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 Iago18
Look, the term marriage has necessary theological connotations. They are completely inseparable because of history and faith.
So, the answer to that may just be, for the economics of marriage and social control. I would, frankly, prefer that marriage be left to churches and that the government only give out civil unions, or something along those lines.
Originally posted by jd140
The people of California voted and just because it didn't turn out the way they wanted they want to over turn it.
Why even vote for to begin with.
This is stupid to even consider over turning something that was voted on.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws... (etc.)
Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by jd140
What if they determine that it is unconstitutional? Should it still stand just because the people voted on it? How is that fair?