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: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 





Hey, to all those who are anti-Prop 8, I've finally been able to get a group together to protest this prop.


We have voted on this, not once, but TWICE. The people of California have spoken out both times, that they want marriage to be only between a man and a woman.

My reasons for wanting to keep traditional marriage have nothing to do with religion and I actually feel sorry for the Morman church and all of the activity they are having to put up with from the protestors.

I didnt want Obama to win but he did and I'm dealing with that without whining or complaining. I wish the 'no' on prop 8 people would accept their defeat in the same way.

Jemison




posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I'm sick of the gay people,everyone else if you vote on an issue after voting it's a done deal,now the gays are trying to overturn the ruling,if they do bring up ,the financial problems here in California,I think if they do sue should sue as a group so when they lose they should be responsible for any costs that occur



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 2stepsfromtop
 



HEY LADY!!!


SHUT UP ALREADY


How polite of you to ask, but no thanks.


The Federal Constitution has NOTHING to do with this,


I've showed many times that it does, especially when it comes to rights clauses and contradictions. Also it is always relevant when states make amendments that are against rights instead of giving them.



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


I never stated I wanted a complete change of the constitution, why would I want that when it has been supporting my argument from the start? As for the Bill of Rights, I hope to see you out protesting and bitching about the Patriot Act before you bitch about gay marriage, gay marriage does not affect the Bill of Rights, the Patriotic Act certainly does.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


I'll repeat to you something I've already stated in this thread:

So if people had voted on civil rights in the 60’s and everyone decided blacks should be segregated the blacks should have accepted an unconstitutional decision and moved on? No thank you, that is not the kind of mentality that stays strong against injustice, even when the narrow majority supports it. I don’t care how unpopular or protested equality is, I don't care if that equality was put to a vote (it should not have been voted on in the first place), like I’ve stated before if history has shown us anything we know what the outcome will be, we will prevail. That isn't going to happen by us sitting around the house complaining, we need to protest and take legal action.

Many of you don’t seem to grasp that while gay marriage doesn’t lawfully affect you, pushing your beliefs on others lawfully affects families and people I love and I refuse to let this amendment hurt their families with out protest, especially when we have a strong legal case.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Liberals - they are all in favor of democracy except when they don't win.

Maybe conservatives should lodge a protest blocking the Obama presidency, after all, it resulted from the same process.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The Complaint Function is directly below each post.

The Thread is no place for complaints.

Semper



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
maybe another disgusting 'parade' will help your cause?
You lost the vote ; again. Deal with it. Maybe work out an alternative.
I agree homosexuals should be able to have rights as a couple, some of my friends have been together for years and years but marriage is between a man and a woman only.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
*Snip*
I hope and pray that someday you all do get permission to marry .
Then this will all be over and done with and we can get back to what is really important .
If I lived in CA I would have voted just so you could have your way with the marriages.....then maybe they would stop blaming christians for everything bad that happens to our country.

*Snip*

Please review this link: Terms and Conditions

Off Topic Commentary Removed

[edit on 11/9/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


I don’t blame Christians for everything that goes bad in this country, nor do I think they alone are to blame for the passing of Prop 8. Nor do I think all religious people even support Prop 8 or are anti-gay marriage. The Mormon Church has always been the least tolerant in California when it comes to this issue, and they certainly had much more to do with Prop 8 than Christians.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 




Perhaps the State government (and, ultimately, the Federal government, as well) should should simply strike "marriage", or "married" as a qulifying term from all laws and requirements.





The term would thus loose any of its currently contested civil status as a prequistite for "additional" and/or "special" rights/privledges under the law of the land.



This would be relatively easy for a governing body to accomplish, even, for example in the State of California, where Proposition 8 has recently been passed. It would require nothing more than the State enacting a law deleting the terms "marriage" and "married", substituting the terms Civily Partnered" and "Civil Partnership".

And, in keeping with the right to equal treatment under the law, all couples, gay and straight, would be allowed to file for a Civil Partnership.


"Marriage" would thus be stricken from the law as a recognized status in any and all matters.





The institution of "Marriage" would thus only remain as a religious concept, to be preserved and promoted by the various faiths , as they see fit.

Much the same way as Baptism and Bar/Bat Mitzvah(sp?) are today.



Those wishing to take part in a religious/spiritual service, ie. marriage, would be free to do so, under the auspices and conditions of their chosen faith.

The action would have no reciprocal bering on their legal status as individuals, until and unless, they filed for, and were granted a legal certificate of Civil Partnership by the State.



Nor could the State make any law requiring any Faith to recognize, within the Faith, the legitimacy of a state issued Certificate of Civil Partnership with respect to granting the rights, status, and priviledges of married persons as defined by said faith.




To tell the truth, I kind of think that this is the course of action the State of California, and, ultimately, the rest of the nation, will adopt.



[edit on 9-11-2008 by Bhadhidar]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


I don’t blame Christians for everything that goes bad in this country, nor do I think they alone are to blame for the passing of Prop 8. Nor do I think all religious people even support Prop 8 or are anti-gay marriage. The Mormon Church has always been the least tolerant in California when it comes to this issue, and they certainly had much more to do with Prop 8 than Christians.


The mormon church is largely a CIA front Rapin . The reason it has spent up huge on this anti gay marriage farce is wedge politics .
These guys are desperate to deflect anger away from church and state .
Another reason is because the american backed push in to south ossetia failed miserably . Your corrupt governement is running out of options and they need a dog to kick .



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 


Whats your logically belief in this...let me guess..religion....again..no reason why they shouldn't marry...



Just like stated above..if ppl voted to keep blacks segregated, would you say that is ok....????


People who are against never prove why, the say just because...very ignorant to deny people something just because???



Dont be scared of something you have no clue about... or because your sexist, racist, homophobic....


Please give me some type of logical and reasonable explanation as to why they shouldn't marry other than the bible(cause once again religion and politics should not be mixed)



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 





I do agree with your comments..A civil partnership under the law..mos def



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


perhaps not.
Many people get married with their own vows by a judge or something; this isn't a religion issue.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar

Pretty much what I said earlier, Bhadhidar... so I would obviously agree with you. But you mentioned one point I had not:

Nor could the State make any law requiring any Faith to recognize, within the Faith, the legitimacy of a state issued Certificate of Civil Partnership with respect to granting the rights, status, and priviledges of married persons as defined by said faith.

Maybe this is why there's such an outcry among the churches. Think of it: if marriage is adopted as a protected right, any minister who refused to perform a ceremony against his/her religious convictions could perhaps be seen as in violation of civil rights laws... think about that. A fully intrusive wedge the US could use to force a religion to conform to a majority view.

Oh, sure, there's going to be a lot of flames against me now because "that's not the idea. We'd never do that!" I'll answer that right now.

When seat belt laws were first passed here, the proposal was for a secondary violation with a maximum fine of $10. They would never make it primary or extremely expensive! Now it is a primary offense with a $250 fine and there are proposals to raise the amount of fine further.

When smoking was initially banned on domestic airlines with a duration of two hours or less, the claim was that they would never make it illegal on all flights, just those short hops. Now it is illegal in the terminals.

When the Patriot Act was passed it was for terrorism purposes only. It would never be used against any citizen! Now there are reports of the Patriot Act being used on otherwise innocent civilians, US citizens, in order to force compliance with otherwise illegal demands by authorities. There is also a ton of talk about 'domestic terrorists', translation: citizens who complain.

Thanks again for bringing this aspect of the debate to my attention.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Gay's are allowed to have 'civil unions' and all of the 'rights' that come with marriage are contained in 'civil unions'. Why are they insisting that their relationship be defined as 'marriage', ESPECIALLY when a very liberal state such as California - probably the MOST liberal, has shot it down twice?

What percentage of the population is gay? Isn't it somewhere between 6 and 8%? What percentage of the population are pedaphiles? What percentage of the population have other 'non-traditional' beliefs? Why is it OK to allow gays to marry but not allow siblings to marry? Or a man to marry a child?

The line must be drawn somewhere and the state of California has drawn that line twice. Respect the decision and be grateful that there are civil unions that allow gays the same rights as striaghts.

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
Why is it OK to allow gays to marry but not allow siblings to marry? Or a man to marry a child?


Hmm, I think you should be able to figure out why.

Time will inevitably solve this problem, it is an odd thing to wait for though.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 





Hmm, I think you should be able to figure out why.


Why should one be more accepted or tolerated than another? Isn't tolerance what people are saying this is all about??

I would like to hear why people should be more tolerant of one behavior over another.

Jemison



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join