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.
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.
Source.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Crysstaafur
Did it even occur to you that:
Not every non-heterosexual is gay?
That they may have already had a hetero styled relationship in the past.
wouldn't it be logical that they would already have children.
That adoption would even allow this contribution to our community in ways that very few heterosexuals even consider to begin with!
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?
After all, with the given divorce rate between heterosexuals, this two (or household) families per child is increasingly becoming the norm.
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'.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
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
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.
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...
Originally posted by Annee
A healthy marriage is a healthy marriage - Period!
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.