OK heres a Pole about Ghey Marriage

[olevetonahill]

Seems matlock thinks the MAJORITY of Americans support the Ghey marriage deal heres yer chance to prove him right or wrong :biggrin:
Yea I know this will be a small sampling but aint that the way with most Poles?

[olevetonahill]

Oh and its anonymous, so If ya aint come out the closet yet dont worry:watermelon:

[badger]

I chose "no opinion" because I really want to see what the Supreme Court decides before forming a stronger opinion. I don't know the legal ramifications, but that's about my only concern at this point.

I really think that if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, you should make it more difficult to get divorced.

[olevetonahill]

I chose "no opinion" because I really want to see what the Supreme Court decides before forming a stronger opinion. I don't know the legal ramifications, but that's about my only concern at this point.

I really think that if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, you should make it more difficult to get divorced.

So you want some Old men and a few blue haired ladies to form your opinion for you ?

[Soonerjeepman]

This shall be fun!

I oppose it, but also oppose the gov intervention. Unfortunately with divorce, marriage becomes an issue of property rights.

Course I oppose alimony as well, and the courts overwhelmingly favoritism of the woman being able to care for a child better than a man.

[Midtowner]

So you want some Old men and a few blue haired ladies to form your opinion for you ?

...and a wise Latina.

[badger]

...and a wise Latina.
Can't forget the wise Latina. :)

The legality concern that I have is that marriage must have a definition by law, or we are basically saying that anyone can marry anything, regardless of if they're currently married to someone else, regardless of the age of partner, etc.

If the Supreme Court defines marriage as two consenting adults, fine. If states simply continue to legalize different forms of marriage apart from the traditional one man/one woman, look for some to try to push through plural marriage, or marriage to non-consenting age minors.

The time for the Supreme Court to step in was a decade ago, but at least they are doing now rather than put it off more. Don't just legalize certain types of marriage, give an end-all-discussion legal definition.

[jkjsooner]

Seems matlock thinks the MAJORITY of Americans support the Ghey marriage deal heres yer chance to prove him right or wrong :biggrin:
Yea I know this will be a small sampling but aint that the way with most Poles?

I said no opinion because I don't really care. I do think that some legal structure that encourages them to be monogamous would be beneficial to society.

But for the record, polls do have relatively small samples but any decent pollster would take great care in making sure that their samples are random. You can statistically determine a lot by a relatively small random sample but if you don't have a random sampling then the results can pretty much be thrown away.

Asking people who are already on a political message board (much of whom either live or once lived in Oklahoma) is not a random sampling by any stretch.

[SoonerorLater]

Oppose strongly. As a matter of fact I can't reconcile gay and marriage. Why is it the progressive thugs who have taken a stranglehold on this country think it's just fine to overturn thousands of years of civilization on a whim? Gay marriage just isn't a valid concept. It serves no social purpose other than to appease homosexuals.

[Curly Bill]

Oppose strongly. As a matter of fact I can't reconcile gay and marriage. Why is it the progressive thugs who have taken a stranglehold on this country think it's just fine to overturn thousands of years of civilization on a whim? Gay marriage just isn't a valid concept. It serves no social purpose other than to appease homosexuals.

The current crop of progressives is more smarter than all those thousands of years of civilization! Just ask em!

[KantoSooner]

Can't forget the wise Latina. :)

The legality concern that I have is that marriage must have a definition by law, or we are basically saying that anyone can marry anything, regardless of if they're currently married to someone else, regardless of the age of partner, etc.

If the Supreme Court defines marriage as two consenting adults, fine. If states simply continue to legalize different forms of marriage apart from the traditional one man/one woman, look for some to try to push through plural marriage, or marriage to non-consenting age minors.

The time for the Supreme Court to step in was a decade ago, but at least they are doing now rather than put it off more. Don't just legalize certain types of marriage, give an end-all-discussion legal definition.

I think your hope will be in vain. SCOTUS has a strong institutional bias (and a good one, I think) to decide as little as possible, thus most of their decisions will be as limited as possible. It's very possible that we will have gotten all worked up only to see the court decide the case on technical or procedural grounds in order to escape making a broad social statement that they might not see as the court's role.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm going to quibble a bit and say that I'm not in favor of gays getting married, but I am in favor of them having the right to do so.

So, I guess I'll go with the first option.

[FirstandGoal]

I'm going to quibble a bit and say that I'm not in favor of gays getting married, but I am in favor of them having the right to do so.

So, I guess I'll go with the first option.


+1

For the same reasons I went with option #1.

However I do have to admit #4 was pretty tempting....

[Midtowner]

I think your hope will be in vain. SCOTUS has a strong institutional bias (and a good one, I think) to decide as little as possible, thus most of their decisions will be as limited as possible. It's very possible that we will have gotten all worked up only to see the court decide the case on technical or procedural grounds in order to escape making a broad social statement that they might not see as the court's role.

I think it's probable they'll either remand or dismiss the case for want of standing.

[KantoSooner]

kind of interesting that in this reddest of red states, the poll is running neck and neck through the first several hours. Not a majority in favor....but we are talking Oklahoma. If you started adding in New York, Massachusetts, Oregon...

[diverdog]

I'm going to quibble a bit and say that I'm not in favor of gays getting married, but I am in favor of them having the right to do so.

So, I guess I'll go with the first option.

Same here.

[olevetonahill]

kind of interesting that in this reddest of red states, the poll is running neck and neck through the first several hours. Not a majority in favor....but we are talking Oklahoma. If you started adding in New York, Massachusetts, Oregon...

Agreed Bro, Im really surprised.

[cleller]

How about a poll on how many people will vote in this poll? Without a good number, either side will think its rigged.

Are you still watching for new members? If suddenly "Olevetinatub", "Olevetonatoilet", or "Olevetindanude" show up to vote....

[olevetonahill]

How about a poll on how many people will vote in this poll? Without a good number, either side will think its rigged.

Are you still watching for new members? If suddenly "Olevetinatub", "Olevetonatoilet", or "Olevetindanude" show up to vote....

Heh. I figure its a dead heat so far simply cause most Hard working folks are just now gettin off werk. the Libs have all the spare time to play on the innerwebs during the day. Cept Me Im just an old fart with nothin better to do than stir shat up.:biggrin:

[BigTip]

I'm going to quibble a bit and say that I'm not in favor of gays getting married, but I am in favor of them having the right to do so.

So, I guess I'll go with the first option.

Another like thinker here.

I am not FOR gay marriage, but I am for the right to do so. I adhere to most Christian values, but I respect an atheist's right to, for example, to feel and act the way they want to. Or a gay person to marry. Like some comedian said, they have a right to be as miserable as us straight married people are. :)

This is the major problem with the Republican party. You can't have it both ways by saying, "Government, get out of my life. Oh, but tell us who we can or can't marry. Or what lyrics we can listen to on records. Or any of those other moral decisions that we want to impose our will on other people."

[pphilfran]

I'm going to quibble a bit and say that I'm not in favor of gays getting married, but I am in favor of them having the right to do so.

So, I guess I'll go with the first option.

This

[ouwasp]

Oppose. That the nation is so willing to embrace perversion as normal is bizarre. Considering the homosexual POV, I can see why they want what they want... pop culture has pretty much said being homosexual is normal as can be, why not go for "full normalcy"? smh

[Soonerjeepman]

Oppose. That the nation is so willing to embrace perversion as normal is bizarre. Considering the homosexual POV, I can see why they want what they want... pop culture has pretty much said being homosexual is normal as can be, why not go for "full normalcy"? smh

don't you watch TV>...it's the "New Normal"....:dispirited:

abc was the first to openly have a show with a gay couple...now all 3 networks do. The crap that is on TV is just desensitizing us to it all...ugh

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is the major problem with the Republican party. You can't have it both ways by saying, "Government, get out of my life. Oh, but tell us who we can or can't marry. Or what lyrics we can listen to on records. Or any of those other moral decisions that we want to impose our will on other people."So who is telling you that you can't listen to whatever records you want, and what other moral decisions? The Republican party? How does that work?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

one should not be denied the right to marry who one loves because of one's gender. Equal Protection. The gay part is irrelevant. A no-brainer.

thousands of years of wrong is still wrong.

[SoonerorLater]

one should not be denied the right to marry who one loves because of one's gender. Equal Protection. The gay part is irrelevant. A no-brainer.

thousands of years of wrong is still wrong.

First of all there is no "right to marry" it doesn't exist. Marriage in the legal sense is a licensing agreement between the parties and the state. Equal Protection does not apply because the law as it is now applies to everybody.

[olevetonahill]

one should not be denied the right to marry who one loves because of one's gender. Equal Protection. The gay part is irrelevant. A no-brainer.

thousands of years of wrong is still wrong.

Yer Funny
Marry ? WTF is that? really Marriage was started to protect the wimmens. Before that the Men Killed the Food the Bitches Made the Sammiches , Every one ****ed , then Men out numbered the Bitches and a few of the Fruit Loops decided to Take their pleasure where they found it . Then the Bitches said Yall got to Marry us or we aint Makinin yer Sammiches Nor Lettin ya stick that Here.The rest is history

The Stronger Sex
is Really the
Weaker sex
Because of
The weakness
The Stronger sex
Has for
the Weaker Sex.

[Chuck Bao]

Oppose strongly. As a matter of fact I can't reconcile gay and marriage. Why is it the progressive thugs who have taken a stranglehold on this country think it's just fine to overturn thousands of years of civilization on a whim? Gay marriage just isn't a valid concept. It serves no social purpose other than to appease homosexuals.

Overturn thousands of years of civilization? And, on a whim?

Our whole concept of Western Civilization has been heavily influenced by some long-dead gay dudes and dudettes and some of them had some pretty sticky endings for it, unfortunately.

Consider the following list.

Alexander the Great (hence New Testament of the Bible written in Greek and made accessible to spread to Western Europe)
Socrates
Aristotle
Julius Caesar
Hadrian
Leonardo da Vinci
Michelangelo
Francis Bacon
William Shakespeare
Christopher Marlowe
Lord Byron
Walt Witman
Oscar Wilde
Tchaikovsky
Hans Christian Andersen
And too many kings and queens of Europe to shake a stick at, and in each century.

You may not agree with two men or two women living together happily. That is your right. Is it too much to ask that you give us our right without copping out and saying that it is not in our shared heritage?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

First of all there is no "right to marry" it doesn't exist. Marriage in the legal sense is a licensing agreement between the parties and the state. Equal Protection does not apply because the law as it is now applies to everybody.

the law applies to everybody, but not in the same way , hence not equally... if John can legally marry Jill but Jane can't. and the only reason Jane can't is because she is not a man.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Chuck, you forgot President James Buchanan

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If you want to get married in the eyes of God, you go to a Church. To the state, marriage is simply a legal contract. It confers certain rights to the spouse and provides an organized way to seperate assets when the thing doesn't work out. Equal protection under the law should prevail. I don't need the state to tell me what God thinks.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Personally, the really interesting case is the one in which two women were legally married but the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law, prohibited certain spousal benefits, such as favored inheritance tax consequences.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

If you want to get married in the eyes of God, you go to a Church. To the state, marriage is simply a legal contract. It confers certain rights to the spouse and provides an organized way to seperate assets when the thing doesn't work out. Equal protection under the law should prevail. I don't need the state to tell me what God thinks.

right on and power to the people.

[SoonerorLater]

the law applies to everybody, but not in the same way , hence not equally... if John can legally marry Jill but Jane can't. and the only reason Jane can't is because she is not a man.

In your example both of the parties can marry somebody of the opposite sex. Neither can marry somebody of the same sex, thus equal protection. Equal protection might apply if John could marry Jim but Jill can't marry Jane. Homosexual marriage isn't permitted in either case. No equal protection issue.

[okie52]

I'm for gay marriage being legalized or government involvement in marriage being eliminated. Either way, I just want the issue to go away.

[jkjsooner]

the law applies to everybody, but not in the same way , hence not equally... if John can legally marry Jill but Jane can't. and the only reason Jane can't is because she is not a man.

That's been my line of reasoning all along. Everyone says it's about the discrimination against one's sexual orientation but gender discrimination makes a much simpler argument.

The courts haven't seen it that way though. I don't understand why though.


To say it's about sexual orientation discrimination, you'd have to argue that sexual orientation is not a choice. If you say it is a choice then I'd argue that those who choose pot over alcohol are discriminated against as well and such an argument would be just as valid.

I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice but I'd rather not have to cross the hurdle of convincing the judges that - thus the gender discrimination argument seems more straight forward.

[KantoSooner]

It will go away. We do these things periodically in this country. Once it's been legalized for a decade or two we'll look back and wonder why exactly we spent all the time and drama on the issue.

[olevetonahill]

I dint start this to have a Long drawn out discusion on what every one thinks about Homosexuality or what they think should be done.
Simply wanted to know if more were in favor or opposed to Ghey marriage.
Im really surprised no one wants to be matlocks dog tho.

[jkjsooner]

In your example both of the parties can marry somebody of the opposite sex. Neither can marry somebody of the same sex, thus equal protection. Equal protection might apply if John could marry Jim but Jill can't marry Jane. Homosexual marriage isn't permitted in either case. No equal protection issue.

Under anti-miscegenation laws, the following statement is universally true for everyone.

Anyone, no matter of race, can only marry within the same race.

Using your line of reasoning the exclusion of interracial marriage is not discrimination since the same criteria applies to all.


Before you say it, there is a distiction in that one one excludes same sex whereas the other excludes opposite race. But this distinction isn't relevant to the line of reasoning you are attempting to use. You seem to imply that if you can find a statement that is universal throughout then there is no equal protection issue. If that is the basis of your argument then anti-miscegenation laws are perfectly valid.

[SoonerorLater]

Under anti-miscegenation laws, the following statement is universally true for everyone.

Anyone, no matter of race, can only marry within the same race.

Using your line of reasoning the exclusion of interracial marriage is not discrimination since the same criteria applies to all.


Before you say it, there is a distiction in that one one excludes same sex whereas the other excludes opposite race. But this distinction isn't relevant to the line of reasoning you are attempting to use. You seem to imply that if you can find a statement that is universal throughout then there is no equal protection issue. If that is the basis of your argument then anti-miscegenation laws are perfectly valid.

The difference is one is discrimination based on race which as we all know is not constitutionally ok. The other is a behavior which is not protected. States have licensing agreements that have many different types of requirements. Nobody is denied a marriage license because on their gender (or race as you pointed out). If it was then yes, equal protection would apply. The serving interest of the parties is not germane. If it was then just about every law we have could be struck down because they fall heavier on certain identifiable groups of people.

According to your line of reasoning because a certain subset of human beings in this country identify themselves in a certain way then the licensing agreements of the states need to be changed to accommodate the behavior.

[KantoSooner]

I think you're missing the 'inalterable characteristic' dealio. If you assume orientation to be a natural and immutable characteristic, then denying marriage to persons on the basis of that orientation is pretty much precisely the same as denying it on the basis of race. Or eye/hair color. Presence of a widow's peak. Mid-digital hair. Dimples. Etc.

[jkjsooner]

The difference is one is discrimination based on race which as we all know is not constitutionally ok. The other is a behavior which is not protected.

That is exactly why we framed it as gender discrimination. If Bob can marry Jane but Jill can't then Jill doesn't have the same rights as Bob because she is a female and Bob is a male.

Then of course we can go full circle and you can argue that they both have the same rights - namely to marry someone of the opposite gender - and then I'll argue that that same line of reasoning would protect anti-miscegenation laws since all parties have the same rights there too - namely to marry someone of the same race.

[jkjsooner]

I think you're missing the 'inalterable characteristic' dealio. If you assume orientation to be a natural and immutable characteristic

That's the big assumption though.

To me this assumption is as obvious as it is to me that I am straight. In fact, I stumbled upon a video of gay guys describing a woman's private part. They used words like soft, squishy, ugly, cold, gross, etc. It was kind of funny but it does demonstrate the incredible and inherent difference between gay and straight men.

[SoonerorLater]

That is exactly why we framed it as gender discrimination. If Bob can marry Jane but Jill can't then Jill doesn't have the same rights as Bob because she is a female and Bob is a male.

Then of course we can go full circle and you can argue that they both have the same rights - namely to marry someone of the opposite gender - and then I'll argue that that same line of reasoning would protect anti-miscegenation laws since all parties have the same rights there too - namely to marry someone of the same race.

-----


"Then of course we can go full circle and you can argue that they both have the same rights - namely to marry someone of the opposite gender "
>
Yes exactly

----------------

"and then I'll argue that that same line of reasoning would protect anti-miscegenation laws since all parties have the same rights there too - namely to marry someone of the same race"
>
Wrong. You can't discriminate because of race, You can discriminate because of behavior, we do it all the time. That is the difference. Anti-miscegenation laws would not be an applicable analogy as it applies Equal Protection. You're trying to draw a parallel between race and human behavior. My reasoning is based on behavior not any other determinate.

[KantoSooner]

That's the big assumption though. .

It is. It is supported by virtually all science on the subject developed over the past 30-40 years and has resulted in such collateral actions as removal of homosexuality from described psychological disorder lists.
No doubt there are 'fashion gays' as well as there are certainly people who go both ways. It's a spectrum of behavior, not a toggle switch.
It's not that big a jump, however. In a sense, we're simply going back to where society was before puritan mores crept in. The Romans were famous for their gay relationships and more than a couple medieval Bishops and Cardinals kept their 'catamites' quite openly.

[jkjsooner]

-----


"Then of course we can go full circle and you can argue that they both have the same rights - namely to marry someone of the opposite gender "
>
Yes exactly

----------------

"and then I'll argue that that same line of reasoning would protect anti-miscegenation laws since all parties have the same rights there too - namely to marry someone of the same race"
>
Wrong. You can't discriminate because of race, You can discriminate because of behavior, we do it all the time. That is the difference. Anti-miscegenation laws would not be an applicable analogy as it applies Equal Protection. You're trying to draw a parallel between race and human behavior. My reasoning is based on behavior not any other determinate.

We just went through this. We're discriminating based on gender. You can't say a man can drink alcohol but a woman can't. Sure the drinking alcohol is behavior but the discrimination is on the gender.

[SoonerorLater]

We just went through this. We're discriminating based on gender. You can't say a man can drink alcohol but a woman can't. Sure the drinking alcohol is behavior but the discrimination is on the gender.

Yes we did and I don't know how many ways to say this. Let me ask you this. Which gender is being discriminated against if state law doesn't recognize same sex marriage?

[jkjsooner]

Yes we did and I don't know how many ways to say this.

I've understood exactly what you've said every time. I've responded each time.


Let me ask you this. Which gender is being discriminated against if state law doesn't recognize same sex marriage?

Both.

Which race is being discriminated against if we don't allow interracial marriage?

[jkjsooner]

By the way, we do allow gender discrimination when there is a good reason for it. We segregate restrooms for example.

If you want to argue that there is a sufficient public interest for gender discrimination in marriage then you are at least being logically consistent.

The argument you've put forth is not logically consistent with a ban on interracial marriage or a general ban on segregation.

[SoonerorLater]

I've understood exactly what you've said every time. I've responded each time.



Both.

Which race is being discriminated against if we don't allow interracial marriage?


No can't be both because by definition discrimination requires treating one party or parties differently than another. Ask you again. Who is being discriminated against because states don't allow same sex marriage?

Your second question is hypothetical because we do allow interracial marriage. The constitution says we can't discriminate because of race. Any laws to that effect are long gone.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Gay dudes like wieners.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw4opkxcQk1qlj9xu.gif

[jkjsooner]

Let me summarize.

I say a ban on gay marriage is gender discrimination because a Tom can marry Sue but Patricia can't marry Sue.

You say I'm framing it wrong. Rather than saying "Patricia can't marry a woman" and "Tom can marry a woman," it should be "Patricia can't marry a person of the same sex" and "Tom can't marry a person of the same sex." So framed this way both sexes are under the same rules.

I then point out that the same argument would allow a ban on interracial marriage. Both races are under the same rule - you can marry someone of your same race.

You then see that my logic is correct and change your argument to say that the discrimination is on behavior.

I point out that marrying someone of a different race could also be considered "behavior". I also point out that this is no more behavior that saying a ban on women drinking is behavior. There is behavior in all instances but the exclusions is based on one's gender.


See I understand everything you've said. I just don't think your arguments pass critical analysis.


And by the way, I don't give a crap about gay marriage.

[SoonerorLater]

By the way, we do allow gender discrimination when there is a good reason for it. We segregate restrooms for example.

If you want to argue that there is a sufficient public interest for gender discrimination in marriage then you are at least being logically consistent.

The argument you've put forth is not logically consistent with a ban on interracial marriage or a general ban on segregation.

It is absolutely consistent. You've tried to twist around the concept of same sex marriage with anti-miscegenation laws, which at the core were racially discriminatory. There was no issue other than people were denied marriage licenses solely based on their race. No where was the issue of what defines marriage considered to in question.

Same sex marriage, different story. The concept of what defines marriage is at the core. Marriage can be defined as whatever the state deems fit within the laws of the land.

[BoulderSooner79]

Same here.


Agreed Bro, Im really surprised.

Me three. If the rest of the country is equally split, I would have expected an Okie, football related board to be at least 10-1 agin it. I'm actually impressed with you backward bastages.

[jkjsooner]

No can't be both because by definition discrimination requires treating one party or parties differently than another. Ask you again. Who is being discriminated against because states don't allow same sex marriage?

Your second question is hypothetical because we do allow interracial marriage. The constitution says we can't discriminate because of race. Any laws to that effect are long gone.

The courts have ruled that gender discrimination is just as much against the 14th amendment as racial discrimination.

And, yes, we do allow interracial marriage because the courts ruled a ban on it to be unconstitutional. Contrary to you assertion, the fact that this was long ago resolved by the courts strengthens my argument rather than undermines it.

Here's the court's decision on Loving vs Virginia. Note that the State of Virginia made the exact argument you are making. They argued that both parties (white and black) were under the same rules and penalties. The court saw right through this.


The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



I disagree with your assertion that both groups can't be discriminated against. In the ban on interracial marriage, both groups were discriminated against.

But to satisfy you I'll give your answer.

When Tom can marry Sue but Patricia can't, then women are being discriminated against.

When Sue can Marry Tom but Joe can't, then men are being discriminated against.

[jkjsooner]

at the core were racially discriminatory. There was no issue other than people were denied marriage licenses solely based on their race.

Replace racially/race with gender. Same thing.



No where was the issue of what defines marriage considered to in question. Same sex marriage, different story. The concept of what defines marriage is at the core

Plenty of people argued that the definition of marriage was a union between two people of the same race. Virginia made this argument early on.


Marriage can be defined as whatever the state deems fit within the laws of the land.

But the laws of the land state that we can't discriminate based on gender.

I deem it necessary to define marriage as a union between people of the same race.

[SoonerorLater]

Replace racially/race with gender. Same thing.



Plenty of people argued that the definition of marriage was a union between two people of the same race. Virginia made this argument early on.



But the laws of the land state that we can't discriminate based on gender.

I deem it necessary to define marriage as a union between people of the same race.

You've made first error of logical reasoning, the faulty assumption. Because you can make a reasoned logical argument using a set of facts doesn't mean you can translate that same logic to a legal argument. In this case what applies to racial discrimination does not apply to same sex marriage. Even though the reasoning is parallel the facts of the different situations aren't.

You can make the argument that both sexes are discriminated against I guess but I would be shocked if any Court found that to be so.

[Midtowner]

Exactly. The legal argument is first which level of scrutiny we should apply and then whether the state's conduct can pass that scrutiny. IIRC, the District Judge's opinion was about as strong as it could be--that gays should be afforded strict scrutiny equal protection, but even if we applied rational basis reasoning, the state still has no rational basis for proscribing homosexual marriage.

I'm not going to hazard a guess as to what the SCOTUS will do. I wouldn't be shocked to see a 5-4 decision killing the case on standing grounds and remanding. They love to do that. I also wouldn't be shocked to see the California law go down in flames. I'll be surprised if the Court would bless California's actions. I don't think Roberts would allow that as he seems to be very concerned about how he'll be treated by historians. If that's the case, the wind is certainly blowing in the direction of legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Exactly. The legal argument is first which level of scrutiny we should apply and then whether the state's conduct can pass that scrutiny. IIRC, the District Judge's opinion was about as strong as it could be--that gays should be afforded strict scrutiny equal protection, but even if we applied rational basis reasoning, the state still has no rational basis for proscribing homosexual marriage.

I'm not going to hazard a guess as to what the SCOTUS will do. I wouldn't be shocked to see a 5-4 decision killing the case on standing grounds and remanding. They love to do that. I also wouldn't be shocked to see the California law go down in flames. I'll be surprised if the Court would bless California's actions. I don't think Roberts would allow that as he seems to be very concerned about how he'll be treated by historians. If that's the case, the wind is certainly blowing in the direction of legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

you'd be surprised if they bless prop 8 or bless the state supreme court shooting it down?

[soonerhubs]

Option one.

[Blue]

kind of interesting that in this reddest of red states, the poll is running neck and neck through the first several hours. Not a majority in favor....but we are talking Oklahoma. If you started adding in New York, Massachusetts, Oregon...

Blah blah blah. This country has been brainwashed. Big surprise.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Blah blah blah. This country has been brainwashed. Big surprise.
No, it's more like BULLIED into thinking it by a bunch of orgs who believe that shouting and screaming at people gets their causes advanced.


If you want to get married in the eyes of God, you go to a Church. To the state, marriage is simply a legal contract. It confers certain rights to the spouse and provides an organized way to seperate assets when the thing doesn't work out. Equal protection under the law should prevail. I don't need the state to tell me what God thinks.

Personally, this is how I feel.
Morally, I disagree with homosexuality...but refuse to tell another person what they can and can't feel.
So, if like me, you believe that marriage is a religious sacrament, then I am against it.
But if you believe that marriage is a civil service and a contract between one person and another, then I am for it.

To recap:
Gay marriage in a church? Nope.
Civil ceremony before a judge? Go for it!

[cleller]

Just for fun, imagine if this thread were to continue for 100 years:

Poster 1: "Wow. Can you believe people opposed and even publicly argued about gay marriage 100 years ago? You'd be locked up now for that kind of talk." (social media disclaimer acknowledgment: I am aware of the prohibition of hate speech in social, electronic, or auditory expression, and affirm my support for equal protection of all human rights and privileges)

Poster 2: "Why couldn't gays marry in the churches then?" (social media disclaimer acknowledgment: I am aware of the right of all US citizens to worship in any recognized faith-based assembly, and will not impugn any persons opportunities because of this choice.)

Poster 1: "That was before the government got them organized. There used to be lots of different kinds of churches, not just the Big Four (US Protestant, US Catholic, US Jewish, US Muslim). It was a disorganized mess. There were no standards or protections, they kind of all did their own thing"

Poster 2: "Sounds confusing, glad we don't have to decide anymore. Oh, how's you're dad?"

Poster 1: "Which one?"

Poster 2: "Bio-dad. Oh, and why doesn't ole' what'sizname post here anymore?"

Poster 1: "He's better I heard. He finally signed off, and got the treatment. What'sizname turned off his media acknowledgements on his computer again, and got sent to Austin. Not smart"

[BoulderSooner79]

Blah blah blah. This country has been brainwashed. Big surprise.

I guarantee my father is not brainwashed (unless Fox news did it). He is an old, 80+, stubborn, get-off-my-lawn white guy who is as conservative as they come. He attends what is considered a very conservative Cristian church. The one issue where he splits from both conservative politics and church is the treatment of gays. Not just gay marriage, but the whole disdain of gays from the conservative side. I think this is because one of his best friends and co-workers from his working days was gay - not openly gay, but all his friends knew it. I guess it's hard to be hatin' on someone when you really know them personally.

[jkjsooner]

You've made first error of logical reasoning, the faulty assumption. Because you can make a reasoned logical argument using a set of facts doesn't mean you can translate that same logic to a legal argument. In this case what applies to racial discrimination does not apply to same sex marriage. Even though the reasoning is parallel the facts of the different situations aren't.

I did not assume that the gender discrimination argument is bullet proof. I simply argued that there is a very strong parallel between this argument and race discrimination in anti-miscegenation laws. I also argued that from a logical perspective this argument seems much stronger than the sexual orientation discrimination argument for various reasons:

1. I don't know if the courts have ruled that discrimination on sexual orientation is against the equal protection clause. They have ruled this way on gender discrimination.

2. If you view sexual orientation as a choice then the sexual orientation discrimination argument sort of falls apart. Therefore, you have to first convince the court that it is something inherent in the person rather than a choice the person made.

The courts could easily dismiss the gender discrimination argument. They could simply ignore it. They could argue that intuition tells them that the discrimination is on sexual preference not gender. They could argue that there is gender discrimination but there is an overwhelming public interest in allowing this form of discrimination. Some of these I already mentioned in this thread.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Just for fun, imagine if this thread were to continue for 100 years:

Poster 1: "Wow. Can you believe people opposed and even publicly argued about gay marriage 100 years ago? You'd be locked up now for that kind of talk." (social media disclaimer acknowledgment: I am aware of the prohibition of hate speech in social, electronic, or auditory expression, and affirm my support for equal protection of all human rights and privileges)

Poster 2: "Why couldn't gays marry in the churches then?" (social media disclaimer acknowledgment: I am aware of the right of all US citizens to worship in any recognized faith-based assembly, and will not impugn any persons opportunities because of this choice.)

Poster 1: "That was before the government got them organized. There used to be lots of different kinds of churches, not just the Big Four (US Protestant, US Catholic, US Jewish, US Muslim). It was a disorganized mess. There were no standards or protections, they kind of all did their own thing"

Poster 2: "Sounds confusing, glad we don't have to decide anymore. Oh, how's you're dad?"

Poster 1: "Which one?"

Poster 2: "Bio-dad. Oh, and why doesn't ole' what'sizname post here anymore?"

Poster 1: "He's better I heard. He finally signed off, and got the treatment. What'sizname turned off his media acknowledgements on his computer again, and got sent to Austin. Not smart"

I think most of us here who support those who wish to be in a legal same-sex marriage having libertarian leanings -- so we would also support 1st amendments rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

For example, I've heard no one on this board suggest that
the Catholic Church must be required perform same-sex marriages.

The Catholic Church chooses not to recognize civil marriages and civil divorces - even between one man and one woman.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

No can't be both because by definition discrimination requires treating one party or parties differently than another. Ask you again. Who is being discriminated against because states don't allow same sex marriage?

Your second question is hypothetical because we do allow interracial marriage. The constitution says we can't discriminate because of race. Any laws to that effect are long gone.

Sooner or later you will admit that you don't really believe only one race can be discriminated against. In some cases it's the black guy, in some cases it's the white guy, and in some cases it's the Asian guy. If a law does not allow racial discrimination in public school admissions, one might find one race in one case and a different race in another case.

[SoonerAtKU]

I do wonder what the results would be if we took a poll of the same respondents that asked "How many gay people do you know?" I don't imagine it would be a clear delineation, but I have to assume that the more contact a person has with gay, bisexual, or transgendered neighbors, family, or coworkers, the more tolerant one would become.

Thoughts? Informal poll?

[KantoSooner]

I'm sure contact, of a positive nature, would tend to make one more tolerant. Out of our group here, though, it's probably more closely aligned to libertarian leaning general philosophy. But that's just my guess.

[SoonerorLater]

I did not assume that the gender discrimination argument is bullet proof. I simply argued that there is a very strong parallel between this argument and race discrimination in anti-miscegenation laws. I also argued that from a logical perspective this argument seems much stronger than the sexual orientation discrimination argument for various reasons:

1. I don't know if the courts have ruled that discrimination on sexual orientation is against the equal protection clause. They have ruled this way on gender discrimination.

2. If you view sexual orientation as a choice then the sexual orientation discrimination argument sort of falls apart. Therefore, you have to first convince the court that it is something inherent in the person rather than a choice the person made.

The courts could easily dismiss the gender discrimination argument. They could simply ignore it. They could argue that intuition tells them that the discrimination is on sexual preference not gender. They could argue that there is gender discrimination but there is an overwhelming public interest in allowing this form of discrimination. Some of these I already mentioned in this thread.


I will be interested to see what tact is used. I don't agree on the gender discrimination though I guess it might be the safest theory to advance. The one thing I am pretty sure of is the honest forthright argument of discrimination based on sexual orientation won't be used. That one would be left burning on the runway IMO.

[SoonerorLater]

Sooner or later you will admit that you don't really believe only one race can be discriminated against. In some cases it's the black guy, in some cases it's the white guy, and in some cases it's the Asian guy. If a law does not allow racial discrimination in public school admissions, one might find one race in one case and a different race in another case.

I don't think I said that, at least I didn't intend for it to be construed that way. No, certainly different races can be discriminated against.

[Midtowner]

you'd be surprised if they bless prop 8 or bless the state supreme court shooting it down?

Prop 8.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Prop 8.
'
me too. I think it's more likely they will let the state supreme court's ruling stand