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.

 

NEWS: Over 4000 Gay Marriages Annulled by California Supreme Court

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I dare say though that the moral majorities sense of outrage and calls for exclusion do not extend to seeing gay people continuing to pay taxes which contribute to your childrens schooling, your healthcare etc, etc, in other words contributing to society when it suits you and excluded when it doesn't.

Selfish, self obsessed, bigots.




posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:27 AM
link   
the anti-gayness here makes me cry. gays are just like everyone else, like blacks are just like everyone else. how long will it take for you homophobics to see?
there are so many good people walking around who you wouldnt even know was gay.
how can you degrade them by not giving them the same rights as you? even worse, saying they are lower than you because they are gay....anyone who talks # of gays is sick, mind your own business! geez....
LOVE IS LOVE



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
IMO.. I think its all kinda predetermined.. but thanks for the considered reply (not just a 'urrr... Im not gay gosh!')


Q *coming back to the board after a 12hour power cut... ohh love that East End of London*



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tiwoh
how can you degrade them by not giving them the same rights as you?
LOVE IS LOVE


I personally think part of the problem is that people still think being gay is a choice, rather than a state we can not change/control, like being black or white.

Peoples whole opinion about gay people is based on their understanding of "being gay".

"I can't help it they choose to have sex with their own gender, it's their own fault!"

As long as there are still a lot of people on this earth that don't even know what being gay really is, the discussion will never make sense.
If everyones perception of "being gay" is different, people are basicly having a discussion about different subjects.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   
The problem here is an intentional act by the mayor of San Francisco denying a state law which recognizes a marriage between a man & woman.

The citizens of California passed this referendum by an overwhelming majority.

It was not the state gov't who created this law and it was not the state judiciary who created it, the majority of Californians, chose not to include homosexual partnerships under the term marriage.

Now to violate the law and then claim that they are protected by the law (equal protection under the law) is to pick and choose a law which helps your position while violating one which you do not agree with and IMO makes this point moot.

Personally, I would have no problem if gays were allowed to have legal civil unions which gives them the rights afforded to married men & women, my problem, be it religious or not is gays trying to redefine the word marriage.

It seems that they are trying to circumvent the proper channels to get this matter to the state legislature and are looking for the courts to grant them this action. Judges are required to interpret law, not create law.

If gays and their attorneys spent their time and money in an effort to create new legislation which afffords them the same rights as married men & women, but under the term civil union, I would think that they would have a decent chance at getting this legislation passed, however, if they continue to try and destroy the institution of "marriage" and continue to violate state laws in defiance, they are only hurting their cause.

Some gays say it is sad that heterosexuals would fight the marriage definition saying "it's only a word", well I would say that civil unions are "only two words" and if it accomplishes the goals of the gays who wish to be recognized legally as partners, it is two words they should accept.

Problem solved, gays get what they want, legal recognition and the benefits that married men & women have, and heterosexuals get to keep their definition of the word marriage.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Horray!

Give them some kinda union option, but not marriage because they dont fit the criteria.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
It does not boil down to genetics, it is a choice.


www.abc.net.au...

You sir, are utterly ignorant.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I can't help but find it funny that some folks get so outraged and strident about 'Marriage' and it's 'traditions'.

What a crock.

If you examine most of our 'traditions' many many of them turn out to be nothing of the kind. Many are relatively recent fabrications.

So what's the big deal about marriage?

If you aren't gay why are you worrying about it?

Quite why anyone thinks that denying equality is a good thing is beyond me.....seems to me that obviously they have not got gay kids of their own and little experience of gay people.

I also find it utterly hilarious this dumb notion that genuine equality threatens anyone (in this case hetrosexual couples) in any way. IMO equality, real equality, is a real strength for us all.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

I also find it utterly hilarious this dumb notion that genuine equality threatens anyone (in this case hetrosexual couples) in any way. IMO equality, real equality, is a real strength for us all.



Somehow, many issues regarding homosexuality activate a knee jerk 'contanimation' response in some people.

Gay marriage will contanimate and degrade the instituition of marriage.

Gay sex education will contanimate young people and make them queer.

Gay orientated tv programmes will contanimate the general population and make them hedonistic and bring about the fall of civilisation.

A pity though that this contanimation, whatever it is, does not seem to be passed on by handling the hard earned cash that is happily taken by the taxman on down.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
Selfish, self obsessed, bigots.


Considering the fact that I do not approve of the term "gay marriage", I assume that this would be directed towards me.

Now common sense that there is absolutely no possibility that a gay couple could be equal to a hetero couple if you consider procreation, hetero couple's can procreate, gay couples cannot. Plain and simple.

Like I said before, I agree with gay couples wanting to be able to have the same legal benefits and rights as a hetero couple, I thought this was what they were seeking, and to have legislation recognizing this as a civil union would not discriminate against this minority, it would give them what they want.

Now I know that there are many out there who don't even want to allow civil unions to be passed so gay couples have the rights they seek, and for you to attack those who at least understand that there should be civil unions but still maintain marriage for hetero couples seems to show that you cannot even recognize when the door is open and would rather knock down the house to get your point across.

It will take far less time to come in through the door than it would to knock down the house.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:15 AM
link   
all you homophobics....i will pray tonite that you you DIE. you deverve nothing better.
redeem your ass, NOW! bitches.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
JacKatMtn

I think you pretty much defined the meaning of getting the same benefits under "civil union", I agree with you in this taking in consideration the meaning of "Marriage" being define as between a man and women.

I think the option of "civil union" is a better choice and if they want to make it in a wedding celebration that is personal.

See, I did not understood until now the big issue, you post pretty much explained it to me.

I disagree with something still, you said that gay couples cannot procreate, yes, they can and has been done before, and two women can bear children and raised them as parents even when the father can be somebody else.


In the men cases, also, they can raise children, either by adoption or by having a surrogate mother, it is various ways to become a family and it does not stop with only a nuclear one

Very nice issue JacKatMtn



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The whole argument about gay rights is completely moot unless it is generally accepted that being gay is NOT a choice and that homosexuals are genetically predisposed to being attracted to people of the same sex. I offer this question: When (how old were you) did you consciously choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Or did it just come natural for you? If you're honest with yourself than the answer should be that it just came naturally. Why is it such a leap for some to accept that for homosexuals it comes naturally as well. For those who still aren't convinced then I offer this link which shows what MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS say about homosexuality:

www.apa.org...

For those who are still unconvinced and choose to be ignorant then there's no point in continuing this discussion as you're probably so wrapped around some religious dogmatism that you're unable to see the truth even if it slapped you in the face.

For those who are willing to accept that gays/lesbians are born this way but still don't believe that they shuld be afforded the same rights/liberties (such as marriage, adoption etc) as heteros then please allow me to entertain this discussion further:

First, I am a happily married heterosexual male. As a political independent I generally believe that what people do should be their business (and it should be legal) as long as what they do doesn't negetively impact or otherwise adversely affect the rights or civil liberties of others.

I've heard many on the "right" argue that allowing gays the right to marry will destroy the "sanctity" of marriage. What sanctity exactly? I can tell you that the success or failure of my marriage has nothing to do with whether or not gays marry. It is completely and solely dependent on what my wife and I make of it; nothing else. Besides, whatever "sanctity" exists in marriage was diminished long ago when the government provided financial benefits to married couples through reduced taxes.

"But marriage is all about being able to support our society with procreation!! Gays/lesbians are unable to contribute through procreation and therefore should not be allowed to marry."

If this is your argument than the same restrictions should be applied to infertle couples or those who are too old to have childeren since they too are unable to "contribute".

"This issue is, relatively speaking, so small, and it affects so few, that we shouldn't even be discussing it; especially with issues such as terrorism on the table which have a much wider effect".

I would tend to agree were it not for one simple fact: The christain right, including President Bush, would love to amend the constitution to prevent gays/lesbians in sharing in their fundamental right to express their love for each other through marriage. If this doesn't scare you it should! It scares the hell out of me!. The last thing I want is for the government to make any amendments to the consitution further restricting citizen's rights; especially if those amendments have origins stemming from the Bible. If we use religion or the Bible as a guide for changing laws or amending our constitution then I and those like me are in a lot of trouble. After all, I like to occassionally go to strip clubs (covet), I tend to eat and drink alot (glutton), and my goal is too make alot of money for retirement (greed); just to mention a few of my indiscretions against the 7 deadly sins. And these are by CHOICE!! So if a group of people are being deprived rights because of a "condition" that they otherwise have no control of what could happen to MY rights if some religious nuts get their hands on the consitution.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he included a section that protected slaves who were born in this country. But Congress removed that section and in deference to the south protected the instituion of slavery within the body of the Constitution. Clearly all men are created equal (unless your black) and placed in today's context, we know that this was wrong. But from where I sit there is little difference between what slaves endured and what gays are enduring today. The only difference I see is that restricting the rights of slaves was purely economic and restricting the rights of gays is primarily religious.

I appologize for the long diatribe and I'll climb down my soapbox now.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Whether it's 'convention' or not, denying gay couples the right to marry is a blatant disregard to the some of the basic premises our country was founded on


There is no rational reason to grant the privileges of marriage to same sex couples. It is an absurdity. Those males and females who marry one another and cannot or choose not to have children are clearly in the minority and the cost to society is minimal.

Granting marriage privileges to a class of individuals who cannot procreate makes no sense societally. The reasons are not founded in religion or convention, for religion and convention are only the repositories of this truth, but to understand this, one must first understand what society is and clearly you and those who agree with you do not.

I am not going to belabor this issue with those whose educations and logical capacities render them incapable of understanding the basic tenets of civilization. Believe what you will. Truth will not be denied.

Oh, and it is you who is laughable.


Marriage in our society is a legal contract, not a moral, ethical or religious one. One does not have to be religious, be in a church or even utter the word God in order to get married. If one did all those things and did not fill out the required LEGAL paper work, one is not considered to be married in our country. therefore, based on legalities alone, why are homosexuals not afforded the right to engage in a legal contract with one another that everyone is allowed to engage in? To me, it is not making a mockery of anything. Now, if we want to change everything and say that marriage is a religious or moral obligation taken via the church, then you may have an argument against. But it's not (yet). Hell, put a sin tax on if you want! Maybe that would get us out of debt! Ha ha ha!

I do agree that it is not necessarily a good thing to go about breaking laws in order to make a point, however, some points can't be made unless the law is broken. Think about all the people that broke laws trying to get the right to vote, or gain their freedom or any other civil liberty. Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette. I think if people could get past the sex part, and look at it as a legal contract-what it really is-then they wouldn't get so irate. Besides-gay men do not do anything in their bedroom that thousands of straight men aren't trying to talk their wives and girlfriends into! It's not the sex act that grosses out people (because lots of straight people engage is the exact same behavior) it's the thought of it being same sex, and that is just ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Great post freedom!
Your words express my opinion better than I could myself...



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Originally posted by ubermunche
Selfish, self obsessed, bigots.


Considering the fact that I do not approve of the term "gay marriage", I assume that this would be directed towards me.

Now common sense that there is absolutely no possibility that a gay couple could be equal to a hetero couple if you consider procreation, hetero couple's can procreate, gay couples cannot. Plain and simple.


It will take far less time to come in through the door than it would to knock down the house.



Marriage is not just for those who wish to procrate though! It is for the elderly, the infertile, the people who wish to just not procreate. Having children is defintely not limited to those married!! It is really not a moral or ethical issue IMO. It is simply a legal contract. Why shouldn't they be allowed to sign that contract?



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Good posts Freedom ans Sunshine. Grady you let yourself down with that last post.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Jackatmtn,

no those comments were not directed at you, they were directed at anyone who feels that gay people should be denied any kind of legally recognised union. We can argue back and forth all night about the 'M' word and wether or not it's relevent to the particular subject (and personally I prefer a civil union to marriage anyway) but some people would deny gay people any rights within their skewed idea of a democracy.

Apologies for any unintended insult.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Ubermunche says,


some people would deny gay people any rights within their skewed idea of a democracy.


Lets review the definition of DEMOCRACY
Main Entry: democracy
Pronunciation: di-'m-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government democratic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective democratically adverb

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

So now explain to us, how Democracy is being skewed and by whom?

The majority of voters in California did not pass this "gay marriage" bill, AND then you have officials attempting to circumvent the law, This would appear to me to be a minority, using illegal means, to circumvent the rights of the voting citizens from the majority, as determined thru democratic means. WHO ATTEMPTED TO SKEW/OVERTHROW DEMORCACY HERE?
(Answer: the gay adgenda folks)

I predicted this outcome in a seperate gay issue thread. It was a no brainer for the courts...why would anyone be suprised at their verdict?
The verdict was correct in that it protects the overall democracy, and the rule of law. Weather gay marriage is "right/wrong" isnt the issue in this case. Both the Due process of law and democracy were hijacked by the gay rights adgenda. Im glad that this minority group has the answers for the rest of us, and took it upon themselves to deny the majority its rights (and already cast votes) in order for their own selfish gain.

This is somehow translated into being an all inclusive, principle of freedom for whom? Looks like this freedom would only apply to the gay rights adgenda folks as they seem perfectly willing to sell out the law and democratic principals in order to steal away the majority of california voters votes, and impose their minority view upon the majority.

This act was selfish, it was wrong, the courts agreed.

Tiwoh spews something i think should get a warning for here,


all you homophobics....i will pray tonite that you you DIE. you deverve nothing better.


First off, i dont have to dislike/fear homosexuals in order to be pissed off that they just tried to steal all of the majorities votes in california, as well as circumvent the law. Thanks for supporting Democratic principals.
Secondly, i have seen some very adamant and almost mean things said by pro-marriage people on this and other related threads, but wishing death upon the gays hasnt been one of them...

This behaivior is another PERFECT example of the ATTITUDE that the pro gays have been wielding like a weapon. This attitude shows no respect, concern, or willingness to acknowledge the majority of the society that the gays are trying to gain acceptance from. How in the hell can you hope to get this acceptance with thievery and death threats?

Im amazed that this thread hasnt been moved into the mudpit by now as things are getting borderline vulgar in here.

Ubermunche again,


I dare say though that the moral majorities sense of outrage and calls for exclusion do not extend to seeing gay people continuing to pay taxes which contribute to your childrens schooling, your healthcare etc, etc, in other words contributing to society when it suits you and excluded when it doesn't.

Well, right now, resident and illegal aliens are trying to get the rights to vote and get drivers licenses in california too, and i hope like hell they dont.
While they also ""contribute" to the taxes collected, they are still not citizens and do not deserve the same rights as a citizen has.
Contributing to the tax dole does not give you privlidge, in fact it is a privilage that you can even make money here(as an alien). Taxes are part of the cost of doing business here.
Dont get me started on the fact that various forms of discrimination are legal here in the states.

Jakko states,


This has nothing to do with gay people not respecting "straight" traditions, this has to do with gay people wanting to have a normal life, just like the ones lucky enough to be born straight.

It has EVERYTHING to do with dis-respecting the democratic principals of the majority of california voters!
As i know Jakko is a gay rights supporter, how the heck could he insult the gay community by saying (implying) that gay life is somehow not as normal or lucky as straigt people? Again i disagree. looking at the demographics, gays tend to have above average education and incomes when compared to the avg citizen...sounds like a better slice of life there. Certantly if i was gay i would have to oppose the idea that gay life is less normal or lucky that straights.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Say all you want about homosexuality. It still all boils down to equal protection under law. Until that provision is removed from the constitution they are entititled to the same benefits everyone else is. And if you are so damn concerned about protecting marriage then make it illegal to get a divorce. Anything short of that is just horse hockey.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join