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.

 

GOP to widen scope of proposed same-sex marriage ban

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Nice
Source

House Republicans will introduce legislation this week to begin the process to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships


Cant have any of them gays being in a civil union or partnership now, can we...


The resolution says: "Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state."

As God intended for America!


The 2009 Iowa Supreme Court ruling found that a state law defining marriage as between a man and woman was unconstitutional because it treated same-sex couples differently from male-female couples. That violated the Iowa Constitution's stipulations of due process and equal treatment, the ruling found.


The unanimous, 69-page decision said religious institutions maintained the right to decide who can be married with their blessing. But the ruling also said that "the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective."

When will these judges learn that it is only unconstitutional if it hammers liberal desires, not conservatives.
What good are these judges if they are going to use the constitution verses the law of god?!


"The ACLU now recognizes the explicit anti-gay agenda behind the so-called marriage amendment movement by going beyond marriage to civil unions," Stone said. "This is quite clearly and quite simply an anti-gay measure. The ACLU of Iowa and its allies will fight it."


There the ACLU goes again, trying to get all people on equal ground in the governments eye.

So, when can we go all kenyan on them and simply propose imprisonment or execution for being gay..do we really have to do these tiny steps towards it? Lets get to the lynchin! Yee-haw!



(btw, the news is real, but I used sarcasm. I find these political neocon nuts to be a disease on society and hopefully will be shown the door in the next election for being anti-american scumbags)

Full Disclosure: I am not gay, and am in fact face to face a bit homophobic(not strongly, just uncomfortable seeing public affection by men..women..well, thats a different story), but I believe everyone has equal rights.

I also do not like anchovi's..but anyone whom have taste buds that give a pleasing experience on eating the horrid rotten fish should have the opportunity to put it on their pizza...even though its gross in my mind.

God did not intend for pizza to be made a specific way...or for gays not to be married if they desired. If you believe otherwise, I am fully open to that, however before you state that, please prove beyond a shadow of a doubt a deity exists...then you can prove (using proof..solid, measurable, peer reviewed evidence) that he don't want them gays getting married.

Homophobia in politics is ghey.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
What else do you expect from the GOP?

Living in their 1950's platonic America.

This whole anti gay, or pro marriage debate is complete nonsense. I'm so sick of debating and discussing the problem with people. It's beyond me why this is still an issue.

Ask a group of 20 year olds what they think about gay marriage and they'll ask you how we ever allowed that sort of thing to not occur.

~Keeper
edit on 1/20/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
What else do you expect from the GOP?

Living in their 1950's platonic America.

~Keeper


the GOP...fiscal conservatives that want to stay out of peoples rights, freedoms, and persuit of happiness...

unless they are doing something gay, then its time to make laws.

and about as fiscally conservative as a drunken gambler



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
More nonsense.

Why can't people see past this crap and boot government out of personal relationships altogether? Instead they get uppity when one set of morons harps on about regulating half of a thing and the best they can do is to to counter is demand government regulates everybodys personal relationships.

Fools. Keep fighting for slavery.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The stuff the American government wastes its time on, is absolutely mind boggling.

I guess the next thing is they`ll want to go into the homes to make sure that if 2 people happen to be living together, they better be of the opposite sex.

What a nutty government.....



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Whats even crazier...is Senator Frisk (R-FL), is now putting up a bill for legislation, that not only defines marriage as the union between 1 man and 1 woman, but to protect said marriage from the "sharp teeth and dorsal fins from SHARKS". (IE::: Shark is the new term being used to describe homosexuals, just to throw "the stupid american" off track so the bill call be passed.)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
To me, Marriage is decided by the church of choice...and should be seen as a valid civil union.
Civil unions should be a simple coupling of two people. there should be no preferencial treatment for one form of union over another...thats for churches to do.
If you find a church that will marry same sex couples...that should be valid
If there is a church of batman that offers same sex bat marriage, fair enough.

Marriage itself should not be weighed in on, as it is a religious ceremony (government should not establish a religion, nor give a specific religion benefits over others). Religion should not be legislated.

Morality should not be leglated either unless it is literally harming someone else against their will (and no, mental anguish for seeing two supermodels smooching in public is not valid)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





Why can't people see past this crap and boot government out of personal relationships altogether?


Yep. Instead of adding gay marriage to the definition of legal marriage, maybe we should take the opposite route, and abolish the whole marriage laws thing altogether. But that would mean politicians would need to find something else to gain cheap votes with than this non-issue.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mizbeach40
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Whats even crazier...is Senator Frisk (R-FL), is now putting up a bill for legislation, that not only defines marriage as the union between 1 man and 1 woman, but to protect said marriage from the "sharp teeth and dorsal fins from SHARKS". (IE::: Shark is the new term being used to describe homosexuals, just to throw "the stupid american" off track so the bill call be passed.)


Uh, Frisk is not a Florida senator.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The State as about as much business being involved in marriage as it does being involved in education.

You shall reap what you sow statists.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Reply to post by Maslo
 


Don't worry yourself too much about those poor politicians. They'll find another non-issue to parade around and divide the sheep into warring pastures with.

They're all too happy to oblige the moron mass.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Simply ridiculous. I am shocked that such a mind set exists. Yet, some how, I am not all that shocked.

Good luck making it illegal for gay people to simply live together.

I think the people pushing for this are playing their hand and showing the cards that they are working with... Imagine that.... I've never seen a deck come with all jokers before.

True colors are showing here. The people that support a ban of civil unions truly have some issues they need to work out and can no longer hide behind the marriage is for men and women thing.

Gee... You think they will make sorority and fraternity houses illegal? Houses full of people of the same sex living together... Hmm... Some how I doubt they care about that... Just as long as you are not gay....

Screwed up world.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
...i realize this is another attempt at discriminating against homosexual couples - but - banning civil unions and domestic partnerships would also affect heterosexual couples... how are the bigots getting around that or are they?...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There's a good reason to involve government in education; there's simply no other way to ensure that the population as a whole is at least moderately educated - a situation that is in the benefit of everyone. Except perhaps oligarchs and wannabe oligarchs who want a servile and uneducated caste,

Marriage is a whole 'nother matter, however.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There's a good reason to involve government in education; there's simply no other way to ensure that the population as a whole is at least moderately educated - a situation that is in the benefit of everyone. Except perhaps oligarchs and wannabe oligarchs who want a servile and uneducated caste,

Marriage is a whole 'nother matter, however.


There is no more reason to involve government in education than there is to involve government in the production of shoes.

Everyone needs shoes even more than they need an education.

Using violence to fund the education of people results in a moronic mass of plebes that think government should be involved in things like marriage.

Oh by the way - those sky rocketing college tuition costs? That's what happens when you give unlimited interest free loans to students.



edit on 20-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The fact is the majority of america put them republicans back into office, you reap what you ask for...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The thing that gets me is how many of these reps and dems are gay anyway?

Bohemian groove was said to be by nixon a faggoty place, and that was his words, and thats where hollywood and politicians goto in summer.

The hypocrisy, why?????



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
The thing that gets me is how many of these reps and dems are gay anyway?

Bohemian groove was said to be by nixon a faggoty place, and that was his words, and thats where hollywood and politicians goto in summer.

The hypocrisy, why?????


because they can

why did Hitler invade Poland?

Because the people of Germany felt they needed a crazed nut to lord over their life.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





There is no more reason to involve government in education than there is to involve government in the production of shoes. Everyone needs shoes even more than they need an education.


Government does in fact provide shoes (along with other basic or cheap necessities) to those that cannot afford them. Thats what welfare is for.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





Why can't people see past this crap and boot government out of personal relationships altogether?


Yep. Instead of adding gay marriage to the definition of legal marriage, maybe we should take the opposite route, and abolish the whole marriage laws thing altogether


exactly



Marriage is decided by the church of choice



why not strike the root, and get rid of all of these institutions and systems of coercion, period.


S&F Saturn, don't always agree with you,
but there it is...

this is laying groundwork beyond anti-gay.
this will eventually devolve to the detriment of those "living in sin"

ahhh yes, just imagine two gays/lesb/trans both disinherited by their families. have had no contact with them in 30 yrs;
one of them dies, and all property/money left by deceased gets slurped up by the state,
and survivor gets the boot.
in the teeth.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join