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: 17
10
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


well, if i must point you in that direction too... read back on page 15 where you addressed my post...anyways, im sure you ll figure it out one day, and then you'll understand why a marriage requires sanction from California.... again, your welcome... feel no need to reply to this...




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012DragonSlayer
reply to post by Annee
 


well, if i must point you in that direction too... read back on page 15 where you addressed my post...anyways, im sure you ll figure it out one day, and then you'll understand why a marriage requires sanction from California.... again, your welcome... feel no need to reply to this...


Your challenge.

You provide.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec


You lost me there. Could you explain that response?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Incestuous marriages really? While I can see the point you are trying to make it is really an apples and oranges thing here in my opinion. To begin with society as a whole has a vested interest in not allowing incestuous relationships to produce offspring.

While on the surface it may appear to be they aren't harming anyone, they in fact are. Incestuous offspring do cause damage to the gene pool and it doesn't have to be because they come out deformed or have some other visible abnormality. It could cause some genetic defect that may not be apparent for several generations. The full impact of these types of relationships and children could go on and on and never be fully known. It will never be wise to cut the family tree down to a shrub, there is less room to hide things under.

Allowing homosexual marriages does not cause damage to the gene pool if anything the argument could be made that it does the opposite. By their very nature if they followed their natural state they would never produce a child through natural means. It doesn't mean that cannot reproduce, they can through various modern means. But that isn't really the point.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 


Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating for incestuous marriage or sexual relationships, due to the increased potential for genetic devolution. I was merely trying to point out that, in all cases, societal norms should be decided by the members of that society, not by a Judge. And, that a Judge should not have the power to over-rule the establishment of boundaries, by a lawful referendum.

There are many circumstances in which the majority should have the final say. There are a small minority of people who believe it is acceptable to take, with force if necessary, property belonging to another. Fortunately, societal standards reject this notion.

This happens many times a year, when municipalities, counties and states propose initiatives and referendums and put them to the electorate. In each and every instance, one side loses and believes their rights have been infringed upon. Sometimes, it is just not going to go our way.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Annee
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec


You lost me there. Could you explain that response?


The Comte and Comtesse themselves were first cousins (Henri's two grandmothers being sisters[2]) and Henri suffered from a number of congenital health conditions attributed to this tradition of inbreeding.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Jovi1
 


I was merely trying to point out that, in all cases, societal norms should be decided by the members of that society, not by a Judge. And, that a Judge should not have the power to over-rule the establishment of boundaries, by a lawful referendum.


Under that philosophy, then there are laws that should never have been removed from the books. The ones that come to mind are the laws of Segrigation and the Jim Crow laws. Those were approved of by the majority of the populations in the states, and it was a judge that determined that they were violating the laws of the United States of America, thus striking them down.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I am aware of who he was. What I am unclear about is how you believe it would have been acceptable to deny "equal protection" to his parents, two "consenting adults".

This was a particularly bad example, as Toulouse-Lautrec was a gem of his generation, with beautiful contributions to generations to follow. Had his parents been denied their relationship, by others who thought it "wrong", we would all have been denied an extremely talented individual.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Annee
 


I am aware of who he was. What I am unclear about is how you believe it would have been acceptable to deny "equal protection" to his parents, two "consenting adults".

This was a particularly bad example, as Toulouse-Lautrec was a gem of his generation, with beautiful contributions to generations to follow. Had his parents been denied their relationship, by others who thought it "wrong", we would all have been denied an extremely talented individual.


Well Yes - - lets have more inbred children so they can suffer the pain and physical difficulties Lautrec endured - - - so that WE can maybe enjoy - - - a "gift" - if they have one.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


It was not political grandstanding. This was an issue that boiled down to three questions, that both sides would have to answer, for him to make his determination:
Whether any evidence supports California’s refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.
Whether any evidence shows California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
Whether the evidence shows Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest.

But there is one other thing that many people fail to realize about this entire court case and perhaps you can answer it:
You have fought to get a issue on the books of the law, and it is challenged in court. You know a court case is being called, would you not at least show up with your witnesses. The witnesses for those who are for Prop 8, both the governmental and proffessional witnesses, did not show up. Why is that? If it was that important to get on the books, then it should have been that important to show up in court, to defend it. After all, all of the other court cases I have read about, and the opinions, even during the Civil Rights Trials of the 1960's, both sides had witnesses lined up, and they showed up.
The right to marry is a right that is based in legal decision, and to deny a person the right to make that choice, of person, no matter of sex or race, will lead to a form of legalized discrimination, where the group being denied is stated to having equal rights under the law, but treated like a second class citizen, deprived of a fundamental right to be happy.


Thats a good question. The government refused to defend it. PERIOD. which the government should be OBLIGATED to defend a law that essentially is the will of the people.

Thats what pissed me off about this. Not only did the state government NOT defend the vote of california they did so because of personal opinions.

Not only that but just the idea that just ONE judge can overturn the will of the people because he views something as unconstitutional is SCARY. It would have been better if a GROUP of people did it. BUT JUST ONE JUDGE? bullcrap. He is gay as well. and none of you see a problem with this? of course not because he essentially ruled in your favor.

Just 1 federal judge can crap on any law.....what the hell is this? Who is to say this judge is even right in his ruling? I mean IN HIS OPINION HE IS RIGHT. But what if his opinion is wrong? this is BULLcrap.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Well Yes - - lets have more inbred children so they can suffer the pain and physical difficulties Lautrec endured - - - so that WE can maybe enjoy - - - a "gift" - if they have one.


So, finally, you admit you think you have the right to impose your personal ideologies and morals on others and deny "equal protection", when you see fit to do so. Now do you get it? You have done exactly that which you have chastised others for doing.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by WTFover]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Annee
Well Yes - - lets have more inbred children so they can suffer the pain and physical difficulties Lautrec endured - - - so that WE can maybe enjoy - - - a "gift" - if they have one.


So, finally, you admit you think you have the right to impose your personal ideologies and morals on others and deny "equal protection", when you see fit to do so. Now do you get it? You have done exactly that which you have chastised others for doing.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by WTFover]


Phrase it whatever way you want.

It is not a risk I would accept - in the chance of producing a child with genetic deformities due to inbreeding.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Jovi1
 


Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating for incestuous marriage or sexual relationships, due to the increased potential for genetic devolution. I was merely trying to point out that, in all cases, societal norms should be decided by the members of that society, not by a Judge. And, that a Judge should not have the power to over-rule the establishment of boundaries, by a lawful referendum.


For the most part I would agree with you. Most societal norms should be decided by the members of the society, but some societal norms while socially acceptable at a point in time are just wrong. Slavery was a societal norm but it was by no means correct. The refusal to hire Irish immigrants was a societal norm, it was wrong. It was a societal norm to keep blacks from marrying whites that was also wrong. Sometimes just because it is a societal norm doesn't make it healthy for the society. In my opinion this is one of those cases.

These people are already recognized by the state as a legitimate minority. You cannot be arrested tried and convicted for the crime of being gay, you can however be arrested tried and convicted of a hate crime for kicking the tar out of someone because they are gay. The same as you can for doing it to any other minority. (not advocating the correctness or incorrectness of hate crime legislation)

If we are going to go so far as giving them a legal status as a protected minority thereby giving them a legitimate status. Then why should the state refuse to give them the same legal recourse and benefits that a heterosexual couple enjoy? They are in fact classified as a minority based solely on their sexual preference.

Clearly in this case society has already acknowledged that while their sexual preference is not within the societal norms it is perfectly acceptable for them to function within the society without detriment and have legal recourse as a minority.


[edit on 8/6/2010 by Jovi1]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
It is not a risk I would accept - in the chance of producing a child with genetic deformities due to inbreeding.


I am glad you would not accept it, but you are saying you do not accept someone else choosing to do so and would be in favor of denying them that right, thereby denying them "equal protection".

Anyway, this will be my last post on this topic. Thanks for a civil, yet spirited debate!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


It was not political grandstanding. This was an issue that boiled down to three questions, that both sides would have to answer, for him to make his determination:
Whether any evidence supports California’s refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.
Whether any evidence shows California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
Whether the evidence shows Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest.

But there is one other thing that many people fail to realize about this entire court case and perhaps you can answer it:
You have fought to get a issue on the books of the law, and it is challenged in court. You know a court case is being called, would you not at least show up with your witnesses. The witnesses for those who are for Prop 8, both the governmental and proffessional witnesses, did not show up. Why is that? If it was that important to get on the books, then it should have been that important to show up in court, to defend it. After all, all of the other court cases I have read about, and the opinions, even during the Civil Rights Trials of the 1960's, both sides had witnesses lined up, and they showed up.
The right to marry is a right that is based in legal decision, and to deny a person the right to make that choice, of person, no matter of sex or race, will lead to a form of legalized discrimination, where the group being denied is stated to having equal rights under the law, but treated like a second class citizen, deprived of a fundamental right to be happy.


1.)"Whether any evidence supports California’s refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex"

What evidence? why does one even need evidence?

2.)"Whether any evidence shows California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions"

Once again why does this even matter? The judge should be ruling on whether it is LEGAL to do what california did not on whether it was morally or ethical to do so. This is what being a activist judge means. They are essentially legislating there personal opinions and ethics.

3.)"Whether the evidence shows Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest"

ONCE AGAIN WHAT DOES MORALITY HAVE TO DO WITH IT?! He should be only thinking this-"is it legal?" PERIOD. This whole ruling was a circus ring. He knew what he was gonna rule from the begining.

This judge legislated his morality. THERE IS NO DENYING THIS.

Which is just as hypocriticle. Because all you leftists while praising this ruling because YOU PERSONALLY AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE he is essentially doing just what you accussed right wing religious nutjobs of doing.

The gay mafia is real it seems.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jovi1
Slavery was a societal norm but it was by no means correct.

True, our view of slavery as unacceptable is the current standard, even though, I'm pretty sure, there exists a minority who would disagree. However, it was the norm for millenia. Times change, as do the boundaries of society.


Sometimes just because it is a societal norm doesn't make it healthy for the society. In my opinion this is one of those cases.

But what about the opinions of the 7,001,084 voters who thought same-sex marriage is not healthy for society?


...you can however be arrested tried and convicted of a hate crime for kicking the tar out of someone because they are gay.

Fortunately, the majority of society consider it unacceptable to kick the tar out of anybody, for any reason (other than self-defense). But, like you said, hate-crime legitamacy is a topic for another thread.


Then why should the state refuse to give them the same legal recourse and benefits that a heterosexual couple enjoy?

Personally, I am in agreement with some here who believe the "State" needs to get out of the marriage business, altogether. But, for the will of the people to be subverted, is unacceptable. We the People, are after all, the "goverment".


Clearly in this case society has already acknowledged that while their sexual preference is not within the societal norms it is perfectly acceptable for them to function within the society without detriment and have legal recourse as a minority.

True. However, in this case, society decided that, beyond the personal right to sexual preference, the establishment of a boundary was in the best interest of the society.

To reiterate my position on the issue of same-sex marriage, though, if the issue were put to the voters of Texas, I wouldn't mark yes or no.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


It is unconstitutional? How so? When did we give rights to sexual deviants?
Just look what we do to Pedophiles and Polygamists. If this is over-turned then those two groups have a case against the USA.

ooooOOO the pandora's box has opened!



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I love how people keep on bring up the jim crow laws and segregation. You see you can't hide your color of race, but you can hide who you sleep with. I believe race and gender is sufficient for the rights of freedom under the US constitution. I never knew the USA could protect sexual deviants. Now it seems pedophiles and polygamists have cases now against the USA.

ooooOOO wait forgot inbreeders as well. They can't make laws against them as well.

LOL

pandora's box has opened!

Carlin you were right. Welcome to America where you get front row seats to the freak show!




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
What I find most disheartening in this debate is that most objections to this decision seem to be based on SEX. Why are so many people infatuated with what others do in the privacy of their own homes? If you're obsessing about other peoples private bedroom antics, YOU are the sexual deviant.

Same sex marriage is already legal in several states, and despite these same arguments having been previously debated, the world is still spinning, the sky is still blue, heterosexual marriages are still intact, and there are many more happy people in the world.

Happy couples, regardless of orientation, are something to be celebrated, not feared.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
What I find most disheartening in this debate is that most objections to this decision seem to be based on SEX. Why are so many people infatuated with what others do in the privacy of their own homes? If you're obsessing about other peoples private bedroom antics, YOU are the sexual deviant.

Same sex marriage is already legal in several states, and despite these same arguments having been previously debated, the world is still spinning, the sky is still blue, heterosexual marriages are still intact, and there are many more happy people in the world.

Happy couples, regardless of orientation, are something to be celebrated, not feared.


I have problems with non-monogamy. It just so happens that the majority of gay men statistically are non-monogamous. Im perfectly happy with monogamous gay marriages. i object though to the LGBT community trying to redefine marriage to where fidelity and monogamy not being valued in marriage.

I dont want this whole gay marriage thing to blow up into some 1960s free love thing to further degrade our moral fiber and push us into the last stage of civilization death:decadence.

The hippies and the free lovers certainly did that for us in the 1960s. Im sorry but i value sex as something special. Maybe thats why i focus so much on that. Maybe you feel that sex is just some casual thing that can be shared with anything and anyone with no jealousy or hurt feelings. but i cant.

I dont have a problem with gay marriage if i KNEW for sure that this would not happen. say its fear or what ever you want. But im a firm believe in the slipper slope argument.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join