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 high court upholds gay marriage ban

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Psynarchist
 


It's a flaw, but still un-avoidable. Obviously more people cared to vote against than people that cared to vote for it. It's their fault.


Also, just to make it clear. If I had to vote myself, I would vote FOR gay marriage. Ultimately, it's not my problem but I wish people would drop the segregation and just let people live as they want.




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


And you don't think it should be?

Regardless of rights or not, there is still inequality. I don't understand why I can't have the same benefits and heteros do. Simply because the majority says they don't want me to.

How does that make any sense. That's the equivalent of my daughter getting C on her history exam, simply because the teachers voted in favor of a C.

It's very silly.

~Keeper



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Psynarchist
 




You see, but the issue DOES affect all Californians, as all Californians pay taxes that are benefits (not rights) to being married, and not in a union or partnership.



[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


No, it is like your daughter's classmates voting to give everyone who receives an A two lollipops . . . and your daughter complaining because she got a B, so only gets one lollipop.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Just a bit of curiosity here. What rights do domestic partners not have that married people do have in California?

Is it only the name? Domestic partnership vs Marriage?

I was of the impression that in California a domestic partnership had all the same rights as a marriage with the exception that you could have a same gender domestic partnership.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


I have asked that question on almost every page, and yet to get an answer . . .

Good luck with that



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by Psynarchist
 

You see, but the issue DOES affect all Californians, as all Californians pay taxes that are benefits (not rights) to being married, and not in a union or partnership.
[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]


I never stated it shouldn't have been voted on by all Californians, just that it was a very close call and so it's not fair to say "The People voted..."
48% of Califonians voted against, that's a huge chunk.

Anyway, the real question here for me is:

What benefits are currently being granted heterosexual couples through "marriage" that gay couples aren't entitled to through "civil union"?

...and which explanations are coined to defend this different treatment?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Just a bit of curiosity here. What rights do domestic partners not have that married people do have in California?

Is it only the name? Domestic partnership vs Marriage?

I was of the impression that in California a domestic partnership had all the same rights as a marriage with the exception that you could have a same gender domestic partnership.


One example. You buy an insurance policy in any state that has domestic partnership. It is honored by that state. However - insurance policies are sold all the time. If the policy is sold to a state that does not recognize your legal partnership - - they can refuse to honor your original agreement.

Marriage is recognized anywhere.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx


You see, but the issue DOES affect all Californians, as all Californians pay taxes that are benefits (not rights) to being married, and not in a union or partnership.



[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]


You've been touting this as your argument the whole time. Gay people don't have a choice in paying a miniscule percentage of taxes towards hetero marriage benefits, so I don't think your argument is valid. They have no choice, they didn't get to vote on a proposition as to whether or not they wanted their tax dollars going to straight couple benefits, so your argument saying straight people have the right to vote to not give benefits to gay couples just doesn't seem valid to me.

The gay people didn't get to vote about their tax dollars going to hetero benefits, what makes the straight people so "special" in their right to vote to give homosexuals benefits?

edit for typo, again, realized quote was wrong person.





[edit on 26-5-2009 by Heatburger]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
One example. You buy an insurance policy...


Ok so there are differences...


I think it would help the gay community tremendously if someone wrote a list of all the differences and run with that.
As far as gay people wanting recognition for being human, I'd say don't get your hopes up... most of us are punks, non-believers, dhimmies, working class, etc etc. in the eyes of elitists, bigots or the extremely religious...

You may not be able to force a change in the way people see you, but focus on the difference in legal benefits between 'marriage' and 'union' and you may be able to force change in legislation.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Psynarchist

Ok so there are differences...


I think it would help the gay community tremendously if someone wrote a list of all the differences and run with that.

As far as gay people wanting recognition for being human, I'd say don't get your hopes up... most of us are punks, non-believers, dhimmies, working class, etc etc. in the eyes of elitists, bigots or the extremely religious...

You may not be able to force a change in the way people see you, but focus on the difference in legal benefits between 'marriage' and 'union' and you may be able to force change in legislation.



I'm pretty sure the information is available.

I am Human.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I got no horse in this race, but I don't want thousands of years of society to go down the tube based on a recent development, and I'm not saying Gayness is sinness
.
Gay marriage is a civil thing, plain and simple, you want to hook up with you're roomie, fine, the history of the planet says you are not married.
the people of the earth say, not married, you want to be married, or whatever, you have a God Given right to be together, but you ain't married. You're "together" in a legally binding union. You want "civil rights" whateer that means, take a civil union and stop trying to shove you're insecurity , er anywhere.
To the gay or wanna be enlightened ones, keep your fantasies from my reality.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

do you even understand democracy? restriction of the legal rights of a minority according to the will of the people is the whole reason for democracy. why exactly should gay people have rights to legal protection that others can't access? if gay people can marry for the legal benefits why not roommates or brothers and sisters or parents and children.


Ok. I stopped just to address this post.

The founding fathers warned of this. Democracy is NOT for the majority to simply impose its will upon the minority. You are, quite simply, entirely flawed in your interpretation of the laws of this land.




All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.


-Thomas Jefferson

Wise words, and food for thought.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I really doubt that Thomas Jefferson had gay marriage in mind when he made that quote. I agree with Civil Unions, but not the furhter degradation of the concept of marriage.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I really doubt that Thomas Jefferson had gay marriage in mind when he made that quote. I agree with Civil Unions, but not the furhter degradation of the concept of marriage.


Key word there is "concept" What is it? Concept. It's subjective. To me marriage is two people in love that chose to wed as a way of "shouting from the rooftops" about their happiness.

I want to marry my boyfriend. I don't give a # about the "benefits" we'll get as a heterosexual married couple. I think of marriage as a commitment to the "next step" of any relationship. Period. That is my "concept" of marriage. And as far as I'm concerned, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman marrying does not degrade that.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I really doubt that Thomas Jefferson had gay marriage in mind when he made that quote. I agree with Civil Unions, but not the furhter degradation of the concept of marriage.


What exactly is the concept of marriage?

Until only maybe 100 years ago - - marriages were arranged for political alliances.

The idea of LOVE in marriage is a very new concept.

Even those married in the bible had multiple wives and concubines.

As far as I'm concerned "sanctity of marriage" - - is nothing but a convenient excuse.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heatburger
To me marriage is two people in love that chose to wed as a way of "shouting from the rooftops" about their happiness.

I want to marry my boyfriend. I don't give a # about the "benefits" we'll get as a heterosexual married couple. I think of marriage as a commitment to the "next step" of any relationship. Period. That is my "concept" of marriage. And as far as I'm concerned, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman marrying does not degrade that.


To me - marriage is nothing but a legal term to protect rights and property of those joining together to form one household.

I believe the original purpose of a legal document was to protect the woman and child - - as they literally had no other rights.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Glad to hear that the peoples vote actually counted.This is a good day for Democracy.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I can agree with that. And that just shows that marriage is subjective, all around. There is no need to define what genders can and can't marry, be it to show their love, or to protect the things that come from and are involved with their union.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Heatburger]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Heatburger]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by debz325
Glad to hear that the peoples vote actually counted.This is a good day for Democracy.


Good thing they didn't follow the same procedure in race equality.

Who the hell has the right to VOTE on people's equal rights.

There is something wrong with anyone who thinks that is OK.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join