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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Yay!! This is wonderful.

OP, you should be sure to include a link and external source tags if you are quoting another source.

Anyway, I'm surprised they even let this go to ballot without first determining it's constitutionality. It is quite ridiculous to think about.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kyred
 


Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family


A CIVIL UNION is what you are Describing , not Marriage .



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 

We're a constitutional republic. Part of what that means is we don't get to vote on things that are unconstitutional, and if we want to change the Constitution, we have to follow some pretty strict processes. There are other issues at play here, like states rights, but those don't trump the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 

I can marry my two shoe laces.

Pure semantics and only one of the definitions.


mar·riage
   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6.
a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7.
a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8.
Cards . a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9.
a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10.
Obsolete . the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.


dictionary.reference.com...

[edit on 8/4/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


That's funny. Me, my husband and my 4 children are certainly "maintaining a family".

I would not call us "Civil Union-ed" though...clearly it's married by your definition.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Marriage is a Union between two seperate sexes, Period . Semantics be Damned !



Semantics destroyed this Poor Boys Bike ! Are you Happy with that ? ..........



i297.photobucket.com...

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Zanti Misfit]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by camaro68ss
 

We're a constitutional republic. Part of what that means is we don't get to vote on things that are unconstitutional, and if we want to change the Constitution, we have to follow some pretty strict processes. There are other issues at play here, like states rights, but those don't trump the Constitution.


lol i guess im just bending rules for my own gains. lol just needed to step back and think.

If the mob ruled to take my guns away and the judge ruled it was unconstitutional i would be happy



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
oops...i got losteded. lol

[edit on 8/4/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


It is about more than "the pursuit of happiness". It is also the part about "equal protection under the law". If the state of California is going to recognize heterosexual marriage and give them certain benefits, then they have to do the same for homosexuals as long as they are consenting adults just like it goes for heterosexuals.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Exactly!

Fair is fair for everyone. Funny how that works out if you let it be easy. I think we overcomplicate everything these days. Americans probably still on agree on a lot of things, no matter what the extremists on either side want us to believe when they're recruiting us for their little wars while the big wars rage on unchecked.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


I'm sorry I accidentally starred your comment on the dictator before realizign you went totally south with it. I withdraw that star in spirit. Listen, nothing an elected person can do is law, statutes and legistlation is not law. It is not = law. Often what they try to put in is criminal, abuse of citizens, crimes against humanity and this one most definitely is that, it is partisan interests, fascism to decide who should marry and is not separation of state and church. This kind of legal law is akin to sharia in that way. The dictators made a pseudo bill, and now the courts, who are upholding law, and who sometimes do a lousy job of it, so you often have to refire the cannon until people win, not dictators, are the watchdogs on the system.

But you went south when you said the courts were the fascists instead of the ones who passed it, and no they're representing who they elect. Your vote means nothing to them.

Now I don't believe in any system on this planet and renoucne them all and many laws, and regulations, but.....in the current system, this court system is the chance people have to stop the crooked dictators elected but working on behalf of private interests and fascism.

Freedom, from oppression, is every ones right, and gays have the same rights everyone else has. Its not up to you, or 90% of the voters to bee criminal and select any group to deny freedom and equality too. For that is a crime.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


That is a great statement, but of course the question is "why".

It was not that long ago when people with certain percentages of non-white blood were considered "less than whole persons". The argument/statement "this is what it is" may make you feel good. It does, however nothing to advance any argument what so ever.

With all of the bluster about this issue it would be great to hear one argument as to how society is harmed by permitting gay marriage.

It is quite easy to articulate how society is harmed by denying a group of citizens equal protection under the law, but how does gay marriage hurt the society?

How does it hurt you and why do you care?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I’m not suggesting the judge is or was a dictator I was just getting people’s minds working. The people vs one judge. Regardless of the topic. I really don’t have an opinion just asking questions



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


I was going to use that exact example of people voting to take guns away. What gets me is that this Proposition was even brought to a vote without first going through channels to see if it was constitutional or not.

The judge is not "just" overturning a law on a whim. From whitehouse.gov


Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases.


So while the judge deemed it unconstitutional that does not make it law that gays are allowed to marry. It makes it unconstitutional to pass a law making gay marriage illegal. A lot of people like to say that judges "legislate from the bench" because they mistakenly think that if the rule against a law it means that it is now legal to do the opposite. This is not the case. It just means that it would be completely futile for any state to try and pass a similar law that the court just deemed unconstitutional. It does not mean, in this case, that they have to now recognize gay marriage.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


Who says marriage is between a man and a woman? You? People who agree with you? It doesn't matter because the state should not get to decide what marriage is and isn't. Anyone can get married in spirit. Once the state decides to recognize marriage under the law and extend certain benefits to married couples, they cannot then say who is allowed to marry and who is not other than consenting adults.

Aside from the state trying to define marriage, why do you define it as you do?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


I was going to use that exact example of people voting to take guns away. What gets me is that this Proposition was even brought to a vote without first going through channels to see if it was constitutional or not.

The judge is not "just" overturning a law on a whim. From whitehouse.gov


Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases.


So while the judge deemed it unconstitutional that does not make it law that gays are allowed to marry. It makes it unconstitutional to pass a law making gay marriage illegal. A lot of people like to say that judges "legislate from the bench" because they mistakenly think that if the rule against a law it means that it is now legal to do the opposite. This is not the case. It just means that it would be completely futile for any state to try and pass a similar law that the court just deemed unconstitutional. It does not mean, in this case, that they have to now recognize gay marriage.



thanks for braking it down



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


No problem. Thanks for being open minded and encouraging debate.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 

No it's not. That's YOUR definition. And you stopped too soon with your dictionary post too.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


Dearest Zanit Misfit...I'm sure this comes as a shock to you, but one of the purposes of the constitution is to protect the rights of the minority, not the other way around. You are exactly the type of person minorities need to be protected from.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Crimson_King]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Yes!! Victory for human rights!!

I am so glad there was a Judge in California that abides by the constitution, and we need more Judge's like this, for all of the ignorant, ill informed, uneducated voters out there who just want to push their unconstitutional agenda down law abiding tax paying people's throats.

It does not matter if the VOTERS voted this, if a Judge rules it unconstitutional, what is the outcry? That ignorant uneducated people's votes might be counted, regardless of lawfullness or constitutionality of their whim?

Good for California!!




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join