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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Marriage is a contract to produce children.


It is? I know of 2 families that are married that have no inclination to have kids.


If there are no children then marriage is not needed.


Are you saying that the marriage between people that do not want to have kids, or can't have kids, are less important than the herd?


Whats next? Cloning?


Wouldn't hurt the gene pool by judging from some of the responses here.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Are not all the laws regarding marriage discriminating against those that are single? Why should married persons get a tax break?

Marriage is a contract to produce children. Homosexual couples cannot do that. If there are no children then marriage is not needed. Homosexual couples with children are a strange creation, now being done with artificial insemination and surrogate mothers.

Whats next? Cloning?


Do we really have to bring all this into it? It really has nothing to do with the subject.

Marriage is a legal contract to protect property and rights of individuals who are joining 2 households as one. It has nothing to do with children.

As far as children go. Gays are not "equipment" deficient. They can reproduce.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
This ruling is so gay.


Gay people have always had the right to marry. They just wanted the special right to marry someone of the same sex.

No group should have special rights, everyone should be treated equal.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
No group should have special rights, everyone should be treated equal.


There you go. You nailed it. That's all the gays want, to be treated with equality.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


Marriage is one of those functions that is more than a contract to produce a child. This is one of the points where marriage is traditionally a religious idea that has been hijacked by the body politic. Traditionally a marriage ceremony takes place in a chapel, officiated by a religious official. Yet the government has seen fit to take over that which they should not have.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Are not all the laws regarding marriage discriminating against those that are single? Why should married persons get a tax break?


They do not get a tax break in most cases they get penalized on their taxes for having two incomes. Ever hear of the marriage penalty?



Marriage is a contract to produce children. Homosexual couples cannot do that. If there are no children then marriage is not needed.


If I recall correctly that nowhere in any of the vows I took did they include anything about having children whatsoever. I remember a great deal about how long I'd love my wife and under what conditions I was professing to do so, but not a single thing about having any children. None of the questions I had to answer to get our marriage license asked anything about making babies either come to think of it So I guess it really isn't a contract that has anything to do with having children now is it?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Just something for you guys and girls to chew on...

The Constitution 'Neither Knows nor Tolerates Classes among Citizens'.

~Druidae



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Carseller4
No group should have special rights, everyone should be treated equal.


There you go. You nailed it. That's all the gays want, to be treated with equality.


Name the law that prevented gay people from marrying in the first place. If you can't, then admit that this is special treatment. Fair enough?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


Which state are you referring to? You can find all 50 states and their laws here

# CALIFORNIA

Current law (until today): State law, passed by public referendum, bans same-sex marriage (In defiance of that law, San Francisco issued more than 3,200 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state high court is expected to rule on the validity of those marriages). The state will extend certain state-level marriage benefits to those on a domestic partners' registry starting Jan. 1, 2005.

# Legislation: Assembly Judiciary committee on April 20 became the first legislative body in America to approve a measure that would allow same-sex couples to wed, but the legislation has not been considered by full Assembly (AB 1967). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (AJR 67). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (AJR 67).

# Court action:State Supreme Court on August 12 nullified nearly 4,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in San Francisco in violation of state law. The high court is expected to hear a separate case that will decide on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage at a later date.

~Druidae

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Druidae]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Name the law that prevented gay people from marrying in the first place. If you can't, then admit that this is special treatment. Fair enough?


Well Prop 8............ for now.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Now I have a question.

The Judge that ruled in this case was Homosexual. His ruling would allow him to be married and thus could benifit financialy from his ruling.

Would this be an ethics violation?




Your answer is : NO



I have said all along, ever since this travesty of a "Proposition" was foisted upon the unfortunate public; The issue at hand, in reality, had Nothing to do with whether Gays should be allowed to marry one another.

The real issue, which almost no one seemed to recognize, was whether we, as a just and humane society, would allow the codification of certain members of our society to be deemed Less Than Equal Under the Law!


So, despite your effort to "spin" this courageous judge's ruling into some sort of self-serving act of weak ethics (and thereby nullify the ruling itself), in that the judge's finding was strictly based on the point of law, in which every citizen has a stake, the ruling was the very essence of ethical behaviour.


Let me re-state that for you:

The ruling was entirely Ethical. The judge was NOT ruling on the "legality of homosexual marriages". Therefore, the sexual orientation of the judge had/has no bearing on his ruling.

The judge was ruling on the constitutionality of an (ill-conceived) law that violated the constitutionally protected right of every citizen to Equal Protection Under the Law.


To make your question even remotely substansive, you would have to argue that since the judge was a citizen of the State, and since being a citizen might have some financial benefit, his ruling on the issue of whether all citizens should enjoy equal rights under the law, posed an ethical conflict.


But then you have to argue that NO judge would ever be ethically qualified to rule on Any legal matter involving the rights of citizens.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


You missed a part man. The influence of money from Utah(Mormans) that helped to swing this vote.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Carseller4
Name the law that prevented gay people from marrying in the first place. If you can't, then admit that this is special treatment. Fair enough?


Well Prop 8............ for now.


Sure Gay people could marry, they just had to marry someone of the opposite sex.

It is an argumentative point at best, and at worst purposeful distraction of the issue at hand.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
There is no real reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to legally marry. It's asinine, love shouldn't be regulated. I can understand if religious groups don't want to marry gay couples, and that is their right. But I think that other than that, there is no real reason why gay people shouldn't be able to get married.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


True, funding from the LDS helped the proponents of Proposition 8 wage their campaign...


But how does that fact have any bearing on whether the judge could, ethically, rule on whether the proposition violated the constitution?


The ruling did not consider, in any way, whether the proposition was legally presented within the initiative process; just whether the intent and effect of the proposition was allowed under the constitution.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


You missed a part man. The influence of money from Utah(Mormans) that helped to swing this vote.




What the Mormon powers did was shocking.

Previously Mormon hierarchy suggested to members they vote their conscience. They were never a major player in politics in my experience.

To me it shows how the Mormons are politically aligning themselves with the Christian right.

I need to point out - - many Mormons were outraged by this political move. There is more then one website of "mothers in support of gays".

Many Mormons chose to officially resign from the church. And some members chose to fight within their belief.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Gays will never be content, when they finally acheive their goal
they move on to the next. What will follow gay marriage? Well gay adoption seems the next likely cause. The idea of two men raising
a boy is quite disturbing to say the least!



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
Gays will never be content, when they finally acheive their goal
they move on to the next. What will follow gay marriage? Well gay adoption seems the next likely cause. The idea of two men raising
a boy is quite disturbing to say the least!


Your issues are yours.

You will never be content.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Carseller4
Name the law that prevented gay people from marrying in the first place. If you can't, then admit that this is special treatment. Fair enough?


Well Prop 8............ for now.


Prop 8 did not take away gay peoples right to marry. They always had that right. Prop 8 was enacted to deny a special right. To overturn it gives gay people the special rights they were after.

I guess gay people are special and deserve to be treated differently from everyone else?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 


Yeah because it is so much better for kids to be raised by the states wage slaves that have no personal interest in them.







 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join