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 court to rule on Calif. ban on gay marriage

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

The people voted because the issue was put to them to do so. Asking someone to vote yes or no on something then crying "foul" and suing them because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to is not how voting works. If they weren't sure of the outcome, they should've let the state congress decide it, not the people.

/TOA


Marriage is a civil right - - this was a minority group - - and should never have been put to a vote.

How anyone thinks it is acceptable for a majority to vote on a civil right of a minority - - escapes me.




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Prop H8te was passed in California due to incredible support from the Mormon Church next door in Utah among other things.

That whole thing was a fiasco.



Yes - and the Mormon church was charged and found guilty of - - I think it was using out of state funds.

Got a slap on the wrist and a small fine - - I think.

I'd have to look up the details to be accurate. extra DIV



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Looks like the courts made their decision and here it is;

latimesblogs.latimes.com...


A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshF
It makes it legal.

Legal is subjective. Just like how in some cultures it's fine for a male to have 8 wives while a female can only have 1 husband.


Originally posted by JoshF
So what you are saying is Democracy is only fair when it goes your way? This is hilarious. You do know the purpose of voting and how it works right?


edit on 7-2-2012 by JoshF because: (no reason given)

There's a reason i put quotes around fair. While a majority may agree on a particular law, it doesn't make it any more or less fair.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
.
edit on 7-2-2012 by PharohGnosis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
There is not sufficient love in this world to deny it to anyone based on such vulgar fear and ignorance. It is amusing how the supporters of this garbage cannot understand that in a constitutional republic you are not allowed to strip minorities of liberty and the pursuit of happiness just because you have a majority and a void so wide in yourselves that this is deemed an important issue.

I saw first hand the streets being covered in prop 8 signs, the vulgar and hate filled masses desperate to try to legislate hatred with at most a religious argument that bordered on retarded while being in total anathema from anything their Jesus had tried to get across about the human condition.

I for one am glad the church of latter day saints wasted countless millions on this garbage and so many individuals made their true colors known to those with level minds and hearts. It makes one ponder just how far we claim to have come, just beneath the deceptively placid surface of the religious in this nation lies the same maligned beast that burned people at the stake and worse for effectively nothing.

If it were up to them their actions would be on par with radical Islam.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The courts looked at the reason for the proponents to have this in another court and found the Judge acted with the same professional behavior as any other judge.

Then they also looked at the reasons behind the case, the other laws of the state, and the case itself. In that they pointed out that if they allowed this law to continue and be enacted, it would ultimately have put laws that are on the books in the state of California at odds with it, and thus forcing a show down in the courts as to which law should take more priority to the others. Some of the arguments that were presented in favor of Prop 8 were flawed as it would impede too much into the private lives of all those in the state of California, and ultimately would do nothing to prevent, as the argument would state, children being born out of wedlock. The court further pointed out that this was similar to the Colorado Amendment 2, though it more precise and with a surgical skill of eliminating the rights of those who were homosexual, separating them. It further pointed out where this would cause more problems than what the law had intended.

The courts also pointed out that there really is no legal justification for this law, to remove something that has been granted to so many through the different laws. Consider this, in the State of California, many different laws were enacted to give homosexuals different rights, up to the point of just short of marriage. And Prop 8, without any justification, without any legal backing, would remove all of those rights. It is based on the same premise, if you were given say a cake, but then without reason or justification, having it taken away from you. It is wrong on that premise.

The nature of the democracy in the US, while some points it out, ultimate has always been that the majority rules, but there are rights for the minorities to protect them from laws and conditions of unfairness of the majority. Also to prevent discrimination on all levels of society, no matter what. While many people go around what the original intentions of the framers of the country may or may not have meant, the problem is that the country and even the world has gone beyond even their wildest dreams, not every thing that we face today could have even been conceived of by those so long gone and dead. So we must fill in the gaps to try to keep with the original intention of the framers.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The courts looked at the reason for the proponents to have this in another court and found the Judge acted with the same professional behavior as any other judge.

Then they also looked at the reasons behind the case, the other laws of the state, and the case itself. In that they pointed out that if they allowed this law to continue and be enacted, it would ultimately have put laws that are on the books in the state of California at odds with it, and thus forcing a show down in the courts as to which law should take more priority to the others. Some of the arguments that were presented in favor of Prop 8 were flawed as it would impede too much into the private lives of all those in the state of California, and ultimately would do nothing to prevent, as the argument would state, children being born out of wedlock. The court further pointed out that this was similar to the Colorado Amendment 2, though it more precise and with a surgical skill of eliminating the rights of those who were homosexual, separating them. It further pointed out where this would cause more problems than what the law had intended.

The courts also pointed out that there really is no legal justification for this law, to remove something that has been granted to so many through the different laws. Consider this, in the State of California, many different laws were enacted to give homosexuals different rights, up to the point of just short of marriage. And Prop 8, without any justification, without any legal backing, would remove all of those rights. It is based on the same premise, if you were given say a cake, but then without reason or justification, having it taken away from you. It is wrong on that premise.

The nature of the democracy in the US, while some points it out, ultimate has always been that the majority rules, but there are rights for the minorities to protect them from laws and conditions of unfairness of the majority. Also to prevent discrimination on all levels of society, no matter what. While many people go around what the original intentions of the framers of the country may or may not have meant, the problem is that the country and even the world has gone beyond even their wildest dreams, not every thing that we face today could have even been conceived of by those so long gone and dead. So we must fill in the gaps to try to keep with the original intention of the framers.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
One of the arguments I've heard against Gay marriage is that its a religious ceremony. However an Atheist couple can get married as long as their straight.

I really wouldn't care or fight for gay marriage, if marriage was seen only as a religious thing you do(because they could just make up their own religious I suppose??). However, married couples are given government befits and privileges that a single guy like me don't get, same with unwed couples. From a society view-point it makes no sense to not allow gay couples to marry. If two people want to declare their love for each other and plan on spending the rest of their lives together and have the same rights as to seeing their spouse in emergencies/tax befits. Begin adopting many of the unwanted children that are stuck in the system.

It would only make things better and easier for everyone. As long as the Government has its hands in the institution of marriage, they need to make a decision on this matter.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join