Texas Religious Liberty Law Signed

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Enid, OK
actually, i think it was an issue before (hence all the states passing state constitutional amendments against it and the federal DOMA law). It just wasn't an issue to most because they were on the side that wasn't being restricted so they didn't notice.

And why does it seem easier to 'remedy' things by passing state by state laws and a federal law vs what happened. Of course, that sets aside the unconstitutionality of DOMA. And even if you view that decision as wrong, i don't get why simply repealing it would be more burdensome than your proposal of passing 'appropriate' legislation.

But as i said, a problem of our own making.
Because marriage has always been a matter for the states to decide. And it is not a problem of our own making. Some same-sex couples decided that they were going to to married and overturn thousands of years of practice and all of a sudden it is a big civil rights issue. It sounds to me like the activists and a very sympathetic media are the ones who created the problem. Not the majority.

Like mac says, it wasn't a problem for the first 200 years of this republic (and thousands of years before that), so why is it now?
 

Snattlerake

Conservitum Americum
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
20,444
Reaction score
31,732
Location
OKC
Because of the normalcy issue. What was abnormal, even illegal according to state statutes in Oklahoma, is now normal in the eyes of liberals.

https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69417

Every person who is guilty of the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or with a beast, is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not exceeding ten (10) years. Except for persons sentenced to life or life without parole, any person sentenced to imprisonment for two (2) years or more for a violation of this section shall be required to serve a term of post-imprisonment supervision pursuant to subparagraph f of paragraph 1 of subsection A of Section 991a of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes under conditions determined by the Department of Corrections. The jury shall be advised that the mandatory post-imprisonment supervision shall be in addition to the actual imprisonment.
 

Buddhaman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
4,358
Reaction score
1,174
Location
Norman
Some cultures considered same-sex marriages immoral. Some didn’t. It’s currently law of the land for the US. I’m of the mind that as long as nobody is hurt, both parties are of age, and consent is given then it’s not my business what they do in the bedroom. If folks want to continue their “traditional” marriage it’s none of my business either. But I’m not in the business of trying to force someone to save their soul over beliefs I don’t follow.
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Enid, OK
Some cultures considered same-sex marriages immoral. Some didn’t. It’s currently law of the land for the US. I’m of the mind that as long as nobody is hurt, both parties are of age, and consent is given then it’s not my business what they do in the bedroom. If folks want to continue their “traditional” marriage it’s none of my business either. But I’m not in the business of trying to force someone to save their soul over beliefs I don’t follow.
I'm not saying that I oppose civil unions with all the rights of marriage. In fact, I support this and have for a long time. But it should come through the legislative process.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
84,546
Reaction score
61,826
Location
Ponca City Ok
Why is it that only liberal activists are the ones pushing this? That poor baker in colorado that has refused under religious reasons which are his right to not bake a cake for some homosexual men to get married has now developed into an effort by liberals to put him out of business because he doesn't believe in the same thing they do.
Why can liberal homosexuals be allowed to bully someone in a private business? They need to go find a homosexual baker to build them what they want in a wedding cake.
If I go to walmart and ask for a 1/4 chocolate, 1/4 lemon, 1/4 white, and a 1/4 whatever cake and walmart bakery refuses to make it because they don't do that type of cake I should take them to court and force them to make it for me? That's called bullying, but liberal homosexuals call it their right.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
Marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for countless centuries. THAT'S THOUSANDS OF YEARS, PEOPLE.

It's still defined that way IMO. Calling pigs "ducks" don't really make 'em ducks, no matter what the liberals say.

Just my 2¢ ... :drunk2:

lolz. For a long time gay meant happy, queer meant odd. You act like the meaning and use of words doesn't change and evolve over time.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
Because marriage has always been a matter for the states to decide. And it is not a problem of our own making. Some same-sex couples decided that they were going to to married and overturn thousands of years of practice and all of a sudden it is a big civil rights issue. It sounds to me like the activists and a very sympathetic media are the ones who created the problem. Not the majority.

Like mac says, it wasn't a problem for the first 200 years of this republic (and thousands of years before that), so why is it now?

if it was truly 'a matter for the states to decide' (which i agree, it historically was), then why did people allowed/want DOMA?

But yes, keep blaming the media. Lolz. I'm sure they were to blame for all civil rights issues.

So why the hangup on the meaning of the word marriage, exactly?
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
Why is it that only liberal activists are the ones pushing this? That poor baker in colorado that has refused under religious reasons which are his right to not bake a cake for some homosexual men to get married has now developed into an effort by liberals to put him out of business because he doesn't believe in the same thing they do.
Why can liberal homosexuals be allowed to bully someone in a private business? They need to go find a homosexual baker to build them what they want in a wedding cake.
If I go to walmart and ask for a 1/4 chocolate, 1/4 lemon, 1/4 white, and a 1/4 whatever cake and walmart bakery refuses to make it because they don't do that type of cake I should take them to court and force them to make it for me? That's called bullying, but liberal homosexuals call it their right.

i don't agree with them bullying the baker, but IIRC those are state laws they are using for this, right? As i said, we're now dealing with the pendulum swinging back. Maybe we should just call them gay marriage auditors, but instead of ARs in parks they are using cakes. Hopefully the courts will continue to correct this issue.

But i also think the baker could have handled things in a way that didn't make him a target. I've been in the wedding business for a long time and i can tell you there are ways to avoid working with clients that don't involve telling them you disagree with their lifestyle.
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Enid, OK
if it was truly 'a matter for the states to decide' (which i agree, it historically was), then why did people allowed/want DOMA?

But yes, keep blaming the media. Lolz. I'm sure they were to blame for all civil rights issues.

So why the hangup on the meaning of the word marriage, exactly?
Yes; I hold the media largely to blame for this shift in perception. Who else is capable of changing public perception? Smoking for example is now much less acceptable than it was two generations ago. The media got the message out about the dangers of smoking. Guns are another example where the media is trying (but in this case, not succeeding) to change perceptions. You mention civil rights. Had the media portrayed the civil rights movement in a negative fashion, it would not today be the potent force that it is.

The same thing is happening with LGBT issues. They are portrayed in a very favorable light with favorable results.

Don't underestimate the power of the media.

I'm not 'hung up' on the meaning of marriage. I am using the word as it has been used for thousands of years.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom