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: 25
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I'll try explaining it one more time.

When you say "legal marraige" all you're really saying is that it's a relationship that the government has recognized. When I say recognized what that means is that they've identified it as the type of relationship that is subject to certain laws, obligations etc. etc. that other types of relationships are not subject to.

These laws can be changed, added to or done away with all together. The criteria for what relationships will be recognized as being subject to these laws, can also be changed, added to, or done away with.

They are not rights, they are conditions imposed upon your relationship (that can be altered, changed or done away with all together).

The government could begin to recognize marraiges to more than one person at the same time, than they could stop recognizing marraiges to more than one person at the same time... so the recognition obviously isn't a right because it can be taken away.




edit on 17-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What you're saying is that I can go to the woods and have a ceremony without a license or go to a church and have a wedding without a license and the government doesn't have to recognize it. That is true. But once again, that is not LEGAL marriage.


The government doesn't have to recognize any marraiges, they can change the law to say that they won't, therefore government recognition of marraige is not a right.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California


www.foxnews.com

A federal judge on Tuesday dealt a blow to opponents of same-sex marriage by upholding an earlier ruling in favor of such unions -- despite the revelation that the judge behind the earlier ruling is gay and in a relationship.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not have to divulge whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Lawyers for backers of the ban argued at a hearing Monday that Walker should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict.

edit on 14-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)


Good news! At least there are still some decent federal officials...........or at least half decent ones.

IMHO, this is just one more nail in the coffin of the elite matrix.......although we DO have a ways to go here.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
They are not rights, they are conditions imposed upon your relationship (that can be altered, changed or done away with all together).


I have never said, nor do I intend to imply that any conditions of legal marriage are "rights". But marriage is a right.

The Right to Marry



The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
...
The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
...
The supreme courts of three states (Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut) have, as of 2009, found bans on gay marriage to violate state constitutional provisions.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have never said, nor do I intend to imply that any conditions of legal marriage are "rights". But marriage is a right.


Government recognition of your marraige or "legal marraige" as you call it (which is nothing more than those legal conditions being applied) is not a right.

See my explanation above.

On the issue of equal protection under the law... the criteria currently in place to determine which types of relationships will be recognized have nothing to do with sexual orientation (unlike the miscegenation laws which specifically referenced race).
edit on 17-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
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.....


All they want is equality, but because people drag their feet, they get special protection now.

It's not what they want, but you're not happy either way



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The government doesn't have to recognize my marriage unless it is a LEGAL marriage. If I am legally married, the government must recognize it. And we are talking about LEGAL marriage.


What on earth are you talking about?

We have the right to take part in a ceremony known as marraige.

The government can choose to recognize that marraige (IE. extend legalities/conditions onto the relationship, remove those conditions, alter them, add them etc. etc.) or they can choose not to.

That recognition and those conditions etc. etc. etc. are not rights... they can be taken away.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Besides, the right to marry was included in ALL my examples. You said my examples were actual rights. Are you just not reading? Or are we still not communicating clearly?


We have the right to take part in the religious ceremony known as marraige, or to take part in any sort of commitment ceremony etc. etc. etc. that we want.

The government doesn't have to recognize it. There is no such right.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For example, you keep mentioning a 'right to have the government recognize a marriage'. What does that mean? Are you talking about a legal marriage? Is it the same as the right to marry? The way you say some things is very confusing to me.


It's very simple.

You can have whatever sort of "marraige ceremony" that you want. That is your right and in many cases it's an expression of one's religious beliefs.

The government does not have to recognize it (IE. apply laws, conditions, obligations etc. etc. to that relationship).
edit on 17-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)


It's been stated multiple times, we are talking about the legal marriage that this discussion is about. I can marry my dog if I can find someone to perform the ceremony, but it's not legal. It doesn't confer benefits of legal marriage such as inheritance, insurance, and taxes...



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
It's been stated multiple times, we are talking about the legal marriage that this discussion is about. I can marry my dog if I can find someone to perform the ceremony, but it's not legal. It doesn't confer benefits of legal marriage such as inheritance, insurance, and taxes...


None of those "benefits" are rights and the legal recognition of your marraige isn't a right either.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


I understand perfectly what you are attempting to do, and another poster in this thread just recently called you on it. All you are doing is arguing for special rights for a class of people. All you are doing is advocating intrusive licensing schemes that are in unconstitutional.

Your disingenuous reliance upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States has nothing at all to do with reality. You have made it perfectly clear that you have no regard for natural rights, but instead wholeheartedly approve of this "government sanctioned" licensing scheme. Government sanctioned? What is that, like way better than the Good Housekeeping seal of approval?

Government has no lawful authority to impose a licensing scheme upon people who want to marry. Your advocacy of their unlawful intrusion is less than impressive.

Marriage has been a fundamental right of individuals since time immemorial. It is a sacred and solemn contract between two people, and no government anywhere has the authority to "sanction" it. If you want to get married, then go get married, for crying out loud. It is more than likely, given your advocacy of the licensing of marriage, that you could care less about the sanctity of marriage and instead want "benefits" and "tax privileges", all of which are government granted privileges and not rights.

That you elevate this so called "government sanctioned marriage" over the natural and unalienable right to marriage speaks volumes about you and your suspect movement.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Oh thank you. Got distracted and missed the last paragraph.

Yes - - that is the point of this thread.

Doesn't mean what else you said is not valid - - just not the topic.


LOL

My posts may be long-winded and meandering at times, but it's sometimes worth reading right through them.


Seriously though, it appears that we are in agreement on this issue. I believe that every consenting couple should be entitled to the same rights. Whether the couple is male/female, male/male. female/female - who cares ?

There is no logical argument which supports the idea that gay couples should be treated any differently than hetero couples.


edit on 17-6-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 





It's been stated multiple times, we are talking about the legal marriage that this discussion is about. I can marry my dog if I can find someone to perform the ceremony, but it's not legal. It doesn't confer benefits of legal marriage such as inheritance, insurance, and taxes...


Ignorantia juris non excusat!

Inheritance is not a "legal benefit". Government has no more authority to determine where a persons wealth goes to upon their death than they do imposing licensing schemes upon marriage. This nonsense of asserting that it "has been stated multiple times...legal marriage" is a bunch of bullying by a gang of people who could care less about the rights of the individual.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It is a scheme perpetrated by the liars. They did a damn good job of it eh? People hire liars, for stupid fees, and they are nothing more than interpreters. They speak the "language of law", that is there only use! People are so dumbed down they buy into the whole "licensing" of rights. It makes me sick! 2 grand to defend me on a bunch of tickets that I didn't even do, and after all that, I had to pay another 800 to the court in fees.... Screw the "legal system", and I pitty those that are fighting for their "rights" to be involved with this system. Lemmings marching over the cliff....

You are worried about inheritance, than draw up a living will! Don't rely on the government to protect your inheritance, do it yourself!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have never said, nor do I intend to imply that any conditions of legal marriage are "rights". But marriage is a right.


Right!

My posting style is making statements in the simplest - non-embellished basic wording as possible.

When I say LEGAL marriage affords "rights" that are not available elsewhere. It is about the right to have what the government offers only to those Legally married.

Yes you can build on my simplicity and clarify specifics - - - but it doesn't change the base meaning.

If you want to call them benefits or privileges or something else - - fine with me. It still doesn't change the fact the right to these benefits or privileges - - is only afforded through LEGAL marriage.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
. . . I pitty those that are fighting for their "rights" to be involved with this system.


No problem with your opinion on what you think Legal Licensed Government marriage is.

But that is a different discussion.

THIS discussion is about those fighting for their Right to be involved with the system.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Well good luck getting your right to be oppressed along with the dummies that bow down to legal marriage as straights....



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Annee
 


Well good luck getting your right to be oppressed along with the dummies that bow down to legal marriage as straights....


Thank you.

I'll take it.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
How weak the comments for the negative have become. 'You don't really want it because no one should have it - even though I have it.'

Pretty much telling me to do as you say, not as you do. How dare you?

Why don't you come out with the real reason you disagree? Be honest and dont beat aroud the bush. I have had a look at some of the comments that members arguing in the negative posted in threads with similar topics as this and they betray their true nature.

For shame. Sure, the government is all up in my business but that doesn't mean you have to be as well. Stick to what you know and hush up about things you don't. And you dont.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 





How weak the comments for the negative have become. 'You don't really want it because no one should have it - even though I have it.'


Hiding behind a generic post addressed to no one in particular while attacking is hardly a sign of strength or wisdom. I for one, have never applied for a marriage license and have no such intention of doing so, but very much believe in the sanctity of marriage and the contract made between two people. I am arguing that all people everywhere have the right to marry without gaining any permission from the state what-so-ever. I am now on record as such and will not tolerate your blanket insults and dirty little insinuations.

Every person - regardless of their gender, sexual preference, race creed, or religion, has the unalienable right to get married. Why don't you come out with the real reason you have such a problem with this? What's your beef with freedom, and why are you working so hard to suppress it?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Where is your movement to abolish legal marriage altogether? It's non-existent. That's why I do not support it.

There is a movement for legal gay marriage or union, I am in favour because it at least allows equality. Nothing in this world is perfect.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
There is a movement for legal gay marriage or union, I am in favour because it at least allows equality. Nothing in this world is perfect.


And wouldn't it be "right" for you to have the choice of Legal Marriage - - so you can then reject it


Now that's Equality as it should be




top topics



 
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join