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

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Let's say interracial marriage was illegal in Texas and a lawsuit challenging it went to a Federal Court. Do you believe that if an African American judge who was in an interracial relationship was on the panel that they should recuse themselves because they could benefit from ruling in one way?


Yes.


So essentially in your eyes, there's bias about a black man in an interracial marriage making an obvious decision on the rights of american citizens, but there's absolutely no bias for a man or woman in a single racial marriage??
This makes sense to you?
edit on 16-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." .......UNLESS YOU'RE GAY, unreal!



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
The reality, however, is that marriage is also a legal contract between consenting adults just as much as it is a social contract. Your post spelled it out perfectly. You even acknowledge and explained how legal contracts are carefully spelled out, which marriages and prenumptual agreements are as well. Marriage, just like other contractual obligations, are typically settled in court. That means if a person says that only certain people can enter legal contracts such as marriage, then that is an instance of circumventing rights, which would be unconstitutional.

Do you agree with that?


Marraige IS NOT a contract, the government imposes the legal conditions/obligations of marraige upon you and the government can change them whenever they want.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libido, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.

Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 16-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libido, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.

Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 16-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)


You can copy and paste, congratulations.

Often viewed as a contract... but it isn't a contract. It's the government imposing legalities and obligations upon your relationship whether you agree to them or not (and they can change the terms anytime they want, whether you agree or not).
edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
You can copy and paste, congratulations.

Often viewed as a contract... but it isn't a contract. It's the government imposing legalities and obligations upon your relationship whether you agree to them or not (and they can change the terms anytime they want, whether you agree or not).


Its my damn thread OK? I am providing real information.

You are giving your opinion.

Since you are not gay - - you are not being denied anything.

So lets give gays the LEGAL Right of Marriage first - - then they can decide for themselves if it is a contract or the government imposing legalities and obligations on their relationships.

Personally - - I doubt they will agree with you.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee
 


Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!



The argument is not about being gay or straight.

It is about equal rights.


It isn't really an issue because homosexuals have way higher divorce rates based upon studies done in states that legalized gay marriage(heck the first married gay couple in America already got divorced). The real issue is homosexuals will use this to shut down religion or censor it. I am against that. Because I don't like the idea of people telling other people what to do(so I view homosexuals as forfeiting their claim to innocence). Combine that with homosexuals supporting the feminist hate movement(if you follow egalitarian principles the only conclusion one can come about the feminist movement based upon the actions of it's leaders and the majority of feminist's is that it is a hate movement feministhate.tripod.com...).

So combined with the fact that I know some homosexuals have a much larger agenda + if an enemy of an enemy is a friend by the same logic a friend of an enemy is also an enemy. Last reason mostly.

But this happened before. By 2030 there will be a huge case of gay's advocating and doing pedophilia like things to heterosexual children in the educational system and that will be the end of gay rights. Same way it died in the 1880's(and ironically opened the door for women to enter teaching in the UK).



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Its my damn thread OK? I am providing real information.

You are giving your opinion.


Many people view it as a contract... those people are idiots, yes that is my opinion.

Let me ask you... when did I agree to the legalities imposed by the government upon my marraige? The answer of course is never. Can the government change these legalities w/o asking me? The answer of course is... of course. That is not a contract, it's government imposition upon my relationship.

So, let's be clear about one thing... people asking the government to "recognize" same gender marraige are not asking for more freedom, they are asking for less freedom, they are asking the government to interfere in and impose upon their personal relationships.


Originally posted by Annee
So lets give gays the LEGAL Right of Marriage first - - then they can decide for themselves if it is a contract or the government imposing legalities and obligations on their relationships.


What? It's self-evident what it is. You don't even have to marry in many cases for the government to impose these legalties. You don't seem interested in having an honest discussion.

edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I think it bears repeating that, as Annee said, this is not a democracy but a Democratic Republic. The constitution of our Democratic Republic exists with the intent to protect minority protected classes via the force of law.

People keep asking why a judge can overrule the votes of a majority of Californians. The answer is: for the same reason a judge can overrule a majority that might vote for anything else the judge rules to be unconstitutional, such as returning to Jim Crow laws for example.

Our country does not function by majority rule. It functions by majority rule, checked and balanced by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If it didn't, then a majority could strip a minority of their rights. These two federal judges - one which happens to be gay, and now one who is not - have ruled that, based on the evidence offered, homosexual American citizens qualify as a protected class. Contrary to to what some have said, this does not mean that they are afforded "special rights." It simply means that they qualify for the protections offered everyone else under the constitution based on the evidence presented in court that homosexuality is not an elective choice, just like ethnicity.

I know that this is and will likely remain a contentious issue and will continue to divide people, which in my opinion is unfortunate. Personally, I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court so that the right to marry becomes the law of the land.
edit on 6/16/2011 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


How would you feel if it was a black judge ruling that blacks should be allowed to marry?/

Reply to thread in general:

Those claiming this is special rights might as well be claiming that women owning property and blacks voting is special rights. In the words of Gandalf, go back to the shadow


I still have yet to see an argument against gay marriage that isn't either religiously motivated or "yuck factor" motivated and none of them are compelling. The fact that this is even an issue in the 21st century is absurd.


edit on 16-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Those claiming this is special rights might as well be claiming that women owning property and blacks voting is special rights. In the words of Gandalf, go back to the shadow


You don't help the cause for same-sex marraige with these absurd comparisons that only a hysterical drama queen would ever dream of making.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I still have yet to see an argument against gay marriage that isn't either religiously motivated or "yuck factor" motivated and none of them are compelling.


Really? I guess you haven't read many of the posts on this thread...



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


The comparison works perfectly well. Being dark-skinned is something that people can't help, they're born that way, same for homosexuality. The two are almost flawlessly analogous. Many of the arguments against gay marriage could just as well be made against inter-racial marriage, which would instantly make them sound absurd and blatantly discriminatory even to those employing them. By the way no one on this forum is helping the cause of anyone, be they for or against same sex marriage, unless you think judges who make rulings and legislators who make laws come to ATS for their advice on how to proceed.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The comparison works perfectly well. Being dark-skinned is something that people can't help, they're born that way, same for homosexuality. The two are almost flawlessly analogous. Many of the arguments against gay marriage could just as well be made against inter-racial marriage, which would instantly make them sound absurd and blatantly discriminatory even to those employing them.


The comparison doesn't work at all.

What arguments against gay marraige could be made against inter-racial marraige?

Can you give an example?

One is the type of relationship prone to producing offspring, the other isn't.
edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


1) the argument that it isn't natural

2) the argument that it goes against God's law or will

3) the argument that it should be a states issue and not a federal one

4) the argument that the relationships are not based on love but are based only on illicit sexual interaction

You are right, the argument from biological reproduction wasn't one that could be used against inter-racial marriage. It's a pretty weak argument though since there are barren heterosexual couples. Are we going to ban them from getting married? And then there's the fact that same sex couples, thanks to modern science, CAN produce children (as can most barren hetero couples).

Here's an article on the history of arguments against inter-racial relations and the similarities with rhetoric used by those against gay marriage.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
And I think that's the major sticking point of the whole subject blocking legislation. Homosexuals are not seen as an official group of people.


They are a protected class under Federal Hate Crime Law

Gays Now A Protected Class Under New Law



President Barack Obama has signed legislation that elevates homosexuals to the class of citizens that enjoy special protections under the law.
...
With a flip of his pen, Obama added gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to the list of Americans granted extra protections under federal law, taking a step closer, he says, towards a more perfect union.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





With a flip of his pen, Obama added gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to the list of Americans granted extra protections under federal law, taking a step closer, he says, towards a more perfect union.


Am i the only one that has a problem with anyone having extra protections under any law? Seriously.... I would call that special treatment, something gay people say they aren't asking for. They sure don't complain when they get it though.....



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I actually have a problem with it. But it's clearly needed. If gays don't receive equal treatment under the law (which they don't), then we must do something to rectify that. Making them a protected class is the first step toward that goal, just like giving blacks the right to vote. They should have had it all along, but we had to change the Constitution to make it happen.

Someday, I hope no one is discriminated against, but for right now, the law needs to change to respect gay people, too. And if naming them specifically works, then I'm all for it. There must be anti-discrimination laws or people will discriminate. And race, religion, gender, nationality are all protected groups.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't have to be a list of people to make sure not to treat differently, but this is no perfect world.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Another intellectually bankrupt thread continues. If you don't want equal rights (including marriage) for all types of relationships, you're not exactly being honest here. It's about special rights, nothing else......in a society, not everyone can, nor should be equal, it's a fact of life.....to say otherwise is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
If you don't want equal rights (including marriage) for all types of relationships, you're not exactly being honest here.


Who are you talking to? I want equal rights for all people. Any two consenting adults should be afforded equal access to enter into legal contracts, including marriage.



It's about special rights, nothing else.....


That phrase means nothing. No one is asking for "special rights", whatever that is.



in a society, not everyone can, nor should be equal, it's a fact of life.


No one is claiming that everyone is 'equal'. We are saying that ALL people should have equal protection under the LAW, as the Constitution says.

.
edit on 6/16/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join