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.

 

California Court to Decide Legality of Same-Sex Marriage Ban

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The primary reason against gays and gay marriage is religion.

Equal rights is Equal rights - - you can not deny equal rights because of religion.

It is just wrong.

This should NEVER have gone to popular vote.

The vote needs to be declared unconstitutional - - and thrown out into the garbage where it belongs..

If the process for amending the a Constitution (state or federal) is followed, how does any President, Governor, Supreme Court Justice, military general, corporal (Napoleon or Hitler) get the right to become a dictator and over-rule the Constitution and un-amend the Constitution?

Constitutional amendments, like Prohibition, can be repealed with an other amendment. Doing it any other way is extremely dangerous, because it destroys the Constitutional rights of those who passed the amendment that was not popular with a minority who did not follow the same process to get it reversed.

If you think that it is too easy to pass a Constitutional Amendment, then pass an amendment to make it harder. A couple of years ago, Florida passed two significant amendments:

One required the Legislature to build a light rail system from Daytona Beach to Tampa.

The other changed the requirement for Constitutional amendments to pass from >50% of the votes to >60% of the votes.

After the people of Florida realized that the light rail system amendment was not a good idea (either fiscally or Constitutionally), it was repealed in the next election, even though the bar for passing an amendment had been raised.

If you don't like something in a Constitution, you can either follow the Constitutional process for change or become an anarchist or a dictator. Follow the Constitutional process for change and I will support you. If you choose another option, you should remember that you are asking for trouble.




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 

Suppose some judges got together and decided that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution are unconstitutional because they were passed under duress and the force of arms (as a result of the Union victory in the Civil War). The 13th Amendment clearly took away rights of slave owners without just compensation, a violation of the 5th Amendment.

The arguments of those who ask the California amendment to ban same-sex marriage be overturned by judicial fiat would open the door any twisted logic to be used to throw out any amendment. Is this something we want?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 

Suppose some judges got together and decided that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution are unconstitutional because they were passed under duress and the force of arms (as a result of the Union victory in the Civil War). The 13th Amendment clearly took away rights of slave owners without just compensation, a violation of the 5th Amendment.


After viewing your profile and your line of thought.

There is no point or want of me debating this issue with you.

Please address someone else.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I do have to say it really isn't the governments business to say who can wed and who can't. However do not think that I am against prop 8. First off I don't remember marriage being a, right . Now to go off into a very black and white direction (now everyone will boo me and think me a hate monger, which is cool with me). As marriage is a religeouse institution, I think the government crossed the line a long time ago when they started giving tax breaks for merried couples and when they had to give you a licence (those basterds) so that it could be legal, though it's not thier place. Going in this direction I would then have to say that if you are not part of a founded real, long standing reliegion then you have no business getting married. This would then put the gay merraige issue so far out of the relm of possibility to never be an issue. In short if you are not part of a religion that has merraige as part of it's foundation you shouldn't be allowed to merry. Simple and easy. So bring on the anger call me a hate monger and an SOB. Yes merraige is a religiouse institution, I know that most of you will argue this fact, but, a fact is a fact.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by thereallgone]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Everything in the past was a religious institution.

Government was religion. You could be put to death for heresy.

It is time to evolve.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by thereallgone
 


If marriage is such a religious institution, then why do couples have to get a license from the state (a contract) in order to be legally married?

A marriage without a license is not legally recognized.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
That was sort of my point.... The government has sort of crossed the line so far and for so long that we think nothing of it... Why do you need a licence to get merried? You don't, it's not the place of the government. It's the realm of faith. It's just another way for the gov to have a say in your life. Everything was not a religiouse institution first and formost, but I like your blanketed approuch. I would like to apologize for the Catholics (though I am not one myself) for sort of misrepresenting Christianity on a massive scale for a thousand years or so. Most of what they said or got themselves invoved in was not biblically based and they went on for a while simply making stuff up and literally hiding the book from the commen man. I say this because I see your train of thought. I sort of figured I would just jump ahead.... Spanish Inquasition is called what it is called because it is the fault of the Spanish monarchy, they used fear to get the Catholics to help them and the cruesades were not Christinaity based it was just a bunch of rich people wanting to show there power, more than anything else and so on and so forth... So not even the catholics can ruin the fact that merriage is and has always been a religiouse institution, cripple it maybe, so agian there is no argument. Gays just shouldn't get merried... "It's so unfair we all can't have everything we want and be rewarded for our behavior, it's so unfair there may be actual standerds, it's so unfair!".

[edit on 10-3-2009 by thereallgone]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Oh ya, Annee I will now go outside and wait for the aliens to come and get me.
It's time to grow up.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1

A marriage without a license is not legally recognized.

Actually, yes it is in certain cases. Look up "common law marriage". In some states, if a man and a woman have lived together for a certain length of time, and have acted as though they were a married couple (as in, sharing resources, openly proclaiming their intent to be married, and exhibiting a recognition of community property), they are legally married without a ceremony, a license, or anything else. They are allowed to file taxes as a married couple, they have the same inheritance rights, and in some cases, divorces have been issued to common law marriages with the same property divisions as someone who had a huge formal wedding with a license.

TheRedneck


[edit on 3/10/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Again - - even in common law marriage - - it is about the protection of person and property. It has NOTHING to do with religion.

-----------------------------------

If my partner and I live together long enough, won't we have a common law marriage?

Contrary to popular belief, even if two people live together for a certain number of years, if they don't intend to be married and present themselves to others as a married couple, there is no common law marriage. More particularly, a common law marriage can occur only when:

* a heterosexual couple lives together in a state that recognizes common law marriages
* for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
* holding themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife" and filing a joint tax return, and
* intending to be married.

Unless all four are true, there is no common law marriage. When a common law marriage exists, the couple must go through a formal divorce to end the relationship.

www.cadivorceonline.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee

You are better with words than I, obviously, but you are correct. The only exception I would take is that some states do define the length of time required, while others rely on the 'significant' definition.

The point still stands that a license is not always required for a marriage to be recognized. And that was my only point.

TheRedneck


[edit on 3/10/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by thereallgone
That was sort of my point.... The government has sort of crossed the line so far and for so long that we think nothing of it... Why do you need a licence to get merried? You don't, it's not the place of the government. It's the realm of faith.


The government has not crossed the line.

A marriage license is a license of protection of person and property. That's It. That is all it is.

All you are doing is proving the need for gays to have the right to marry.

They want legal protection of person and property. They want to be legal beneficiaries of property and insurance.

If all you care about is faith - then go have your pastor perform a ceremony without a license.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thereallgone
As marriage is a religeouse institution,


Regardless how things used to be or should be, this is how things ARE.

Marriage CAN be a religious institution. (performed in a church before God)
It can also be completely secular. (performed on the beach by a JP)
Marriage is a legal institution sometimes having a religious component for some people, but not all.

So, to say that marriage is a religious institution is really incorrect. It's SOMETIMES a religious institution. Sometimes not.

The word marriage is being used by the church and by the state. They can both use the word. There is a legal marriage (secular) and a religious marriage.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The point still stands that a license is not always required for a marriage to be recognized. And that was my only point.


BUT - - you prove the point that living together does not require a license. Anyone can go have a ceremony - - of any kind. If you want your union to be faith based - then by all means go have a faith based ceremony.

The "license" is about legal protection only. And in some states - they are saying - if you combine two into one - - the government is going to automatically put you into legal protection.

Contrary to the Hollywood version of the Old West. Most couples out on the Frontier did not wait to get married before setting up a household. That would have been just plain stupid. But they didn't have income tax - or pensions - or laws against visiting non-related persons in hospitals.

A license is about legal rights. Period!



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

you prove the point that living together does not require a license. Anyone can go have a ceremony - - of any kind. If you want your union to be faith based - then by all means go have a faith based ceremony.

Of course! There are no laws (to my knowledge anyway) against cohabitation by anyone with anyone. Nor should there be. The only thing in consideration here is whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the state as equal to opposite-sex unions. It is not about making a marriage 'illegal', but rather about whether or not society will recognize that union as equal to a traditional marriage .

Of course, in order to see that, you have to cut through the emotion which continues to cloud this issue.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The only thing in consideration here is whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the state as equal to opposite-sex unions. It is not about making a marriage 'illegal', but rather about whether or not society will recognize that union as equal to a traditional marriage .


It is a civil rights issue - pure and simple.

Two people joining together as one - - legal protection of person and property by law.

Society and religion should have no basis at all regarding these civil rights.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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.


Why it ever went to vote is the mystery.

The constitution is designed to protect the minority.


No it isn't, and under the legal definition to have that kind of class distinction as a minority, Gays don't meet that.

Sorry annee you just don't have an argument.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The primary reason against gays and gay marriage is religion.

Equal rights is Equal rights - - you can not deny equal rights because of religion.

It is just wrong.

This should NEVER have gone to popular vote.

The vote needs to be declared unconstitutional - - and thrown out into the garbage where it belongs..


Annee stop spewing your liberal hatred for religion, their happens to be a lot of people that are NOT religious that understand the ramifications same sex marriage brings and they have alternatives for Gays so either accept it or keep complaining sour grapes.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join