California's same-sex marriage ban overturned

[olevetonahill]

As soon as a I find a link Ill post it .

[olevetonahill]

This was posted Before the Decision was handed down

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial;_ylt=AvygtDQmcaVaiWZWwo7mmSy s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNwbzIwZnZoBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODA 0L3VzX2dheV9tYXJyaWFnZV90cmlhbARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wd WxhcgRjcG9zAzQEcG9zAzEEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9 oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNqdWRnZXNydWxpbmc-

[Frozen Sooner]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling

There's the order. Might try to wade through it tonight. Probably not though.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

[olevetonahill]

Me either bro. Either way the losing side said they would appeal thia will prolly go before the SC. in a few years

[47straight]

...

[GKeeper316]

Me either bro. Either way the losing side said they would appeal thia will prolly go before the SC. in a few years

they'll lose. again.

[Serge Ibaka]

Congrats, California.

[GKeeper316]

yay constitution!

isnt it funny how the right wing neo-cons ignore the parts of the constitution they dont like, while accusing the left of doing the same?

[Serge Ibaka]

yay constitution!

isnt it funny how the right wing neo-cons ignore the parts of the constitution they dont like, while accusing the left of doing the same?

I had this same conversation with a friend today regarding all that sentiment about "fixing" the 14th amendment.

[Frozen Sooner]

Just a quick note:

This judge was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was shot down by Dianne Feinstein (among others) because they thought he was hostile towards gays. George H.W. Bush renominated him and he was confirmed.

Double irony: he's gay.

[olevetonahill]

I personally DGAS either way. I just think its interesting How the Far left Libs and the Far Right Cons
Go after each other on **** like this

[olevetonahill]

Just a quick note:

This judge was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was shot down by Dianne Feinstein (among others) because they thought he was hostile towards gays. George H.W. Bush renominated him and he was confirmed.

Double irony: he's gay.

If hes Openly Gay shouldn't he have recused himself ?

[KABOOKIE]

Yeah a victory for morality.

[Frozen Sooner]

Not at all. Justice Thomas doesn't recuse himself from any of the affirmative action cases he's heard, though he readily admits to being a beneficiary of affirmative action in the past. The presumption is that a judge ignores their own minority status when deciding cases that impact minorities.

[Frozen Sooner]

Insert tired Justice Sotomayor joke here.

[the_ouskull]

...and now that California's overturned this, they're going to digitally alter some of the Governator's old movies...

http://www.barnorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/batteries.jpg

I can't wait to see how they re-do Twins.

the_ouskull

[TheHumanAlphabet]

If SCOTUS maintains its current split, I wonder what the decision would be???

[olevetonahill]

...and now that California's overturned this,



I can't wait to see how they re-do Twins.

the_ouskull

Skull Cal didnt overturn it . A Federal Judge did :P

[GKeeper316]

Skull Cal didnt overturn it . A Federal Judge did :P

tuh-may-toe

[olevetonahill]

tuh-may-toe

:rolleyes:

[Fraggle145]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3555/3424923946_4b5b26b668.jpg

[Frozen Sooner]

If SCOTUS maintains its current split, I wonder what the decision would be???

Assuming the 9th Circuit affirms,

Affirm:
Sotomayor
Kagan
RBG
Breyer

Reverse
Thomas
Alito
Roberts
Scalia

"Swing" vote:
Kennedy. He wrote the opinions in Romer and Lawrence, so it's likely he'd vote to affirm. Then again, he specifically noted in Lawrence that the court wasn't reaching the marriage issue.

[Frozen Sooner]

tuh-may-toe

Actually, olevet has a pretty valid point. The DC was properly exercising his "arises under" jurisdiction to put the kibosh on a state action.

[olevetonahill]

Actually, olevet has a pretty valid point. The DC was properly exercising his "arises under" jurisdiction to put the kibosh on a state action.

That and I were Poking Fun at Skull cause hes always gettin on folks fer their Spelling and Punctuation. Insisting every one be Totally correct ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Actually, olevet has a pretty valid point. The DC was properly exercising his "arises under" jurisdiction to put the kibosh on a state action.

Just to clarify: "properly" in this context is not a comment on the validity of the opinion, simply that the District Court, pursuant to Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, had jurisdiction over this case.

[olevetonahill]

Just to clarify: "properly" in this context is not a comment on the validity of the opinion, simply that the District Court, pursuant to Article III and 42 U.S.C. § 1331, had jurisdiction over this case.

Dayum Students:P Yall got to be precise in everything or the Prof's will kick yer *** :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, goddamnit, except I cited the wrong title, right section.

And kind of the opposite-a prof would know what I meant by properly, but a casual reader in the thread might not. Wanted to avoid the whole "IT WASN'T PROPER! HE WAS WRONG!!!" argument.

[the_ouskull]

That and I were Poking Fun at Skull cause hes always gettin on folks fer their Spelling and Punctuation. Insisting every one be Totally correct ;)

Then get on whoever titled this thread. (Ahem..) You think I read anybody else's posts? Besides, this is about California, the state over which the individual judge presides. Your argument implies that the judge is more important than his constituents. Mine simply skips the middleman (the judge) between the issue and the outcome. I was being concise, not incorrect.

And I should get on MORE people for their grammar and punctuation, not fewer. I'd need a translator for your posts if your biggest problem wasn't randomly capitalizing words like a f*ckin' 13 year-old girl on MySpace, trying to make yourself come off as a lot dumber than you are. You're Keyser Soze, aren't you?

the_ouskull

[MR2-Sooner86]

:pop:

[olevetonahill]

Yeah, goddamnit, except I cited the wrong title, right section.

And kind of the opposite-a prof would know what I meant by properly, but a casual reader in the thread might not. Wanted to avoid the whole "IT WASN'T PROPER! HE WAS WRONG!!!" argument.

So just what Grade would you give yerself :P

[Okla-homey]

Just to be clear, the DC did not stay the injunction against homosexual marriage. Also, it ain't over 'til the Supremes rule.

But I think in the end (no pun intended) same sex marriage will be the law across the Fruited Plain (ditto).

And given a statistic I read today that the average length of gay union in the US is only 1.3 years, it will be manna from heaven and a veritable goldmine for the divorce bar that has taken a hit lately because in tough times, people are less inclined to divorce one another because its expensive. That and the fact straights are not marrying as much as they used to and are increasingly just shacking.

[olevetonahill]

Then get on whoever titled this thread. (Ahem..) You think I read anybody else's posts? Besides, this is about California, the state over which the individual judge presides.

Uhmm Bro that is a federal Judge , He just over a STATE hes over a district

Your argument implies that the judge is more important than his constituents.

A Federal Judge Has No constituents


Mine simply skips the middleman (the judge) between the issue and the outcome. I was being concise, not incorrect.
You lose cause you sir were indeed incorrect :P


And I should get on MORE people for their grammar and punctuation, not fewer. I'd need a translator for your posts if your biggest problem wasn't randomly capitalizing words like a f*ckin' 13 year-old girl on MySpace, trying to make yourself come off as a lot dumber than you are. You're Keyser Soze, aren't you?

the_ouskull


But Sir I am a dumb mother ****er :P

[Okla-homey]

So just what Grade would you give yerself :P

You know Vet, law students are kinda like second lieutenants. They know just enough to be dangerous. After they get out in the world and realize all that case law they read don't amount to dikum in Creek, Comanche or LeFlore County, they tend to be less quick to wax eloquent on stuff. ;)

[bluedogok]

yay constitution!

isnt it funny how the right wing neo-cons ignore the parts of the constitution they dont like, while accusing the left of doing the same?
That sums up politicians in general....

[olevetonahill]

You know Vet, law students are kinda like second lieutenants. They know just enough to be dangerous. After they get out in the world and realize all that case law they read don't amount to dikum in Creek, Comanche or LeFlore County, they tend to be less quick to wax eloquent on stuff. ;)

So yer saying they Be a Intellectual Frag Magnet ?:D

[oumartin]

well and now they will get government health care to pay for those pills to keep them alive. What a great country.

[XingTheRubicon]

^^maybe the best/worst post ever^^

[Frozen Sooner]

Just to be clear, the DC did not stay the injunction against homosexual marriage. Also, it ain't over 'til the Supremes rule.

The DC has stayed his order striking down California's constitutional amendment pending a hearing on staying for appeal. There is no injunction against homosexual marriage.

I'll choose to ignore your other comments, considering you love to cite case law when it suits your own ends.

[SCOUT]

Remember when the people had a voice? Good times.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

http://z.about.com/d/motorcycles/1/0/W/s/-/-/South_Park_Harleys_200.jpg

Fags!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://www.undiplomatic.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/picture-31.png

No more fun of ANY kind!

that includes ghey buttsecks

[GKeeper316]

Remember when the people had a voice? Good times.

the people's voice has always been, and will continue to be, subordinate to the constitution of the united states.

if same-sex marriage bans are deemed unconstitutional, then there exists a process for amending the constitution.

[olevetonahill]

:rolleyes:
Hell Jar head
I dont care if ya want to marry a Steve instead of an Eve . You out the service feel free :rolleyes:

[Crucifax Autumn]

As long as no one tells me who to **** or marry I don't give a **** and won't tell anyone else what to do.

[ndpruitt03]

I don't know why the government is even involved in marriage. Marriage should be 100% a church thing. If they want gay people or even polygamous marriages that is their problem. The government should have nothing to do with it. It should be church's decision to marry whoever it wants. I can understand why church's are against some form of marriages but the government should stay the f*** out of marriage it's really that simple.

[olevetonahill]

I don't know why the government is even involved in marriage. Marriage should be 100% a church thing. If they want gay people or even polygamous marriages that is their problem. The government should have nothing to do with it. It should be church's decision to marry whoever it wants. I can understand why church's are against some form of marriages but the government should stay the f*** out of marriage it's really that simple.

Nick Ya just get dumber as ya go .:rolleyes:

[ndpruitt03]

yay constitution!

isnt it funny how the right wing neo-cons ignore the parts of the constitution they dont like, while accusing the left of doing the same?

I agree with this 100% the constitution clearly says that the church and state should be separate. The churches should make decisions with marriage the government should stay out of it. But that would mean less power for the government so it'll probably never happen.

[olevetonahill]

http://z.about.com/d/motorcycles/1/0/W/s/-/-/South_Park_Harleys_200.jpg

Fags!

:eek:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_njKPjCEOAnQ/Sm6IIFISBcI/AAAAAAAABIg/ATYCO2MwWpU/s400/fags.jpg

[Crucifax Autumn]

Nick Ya just get dumber as ya go .:rolleyes:

Remember what I said about missplaced apostrophes earlier?

Yeah.

[tommieharris91]

Remember when the people had a voice? Good times.

Bush vs. Gore election comeback in 3...2...1...

(Ohh and I'm probably gonna side with the Bushies in this one.)

[tommieharris91]

I agree with this 100% the constitution clearly says that the church and state should be separate. The churches should make decisions with marriage the government should stay out of it. But that would mean less power for the government so it'll probably never happen.

Can you find that "separation of church and state" part of the Constitution for me?

BTW, you shoulda went with the state's rights argument. Considering that these marriages are recognized by states and not by many religions, the states' rights arguments actually holds water.

[GKeeper316]

Can you find that "separation of church and state" part of the Constitution for me?

BTW, you shoulda went with the state's rights argument. Considering that these marriages are recognized by states and not by many religions, the states' rights arguments actually holds water.

if the state is going to involve itself in the process (by appointing itself issuing authority for marriage licenses) then the state is strictly prohibited from discriminating against anyone for any reason. equal protection and whatnot.

[tommieharris91]

if the state is going to involve itself in the process (by appointing itself issuing authority for marriage licenses) then the state is strictly prohibited from discriminating against anyone for any reason. equal protection and whatnot.

And like many of the law thinkers have already posted in this thread, whether Amendment X or Amendment XIV is stronger really should be decided by the SCOTUS.

[KABOOKIE]

Polygamy then closely followed by incestuous relationships will be the moral norm in a 100 years. Hey the Constitution gives equal protection. :rolleyes:

[KABOOKIE]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of gayness.

[GKeeper316]

:rolleyes:
Hell Jar head
I dont care if ya want to marry a Steve instead of an Eve . You out the service feel free :rolleyes:

you jealous?

[ndpruitt03]

Can you find that "separation of church and state" part of the Constitution for me?

BTW, you shoulda went with the state's rights argument. Considering that these marriages are recognized by states and not by many religions, the states' rights arguments actually holds water.

If you had read anything by the founding fathers. Be it Jefferson's Statute of Virginia on Religious Freedom. Or Madison's feelings in Federalists papers and other areas. These people clearly wanted the people to believe what they want and keep government out of religion. They were both big readers and had seen what state run religions had done to countries in Europe and other places in the past. They wanted the government to stay as far away from religion as possible. And they were right. The government shouldn't get involved in any part of religion unless that religion is into the harm of other people.

[ouflak]

This decision isn't too surprising. The only arguments I've ever heard against allowing gay marriage are the same arguments that were made to not allow my own parents to be married in Oklahoma in 1966. A 'renegade/activist' judge married my parents anyway and those laws were overturned by the Supreme Court the following year. So far, those arguments are 0-1, and I think that they are about to be 0-2 when/if this makes it to the Supreme Court.


Remember when the people had a voice? Good times.

Sometimes those of us in the minority do have a point. And one thing I don't think the majority (the people) often realize, is that when we win/get these 'rights' affirmed for us, we get them not only for ourselves, but for the majority as well in the long run.

[sooner n houston]

If you had read anything by the founding fathers. Be it Jefferson's Statute of Virginia on Religious Freedom. Or Madison's feelings in Federalists papers and other areas. These people clearly wanted the people to believe what they want and keep government out of religion. They were both big readers and had seen what state run religions had done to countries in Europe and other places in the past. They wanted the government to stay as far away from religion as possible. And they were right. The government shouldn't get involved in any part of religion unless that religion is into the harm of other people.

Nice deflection on your earlier ignorant statement about "seperation of church and state" being in the constitution! If your going to rely on Oberman for your info, you ought to at least learn to do a little research so you don't wind up looking like a fool! Try reading the constitution some day, you might learn something for YOURSELF!


A few quotes from Jefferson!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear... Do not be frightened from this inquiry from any fear of its consequences. If it ends in the belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise...

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. (Do you really think they had homo's in mind back then?).

And one of my favorite Jefferson quotes:
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

[Sooner in Tampa]

A couple of thoughts:

1) This is FAR from over...headed straight to SCOTUS
2) I don't care if you are a man and you love to suck dick...that's your choice, it's between you and your maker
3) I FIRMLY believe that faggots want gay marriage to legitimize their lifestyle
4) I find it quite offensive that one judge can overturn 7million votes all by him/her self
5) My preference would be for this to be left to each indiviual state to decide. If you live in state that allows faggots to marry and you don't like...MOVE
6) Separation of Church and State have NOTHING to do with this argument
7) The argument that gay marriage will lead to incestious marriages and what not is kind of dumb...it's like saying legalizing Mary J will lead to heroin addiction...WTF?
8) I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions

[JohnnyMack]

This place never fails to disappoint.

[ouflak]

A couple of thoughts:
3) I FIRMLY believe that faggots want gay marriage to legitimize their lifestyle


I think it is even more insidious than this. I think homosexuals want the rest of us to accept this... 'lifestyle' if you like.



4) I find it quite offensive that one judge can overturn 7million votes all by him/her self

When one judge married my parents, he did this against this votes of atleast 1.5 million Oklahoma voters (AND it was explicitly illegal at the time). Personally I'm glad he did. I rather like existing.



5) My preference would be for this to be left to each individual state to decide. If you live in state that allows faggots to marry and you don't like...MOVE

So my parents should have just moved? To where? Texas??? God forbid.



8) I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions

I have a more moderate but similar view. My biggest problem with civil unions is that they, with few exceptions, aren't allowed for heterosexuals as well. I think this is unfair and I predict another lawsuit and subsequent Supreme Court court ruling for this type of union in the future if the gay marriage thing doesn't pass.

That said, that these people want to marry or whatever really doesn't matter to me, or my own wonderful marriage, one ****'in bit. But it was a big deal for a lot of other people who had nothing to do with my parents when they got married. I guess that's just the way people are.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I agree with this 100% the constitution clearly says that the church and state should be separate. The churches should make decisions with marriage the government should stay out of it. But that would mean less power for the government so it'll probably never happen.


Can you find that "separation of church and state" part of the Constitution for me?

BTW, you shoulda went with the state's rights argument. Considering that these marriages are recognized by states and not by many religions, the states' rights arguments actually holds water.

I don't believe either party in this lawsuit used separation of church and state as the issue.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Ineresting opinion


I find that the judge makes some good arguments for gay marriage, but doesn't succeed in relating them to the constitution. His legal analysis is sloppy at best and dismisses the sex-difference argument for traditional marriage by flippantly referring to what he calls "discredited notions of gender" as if the assumptions about a supposed social construction of gender had been proven true when, in fact, all serious psychological, sociological studies have shown the opposite. Not to mention studies of the human brain.

He fails to cite a provision of the federal constitution which prevents states from making distinctions based on sex difference, primarily because there isn't one.

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't believe either party in this lawsuit used separation of church and state as the issue.

They didn't. It was an Equal Protection/Substantive Due Process claim.

[Frozen Sooner]

Ineresting opinion

That happens to ignore Supreme Court precedent.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I guess a 5-4 decision is likely with Kennedy the key swing vote.

[tommieharris91]

If you had read anything by the founding fathers. Be it Jefferson's Statute of Virginia on Religious Freedom. Or Madison's feelings in Federalists papers and other areas. These people clearly wanted the people to believe what they want and keep government out of religion. They were both big readers and had seen what state run religions had done to countries in Europe and other places in the past. They wanted the government to stay as far away from religion as possible. And they were right. The government shouldn't get involved in any part of religion unless that religion is into the harm of other people.

Once again, can you find the "separation of church and state" part of the Constitution for me?

[tommieharris91]

Nice deflection on your earlier ignorant statement about "seperation of church and state" being in the constitution! If your going to rely on Oberman for your info, you ought to at least learn to do a little research so you don't wind up looking like a fool! Try reading the constitution some day, you might learn something for YOURSELF!


*psst* he's a tea partier

[ndpruitt03]

Once again, can you find the "separation of church and state" part of the Constitution for me?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I think that's pretty clear right there.

[tommieharris91]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I think that's pretty clear right there.

Note that it is not "separation of church and state." Thus, government cannot force gay marriage upon a church.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Once again, can you find the "separation of church and state" part of the Constitution for me?

While it is not worded as above...here ya go --- 1st Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The term "separation of church and state" comes from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury Ct in 1802


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

[badger]

I find it amazing that California wasn't the first one to get this done. Some east coast states and even Iowa already have and California is WAAAAY more liberal than Iowa.

The fact is, that just like Ten Commandments monuments in front of courthouses, this is a losing battle.

[Frozen Sooner]

While it is not worded as above...here ya go --- 1st Amendment:



The term "separation of church and state" comes from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury Ct in 1802

And while the term wasn't used explicitly, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is pretty influential.

[ndpruitt03]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

I couldn't find that all except in a book I had, so thanks for finding that. It's pretty clear if you read what both Madison and Jefferson wrote in this period that they wanted government out of religion.

[Sooner in Tampa]

And while the term wasn't used explicitly, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is pretty influential.

Yes...and I agree with entire premise of separation of church and state...which is why I pointed out that it really doesn't pertain to this discussion/ruling

separation of church and state gets thrown around too much

[ndpruitt03]

Yes...and I agree with entire premise of separation of church and state...which is why I pointed out that it really doesn't pertain to this discussion/ruling

separation of church and state gets thrown around too much

I think marriage being a religious thing makes it involved. But you are right in that this should be more about the people basically voted gay marriage down. So in essence this about going against the will of the people in California. However I don't think there should be any laws about marriage anywhere. Outside of maybe getting married before a certain age. It should be a church thing.

[Okla-homey]

However I don't think there should be any laws about marriage anywhere. Outside of maybe getting married before a certain age. It should be a church thing.

Can't avoid it. The state is involved in marriage up to its ears. Our whole system of inheritance and employer provided group health care insurance turns on it.

[ndpruitt03]

Can't avoid it. The state is involved in marriage up to its ears. Our whole system of inheritance and employer provided group health care insurance turns on it.

True and getting out of religion would probably mean less power for the government. I do think this thing goes to the Supreme Court because states rights are constitutionally protected in this case. And the people voted gay marriage down.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Can't avoid it. The state is involved in marriage up to its ears. Our whole system of inheritance and employer provided group health care insurance turns on it.
Which is EXACTLY why states should decide.

[Sooner_Havok]

Which is EXACTLY why states should decide.

Couldn't agree more, but they still have to worry about that pesky XIV Amendment. See, because the states passed that meddlesome amendment, all states are required to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. So, unless you want to lose all the legal benefits associated with marriage, then it would seem that, under our stupid and pointless constitution, the "fagots" you speak of will eventually gain the right to marry.

But, onward Christian soldier, write your congressman, tell him that if the stupid constitution, a document written by Washington politicians, says that those fagots have to have the same rights as we do, then you wish to give up all the benefits the law grants to heterosexual marriage. We can cut off our nose to spite our face, and show those fagots just how serious we are!

[OUMallen]

Couldn't agree more, but they still have to worry about that pesky XIV Amendment. See, because the states passed that meddlesome amendment, all states are required to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. So, unless you want to lose all the legal benefits associated with marriage, then it would seem that, under our stupid and pointless constitution, the "fagots" you speak of will eventually gain the right to marry.

But, onward Christian soldier, wright your congressman, tell him that if the stupid constitution, a document written by Washington politicians, says that those fagots have to have the same rights as we do, then you wish to give up all the benefits the law grants to heterosexual marriage. We can cut off our nose to spite our face, and show those fagots just how serious we are!

States didn't seem to have a problem with common law marriage.

[Sooner_Havok]

States didn't seem to have a problem with common law marriage.

Did CL marriage exclude a discrete and insular minority not already discriminated against by regular marriage? My understanding of CL marriage is "If you cohabitate with a member of the opposite sex for a certain period of time, then you are considered married"

[JohnnyMack]

I think marriage being a religious thing makes it involved. But you are right in that this should be more about the people basically voted gay marriage down. So in essence this about going against the will of the people in California. However I don't think there should be any laws about marriage anywhere. Outside of maybe getting married before a certain age. It should be a church thing.

The concept of marriage isn't something that is a product of religion.

[Sooner_Havok]

The concept of marriage isn't something that is a product of religion.

But it is something that has been deeply and completely incorporated into most religions, either when they where created or later as one religion absorbed aspects it found useful from another religion.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes...and I agree with entire premise of separation of church and state...which is why I pointed out that it really doesn't pertain to this discussion/ruling

separation of church and state gets thrown around too much

That it does. You could possibly bring an Establishment or Free Exercise claim, but neither one goes far. The Free Exercise claim would be trumped by Reynolds and Smith (presupposing you could even claim that the tenets of your religion required marrying someone of the same sex, which probably wouldn't get far.) Under Establishment, you might get some traction under either the endorsement test or the second prong of Lemon, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that anti-gay marriage legislation either promotes a particular religion or endorses a particular religion (or religion over irreligion) any more than, say, anti-gambling legislation does.

Edit: I apologize for citing cases that might not be impressive to a jury in Deer Lick, OK. Since we're discussing the application of the Constitution in Federal courts, I figured what Joe Don Juror might think isn't really important, particularly since the relief sought was equitable, not legal.

[Frozen Sooner]

States didn't seem to have a problem with common law marriage.

How many states actually recognize CL marriage anymore?

[Sooner_Havok]

How many states actually recognize CL marriage anymore?

OK does, but I think most states have abolished it. Seems like I remember hearing like 7 still have it. Not 100% sure the exact number, but it ain't many.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Couldn't agree more, but they still have to worry about that pesky XIV Amendment. See, because the states passed that meddlesome amendment, all states are required to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. So, unless you want to lose all the legal benefits associated with marriage, then it would seem that, under our stupid and pointless constitution, the "fagots" you speak of will eventually gain the right to marry.

But, onward Christian soldier, write your congressman, tell him that if the stupid constitution, a document written by Washington politicians, says that those fagots have to have the same rights as we do, then you wish to give up all the benefits the law grants to heterosexual marriage. We can cut off our nose to spite our face, and show those fagots just how serious we are!

The XIV Amendment:
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law

My argument is this: allow the states to decide if the SSM is LAW. SIMPLE ENOUGH?

I have previously stated that I have no problem whatsoever with allowing "civil unions" and give them the same law grants as heterosexual marriages.
It seem like a simple enough comprise to me...

[Frozen Sooner]

The XIV Amendment:
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law

My argument is this: allow the states to decide if the SSM is LAW. SIMPLE ENOUGH?

I have previously stated that I have no problem whatsoever with allowing "civil unions" and give them the same law grants as heterosexual marriages.
It seem like a simple enough comprise to me...

Take that a bit further into the concept of substantive due process. The state may not burden certain rights except under certain circumstances.

[Sooner_Havok]

My argument is this: allow the states to decide if the SSM is LAW. SIMPLE ENOUGH?

Not really that simple. If ANY MARRIAGE is the LAW, then the Equal Protection Clause implies that the state must apply that LAW EQUALLY, to ALL PEOPLE.

If you give straight folks a right, and actively deprive gay people that right, then you are not APPLYING THE LAW EQUALLY. SIMPLE ENOUGH?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But it's not a "right".

[Frozen Sooner]

But it's not a "right".

The the contrary, marriage is a fundamental right.

[Sooner_Havok]

But it's not a "right".

Then we have laws governing a privilege? We give people the legal privilege to marry? I am confused?

[ndpruitt03]

The XIV Amendment:
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law

My argument is this: allow the states to decide if the SSM is LAW. SIMPLE ENOUGH?

I have previously stated that I have no problem whatsoever with allowing "civil unions" and give them the same law grants as heterosexual marriages.
It seem like a simple enough comprise to me...

So basically you are disagreeing with this judge. He basically went against the will of the people who already voted down gay marriage.

[ouflak]

Which is EXACTLY why states should decide.


Should the state of Oklahoma have had the final say on whether my mother and father could marry each other?

I personally think not (for obvious reasons).

The Supreme Court certainly didn't think so and promptly decided the matter for the state the following year. Sometimes that's just what they have to do when the state will obviously not do the right thing on their own. This may be another one of those instances.

It's curious, even eerie, how exactly parallel the arguments against this type of marriage are too my own parent's marriage.

[Frozen Sooner]

Should the state of Oklahoma have had the final say on whether my mother and father could marry each other?

I personally think not (for obvious reasons).

The Supreme Court certainly didn't think so and promptly decided the matter for the state the following year. Sometimes that's just what they have to do when the state will obviously not do the right thing on their own. This may be another one of those instances.

It's curious, even eerie, how exactly parallel the arguments against this type of marriage are.

Nobody's trotted out the "God put 'em on different continents" argument yet. That was my favorite.

[LosAngelesSooner]

All I have to say is: The Utah Mormon Church spent over $40 million to force this through in California.

Couldn't that money have been spent in a more productive way? Like feeding starving people or housing the homeless?

All this wasted energy on what people can/can't do in the privacy of their own homes. It's silly and wasteful.

[LosAngelesSooner]

...And given a statistic I read today that the average length of gay union in the US is only 1.3 years...But how much of that is due to all the marriages in CA being made void 1.3 years after they were legalized? ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Remember when the people had a voice? Good times.
‎"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

- Thomas Jefferson

[C&CDean]

I'm reasonably certain old Tommy boy wasn't thinking about Adam and Steve when he made that quote.

Anyhow, I couldn't give a **** one way or the other anymore. **** who you want, marry who you want, kill who you want, whatever. Who the **** cares?

[LosAngelesSooner]

The "Will of the People" was to keep slavery legal, too.

And it was to deny blacks the right to vote.

And women.

‎"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

- Thomas Jefferson



I think he knew exactly what he was speaking of.

[LosAngelesSooner]

And I'm done. I just had to post in this thread. You can't have a Gay Thread on the S.O. without at least ONE LAS appearance.

It's like...a law...or something. :D

[C&CDean]

Well they are your peeps...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well they are your peeps...And good, intelligent, clean, well groomed, talented peeps they tend to be. ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Anyhow, I couldn't give a **** one way or the other anymore. **** who you want, marry who you want, kill who you want, whatever. Who the **** cares?

And you have officially become a grumpy old man.

Congrats!

[Chuck Bao]

Well since LAS just had to post, so do I. And, they are definitely my peeps and yours too Dean if you count family, friends, neighbors, fellow Sooner fans as your peeps.

I just want to say the following:

The ability to issue marriage licenses clearly belongs to the individual states. But, the federal judge makes a good point that a certain minority is being disadvantaged and denied their right.

I like that there is legal precedence in this. Laws against mixed race marriages were very popular and would win in a landslide vote some 50-60 years ago, as some posters have pointed out. Thank goodness those laws were struck down and the vast majority of people came around to see that the ability to marry should be color blind and that was just fair and right. Was that intrusion on state rights and going against the prevailing voting public? Yeah, probably.

I would be happy as punch for gay civil unions to be recognized. By that, I mean recognized by other states, as well as the US State Department. Currently, they are not. Didn’t the Oklahoma legislature pass a bill that it would definitely not recognize any same-sex marriage or civil union licenses issued by another state?

Forget the term “marriage”. It is a loaded term with a whole lot of baggage. Why object to civil unions being issued by the state and holy matrimony being consecrated in a church?

Nobody and I mean nobody should be confused about this - no religion is being forced to accept same-sex marriage. Surely those of you who have married realize that heterosexual couples marrying do not automatically qualify for a church wedding. You have to be a member of that church and in some cases get church counseling and conversion of the spouse. The vast majority of churches in Oklahoma would not wed a same-sex couple and they will never have to, despite the law.

And, the last point. It is a very popular idea that a marriage isn’t legal unless it was performed by an ordained minister or a ship captain. I realize this myth is perpetuated by Hollywood in some great moves and TV series. Is there really a law in Oklahoma that states that? Don’t you think it is a bit outdated? Can’t you be ordained as a minister over the internet these days?

[C&CDean]

Oh I know Chuck. I ain't got a problem with the whole bedroom thing. I just think the marriage deal is ****ing weird. Why go do something that obviously ****s up straight peoples' lives if you don't have to? Gays ain't gonna do it any better than straights, and then when you go adopt kids and crap you throw a whole other monkey wrench into the gears. Y'all need to go by the old "why buy the cow (or the bull in y'all's case) when you can have the milk for free?" adage. Be careful what you wish for amigo.

[Chuck Bao]

Oh I know Chuck. I ain't got a problem with the whole bedroom thing. I just think the marriage deal is ****ing weird. Why go do something that obviously ****s up straight peoples' lives if you don't have to? Gays ain't gonna do it any better than straights, and then when you go adopt kids and crap you throw a whole other monkey wrench into the gears. Y'all need to go by the old "why buy the cow (or the bull in y'all's case) when you can have the milk for free?" adage. Be careful what you wish for amigo.

For the record, I do not want to “marry” Nope in a church. Talk about awkward, especially since he is a Buddhist. But I can understand when two Christian guys or two Christian gals may want their union blessed by God. And, God bless them. I presume that they will find a church that accepts them.

You may see it as ****ing weird. They may see it as love and love-making and a lifetime commitment. Your idea that you don’t care what goes on in the bedroom does not even partially cover it. The key point is equal legal protection.

I don’t yet see how any of this ****s up straight people’s lives.

Adoption is a whole other matter. But, I have to say that the same-sex couples who I have known to have adopted turned out to be great parents.

It is also crazy to think that since about 50% of straight marriages end in divorce that you are doing the gays a favor in denying marriage. Without a doubt, gays are the horniest of the horn dogs around. But, at least give us that chance. I am pretty sure that I wanted that committed relationship thing for as long as realized that I was gay.

[Okla-homey]

For the record, I do not want to “marry” Nope in a church. Talk about awkward, especially since he is a Buddhist. But I can understand when two Christian guys or two Christian gals may want their union blessed by God. And, God bless them. I presume that they will find a church that accepts them.

You may see it as ****ing weird. They may see it as love and love-making and a lifetime commitment. Your idea that you don’t care what goes on in the bedroom does not even partially cover it. The key point is equal legal protection.

I don’t yet see how any of this ****s up straight people’s lives.

Adoption is a whole other matter. But, I have to say that the same-sex couples who I have known to have adopted turned out to be great parents.

It is also crazy to think that since about 50% of straight marriages end in divorce that you are doing the gays a favor in denying marriage. Without a doubt, gays are the horniest of the horn dogs around. But, at least give us that chance. I am pretty sure that I wanted that committed relationship thing for as long as realized that I was gay.

Hang in their Chuck. Victory is in sight.

In my mind, it was made inevitable when SCOTUS issued Lawrence v. Texas that decriminalized homosexual sodomy and holds there is a Constitutional right to homosexual sodomy between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I would point out though, homosexual sodomy between two consenting adults in my bedroom would be a problem. Because I'd do something really mean if I caught them doing that in there. And Mrs. Homey would probably freak out because she has a new bedspread she won't even let me think about sitting on, much less letting those kind of shenanigans occur on it.

But seriously, it's going to happen. Probably now within three years at the outside.

[Chuck Bao]

Hang in their Chuck. Victory is in sight.

In my mind, it was made inevitable when SCOTUS issued Lawrence v. Texas that decriminalized homosexual sodomy and holds there is a Constitutional right to homosexual sodomy between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I would point out though, homosexual sodomy between two consenting adults in my bedroom would be a problem. Because I'd do something really mean if I caught them doing that in there. And Mrs. Homey would probably freak out because she has a new bedspread she won't even let me think about sitting on, much less letting those kind of shenanigans occur on it.

But seriously, it's going to happen. Probably now within three years at the outside.

So, you wouldn't invite me and Nope over to spend the night? Frankly speaking, I'm crushed.

What if we promised Mrs. Homey that we would make love on one of her towels instead of her beautiful bedsheets?

I do love that you think it will happen. And, it is about time. States keep their right to issue civil unions. Churches can do that marriage thing. And, everyone is happy, right?

[MR2-Sooner86]

Gays have the right to get married in the legal sense as it does infringe on their rights.

Gays don't have the right to get married in a religious institute if that institute doesn't want to. That's their right to allow or deny them that ceremony.

It's that simple folks. Case closed.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Oh I know Chuck. I ain't got a problem with the whole bedroom thing. I just think the marriage deal is ****ing weird. Why go do something that obviously ****s up straight peoples' lives if you don't have to? Gays ain't gonna do it any better than straights, and then when you go adopt kids and crap you throw a whole other monkey wrench into the gears. Y'all need to go by the old "why buy the cow (or the bull in y'all's case) when you can have the milk for free?" adage. Be careful what you wish for amigo.

I don't see how it **** s me or any straight person in the least. How does it affect you? Does it deprive you of any rights?

[Crucifax Autumn]

He was obviously referring to how STRAIGHT marriage effs up straight people's lives and wondering why gays would want to do it.

You and I agree that they should have the right to eff up their lives by getting married.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

He was obviously referring to how STRAIGHT marriage effs up straight people's lives and wondering why gays would want to do it.

You and I agree that they should have the right to eff up their lives by getting married.


OK, I get it now.

[MR2-Sooner86]

He was obviously referring to how STRAIGHT marriage effs up straight people's lives and wondering why gays would want to do it.

You and I agree that they should have the right to eff up their lives by getting married.

Divorce? Alimony? Child support? Yeah...they're really missing out.

[Frozen Sooner]

Gays have the right to get married in the legal sense as it does infringe on their rights.

Gays don't have the right to get married in a religious institute if that institute doesn't want to. That's their right to allow or deny them that ceremony.

It's that simple folks. Case closed.

Were that only the actual law of the land right now, that'd be awesome. It's getting there.

I'll say right here and now that if someone attempts to use the courts to force a church to marry a couple in a religious ceremony, I'll be on the church's side 100%.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Were that only the actual law of the land right now, that'd be awesome. It's getting there.

That's the thing, people are taking the religious ceremony and treating it like the legal stance which is a big problem. Religion does not come into play when we're dealing with people's taxes and such.

As stated before, Christians a hundred years ago saw marrying a black woman, or vice versa, a sin and they wanted to pass an amendment to ban it. In time this will happen they just need to be knocked upside the head with that thing called common sense.

[Frozen Sooner]

Religion does not come into play when we're dealing with people's taxes and such.

Believe it or not, it does.

The Amish, for example, don't pay in to the Social Security system.

Churches are generally exempt from property taxes.

Religious groups have broad exemptions to both Title VII and the ADA, both statutory and common-law.

And, oddly enough, I support most of that.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Believe it or not, it does.

The Amish, for example, don't pay in to the Social Security system.

Churches are generally exempt from property taxes.

Religious groups have broad exemptions to both Title VII and the ADA, both statutory and common-law.

And, oddly enough, I support most of that.

Yes but does that affect you personally? You can argue that it does but for the most part in your day to day life it doesn't. A gay couple is being subjected to a religious group's views and is forced to live with certain tax codes, special rules, etc. What you have there is the church making political decisions that affect people's lives in a negative way. That right there takes a big steaming dump on the Constitution.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I guess I don't get why so much money is being wasted on this by both sides. If you want to PIITB, I don't care.

Just fix the damn economy and get gas back to $1.00 a gallon and I'll be happy.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes but does that affect you personally? You can argue that it does but for the most part in your day to day life it doesn't. A gay couple is being subjected to a religious group's views and is forced to live with certain tax codes, special rules, etc. What you have there is the church making political decisions that affect people's lives in a negative way. That right there takes a big steaming dump on the Constitution.

In this particular case, the Establishment Clause wasn't brought as an issue. The lawyers for the challengers were the two who argued Bush v. Gore (on opposing sides), so you can imagine they're pretty good lawyers. They didn't bring an Establishment Clause claim for good reason-it wasn't even close to the strongest argument. The Court's EC jurisprudence is so fractured right now that nobody knows what test they'll apply next: the SDP/EP argument is on much sounder footing with the current makeup of the Court.

[Chuck Bao]

In this particular case, the Establishment Clause wasn't brought as an issue. The lawyers for the challengers were the two who argued Bush v. Gore (on opposing sides), so you can imagine they're pretty good lawyers. They didn't bring an Establishment Clause claim for good reason-it wasn't even close to the strongest argument. The Court's EC jurisprudence is so fractured right now that nobody knows what test they'll apply next: the SDP/EP argument is on much sounder footing with the current makeup of the Court.

You are such a beautiful person and your posts are as always appreciated. But really if I wanted to masturbate under the law, you would serve as the opposite of that. I lost my erection halfway. You will make such a great lawyer and God bless you for that.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Not really that simple. If ANY MARRIAGE is the LAW, then the Equal Protection Clause implies that the state must apply that LAW EQUALLY, to ALL PEOPLE.

If you give straight folks a right, and actively deprive gay people that right, then you are not APPLYING THE LAW EQUALLY. SIMPLE ENOUGH?

OK...riddle me this Batman...Do you want the same rights as hetro married couples or do you just want the whole marriage thing?

Because as I stated...give "civil unions" the same rights as hetro married and call it good. But, I am getting the sense that this isn't good enough...and quite frankly that disturbs me. It seems like a logical compromise, but not enough.

So whats the REAL agenda here?

[Okla-homey]

OK...riddle me this Batman...Do you want the same rights as hetro married couples or do you just want the whole marriage thing?

Because as I stated...give "civil unions" the same rights as hetro married and call it good. But, I am getting the sense that this isn't good enough...and quite frankly that disturbs me. It seems like a logical compromise, but not enough.

So whats the REAL agenda here?

I would suggest one agenda item is to advance the contention that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic (like race or gender) in order to eventually come under the anti-discrimination protections afforded by existing federal and state anti-dicrimination laws. If homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice, as some believe, the argument for special anti-discrimination protections is much weaker.

And to move American society from mere toleration of homosexuality among our neighbors and relatives to acceptance of homosexuality as the complete equal of heterosexuality. Methinks that's going to be more of a generational thing. I understand people under 30 are pretty much there already. Us old farts are proving to be a tougher sell.

[LosAngelesSooner]

OK...riddle me this Batman...Do you want the same rights as hetro married couples or do you just want the whole marriage thing?

Because as I stated...give "civil unions" the same rights as hetro married and call it good. But, I am getting the sense that this isn't good enough...and quite frankly that disturbs me. It seems like a logical compromise, but not enough.

So whats the REAL agenda here?The agenda is equality.

What you're arguing for is "Separate but equal," and we all saw how that worked out the last time we tried it.

What you're implying is that teh gayz wanna PIIYB. Which they don't. I've seen your picture.

[Sooner in Tampa]

The agenda is equality.

What you're arguing for is "Separate but equal," and we all saw how that worked out the last time we tried it.

What you're implying is that teh gayz wanna PIIYB. Which they don't. I've seen your picture.

:confused: I have NO idea what the hell that is....


As far as the gayz...it's not labeled an "alternative lifestyle" for nothing.

I REALLY don't understand why a "union" between a man and a woman can't be called a MARRIAGE...and a "union" bewtween SS couples can't be labeled a civil union...Don't get it, never have, never will.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

PIITB = Put it in the butt
PIIYB = Put it in your butt

YWIA :D

[Sooner in Tampa]

PIITB = Put it in the butt
PIIYB = Put it in your butt

YWIA :D

:eek:

:eek:

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I would suggest one agenda item is to advance the contention that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic (like race or gender) in order to eventually come under the anti-discrimination protections afforded by existing federal and state anti-dicrimination laws.

Ding ding ding.

We have a winner. Which is immutable horsesh*t.

[Frozen Sooner]

You are such a beautiful person and your posts are as always appreciated. But really if I wanted to masturbate under the law, you would serve as the opposite of that. I lost my erection halfway. You will make such a great lawyer and God bless you for that.

It takes a special person to read anything I write as porn, even terrible porn. Bless you for that.

[JohnnyMack]

I would suggest one agenda item is to advance the contention that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic (like race or gender) in order to eventually come under the anti-discrimination protections afforded by existing federal and state anti-dicrimination laws. If homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice, as some believe, the argument for special anti-discrimination protections is much weaker.

And to move American society from mere toleration of homosexuality among our neighbors and relatives to acceptance of homosexuality as the complete equal of heterosexuality. Methinks that's going to be more of a generational thing. I understand people under 30 are pretty much there already. Us old farts are proving to be a tougher sell.

Ultimately, why do you give a ****?

[MR2-Sooner86]

I REALLY don't understand why a "union" between a man and a woman can't be called a MARRIAGE...and a "union" bewtween SS couples can't be labeled a civil union...Don't get it, never have, never will.

mar·riage – noun
1.
a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

They're people too, let them marry if they want to.

As for the "lifestyle" argument, earlier in this thread we learned the Amish don't have to pay SS taxes. The Amish seems a hell of a lot more like a "lifestyle" than homosexuality yet they obviously get special treatment.

[texaspokieokie]

wait'll they all get married. many will say," why in the world did i marry this jerk ??"

it's not all that great.

[47straight]

Were that only the actual law of the land right now, that'd be awesome. It's getting there.

I'll say right here and now that if someone attempts to use the courts to force a church to marry a couple in a religious ceremony, I'll be on the church's side 100%.

But I'm sure you'd be in favor of revoking said church's tax exemption, or of barring them from participation in faith-based community efforts.

[Frozen Sooner]

But I'm sure you'd be in favor of revoking said church's tax exemption, or of barring them from participation in faith-based community efforts.

1. Wrong on count one. Read further in the thread.

2. Depends on your definition of "participation" and what their participation entailed.

[Chuck Bao]

But I'm sure you'd be in favor of revoking said church's tax exemption, or of barring them from participation in faith-based community efforts.

Oh, in the name of the Almighty Lord, please no and never. Currently, all religious groups are granted tax exemptions no matter how fringe they are. You can be Rastafarian or Zoroastrian or believe in the power of crystals and alien-built paramids.

But, anyone, and I really mean anyone, scared into the idea that the US federal government is going to invade a church through the tax exempt status to force them to accept a same-sex marriage is just deceiving themselves.

The idea is just too stupid to contemplate. It is not going to happen folks and let's just move on.

Seriously though, I do understand the fear. You really don't want your children to be born gay. I agree and I wouldn't if I were in your shoes. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

If they are gay, you really don't want them to accept that lifestyle. You want them to be very happy and a very traditional wedding and produce lots and lots of grandchildren. That's the plan and sometimes it doesn't really work out that way.

God is great and merciful and I have no doubt. I really don't think that some people are unfortunately born just wrong. We are all children in the likeness of the Lord, black, brown, yellow, white, gay or straight. There is no way that I would want my personal beliefs imposed on any religion. I will attend a church that accepts me for who I am.

[GKeeper316]

If homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice, as some believe, the argument for special anti-discrimination protections is much weaker.


is religion not a lifestyle choice?

[47straight]

Oh, in the name of the Almighty Lord, please no and never. Currently, all religious groups are granted tax exemptions no matter how fringe they are. You can be Rastafarian or Zoroastrian or believe in the power of crystals and alien-built paramids.

Exactly.


But, anyone, and I really mean anyone, scared into the idea that the US federal government is going to invade a church through the tax exempt status to force them to accept a same-sex marriage is just deceiving themselves.



The idea is just too stupid to contemplate. It is not going to happen folks and let's just move on.

Are you kidding me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

Ban on interracial dating = loss of tax exemption for BJU.

Advocates of gay rights compare sexuality to race. (no citation needed, I hope.)

Step 3: Profit. (for the US treasury)

While I guess I have to thank you because in the future you will be gracious enough to allow churches to have their 'bigotry,' I'm going to have to disagree that what I've said is either stupid or delusional.


And while I know that I could easily make an originalist argument that the 14th amendment (as a reconstruction amendment) specifically contemplated such a situation as what happened at BJU as a reason why such a revocation may trump the Free Exercise Clause, I doubt any of the future deciders of this issue will care.

[Frozen Sooner]

is religion not a lifestyle choice?

Lifestyle choice or not, the right to free exercise of your religion is specifically guaranteed in the Constitution.

If there's a showing that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, the argument that homosexuals are a suspect class becomes much stronger.

[47straight]

is religion not a lifestyle choice?

One whose status is protected explicitly in the Constitution, no penumbras needed.

[47straight]

Lifestyle choice or not, the right to free exercise of your religion is specifically guaranteed in the Constitution.

If there's a showing that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, the argument that homosexuals are a suspect class becomes much stronger.

Yes.

[Frozen Sooner]

See? I did learn something last year. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

The interesting thing about Bob Jones was it was arguably decided under a stricter standard for FE claims than the court would use today-and the conservative bloc are the ones who shaped the new standard.

[Okla-homey]

Ultimately, why do you give a ****?

I really don't. Just an interested observer of societal change who has a right to an opinion as to the goals of the sides of the debate.

[JohnnyMack]

I really don't. Just an interested observer of societal change who has a right to an opinion as to the goals of the sides of the debate.

I guess what I meant was, being someone who's educated and has been around the block, do you allow your particular social mores to dominate this decision or your more learned experiences to do so?

[Chuck Bao]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

Ban on interracial dating = loss of tax exemption for BJU.

Advocates of gay rights compare sexuality to race. (no citation needed, I hope.)

Step 3: Profit. (for the US treasury)

While I guess I have to thank you because in the future you will be gracious enough to allow churches to have their 'bigotry,' I'm going to have to disagree that what I've said is either stupid or delusional.


And while I know that I could easily make an originalist argument that the 14th amendment (as a reconstruction amendment) specifically contemplated such a situation as what happened at BJU as a reason why such a revocation may trump the Free Exercise Clause, I doubt any of the future deciders of this issue will care.

I really don't know what to think of that. It really does seem wrong on so many levels. But, you got to remember that a university, even a private one, is not a church. Or, it shouldn't be.

You have to bear in mind that I went to school at Baylor and there was a porn sex shop not far from campus just across the Brazos. And, then there was that furniture store that served as a cover for group sex orgies.

But whatever, Baptists do it.

I really don't know. I would hope that universities are different than churches. Kicking a student out because he really, really likes the butt secks means exactly what? I hope the kid got his education and all the butt secks that he really wanted.

I really think and hope you are wrong, 47 straight.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer Paul Elias, Associated Press Writer
10 mins ago

.SAN FRANCISCO – California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions Friday calling for resumption of same-sex weddings in the state.

The officials filed the motions after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously overturned Proposition 8, California's voter-approved gay marriage ban.

Resuming gay marriage "is consistent with Californias long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect," Schwarzenegger said in his legal filing.

Walker ruled Wednesday the ban violates federal equal protections and due process laws.

However, he agreed to block gay marriages from immediately resuming until he can consider arguments on whether to keep the ban in effect while its supporters take their appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Brown, a candidate for governor, said that ruling means it's time for gays to begin marrying again.

"While there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by this court's conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," Brown said in his legal filing.

It was unclear when Walker would issue a ruling on the possible resumption of same-sex marriages.

The outcome in the appeals court could force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to wed.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

California voters passed Proposition 8 five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

[Sooner_Havok]

OK...riddle me this Batman...Do you want the same rights as hetro married couples or do you just want the whole marriage thing?

Because as I stated...give "civil unions" the same rights as hetro married and call it good. But, I am getting the sense that this isn't good enough...and quite frankly that disturbs me. It seems like a logical compromise, but not enough.

So whats the REAL agenda here?

WHOA, hold it home slice! First, I ain't gay. Second, "Civil Unions" are fine, so long as the government calls what heterosexuals do "Civil Unions" and what gays do "Civil Unions". If both of the "Civil Unions" offer the same rights to the participants, then that is %100 cool with me.

Now, if a church wants to not recognize a gay "civil union" as a marriage, cool. If a church wants to recognize the marriage between a man and his pig, cool. I don't give two f***s what churches call their quaint little ceremonies and superstitions, really I don't.

tl;dr = Let the government call everything "Civil Unions" and let the churches do what ever the f*** they want.

[KC//CRIMSON]

This place never fails to disappoint.

never.

[Okla-homey]

I guess what I meant was, being someone who's educated and has been around the block, do you allow your particular social mores to dominate this decision or your more learned experiences to do so?

I like to think I will generally argue for what's right under our Constitution, laws and the facts, and minimize the effect of my personal beliefs as to the loathsomeness or attractiveness of the parties to the dispute. At least that's what I swore to do when I got my law license, and so far, I think I've done a pretty good job of sticking to my promise.

[nighttrain12]

I can't believe Ah-nuld of all people is so gung-ho on that side of the issue. Maria must have some dirty photos on him.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

If I would have put Jim Crow laws on a ballot in Alabama in 1950 and it passed by a WIDE margin would that have made the Civil Rights a violation of the people's voices? The Constitution wasn't built to protect the majority or the rich, it was specifically designed to protect the weak and minorities.

[Okla-homey]

If I would have put Jim Crow laws on a ballot in Alabama in 1950 and it passed by a WIDE margin would that have made the Civil Rights a violation of the people's voices? The Constitution wasn't built to protect the majority or the rich, it was specifically designed to protect the weak and minorities.

Amen. And it should be pointed out, we in the United States are among a tiny minority of nations in which the citizenry is blessed with judicial review of legislative acts. That's one of the things that makes the American system special and helps protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. We should keep that in mind when folks rail against unelected judges striking down laws passed by the electorate or the legislature.

[soonerscuba]

Amen. And it should be pointed out, we in the United States are among a tiny minority of nations in which the citizenry is blessed with judicial review of legislative acts. That's one of the things that makes the American system special and helps protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. We should keep that in mind when folks rail against unelected judges striking down laws passed by the electorate or the legislature.To be fair, the vast majority of nations on this planet are populated by savage/corrupt/uneducated peoples that under no circumstance should be trusted with a unitary executive, which is why when the US nation builds we install parliamentary governments as opposed to something based on our own Constitution. Sure, I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is, I'm not. I honestly just feel that America is the best country and all the other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

[47straight]

See? I did learn something last year. :D

I should do a better of job of give you your propers.

[Chuck Bao]

Oh snap! The opposing views on this issue at that Baptist university located in Waco are very spirited and interesting, to say the least.

http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194979

Normally, I wouldn't ever or never have posted message board link from a rival's board. But, this is just so amazing to me. Think about it. 10 years ago none of us would have dared to bring up this topic (although I actually did commend a few ladies for posting suggestive male photos in relatiation for all the nekkid girly photos posted here at that time). Anyway, this discussion 10 years ago would have been shouted down as "OH HELL NO!".

The fact is that Oklahoma is the redest of the red states and Baylor lives within its own Baylor Bubble for good or bad. I love that we can have this discussion in a civil manner. Our society has changed a lot in 10 years. I just think that is worth noting.

Okay, now, shoot me down.

[GrapevineSooner]

Just stopped by.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. Doesn't affect mine one iota.

But can we please stop comparing the plight of trying to get gay marriage legally recognized to slavery and women's suffrage?

Last I checked, gays still are free to pursue other things in life that slaves could only dream of until they were emancipated. And they can vote.

[Okla-homey]

Just stopped by.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. Doesn't affect mine one iota.

But can we please stop comparing the plight of trying to get gay marriage legally recognized to slavery and women's suffrage?

Last I checked, gays still are free to pursue other things in life that slaves could only dream of until they were emancipated. And they can vote.

I'll grant you, there is nothing to stop a gay person from getting married to a person of the opposite sex. After all, that's what Mack Brown did.;)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I am just weary of the whole issue...

[Chuck Bao]

I am just weary of the whole issue...

I truly appreciate that post, THA.

But, I am not sure if I understand you correctly. You are saying that you still very much object to the idea of gay marriage, but it is just getting too tiresome to argue, right?

Now, I respect you very much and count on your posts to get me in touch with home values and opinions. If that is the sentiment in Oklahoma, then I am taking note.

So, you are saying that it is not acceptance of the principle of gay marriage but the idea that it will eventually be a foregone conclusion? I think Homey said something like the eventuality a few pages ago. So people are starting to accept the eventuality instead of the whole idea?

[LosAngelesSooner]

:confused: I have NO idea what the hell that is....


As far as the gayz...it's not labeled an "alternative lifestyle" for nothing.

I REALLY don't understand why a "union" between a man and a woman can't be called a MARRIAGE...and a "union" bewtween SS couples can't be labeled a civil union...Don't get it, never have, never will.
Bigots gave it that label. Then those same bigots went out and snuck their gay sex in airport bathrooms while they publicly condemned it.

And the reason you can't call the same thing for two different groups two different things is because that's separate but equal.

And if it's that silly and basic of a thing to you, then why not call it the same name and treat it equal as it should be? Hmmm?

[Serge Ibaka]

Bigots gave it that label. Then those same bigots went out and snuck their gay sex in airport bathrooms while they publicly condemned it.

And the reason you can't call the same thing for two different groups two different things is because that's separate but equal.

And if it's that silly and basic of a thing to you, then why not call it the same name and treat it equal as it should be? Hmmm?

But c'mon. It's not like it's real marriage--it's that stupid and gay sort of marriage. If we aren't able to distinguish the two, how will our children know who they're supposed to hate? :rolleyes:

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But c'mon. It's not like it's real marriage--it's that stupid and gay sort of marriage. If we aren't able to distinguish the two, how will our children know who they're supposed to hate? :rolleyes:

What's funny is being unaccepting of a lifestyle choice of others automatically equals hate.

That's the true misunderstanding of this entire issue.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/4/11/633750065143088760-surprisebuttsecks.jpg

Word.

[Serge Ibaka]

What's funny is being unaccepting of a lifestyle choice of others automatically equals hate.

That's the true misunderstanding of this entire issue.

It sure looks and smells like hate--I cannot really think of a solid reason for "being unaccepting" of gay peoples' lifestyle "choice." And even if you don't agree with homosexuality, why would somebody deny homosexuals equal protection of the law (unless they totally and arbitrarily hate homosexuals, of course)?

[Okla-homey]

I think Homey said something like the eventuality a few pages ago. So people are starting to accept the eventuality instead of the whole idea?

To be clear Chuck, it's inevitable for two reasons: 1) scientfic consensus is homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like race, gender, or national origin, and; 2) given #1, the equal protection argument under the XIVth Amendment is a winner.

[Frozen Sooner]

To be clear Chuck, it's inevitable for two reasons: 1) scientfic consensus is homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like race, gender, or national origin, and; 2) given #1, the equal protection argument under the XIVth Amendment is a winner.

This. Coupled with marriage being a fundamental right.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I truly appreciate that post, THA.

But, I am not sure if I understand you correctly. You are saying that you still very much object to the idea of gay marriage, but it is just getting too tiresome to argue, right?

Now, I respect you very much and count on your posts to get me in touch with home values and opinions. If that is the sentiment in Oklahoma, then I am taking note.

So, you are saying that it is not acceptance of the principle of gay marriage but the idea that it will eventually be a foregone conclusion? I think Homey said something like the eventuality a few pages ago. So people are starting to accept the eventuality instead of the whole idea?

Chuck,

Thanks. No I am truly weary of the whole thing. I still oppose from my religious upbringing side the idea of same sex marriage, but I don't see a reason when 2 people want to legalize their relationship couldn't (This is a personal wrestle). The religious and mainstream American IMO lost the arguement for keeping marriage a male/female thing by the flippant use of divorce, its ain't so sacred anymore...

I also think the historical "out-thereness" I know - not a word, has been more problematic for the GLBT. I mean, that didn't endear them to Sally and Sam in small town America for wanting to start house with their sig other.

I say national plebiscite and stop this piece meal bickering and legal wranging...

Happiness for all!