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.

 

Supreme Court Hides From Gays

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I authored this article on Fascist Soup:

The LA Times reports:


When justices intervened to stop proceedings from airing online, some saw sympathy for supporters of Proposition 8 – and a lack of faith in the district judge who will first decide the measure’s fate.

Reporting from Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court cast its first vote last week on the legal challenge to California’s voter initiative barring same-sex marriage, and some experts said it was a bad omen for those who hope gays and lesbians will win a constitutional right to such unions.

The 5-4 decision, with conservatives in the majority, intervened in the San Francisco district court trial on behalf of the defenders of Proposition 8.

The high court rebuked U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for seeking to give the public a chance to view the proceedings on the Internet. In its opinion, the majority saw the dispute through the same lens as the opponents of gay marriage and decided that they — not homosexuals — faced a hostile public climate of harassment and intimidation.


This whole thing is a circus clown show. Let me tell you the real reason why they don’t want this case publicized. They don’t want it publicized because they know the only way gays are going to win this thing is through arguing on a natural rights basis.

Allowing the public to view a case that revolves around natural rights is inherently dangerous to the entire judicial system. The justices know that such arguments undermine the very basis of the power the State has unjustly taken for itself.

The first amendment in the bill of rights is clear: ANY State sanctioning or restriction of a religious institution is forbidden. Gay, straight, polygamist, or any other kind of marriage is strictly the purview of the Church. The State has no authority to legislate legal benefits based on the religious institution of marriage. This is a fundamental natural right of man.

However our legal system over the course of decades has legitimized, through court proceedings, the State’s authority to issue special rights and favors based on a religious institution. The justices know they are trapped in a no-win situation.

They know it is morally repugnant to prevent gays, or any other group, from having equal protection under the law. The federal justices also know they have no authority to meddle in the minutia of state marriage law, unless those laws violate the constitution. The only way state marriage laws violate the constitution is through violating the first amendment or equal protection clauses. Such an argument would outlaw all State sanctioned marriage across the board if they were to side with the gays or mandate states must accept marriage between anyone.

Do you see the predicament? If they uphold the gay marriage ban, they know in the future their ruling will be in the same vile category of Dred Scott v. Sandford where the Supreme Court upheld slavery. All of those federal justices know it is morally repugnant to deny equal protection. But at the same time, if they side with the gays, they have to give a reason as to why. If they base their reason on equal protection, then all states must accept gays, polygamists, and even people who want to marry their siblings. Such an outcome would undoubtedly draw widespread anger from the public that has been indoctrinated since birth to believe the State has the authority to determine who can and can not be married and to set legal benefits based on that religious institution. If they side with the gays on first amendment rights, then all marriage law across the country would be nullified. Again, such an outcome would inflame the brainwashed hordes.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Ban gay marriage, allow all manner of marriage, or nullify all marriage law period. Those are the choices. The arguments made in the court rooms surrounding this are surely going to be based on natural rights. The judiciary can not allow those arguments to be viewed by the public.

The outcome of the gay marriage case will have wide spread implications across all manner of legislation, well outside just marriage laws.




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Why do homosexuals OR heterosexuals want to get married in the first place? Don't they see how unnatural it is? I would think that the homosexuals of the world would take a look at how straight marriages are working out these days, in the States especially, and say to themselves something like "my god, those straight people are insane!"
At which point the logical conclusion to be reached is that it's better not to get married.


The supreme court doesn't actually hide from gays as your title suggests

Gays know where to find it




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

Yep. They are deffinately between a rock and a hard place as if they lie to the US public the US public will get very angry and that meens Deep DooDoo for everybody concerned and if they tell the truth, well then everybody will be FURIOUS and that usually results in a myopic Bloodbath for better or worse! :shk:


Personal Disclosure: Mind you the thought of the Entire U$ $upreme Court being Pimp/Bitch slapped and then bent over the judicial bench by the plaintiffs and being buggered completely brings a sly smile to my lips!



P.S. So, within my lifetime the U$ goes from the open TV courtroom of OJ Simpsons trial to a possibly locked down and $ecret trial of the U$ constitution! :shk:
Way to EPICALLY FAIL on the Justice must be SEEN to be done bit! Supreme MY A$$!



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Wow, great thread S&F my friend.

That is a hell of a decision to make now isn't it?

When looked at in this context, I can some what see why the BAN on gay marriage has been ongoing for so long. I figured it was because of the money trail at first, but to side with equality on this issue means a HUGE overhall of judicial system.

Scary stuff.

Regardless, I believe in equality for all and if it does take a huge change in our way of doing things, then it would be for the better.

~Keeper



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




This whole thing is a circus clown show. Let me tell you the real reason why they don’t want this case publicized. They don’t want it publicized because they know the only way gays are going to win this thing is through arguing on a natural rights basis.


They can't let that happen.



Allowing the public to view a case that revolves around natural rights is inherently dangerous to the entire judicial system.


Sicknesses always think the cure is dangerous.



The State has no authority to legislate legal benefits based on the religious institution of marriage. This is a fundamental natural right of man.


SCORE!! I thought I was alone in this idea.



The outcome of the gay marriage case will have wide spread implications across all manner of legislation, well outside just marriage laws.


I hope so.

Gay marriage isn't the issue. State-given rights (marriage, licenses, etc) are just a way to control the population. Like when the health department shuts down St. Luke's annual bake sale because the baked goods were not produced in a sanctioned building.

The state doesn't do things to protect the peoples health or to ensure quality or even to protect us from terrorist threats. The state regulates in order to squeeze as much pulp as it can from the producer class (the private market).

The take our taxes because they say we can't do for ourselves.

They take freedom because they say we can't protect ourselves.

They take large portions or all of our life to protect themselves.



I would rather take the chance of temporary instability and terrorism then keep feeding the parasite, government.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
s+f for not buying the conventional framing of this debate.

I agree that the civic policy on marriage is silly, one-sided, and ill-founded.

I see no reason that the government should take sides in what comes down to family disputes. Many have held onto one of the last remaining portions of exclusion they can since race and gender have been removed and protected.

The purpose of our system is to protect the minority from the majority, but to hear many of the Christians speak, it's the other way around.

My vote would be to demolish the practice entirely and start again, using the government as simply a documenting agent rather than an arbiter of propriety. I think it's high time we removed any sliver of religious preference left in our legal and legislative system.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I think it is much ado about nothing.

Look I am hetero, not that it matters, but I do not want some piece of paper from the government affirming my commitment to my old lady.

That commitment is between us personally and is not really gov'ts business.
And if you say "for tax reasons" well the govt should not be taxing you anyway to begin with.

So all these wrongs in a row certainly don't make a right.

The gov't should stop taxing people, so you don't need this stupid slip of paper that lets you get a tax break!

This is the REAL ISSUE IMHO.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


I fully concur.

The 1st amendment was defined to prevent precisely such a situation from occurring.

Our rights don't come from government or the constitution, they come from the very fact we exist.

Government has no authority to dictate religious institutions be given special rights and privileges. It is a total violation of our natural right to equal protection.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The tax aspect is just one part of it.

Because the religious institution of marriage is now tied to all manner of socialist programs, the State has integrated itself into ruling over religious beliefs.

Take for instance Socialist Security payments after death.

If you are single and die at an early age, the government confiscates all the wealth you put into the system.

Only spouses can collect on your benefits after death.

Such tyranny is one more huge reason not only do away with marriage, but socialist nonsense in general.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


I fully concur.

The 1st amendment was defined to prevent precisely such a situation from occurring.

Our rights don't come from government or the constitution, they come from the very fact we exist.

Government has no authority to dictate religious institutions be given special rights and privileges. It is a total violation of our natural right to equal protection.



Agreed. I'd be surprised, however, if anything ever changes without removing large amounts of people from the religious roster.

If that happens, though, you can expect a wounded puppy movement from the Christians to claim persecuted status (more than they already do).

It's a big mess. I'd be happy to live in peaceful coexistence but I have serious doubts that they can keep it to themselves.

I can't tell you how bothersome it is to not be Christian, but I really try to stay civil about it.

I also agree about polygamy. I see no reason a man or woman could not have more than one husband or wife (not sure why they'd want to). The main reason I hear to oppose it is one of two things.

1) People marry girls that are seriously underage. This isn't attached to the issue at all and is primarily attached to religious nuttery. Child rape and polygamy are totally different subjects, regardless of whether or not they may overlap from time to time.

2) It's wrong according to some biblical interpretation. This has nothing to do with secular civil law.

We live in a secular country and they should recognize that. If that step is not taken, no following steps can occur.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Quite apart from all the issues involved

your thread title gave me a lift, which doesn't often happen in ATS


'Supreme Court HIDES from gays ' !


Gee, it's good to learn that behind everything we hear and read, the authorities are STILL wary of the common man/voter !

Thank you !

Things can't be as grim as we sometimes believe if any authority anywhere is still actually AFRAID of society




Let's use this good news to replenish our spirits and strengthen our resolve. Let's build on this ! Let's turn things around to the way they SHOULD be. For natural justice demands that those in office remain mindful of their mandate, which is to dispense justice, be accountable and for all their laws to reflect the will OF the people



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9
Let's use this good news to replenish our spirits and strengthen our resolve. Let's build on this ! Let's turn things around to the way they SHOULD be. For natural justice demands that those in office remain mindful of their mandate, which is to dispense justice, be accountable and for all their laws to reflect the will OF the people


Sounds good, but I can't think of a practical way to get this done outside of changing the thinking of the Christians, and to a much lesser extent the Muslims and Jews.

That isn't something that can be done legislatively since the religious are the single largest voting block. Thankfully, atheism is the fastest growing, so perhaps there is hope.

Additionally, I'd prefer if the laws did not always reflect the will of the people, seeing as mob rule is something that doesn't protect the minority very often.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
If the SC "sides with the gays" (like they should) it does NOT have to turn the system on its rear.

Simply they have to say: It is unconstitutional to forbid one person from marrying another person given that they are a)of legal age and b) insert state law on marrying your relatives

that fits if we allow polygamy if we don't wish to allow it, then add in a C

I don't see why this has to be such a big deal. If they use their brains they can allow equal rights to everyone without up-heaving the system...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


At which point the logical conclusion to be reached is that it's better not to get married.


The difference is that straight people have a choice, gay people do not. If 'marriage' is to be revered as a religious only aspect - fine - then state should not recognize it.

If it is to be a state recognized thing, then it must be void of religion. To void it of religion only leaves persecution left in the way to tell gays "you cannot be married"




edit to add: The anti-gay-rights movement is pathetic. The pedestal from which they preach their argument is used to tell us that gay marriage is anti-God, therefore should not be allowed.

However, another religious rule of marriage is that it must be performed by a man of God.

So, why don't fringed Christians have a problem when a magistrate of the court performs a 'civil union' (aka marriage) between two straight people?

Hypocrites.


[edit on 18-1-2010 by Snarf]




top topics



 
8

log in

join