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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Actually, it does affect me and what my children are taught in school.


Seriously, this is a free country. If you don't want the views of the modern era taught to your kids, you always have the option of home schooling or going to a private Christian school.

This little speech comes to mind:



America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

by Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepherd in the Bob Reiner film The American President




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


See, that may be happening but I have to question 1.) whether it's happening to the level you perceive and 2.) why it's happening.

It's a chicken egg thing. A cause-and-affect thing.

The more it's all thrown "out there" the more invasive it gets.

Gays developed an agenda, as you put it, not to "convert your kids" or "subvert traditional concepts of marriage."

Their rights were being violated and they had to fight for them. The more they did this, the more attention they drew and the more people felt entitled to judge and perceive some sort of threats. Some got it, but more for some reason got fearful or hateful or thought it in some way affected them...just because it was out there. It was in your face, so you had to deal with it. Sometimes fighting for rights is a double-edged sword. You have attract attention to bring awareness but in attracting that attention there is always the risk that some subportion of those whose attention you attract will be negative. And so it propagates the hate as you're trying to make strides in attaining your rights.

Also, these fears and negative perceptions were helped along by those with extremist political agendas on both sides. On one side to divide and on the other side to counter that. I'll let you decide which is which. It became a self-feeding frenzy.

If we simply acknowledge their rights, or had done so to begin with, most of the things you "fear" will probably go away. Calling any kind of attention to it, whether good intentioned or bad, from whichever ;side" is just going to propagate this war. We have enough wars. Let's just let people live. There's no real threat here.

Oh, and this concept also applies to any kind of bigotry or racism, and all sorts of intolerance. Trying to "fight" it makes it worse.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]
First, I didn't just say there was a "gay" agenda, all sorts of groups have agendas. But, this one does affect me, and my childrens education. It's not how I percieve it, it's fact. I fail to see where their rights were violated, they are entitled to marry......just not the same sex. Thinking that everyone is out to judge them is an open ended discussion....they judge those against it, just as those against it judge those for it. As far as the "fear" factor......that's way over used. I don't like baseball, I don't fear it, I just don't like it, I don't like country music, I don't "fear" it, Again, I just don't like it. I think gay marriage is wrong, for many reasons, I don't "fear" it, I just don't approve of it. Seems to me, as a side note, that with California being one of the most, if not the most liberal states in the country, if it has passed twice......this may be more than conservative right wingers disapproving.......as you couldn't get a conservative majority anything in that state. This was the will of the people, not conservatives, but the people.

Edited to add, I am not a Christian, so the Christian school is out of the question. Sorry, it's not the modern era education that worries me, it's the deliberate pushing of the homosexual agenda that does.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by adifferentbreed]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
If an item is not covered in the Constitution, it's either up to the individual state to pass a law on how to handle it, or the federal govt can make an amendment.

It's the opposite of unconstitutional for what California has done. They voted as a state on how to handle something not specifically addressed in the Constitution.

What's unconstitutional is for a random judge somewhere to start passing new laws from his seat. That's getting out of control and needs addressed ASAP.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 

I think you missed my entire point. Sorry for not being clear.

Pardon me for assuming that in a thread on about gay marriage I was not allowed to attempt to make a point about agendas in general, referring in one specific case to it. To be honest, I didn't even notice that you used the word agenda when I wrote that. And I did mean gay agenda in my attempt at an explanation of how I see this whole mess.

As for your kids? My kid was exposed to some of what you mention as well. It's all in how you talk about it and that you talk about it with them. We have no issues at this homestead. But that's us.

I see and understand people are different in how they see and handle things like this. My concern is when it perpetuates hate and bigotry against people who don't deserve it.

We're not going to agree here. Peace.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Agreed, we aren't going to agree, however, thank you for being polite. all too often these turn into name calling flame wars that do nothing. Perhaps, one day, people will realize that not agreeing with something doesn't automatically involve hatred, but rather something entirely different. Again, thanks for the debate.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


First off, the "they want special rights" argument is bogus. This argument say they want the "special right to marry someone of their same gender". I say they want the same right hetero's have to marry someone they love.

Seriously, why are interracial marriages ok, but gay marriages not? After all, "black just want special rights to marry someone of a differant race", right? They already had the right to marry someone of the same race.

The argument is bogus and nothing but a strawman, especially since marriage is about tax breaks and (purportedly) love and not about gender.

As for your childrens' education, what are you afraid they will be taught? That homosexuality is normal and natural and not really the business of anyone but them and the one they love?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Agreed, we aren't going to agree, however, thank you for being polite. all too often these turn into name calling flame wars that do nothing. Perhaps, one day, people will realize that not agreeing with something doesn't automatically involve hatred, but rather something entirely different. Again, thanks for the debate.


I also suffer no illusions that we will come to agreement on this. That's really not the point.
It's about having an intelligent (and rational) conversation about the subject. So far, while I do not agree with some of your rhetoric, I am impressed by your manner of delivery.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Why is it necessary to teach elementary school children about sexuality at all? Hmmmm, seems maybe that does stem from a certain groups agenda. As far as "special" rights being a straw man, well, we all have our own opinions. Homosexuality, is only natural and normal if you agree with it, many don't, therefore the opposite could actually be argued.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 

What the right that is violated ultimately is the right to marry who they so choose, and that affects more people than you can every think about. It is not equal under the law. This is the basic premise of equal treatment under the law, that means that if a man wants to marry another man, then they should be allowed to, the same can be said about a woman marrying another woman. There is another aspect of this entire issue that by not letting gay people marry, that does right now affect you, and it hits you right in your pocket book. You see, if you allow gay people to marry, having the same rights under the law as straight people, then they would have to accept the same laws and rules. So that means that if one gay man is on disability and marries someone who is not, care to guess what the end result is? The one who is on disability is taken off the roles and looses those bennifits that we all have to pay for. So there is the economic aspect of this entire law that many people do not see. And what about the money it would generate? Weddings are not cheap, and that would bring in much needed money into the economy, helping it out, putting more people back to work. It is estimated that it could be billions of dollars that flow into the economy right there. So here is the point that I have always viewed such as, if you want the taxes of a gay person, they you should have the common courtesy to let them have the full bennifits of the law, to include marrying who they so desire, even that of the same sex, or would you have them as a second class citizen?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Why is it necessary to teach elementary school children about sexuality at all?


I actually agree here. I didn't go through Sex Ed until my freshman year and I turned out fine.. well, by my standards.


Besides, kids get more sex ed from their peers than they ever get from the teachers.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Kind of a side bar here, and certainly not a criticism of you specifically.. It seems interesting that most of the time, when people talk about gay marriage, they are only thinking about gay men. It seems women can't even get a leg up (no pun intended) in the gay rights discussion.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Again, it's not making them a second class citizen. If this truely does elevate heterosexuals above homosexuals, then does it also not elevate heterosexuals above people who practice polyamorous lifestyles? I'm not even going to go to the ridiculous, marrying animals etc things others do. I'm simply askiing, at what point is everyone equal. I also think the biggest damage done, on both sides, for and against, has been done by the media as well as the sides themselves. I don't think anyone can have a rational perception of either side when the only ones people are generally aware of are the extremeists from both sides. As far as money and taxes generated from monies spent, can that not be achieved through a civil union?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Again, it's not making them a second class citizen. If this truely does elevate heterosexuals above homosexuals, then does it also not elevate heterosexuals above people who practice polyamorous lifestyles?


I actually *am* polyamorous -- in an active poly relationship -- and am ademantly opposed to marriage as a whole (I explained this a couple of pages back... page 8, I think), so I agree with ya to a point.. I just think it should be one rule for all. No government recognition of marriage at all -- only civil unions.

Of course, politics is perception, so this would turn into a "get your government hands off my marriage" argument.
Funny how all of this revolves around a single word. Civil Unions are supposed to be some form of seperate but equal thing and that's ok for many critics?

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
whats the point of voting as a state when one person can over turn it? Unconstitutional or not im speeking in the mannor of the voice of a state vs the voice of one judge.


The prop8 controversy is mostly not because CA voted, but that the Mormons "added" many voice and instigated "dis-information campaigns" prior to the vote. Additionally, so it is charged, many Mormon "dual-residents" Utah & CA voted in the process.

The entire threads on this matter from back then, (Nov-2008) - can be read up on :
groups.google.com...

Naturally some of the threads are quite hateful and ignorant while quite plenty of posters reply with dignity as well with good links to actual news sources.

As a NON-US citizen, I do understand the US Constitution however as the ultimate LAW. As such any action, vote or like wise that violates the constitution can and shall be overturned by the SC. An ill informed populace that votes on a morality issue on personal choices should not be considered a "vote of the people" rather should be seen as a vote of a hysteric few.

Guenter



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:23 AM
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?

Grasping at straws are we? If we go by that concept then only male judges will be allowed ruling on all female related matters not female judges, only black judges will be allowed to make ruling in cases concerning white and white judges in cases of black criminal cases. atheist judges will be making ruling[...]you know how the rest of it goes.


So as stated in my previous post by this judge being Homosexual will end up nullifing the ruling and requiring an appeal as well as the judge facing ethics charges.


Well, apparently many straight people have a "personal stake" in this too, from how asspained they are at it, so I doubt a straight judge would rule any more "rationally", since straight people seem to think that this will ruin their lives.

PS: I am straight but not asspained over the ruling...feels good man


[edit on 5-8-2010 by name pending]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Now i know the judge is not making laws but he is changing them or over turning them with out a legislative assembly. is a judge at this point a dictator with the power to over turn the voice of the people?

regardless of the ruling or law we are talking about.


FYI: As far as I understand the US legal system, the USA is a representative REPUBLIC. This means that the CONSTITUTION is the final word on all wishes and desire of the people. In many European countries, especially in Austria, - (country of my origin) - there are besides the different courts also a "Constitutional Court". This courts only purpose is to check every law that is proposed in parliament, voted via a referendum etc for its validity or violation of the constitution. Such courts are in place to avoid that a hysterical mob can vote and over-turn civil rights and liberties.

A bit OT but still in line with the Prop8 issue:

For Example: Many western journalists blast Russia always for limited freedom of religion. However IF one cares to read up the Russian constitution it is clearly stated that: (Loosely quoted) - Freedom for ALL religions is constitutionally guaranteed "as long" these religions do NOT preach or disseminate a message that is harmful and destructive to the general well-being and interests of the country! With this definition of what IS a religion in their understanding, the Russians therefore do have "freedom of religion" as "They" understand it, contrary to what western journalists like to bitch.

On the same line, Most countries of the EU also have similar definitions: For them a religion is to be "ancient" Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. It has to have a "Holy Center", Vatican, Mekka, Jerusalem etc. And it has to have a "head of church", meaning some sort of a pope or some council of elders and so forth. So for the EU, a Lutheran protestant is considered a Christian and a religion, while a "southern baptist" is considered a sect.

Since the US constitution insists on the "pursuit of happiness" then prop8 was for sure a violation of this very core of principles on freedom.

Guenter



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


No problem. Fundamentally, we probably agree on more that we disagree on. Just different ways of looking at what's happening and why and different focus on the causes and effects and the way to stop the insanity. Thanks to you too.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

yes its 5-4 conservative to lib ratio right now and i dont belive in gay marriage but i do belive the law is unconstitutional. what im trying to say is when the majority of the people want to change law should they have the power to do so?



[edit on 4-8-2010 by camaro68ss]


No. Democracy affords a majority rule only as long as minorty rights are protected and preserved. Absent protection of and affording equal rights to minorities, democracy does not survive.

At some time in some way each of us is or will be a minority...and that status should never deprive us of the equal rights of the majority.

Gays marrying does not infringe on the rights of the majority, nor does it damage the institution of marriage...cheating on your wife with some woman from Brazil, or trying to pick up men in an airport bathroom damage the institution of marriage.

Think about the oft quoted poem..."first they came for..."

From a constitutional perspective...banning gay marriage has no legs and never did. The SCOTUS will see it that way and the fringe conservatives will try to exploit the issue as "trampelling on states rights" to stir up emotions and mobilize votes...and the circus will continue.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
Gays will never be content, ..... The idea of two men raising
a boy is quite disturbing to say the least!


If all arguments fail then bring out the "Pedophilia Scare" -

How nice!

Guenter



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


The civil union is a joke, and that is still putting the normal hetrosexual marriage above that of a civil union, as a civil union does not grant the same rights as a marriage. A same sex couple who does go through a civil union, has to jump through twice as many hoops to get the same sort of rights that marriage would automatically grant, and some of the bennifits that would go along with a marriage, does not get passed along in a civil union. In a marriage, a husband and wife have the right, to make decisions for the other when the other is incapicitate. There is no need for an extra form, but in a civil union, there are several forms that have to be filled out and on file before such can be done. And what about death bennifits? If in a hetrosexual marriage, either person dies, the surviving partner has a lot less trouble of having everything if there is no will, where if a gay couple in a civil union, if one of the 2 were to die and there is no will, the surviving person is just out of luck and loses everything. A hetrosexual couple do enjoy tax bennifits and a gay civil union does not recieve that under the law. So as you can see it already has the law to put those who are homosexual to be a second class citizens under the eyes of the law, yet they are expected to pay full taxes and not recieve the full rights of being a citizen.




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join