Oklahoma ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[SMS]

I could care less if gays want to get married. My problem is that the people voted, won by majority to ban it, but the go'vt decides the people don't get what they want. Where do the lines get drawn?

The will of the people has no place in the US anymore.

We do not live in a majority rule environment. The "will of the people" has always had it's limits. We often rail about the Constitution protecting us from the government, but it also serves to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. I would think some of you Constitutional warriors would have that down by now.

We live in a Constitutional Republic....the "People" don't get to strip others of their rights and liberty just because they are outnumbered.

 

[LightningCrash]

Exactly!!!

As I have said multiple times government has no business being involved in marriage, that is up to the church. Back in 1922 one state saw a way to raise money by forcing people to buy a marriage license and it has spread to almost every state. That is also why I have no problem with gays having a Civil Union or whatever else they want to call it, just not marriage unless a church agrees to perform a marriage for them without being forced to by the government.

It seems we have gotten away from "We the People" and gone to "Me, Myself, and I"

So basically, since the government is involved in marriage, and has no business being involved there, we might as well deny marriage to gay people on religious grounds?

Since marriage predates Israel, YHWH, and Abrahamic religions, which religion and which church gets to define what marriage should be in America?

Personally I nominate the Phelps of WBC to define it for everyone in the US. Those people really have a close walk with God.

 

[vvvvvvv]

The government is forcing several businesses to take part in gay marriage even though the business owners religious beliefs are against it. Happened in CO, WA, and I think OR if I remember correctly. They can either take part or pay heavy fines.

Those are at the state government level because those states have established the LGBT community as a protected class. The concept of "protected class" and the concept of "equality" are two diametrically opposing concepts.

Those state laws are in clear violation of the First Amendment. It's a matter of time before it gets fixed at the SCOTUS.

 

[vvvvvvv]

The will of the people has no place in the US anymore.

Do you *really* not want checks and balances on majority rule?

Think very long and hard about that. Especially if you're a "Republican".

 

[TedKennedy]

I just mainly want to be ripped apart. I am trying to change my point of view, and maybe if a bunch of people pile up on me here, I will see things as 75% of yall do. I said several threads back that I would prefer my daughter to be gay, than be a mud-shark. Now, I am being insensitive right there; the young man is OK. There is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with him. I am dealing with it better than my wife is, but it is terribly upsetting to me nonetheless. I admitted something that I am uncomfortable with. So, this is a heavily pro Gay thread, so where are the Gays? I did not have a champion speak for me. Out of all the champions espousing Gay virtues with altruistic motives, is there not one among them who is Gay?

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.

 

[RickN]

So basically, since the government is involved in marriage, and has no business being involved there, we might as well deny marriage to gay people on religious grounds?

Since marriage predates Israel, YHWH, and Abrahamic religions, which religion and which church gets to define what marriage should be in America?

Personally I nominate the Phelps of WBC to define it for everyone in the US. Those people really have a close walk with God.

As I said, leave it to the church and if the couple can not find a church that will marry them, then they get a Civil Union at the Justice of the Peace. Same right but not trampling on others.

And in your case, I can see you liking Phelps of WBC.

As for the will of the people, remember that part about Government of the people, by the people, for the people? For the most part our government is supposed to follow the will of the people and before you trot out your strawman, yes if the majority wanted to ban guns and it was not explicit in the Constitution I would agree to it. I might move out of the country but I would accept the will of the people.

 

[Hump66]

We do not live in a majority rule environment. The "will of the people" has always had it's limits. We often rail about the Constitution protecting us from the government, but it also serves to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. I would think some of you Constitutional warriors would have that down by now.

We live in a Constitutional Republic....the "People" don't get to strip others of their rights and liberty just because they are outnumbered.

I'm not a constitutional warrior, just posing a question. What if it was something else, like the presidency. Majority of the people vote for one guy, gov't decides they want the other one. Where do we draw the line on what the gov't is allowed to overturn?

 

[LightningCrash]

As I said, leave it to the church and if the couple can not find a church that will marry them, then they get a Civil Union at the Justice of the Peace. Same right but not trampling on others.

And in your case, I can see you liking Phelps of WBC.

As for the will of the people, remember that part about Government of the people, by the people, for the people? For the most part our government is supposed to follow the will of the people and before you trot out your strawman, yes if the majority wanted to ban guns and it was not explicit in the Constitution I would agree to it. I might move out of the country but I would accept the will of the people.

But here, now, it's not left to the church. It's up to the government, as you said. You still want prevent gays from marrying under that government paperwork. Why?
You're redirecting to say leave it to the church. It's not left to the church.

As for the "of the people, by the people, for the people," I don't feel that anti-gay laws are "of the people" or "for the people," any more than the other strings of significantly more egregious civil rights violations that have been corrected in the past. Allowing women to vote wasn't explicitly mentioned by the original Constitution, does that mean if the will of the majority had been to deny them, it made that action right?

 

[inactive]

I'm not a constitutional warrior, just posing a question. What if it was something else, like the presidency. Majority of the people vote for one guy, gov't decides they want the other one. Where do we draw the line on what the gov't is allowed to overturn?

That is explicitly drawn out in constitution Article II under the Electoral College system. In the times where the the majority (of popular vote) voted for someone other than who had the most electoral votes (1876, 1888, and 2000), the majority vote lost to the constitutionally directed outcome. Not sure I understand your point.

The only real election that has been questioned (aside from the 2000 Bush v Gore debacle) is 1824.

 

[SMS]

I'm not a constitutional warrior, just posing a question. What if it was something else, like the presidency. Majority of the people vote for one guy, gov't decides they want the other one. Where do we draw the line on what the gov't is allowed to overturn?

Well, for starters we don't elect our Presidents by majority rule. But I get your point.

We draw the line with the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the government or the people the authority to dominate or restrict the institution of marriage simply by majority rule. The "majority" does not get to infringe on the rights of others simply because they do not like their lifestyle.

If a state allows one group of people to be married and recognizes that marriage with legal protection and standing, it cannot restrict another group from that same right, privilege and standing. Pretty cut and dried to me. I'm not sure why folks can't see it.

IMHO, there should be zero government recognition or protection of marriage for anyone, gay or straight. I should not have to pay anyone in a government office for "permission" to get married. It should be between me, my spouse, my god and my family not the State or federal government.

I'll keep asking:

How does a ban on gay marriage make you more free?
How does a ban on gay marriage make your marriage better?
How does gay marriage make you less free?
How does gay marriage make your marriage worse?
How does gay marriage change your personal relationship with your spouse?
Has the government forced your church, or any church, to perform a 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?[/QUOTE]