It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No nation has ever survived a homosexual uprising in the history of mankind. The USA will collapse just like the others in history.
We are no better than them.
Many things can cause the destruction of a nation, but homosexuality is at the top of that list.
Natural things that are harmful:
poison ivy, cannibalism, murder, thievery, etc.
Unnatural things that are beneficial:
eye-glasses, wheel-chairs, internet (which is used to gather information), etc.
Ellen Rosenblum joins fellow Democrat attorneys general in at least five other states who have pledged not to defend state bans on gay marriage.
"State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation," Rosenblum said in the documents filed in federal court on Thursday. "Rather, they will take the position ... that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review."
The fate of Michigan’s gay-marriage ban is officially in the hands of a federal judge, who this morning heard opening statements in a case that will decide what marriage means in Michigan, and whether voters have a right to exclude gays and lesbians from forming that union and raising a family.
Voters in Michigan have already voted against gay-marriage – a point that state attorney Kristin Heyse hammered away in her opening statements.
Judge Orlando Garcia issued the preliminary injunction after two gay couples challenged a state constitutional amendment and a longstanding law. He said the couples are likely to win their case and the ban should be lifted, but said he would give the state time to appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals before do so.
"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution," Garcia wrote. "These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex."
Disgraced “academic” Mark Regnerus slid yet further into ignominy on Wednesday after defenders of Utah’s doomed gay marriage ban expunged all references to his debunked study in their brief. The state, which is currently defending the invalidated ban before the Tenth Circuit, had cited Regnerus in two footnotes in a previously filed brief, and structured much of its argument around the conclusions of Regnerus’ work, which asserts that gay couples make inferior parents. Now the state is asking the Tenth Circuit to pretend those footnotes don’t exist, a last-minute revision made “in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus.”
Euphemistic excuses aside, everyone knows that Utah dropped the Regnerus study in direct response to a Michigan federal judge’s complete and total dismissal of Regnerus’ work, after he denounced it as “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."
The swing vote in the case appeared to be Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who had pointed questions for both sides. He compared Utah's same-sex marriage ban to Virginia's ban on interracial marriages, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.
That law "made that mixed-race couple essentially an 'other' for the purposes of marriage," Holmes said. "Why is that any different from this situation?"
But in addressing the plaintiffs' attorneys, Holmes said gay marriage is a new and novel concept, and courts should defer to the democratic process unless there are pressing reasons to intervene.
"What Utah has done is validated what has been historical practice forever," he told Tomsic.
In a decision coming from Utah, a federal appeals court on Wednesday for the first time backed gay marriage..
The Denver-based U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court decision that struck down the state's bans on same-sex marriage.
The ruling, which was stayed, sets the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which touched off the current round of legal fighting on the issue when it struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year.