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.

 

California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That is a good question. What happens when a State's CONSTITUTION conflicts with the us constitution... My guess is that US Constitution trumps. Not sure, though.

Hell, didn't fight a civil war ovr these states rights issues a while back?




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Actually, that law has been declared unconstitutional also:

Texas

Boston



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
if i was gay i would just make a commitment with my 'partner' but I can understand they want the financial security esp. for their children, but being gay, they would have to adopt...but i guess that's still legally their children...[head hurts]...it's a complicated issue, like abortion. The problem is that they are opposing a law in order to be protected by another law. foolish mortals.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


The US Constitution trumps. The States can only provide additional rights and privileges not provided by the US Constitution.

Fourteenth Amendment; Sec. 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.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


One cannot marry a blood relative, one cannot legally marry more than one partner, so, until this is made legal as well, are we not doing the same thing the homosexuals accuse the heterosexual community of? As far as raising homosexuals above heterosexuals above heterosexuals......you already have rights and laws that I don't have.........it is not possible to "elevate" everyone to the same level, never will be. However, by keeping this in the media and by using the same hate tactics as other groups, I'm sure eventually they will have the special rights elevating themselves above everyone else.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


They do not have to adopt. Some just chose to do so because they would rather have a child that is biologically neither of theirs rather than being only one of theirs (gay men can have a surrogate mother, and gay women can get pregnant from a sperm donor).

Also, I am confused as to why you said they are violating a law? Which law is that?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I think it is interesting that gay marriage is argued as a constitutional right, when there is no specific mention of it in the constitution. However if I want to wear my handgun, or buy more than 2 a month, buy one without the hassle of fees, background checks, fingerprints, hangun safety certifications I cannot, even though the constitution states specifically, "...the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed." *emphasis added of course

The older I get the more constitutional/libertarian I get...just let people do whatever they want, who cares...just stop those half naked gay parades...seriously



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Okay, fair enough, but why should two related people not be allowed to marry if that is who they love? It may be described as sick, immoral, unGodly, and I would agree but who are we to judge? The ONLY reason I can see it being illegal is to protect the rights of any unconceived children. Relatives reproducing all but guarantees genetic abnormalities. This is not so with gay couples.

Also, not marrying your relative applies to EVERYONE as everyone has a relative. NO ONE can marry their relative. However, saying gays cannot marry is discriminatory because it applies to one group of people. You can say it does not since NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex, however, not everyone is gay so it would not apply to everyone.

And I also specifically said "two consenting adults" so polygamy/bigamy does not apply. In fact, who am I to tell someone they cannot have more than one spouse? But that is for another thread.

I am still failing to understand how gays would be elevated above heterosexuals. if the law states "two consenting (unrelated) adults" this even the playing field, imo.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I am curious how this will affect other states because I live in that "time warped" state of Arizona - that still thinks we are in the 1800s. (fortunately I was born and raised near the Los Angeles beaches).

-----------------------------------------------------

California gay-marriage ruling could upend Arizona ban

by Casey Newton - Aug. 5, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

A federal judge overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday in a decision that could ultimately void Arizona's own laws on the divisive subject, experts said.

Arizona lawmakers enacted a law preventing gays and lesbians from marrying in 1996, and in 2008, voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

But those actions could be undone if, eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a judge's Wednesday ruling that California's Proposition 8 violates the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

"That holding would probably strike down gay-marriage bans in every state," said Paul Bender, a law professor at Arizona State University who teaches constitutional law.

www.azcentral.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


The US Constitution trumps. The States can only provide additional rights and privileges not provided by the US Constitution.

Fourteenth Amendment; Sec. 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.


What about DOMA. www.domawatch.org...

How do you think this will affect it?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousMoose
 


There is no specific mention of marriage AT ALL in the Constitution for heterosexuals or homosexuals. Marriage is a state right. As we have already discussed, however, states cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution, specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman as it violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

No one is making any laws that specifically say that gays are allowed to marry. Instead, what is happening is that the definition of marriage (which until 1996 was undefined) is being EXTENDED to include gays. Having a law that allows gays to marry is different from denying them the right to marry.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


As I have already said in another post, DOMA, was deemed unconstitutional.




Edit: link to search not working, fixed to add specific source instead.

Edit: for some reason links are not working???? Removed altogether instead. Just search yourself


[edit on 5-8-2010 by nunya13]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by nunya13]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by nunya13]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by nunya13]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


We already have special laws in place to protect homosexuals. Work place practices, hiring/firing, hate crime laws etc.......all things that I don't have, so how about we elevate all people to that level of protection?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by Annee
 


As I have already said in another post, DOMA, was deemed unconstitutional.

Here is a link to a search result that provides plenty of sources as a few federal circuit judges have ruled the same way:

DOMA Unconstitutional Search

[edit on 5-8-2010 by nunya13]


OK - thanks.

Not always easy to find the most current information. Or exact information - rather then comment.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by nunya13
 


We already have special laws in place to protect homosexuals. Work place practices, hiring/firing, hate crime laws etc.......all things that I don't have, so how about we elevate all people to that level of protection?


Just curious.. you don't have those protections? Do you mean you can be fired because you choose to sleep with a person of the other gender?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


For the record, I am against all of those things you mentioned. I even wrote a college paper on why hate crime legislation is unconstitutional because it provides a greater protection to minorities. Allowing gays to marry does not do this. If you believe this, can you explain why you think gays being allowed to marry gives them greater protection/rights?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 

Sensitivity training/counseling etc, so I can accept homosexuality, no thanks, how about we reverse it? Hate crime laws were a bad idea when they were instated, and are just as bad now. We aren't going to agree on this, just saying, homosexuals have rights and recourses that others don't have, and to constantly playing the victim, as well as the homophobe card, to demand further special rights does nothing to further their cause.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Again, how do homosexuals want to be ALLOWED to be married give them a special right?

(I already stated I do not agree with the other laws in question)



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

What about DOMA. www.domawatch.org...

How do you think this will affect it?


Good ole Defense of Marriage Act...wriiten and sponsored by Rep. Bob Barr(R)



Bob Barr, Republican Congressman from Georgia. Sponsored the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, saying "The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." Was married three times. Paid for his second wife's abortion. Failed to pay child support to the children of his first two wives and while married to his third and present wife was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his inaugural party.

www.dkosopedia.com...


Marriage needs to be defended from folks like the one that wrote and sponsored DOMA...

Don't even get me started on the co-sponsors...it's a long list of scandal and depravity.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by rogerstigers
 

Sensitivity training/counseling etc, so I can accept homosexuality, no thanks, how about we reverse it? Hate crime laws were a bad idea when they were instated, and are just as bad now. We aren't going to agree on this, just saying, homosexuals have rights and recourses that others don't have, and to constantly playing the victim, as well as the homophobe card, to demand further special rights does nothing to further their cause.


Actually, we do. I agree 100% with the point you are making. Special "sensitivty" classes, etc. are a waste of resources and time. If someone is a jacka-- then they will likely continue to be so, no matter what the classes are.

I also believe that playing "cards" is rediculous and immature, beit homophobe, racist, anti-semite, zionist, or nerf herder.




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join