Oklahoma ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

aestus

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
23
Location
Oklahoma City
It is ok for liberals to do that. That is my big issue with liberalism. I will admit and have no doubt the fact most gays align with liberals has not helped my opinion of their "rights"

Maybe because gay people have no other choice but to support liberals because it's the only party that sees them as actual human beings and is the party in favor of gay marriage. Why would they align with the GOP when the GOP treats them as 2nd class citizens? It's no different than people who vote republican solely on 2A issues despite disagreeing with just about everything else the GOP stands for.

I know a lot of gay people in OKC who own guns, are very conservative and some are even very religious. You wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you. Some of them have served in the military and some are still in active duty or in the Guard/Reserves. Some are even registered Republicans and believe in limited government and the 2nd Amendment. Guess who they begrudgingly vote 90% of the time despite having more conservative values?

Democrat...

Why? because the #1 issue for them is to be treated equally under the law like everyone else and if they know a candidate is for gay marriage and gay rights, it weighs very heavily for them. So much so that it sometimes trumps their more conservative views in government.

This is also an issue with the non gay, more Libertarian leaning voters I know, many of whom may either be registered Democrats or Republicans. Not all Libertarians are fanatical gun owners and although they believe in the 2A, equal treatment of all people and freedom trumps all. Even these people will make the sacrifice in their other values and will vote for a Democratic/Liberal candidate even at the risk of the candidate being anti 2A or being the opposite in belief in the role of government. Why? Because for some of these people, equality is more important than anything and weighs heavily in their voting decisions.

Over half the people I know who are registered Democrat are so only because they see the GOP as the anti-freedom party that they view as progressively becoming more like Christian Diet Cola version of the Taliban.
 

rebel-son

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
Location
New Castle
I feel sorry for them too. They are voting out of self-defense. Just like Hispanics. Catholic Hispanics should be in the bag for the GOP, but the GOP has gone off the rails and lost them.

If more latinos would vote republican maybe republicans would support more of "their issues". I personally believe Christians ( that are true Christians) betray their religion with support of liberals and that is just on the issue of abortion and gay marriage. If you cant be true to your faith how can you be true to the country?

On Hispanics. It seems way too many view things as if you are brown and want to break into the country that you should be able to stay, breed like rats on our tax dollars, and dilute our culture and then out vote us.

I once called for a final solution to the illegal immigrant problem. I NEVER felt that way until latinos helped Obama win twice.

People do bring things on themselves.

For what it is worth anyone he thinks I "hate gays" times that by about the 10th power and that gives how I feel about illegals. I would dance at a gay man's wedding before I would support amnesty ( just no touching)
 

0311

Sharpshooter
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,293
Reaction score
2
Location
Hell
Did you vote for Obama?

Do you believe people should be able to stay in the country if they break in instead of deported?

I too did not know the term mud shark. Disgrace to race or coal burner.

I personally would still love my child if they were gay or a coal burner. I may not support their decisions, but they are your child. My child would stand the most chance of being disowned for being a liberal as I view them as enemies of the state and I believe our founders would as well.

I never disowned her. I will accept what she does. But I'm not going to retract the pejorative. Unlike one, I do not wear a suit of shining armor, sitting atop a high horse and spitting into the face of another.
 

rebel-son

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
Location
New Castle
Think about this:
If Obama's mama hadn't been impregnated by a black feller, he might not have grown up to be president. Maybe she knew something back then the rest of the world didn't....

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.
 

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
5,126
Location
Kingfisher County
Since what I say is true then it has no bearing on RKBA.

You missed the point. The RKBA is an individual right. Marriage is not an individual thing, therefore, cannot be a right. To embrace marriage as a right, it would have to be a collective right, only able to be exercised by more than one person. Ergo, to exercise the RKBA, it would have to be, or could be called, a collective right by the proponents of the anti-individual-militia-only right to keep and bear arms.

Veggie has made some good points in this discussion, but is making the mistake of referring to marriage as a right. It is not. Marriage is a privilege that we have the freedom to exercise within the bounds of the law.

Look at marriage in its proper context as a privilege, and this becomes much simpler. The definition of "marriage" is the legal contract by which a man and a woman become wife and husband. Whatever these same sex couples wish to engage in is going to need a name of its own and its own caveats in the tax code. The alteration of the meaning of words is one of the tactics the left uses to bastardize the Constitution when they can't get their way. In this case, they wish to alter the definition of 'marriage' to legitimize their abhorrent behavior, demand that legitimized aberration be applied to the tax code, so they may jump all over the equal protection clause as their vehicle to that end.

Woody
 

rebel-son

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
Location
New Castle
Maybe because gay people have no other choice but to support liberals because it's the only party that sees them as actual human beings and is the party in favor of gay marriage. Why would they align with the GOP when the GOP treats them as 2nd class citizens? It's no different than people who vote republican solely on 2A issues despite disagreeing with just about everything else the GOP stands for.

I know a lot of gay people in OKC who own guns, are very conservative and some are even very religious. You wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you. Some of them have served in the military and some are still in active duty or in the Guard/Reserves. Some are even registered Republicans and believe in limited government and the 2nd Amendment. Guess who they begrudgingly vote 90% of the time despite having more conservative values?

Democrat...

Why? because the #1 issue for them is to be treated equally under the law like everyone else and if they know a candidate is for gay marriage and gay rights, it weighs very heavily for them. So much so that it sometimes trumps their more conservative views in government.

This is also an issue with the non gay, more Libertarian leaning voters I know, many of whom may either be registered Democrats or Republicans. Not all Libertarians are fanatical gun owners and although they believe in the 2A, equal treatment of all people and freedom trumps all. Even these people will make the sacrifice in their other values and will vote for a Democratic/Liberal candidate even at the risk of the candidate being anti 2A or being the opposite in belief in the role of government. Why? Because for some of these people, equality is more important than anything and weighs heavily in their voting decisions.

Over half the people I know who are registered Democrat are so only because they see the GOP as the anti-freedom party that they view as progressively becoming more like Christian Diet Cola version of the Taliban.

Well you know a different democrat now. I am a democrat and am registered as such because of Abraham Lincoln, and William t Sherman. I could never call myself a republican because of those two.

SO basically the gays you know will flush the country down the toilet to have their sin state sponsored. That does not make sense to me. Also I am sure most of them are smart enough to know the democratic party is not as much "pro gay rights" as they are trying to organize every downtrodden group. Notice how Obama did not come out for gay marriage until he was down in the polls with Romney? It was a calculated risk that he figured would be ok. Notice that McCaskill and Tester did not come out in favor of it until after re-elected as they would not have been in their states. It is all about votes for dems and if gay people are too stupid to realize that they really need some soul searcing ,,,,,,,,,,,

I guess if its force others to accept them or bust thought that they get more with the democratic party except a country that aligns with what our founders intended.

This sounds funny, but I would 100% be more supportive of gay marriage if so many of them did not support those enemies of gun owners. Most liberals don't realize the second amendment is the reason for all the others to exist.
 

LightningCrash

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
105
Location
OKC
You missed the point. The RKBA is an individual right. Marriage is not an individual thing, therefore, cannot be a right. To embrace marriage as a right, it would have to be a collective right, only able to be exercised by more than one person. Ergo, to exercise the RKBA, it would have to be, or could be called, a collective right by the proponents of the anti-individual-militia-only right to keep and bear arms.

Veggie has made some good points in this discussion, but is making the mistake of referring to marriage as a right. It is not. Marriage is a privilege that we have the freedom to exercise within the bounds of the law.

Look at marriage in its proper context as a privilege, and this becomes much simpler. The definition of "marriage" is the legal contract by which a man and a woman become wife and husband. Whatever these same sex couples wish to engage in is going to need a name of its own and its own caveats in the tax code. The alteration of the meaning of words is one of the tactics the left uses to bastardize the Constitution when they can't get their way. In this case, they wish to alter the definition of 'marriage' to legitimize their abhorrent behavior, demand that legitimized aberration be applied to the tax code, so they may jump all over the equal protection clause as their vehicle to that end.

Woody

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.

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?

Hey, it's your perversion of marriage, you live with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom