Oklahoma ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[henschman]

Personally, I don't want anything to do with your gubment marriages. My old lady and I have our own private arrangement, and we do just fine without your statist institutions in our lives. BTW she's hapa haole, but it's OK... based on other members of her family, they pretty much come out white after a couple generations of dilution.

I am glad to see libertarianism winning OSA over. Back when I joined this site, threads like this were invariably dominated by the view that TWAWKI would fall apart without government permission slips being required to form marital unions, and that permission being conditioned on majoritarian religious norms. Now that view seems to be a minority... or if a majority, a silent one, many of whose members' beliefs are shaken enough that they don't defend them. I suppose this bodes well for liberty, to the extent OSA is a microcosm of our society at large.

Changing the legal definition of marriage is not the way I want to see this problem answered, though. Stripping the State of the power to define marriage at all is the only way to have true equal protection, if that is really the court's concern.

Also, I have very mixed feelings about the central government imposing rules on us out here in Oklahoma. I like the result when they act to limit the power of government, but it is a double edged sword... intervention from the national government is even more frequently used to increase government intervention in our lives. I am a lot more of a fan of the Articles of Confederation than I ever have been of the Constitution, and am very much a secessionist. Here in the Age of Statism, liberty is best protected by as much of a decentralized system as possible. If people are persecuted by one government in such a system, they are a lot more likely to be able to find another society that is more welcoming elsewhere.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I ignored the attempt to derail the discussion. You still are stuck on making RKBA a collective right when that has no bearing to the right of marriage. Marriage is something entered into between individuals. RKBA is not. I didn't say that the RKBA is a collective right. I said the left could call it a collective right if marriage is to be considered a right - which of necessity would have to be a collective right since it takes 2 to engage in it. Now, if you wish to call it the "rite" of marriage, then that would be legitimate.

You have some interesting points, but you are making the mistake of referring to marriage as a privilege. It is not. If marriage is a privilege then the government can deny you that privilege at will without any due process. If marriage is a privilege then your God submits holy matrimony to the whims of your Government, and God and his matrimony are controlled by your government. Is Government more powerful than your God?God rules in my world. As for government involvement in marriage, it's already there. Try getting married without a license. Go ahead and claim you are married on a tax form while you are single and hope you don't get found out.

Hey, it's your perversion of marriage, you live with it.

I don't do perversions. You'll have to look elswhere.

Woody

 

[LightningCrash]

I didn't say that the RKBA is a collective right. I said the left could call it a collective right if marriage is to be considered a right - which of necessity would have to be a collective right since it takes 2 to engage in it. Now, if you wish to call it the "rite" of marriage, then that would be legitimate.

So any right that involves more than one person is now a collective right? I think there's at least a few centuries of law and legal precedent that says otherwise.

God rules in my world. As for government involvement in marriage, it's already there. Try getting married without a license. Go ahead and claim you are married on a tax form while you are single and hope you don't get found out.

I don't do perversions. You'll have to look elswhere.

Woody

But God doesn't rule marriage, apparently, since you assert that it's a government-afforded privilege.

Try getting married without a license? Like a common-law marriage, which loads of people do?
Lie on a tax form when you're single, well that has nothing to do with marriage.

The only people trying to pervert something or redefine marriage were the ones voting yes to SQ711.

 

[henschman]

Calling marriage a right is not invoking "collective rights" in the sense that the liberals mean when they talk about the 2A. Do you believe the right to free association is also a collective right, since it also requires at least one other person to associate with? All either right means is the right to engage in the particular relationship with another person IF the other party consents as well. It certainly is an individual right, possessed by actual individuals, though of course it's actual exercise depends on the existence of other consenting individuals to exercise it with. The liberal view of the 2A, on the other hand, refers to a so-called "right" that is possessed by society at large, which is to say it doesn't actually apply to anybody in particular. See the difference? One applies to actual individuals -- the other applies only to a fictional amorphous entity that is both everybody and nobody, and can only be exercised by a bunch of pompous suited sociopaths who claim to speak for everybody.

I believe that "rights" are simply the prerogative to engage in any behavior that doesn't involve dealing with others involuntarily. Voluntary cooperation is certainly included.

 

[Old Fart]

I really don't care.

Mostly just posted that because I hate to see a long thread go by without posting at least once in it.

 

[Lurker66]

I know this will not be popular but since this is a thread the mods left some leeway on ill say this. If Obama's mama had gotten with a good old boy from Alabama or down south ( many blacks are from) I would not have had as much of an issue with her. I think she was an absolute disgrace to her nation, race and heritage. In the 1960s, she was fooling around with a greasy, smelling African muslim. If she liked black guys there are plenty in America.

Someone once asked if I could change one thing in history what would it be. There are lots of them, but a couple things were
1, insure Obama's mama went to the university of Alabama
2, go back in time and beat the hell out of his dad and send him packing
3, have roe v wade decided the year before Obama was born. Since he is so in favor of abortion he should know that many white women knocked up by black men choose that ( from time working at the sumter county, Alabama department of health). I actually know 5 woman who have had abortions. Three of them did because the baby would be black. To me they are the real racists. They talk about me being conservative and at times, a bit of a separatist, but they are worse than a klansman. They want to show the path "to their freedom road" yet don't want to be labled as a "cheap, black whore" for life.

Your not impressing me.

 

[RickN]

I am holier than a guy who uses the term "Mud Shark" in reference to his own daughter, yes.

Ain't got time for Malkin, bud. Money to make. I hope I find some more stupid posts by lunch, tho.

You have not got time for her, or to read about how her and other non-whites like Clarence Thomas are treated by the lefties?

 

[BikerHT]

View attachment 35333

 

[FenixTxM3]

I am amazed that this thread is still open.

 

[dieseltech09]

Damn this thing hasnt been locked yet.