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.

 

Massachutsetts spits on Defense of Marriage Act...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Would someone explain to me how the U.S. Supreme Court can defer to International Law, to strike down Texas's Sodomy Laws...yet sit back, while the Massachutsetts Supreme Court spits on the Defense of Marriage Act?

What's wrong here? (BTW, the Defense of Marriage Act was pushed through by Clinton and IS a standing Federal Law.)




posted on May, 19 2004 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Well, the US Supreme Court would more than likely not even be able to make a quick ruling. They would have to go and decide if the Defense of Marriage act is even constitutional.

Personally, I feel the law violates the 14th amendment.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


And the 9th


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


If any state bans gay marriage, it is not allowing homosexuals to get benefits given to all married couples which is, in turn, denying the person of their right to equal protection of the laws.



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Marriage is between a man and a women, plain and simple. Been that way for 1000's of years. If the people who..."Want to do the bone dance with Mr. Spinchter, want a civil union"....fine let them have it. BUT IT IS NOT MARRIAGE!!!!!!



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CSRules
BUT IT IS NOT MARRIAGE!!!!!!


My marriage wasn't a marriage either and that was sanctioned by God.

What the hell was He thinking?

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by RANT]



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Marriage is between a man and a women, plain and simple. Been that way for 1000's of years. If the people who..."Want to do the bone dance with Mr. Spinchter, want a civil union"....fine let them have it. BUT IT IS NOT MARRIAGE!!!!!!



Interracial marriage was disallowed for 1000s of years. Does that mean interracial marriage should be disallowed still? All the arguements that are used against Gay marriage are the same that are used against interracial marriage and against the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment; if you're curious, some of the anti-ERA arguements were "Women are biologically inferior; women are traditionally supposed to stay at home and clean/cook/be the mom).



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Mr.Sphicter? What about Ms. Carpet Muncher, Man you are a Phobe in the closet. Why do you Care, If you do Look at why? People who LOVE each other should have the same rights, it shouldnt even be a legal issue.

I am not crazy about the whole Gay, Flaming thing but thats about 10% most are Big hearted people who are in love and perhaps would like to sit with there loved one on there death bed which they cant unlessed they are married.



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Would someone explain to me how the U.S. Supreme Court can defer to International Law, to strike down Texas's Sodomy Laws...yet sit back, while the Massachutsetts Supreme Court spits on the Defense of Marriage Act?


I don't think anyone actually answered your question, but point of fact is the Supreme Court was instituted to ensure that laws enacted and signed into law are constitutional.

If the Supreme Court determines that a law violates a person's rights, the court can declare that law unconstitutional and render the law moot.

This is why you are now seeing Congress pushing for a constitutional amendment defining a marriage as between one man and one woman. This is a particularly frightening concept considering that recently we celebrated the anniversary of Brown vs. the Board of Education. Can you imagine if Congress had introduced a constitutional amendment of "separate but equal?"

The actions of these courts is not illegal or shocking by any means. This is what these courts were implemented for...to prevent the government from eliminating our freedoms that are guaranteed in the constitution. Should we agree with every decision the courts make? No, but we should be greatful that these checks and balances are in place. Just wait until the Patriot Act gets its first test.



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Marriage is only for white and white, black and black. Says so in the Bible. Oops, I'm sorry. What year is this? Oh yeah. Marriage is...



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Dudes, they do have equal protection and rights under the laws.

They can marry any woman that will have them. They get the same thing as I do, so what's the big cheese around here.

If they want equal protection under the law, then give it to them. Just call it something else.

They don't care really, they just want the rights, not the title.

Simple.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I understand completely where you're coming from...but my point was that the U.S. Supreme Court admitted they couldn't find a Constitutional argument to strike down Texas's Sodomy Laws, so they deferred to International Law.

That's right. In front of a mic and camera, they admitted this. Excuse me, but isn't it their JOB to uphold the Constitution? And what about the Tenth Amendment?

Do States have the Right to install their own laws, or not? (Assuming they don't collide with the U.S. Constitution) Obviously, they DON'T WHEN IT'S A CONSERVATIVE AGENDA.

That doesn't seem to be the case when Massachuesetts decides to clash with Federal Law. (Citing Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act of 1998)

By the way, There is NO CLASH Constitutionally, in outlawing Gay Marriage. Equal Protection under the Law (which is what the Gays continually fall back on.) only means that Contitutional Rights can't be abridged because of who you are. Keep in Mind that NOBODY has a Constitutional Right to Marry. This is a STATE ISSUE!

Either Massachuesetts is Right, in which case, so was Texas...or they're both wrong. Which is it?

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by Toelint]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf

If any state bans gay marriage, it is not allowing homosexuals to get benefits given to all married couples which is, in turn, denying the person of their right to equal protection of the laws.


Well, that is not true. Marriage has been defined and understood for thousands of years. There is no denial of any right by refusing to allow two homosexuals make a mockery of marriage. Homosexuals have rights as human beings, not as being homosexuals.

Toelint, this is happening by design. Every possible way to tear down the traditional and Christian framework of this nation is being implemented. Understand, anything can be a "civil" right, as those rights are created by man and not God. Many of those "rights" are tailored to mirror God-given, constitutionally-protected rights, but that is simply so that you'll forget about the God-given rights with time so that when they eventually snatch the civil rights from you, you won't remember you have the real rights left.

Slight of hand and social reeengineering to weaken this nation, thereby allowing the NWO a chance to rise.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
By breaking down the male-female marriage barrier the floodgates of dehumanizing will continue.
This is not a racial equality issue, it is a sexual preference issue.
If I want to marry a goat or even a 12 year old girl then if i scream loud enough, get enough ACLU lawyers behind me (yeah, i know there's a joke there somewhere) - then I too can gain the right to marry my 4 hooved sweetheart or the little girl down the street... if it's what turns me on and it is apparent that equates to the same civil rights structure as racial barriers then I shopuld be able to do this.
Hey, what if I like canibalism like those two guys in Germany. One offered himself to the other in a homosexual love feast - that should be ok too - right? after all it IS just 2 consenting adults.
As for the word "homophobe" - hell no I'm not afraid of homosexuals - but I'm pretty damned disgusting by the concept of rump humping... you mightr as well be jumpin' a goat, nailing a 12 yr old or eating you fellow man - its all consentual after all...



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CSRules
Marriage is between a man and a women, plain and simple. Been that way for 1000's of years. If the people who..."Want to do the bone dance with Mr. Spinchter, want a civil union"....fine let them have it. BUT IT IS NOT MARRIAGE!!!!!!


Not only is this serious phobe talk here (if I was a gay male I would be seriously offended in fact), it is also pure sheep. "this is the way it's always been so therefore it shouldn't change"

Bull# !!!!!! Love is love is love. It doesn't matter what sex or colour it comes in.

Laws that continue to ban gay marriages are doing nothing more then, in effect, trying to make sure that those who don't conform to societies views of what "normal" is stay inside their boxes. It's pure crap. There are plenty of male/female couples that should NEVER get/have gotten married in the first place...maybe these are the couples that should be denied marriage.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Here! Here!

What makes Brittany's drunken Vegas weekend marrige more sanctimonious than the marrige of two men or two women who have shared a healthy loving relationship for a number of years?



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Scott, I'd say it is obvious that neither is "sanctimonious".

As far as a "gay" (I assume you mean homosexual) male being offended that I find not him, but his "lifestyle offensive, I could care less. It seems they are not concerned about my view on the subject, they are more than happy to have their "lifestyle" crammed down my family's throat.

Conversations like this go nowhere as we obviously do not share the same moral standards or foundations and it is impossible to debate a topic when the people discussing a topic do not share such things.

As far as this nation, the direction in which we are going is not IAW natural law or the constitution. It is very evident as this, as well as many other things our culture is suffering, is relatively new, and is being pushed by the same powerful groups that have been making it a point to radically alter the nation.

I will say this, though, even if the change is through brain washing and social reengineering, if the majority of the public favor the change, then so be it. Let it be put to a vote, rather than have militant judicial activists change things. Then, if the People say for it to be, then I say let it be. So, too, let the nation get what it eventually gets.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   
"What makes Brittany's drunken Vegas weekend marrige more sanctimonious than the marrige of two men or two women who have shared a healthy loving relationship for a number of years?"

Nothing. Yet, it seems that a gay marriage still seems innapropriate in my eyes. I beleive gay marriage should be allowed for one reason if the nation decides to follow their corrupt ways. Population increase problems. Now imagine half of the U.S. came out of the closet and married the closest partner next to them.

"From an estimated 275 million people in 2000, the Bureau projects there will be 571 million in the year 2100."

news.bbc.co.uk...

That, would not happen at such a phenomenal rate (it would still happen though).

I still beleive it is immoral for two men, or two women to marry. It makes no sense as marriage in my standards has always been defined as the coming of two people who love each other to procreate and pass on their name through their offspring. That's the one major fault with homosexuality, two men or women cannot have a child (unless they adopt).


[Edited on 5-23-2004 by WaStEdDeAtH777]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
What do you guys CARE who marries who, regardless of what sex the people involved are ? It has NOTHING to DO with you or your families. It is essentially none of your business WHAT another consensual adults does with his own body/mind as long as doesn't hurt YOU or anybody else.

Nunya definitely comes into play here.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The marrying of two homosexual persons has nothing to do with my business, but the decision of allowing two homosexuals to marry and thus creating a chain reaction of decisions which desensitize the morales of the U.S. people is my business. Do I want my child to grow up knowing that two men are married and are having sex next door? No, I do not.

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by WaStEdDeAtH777]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Wasted,
Wait a minute, I am married, to a woman thank-you very much, and we have long decided not to have any children. We are not at all confident that there will be much of a world for them to enjoy and we are too old and too selfish. At least we understand our limitations. Back to the point; By conciously deciding not to procreate, your definition of marrige no longer applies to us. This I must dispute.

I have argued in the past that incidence of homosexuality increase when population pressure increases. A biologically determined population response that predicts exactly what you detailed in your last post. I am beginning to become more accustomed to an "End of Days" scenario being realized though I doubt that You, TC, or I will survive to tell of it, nor will any of us be walking hand-in-hand with Jesus. We will just cease to be.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Yes, Kayem, the health of the society is my business. The fact that the radicals in control of the public education system that shoves this and other garbage down kids' throats is my business, and every other parent in this country.

What people do behind closed doors, in the "closet", is none of my business, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. But that is not good enough for the militants, or for the social reengineers. They want it in my face until I give up and they have our children.
The militants and social reengineers would not even be satisfied were they simply been allowed to play house with a license. No, they have to control otehrs' business, such as the Boy Scouts of America. They cannot even allow that organization, an organization that teaches young boys traditional values and leadership skills, alone.

There's a much bigger picture here than simply, "What business is it of mine" or, "Hey, they have rights, too."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join