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.
Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by davjan4
Because we have laws that govern legal consent. C'mon, don't over think this.
Yeah, but what if some churches recognize a marriage while other don't. who gets the final "appeasement"? Why should a gay couple, get married at a gay friendly church, while an atheist couple not be called married?
There's just too many layers of confusion and gray area here, imo.
1) Proposition 8: If they didn't like the decision by the voters, they shouldn't have put it to a vote of the citizens. You can't say "democracy now!", and then when democracy works as intended, say "democracy never!" Make up your minds, and do it differently next time. Either way, live with it since it's what you wanted.
2) The government has no business defining marriage at all. They have no business in marriage at all. I support a union of two people of any sex who love each other and want to be a family. But the government needs to be out of it. No tax loopholes, no special benefits, nothing. Then it won't be a problem for anyone to get married.
/TOA
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by The Old American
1) Proposition 8: If they didn't like the decision by the voters, they shouldn't have put it to a vote of the citizens. You can't say "democracy now!", and then when democracy works as intended, say "democracy never!" Make up your minds, and do it differently next time. Either way, live with it since it's what you wanted.
Correct. Interesting how when the coin falls on the other side, people no longer like the game or want the game modified.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
So by this logic, if the majority decides to vote away your gun rights, or votes to establish a national religion, then screw the Constitution, we just have to abide by the "will of the people"?
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by windword
Yeah, but what if some churches recognize a marriage while other don't. who gets the final "appeasement"? Why should a gay couple, get married at a gay friendly church, while an atheist couple not be called married?
Find another church.
Why do you want it to be called "married" if you're an atheist? Why would it matter. IT doesnt make a difference what the little piece of paper the government gives you says. It could read:
" Gay Rainbow HAPPY TIME CONTRACT" and as long as it provides the same rights, what's the issue?
There's just too many layers of confusion and gray area here, imo.
No, there isn't.
Either you get married in a church, of ANYKIND, or you get a civil partnership. Both are the same in every aspect other than name.
~Tenth
Asking a religious organization to validate your sexual preference when it is against there principle beliefs goes slightly beyond equal rights and wades into the deep end of the pool as agenda pushing. Unlike being born an American citizen or obtaining citizenship and being granted rights afforded to us by our constitution, religious organizations have no such rights, if you do not align yourself with their morals, principles or practices..... Find another religion or practice it without the need to seek approval from others.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ownbestenemy
14th Amendment... It is being violated here... If it is not a Constitutionality question, SCOTUS would not be hearing the case. My post stands.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
So by this logic, if the majority decides to vote away your gun rights, or votes to establish a national religion, then screw the Constitution, we just have to abide by the "will of the people"?
No that would be faulty and I am the furthest away from being a "will of the people" proponent. The point made by TOA, as I read, was people cry that they want the will of the people to be heard and in this case, it was, but it wasn't their will, so they want it thrown out. That is the logic to follow here.
Hence the "Democracy Now!" and democracy happened and they, by first hand, realized the nature of mob-rule when they fell on the other side. Whereas they turned and screamed for justice to such democratic rule. It is more ironic than anything.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ownbestenemy
"A legal contract between two adults" is what a marriage is. If not, it would not take two lawyers and a judge to disolve one. It is the legal protections that said contract provides that are at the heart of this matter.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ownbestenemy
"A legal contract between two adults" is what a marriage is. If not, it would not take two lawyers and a judge to disolve one. It is the legal protections that said contract provides that are at the heart of this matter.
12-144 HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, §2 of the Constitution in this case.
12-307 UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR, EDITH S., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.