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: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Civil unions? How far should this go? Here in psychotic Taxachusetts you can probably marry anything you want, even your pets. If they allow gays to union why not polygamy or pedophilia? They are already pushing for the latter, look up NAMBLA.

You think it will stop at consenting adults? People will be marrying their lawn furniture if it seems perverse enough. Of course obtaining special rights for what one does with ones genitalia is only interesting if it has some sort of perversity to it. Otherwise it's just not interesting. That's how I see this trend.




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Marriage is a judeo-christain construct. To have gays/lesbians marriage would be like taking white-out to the bible (ironically enough, alot of those same folks want to take white-out to the Constitution too). If they want civil unions and have all the same rights as a hetero union, fine.
Just don't start changing the bible, people!


yeah, coz the bible hasn't been changed once since it was first written down, right?


[edit on 27-5-2009 by woodwardjnr]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I have to ask what percentage of California population made Gay Marriage a priority issue at a time where there state is going or is bankrupt ?

Open the funny farm to those who think such a social issue is more important then the economic health of there home state . I have got no problem with Gay Marriage , still I think you would that the Gay Marriage debate isnt about Gay Marriage at all . If gays were to gain wider acceptance in the US the Gay Marriage debate would simply go away .



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
You know, there is actually a pretty simple way around this whole issue of Gay marriage. Just use a different word! Marriage will retain its definition as a committed legal contract between a man and a woman. "Garriage" will define a committed legal union of members of the same sex.

Both of these will be classified as a civil union, but the definition and tradition of marriage is not changed. I can pretty much see winners all round...

I believe it is the attack on the very definition and tradition of marriage that angers most who oppose gay civil unions. With the use of a different word, I think both sides can be happy. It will also make it clear what type of relationship you are talking about.

PS: I know "civil union" is currently being used instead of "Garriage", but using the phrase "civil union" makes changing the tense and voice of the word confusing.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
You know, there is actually a pretty simple way around this whole issue of Gay marriage. Just use a different word! Marriage will retain its definition as a committed legal contract between a man and a woman. "Garriage" will define a committed legal union of members of the same sex.



If it was that simple - don't you think it would have been done by now?

And who's gonna tell all states/countries/businesses/agencies etc - - they have to accept it and all rights that go with marriage?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 

marriage is a judeo-christian value? so no other cultures ever practiced marriage before these ideologies existed, or practiced marriage seperately from these religions with no input whatsoever from them?
...Out of all the lies told by the religious people in this country I find this lie to be the worst one of them all...taking a practice that no doubt was in display far before Judaism, let alone Christianity, was ever even conceived and equating it with their religion is patently dishonest, which, in effect, violates one of the biggest tenets of your faith..Honesty.As for homosexual marriage i could care less whether they marry or not...the more rights we give to everybody means, at least to me, that there is less diversion going on in the media, allowing more people to focus on truly important issues.

[edit on 5/27/2009 by glevel]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


From the view point of a Brit (a person from Great Britain or United Kingdom) I find this whole thread quite strange. Gay marriage has been in Europe and Britain for years, come to think of it gay people have also been serving openly in the armed forces for years too.

America has a strange relationship with the idea of liberty and freedom.
From the outside it seems to be obsessed with loosing freedom but is very slow to grant it. Only 2 countries have failed to ratify the UN childrens rights bill and America is one of them.

Is liberty and freedom soley about the right to carry firearms. Is the religous right the main force of America?

This is not an American bashing thread just a bemused Brit wondering why a country that thinks of it self as so far ahead of the world, not to mention the 'Greatest democracy blah blah blah' can be so out of touch with the 21 century.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
You know, there is actually a pretty simple way around this whole issue of Gay marriage. Just use a different word! Marriage will retain its definition as a committed legal contract between a man and a woman. "Garriage" will define a committed legal union of members of the same sex.



If it was that simple - don't you think it would have been done by now?

And who's gonna tell all states/countries/businesses/agencies etc - - they have to accept it and all rights that go with marriage?


Yeah I know it's not as simple as that. Just would be nice if somebody could find a solution that leaves everyone happy. But I guess that's the problem with all things in life - there are always going to be people who do not agree with you and your ideals, no matter how fair and balanced you think they might be.

[edit on 27/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I'm glad that the court upheld the will of the people, and for that reason alone. I understand that the homosexuals are upset, however the issue was put to a vote and the people spoke. All the court did was say that the vote was legal and it is the right of the people to vote however they like. If the court did overturn the vote (any vote) that would be a gross violation. I would feel the same if the situation were reversed (if homosexual marriage had originally been approved by the people and the court was deciding to overturn that). Yea California for honoring the will of the people.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
If two people of the same sex get married, and are offered the same legal rights as other married people, what changes does it make to your life?

How does this affect you in any way shape or form other than twinging the little religious traditions, fears, and superstitions in the back of your mind. Make you feel all uncomfortable? Grow up. That little nagging fear is YOUR problem, not those that seek to marry.

Will it make your life any different? No.
Will it stop you from being able to work, and provide for your family? No.

Of course not.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but-only-if-you-fit-into-the-little-pigeon-hole-that-makes-me-sleep-better.........

Lots and lots of money was spent on this. For all the "Christian" values it's protecting, it could have actually fed some poor people, bought some medicine for the sick, or made somebody's standard of life better.

Great priorities there, Christians.

WWJD?
He'd give the money spent on this pathetic movement to a homeless shelter and laugh at the so-called Christians for completely disregarding all his teachings and manipulating them into political agenda.

The Christians are always banging on about love, and compassion, and tolerance, and turning the other cheek were what Jesus was all about. Then they do crap like this.

I'm not gay, but this whole thing makes me sick.

The hypocrisy is pure evil in my opinion.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Here's an Idea - tell me what the problem with this would be

Reclassify ALL existing "marriages" (straight or gay) to be "civil unions", with all the legal rights of "traditional marriage"

Then everyone could get "civil unioned" (straight or gay, it's just a legal contract between two concenting adults)

Then, those who think they need a religious recogniton of their pairing could get a separate contract with their church called "marriage"

Churches could even do a 2 for 1 special: "get married here, and we'll throw in the 'civil-union' for free (they're basically doing that now, since a church wedding has no legal standing and the couple still has to get the "license" to make it official anyway)

Now, Since all the religious aspects of "marriage" are inconsequential (because every religion is different and has their own set of rules about it) then any couple that was "civil-unioned" could find a church willing to grant them a "certificate of marriage" no matter what their sexual orientation is and everyone could then happily say "we're married." Since some churches don't allow same-sex couples, and some do, all you have to do is find the right church for you. You wouldn't have to be a member, be religious or subscribe to the churches teachings to get the certificate, just pay the money and get your paper - religion is all about money and power anyway, so what do they care about filling out a form as long as they get their money?

Now this would take away the title "marriage" to anyone that was already married (by converting it to a "civil-union"), and make them have to go through the process of getting "married" all over again if they want to use the word "marriage".

Awww, sounds like a lot of trouble to go through doesn't it? imagine how much trouble it is to go through all the hassle of getting all the legal paperwork done to protect property as some have suggested earlier in this thread. And here's the catch, no matter what paperwork we go through to make us as legal of a "couple" as we can be, what do you think will happen when I die and my Significant other tries to collect the Social Security benefits? Do you think they are going to cave in and give it just because I requestd it in my will? What about inheritance taxes? they still apply (except for "married" people).

It's not about "love" (I don't need a contract to love someone) - it's not about the word "marriage" (we'd use the word anyway, even if it was legally called a civil-union) - it's about LEGALLY treating one COUPLE NO DIFFERENT than another COUPLE - no matter what genetalia they have. PERIOD!!!!!

And all this "taxpayer" crap that's been spewed earlier, well, you know what? GAY PEOPLE PAY TAXES TOO!!!!!!!!! I Pay for your little snot nosed kids to go to school - I pay into Social Security that goes to straight people when thier "spouse" dies - I pay for medicare to take care of straight people when they can't afford it, so WHY should I be restricted from receiving the EXACT same benefits straight couples get just because my partner has a penis?

I think more people need to get their minds out of what's in other people's pants and start looking into other people's hearts (but that might require them too look into their own heart, and sadly, most people's hearts have too much darkenss and hate in them to handle it)



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't understand about the insurance policy.

If you purchase life insurance, you can specify the beneficiary. So, you can specify whoever you want, your spouse, your child, your domestic partner, or your business partner.

I'm not buying that argument.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Interesting. Here's short list of some of the things automatically given to a spouse by the US at federal or state level.


Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison


Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Notice that none of the above will directly affect anyone who voted against gay marriage.

If any of these rights were taken away from you, would you mind at all? Of course you would. That's because you love your spouse far more than any gay couple could love each other, right? Your vote against gay marriage means that many couples will face heartbreak because of their not having access to the listed items.

If gay people (that's right, they are people....get used to that) love each other, and make a commitment to each other, it means just as much as my heterosexual relationship. I cannot pretend that my love for my wife is better than their love for their partners.

If you love your spouse, and losing the above 'rights' would be upsetting for you, have some empathy for those who lost it due to a vile act of hate by the extremist religious right.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



On the surface it may seem there is no connection but in fact prosperity and morality are very closely connected. As a general rule, throughout history, nations who have plunged into immorality have suffered decline and then destruction. When pleasure seeking becomes the highest goal, the very fabric of society, starting with the family, starts to unravel. Doom and destruction are not far behind.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't understand about the insurance policy.

If you purchase life insurance, you can specify the beneficiary. So, you can specify whoever you want, your spouse, your child, your domestic partner, or your business partner.

I'm not buying that argument.


Don't care whether you buy it or not.

It happens all the time.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


You just don't get it... EQUALITY is at issue, here. Marriage should have nothing to do with gender, or with sexual birth origins.

If a person feels he or she is "trapped inside the wrong gender body" and can afford the surgery to have themselves rectified, then they are allowed to marry someone who is the same sex that he or she used to be... But some people don't feel they're trapped inside the wrong gender exterior--they have accepted how they've been born, and are simply asking for equal rights. There is nothing equal about allowing 18,000 gay couples to remain married, while refusing to allow the rest of the gay couples the exact same Right.

Marriage per se is NOT a religious rite; it's the binding, legally, of two people who love each other and wish to be married, and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

But the prejudice against same sex couples IS a religion-based discrimination. If we had all been raised without our ancestors and churches telling us there's something sinful about loving someone of the same sex--derived from a Book of Fairytales written 2000 years ago and edited to reflect the prejudices of the various rulers who have changed it to meet their own bigotries, throughout modern history--it wouldn't even be an issue.

If the states and the USA wants to be a TRUE place of Freedom & Equality, then the states and the Federal Government should stop allowing prejudiced people to stand in the way of Equality for All.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 


In California, they have a domestic partnership. Which of these things that you've listed will not be available to domestic partners?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I searched myself and found this on Wikipedia about the difference between marriage and domestic partnership in california.

Here is a quote

"Differences from Marriage
While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.

Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.

California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.

Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.

There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]

Link to Wilipedia


I don't know how big a deal this really is. The Cal Pers thing is significant. The other things can be corrected.

I think that the main argument is about the word "Marriage" not about rights.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Here is a link to an article that discusses the rights of domestic partners in California. It is not a small list.

RIghts of Domestic Partners.

This is worth the read.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by xpert11
 



On the surface it may seem there is no connection but in fact prosperity and morality are very closely connected. As a general rule, throughout history, nations who have plunged into immorality have suffered decline and then destruction. When pleasure seeking becomes the highest goal, the very fabric of society, starting with the family, starts to unravel. Doom and destruction are not far behind.


And here is your answer. A large percentage of the population of the USA believe that Gays are Immoral and only seeking pleasure. A vast percentage of the American population refuse to believe that one gender can REALLY be in love with the same gender. They will never get it, they don't want to get it, and they will do anything to "not get it", as if it was contagious.

Read the words in the quote above. The sincere belief that "Gays" are Evil is not only there, it is blatantly obvious. In this persons mind, Gays are sub-human, the Bible tells them so. How do you even begin to change this type of attitude? You can't. Put on a helmet because you will be beating your head against the wall.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join