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.

 

ATS temperature on same sex marriage

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I also think the state should get out of marriage altogether, but since they offer benefits to married people, that's not going to happen for a while, but I would totally support independent marriage



Ok I know I'm going to get smacked down for saying this but here is my stance please read the whole comment prior to replying. I'm also talking from a Canadian legal perspective so not sure how relivent it is to Maryland.

I don't think same sex marriage should be allowed until other laws are changed first.

My reasons: When same sex marriage became law in Canada it was not done through a change of laws in the house of commons. The liberal government knew it did not have enough votes to pass it so they went to the supreme court and had them rule on it. The court rulled that the constitution was un-constitutional, which I find to be double speak and completely impossible. Unlike our southern neighbours our constitution was not ratified until the 1990's and sexual orientation was deliberately left out of the constitution when they said you couldn't discriminate by age, gender, religion or race. The supreme court said that by not having sexual orientation in there it was unconstitutional and as such it should have been in there and if it had then same sex marriage would have been legal.

What I think actually happened (but can't prove) is that Jean Cretian decided to set a precedent of allowing the supreme court to re-write the constitution. This would allow changes with out the provinces or the members of parliament getting a vote. I think he chose same sex relathinships because it was a hot button issue and because they could effectively say that if you didn't agree with the rulling your a biggot, even if the ubjection was to the procedure used and the fact it set a nasty precident and gave the judiciary major new powers. I think the gay and lesbian community was used.

My second issue is that Canada also has common law relationships on the books. After three months of living with a person you can claim common law status. People with opposite sex roommates frequently fell afoul of the law when they moved out because if they had lived together those three months the other roommate could claim common law status and take them for 1/2 of everything they owned. Under the way the courts have worked it is the responsibility of the individual disputing the common law status to prove that they where only roommates. I know one lady wwho had a tenent in her basement suite and he lost his job, she felt bad for him and let him stay in the suite with out paying rent for three months while he looked for new work with the verbal understanding that he would pay her back once he found a new job. After three months he left and sued her claiming common law status. The judge rulled in his favor because he claimed they had no verbal agreement to repay and since she had helped support him for three months and during that three months he had kept a diary of all the things he did such as mowing the lawn and helping her with general maintenance. He also claimed they had been sexually active as a couple something that both her and her teenage son disputed but since she had no proof and the burden of proof falls on the person disputing the status he ended up with half of everything she owned, in this case she had to get a mortgage on her house so she could give him 200K (half the house value). Now since same sex marriage is legal so is same sex common law marriage, which means that anytime you have a roommate for 3 or more months you could open up yourself to a lawsuit for half your assets. It has already happened that a guy sued another guy's family after he died in a crash and claimed that they had been lovers not just roomates, the family disputed it and the guy claimed that the dead guy had kept it from his family out of shame. It almost resulted in the guy getting the whole estate and insurance pollicy amount (he hadn't set a benificiary as it was a free policy through his work and he didn't know he even had it). If it hadn't been for another friend telling the family that the deceased kept a "little black book" of his conquests and the family getting a court order to access the house to get it they would have lost the case. They won since the deceased had kept very detailed accounts of all his sexual activity and never once was the roommate named in it.

So I think that the two laws (same sex marriage and common law marriage) togetehr create too many issues and as such same sex marriage should have been left off the books till common law was removed or fixed.

So really I have no issue with same sex marriage other than the way it was passed and the unfortunate consequences of it's interaction with another law.




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by exile1981
 


Is there an equality clause in your Constitution? Or an "equal treatment" clause? If so, that may be why it was determined unconstitutional. Ours has an 'equal treatment under the law' clause in the 14th amendment. It says that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. AND that the state can't make laws that deny that. (Yet they have).



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This is why I think it's a federal issue. No state should be allowed to deny or abridge the privilege of marriage to anyone, nor make laws that deny equal treatment under the law.

I understand how it happened in Canada and I understand your concerns, but it's a slightly different situation here, I believe. Having said that, any way it has to happen is OK with me, as long as all citizens are treated equally. It's a Constitutional issue of equal treatment for me. And always has been.


.
edit on 2/11/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther
The real question is why government licenses are necessary in the first place. Marriage licenses, in the US, were originally intended to prevent interracial marriage. It had nothing to do with "sanctity". Once the government realized they could use it as a method of social control, they also saw they could make a lot of money charging fees for the licenses.

It's not really about who can get married and who can't--marriage is an abstract interpersonal commitment--it's about who can get a license to benefit from the legal jungle they've set up to regulate the transfer of property and the custody of children.

Simply put, the government has no legitimate business in defining or regulating interpersonal relationships whatsoever. Its motivation is nefarious at best, and downright evil at worst.


The thread could have ended with that well-said post.

I read through the posts and did not see one from a gay person. Not that that invalidates what straight people are saying, but it's easy to look at something from the outside.

As a gay person, I do not care one way or another if there is gay marriage. I am not going to beg politicians to vote for a law that supposedly gives me rights. Rights are supposed to be inalienable, they are not given to me by lame-ass phony legislators.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Just my two cents here but in general I have no issue with it as long as we don't try to impose this upon any religious institutions (i.e. suing because church x won't marry me and my life companion).

The problem is that once you make it legal to have same sex marriage it won't be long before some moron is trying to sue Big Church because they refuse to marry them. It will be all about the "discrimination" and what not...

You know I'm right. So - draft legislation that words it such that this union is NOT a marriage - but does confer all the rights and privileges upon the union as a marriage.

Problem solved right? Gay people get what they say they want (equal rights) without leaving the door open for people to try and use the State to force morality battles.


edit on 11-2-2011 by gncnew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
I read through the posts and did not see one from a gay person.


Can you tell who's gay by their avatar or something? Just so you know, there ARE gay people posting in the thread.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I understand how it happened in Canada and I understand your concerns, but it's a slightly different situation here, I believe. Having said that, any way it has to happen is OK with me, as long as all citizens are treated equally. It's a Constitutional issue of equal treatment for me. And always has been.



Do you think it's unconstitutional for the government not to recognize a marraige between adult male brothers, between a grandfather and an adult grandson?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
Just my two cents here but in general I have no issue with it as long as we don't try to impose this upon any religious institutions (i.e. suing because church x won't marry me and my life companion).


I agree with this. Churches shouldn't have to be forced to perform any ceremony that they don't want to. They are already protected from performing ceremonies that they don't want to. I couldn't get married in a Catholic church for example. They already have the right to refuse to marry anyone they want.



Problem solved right?


No. Separate but equal doesn't work. We already tried that.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


I think "marriage" is between a man and woman however, I think two people of the same sex should be able to join a "civil union" with the same rights as any married couple. I look at it like the word marriage has a set meaning just like a man wouldn't introduce his male partner as his "wife"



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I'm all for equal rights. Same sex couples should be able to marry. They should also be able to get hit with alimony and child support as well should they divorce. Fair is fair.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Juest read this article here:
Baltimore Sun

I live in Maryland..as long as the gays stay away from me, and my family and off my property. I can careless
edit on 11-2-2011 by AtruthGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
She is smart. She gets it. As do many kids unless they are raised by parents who teach them ignorance.


Sorry but this single statement is so offensive as to be unmentional.

You assume that intelligence and morallity are some how fussed. I disagree I've seen some truly brilliant people who where evil and vile and corrupt and had no compunctions about doing things they knew where illegal because they figure there intellectual supperiority gave them the right to boss others around and that they were exempt from the laws.

I have a gifted daughter that is in grade 2 and reads at a grade 6 level. We encourage her reading, she has being reading about religion and neither my wife or myself discusses our beliefs (which are different) with the children and we strongly discourage the inlaw from discussing it with her. She is debates religion with her born again friend and her muslim friend. She has friends who are native american (2 different tribes), middle eastern, european, japanese and philapeano(sp?). She has never noticed race and the only question she ever asked of a offensive nature was when she asked why X tribe was so lazy, seems the little girl from the other tribe had told her that and she wanted to know if it was true. There is bad blood between those two tribes. She has met a same sex couple I work with (legally married) and she asked me why they where kissing. I told my daughter because they loved each other and where married, the response I got was but they can't have kids. I explained that just because you were married you didn't have to have kids and I mentioned some other couples that are friends of mine who have no kids. My daughter said "then why get married?" My answer was tax benefits. She does not seem to think that it's right, she doens't oppose it but she seems to be offended by it. She hasn't put it in those words but it upsets her world view.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 



So I ask you this, membership of ATS, what are your thoughts on the issue.

I think that at the very least, homosexual couples should, at the least, have the same rights that heterosexual couples have. Whether or not it's called "marriage" or not isn't a big deal to me. Those that feel that they need to retain the title marriage for heterosexual couples in order to protect the sanctity of marriage need to take a look around and try to maybe make heterosexual marriage more sanctified.

That's just my opinion though.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Do you think it's unconstitutional for the government not to recognize a marraige between adult male brothers, between a grandfather and an adult grandson?


No, because the law is EQUALLY APPLIED to brothers/brothers and brothers/sisters and to grandfather/grandson and grandfather/granddaughter. Marrying a relative is illegal in most states, but it is applied equally to the people, whether they are gay, straight, asexual or something else.

Here. Study up on Equal Protection.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I understand how it happened in Canada and I understand your concerns, but it's a slightly different situation here, I believe. Having said that, any way it has to happen is OK with me, as long as all citizens are treated equally. It's a Constitutional issue of equal treatment for me. And always has been.



Do you think it's unconstitutional for the government not to recognize a marraige between adult male brothers, between a grandfather and an adult grandson?


And you believe then that marriage between brother and sister would be ok because they are opposite sex? If incest isn't classed as illegal, then technically, why not? Not sure it makes me comfortable for all sorts of reasons, but that's just me and the road that can lead to for the health of any children.

Having said that, let me ask again, you mention only same sex incest, that means you see no issue with the fact brother/sister marriage is not allowed now? Actually, or is it? I don't think so but who knows.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I'm for no marriage. Marriage is a religion institution. Separation of church and state.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
There's no reason why gays and lesbians can't marry each other. Hell, it shouldn't even have been a debate in the first place. No one has the right to tell you who you can't love. No one.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I understand how it happened in Canada and I understand your concerns, but it's a slightly different situation here, I believe. Having said that, any way it has to happen is OK with me, as long as all citizens are treated equally. It's a Constitutional issue of equal treatment for me. And always has been.


.
edit on 2/11/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


In 1982 orientation was left out when it was written and when it was ratified in the early 90's they left it out then too. So I would like to see it added into the constitution not have the courts modifying it with out going through the proper procedure. To me it's a procedural issue and a very dangerous one. If the courst can add privalages then they can just as quickly take them away.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I don't think the government really has any say in marriage/other social issues. A marriage certificate, afaik, is given out by a church and only recognized by the state. If a church wants to allow 2 gay men/women to marry and issue them a certificate, then the state should recognize it and leave the issue alone. There's no reason to add an amendment/bill and make the laws even more complicated.

My $.02



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
There's no reason why gays and lesbians can't marry each other. Hell, it shouldn't even have been a debate in the first place. No one has the right to tell you who you can't love. No one.

I agree, but marriage isn't about love it's a legal contract.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Be careful what you wish for, gay folk. My wife and I recently separated (physically, not legally). I tried to get off her insurance plan and on my own, through work, and they wouldn't let me until the next open enrollment or until papers are filed.

However, if I were a [snip], all I had to do was check, "discontinuation of domestic partnership", and I'd be good to go.

If I were gay, what I would fight for would be "equal rights for domestic partners, without the legal aspect. They have no idea what they're getting themselves into. All they are worried about is fighting a war and "winning". Sometimes the ego makes us to irrational things because the desire to be "right" or the desire to "win at any cost" distorts logic and reality.
edit on 2-11-2011 by worldwatcher because: derogatory names removed



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join