



When was the last time the US had a vote that was not tampered with.
You people and your touch screen voting machines !

No , this whole thing is about harnesing knee jerk public reaction to a failing economy and finding a marginalised part of the community to use as a scapegoat .

Now that god has punished america with a recession and seven years of failure in Iraq , the churches are looking for somewhere to project anger before it falls on them .

Where is your god now , christians ? oh dont tell me , its a TEST of your righteousness ! yeah as if .




posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Originally posted by reconpilot



Whats with that no kissing or affection in public thing all about ?


for me, or others. quite frankly i have seen some *Snip* from gay people and i find it disgusting. or if for me, i guess its just not my style in public, every once in awhile i like to *Snip* though,lol


my Irish buddy Hated it when I kissed and hugged my wife ANYWHERE !


some people prefer not to see this kind of stuff, i am one of those people.


You know ,its no big deal at all in Italy and France . you see couples going at it everywhere , in the park , in the street , its *Snip* great man , I love it .


i dont see it much around here, i find it common courtesy to keep private matters private. just my opinion.


Actually , I still get funny looks in OZ but only from the humans .


this is why i love ya reconpilot.


And dude , you have not LIVED until you have slept with a Lesbian !
Its kinda different but its kinda Nice . Well hey I got it out of my system before I settled down okay ?


why are you asking me if its okay? none of my business. its good you got it out of your syrtem before you settled down i believe.


No , I dont have a problem with gay people kissing and stuff but full on sex ? get a room .call me old fashioned if you like....


i have no problem either as long as i dont have to see it. it churns my stomach, man man, man woman, woman woman........wait......nah im not going there.


[edit on 8-11-2008 by pureevil81]

MOD Note: Review this link: Terms and Conditions

Specifically:


1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.


[edit on 11/9/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 



Ummm, could you try sticking on the topic rather that going off on tangents? Again you are on the "it's only the religious people" rant. Here's a hint for you, Californian's aren't the most religious going people in the Union. I just provided you with links to prove that there was pretty widespread support for the Prop and you just keep at it.

And just for the record, I'm not from California, nor am I the most religious person on the block. I wish I was better, that I am in that regard.

To be frank, if the Proposition had failed, I would have pretty much had the same view. The voters in California are entitled to decide what marriage is, whatever that may be to them. If you are intent on finding out which side is in the right, I again suggest you try to have it brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court for them to decide. Be careful what you wish for.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 

Don't worry about reconpilot he's just a troll trying to derail the thread since he oviously isn't american this really has nothing to do with him.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



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.



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.


Its very simple one state cannot tell another state what to do. your double talk is when you say what it quoted in the 2nd quote above.

Also just because a state allows same sex marriage it is still not a right. I know this is where i lose you everytime because you can't grasp this concept. So i'll put it in bold maybe you'll read it and understand it. Marriage is not a right. it is not a protected class under the U.S. Constitution. No where in the U.S. COnstitution does it say anything about marriage. Therefore regulating marriage is left up to each individual state. and they may choose to regulate it anyway they want. which makes it a priviledge not a right! MAybe i should explain it to you another way so maybe just maybe you might understand.

Just because California amended their State Constitution which is only valid in California doesn't mean lets say New York has to amend their State Constitution to Ban same sex marriages. does that help you understand? probably not but it was worth a try.

What yourself and people like you will accomplish is forcing the U.S. Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban Same sex marriages then what does that accomplish? not a darn thing. But i know people like yourself will then File a lawsuit and the losing side will appeal to the next higher court until it reaches the U.S. Supreme court. Then one of 3 things will happen.
1. The U.S. Supreme court will refuse to hear the appeal thus leaving the amendment in place. thus injecting the federal Government into the marriage business
2. they will hear the case and rule in favor of the amendment thus injecting the federal Government into the marriage business

3. they will rule against the admendment thus injecting the federal Government into the marriage business.

with the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme court 1&2 have a 90% chance of happening.
number 3 has a 10% chance of happening. But no matter what happens once it reaches the federal level is you've added yet another layer of federal government and 1 more thing that they can meddle in our lives over.

Also maybe you will understand this. A constitutional amendment to either the U.S. Constitution or an individual states Constitution by definition can't be unconstitutional, your amending the document to make what your doing constitutional. do you understand now? again probably not but again it was worth a shot.

The Bottom line is you feel that same sex marriage is a right and that it is some how protected by the U.S. COnstitution. when yuo were shown you were wrong you decide to use the equal protection clause.

But then you were shown that Homosexuality and same sex marriage are not protected classes by it either.

So then you proceed to call anyone that apposes your beliefs as religious, which simply is not the case. Some of us see where people like yourself are willing to take this and we see what it will take to stop you and we don't want to see an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and another layer of BS federal government oversite over something as stupid as this. there are more important things that need to be done right now.

I know i keep writing out these long post to reply to your simple misguided replies and you never read a whole post anyway before your liberal brain makes you quit reading because you can't stand that people don't agree with you views.

But then again i can't reply with the short sweet reply i want to reply to you with since i would probably get banned if i did.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


And those statements contradict each other how? I never say in either that a state can tell another state what to do. No state can ignore civil agreements made in other states or make laws that cause contradictions in the constitution under rights clauses. That is not states telling each other what to do, that is states following the constitution, and the clauses all states must abide by.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 


haven't you learned that your assumptions only makes an arse out of yourself?

Haven't you learned not to be a troll?

your entire post has nothing to do with this thread. even though your post is completely off topic i really do hope you have proof to back up all those assumption you make Oh that's right you don't because your just trolling. To bad i would have been interested in reading your proof



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



Also just because a state allows same sex marriage it is still not a right.


You are correct, but the constitution expresses the illegality of making a law against a right that is considered a right in another state. That’s what I’ve been discussing this entire time. I said it plainly in my first reply to you.

Edit: Me

Prop 8 addresses the issue of the legality of denying same-sex marriage


I clearly stated the legality of denying marriage, not giving it.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Ok this is my last post in this thread tonight do us both a favor read the whole thing then stop and make sure you understand it before you reply.

I agree with you that its not fair that straights can marry and gays cannot. I've said that a few time. But this is the society we live in right now. And the majority of the society has said they are not ready to allow gays to marry. just because they don't agree that they should does not mean they are right wingers, religious zealots, etc.

There are just as many people in this country that are not religious as there are people that are religious. and believe it or not, not all people that oppose gay marriage right now are religious. Even Obama is against Gay marriage and he is the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate.

But what does banning same sex marriages in California have any effect on same sex marriages done in a state that allows them? Nothing!

See even though they are banned from taking place in California AGAIN doesn't mean California will not accept marriages done in other states. I think that's what you think will happen. No state can tell another state what to do but most if not all states will recognize a marriage from another state whether its between a man and woman. man and man, woman and woman. Also anyone that lives in California that had a same sex marriage are still married under the amendment.

All this amendment banning same sex marriages says it is now illegal to preform same sex marriages in the state of California.

And again here is where you don't understand. marriage no matter who it is between is not a right, it is a privilege. privileges are different then rights. in the states that allow same sex marriages it is not a right therefore your argument saying that California is denying them a right is invalid and thus the sections of the U.S. Constitution you keep referring to do not apply in this case. I'm Sorry.

See each state regulates who can marry and who cannot. And by your reasoning Since straight couples can marry as long as they follow the requirements of the state they live in then so should gays. But then using that same logic lets say that another minority in this country feels they are being denied marriage using your logic can then claim they should be able to marry and that minority are the people that believe it is ok for adults to marry Kids.

Also by your reasoning, the states should not be able to impose an age limit on marriage.

Do you really want to open the door on kids marring kids, or adults marring Children? Because under your logic that you are using to defend gay marriage those two things could become possible.

Now i don't know about you, but I have children and i don't want some person who thinks its ok to marry kids to be able to marry my daughters. And i definitely don't want a child marring another child. Most states you have to be 18 to get married but you can marry at a younger age with parental consent Again by your reasoning anyone that wants to get married should be able to marry anyone they want.

So i ask you do YOU want to open that can of worms?

Edit to add: Just because you marry someone and get that piece of paper saying your married doesn't mean you love them anymore or any less. its just a piece of paper that sits around collecting dust. Its not really good for anything.

Also you don't need a piece of paper to have a commitment to the person you love, to spend the rest of your life with them. But that piece of paper makes it a pain in the ass if one of you have a change of heart. Because then you can't just divid things up and go your seperate ways, With that piece of paper you have to pay the government to divorce you from each other. And like i said the tax breaks you get with marriage really aren't that great, even with them last year i still had to pay in over $20,000.00 in taxes.

I would have gotten a better tax break if i was single with kids then married with kids. So having that piece of paper that says your married really isn't that great.



[edit on 11/9/2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Again you still misunderstand.


All this amendment banning same sex marriages says it is now illegal to preform same sex marriages in the state of California.


Which is unconstitutional, it goes against the pieces of the constitution I have repeatedly showed you. Disregard what the constitution states if you like. It is right there in black and grey for you to read.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



See each state regulates who can marry and who cannot.

And the constitution regulates how the states can collectively make amendments, and expresses clearly that rights legalized in other states can not have laws made that ban them in another state, and can not impose a collective constitutional contradiction.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


No one is opening that can of worms but you. That is a preposterous assessment. Making marriage legal for all consenting adults, whether gay or straight, white or black, has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. It has not happened in any of the countries gay marriage and civil unions have been legal in for years because this is a baseless argument that compares apples and oranges.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Again you still misunderstand.


All this amendment banning same sex marriages says it is now illegal to preform same sex marriages in the state of California.


Which is unconstitutional, it goes against the pieces of the constitution I have repeatedly showed you. Disregard what the constitution states if you like. It is right there in black and grey for you to read.


Again you really need to go back and read those sections. you are misunderstanding what they say.

They cannot Collectively make amendments. Each state if they wish to Amend their own Constitution must do so individually. California cannot Amend New York States Constituion and visa vesra. And again States that allow same sex marriages did not make it a right to get married. They amended the regulations that govern who can marry and who cannot. again they didn't make it a right. And Again just because you feel it is a right does not make it a right.


No one is opening that can of worms but you. That is a preposterous assessment. Making marriage legal for all consenting adults, whether gay or straight, white or black, has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. It has not happened in any of the countries gay marriage and civil unions have been legal in for years because this is a baseless argument that compares apples and oranges.


You don't realize it but you will open that can of worms. I'm using your logic to try and show you what could happen. That's why i asked you to read my whole post then think about it But I guess your beyond a logical debate since you still think you have a right to get married when you don't. And you can't even see how your own logic could be used with the precedent you want to set.

Again i wish you all the best in your fight to try and impose your beliefs on the majority, All you will acomplish is adding more government to the Citizens of this country.

I'm done with this thread since its clear you have no reasonable logic.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



They cannot Collectively make amendments.


I never said they could. They can not be collectively contradictive when it comes to the rights clauses.

No such can of worms will be opened, that is utter lunacy to assume such extremes when no such thing has happened in the other places gays have enjoyed these rights in for years.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Hey, to all those who are anti-Prop 8, I've finally been able to get a group together to protest this prop. I've wanted to since it passed but I wanted to bring some friends and needed the rallies to be scheduled in our area. Two have been, for Sunday and this Friday. Won't be able to make it to the Sunday one but we will definitely be at the Friday rally. I hope that anyone who is able to and wants to go to a rally does. I'll take pictures, I'll even try to take some videos of the rally! Maybe I'll make a new thread with them on next Saturday or Sunday.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Yeah , I drift a little but you know sometimes you have to to get a bead on where peoples attitudes to marriage rights and privilages originate .

In other words , how can you be objective and fair in your judgments when they are colored by social ,racial, religious and sexual prejudice ?

You know , its like the war in Iraq . The justification was total fabrication based on WMD's .

see ,the real problem is this .When you supress peoples sexual desires they fester . When you lay those guilt trips thick on people about sex being DIRTY from a young age ,YOU DEMONISE the natural expression of love . You deny any child love and affection and they will grow up violent and angry . They will embrace a god who promises vengeance on your enemies ! How easily people are manipulated when love is lost .

Governements and churches know this and exploit it . It turns well mannered respectfull men in to vicious mindless thugs and killers .It turns women in to evangelising fanatics who vote for warmongering politicians .

And it worked in cali because the people are frightened now . Job security is a thing of the past , pension funds are eroding in a sea of iredeemable debt . Your house ,which you payed way to much for is now worth jack and you cant sell it.

Well you cant blame congress to much and capitalism is the american way so...

I know ,lets blame those mincing little fags with their dual incomes and no parental responsiblities. How dare they ride this one out while we suffer !

Knee jerk reaction ,gotta punch somebody or something , anything to avoid seeing the truth .

But like I said before , personally , I think the law is an ass in most countries . federal or state ? Who gives a rats . In a very real sense ,redneck is right . Dancing with lawyers is a rigged roulette wheel and they win no matter how much the law twists and turns .
While you all fight amongst yourselves over the issues your eye is off the ball ,which is what the feds and state gov want . Divide and conquer .

so in a way I agree and disagree with everyone on this thread because as usual ,'staying on topic' is an excuse for maintaining a blinkered narrow view of the problem . Its like watching NPR .Endless sober intellectual analysis that in the end says nothing to me but COVER UP . BLAH BLAH BLAH .

Look back to Hitlers germany . It wasnt just the jews who coped it .It was any minority who did not fit in that rigid german grid. Gypsies ,gays , intelectuals ,artists and basically anyone who did not have a MAJORITY VOICE .

So be carefull how you define majority because the way things are going in the US right now your 'majority status' could rapidly dissolve away leaving you every bit as powerless as those you found it SO CONVENIANT TO DENY EQUALITY .

And THAT MY FRIENDS IS WHAT REALLY FRIGHTENS YOU .THE LOSS OF AMERICAS PREMINENCE AND POWER IN A SEA OF DEBT THAT WILL DROWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR FAVOUR ,YOUR FREEDOMS ,YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILAGES .

And all because you cannot express love and tolerance without shame or guilt . Because your founding fathers did not practice what they preached .
Because you will not allow an innocent kiss in public without reducing it to something sordid and 'dirty' .

It doesnt look to good on the CV .

Its not unique to America by any means but since this is a US issue I have addressed it as one.

*Snip*

MOD Note: Review this link: Terms And Conditions Of Use

[edit on 11/9/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by reconpilot
 


haven't you learned that your assumptions only makes an arse out of yourself?

Haven't you learned not to be a troll?

your entire post has nothing to do with this thread. even though your post is completely off topic i really do hope you have proof to back up all those assumption you make Oh that's right you don't because your just trolling. To bad i would have been interested in reading your proof


Well I tell you what .I will stop making assumptions about you when you stop making assumptions about what constitutes a majority and When you stop assuming that the vote was not rigged or bought by the religious right which being america you can safely assume it was .

Assuming that is ,you realise how corrupted the government is at state and federal level .

which if I am not mistaken is the premise of the guy who started this thread . Thank you .



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 


You are entitled to your opinion. I think that your premise of "let's get the Gays" and make them a scapegoat / diversion for what is wrong with society and the economy, is quite a stretch. It passed because a majority of the voters in California wanted it to.

As I have hinted at before, if the State of California had passed an Amendment that enshrined same sex marriages by the same methods (a Proposition passing) I would support that as the law in California.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 



Dancing with lawyers is a rigged roulette wheel and they win no matter how much the law twists and turns .

yee haw!

so in a way I agree and disagree with everyone on this thread because as usual ,'staying on topic' is an excuse for maintaining a blinkered narrow view of the problem

agreed!

Look back to Hitlers germany . It wasnt just the jews who coped it .It was any minority who did not fit in that rigid german grid. Gypsies ,gays , intelectuals ,artists and basically anyone who did not have a MAJORITY VOICE

wow! way to hammer home a point!

I may just come back over there and grab ALL YOUR ASSES IN PUBLIC .

Ha! Ha! Me first please

you've got a way of verbally painting not just a picture, but the soul of the matter too. way to go!



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Again you still misunderstand.


All this amendment banning same sex marriages says it is now illegal to preform same sex marriages in the state of California.


Which is unconstitutional, it goes against the pieces of the constitution I have repeatedly showed you. Disregard what the constitution states if you like. It is right there in black and grey for you to read.


HEY LADY!!!


SHUT UP ALREADY - I am from California and your opinion just got voted NULL AND VOID.

The Federal Constitution has NOTHING to do with this, it is a STATE issue. The proposition was put up, the people voted on it and it was passed. Now it is a part of the California State Constitution. Maybe you want to check with your Latin, Black, Asian and other minority friends because they all voted heavily FOR the proposition.

Or do you want to open the Can-of-Worms known as a Constitutional Convention in the Federal Arena?? Yeah! Bring it on! We can establish a whole bunch of new laws and amendments now baby!! Tell you what, I'll vote in favor of your Homosexual Amendment and you vote in favor of my Shut-The-Border and return the Immigration levels to pre-1960 levels legislation. Oh wait! I'll need your vote on restating the Second Amendment too, allowing all citizens to carry concealed and the right to shoot gang members without penalty.

How much is your Homo-Marriage worth to a complete change of the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Notice:

That is the last Edit...

If you can not debate this issue professionally without Evading the Automatic Censors or straying from the Terms and Conditions warnings will be issued from here on out.

The sexual references and juvenile comments stop now.

Thank you

Semper



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join