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: 13
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
my take on this is:


to me it boils down to 2 things money and recognition
there are some truly benefical tax breaks when it comes to marriage not to mention insurance etc........

if they want to go thru divorces prenups and losing everything then so be

if they wanna swap spit in their own homes so be it

the only problem i have is what happens in public and around children
we all know how impressionalbe they are.

and that can lead to confusion etc.

other than that let them have their cake so to speak.



[edit on 5-8-2010 by neo96]




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


I think incestuous marriage should be illegal - - only because of known scientific fact.

But as you say - if one was sterilized so as not to produce off spring.

But how would you enforce something like that?

I'll stick with Illegal for now.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


the only problem i have is what happens in public and around children
we all know how impressionalbe they are.

and that can lead to confusion etc.

other than that let them have their cake so to speak.



My daughter's roommate is gay. She has a 10 year old daughter.

Her daughter asked her: "What is gay". She answered "Men who love other men - instead of women"

Her daughter responded: "OH - - so that's like a male lesbian. You know - women who love women".

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

Children are fine.

Adults on the other hand - complicate things and blow them up into major issues.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
What part of The Constitution is he deriving this from I would like to see it. Does anyone have the section?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by neo96


the only problem i have is what happens in public and around children
we all know how impressionalbe they are.

and that can lead to confusion etc.

other than that let them have their cake so to speak.



My daughter's roommate is gay. She has a 10 year old daughter.

Her daughter asked her: "What is gay". She answered "Men who love other men - instead of women"

Her daughter responded: "OH - - so that's like a male lesbian. You know - women who love women".

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

Children are fine.

Adults on the other hand - complicate things and blow them up into major issues.


i really would like to see some studies how opposite sex marriages and same sex "marriages" and look to see if they both end up as dysfucnctional as most people have become.


im not completely on board with that simple fact gay woman has a daughter so that leaves me wondering if at one time she was straight or she adopted or ???

also and i have had the misfortune of walking in on my parents in the middle of the act and it did scar me...


im trying to keep an open mind on this but thats the one area im trying to sort out.

and im sure you are exaclty right but i do wonder



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadowRamesses
 


The judgement is out, and the judge cited several other laws where the prop 8 violated. It is an interested read, so you may choose to look up the different statutes:
Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997).
Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978)
The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v
Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987)



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Earlier in this thread I asked a question. Basically, if the majority of US population were to be contrary to gay marriage, would this over-ride the constitution. Those who answered said either no, or it would take decades for the vote to be recognized.
In a simplistic way, democracy would appear to be the will of the majority over the minority. 51/49. So considering we, Canada and America, are trying to sell democracy to countries who lived with dictators, ie. Afganistan and Iraq, how would we explain a situation where a small percent of the population can control the majority? In a dictatorship a minority rules the majority. But in democracy the majority must bow to a minority by way of the constitution.
Seems to me one would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to explain the difference to people who have a strong views as a majority and no constitution yet.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SimplyGord
 


The United States of America is a democratic Republic, with the idea of Majority rules, minority rights. This way the entire voice of the people are heard, and that an unjust law can be overturned and removed by the courts when they fail to uphold on the grounds of the constitution and judicial reveiw.
As I recall, as one time it was against the law in the southern states for black people and white people to be in the same place at the same time, where the seperation of the 2 was accepted by the majority of the populations in those states, and that was overturned by judges. And in the Loving case, up until the courts ruled on it was against the law for interracial couples to marry and have children.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


and im sure you are exaclty right but i do wonder


Things happen in life. Parents can help children understand the complexity and acceptance of life.

My mom was raised with prejudice - - but raised us to accept all people. I asked her if she was still prejudice. She said Yes! I asked her why she raised us to not be prejudice and accept all people.

Her answer: Because there is no room for prejudice in your generation. This is your time. Not mine.

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

The other thing I look at is: some children have horrific childhoods - manage to survive - and become successful loving adults.

Others - may have what seems like a minor trauma - - they never recover from.

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

There were times when disabled were hidden away - because it might cause trauma to someone who saw them.

Its just not OK - - to stop people from fully living their lives.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I understand from our western point of view, we have evolved. Seen the light and recognize that people are people regardless. I do not believe that our forefathers fought for gay rights as such but they fought for freedom. And gay rights are part of that.
Marriage is a hot spot and I think it goes back to our early roots. Family lines is a key. Tracing roots.
Texas, Tennessee, New England, Louisiana, and many other places have long lines and ties. Families can trace back to the Mayflower or the Alamo. My family history in Canada dates back 11 generations to early 1600's. Lapierre and Madiline (blank) were married in Quebec in 1654 and produced children which have spread nation and world wide.
Had it been Lapierre and George, I fear the line would have fizzled.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
So, yeah, I am truly for equal protection for all as long as it involves consenting adults.


Okay. So, who gets to make the determination on what constitutes an "adult"? Are minors not deserving of "equal protection", as well?

The above quote appears to be denying "equal protection" to a large segment of the population, discriminating against them based solely on their age, with no regard for varying levels of maturity, physical development, emotional status, etc.

Understand, I am not arguing for or against either side. I do not condone the aforementioned incestuous marriages, minors marrying other minors or minors marrying adults.

My point is (and everyone has completely avoided answering the question) There must be boundaries. Everyone has their own ideas on what is acceptable and what is not (you and Annee have agreed on allowing same-sex marriage, but disagree on familial marriage). So, the point of the whole debate is...Who should set those boundaries?

In this case, a majority of California's voters established a boundary. However, because the minority didn't like the outcome of a lawful and Constitutional referendum, the matter landed in the hands of a political appointee. Are they (Judges appointed to lifetime positions) the ones we, truly, want establishing societal norms?

Everyone should seriously consider that, because the next lawsuits to come down the pike will be polygamists, minors and some deranged old fart who wants to marry a 13 year old.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Im against gays sadly, but they should be allowed to marry I guess, but people will scam this for sure now



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Davy Jones
Im against gays sadly, but they should be allowed to marry I guess, but people will scam this for sure now


Not really. There is nothing wrong with anyone having a personal viewpoint.

As long as they understand Equal Rights.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
homosexuals,bisexuals,and transgender CAN get married. To the opposite GENDER. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone. I cant marry a man because im a man. A woman cant marry a women because shes a woman. Its not a sexuality thing. Its not a race thing. Its a gender thing.

No where in the constitution does it mention marriage. Because of that it goes to the states under the tenth ammendment. The states should decide. And its not discriminatory because like i said before ANYONE can marry the opposite sex. NO ONE can marry the same sex(because the states have decided the requirments).

NO ONE IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY! NO ONE.

Its really that simple.

Marriage is a privelage offered to EVERYONE. And one of the requirments to have that privelage is to marry the opposite gender......that simple.

"BUT...BUT.... they are gay they dont WANT to marry the opposite sex". NOT MY PROBLEM. you have the right to do so.....not my problem or the majoritys problem if a small minority does not exercise there right to marry.

When you really just look at this logically you see a minority wanting to change the definition of marriage and the majority saying "back off".

Its essentially just a small percentage of the population unhappy with the way marriage is and wants to change it. But the majority does not want it to change.

Its that simple.So they are not attracted to the opposit sex.......so? if im not mistaken most of you gay marriage activists and supporters have stated "marriage is a legal and social contract not a religious ceremony or made to make children" well if its just a contract.....what does attraction matter?Its just a legally binding contact to you. If im not mistaken when i sign a contract anywhere else attraction has nothing to do with it. attraction can occur with it...but its not required! Just as love is not required. But opposite sex IS required. So they are not attracted and dont WANT to marry the opposite sex.....that does not mean they dont have the RIGHT too marry the opposite gender....just like everyone else.

Dont like it? tough titty.

The Judge was wrong in this ruling for this simple reason. He based it under equal protections clause. Essentially he is saying they are being discriminated against . He is saying gay people are denied the right to marry....which as i explained above is a fallacy because everyone has the right to marry the opposit gender. We all have the right/privelage of marriage. One of the requirments is for it to be between a man and woman.

How can any of you not understand this? is it so difficult or are you thinking emotionally and not logically? Gay people have never been denied the right to marry. Thats dishonesty of the HIGHEST order.

This is like...so freakin simple its pathetic. Most of you are not even thinking about this logically or lawfully. You are liking this decision because you agree with his view point or personally have nothing wrong with homosexuality or are liberally minded.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
If gays just stop being gay, it would be much easier. Maybe I am old fashion I just think homosexuality is sick and perverted.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

In this case, a majority of California's voters established a boundary. However, because the minority didn't like the outcome of a lawful and Constitutional referendum, the matter landed in the hands of a political appointee. Are they (Judges appointed to lifetime positions) the ones we, truly, want establishing societal norms?



Are you on one of those turnpikes that twists and turns?

It is not about a minority not LIKING the outcome. Its about Equal Rights.

We've been through the Mob Rule discussion.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbleseeker
If gays just stop being gay, it would be much easier. Maybe I am old fashion I just think homosexuality is sick and perverted.


Maybe you should get out in the world a bit more.

I got a job at a publishing company where I was the minority being straight. This was not the typical "gay" working in an office with a bunch of straights. This was a company of mostly gays & even couples.

This was my introduction to gays.

If you think they choose to be gay - - - you are so out of touch with reality.

Old fashion is no excuse for ignorance. God made them as they are - period.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by WTFover

In this case, a majority of California's voters established a boundary. However, because the minority didn't like the outcome of a lawful and Constitutional referendum, the matter landed in the hands of a political appointee. Are they (Judges appointed to lifetime positions) the ones we, truly, want establishing societal norms?



Are you on one of those turnpikes that twists and turns?

It is not about a minority not LIKING the outcome. Its about Equal Rights.

We've been through the Mob Rule discussion.


For the last time they do have equal rights. No one is denied the right to marry. There is a requirment for marriage and that is marrying the opposite sex. They have every right to marry the opposite sex...just like me. They cant marry the same sex...just like me.

Seems pretty equal to me. Is it my problem if they dont WANT to exercise there equal rights? NO. But they have the RIGHT to do so.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nofoolishness


For the last time they do have equal rights. No one is denied the right to marry. There is a requirment for marriage and that is marrying the opposite sex. They have every right to marry the opposite sex...just like me. They cant marry the same sex...just like me.


I am not even going to address this prejudice ignorance anymore.

Consenting adults will legally marry the partner of their choice. That is a fact.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


Ah, so you are one of those people who thinks that marriage has nothing to do with love?

*sigh* this tired "special rights" fallacy is getting boring.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]




top topics



 
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join