Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Captain Obvious
 


They made sperm from a woman's bone marrow....


Would you have a source for that?




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Why should government be involved with marriage at all?


Because it is good for society. And marriage between a man and woman are good for society.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
Sorry, freedom is for everyone to live as they choose, not determined by your idea of "God's laws".


I guess I can now go and murder people and steal because freedom is for everyone.
If we don't have God's laws then there will be anarchy.


Originally posted by OldDragger
End of debate.


Hardly.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by I AM LEGION


Now every state will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from another state, even if their state constitution forbids gay marriage. Thoughts?

This will also rule out the recent veto of Hawaii governor against same sex civil union. I feel this is step is right direction so everyone get's to enjoy equal rights now.

www.boston.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Did you bother to read the opinion? I didn't think so. What the judge did was rule that the feds had no business regulating marriage. That it was strictly within the purview of the states to do so. It had absolutely zero - nada- nothing to do with state laws or constitutions. What the fed law was trying to do was say that the citizens of a state could not, even if they voted to do so, legalize same sex marriage. The judge said, "Hold on here. The federal government can't interfere with a state's right of self-determination on matters involving marriage. Now, if a state were to pass a law saying it recognized every kind of marriage from other states, including incestuous ones, for example, and further say that only same sex marriages would not be recognized, then a federal Court might find that a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the constitution, which is applicable to the states. What the decision did was hold that the Federal government could by statute neither ban nor legitimize same sex marriage. The actual memorandum opinion is here pacer.mad.uscourts.gov.../pdf/gill%20et%20al%20v%20opm%20et%20al%20sj%20memo.pdf



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by blamethegreys
I predict that if and when a blanket law is in place that forces all states to recognize same-sex marriage the radicals in the movement will not be satisfied, and turn their attention to the next level of perceived discrimination: The churches.

The next obvious step to forced acceptance would be to begin suing churches that refused to wed gay couples. The first targets would be the large organized religions...Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaeism, etc. After the big ones fall, the little (poorer) churches would cave.


How can you say this when the Churches already refuse to marry certain straight couples that don't meet their criterion.

Strawman much?


This step would lead to one of two futures: Churches being forced to compromise values and teachings in order to comply, thereby disenfranchising their congregations, OR churches no longer providing marriage services to anyone, thereby taking away from many a sacred and important ritual that they hold dear.


Has this already happened? Do you see jewish people suing the Catholic Church because the Church won't marry them?


The lady at the DMV, who went the extra mile to get your problem solved...Or the couple across the street that watches out for your kids when they play out front? What about that guy who pulled over and stopped when your car was broke down in the rain? Many people learn to serve others through conventional religion.


So, if it wasn't for religion, we'd all be sellfish pricks? I highly doubt that as even with religion, most of the religious are selfish pricks.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Proudconservative
So... all of the states that continue to define marriage as one man+one woman can still do so, and the federal government should stay out of it, right? So – wouldn't this prevent California's Proposition 8 from being struck down by a federal court? Or is this one of those funny one-way walls?

The LGBT community has shot themselves in the foot. You guys actually think of this as a victory? all this does is say that the FED GOV. has no right telling the STATES what marriage is. The states decide what marriage is.

I thought about this a little more and i realized that gay people still lose. Because like i said all this does is say that STATES decide what marriage is. That means if states like california ban or make a ammendment against gay marriage,gay people cant go to the federal court and whine. BECAUSE STATES DECIDE. Gay people are idiots...can they not even look that far ahead? What are you gonna do about PROP 8 now? You cant challenge it federally. Because the FEDS hands are tied. If they tried to strike down PROP 8 and other bans and ammendments IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Do you gay people here really think this is a victory? Maybe right NOW. But when even more states start filing ammendments to ban or not recognize same sex marriage what are you gonna do? what happens if those states that do have gay marriage RIGHT NOW gets it banned again? You cant whine to the FED....remember....there hands are tied. If they tried to do something it would unconstitutional.





What I find really funny is that none of the Gay Marriage supporters have answered or commented on your post... It’s true the Federal Judge just took the Federal Government out of the equation.

For you people out there who are not paying attention Marriage is NOT a Civil Right.. It is not defined in the US Constitution and 31 states have made it illegal for there to be gay marriage. Not be Gay, they can be gay and still vote, just can’t get married... I bet if they got rid of the marriage tax brackets people would shut the hell up.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
What trailer park mother terresa doesnt realize is that not so long ago black people were being raped and burned alive to the cherrfull claps of ignorant backwoods hillbillys like herself.

Im so glad to see her "kind" again picking the wrong place to stand in the road to civil right and liberty for all. I can only hope the rest are as brave as this woman so we can see where the pockets of idiocy are in our nation, and flush them out like the cockroaches they are.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
How can you say this when the Churches already refuse to marry certain straight couples that don't meet their criterion.


Well, the criterion do not violate 'civil rights'. If a church refused to marry a couple of two different races...you bet there would be, and have been, lawsuits!
Religion vs. religion (as far as marriage and such) isn't considered discrimination. Religion vs. race is considered such. And With same-sex marriage rights, it would be fought in court the same as race.


Has this already happened? Do you see jewish people suing the Catholic Church because the Church won't marry them?


Nope, for the above stated reason.


So, if it wasn't for religion, we'd all be sellfish pricks? I highly doubt that as even with religion, most of the religious are selfish pricks.


Well I can't really argue too much with ya there!
But really, there are alot of good people out there that are good because of their religious experiences. Not to say there aren't good people out there that are athiest, or agnostic, or what have you. Not to say that there aren't a bunch of douchebags out there from all sides of the fence!

[edit on 9-7-2010 by blamethegreys]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
I never quoted any Old Covenant.


The only thing worth replying to...

Touche` or what have you. I should have properly said you are citing rationales based in Old Covenant Dogma.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mryanbrown]


Originally posted by texastig
I guess I can now go and murder people and steal because freedom is for everyone.
If we don't have God's laws then there will be anarchy.


Do you think first before posting? If you kill someone... you take away their freedom. So apparently someone being homosexual is murder to you. Gotchya.

Cause one is a personal choice between two consenting adults and the other harms someone based upon the judgment of a single party.

I completely see how these two are related. Please invent another asinine scenario and ignore reality to further aid your position.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by I AM LEGION


Now every state will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from another state, even if their state constitution forbids gay marriage. Thoughts?

This will also rule out the recent veto of Hawaii governor against same sex civil union. I feel this is step is right direction so everyone get's to enjoy equal rights now.

www.boston.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Did you bother to read the opinion? I didn't think so. What the judge did was rule that the feds had no business regulating marriage. That it was strictly within the purview of the states to do so. It had absolutely zero - nada- nothing to do with state laws or constitutions.


Well are we discussing the dicision or the issue? Because the issues is what is been fought out on the state level anyway.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Well are we discussing the dicision or the issue? Because the issues is what is been fought out on the state level anyway.


The issue and decision is one in the same. It is about the right to self determination on matters that harm no one.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Logarock
Well are we discussing the dicision or the issue? Because the issues is what is been fought out on the state level anyway.


The issue and decision is one in the same. It is about the right to self determination on matters that harm no one.


The decision just kicks it back down to the state. Doesnt confront the issue.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Captain Obvious
I guess the up-side is that they don't have to put those "My kid is an honor student" stickers on their cars. Do you know how hard those are to remove?


A down side would be that we have to pay school taxes for your children.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by texastig
 


Yea sure, great.

I ask again.

Why should government get involved with it?

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by I AM LEGION

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional


www.boston.com

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, according to the office of state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro, in a 36-page ruling that touched on the history of marriage laws, found that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates Massachusetts’ right to recognize same-sex unions.
(visit the link for the full news article)




The court says that MA has the right to determine what is and isn't marriage in its state.

So now the conservatives will be angry because the court stood up for state's rights...


I can't wait to hear the first person complain so I can say "Hey, it's a state's rights issue," and watch them claim it isn't.

They say they want state's rights, so hopefully they'll STFU about this issue.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


It's no right. Marriage is is between two people. To my definition, a man and woman. It is not between two people and the state nor the government.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Slowpoke
 


That's kind of why Jesus through over the laws of men and the old testament and replaced all laws, even the old testament, with the new testament and a simple rule. Two rules, actually. Love God as yourself and love others as yourself.

Thus to my definition, the bible demands love not be an issue ruled by men. Marital love is between a man and woman, not a man and woman and the government.

How about we take option C and end the issue. The government shall make no laws on love and marriage. Not even man and woman.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by blamethegreys

Originally posted by Nutter
How can you say this when the Churches already refuse to marry certain straight couples that don't meet their criterion.


Well, the criterion do not violate 'civil rights'. If a church refused to marry a couple of two different races...you bet there would be, and have been, lawsuits!
Religion vs. religion (as far as marriage and such) isn't considered discrimination. Religion vs. race is considered such. And With same-sex marriage rights, it would be fought in court the same as race.


Has this already happened? Do you see jewish people suing the Catholic Church because the Church won't marry them?


Nope, for the above stated reason.


So, if it wasn't for religion, we'd all be sellfish pricks? I highly doubt that as even with religion, most of the religious are selfish pricks.




I believe you are incorrect.

From a forum about Mormon Church involvement in Prop 8:
www.mormonapologetics.org...


One of the primary arguments for the church's political involvement with prop 8 has been that if SSM is granted legal status, the church would be forced to acknowledge or even perform gay marriages. It is, therefore, an issue of religious freedom.

But will it happen? Will churches be forced to perform gay marriages, even when it contradicts their religious convictions?

No one can see the future, but we can look to the past for similar situations. The closest comparison I can think of is the legalization of interracial marriage. I've searched and searched, but I can't find a single case where a church was forced to perform an interracial marriage. From a broader perspective, the same argument could be applied to civil rights as a whole. The civil rights era created anti-discrimination legislation which was applied to public and private institutions, but churches were (and still are) exempt from such laws. The LDS church was free to deny priesthood status to blacks until it decided on its own to end the practice. The government never attempted to force the LDS church to change its policies regarding blacks, even though those policies were racist and discriminatory. The church was never threatened with the loss of tax exempt status for those policies.

History shows that churches will be free to practice their religion, even when such practices are discriminatory. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the hysterical arguments now being put forth with respect to same sex marriage.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
For you people out there who are not paying attention Marriage is NOT a Civil Right.


Then why did you get married? If you don't want all 1,050 rights allotted to you by being married, then, please show us what you are made of and divorce your wife and just live with her. You can even get "married" in the eyes of God, but don't for once think of using those 1,050 rights allotted to you by the government for doing so.

Again. Time to put up.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


It's no right. Marriage is is between two people. To my definition, a man and woman. It is not between two people and the state nor the government.


Then why do you have to get a marriage license from a government official?





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join