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.
For the first time since the Supreme Court overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June of 2013, a court has ruled that the constitution does not protect gay couples’ right to get married.
The decision, issued by Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons Jr., of Kingston, Tennessee, holds that Tennessee’s gay marriage ban is rationally related to state interests and thus does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. “Marriage,” Simmons writes, “simply cannot be divorced from its traditional procreative purposes. … The promotion of family continuity and stability is certainly a legitimate state interest.” Simmons also held that:
There is nothing irrational about limiting the institution of marriage for the purpose for which it was created, by embracing its traditional definition. To conclude otherwise is to impose one’s own view of what a State ought to do on the subject of same-sex marriage.
originally posted by: Aleister
For the first time in recent court rulings a judge has upheld a U.S. state's ban on gay marriage. He seems to say that marriage is only for procreation of children.
originally posted by: lakesidepark
originally posted by: Aleister
For the first time in recent court rulings a judge has upheld a U.S. state's ban on gay marriage. He seems to say that marriage is only for procreation of children. I guess in the hills of Tennessee they've never heard of menopause or infertility.
Menopause happens after childbearing age...infertility does not mean adoption is not possible.
Actually this is the most sensible definition of marriage I have seen. Marriage has been traditionally for establishing a stable enviroment for the raising of children. It is not a 'moral' or 'religious' thing, it is purely biological. Man and Woman create child. Man and Man, or Woman and Woman, do not.
I would not be opposed to removing all benefits from couples (any couple) that is not married for the purpose of raising children. Why should any couple get special benefits if they are not trying to participate in the continuation and improvement of the human race????
FYI I have no kids, so under my definition, I would not be able to be 'married' either no matter my sexuality.
Flame on, but your derogatory comments about the hills of Tennessee do not change facts, and they are the same facts in the flatlands of Ohio or the mountains of Colorado, doesn't matter.
originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: lakesidepark
You're right, the Tennessee crack was a low blow. I've removed it from the OP. As to your point, there have been many many couples who meet in their sixties or later who've fallen in love and married, and almost all of them wouldn't plan to adopt a child. So for the judge to mention that point as an issue in his ruling is beyond my understanding, hence the crack. Thanks for pointing it out.
originally posted by: lakesidepark
why do they want marriage if NOT doing it to raise children? There are other legal methods to secure the other rights.
originally posted by: Pinke
originally posted by: lakesidepark
why do they want marriage if NOT doing it to raise children? There are other legal methods to secure the other rights.
There are piles of places online that explain this. Maybe have a google safari?
originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: Aleister
I am very strongly in favor of gay rights but it's good to see some states allow you the choice. Odd sure but that's why we have 50 states.
originally posted by: CRUSTY37
originally posted by: lakesidepark
originally posted by: Aleister
For the first time in recent court rulings a judge has upheld a U.S. state's ban on gay marriage. He seems to say that marriage is only for procreation of children. I guess in the hills of Tennessee they've never heard of menopause or infertility.
Menopause happens after childbearing age...infertility does not mean adoption is not possible.
Actually this is the most sensible definition of marriage I have seen. Marriage has been traditionally for establishing a stable enviroment for the raising of children. It is not a 'moral' or 'religious' thing, it is purely biological. Man and Woman create child. Man and Man, or Woman and Woman, do not.
I would not be opposed to removing all benefits from couples (any couple) that is not married for the purpose of raising children. Why should any couple get special benefits if they are not trying to participate in the continuation and improvement of the human race????
FYI I have no kids, so under my definition, I would not be able to be 'married' either no matter my sexuality.
Flame on, but your derogatory comments about the hills of Tennessee do not change facts, and they are the same facts in the flatlands of Ohio or the mountains of Colorado, doesn't matter.
Ok, so say your a straight kid adopted into a gay family as a baby, which is a huge possability because gays only account for 1% of the population!!!! What are your gay patents going to teach you about sex and reproduction? Nothing!! This whole gay adoption thing is wrong on so many levels, i dont have the time or energy to deal with it. This alone in the downfall of America and the human species and you people are to busy being tolerant and politicly correct.
originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: CRUSTY37
My parents are straight and they taught me nothing about sex and reproduction....what is your point?
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: CRUSTY37
My parents are straight and they taught me nothing about sex and reproduction....what is your point?
I taught my grandson about sex.
I went to the library, got a book and read it to him.