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.

 

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Sure I can!




Looks like you've been reading the wrong book for a while!
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN


Ignore for the moment if you will what the ruling was on, instead lets focus on the issue that steams me.

The people of CA Voted and a judge overturned the vote of the people. I am sure that no matter what way this went it would have been appealed anyway.

What scares me is what if we have a vote on lets say a senator and the judge steps in and rules for the person other than the democraticly elected one.

What then?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


If everybody voted in a slave law, a judge can overturn it because its unconstitutional. laws voted into place have to follow the rules of the constitution of the state and the nation, otherwise, what is it for?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic and this ruling is a great example on why you want to live in a Republic. There are a lot of times the majority is wrong, as has been pointed out in other posts here.


it is true we are a republic but did the people choice the judge? no. I’m a constitutionalist i belive the law was unconstitutional but doesent the people have the right to change the constitution by majority?

Im just asking questions i really dont know the awnsers to



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
This is absurd! How can a judge overturn a decision that the majority of people voted for in California. This is sad.....just sad.. Marriage is between a man and a women and that's that way it should always be.



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

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I am a christian Conservative.

So throw your stones.


Genesis 2:24-25 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Hebrew 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”




In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”


Sources


Now could someone explane to me one instance where homosexuality occurs in nature besides humans?




And this is why there is a seperation of church and state. The bible was not written for this age, only for the last one.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rbaker20
 


That's the way our government works. Study American law and how the Supreme court works. That would explain in better detail how this happened.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic and this ruling is a great example on why you want to live in a Republic. There are a lot of times the majority is wrong, as has been pointed out in other posts here.


it is true we are a republic but did the people choice the judge? no. I’m a constitutionalist i belive the law was unconstitutional but doesent the people have the right to change the constitution by majority?

Im just asking questions i really dont know the awnsers to


This ruling was not by an actual majority, say 70/30 but by a very close passing 53/47.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

Now could someone explane to me one instance where homosexuality occurs in nature besides humans?



Uh, scroll up, I have provided a link. Want more?

1500 animals practice homosexyality

The Natural "Crime Against Nature"

Book written by a PHD, order it and open your mind

Wiki

oh noes more wiki

how about national geographic?

Do I need to post more?

~Druidae



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The people certainly can get The Constitution changed if it can within the process that The Constitution gives to do so. They are called Amendments, and they are not something that is easy to accomplish by design. Could an anti-gay marriage amendment to The Constitution pass? Probably not.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
Well, it won't be long until an earthquake destroys most of California and then radical Christians can say it was God's wrath.

My take on the whole subject is this:

1.) I do not support gay marriage. I have two children and if they wanted to marry the same sex, I would not support it. I would still love them, I wouldn't abandon them... I just wouldn't support their marriage.


No need for you to support their marriage, but they should still be able to get married.

How does 2 people getting married you have never ever ever ever met affect your life personally?



2.) Why do you need the Government to recognize your marriage again? I'm currently married and I had to do it for immigration reasons... and only immigration reasons. It was the only way my wife could be legal. Other than that, if I were to get divorced and remarried... I wouldn't want the state to recognize my marriage... I would only want the church to do it.


Maybe they want to get married for immigration reasons. Just saying..


~Druidae



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
This type of event happened before. Where conservatives were trying to keep something the same that should not stay the same.

It happened back in the 1940's 50's and 60's. I believe it had something to do with Martin Luther King Jr.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jovi1
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The people certainly can get The Constitution changed if it can within the process that The Constitution gives to do so. They are called Amendments, and they are not something that is easy to accomplish by design. Could an anti-gay marriage amendment to The Constitution pass? Probably not.


You cannot amend the Constitution for that.. please take a con-law class. If you could, then they would be able to amend it to get rid of blacks, mexicans, indians, people who like velveta, people who eat tomatoes, people who drive KIA sports.. get my drift?

~Druidae



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jovi1
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The people certainly can get The Constitution changed if it can within the process that The Constitution gives to do so. They are called Amendments, and they are not something that is easy to accomplish by design. Could an anti-gay marriage amendment to The Constitution pass? Probably not.


Right. They can try - as they did.

But Majority can not deny equal rights to a minority.

That would be Mob Rule.

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

The issue was in defining marriage between a man and woman. However - religion and family values was ruled as not a legitimate basis for this argument.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Annee]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 

Fair is fair for everyone. I'm throwing NO stones. I don't play that way.

I don't care that you're a Christian Conservative or anything at all for that matter as long as you don't attempt to inflict your value judgments on or hurt or impinge on others' rights. Just as it's your right under the Constitution to be whatever you want to be and marry whoever you want to marry, it is theirs too.

Camaro just raised a GREAT point in another thread on this.

What if the mob in your state voted to take away your guns? I'm assuming you like your guns, of course.

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



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rbaker20
 

Marriage is for everyone, per the Constitution.

dictionary.reference.com...

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.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The Judge has Bias.


The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory.


Source

It has to be appealed. The judge has a horse in the race.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Gay people can't be unbiased or rule by the Constitution?

Why does this bother you so much? Because it clearly does.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Druidae
 


They most certainly can make it a part of The Constitution there is no limit set as to what they can and cannot amend it to. If Congress has the will and votes to pass it, and can get the States to ratify it it becomes the Constitution period. Is there a likelihood of such an event happening? No.

If your referring to the voters actually being able to do it themselves, of course not don't be a moron. But they do have a say as to who they put in office and by default do have a substantial influence on whether or not such a cause gets taken up. Did I simplify the process in my previous post? Yes, but any right thinking person should have known that by default. And you better believe that a certain party will probably use this decision to fuel the Gay Fear and use such a promise to get in office in many areas.

And the next time before you decide to tell me what to do, get over yourself.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Jovi1]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Same could be said if it was a straight judge and NOT overturned. "The judge has bias"...YOU have bias. Those LIKE YOU have bias. On top of that YOU do NOT have "a horse in this race", since this race AFFECTS NOT your rights, your religion or your life!



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I suppose the people who do not want gay marriage, and I am one of them should push for a change in the constituation to a total outright ban on gay marriage.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join