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.

 

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

page: 17
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

No, when it pertains to marriage, the difference is quite clear. Marriage may have started out as a social contract, but it has effectively evolved into a legally binding contract in how it operates within the United States. You even acknowledge certain aspects of that reality, despite your apparent unwillingness to accept it for the truth that it is.

This is the definition for what a contract is:

con·tract
1.
an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2.
an agreement enforceable by law.
3.
the written form of such an agreement.

Would you agree that these three conditions make up the basic foundation for modern day marriage as it exists within the United States? I'm sorry to say, but something that appears like a social contract, yet functions in every aspect like a legal contract, actually is a LEGAL CONTRACT despite any spin you might put on that fact. Just because a motorcycle doesn't have four tires and doors doesn't somehow mean that it's anything other than an automobile. And automobiles, no matter which type they are, still have to abide by the laws that are set forth for automobiles. These same basic legal tenets apply to marriage as well since it is a contractual instituation that is recognized and overseen by government, court, and law.

While social contracts exist within a largely philosophical and theoretical field of knowledge, marriages actually physically exist within a defined and definite legal capacity, which is the separating factor from something theoretical to something factual. Marriage is a legally-binding contract.

I recommend checking these two sites out if there's any confusion:

contracts.lawyers.com...

www.enotes.com...
edit on 15-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)

There is where you are wrong, as a contract would require that there be something that is written, to which there is not in a marriage. As it is partially based on an idea, it falls right into the lines of a social contract. The bride and groom do not sign anything at the time that the deal is sealed, or before hand. In fact the only thing that both sign is the marriage liscence. So how is that a contract in the typical sense of the word? It is not, though it is a social contract by the definition that I provided.


Actually, this is where you're wrong.

www.adviceguide.org.uk...:



the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.


I think that you're intentionally being obtuse at this point. You also might be confusing the marriage ceremony with with the actual legal and official acknowledgement of the marriage union. Those two things are different. The marriage license IS the written document. Not only that, but so many other people including witnesses need to be involved for the marriage to even be recognized in any official capacity. That IS a legal contract.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Take your pick. Which document would you like to know about?

Also, did you even glance at the sites I linked to in my previous post?

The Constitution is an example of a social contract. The legal agreement between two or more consenting adults which is a right afforded to everyone by the Constitution is an example of a legal contract working within the limits of the social contract, the Constitution. It would be more accurate to say that marriage is a legal contract working within the confines of the social contract.

In that sense marriage is both a social contract and a legal contract.
edit on 15-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Annee
Current studies show there is little to no difference in children raised by straight or gay.


I'll concede that point but still argue that "only societies that reproduce survive". Gay parents can not reproduce. I'm all for them being happy and having a fulfilled life. I just don't think the state has any vested interest in promoting same-sex marriages. Perhaps you could make an exception and grant a marriage license to same sex partners with children. Outside of that I don't see the purpose.

EDIT: Please don't pretend science has solved this. Not one single person has been born without the use of the following items:
  • Male sperm
  • Female egg
  • Uterus
    edit on 15-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)


  • Sorry but I must comment.

    Taken from a very narrow point of view you are correct.

    However we live in a time of sperm banks, surrogates etc. a homosexual couple has readily available access to reproductive options.

    Additionally there are approx (in 2008) 143-million-orphans on this planet, up from 132 million in 2006. Children in need of a loving home and family.

    So outside in the big wide world, your point of view is very myopic indeed.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:06 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by DrChuck
    I've said it before to someone else, it was a HYPOTHETICAL statement. Gay marriages are fine...but if anti-discriminatory laws are used to prosecute churches or priests that would not preside a gay wedding, that would be wrong.

    Hypothetical, hypothetical, hypothetical....


    Well Yes - of course.

    That would be very wrong.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:10 PM
    link   
    reply to post by DrChuck
     


    A law can be disputed. But if someone breaks the law, they still need to be held accountable. That's how laws work. I don't understand why churches and religions should be exempt from certain laws because they "don't believe in them." That isn't a good excuse.

    If a religion didn't believe in the right for certain ethnic groups to live, would you use the same argument if a priest killed someone? Would the priest getting away with homicide be right?

    I'm just saying that if a law exists that everybody is technically required to follow it, or else they will be punished. Priests or churches or religions aren't exempt from following the law.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:17 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
    reply to post by DrChuck
     


    I'm curious, why would that be wrong? If such laws exist, why shouldn't churches have to abide by them? In essence, the churches in question would be discriminating against homosexuals by not allowing them to wed at their church.


    Its as wrong as trying to force a gay person to live as a straight person.

    Its as wrong as the religious believing they can cure gay by sending them to reparative therapy.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Annee
     


    Yet the people who practice these things consider them to be right. I'm was only wondering about why churches should somehow be exempt from following the law. I don't really know about discrimination laws, but if they extend to homosexuals and same-sex marriage in any legitimate capacity, the churches technically should have to abide by them.
    edit on 15-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:32 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
    reply to post by Annee
     


    Yet the people who practice these things consider them to be right. I'm was only wondering about why churches should somehow be exempt from following the law. I don't really know about discrimination laws, but if they extend to homosexuals and same-sex marriage in any legitimate capacity, the churches technically should have to abide by them.


    What law are you talking about?

    A law of equal rights of same gender to marry - - as do opposite gender?

    How does that have anything to do with Right of Belief?

    I know people who support gay marriage as a right - - but still think homosexuality is against God.

    They are two different things.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:38 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Annee

    Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
    reply to post by Annee
     


    Yet the people who practice these things consider them to be right. I'm was only wondering about why churches should somehow be exempt from following the law. I don't really know about discrimination laws, but if they extend to homosexuals and same-sex marriage in any legitimate capacity, the churches technically should have to abide by them.


    What law are you talking about?

    A law of equal rights of same gender to marry - - as do opposite gender?

    How does that have anything to do with Right of Belief?

    I know people who support gay marriage as a right - - but still think homosexuality is against God.

    They are two different things.


    I don't really know anything about anti-discriminatory laws. But would it be right for a church to deny an interracial couple from getting married because the church doesn't believe in the marriage between the two ethnic groups involved in the marriage? If that isn't right, then I don't understand why that wouldn't extend to same-sex marriages as well.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
    Yet the people who practice these things consider them to be right. I'm was only wondering about why churches should somehow be exempt from following the law. I don't really know about discrimination laws, but if they extend to homosexuals and same-sex marriage in any legitimate capacity, the churches technically should have to abide by them.


    Are there interpreted passages in the bible that say it is an abomination to marry those of different races or different skin color?

    I know the Mark of Ham was used to justify slavery.
    edit on 15-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:45 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Annee
     


    Not to my knowledge. But my thoughts were in regards to anti-discriminatory laws and how they should be applied. If it isn't right for a church to discriminate against a couple based on skin color and it subsequently isn't right for a priest to deny this couple a right to marry because of those beliefs, then I don't see why the same laws shouldn't extend to same-sex marriages when it pertains to churches and weddings.


    edit on 15-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:50 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
    reply to post by Annee
     


    Not to my knowledge. But my thoughts were in regards to anti-discriminatory laws and how they should be applied. If it isn't right for a church to discriminate against a couple based on skin color and it subsequently isn't right for a priest to deny this couple a right to marry because of those beliefs, then I don't see why the same laws shouldn't extend to same-sex marriages when it pertains to churches and weddings.



    I'm pretty sure I answered that by what the bible says.

    Or - - how certain believers choose to interpret it.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:55 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Annee
     


    But that doesn't make it right, nor can that be used as any justification for the church to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in their church if anti-discriminatory laws say that the churches have to marry same-sex couples.

    I think we're either on the same page about this or we disagree... I'm not sure which stance you take in regards to whether or not you think it's right or wrong for a church to deny a same-sex couple a wedding ceremony at their church if the law says they have to grant the same-sex couple a wedding ceremony.

    In this case, if such a law exists, I personally think the law trumps the church's belief, and that it would be wrong for the church to deny the same-sex couple a marriage.
    edit on 15-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:10 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
    reply to post by Annee
     


    But that doesn't make it right, nor can that be used as any justification for the church to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in their church if anti-discriminatory laws say that the churches have to marry same-sex couples.



    Doesn't make it right how?

    Do you think the Westboro Church would marry an inter-racial couple? Do you think an inter-racial couple would ask them to?

    Do you think an inter-racial couple would go to a white supremacy church and ask them to marry them?

    So yeah - - I think there are churches that do not believe in marrying inter-racial couples - - - in turn - no inter-racial couple of sound mind would ask them to or expect them to.

    There are many churches ready to marry gays as soon as they can.

    There are also fundamental churches that believe it is an abomination of God - - per the bible.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:23 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by AnneeDoesn't make it right how?


    In the sense that it isn't right to discriminate against a person based upon skin color or sexual preference when it comes to homosexuality or heterosexuality. This thread is about equality in marriage. Some people say it isn't right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, while others think that it is wrong to be homosexual. Right and wrong is subjective, but IMO it isn't right for a person to discriminate a same-sex couple from marrying if it's legal for them to do so.


    Originally posted by AnneeDo you think the Westboro Church would marry an inter-racial couple?


    If the law says they have to then they have to. Otherwise they're breaking the law. But since I don't know much about anti-discrimination laws, I'm not sure what these laws say.


    Originally posted by AnneeDo you think an inter-racial couple would ask them to?


    If the law said the church had to marry them, then if an interracial couple asked them to, they should be required to by law. I would imagine that just seems to be the general idea behind anti-discriminatory laws.


    Originally posted by AnneeDo you think an inter-racial couple would go to a white supremacy church and ask them to marry them?


    Same as above.


    Originally posted by AnneeSo yeah - - I think there are churches that do not believe in marrying inter-racial couples


    If there isn't a law that prevents them from not marrying them, then no problem I guess.
    edit on 15-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:25 AM
    link   
    This is for USA - - other countries may have different laws.

    Everyone should know that a pastor does not have to marry anyone. I have the absolute right to refuse to marry for any reason. I regularly turn down wedding requests from people who are not members of our congregation. Even though they have every legal right to be married, I am not required by the state to perform any marriage. Regardless of what the civil laws may be, the First Amendment protects the freedom of any church or religious leader. A minister can refuse to conduct interracial marriages, same-gender unions, or any other similar rite, regardless of civil rights, for any reason whatsoever. Conservative pastors need not fear. They will never be forced to marry anyone against their will.

    But my hunch is that in fifty years, outrage at gay unions will be as archaic as anti-miscegenation laws are today. When we recognize more fully that the right of adult citizens to choose to marry is an inalienable right of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” we will become a more just, humane and honorable society.

    www.stpaulsfay.org...
    edit on 16-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:59 AM
    link   
    Words cannot describe how it looks when people do not understand the constitution and the bill of rights.

    As private individuals people are free to join any group, religion, organization and believe whatever they want.

    As public citizens people are not free manage the rights of others based on their private organizations and morals, to a degree of course.

    Those opposing same sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, only more and more gay people will come out, as they should, why would anyone care what sexuality anyone else is, truly maddening.

    Gays and straights are going to have equal rights, thats how equal rights works.

    Why does the government waste time and money on trivial things that are so meaningless.



    posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:11 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Avenginggecko

    Originally posted by leo123
    reply to post by Annee
     


    Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

    Talk about a conflict of interest!



    That's a ridiculous argument. Wouldn't it be the same level of conflict if the ruling judge was straight and married? Does that mean divorced judges can't rule in divorce cases? Women judges can't rule in gender bias cases? Black judges can't rule in crimes involving black people?

    If the divorced judge was going to marry the person wanting to get divorced, yes. If the female judge were a openly feminist supporter who had a personal relationship with anyone in the case, yes. If the black judge was related to one of the black defendants, yes.

    All of your arguments are absurd when trying to disprove that a gay judge, with a gay partner, ruled in favor of them being able to be married not being a conflict of interest. Ask yourself how anyone in your examples could clearly benefit from the rulings. Now ask yourself how this judge could clearly benefit from the ruling. I rest my case.



    posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:21 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by MasterAndrew
    Its always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What is this world coming too? *rolls eyes*


    Ya exactly, where has this world come to where people would even think what you just said.

    Sad really that people still show racism in 2011, its a damn shame.



    posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:39 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by adifferentbreed
    Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?


    What special rights are you talking about. This doesn't make sense. They want to get married and have the same opportunities that you already have. That is equal. Special rights would be... I don't know... Gay couples don't have to pay taxes, or they get a free house with marriage. Can you explain what you are on about.



    posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:43 AM
    link   
    People are so uptight about same sex marriage it just boggles the mind. Why on earth would care as to whether two men or women get married? What's it to your life? With the divorce rate of what? 60% percent in straight marriages, why on earth are those on rightwing getting so offended by same sex marriage?? "what the majority wants'?? Is this a direct democracy or do we live in a Republic?

    If conservatives want to preserve marriage, move to take it out of the hands of the federal government and into the hands of private citizens. Either do so or keep marriage open to all genders.
    edit on 16-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)




    top topics



     
    21
    << 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

    log in

    join