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.

 

Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

page: 23
29
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori


Jaxon has already said he doesn't care what you call it as long as the benefits are there. That is fair to everyone in a democratic republic.


Separate - but equal? Doesn't work for me.

We've been there at least once in this countries history. Never again!




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


I'm not going to discuss feelings.

I'm strictly talking equal rights by law. Separate but Equal - - is NOT equal rights.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Since previously we were discussing the Constitutionality of DOMA, I found this today concerning cases pending that challenge it's legality:


The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders recently filed an amended complaint in its Massachusetts federal court challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management et al. This is a strong complaint challenging a specific portion of DOMA, the federal definition of marriage — which prohibits federal recognition of those same-sex couples legally married within a state. The Justice Department’s Answer or Motion to Dismiss is due in mid-September.

The related case filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, Massachusetts v. United States is, similarly, a Section 3 DOMA challenge, and presents the unique state harms that DOMA forces upon Massachusetts and other states that recognize same-sex marriage.

The final marriage case in federal court, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, is not, technically, a challenge to DOMA — but could have a more far-reaching impact on DOMA than the other two challenges. Perry is a challenge to Proposition 8, but its claims — that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution — would render both Sections 2 and 3 of DOMA without a leg to stand on following a successful outcome in Perry. This is the case brought by Ted Olson and David Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and for which the LGBT legal organizations will not be counsel. Trial is set for January 11, 2010, but there will be much action in the case between now and then.
Source.

So, it's in the works. If and when DOMA is struck down, it will then open the door to striking down anti-gay marriage laws in the remaining States.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Jaxon has already said he doesn't care what you call it as long as the benefits are there. That is fair to everyone in a democratic republic.


To be fair, I said that I don't care what they call it, as long as they call it the same thing for everyone, both gay and straight. I do not support 'separate but equal'.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Geez, I hope so! DOMA is really bad legislation, and does nothing but promote bigotry. It should never have been proposed, if proposed should never have been passed, if passed should never have been signed, if signed the SCOTUS should have struck it down immediately.

It is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


The problem is that SCOTUS cannot make a decision until someone challenges a law in court. I'm surprised it took so long, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and it's not an oncoming train...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Marriage should not be recognized in the Constitution anyway. I don't get it. For those who are against it...who are Conservative...which means FREEDOM TO THE INDIVIDUAL...is completely hypocritical.

TO me it just seems they hate gay people. What other reason is there? Because it's not natural? Who gives a damn. It doesn't bother me...it doesn't hurt me nor anyone else.

So someone please tell me why it should matter anyway? Don't say it's for religious reasons....if you believe that...then let "your maker" judge that persons actions and you can feel better knowing that.

Sometimes people just need to mind their own damn business.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
This is the case brought by Ted Olson and David Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and for which the LGBT legal organizations will not be counsel. Trial is set for January 11, 2010, but there will be much action in the case between now and then.

So, it's in the works. If and when DOMA is struck down, it will then open the door to striking down anti-gay marriage laws in the remaining States.


That's a big one.

A lot of LGBT are very nervous about this.



[edit on 8-9-2009 by Annee]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


I'm not going to discuss feelings.

I'm strictly talking equal rights by law. Separate but Equal - - is NOT equal rights.



Are we having the same conversation that I thought we were?

I am not aware that I have ever said that I was not for gay marriage or gay unions. I supported it in my own state. What I stated is that I am not for polyamorous and polygamous marriage.

So my question to you since we are not discussing feelings, is: would you be fine with ethics (not morals) of two men and two women, meaning four people, being legally married and guaranteed all of the rights that a monogamous couple receive now?

Because I'll be honest, I am prejudiced enough to say that I would be fine with a polygamous group to be joined in a civil union, but not "married". I like the antiquated notion that marriage is a "special, transcendent, union" between two parties.

Moreover, I see the potential for abuse of privilege that would occur. Marriage is not "living together" as it means taking a more serious step, by allowing multiple parties to enter into a union you may see that some of the parties are more serious than others. What if one should divorce one but not the other? What if two individuals want to marry someone else too, but the third chooses not to? What if there are two men and they both have sex with one of the women and years later they find out who the biological father is, but at this point they're divorced...who pays child support? The cost to society could potentially outweigh any benefit for the collection of child support, alimony, etc.

I wouldn't deny anyone the ability to decide who they wanted to handle their legal affairs in the state of an emergency, or post their demise, or if they are willing to pay for it, additional people on their health insurance (mine already allows gay couples). That would be handled under a civil union that all parties could apply for.

I just don't see it as an issue of "separate but equal" because marriage is currently defined legally as two individuals (in most states, man and woman). So, to say that a six person, polyamorous or polygamous union is different than two in a way that gay marriage is not. Gay marriage is still two individuals.

Or do you disagree?

Do you think that a collective of individuals of all sexes ought to be allowed to enter into marriage?

I think maybe rather than open up marriage, we just be more fair and remove the benefits allocated by Federal and State government to make it fair.

Like, if you really think about it if not for procreation, why should marrieds get more tax breaks and benefits? That's two incomes--better than singletons who are withheld at a higher rate in the tax scale. The only reason they get to report less is the potential for offspring.

Maybe the real answer to be equal is to do away with the benefits altogether and see who really wants to be married.



[edit on 8-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 8-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 8-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crysstaafur

Did it even occur to you that:

Not every non-heterosexual is gay?

Yes


That they may have already had a hetero styled relationship in the past.


Yes again



wouldn't it be logical that they would already have children.


It might be "Likely" they did but to say it's "logical"? It is only Logical when to be likely they did but it would be illogical to assume they did.



That adoption would even allow this contribution to our community in ways that very few heterosexuals even consider to begin with!


ok



Furthermore, what would stop a male-male couple from agreeing to fertilize a lesbian couple and that the resulting children would simply be gifted two loving families?


Guess you have it all figured out eh guy? I mean can you imagine the legal ramifications of such an arrangement? But to answer your question, No, I can't imagine what would stop them if such a quad of this type were to try this



After all, with the given divorce rate between heterosexuals, this two (or household) families per child is increasingly becoming the norm.


So lets increase the odds for even more screwed up kids? Or is this a more the merrier plan?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Jaxon has already said he doesn't care what you call it as long as the benefits are there. That is fair to everyone in a democratic republic.


To be fair, I said that I don't care what they call it, as long as they call it the same thing for everyone, both gay and straight. I do not support 'separate but equal'.


Yes, exactly. I don't believe I said anything other than that in my post.

I was referring specifically to polygamy as one poster was stating that gay marriage is a start but that he would not be satisfied until "marriage" was able to be defined more broadly to fit a relationship of his type.

That's where I said, I don't think that (polygamy) is "marriage" or should be called "marriage". I said that the State should just have "civil unions" for everyone and leave "marriage" to religions, that way if you want to have a polyamorous or polygamous union you can.

I also said that I am also for just doing away with benefits altogether if we are to go that route of polygamy, especially if it means that there are multiple men, multiple women in a relationship under one roof. With over half of all marriages ending in divorce that seems that it will create a whole new field of legal eagles.

What if you have two men, only one of whom married the female, but she married another female who married both men? Say the one of the two women had kids with both men, the other with only one man. Then the first man wants his husband to divorce the first female because she's not fitting in, but the other two disagree. What if it becomes so acrimonious that the two women leave and divorce the first couple, but want to sue for child support--who pays what to whom? Who gets the house? Who is the father? Can you sue both fathers?

At the risk of sounding prejudice, it's just not practical, and it doesn't benefit society.

However, to deny them the right to "marriage" when now monogamous gay couples have that right will feel unfair to those who were also labeled an alternative lifestyle (whatever that means).

So I think rather than give marriage benefits we ought to remove them entirely.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Are we having the same conversation that I thought we were?

I am not aware that I have ever said that I was not for gay marriage or gay unions. I supported it in my own state. What I stated is that I am not for polyamorous and polygamous marriage.

So my question to you since we are not discussing feelings, is: would you be fine with ethics (not morals) of two men and two women, meaning four people, being legally married and guaranteed all of the rights that a monogamous couple receive now?



OK - let me address this one.

I thought I saw hints of discussion about multiple partners - - but I kept getting distracted and couldn't find where it started in the discussion.

As recently stated by some expert (my wording) - - we have to look at sexuality anew - there is no black and white - - there is only gray.

I feel the same way about relationships. Polygamy - Polandry - Polyamory etc - - have always existed. Just because they are not officially and legally recognized does not mean they don't exist.

I recently saw a special on TV about Polyamory in this country (USA). Here's a link for you: polyinthemedia.blogspot.com...

I personally feel Polygamy is a more natural state for humans. If done respectfully for the woman. The husband or wife can introduce a new woman into the family - but only the wife/wives (sister wives) can approve of her. And of course - as always - consenting adult.

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

Marriage to me is just a legal term. What right does anyone have to legislate what a relationship is?

However - with change comes change. If there were still tax breaks for marriage and children - - it would need to go to some type of flat rate.

I am not one who supports welfare. "That which is not earned has no value".

So I am not one who supports a woman having multiple kids and then getting welfare when the man leaves. I have very strong ideas on this. My focus would be only the welfare of the children. I would support self-contained single mother "camps" - where I know the children would be fed and cared for - - but I do not support just handing out money. But that's an entirely different subject.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Marriage should not be recognized in the Constitution anyway. I don't get it. For those who are against it...who are Conservative...which means FREEDOM TO THE INDIVIDUAL...is completely hypocritical.

TO me it just seems they hate gay people. What other reason is there? Because it's not natural? Who gives a damn. It doesn't bother me...it doesn't hurt me nor anyone else.

How do you know? How long has gay marriage been around in your state?

What if they DO hate them? Do you think it's merely because they have sex the way they do? Or could it be something more ?



So someone please tell me why it should matter anyway? Don't say it's for religious reasons....if you believe that...then let "your maker" judge that persons actions and you can feel better knowing that.


What makes you think religious reasons don't count? Because you got no faith? No belief? No reason or purpose for being alive other than to exist Birth, School, work , Death ?




Sometimes people just need to mind their own damn business.


Some people need to quit imposing their depravity in every facet of our lives

Go back and read my posts I give many reasons you have for being very concerned about it. Just ask any straight married in Boston

]

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Not all children become screwed up because they have two families. Heh, even I am a product of that arrangement. My father remarried and so did my mother.
I came out perfectly fine, as did my siblings from all sides. Honestly we (siblings from both families and myself) all see each other as a tribe lol.. but it kept us all sane, in check with reality, and bolstered our successes in life. The only thing thats tricky is keeping up with IMs and cell calls.


I also understand that it doesn't work all that well for others(the kids in particular), but that doesn't stop most people from divorcing anyways.

I would rather them have a home with two happy and successful families than to be in one dysfunctional one where misery remains constant for all.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Crysstaafur]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Okay, that was where the wires were crossing. I was referring to another poster about his relationship that was polyamorous and potentially polygamous someday.

I do not see how that benefits our very litigious society. We are not wise enough to settle the disputes that should arise if any one component of a marriage like that runs sour.

In polygamous communities they are "outside the law" and any disputes are settled within the community itself so it never has the ability to affect the population at large.

As for a marriage of two individuals there are plenty of studies where a strong marriage benefits society (meaning the kids are happy and grow into happy adults). So I suppose that is where the laws came from, but...

Marriage is very tough. Self interest, petty jealousy, passive aggressiveness, finances...all of these things wear and tear on a marriage. A household with multiple and perhaps uneven marriage had a lot of problems.

I have a group of friends, wiccan, who are trying this. The original couple was married, the wife had an affair and instead of breaking up (he said he would die if she left him) he agreed to allowing her to "marry" this new (younger, hotter) guy, who by the way is also married but his wife refuses to divorce him but hates the other couple so they all live in unhappily married bliss. None of this is legal except the two separate marriages, but there is only one happy person in that house and it's not the kids.

The original husband is heartbroken, the other wife is ticked because not only did her husband "cheat" and then "marry" this other woman while married to her, the other woman performed the ceremony.

Meanwhile their daughter is taking heat at school because everyone on the block talks about the fights and add to that, she only wants her original daddy to be the daddy.

It can be a real mess and I don't see how that benefits society.

Of course, you can't stop it. This is all happening, but my point was about tax and other benefits, well, I'm not sure I want to give them out.

So why not we forgo the tax breaks to anyone "married" or give everyone the same tax break? That way it's fair and we don't have to create a whole new line of legal practice.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Jaxon has already said he doesn't care what you call it as long as the benefits are there. That is fair to everyone in a democratic republic.


To be fair, I said that I don't care what they call it, as long as they call it the same thing for everyone, both gay and straight. I do not support 'separate but equal'.


That's a great answer Jaxon Roberts if it applied to gays but it doesn't .

You don't care what they call it. isn't that what you just said?

You can have any color you want as long as it's Black. - Henry Ford

I don't care what they call it, as long as it's called Marriage - Jaxon Roberts paraphrased.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crysstaafur

Not all children become screwed up because they have two families. Heh, even I am a product of that arrangement. My father remarried and so did my mother.
I came out perfectly fine


You came out perectly fine? Compared to what?



I also understand that it doesn't work all that well for others(the kids in particular), but that doesn't stop most people from divorcing anyways.


I guess marriage should be taken a lot more seriously then eh?



I would rather them have a home with two happy and successful families than to be in one dysfunctional one where misery remains constant for all.


You think Gays aren't dysfunctional? They are some of the most messed up people in society. Seems I only get called names whenever I post the facts about them so Ill spare you the gruesoms details their lifestyles ultimately end in as a result.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Ah the importance of communication.
I do agree there are some people who are not cut out for this route in life.
It all goes right back to safe, sane, and *consensual*.. All parties involved should have had the insight to be honest first, but no one is perfect. I am sure that even hetero marriages already have these kinds of complications in place, and that there are already lawyers who take home quite an income from it.

I am thankful that the people I *was* with were both forthcoming about their intentions and mature enough to think things through first. Therefore we try to pass the ideas of communication, respect for all, and starting slow as memes to others who want to try the same thing.

Sadly some people are too socially inept to handle this kind of responsiblity.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

I do not see how that benefits our very litigious society. We are not wise enough to settle the disputes that should arise if any one component of a marriage like that runs sour.

In polygamous communities they are "outside the law" and any disputes are settled within the community itself so it never has the ability to affect the population at large.

As for a marriage of two individuals there are plenty of studies where a strong marriage benefits society (meaning the kids are happy and grow into happy adults). So I suppose that is where the laws came from, but...



A healthy marriage is a healthy marriage - Period!

Most of the multiple marriages are done on the sly and the participants are not mentally healthy to begin with.

Bucking society trends does cause dissension. I don't see any difference between those fighting to legalize drugs from those trying to legalize multiple partners.

Polygamist handle problem in their community? You're stereotyping you know. Do you really believe there is only Polygamy in certain religious orders?

All relationships take work and dedication from all involved.

You paint a very pristine controlled society.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

A healthy marriage is a healthy marriage - Period!


I get it! Hence the name "healthy marriage " right?



Bucking society trends does cause dissension. I don't see any difference between those fighting to legalize drugs from those trying to legalize multiple partners.


But she makes an exception for those fighting for same sex marriage


Polygamist handle problem in their community? You're stereotyping you know. Do you really believe there is only Polygamy in certain religious orders?


No you are stereotyping him assuming because he is religious he must be talking about the stereotyped kind. Even if he was, the question remains


All relationships take work and dedication from all involved.



Yeah, I betcha he didn't know that was a given eh?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join