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.

 

Prop. 8 Shot Down In California

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   


The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as unconstitutional the state's voter-passed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.


Source


hahahaha take that religious cults. your ridiculous bigotry should never be made law.

The United States Constitution. Don't like what it allows? GTFO




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hardstepah
 


Good for California. Now come on U.S. Supreme Court. Do the right thing!



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Hardstepah
 


Another instance of the popular vote doesn't mean s***. People voted and here they are overturning what people voted into law. I don't have an opinion on gay marriages, I don't believe in it as it's not possible to continue the human race if people were gay, the reproductive system wasn't made for homosexuality but to each there own. The real problem here is people voted and they're changing what people voted for. BS



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


So if people voted that all right-handed citizens were not allowed to, say, vote, you'd be ok with that too?



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
reply to post by Hardstepah
 


Another instance of the popular vote doesn't mean s***. People voted and here they are overturning what people voted into law. I don't have an opinion on gay marriages, I don't believe in it as it's not possible to continue the human race if people were gay, the reproductive system wasn't made for homosexuality but to each there own. The real problem here is people voted and they're changing what people voted for. BS


I'm glad people aren't reproducing. With 7 billion people on the planet, why would we want to increase the population. We're not exactly in short supply.
Something else; there's a serious orphan population in this country, and these guys and gals help in reducing this number since they sometimes do want children, but can't create any of their own.
Some see it as against nature, but I see it as "nature found a way."

Not adding to over population? Check.
Bringing loving homes to the existing, yet forgotten children of the world? Check.

They're 2 for 2 in the positive contribution category in my book.

Since most of the vote was cast for religious reasons, which are supposed to be kept segregated from political matters, I'd say the initial entertaining of the law was illegal to begin with. This is a government matter, not a civil one, since people's constitutional rights are at stake.




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



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
About dang time they allowed gay marriage. There is a distinct separation of church and state in the constitution, as I recall.

What's that? The governors don't care? Well, my apologies. It appears I owe y'all a sincere apology for actually thinking the constitution meant something.




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


You misunderstand how the United States is supposed to work.

It's not a democracy, democracy is crap. The US is a republic, ruled by law. The people CANNOT pass a law that is unconstitutional, that's what the courts are for.

It's to protect the minority from the majority.

In this case, Gay marriage is a lawful, and legal issue, not one of social importance which requires a popular vote. It impacts people's civil rights. Which is why it's an issue for the court, not the people.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I don't care if gays get married or not, but what is the point of states putting laws to a vote if those laws, approved by the voters, are shot down by the federal government? We are no longer the United STATES, but a group of regions ruled by the Supreme Overlord in Washington, District of Corruption.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


The courts are there to keep mob rule democracy from creating second, third or fourth class citizens by virtue of their numbers.

To hold up a majority vote like its a good thing is foolish. The majority is foolish.

Unfortunately the courts themselves can and do fall victim to popular opinion or refuse to make controversial rulings that go against the political tide.

It's a crappy balance in a crappy system that this time at least worked to keep the mob from voting blacks back to the plantation so to speak.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Yes!

A government of the people for the people by the people....

However, that is only as long as the courts agree!

Personally, I could care less what people do, marry a cow if you want but I do believe that people of a like mind should have some say in the laws for their locality.

I understand the real fear of the "tyranny of the majority"; however, exchanging that fear for the "ignoring the will of the majority for the sake of the minority" is just a bad.

It’s just a different tyrant in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
i think it is absolutely absurd to think marriage can only be defined as "human race can't move on".

marriage is when two people take a vow to be faithful to one another for the remainder of their natural lives PERIOD.
im disgusted that the government is involved at all with something that is supposed to be sacred between people who love each other



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


So if people voted that all right-handed citizens were not allowed to, say, vote, you'd be ok with that too?


I don't care about the issue with gay marriage but to change what people voted for is not democracy in a free state. So your saying you'd rather not be involved, not vote and let the powers that be make the decisions for you?



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hardstepah

im disgusted that the government is involved at all with something that is supposed to be sacred between people who love each other


Any thinking person is. Government marriage began as a way to control and track breeding. It's rooted in racism and eugenics. It remains today as a source of revenue in licensing and tax code manipulation.

Government involvement in the personal relationships of others is evil any way you look at it.

But now homosexuals are free in CA to participate in and vicariously justify that evil. So everybody smile!



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
You can't have a majority passing legislation that only affects a minority. That's the issue here.
It would be like having a Christian population of 76% voting on whether or not the remaining 24% of non-Christians can get abortions. Oh wait... they already do that.

My point is, there's an extreme imbalance when you're asking people to vote on the livelihoods of a small minority of the population, especially when the majority aren't affected by the laws they're passing at all. That's why it's a decision for the court, the law, not a decision for the masses.
Let the masses vote on what affects them, let the courts vote on what's considered a constitutional human right.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hardstepah
i think it is absolutely absurd to think marriage can only be defined as "human race can't move on".

marriage is when two people take a vow to be faithful to one another for the remainder of their natural lives PERIOD.
im disgusted that the government is involved at all with something that is supposed to be sacred between people who love each other


Life was designed for a man and women to be together as that is the only way to reproduce your species, being gay goes against the design of life.

Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. The citizens spoke and now you know your voice means nothing just as their voice means nothing.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Just another reson for christians to claim god is punishing california should anything happen. Le sigh....



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


That doesn't work.

Democracy in purest form does not work, it never has and it never will.

Show me an example of when true democracy worked out for both the majority and the minority.

As for your belief about homosexuality, it's just a belief and holds no weight in an argument regarding lawful civil rights.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl

Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. The citizens spoke and now you know your voice means nothing just as their voice means nothing.


There's also suppose to be a clear separation of church and state, and as long as people are voting on their bibles instead for human freedom, then this "democracy" is broken.
Nobody was voting to insure the continuity of the human race, they were voting on their Christian Conscience.

How can Liberty survive, when people are allowed to vote on the freedoms of their minority countrymen? We're back to the Jim Crow days all over again.


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



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.


Bolding by myself.

Maybe this is where you are getting it incorrect.

The majority isn't affected by this law....therefore they had no right to vote on it to begin with.

What you are saying is that only homosexuals should have been able to vote on this law.


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



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

As for your belief about homosexuality, it's just a belief and holds no weight in an argument regarding lawful civil rights.


No weight? You have a way to make babies with two dudes? You don't think scientifically knowing all we do about the reproductive system that it wasn't designed for a man and a women to reproduce?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join