Same Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional in OK

http://newsok.com/article/3923784

from Judge Kern. heh. I bet Sally loves that.

 

My support on this matter is directly aligned with whether or not I get wedding invites

 

Gay weddings always have better hors d'oerves and champagne.

Always.

 

Yes! another win for people....

 

lmao...weirdo's.

 

75% of Oklahomans oppose this...another win for the courts.

Sad to say, I'm not surprised.

 

I went to a Gay bar back in 1980.


The Homophobes wouldnt let me in.

 

Who gives a schlitz. But, this does give a whole new meaning to the term/movie "Wedding Crashers"

 

I could give a **** if gays want to get married or not. I do have trouble with a lone, fallible judge overturning the will of 75% of the voters in the state. It makes a mockery of the principle of self-determination.

Is every decision made by the majority the right decision? No. But it is immoral to think it appropriate that the results of a vote by "we the people" should be of such little consequence that the results can be struck down by a single equally fallible person who has the same human failings the rest of us do.

this type of judicial tyranny creates societal divisions that last generations and are very destructive to the cohesiveness of the society.

 

and win for libertarians and a blow to cultural conservatives.

and thanks to all those who swore to defend and uphold the constitution, which includes the 14th amendment.

 

Fanin, that's the role of judges. And, yes, if other lawyers and judges feel that their ruling was nutso, it gets reviewed and overturned. Finally reviewed, by not one, but nine.

Mobs are not always correct.

Interestingly, we have a neat historical comparison: the American Rev vs. the French Rev. Ours produced a system that includes judges who can overrule popular idiocy. The French Rev went in the direction of enthroning the will of the people. Which one turned out better?

 

I really wish that the Supreme Court would hurry up and rule on this. Take it up and make your decision already. State-by-state on something like this that should apply to an entire country just isn't working. Lawsuits, statewide questions, more lawsuits, local judges making rulings with stays attached, more lawsuits...

Just be supreme and court, already.

 

The reticence of the SC is by design. They typically tend toward limited judgements, on technical grounds, until such time as the issue is 'ripe'. We're getting there, and it's pretty obvious that even this court will make gay marriage legal, but they haven't found the right case, yet. It's possible that they might take, and combine, Utah's case and ours. The fact patterns are similar and it would be shooting down two of the most conservative states in the union simultaneously, just to make it emphatic. (and thus to hopefully prevent more AG's like our Scotty from wasting tax payer money attempting to relitigate settled issues. Think of it as a public service to taxpayers in states with morons for AGs.)

 

Kanto, even IF the SCOTUS strikes down the ban I still question their wisdom. In this day and age the country is tearing itself in two on cultural and moral issues. Forcing a significant segment of the population to accept a moral judgement they vehemently disagree with serves only to shred what little civility remains in this country.

the prime example is the Roe v. Wade decision. Instead of allowing individual states to decide for themselve, Blackmon et, al substituted their judgement for the will of the people and as a result we have had 40+ years of dealing with a devisive and damaging issue.

The FF's knew what they were doing when they emphasized states' rights as a way to allow the people to change their views on moral issues in a way that would not be divisive and destructive. They knew the heavy-handed way the judiciary has dealt with these issue would only undermine confidence in our system of government.

As an aside, I don't think the FF's ever conceived of the notion that the courts would become as powerful as they are today. I think it was their intention to make the judiciary the weakest of the 3 branches of government with the legislative branch being the strongest. The problem is that the more concentrated the power of a branch of government is in the hands of a few people the greater the liklihood that outside forces will use that power to thwart the will of the people. This has led to regulatory capture of the executive branch which in tutn appoints partisan idealogs to the bench. The lifetime appointment of judges without much oversight by the legislature was also a flaw in the FF's design.

 

I'd argue strongly that lifetime appointment for judges is absolutely necessary. And that the three branchs need to be more or less equal in power. It breaks out kind of cool:

1. Legislative. The yahoo branch. Filled with people of no particular skill save getting their even more disorganized and emotional brethren to make a stop in their busy days once every few years to pull a lever or scratch their mark on a piece of a paper. Made up of more than 500 people now. Flighty, political, largely void of coherent thought.

2. Judicial. Pretty much restricted to lawyers. Well, at least they're literate. Nine, now. Less overtly political, tend to stay out of things for as long as possible awaiting sanity to break out, as it usually does, given time, amongst the general public. Slow, technically oriented, largely apolitical in ways that mortal understand. (I mean, seriously how far can you parse standards of duty?)

3. Executive. Nothing but political. But, in a wonderful irony, the one branch that actually requires strategic thinking. That's why its professional staff is the largest of the three. One guy, with a plan. All politics, generally somewhat coherent.

The branchs are supposed to counterbalance each other.

If the SC issues a ruling that 'tears us in two' it is generally after a long period and because there are a rump remnant of dead enders who need no longer obstruct the rest of the country. Integration was a good example of this. And, today, we see the same thing in gay marriage and abortion rights. There are those who simply are not going to allow their fellow citizens their natural rights. At some point, they are simply bypassed and left to grumble in the corner.

It would be nice if states took up divisive issues, but sadly, it seems that neither they, nor the legislature wants to touch hot issues....or when they do, do so in ways that display a pitiful lack of understanding of the Constitution and recent (very recent) prescendent.

It's entirely appropriate for the SC to address this.

 

Spoken like a true lawyer.

Tell me Kanto, what is the practice of law based on? Is there anything other than subjective opinion? Isn't it true you can find any number of precedent opinions to back up your opinion? Why is an attorney's opinion more valid than the opinion of 75% of the voters in a state even if that attorney happens to be a judge?

IMHO, the practice of law is about on the smae level as belonging to a cult. You simply pledge your loyalty to a cultish set of legalistic rules and your various high priests(judges). Nothing you do is based on the objective scientific method.....nothing. And most federal judges don't even have to answer to the people they rule through judicial fiat.

 

I laugh. Did I **** you off that much?

Law is at root a methodology rather than any body of empirical facts. In that sense, it's closer to biology than most other things I can think of. And, not surprisingly, bio majors tend to do really well. There are things that are said in laws, but its vritually impossible to know what the writer really meant in all cases....or what the others who voted that law into effect thought it meant. So, you argue by analogy and you argue according to what other groups of lawyers and judges have arrived at in similar circumstances.

Contradictory precedent can indeed be found, but it's a common mistake that you can find precendent to support anything. Bad lawyers will certainly try to shoehorn facts into beneficial precedent, but mostly get shot down. And it's not all that arcane: Juries tend to do a very good job of separating real analogy from BS.

If you find that whole process irritating, join the club. It's one reason why I don't practice. I find it all a bit stylized for my taste. If you want something more fact-based, I'd suggest Civil Law as practiced in France. It actually allows you to question legislators as to their intent (if they're still alive).

As to why a lawyer's opinion is more important than that of other citizens: it isn't. A judge's may be and a jury's almost always is. And why should that be so? Because people, when not put on the spot, tend to offer emotional, ill-thought conclusions. (witness chat boards). And, in the case of judges, because they have, in the opinion of their peers and of those authorized to appoint them (who are, in turn, elected by us citizens), put in the time and displayed particular wisdom in the application of our laws and navigation of the adversarial system of inquiry we use to attempt to balance fairness/self-interest/public interest/predictability and all of the other things at stake when a serious dispute breaks out.

Having our 'Judge-made' law may be irritating, but I'm tempted to follow Churchill and call it the worst, except for maybe all the other systems out there.

 

I'll never know.

Kanto, we don't agree on this issue, but I do appreciate your cogent explanations. In fact, I'm going to re-read your responses so I can try to matter-of-factly tell my elderly Dad why our country is headed to Hell in a hand basket. How we got to this point is... exasperating. Some (many) will say it is exhilarating. And never the twain shall meet. Guess I'll go grumble in my corner...

 

It all started when gays finally were unafraid to be publicly known as gay and stopped being murdered for being born attracted to the same sex. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time until enough people had actually met gay people, known them to be so and found them to be entirely normal otherwise. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time until it started to seem incredibly mean spirited to deny them the same pair bonding-rights as everyone else.
Or at least it seems that way to me.
Really a triumph for the esential kindness and spirit of equality that characterize Americans and are remarked upon by outsiders who visit here.

 

Kanto, please explain to me again the scientific method that goes into practicing and creating law especially laws that deal with the moral and ethical conduct of a society. You cannot.

I see a purpose for criminal law. I see a purpose for some aspects of business law(although I would contend powerful interest groups have co-opted most aspects of business law).

I see no purpose for courts to be legislating from the bench and that is exactly what the lowly federal district judge who struck down the will of the electorate is doing. He voided the will of the voters and substituted his own judgement/opinion for theirs.

And no, you did not **** me off. But go back and reread your post of 2:21 pm. Does it not come off as sounding more than a bit arrogant and elitist? Are you really going to tell me that judges never act politically or are any less fallible than the general electorate? If so, please explain all the reversals we see of court opinions including the SCOTUS reversing its own earlier rulings. And please don't assert that the way the court handled the Roe v. Wade ruling was a positive for this country.