Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

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 amendment 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.




OK here's a response. I suggest you read the opinion. A Judge, in one District out of the 94 in the US said that the Federal Congress had no business defining marriage, based on the principles of federalism and deference to the states. He said nothing about the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which by its very terms applies to the states. "No state shall..." And the DOMA didn't ban gay marriage. It only defined marriage for purposes of federal programs. Likewise 31 states have not made same sex marriage illegal. They just refuse to recognize it. Two people from, say, Texas can go to Mass. and get married and return to Texas and face absolutely no penalties or sanctions.
The ruling only applies in one District out of the whole country. Of course, if the homophobes out there convince the government to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS, it can become law for the whole country. Until then, it has no application to California or Hawaii or anywhere else. I don't think the closeted gay boys in bondage in the GOP who are screaming for an appeal have figured that out yet. Oh, please appeal. Right after you replace M. Steele with Palin.




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I lived in Brisbane Australia for a while and went to a church that was smack in the middle of the red light district... This ws a great church full of true Christians who did loads in that community... Because of the none judgementlness and acceptence of that church a transvestite started to come. He wore womens clothes, was openly gay but was accepted... Weeks passed by then this guy turned up in male clothes and we could not recognise who he was... He went to the front and gave himself to God... He is now a big time preacher who ministers to th LGBT community.. He is married with kids.. All because we just loved on him and let God do the work... And He did indeed...

I miss that place... TRUE CHURCH... You can keep your laodician crap..



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
I know why you dont like Paul or give him the authority God did


Where did God say in the bible he gave Paul authority? I'm curious. PREACH TO ME BROTHER!

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Where did God say in the bible he gave Paul authority? I'm curious. PREACH TO ME BROTHER!


Probably in the same book written by Paul himself. Reminds me of GW and God telling him to go to war.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


To clarify, i am a married messianic Jew and not gay, andyet again you judge, i will pray that you hve a true revelation from God...

Paul was indeed no more than you or me... And if you cant see that then you are a fool....



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by texastig

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.


Have you read the Bible? It's full of people murdering because God wanted them to.

I would rather have secular laws than those of bloodthirsty people who claim it's "God's Will" that people be stoned, their babies heads bashed against walls and their cities destroyed, thank you.


The real scary thing is they were not claims....God really did order and engage in killings Himself.

I suppose the good Lord has evolved as man has. Crazy guy God! Wow! Heart breaker and soul shaker! Maybe to a large degree man has helped God mend His ways.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
I suppose the good Lord has evolved as man has. Crazy guy God! Wow! Heart breaker and soul shaker! Maybe to a large degree man has helped God mend His ways.


Or could it be that the word of God was actually written by man and that man changed? Therefore his (man's) view of God changed?

Nah, couldn't be.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 



I had the Jew thing pretty much nailed down....but did need some clarification on the gay thing, thank you. But you probably think i would kick a gay in the ass rather than look at one dont you?

On Paul though yea he was no diffrent than you and me...on some points and important points....but not on all.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Logarock
I suppose the good Lord has evolved as man has. Crazy guy God! Wow! Heart breaker and soul shaker! Maybe to a large degree man has helped God mend His ways.


Or could it be that the word of God was actually written by man and that man changed? Therefore his (man's) view of God changed?

Nah, couldn't be.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Nutter]


I have seen this question asked before...of sorts....but no I think thats Him...a not very arbitrarily guy but flexable?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
www.jewishworldreview.com...

Boston Globe commenter Jeff Jacoby explains,
"They [the gays] cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights. "

brackets are mine.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Ten Facts About Counterfeit Marriage Part 1 of 2
From: www.frc.org...

1. Homosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution

Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

2. Homosexual marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior.

Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that gay marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could "marry" would have been greeted with scorn. The movement to redefine marriage has already found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations among various groups of individuals.

3. Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue

Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all

citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.

4. Upholding traditional marriage is not "discrimination"

Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally regarding the point in question. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airplane. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are denied the opportunity to fly an airplane. Similarly, the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of human history, as expressed in virtually all cultures, has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexual activists conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Although not strictly comparable, radically altering the definition of marriage can also pose dangers to society in much the same way as permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.

5. Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony

Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.

6. Homosexual marriage would subject children to unstable home environments

Many homosexuals and their sex partners may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in redefining marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children.

�� Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

�� Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.

7. Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage

Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more "inclusive," but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society." Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of "a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often ... and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners."



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Ten Facts About Counterfeit Marriage Part 2 of 2
www.frc.org...

8. If victorious, the homosexual agenda will lead to the persecution of those who object on moral or religious grounds

If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, then children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is a normative lifestyle, and that gay households are just another "variant" style of family. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Unbelievable? This Orwellian situation has occurred in Massachusetts , which legalized homosexual marriage in 2004. In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class.

At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. In 2007, Parker's lawsuit against the Lexington school officials was dismissed by a federal judge who refused to uphold his civil rights and to enforce the Massachusetts parental notification statute. Parker's shocking story will become commonplace in a society that forces the acceptance of homosexual marriage as normative.

9. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans reject s ame-sex marriage

Public opinion remains firmly opposed to the redefinition of marriage. A May 2008 Gallup Poll asked the question: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid?" Respondents opposed homosexual marriage by a margin of 56 percent (opposed) to 40 percent (agreeing). Respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll in October 2007 rejected same-sex marriage by the same margins.

10. Support for traditional marriage translates into ballot initiatives and laws around the country

Because of strong public support for traditional marriage, same-sex marriage advocates have attempted to circumvent public opinion by redefining marriage through the courts. Despite some victories, such as in Massachusetts and California where the courts have mandated same-sex marriage, there is a strong national movement to protect traditional marriage. A total of 45 states have instituted protections for traditional marriage either through state constitutional amendments or through laws:

* 26 states prohibit same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
* 19 states currently prohibit same-sex marriage through statute only.

In addition, in 2008-9 several more states will be considering ballot initiatives to protect traditional marriage, including Florida and California . Others, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania , will be voting to institute laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Timothy J. Dailey is Senior Fellow for Policy at Family Research Council



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Actually, yes. A marriage should be between two people. If two gays want to be married, they can just do whatever party or ritual they'd like. If a man and woman want to get married in a church, they can go and do that.

There should not be any real matter in marriage other than an agreement with a witness. This document and the signed witness is all that is needed as proof of marriage. Why you would need proof, who knows.

Simply put, there should be no government involved. No registration, no anything from the state or federal government. Just two people in love. I support traditional marriage. So that's what I see as right. But I don't even want the government near me in such a holy event.

Now sure, I understand this whole need for the government to show the spouse if there are stds present or anything like that, and the need for a legal document for divorce. But that should be available online freely. Maybe there's some issues on privacy for that, but to tell you the truth, lying you have an STD is far worse than a violation of privacy.

But even that is questionable. Yea, you can bring in all kind of off topic things. Why do they have to divide all their things in half? Why not just keep what is bought by themselves, and if it was bought together, than I suppose rule in a court to who gets it.

Other than that, I see no need for the state to get involved nor the federal government in the whole matter. The single only thing needed is an official document for use in such things. But even then I think maybe they should have their own proof as opposed to something from the state.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


Natural?

Nothing about child birth is natural anymore.

The very act of having a child as a human being is unnatural. That is why is is so painful. Humans have not yet even evolved to give birth naturally.

Ever see an elephant give birth? or an ape? or other species? no where near as much pain.

Nothing about humanity is natural.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Before this ruling, has it ever stopped one "man" from performing fellatio or committing sodomy on another "man?"

Do whatever you want. I have the right to keep my distance from a bunch of prancing homos.

If there is only one good thing about life is that we've all got to die one day and a great day that will be.

EDIT: Here's what gay men should be like.

[edit on 9/7/10 by Intelearthling]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


I give you another fact. Yeshua/Jesus said that the first person you have sex with is your wife/husband FOREVER , anyone you have sex with afterward you are commiting adultery... How many adulterers are in the church then huh?... Who then is making a mockery of marriage? AND Gods word?

Hipocrites!


[edit on 9-7-2010 by Yissachar1]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Yissachar1]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Difference is that God told them when to stop, and not to mention in those days, no one was exactly innocent and good people. Most were rapists, thieves, and barbarians through and through. That was a time before our laws. Before the Greeks spread their logic and before the Roman republic. It was a time of barbarians. For all intensive purposes, the Israelis improved the situation for a while, bringing civilization.

And rest assured. No civilization is born without murder and mayhem. Primitive man understood nothing else. So God using the traditions of man to build a stable non-barbarian nation is far from evil.

reply to post by Yissachar1
 


Too true mate. BTW, can I get the source from the Bible?

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yissachar1
I give you another fact. Yeshua/Jesus said that the first person you have sex with is your wife/husband FOREVER , anyone you have sex with afterward you are commiting adultery... How many adulterers are in the church then huh?... Who then is making a mockery of marriage? AND Gods word?
Hipocrites!


Book, chapter and verse please? Tell me where Jesus says this in the New Testament.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:18 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?



A federal judge cannot nullify any part of any state Constitution. The States created the Federal Government.

I know this Is a hot topic but I had to clarify that bit of confusing info.

The Federal Government Cannot Force the states to do anything. However the people can. If the people want Gay marrage/civil unions in their state, they should petition and put it to a public vote.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
A federal judge cannot nullify any part of any state Constitution. The States created the Federal Government.

I know this Is a hot topic but I had to clarify that bit of confusing info.

The Federal Government Cannot Force the states to do anything. However the people can. If the people want Gay marrage/civil unions in their state, they should petition and put it to a public vote.


Ah but the laws aren't the Constitution. And if a State Citizen takes their case to the Supreme Court for appeal because of the verdict from the State.

The Supreme Court can in fact rule if a law is lawful or not.

Civil rights and what not.

But as a lot of people forget, the Constitution (even State's) protect personal rights regardless of whatever law the government passes (federal or local).

So if we followed the State's Constitution there really would be no reason for the Supreme Court to overrule a State law.

But they are capable.

Because we Citizens who created State for us. And in turn we Citizens created the Union for the benefits of all people and the states respectively.

The Federal government can overturn a state law on behalf of the state citizen.

They have zero business doing it for any other reason other than an appeal brought by a state Citizen.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join