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 judge strikes down Va. ban on gay marriage

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles, I'd be happy to try to help you out, as you say. Just remember, you asked.


1. Stop wrapping your very obvious opinions in the cellophane of apparent equanimity.

2. Your attitudes are apparent in the many posts you've made at ATS; just because you don't feel like we've interacted directly before doesn't mean that I'm unaware of your positions. Feel free to back off of the "what we have heah is a failure to communicate" premise.


3. Why would a wholesale changing of the myriad laws regarding marriage, thereby adversely affecting millions of Americans, just "pop into your head" in a thread that is talking about the fight for marriage equality? I mean, if the benefits offered to married folk were so onerous to you, previously, it seems like you would have made that statement in regard to tax breaks, or questions of property, or in some other kind of protest against government "interference" in your life, right?

No, I think you're merely attempting to masquerade your fairly garden-variety right-wing opposition to marriage equality in more passive, conciliatory tones than the average rough bigot. Here's what you said:



No one can know, of course, but I would not be surprised if the demand for gay marriages would drop by 90%. It would also eliminate many of the arguments for having gay marriages. There seem to be only two general arguments for gay marriages. One, it deprives a tiny section of society of some benefits which the rest of society can get. And, two, if gays can call themselves married, people will accept them more easily.

The question of gay marriage ceases to be a concern to more than about 1 in 500, and the government spends less money.


So, those who wish to marry the person they love and want to build a life with, regardless of sex/gender, are merely looking for tax breaks??? Yeah, that's what you're stating there. Then you put on your amateur attorney hat and make the spurious claim that the ONLY arguments FOR gay marriage are discrimination in regard to the provision of benefits. And of course, no one seeking marriage equality really wants to be married to the person they love because of, well, love and the need to be with that person and build a life with them --- they're only seeking some ersatz acceptance with the Married in the USA™ label.

Come on Charles, REALLY?

4. Your implication is that continued discrimination against certain American citizens is "okay" because, well, the population is "tiny" or only represents "1 in 500." Well, here's the real shocker for you Charles: equality in the US doesn't derive from your population numbers; it arises from the natural rights of humanity as recognized in our Constitution. Besides that, the numbers go far beyond the "tiny" percentage that right-wingers want to apply. Some studies show that same-sex attraction is as high as 28% in the general population, but, great or small, Americans have the right to be treated as Americans, regardless of the other groups they might be labeled as a part of.

5. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that Americans will have equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court on multiple occasions and in multiple cases has ruled time and time again that government (Federal, State, local) cannot discriminate against some Americans based on their individual characteristics. Equal protection is generally interpreted that the laws of the land will apply equally to all Americans regardless of their innate differences.

Marriage is a legal relationship created by law and offered to Americans in every State. It cannot be withheld from some couples based on their gender. To do so, is to create a designation of second-class citizens in America, and we decided long ago that we were simply not going to do that as a People.

There is no "separate but equal" status possible in America.

There is no rational basis to restrict the legal covenant of marriage to any couple based on their gender.

This is not "what I want" the Constitution to say; it's what it says.

The Virginia AG understands that.

edit on 8Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:41:40 -060014p082014266 by Gryphon66 because: Always gilding the lily




posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The new proposed law in Kansas has to be passed by the Senate, which isn't a certainty. The governor, Brownback (dude, seriously that's your name?), is in favor and would sign it. The Senate probably has cooler heads, knowing that the law is blatantly unconstitutional and that the state would just waste money trying to defend it, all to make a point which they could have made in a press release.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
As I posted my response my girlfriend was reading over my shoulder (not a quiet night in tis house I can assure you)

She and I have been having a lot of discussions about marriage recently. She is pro and I am pro-marriage (just not for me).
She has two homosexual teens that live in the house with us right now.

So after reading my comments I had to explain to her how I can be so heated on here and sound so blatantly anti-homosexual while at the same time I can sit with her kids and offer them relationship advice and take them out on date nights with their boyfriends/girlfriends.

I am not anti-homosexual. I am not anti-same sex marriage. I am anti-agenda. I hate covering up an ugly history and claiming it as something else.

It is the desire for that single word of "traditional" to be kept in marriage that makes my blood boil on the subject. "Modern" marriage laws need to allow anyone to marry whomever they wish. No man has a right to impose his views on that (barring age and blood relations). Even those are social taboo that are ingrained into the Western psyche.

I just cannot for the life of me understand how people can claim a fight for a single group of people to be included into the majority is in any way a fight for equality. The LBGT movement love to compare themselves to the civil rights movement of the 60's. While I agree that many things are held in common between them one thing stands out. The civil rights movement was not solely about one group of people. Granted, the African-American community gained the most from the reforms enacted, but all minorities were represented. Where are the other groups of people disenfranchised by marriage inequality laws in this modern civil rights movement?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


The 1950s and '60s civil rights movement was about everybody, not just minorities. It healed the anti-social agreements which had been individually and collectively enforced which had institutionalized insanity in both black and white people. Whites were as freed by the civil rights movement as anyone, for they had their eyes opened and their actions healed (at least most of them).

The modern gay rights movement is at that point where people who irrationally hate gays can heal, and the simple act of healing is realizing that yes, they can fall in love, and yes, they might actually be in love enough to want to marry. Marriage, like all institutions, can expand its definition when data, common sense, and an "Amazing Grace" moment come together for society as a while, which seems to be happening at great speed.

edit on 15-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

200Plus
I just cannot for the life of me understand how people can claim a fight for a single group of people to be included into the majority is in any way a fight for equality.


Well, 200Plus, I can give you my take on it. You may not remember but only a few years ago, relatively speaking, it was basically illegal in this country to be gay or lesbian via the various sodomy laws which were selectively enforced against gays and lesbians. Some of these were not eradicated until 2003 in the United States. Known homosexuals were very often targeted by LEOs and on any excuse, could be arrested and given a trial in kangaroo court. Even when acquitted, their lives were generally over in terms of any community standing. Why?

Because it was societally OK to treat these people differently if not outright abuse them just a few years ago! Most were productive members of society, a part of their local communities, paid their taxes, some even went to church ... but let the shadow of a sodomy conviction fall across them and suddenly they were worse than trash to their neighbors.

It's not right for any person to be treated differently because of some innate difference. For African Americans, it's the color of their skin, the texture of their hair. For women, it's their sex. For Jews, it's their religion and ethnic heritage. For the Irish, for the Italians, for the Polish ... it was a matter of their national heritage. We decided long ago that all these differences were not to be seen as separations to classify one group of people as of secondary worth and value, but, yes, as diversities among an American citizenry.

It has taken over 200 years for a simple difference in sexual attraction and emotional attachment that has been with us since the beginning of recorded history to be recognized in this country as unworthy of further discrimination.

So, 200Plus, it's not just about marriage equality; it's about life and the very nature of personhood and citizenship. It's about doing what's right. It's about overcoming our personal beliefs or squeamishness about other people and agreeing that we are all Americans, that we all have equal rights, and that differences, while still there, will not keep us from realizing our destiny.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

200Plus
I just cannot for the life of me understand how people can claim a fight for a single group of people to be included into the majority is in any way a fight for equality. The LBGT movement love to compare themselves to the civil rights movement of the 60's. While I agree that many things are held in common between them one thing stands out. The civil rights movement was not solely about one group of people. Granted, the African-American community gained the most from the reforms enacted, but all minorities were represented. Where are the other groups of people disenfranchised by marriage inequality laws in this modern civil rights movement?


First of all, why does there have to be more than one group of people? Is there like a "civil rights rule book" somewhere that states this? I'd like a link to it if there is. In fact, the LGBT DOES represent several groups: female lesbians marrying other female lesbians, gay men marrying other gay men, transgender men-to-women marrying other women, transgender women-to-men marrying other men... how does that differ from minority groups? Blacks, Asians, Hispanics - they are part of the minority group. Lesbians, gay men, transgenders - they are all part of the LGBT group.

I'm not sure what your point is here.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Why is marriage two people is there a rule book for that?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

200Plus
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Why is marriage two people is there a rule book for that?


That will probably be legally addressed at some point, and likely will legally expand to three or more in the future.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

200Plus
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Why is marriage two people is there a rule book for that?


If you are asking why polygamists aren't fighting for their right to get a marriage license, I don't know, BUT, I will fight for their rights too. Right now, the fight is for marriage equality regardless of your sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a minority group, but sexual orientation wasn't included in the original civil rights act of 1964. Why? Because no one was fighting for it at that time. It was all about race at the time. Now, it's about sexual orientation. Maybe soon, it will be about ideology (polygamy).

I'm all for marriage equality for all consenting adults who are law-abiding citizens of the state. I draw the line at adults marrying children, animals or inanimate objects, because they can't really consent with full knowledge.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Mini-spoiler alert. The polygamy cause was addressed very well in the HBO series "Big Love", and at one point they came out publicly on the show and hoped that it would effect change (in the fictional world of the series, and probably people associated with the show hoped that it would lay another foundation stone for that movement's future actions and acceptance).



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I don't think any rational adult argues for marriage to inanimate objects, children, or animals. Those are usually used to demonize the LBGT cause and I can assure you that is in no way my intent.

I do not in any form or fashion equate homosexuality to perversions with children or animals.

I DO support marriage equality for everyone. I just do not support calling it traditional marriage. I think to do so is simply a bold faced lie.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I have long thought that the legal classification of marriage should be restructured as a "family corporation."

That way, if you want legally add more to the family, you can.

But, you know, I'm one of those crazy radicals that thinks government should evolve to accommodate the needs of all the people.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


Why does what we call it make a difference?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

200Plus
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I don't think any rational adult argues for marriage to inanimate objects, children, or animals. Those are usually used to demonize the LBGT cause and I can assure you that is in no way my intent.

I do not in any form or fashion equate homosexuality to perversions with children or animals.

I DO support marriage equality for everyone. I just do not support calling it traditional marriage. I think to do so is simply a bold faced lie.


I don't think you can call any marriage today in the U.S. a "traditional" marriage. Traditional marriage included acquiring women as property, with dowries and such. Just call it a marriage. I look forward to not having to specify "interracial marriage", or "gay marriage", or "straight marriage", or "religious marriage", or "non-religious marriage". There is no reason to have separate names for consenting adults who decide to partner up (with each other, or with multiple partners) for life, hopefully.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
What we "call it" makes a huge difference.

Call it marriage and its simply two people joined in a legally binding contract (for a time).
Traditional marriage is a man and a woman joined in a legally binding contract (for a time).

You can legislate law all you want, but not tradition.

Would the LBGT community accept domestic partnership certificates?
Would the LBGT community accept same sex marriage certificates?

The answer is NO, and rightly so. They shouldn't have to accept something. They should get a marriage certificate the same as everyone else.

But, tell me again that it doesn't matter what we "call it".
edit on 15-2-2014 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


No one told you; I asked you. Why does it matter to you what it's called?
edit on 10Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:20:09 -060014p102014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


I see what you mean. Gay marriages are not yet a tradition (how long does a tradition take to be a "tradition"?), they are a new legal understanding. Anyone can call them anything they want, but legally they are marriages, and are called marriages, and that's where the equality determination plays out within the law.

edit on 15-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


I personally don't know any gays who want to call their partnership a "traditional" marriage. I have only heard the term marriage being used by the LGBT community.

So, it sounds like you are wanting the same thing that I and other equality rights activists want.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


It matters because of the way the LBGT lawyers fight. It infuriates me really.

I do apologize if I am rude or obnoxious as I do not me to be and none of this is personal by any means.

It may seem hard to believe but I do fully support the LBGT equality laws and marriage equality as a whole. I always have. Mostly for my friends and family, but just as a basic human being as well.

The lawyers are another kettle of fish. They make me see red when I know where their arguments will go.

Todays law: traditional marriage= man + woman
Tomorrows law: traditional marriage = any TWO people

LAWYERS: see we too fully support TRADTIONAL marriage as being between TWO people (legislated acceptance)

Utah law of the land 19 DEC(roughly): marriage is a man and a woman
Utah law of the land 20 DEC(roughly) marriage is any TWO people

LAWYERS: People need to understand that the law of the land in Utah is that any two people can be married and must accept that. (WTF - the four years prior the law of the land was man and woman and they didn't accept that).

I am all for debate. Bring your facts to the podium and beat sense into people to sway public opinion. DO NOT attempt to silence to opposition. Does that not make you the same as you attackers from the decades before?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


My brain damage gets in the way of me making clear points at times


I think we do want the same things at a basic level. A level playing field for everyone regardless of circumstance.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join