Oklahoma ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Danny Tanner]

I don't much care for same-sex cohabitation, inter or rather inner-personal relationships, civil unions, cross dressing, what ever other adult, deviant activities in which one chooses to engage.

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.

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.

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?

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?

The same thing has been done to photographers, haven't heard of any florists, go figure? I guess if the point is equal protection that's a different issue, in my mind, than re-definition. In practical reality, I think it's dictating to, or really forcing government into the realm of the religious. Can this be the right thing to do?

First off, you're confusing "matrimony", your Church's recognition of two individuals joining as one, with "marriage", the Government's recognition of two individuals joining as one. This ruling doesn't force all churches to offer same-sex ceremonies, it simply states that we cannot deny those who want to perform or pursue such ceremonies.

Second, marriage has been recorded as far back as 2350 BC, which is long before your church ever existed. Back then, marriage was to guarantee to a man that his wife's children were biologically his. It wasn't until the rise of the Roman Empire that religion had part in marriage. So, if anything, the Catholic Church has redefined marriage.

How is this forcing you to violate your beliefs? We often shout, "If you don't like guns, don't buy one!" Well, if you don't like marrying dudes, don't marry one! This ruling in no way shape or form suppresses your religious freedoms. It does, however, suppress your intolerance justified through religion. Christians, even if the majority, do not deserve special rights in the US. You are not entitled to forcing everyone to follow your church's teachings. How you aren't aware of the irony smacking into the wall behind you after flying over your head is beyond me. Denying equal rights to individuals in the name of your church is disgusting, and this religious ignorance is what's destroying the world.

 

[cjjtulsa]

Other than your personal and/or religious opposition to gay marriages, why should the government get involved to force your beliefs on others?

And we agree on this. I don't see why the government is involved in marriage in the first place - heterosexual, homosexual - whatever. It's none of their business, as far as I'm concerned.

Is there something wrong with wanting your offspring to stay in the group, and produce children that look like the rest of the family? "Native Americans" even have special adoptive laws to try to keep their race intact. A white man wanting the same for his family is not wrong, bigoted or racist.

100% agree.

 

[vvvvvvv]

How is this forcing you to violate your beliefs? We often shout, "If you don't like guns, don't buy one!" Well, if you don't like marrying dudes, don't marry one! This ruling in no way shape or form suppresses your religious freedoms. It does, however, suppress your intolerance justified through religion. Christians, even if the majority, do not deserve special rights in the US. You are not entitled to forcing everyone to follow your church's teachings. How you aren't aware of the irony smacking into the wall behind you after flying over your head is beyond me. Denying equal rights to individuals in the name of your church is disgusting, and this religious ignorance is what's destroying the world.

As a Christian, I agree with this.

 

[SMS]

Catholics boast something like a 28% divorce rate. The church deems that those who have been divorced generally are not allowed to remarry.

I think the State should pass a law that bans the remarriage of divorced Catholics who don't have annulments from the church because the church says it's wrong.

 

[Lurker66]

This thread has about run its course.

Do you know that 90% of men have tried anal sex?
30% of women reported having anal sex regularly.?

Over 1/3 of all married couples have either tried or regularly have anal sex?

Once youve gone thru the back door, even once, do you forfeit your right to be married?

In my eyes, when ya start poking it in the mud, it really doesnt matter if its a chick or dude. But either way, you dont lose the right to love or be married to who ya love.

Id bet that half the married preachers and a bunch of unmarried ones have had an oopsie moment. And the have the right to say who can marry? Or they have the right to set policy for the congregation against gay marriage?

Buncha hypocrits. Guys marrying guys n girls marrying girls and churchs n politicians and straight people aint being honest with themselves.

 

[Blinocac200sx]

My problem with the ruling isn't gay marriage. My problem with the ruling is how contrary to the constitution it is. A federal judge is not supposed to have that authority.

As far as gay marriage goes, marriage is a religious institution, and therefore, under the first amendment, should not have any government involvement. I shouldn't have to go to a government building at any time during the marriage process. I should go to my pastor, tell him I want to marry this gal. He should decide if we should get married or not. If I'm not a person of faith, my so and I should go to a lawyer, and draw up a contract. At no time should a government official be involved.

 

[mksmth]

As a Christian I am struggling with this. I have to keep telling myself, In the end God will judge me for who I am/was and really that is all I should care about.

But You know what. If two 18+ year olds no matter sex, race, or relationship want to marry have at it. That is true equality, right? I think in that respect polygamy should be allowed also. Why should marriage be reserved for just 2 people. If we are going to allow one other thing we HAVE to allow everything.

 

[RidgeHunter]

You can't imagine how this feels. Even if a person is truly noble of heart and mind. This is a good young man, not stereotypical. That is the only reason I have not disowned her. He is a good black guy trying to make it by the white man's rules - he dresses and acts white, my take on it is that he mostly grew up with white kids. The fault lies with me. I am trying to accept this, but honestly - I'd rather her be gay than do this.

I can't keep up with OSA troll accounts, but if this is not a troll post, you're a real winner, aren't ya?

At the very least your love for your daughter should outweigh your ****** "beliefs".

Funny thing is, I know three white girls that exclusively date black men. Two of them have/had the most racist dads I've ever met. You reap what you sow, pops. I always found it hilarious. Here's to hoping she gets pregnant. It's a Boy Swishers packed tight on me if she does. Cheers.

 

[0311]

Is there something wrong with wanting your offspring to stay in the group, and produce children that look like the rest of the family? "Native Americans" even have special adoptive laws to try to keep their race intact. A white man wanting the same for his family is not wrong, bigoted or racist.

It looks pretty cut and dry, based on what I have said. But there is much I have not said. I'm a white guy with a BA in Spanish who married a Mexican American. Being the only juero in the family, I was politely tolerated, and all but my sister in laws came to like me. Anybody who thinks that whites have a monopoly on the racial superiority thing really need to look at the concept of La Raza. My wife is going to try to talk sense to our daughter, because if her side of the family finds out, they will freak. There are a lot of whites who don't know how Hispanics feel. To call someone a "Gringo" is worse than using the N word, and my wife told me long ago to never, never call someone "Gringo." I feel a lot of whites erroneously think they don't like blacks, when in fact they don't like the way many blacks behave. This is a good guy and I told my daughter that he looks OK to me - so far, but I hid from her my deep seated reservations. I also told her to never hurt his feelings. My wife is intractable on this because of her notions of La Raza. Her sisters still have a hard time accepting me because I am juero. Their antipathy does not extend to our son and daughter, just to me.

 

[TedKennedy]

Oh, I get it. And I don't have a problem with it. My wife is Indian, there are "Native American" words her family uses in place of the N word. I don't really care what they call me...
I find myself among Mexicans pretty regularly, and know exactly how they feel about "mixing it up". Often my wife is mistaken for a Mexican, and it's pretty clear they don't appreciate one of their senoritas being taken by a white boy. I don't blame them one bit.