Oklahoma ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[ignerntbend]

Yeah well, isn't it just like the FED to watch 50 experiments then shut each one down at a time of their choosing?

I think you're picking the wrong issue to take a stand on. Race mixing, dogs and cats living together?
I don't think you want to defend laws against race mixing. I could be wrong though.

 

[SMS]

The issue I have with the ruling is that it was based on "Constitutional Interpretation"! No where in this glorious document is homosexuality, or "gay marriage" addressed. In this case, I would assume they used the 9th Amendment that protects rights not enumerated. However, an enumerated right was voted on by the people, and 75% agreed that "gay marriage" will not be recognized in Oklahoma.

To each there own, I could care less. I'm more worried about the liberal agenda "Constitutionally Interpreting" my 2nd Amendment rights, though at least these rights are defined verbatim! (arms=a weapon, especially a firearm; instruments or weapons of offense or defense)

You are correct, homosexuality is not addressed in the Constitution. Liberty and freedom are. Rights aren't subject to a vote. I haven't read the ruling but I imagine the 14th Amendment came into play.

We are a Constitutional Republic...which means we have a founding document that protects the minority from the tyranny of government and the majority.

If 75% of Oklahomans decided that guns should be banned, you'd be OK with that because it was "voted on by the people"?

 

[underpar]

If 75% of Oklahomans decided that guns should be banned, you'd be OK with that because it was "voted on by the people"?

No. In my last statement, I stated that the 2nd Amendment protects that right and IT IS DEFINED verbatim in that glorious document. Thus, no vote or "interpretation" can vacate/void that right.

 

[Capm_Spaulding]

I'll just leave this here preemptively...

 

[SMS]

You either subscribe to the entire document, and it's amendments, or you don't. You can't cherry pick based on personal and/or religious beliefs.

I believe that the 14th Amendment makes any "ban" on gay marriage unconstitutional...and some courts seem to agree.

For those in support of a government ban on gay marriage:

How does a ban on gay marriage make you more free?
How does gay marriage make you less free?
How does gay marriage change your personal relationship with your spouse?
Has the government forced your church to perform gay marriage?
Has the government or GLAAD forced you to marry a member of the same sex?
Other than your personal and/or religious opposition to gay marriages, why should the government get involved to force your beliefs on others?

 

[Riley]

Well, I guess if I conduct myself in a legal manner in one jurisdiction, I have the inalienable to right to conduct myself in the same manner in another?

My thought is that if homosexual marriage can forced to be recognized in jurisdictions where the people of the area clearly said no, cannot any other behaviors? Marijuana use? Open carry? Could I theoretically go to New York, or Connecticut, or San Francisco and exercise my constitutional rights that I enjoy here? Could I get a suit through the courts to recognize my constitutional rights over the will of the elected representatives of the people?

Obviously not. Why not?

PS - I don't think civil unions are the same thing as gay "marriage".

I think we also have that crazy Defense of Marriage "LAW" that further clarifies the gender requirements for "marriage".

 

[inactive]

Marijuana use? Open carry? Could I theoretically go to New York, or Connecticut, or San Francisco and exercise my constitutional rights that I enjoy here?

In principle I think you and I should be able to. In practice though I see how we are disallowed by current laws. Doesn't mean I think it's okay to then exclude others from other rights, privileges, and immunity that they should otherwise be free to exercise.

 

[vvvvvvv]

However I find it a bit alarming that the advocates of such, while embracing the ideas of individual liberties, would endeavor to re-define a religious rite for the church. Which is of course where the concept of marriage originated.

Marriage did not originate as a religious rite for the church. The Christianity and the church came along long after marriage.

It seems, from what I've read, that this whole push is not about equality or fair treatment under the law, which has been readily available in many jurisdictions for many years, it's rather about using government to literally force people and organizations to violate their teachings and beliefs.

It depends on which group. Some groups are anti-equality and wish to form another protected class that has a different set of laws applied. Other groups are pro-equality and want the government to butt out by not imposing limitations on who can marry whom at the government level.

Not to mention, if it is a freedom issue, when do we talk about freedom of religion? These types of issues, I believe, are really wedges in the culture wars designed to fracture long standing institutions and families. So, can a gay couple now force a religious institution to perform a same sex marriage? Should they be able to? Do they become a protected minority, based on sexual preferences?

True supporters of equality believe that no one should be able to force any other entity to perform an act contrary to their personal beliefs. If a group thinks that churches should be forced to perform same-sex marriages or that a business should be forced to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple, that group is anti-equality.

We've seen in Colorado, a baker, some one who does specialized service work for individuals, not a mass marketeer, being told he had to bake a cake for a gay couple, which happened to go strongly against his religious beliefs, he was ordered to conform by the court. He closed his business. Who won? Is it important?

Both the court and the law were wrong. The court was wrong because the ruling violates the baker's Constitutional freedom of religion and speech. The court was also wrong because it failed to apply the supremacy cause to resolve the conflict. The Colorado law is wrong because it created more inequality by creating a new protected class.



The gist of the decision is that the provision in the state's constitution violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The application is essentially the same as the Utah case in the same Tenth Circuit. After the Utah case, it was pretty much a given that Oklahoma would have the provision struck down due to courts within the same circuit being bound on precedent when the facts of the cases are substantially similar. In both cases, a stay is in place, meaning that the ruling does not take effect unless upheld on appeal.



To those who agree with Mary Fallin, James Lankford, et al. expressing "disgust" for the court "ignoring the will of the people", who is to protect the minority voice? Would you have the same reaction if the People of Oklahoma voted to amend the state constitution to prohibit certain firearms (similar to California) and a judge overturned it?

Its funny to me how the Republican Party sounds like true Democrats right now.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I think we also have that crazy Defense of Marriage "LAW" that further clarifies the gender requirements for "marriage".

The relevant part of DOMA was struck down back in June.

 

[Defnestor]

Legal
I don't think the govt should legislate morality. No one should be allowed to use "laws" to hammer at another's beliefs.

Moral
The continuing degradation of the moral fiber of this country is accelerating. It's supposed to. At least we outlasted the Israelites. Read Judges, they couldn't go more than 40 years without falling into sin.
I wouldn't sweat it if I were you. Rome will burn. Rome MUST burn.