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: CA same-sex marriages start Wednesday

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Judge lifts his earlier stay on same-sex marriages

A federal judge ruled on Thursday to allow same-sex couples to marry in California, starting on August 18, handing another big victory to supporters of gay rights in a case that both sides say will likely end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last week, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Walker had issued a temporary stay on his decision, which on Thursday he said he would lift.

The high-profile case is being watched closely by supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.


I've said from the beginning that Proposition 8 was a HUGE mistake for the "Defense of Marriage" people. They could wind up scoring a major own-goal if the Supreme Court eventually rules that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.



[edit on 8/12/10 by mothershipzeta]




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
wow. well good for them. let people love on who they want to. let the freedom rain



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior
wow. well good for them. let people love on who they want to. let the freedom rain


agreed. and my band is totally available to play any lipstick lesbian wedding receptions.....



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Well, no surprise there.....I'd have expected no less. Funny how one person with an agenda can over run the majority for a few special rights.......hopefully the Supreme court does the right thing and upholds prop 8 and then California can move on to more important things, and all of this equaity nonsense can be put to rest. Special rights are not equal rights....just another attempt at furthering an agenda that will never be accepted.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by adifferentbreed]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta


I've said from the beginning that Proposition 8 was a HUGE mistake for the "Defense of Marriage" people. They could wind up scoring a major own-goal if the Supreme Court eventually rules that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.



Yes. Sometimes I think this was allowed to happen just the way it did.

Like the whole thing was allowed to go through all this processing - - so when the final decision of Equal Rights is made - - there will be no question.

It also sets up a precedence that "belief" can not deny equality or protection of rights.

When other states begin their process - - they will have this legal precedence.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Well, no surprise there.....I'd have expected no less. Funny how one person with an agenda can over run the majority for a few special rights.......hopefully the Supreme court does the right thing and upholds prop 8 and then California can move on to more important things, and all of this equaity nonsense can be put to rest. Special rights are not equal rights....just another attempt at furthering an agenda that will never be accepted.


Please explain how someone is asking for "special rights." I keep hearing that term, yet no one says what they mean by it. They want to be treated equally. That's not "special."

Marriage is a civil contract that the state allows religious institutions to sign off on if the couple so chooses. To deny same-sex couples the same right to sign that legal civil contract is flat-out discrimination. You can say marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, sure...but so was denying interracial marriage.

If the only objection someone can give to an issue is a religious objection, then they've lost the argument. Religion has no place in American jurisprudence or government. There are plenty of theocratic regimes around the world for you to choose from if this is a problem for you.

And I'm sorry, but their "agenda" is already quite accepted. And as the younger generation grows up, it will be even MORE accepted. Once all of us older people die off, homophobia and racism will be even more marginalized than it is now. Too bad we won't get to see the day...but it's already getting better.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Voting sure does make a difference.
The people vote it this way. A Judge rules it the other way. Redundant insanity.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Voting sure does make a difference.
The people vote it this way. A Judge rules it the other way. Redundant insanity.




Try re-reading any thread on this subject and you will find the correct answer to your ignorant statement.

Majority does not rule over a minority in a Democratic Republic.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

If the only objection someone can give to an issue is a religious objection, then they've lost the argument. Religion has no place in American jurisprudence or government. There are plenty of theocratic regimes around the world for you to choose from if this is a problem for you.


. . . and that is what the judge said: "they had/have no secular argument"

You can not deny Equal Rights based on religious belief.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it aim on small group of populations. It's considering as discrimination. They stated that marriage should be for everyone without any define requirement.

Therefore, Polygamy ban is unconstitutional as well because it was targeted toward Mormonism during 1880's and they were minority as well as Gay and Lesbian. Also, polygamy ban has been around for 130 years and Prop 8 only last two years. There's something wrong with this picture.

Bottom line, we shouldn't define anything regarding to rights of marriage if we think that majority voters shouldn't determine how marriage should be define as. I think it's fair to overthrown Polygamy ban as well. If not, then you are hypocrite.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aslpride

Therefore, Polygamy ban is unconstitutional as well because it was targeted toward Mormonism during 1880's and they were minority as well as Gay and Lesbian. Also, polygamy ban has been around for 130 years and Prop 8 only last two years. There's something wrong with this picture.

Bottom line, we shouldn't define anything regarding to rights of marriage if we think that majority voters shouldn't determine how marriage should be define as. I think it's fair to overthrown Polygamy ban as well. If not, then you are hypocrite.


Oh - I'm sure the multiple marriage right fights will be coming up in the future.

However - - that is a far bigger issue then just extending marriage rights to gays. Because marriage is still two people.

Multiple marriage affects - laws - taxes - rights - etc. Much much more complicated.

But I agree - - it should be legal. CONSENTING ADULTS ONLY



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aslpride

Therefore, Polygamy ban is unconstitutional as well because it was targeted toward Mormonism during 1880's and they were minority as well as Gay and Lesbian. Also, polygamy ban has been around for 130 years and Prop 8 only last two years. There's something wrong with this picture.

Bottom line, we shouldn't define anything regarding to rights of marriage if we think that majority voters shouldn't determine how marriage should be define as. I think it's fair to overthrown Polygamy ban as well. If not, then you are hypocrite.


Oh - I'm sure the multiple marriage right fights will be coming up in the future.

However - - that is a far bigger issue then just extending marriage rights to gays. Because marriage is still two people.

Multiple marriage affects - laws - taxes - rights - etc. Much much more complicated.

But I agree - - it should be legal. CONSENTING ADULTS ONLY


I agree that adult only as to give kids a chance to understand the world before making a determine when they turn to adult. However, complicated in polygamy is true as it's greater responsible to have more than one partner, but laws already existed that can be applied to polygamy. For example: divorce grant 50/50 split in everything unless proof of ownership, etc. That will applied to polygamy, but it will not be 50/50 split. It will be like 33/33/33 split on three partners, 25/25/25/25 split on four partners and forth. It's judge's headache not ours.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by randyvs

Voting sure does make a difference.
The people vote it this way. A Judge rules it the other way. Redundant insanity.




Try re-reading any thread on this subject and you will find the correct answer to your ignorant statement.

Majority does not rule over a minority in a Democratic Republic.



That's scary concept. Current 1 percent of US population have more money than 95 percent of US population in total. Based on that concept 1 percent of US population have rights to decide what's best for themselves regarding we know they are doing wrong, but they have that rights. With money power, they can running over us just because of that concept.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aslpride
That's scary concept. Current 1 percent of US population have more money than 95 percent of US population in total. Based on that concept 1 percent of US population have rights to decide what's best for themselves regarding we know they are doing wrong, but they have that rights. With money power, they can running over us just because of that concept.


What concept?

I'm not sure I understand your point.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aslpride
That's scary concept. Current 1 percent of US population have more money than 95 percent of US population in total. Based on that concept 1 percent of US population have rights to decide what's best for themselves regarding we know they are doing wrong, but they have that rights. With money power, they can running over us just because of that concept.


What concept?

I'm not sure I understand your point.


You mention that Majority voters rule minority is not republic democracy. That's concept will influence the minority who are wealth will think that they can overthrown our vote rights because it's unconstitutional and they can determine how to run the America despite our votes against the wealth minority.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aslpride

You mention that Majority voters rule minority is not republic democracy. That's concept will influence the minority who are wealth will think that they can overthrown our vote rights because it's unconstitutional and they can determine how to run the America despite our votes against the wealth minority.


No - that's not it. But that's an interesting way of looking at it.

Majority can not rule over a minority in Equal Rights.

Even though Prop8 won by a very small percentage - - - it can not win - because it denies rights to a minority group.

Prop8 can not prove its case that it is being harmed by gays getting married.

There only position is religious based belief. You can not deny rights because of a religious belief.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
If things go the way they did in Canada, Husband and Wife are gone as legal definitions. Too gender specific. Spouse and Spouse fit much better.
And folk who perform marriage will be forced by law to perform or quit, regardless of religious of personal belief.
But it is odd. After four or five years of legal gay marriage in Canada, I have yet to hear of an Iman being forced to marry gay Muslims.
Maybe California can lead the way.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by SimplyGord]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aslpride
Bottom line, we shouldn't define anything regarding to rights of marriage if we think that majority voters shouldn't determine how marriage should be define as. I think it's fair to overthrown Polygamy ban as well. If not, then you are hypocrite.


Totally different ball game there. If polygamists want to fight to have polygamy legalized it is totally on them to do so. This reversal of the ban on gay marriage was a little easier to fight for since they are just fighting for thier rights to be equal to heterosexual couples. Really just a no brainer that should have happened quite some time ago.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimplyGord

And folk who perform marriage will be forced by law to perform or quit, regardless of religious of personal belief.


NO - only if you get married at city hall. Or by a Justice of the Peace. If they are government officials - they are bound by law.

No church will be required to marry gays.

Which doesn't really matter - - because there are plenty of churches who are supporters of gay marriage.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


How is it known that no church will be required to perform gay marriage? Has it been tested in court or written into California law? If a Catholic JOP is forced to do the marriage why not a Catholic priest?
In Canada churches receive tax breaks. This is what the gay activists preyed on: Publicly funded / do public duty.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join