Congratulations, Oklahoma!!

[Jughead]

You indirectly answered your question again. Marriage rights for gays are not referred to as civil rights since marriage is not a fundamental right in the constitution (yes I know that although it's not in the constitution, courts have ruled otherwise). Segregation was indeed a civil rights issue, denying fundamental rights to Blacks, thus the labeling of it as such.

I think you are confused. There is a case where a white man/black woman were imprisoned for being married. It was a civil rights case dipshit. Loving vs Virginia How did you not know that.?

Not much news gets through .....

Again, no reference to Loving vs Virginia in the prior post.

 

[Iceman]

Congratulations Oklahoma? Is that supposed to be sarcastic or something? Oklahoma didn't vote for this, some judge overturned standing law.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one has a rght to marry whatever they want. The idea is silly.

 

[KokomoJojo]

geezus people this whole gay marriage thing is about political entitlements nothing more.

HOWEVER there is a greater issue to be concerned with here.

The fact that "We The People" of OK voted how "We The People" of OK desire to govern ourselves and some court denied us the constitutional democratic right to self government.

Lets just abolish the facade and instead of "We The People", call it l.ike it really is:

 

[Silhouette]

Congratulations Oklahoma? Is that supposed to be sarcastic or something? Oklahoma didn't vote for this, some judge overturned standing law.

Did you hear what that judge had to say? He said that no one should be denied the "right" to marry.

No one. That would include brothers and sisters, parents and child, polygamists, minors...

Y'all don't see the choreography leading up to the SCOTUS case do you?

Like the Utah overturning where the life vignettes were cited saying at least some of them decided to adopt a gay lifestyle after practicing a hetero one. The New York Times did a brief bio on judge Shelby:

DENVER — For a judge who would go on to make same-sex marriage legal in Utah, a deep-red state where streets in the capital are numbered by their distance from the Mormon temple, Robert J. Shelby arrived on the bench with enthusiastic praise from Republican leaders.

according to state voter records, a registered Republican. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a seven-term Utah Republican, recommended him for a federal judgeship, calling him an experienced lawyer “with an unwavering commitment to the law.” Senator Mike Lee, a Tea Party Republican, said that Mr. Shelby was “pre-eminently qualified” and predicted he would be an outstanding judge.

Now, less than two years since he joined the bench, the same-sex marriage case has transformed Judge Shelby into a hero for hundreds of newlywed gay couples and an object of derision for many social conservatives who supported Utah’s 2004 ban on such unions. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1389849126-ikF2g5mcfo6emyr60nwMLg

Derision? Or feigned-derision?

I think it's a mistake for conservatives to be leading gays on this way when they most likely will have to let down gays and lesbians in a very very big way. The reason is that they are unstable, obviously, supporting Harvey Milk and all. You don't mess with ill people like that.

People like to say I'm a hater. But they forget the reason I'm on this "crusade" is because we lost a dear family friend who was molested, grew up artificially oriented "gay" and went on to die of AIDS, only after he promiscuously took hundreds if not thousands with him. He was ill. Very ill. And his is not an isolated case by a long mile..

Personally, the 'big hint' to gays is that the stay was issued for Utah on the same legal argument as California. And this latest Oklahoma decision came with a ready-made stay.

"Stay" is the word of the day and gays should pay very close attention to it. They should not get their hopes up at all because the legal arguments against them are very potent in DOMA and the 1st Amendment stands in their way in Utah as to freedom of religion. A state may not force its inhabitants to break a mortal tenant of their faith and thereby condemn themselves to eternal damnation.

That and a dozen other solid and potent arguments are staring gays in the maw. They should brace themselves for the worst news. You heard it here first.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Congratulations Oklahoma? Is that supposed to be sarcastic or something? Oklahoma didn't vote for this, some judge overturned standing law.

Did you hear what that judge had to say? He said that no one should be denied the "right" to marry.

No one. That would include brothers and sisters, parents and child, polygamists, minors...

Y'all don't see the choreography leading up to the SCOTUS case do you?

Like the Utah overturning where the life vignettes were cited saying at least some of them decided to adopt a gay lifestyle after practicing a hetero one. The New York Times did a brief bio on judge Shelby:

DENVER — For a judge who would go on to make same-sex marriage legal in Utah, a deep-red state where streets in the capital are numbered by their distance from the Mormon temple, Robert J. Shelby arrived on the bench with enthusiastic praise from Republican leaders.

according to state voter records, a registered Republican. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a seven-term Utah Republican, recommended him for a federal judgeship, calling him an experienced lawyer “with an unwavering commitment to the law.” Senator Mike Lee, a Tea Party Republican, said that Mr. Shelby was “pre-eminently qualified” and predicted he would be an outstanding judge.

Now, less than two years since he joined the bench, the same-sex marriage case has transformed Judge Shelby into a hero for hundreds of newlywed gay couples and an object of derision for many social conservatives who supported Utah’s 2004 ban on such unions. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1389849126-ikF2g5mcfo6emyr60nwMLg

Derision? Or feigned-derision?

I think it's a mistake for conservatives to be leading gays on this way when they most likely will have to let down gays and lesbians in a very very big way. The reason is that they are unstable, obviously, supporting Harvey Milk and all. You don't mess with ill people like that.

People like to say I'm a hater. But they forget the reason I'm on this "crusade" is because we lost a dear family friend who was molested, grew up artificially oriented "gay" and went on to die of AIDS, only after he promiscuously took hundreds if not thousands with him. He was ill. Very ill. And his is not an isolated case by a long mile..

Personally, the 'big hint' to gays is that the stay was issued for Utah on the same legal argument as California. And this latest Oklahoma decision came with a ready-made stay.

"Stay" is the word of the day and gays should pay very close attention to it. They should not get their hopes up at all because the legal arguments against them are very potent in DOMA and the 1st Amendment stands in their way in Utah as to freedom of religion. A state may not force its inhabitants to break a mortal tenant of their faith and thereby condemn themselves to eternal damnation.

That and a dozen other solid and potent arguments are staring gays in the maw. They should brace themselves for the worst news. You heard it here first.

the key here is "State" acknowledged religion.

The true meaning of religion is that which you "believe" and based on those beliefs "govern" your "actions". Seems to me there is a supreme court case that leans that way but does not spell it out verbatim. They rarely do.

that is the substantial definition of religion, not the state usurped version where the corporate state constitutions limited it to "praying".

 

[Seawytch]

Voting is a right, and it is listed in the constitution.

[Amendment - Article XV]
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.​

And you deflected. Procreation? Interstate travel? Fundamental rights. Did you look up the three non Scalia cases I mentioned?

The right to vote is indeed listed in the constitution.

Saying that the right to vote isn't in the constitution, is just playing with words.

The quote below comes from the constitution (amendment). If the part in bold does not imply the right to vote, then I don't know what does.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

So now we're having a discussion that Constitutional scholars have been having for decades and it's just a distraction.

Setting aside voting, fundamental rights are rights that the SCOTUS has recognized as "fundamental" and are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Among them are the right to marry, procreate and travel from state to state. Marriage is a right being denied gay and lesbian couples. (in some states )

 

[JimBowie1958]

Federal judge strikes down Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage - U.S. News

Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage was struck down Tuesday by a federal judge who declared it a fundamental violation of equal rights.

U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern ruled in Tulsa that a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

The ruling won't immediately let same-sex couples get married in Oklahoma, however. Kern stayed the ruling pending resolution of a similar challenge to Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, which is being heard by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights activist group, said it was clear that Kern "has come to the conclusion that so many have before him — that the fundamental equality of lesbian and gay couples is guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

But Gov. Mary Fallin said she was "disappointed" by the ruling, noting that the restriction was passed by Oklahoma voters nine years ago with 75 percent support.

"The people of Oklahoma have spoken on this issue," Fallin said in a statement. "I support the right of Oklahoma's voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters."

Policy matters!? This is not about policy matters. Nobody gets to vote on whether people have the same rights you do.

Lol, a federal fascist of a judge tramples over the Will of the People of Oklahoma, and the libtards say 'Congratulations to the people of Oklahoma' in fine Marxist Big Lie form.

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.​

And you deflected. Procreation? Interstate travel? Fundamental rights. Did you look up the three non Scalia cases I mentioned?

The right to vote is indeed listed in the constitution.

Saying that the right to vote isn't in the constitution, is just playing with words.

The quote below comes from the constitution (amendment). If the part in bold does not imply the right to vote, then I don't know what does.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

So now we're having a discussion that Constitutional scholars have been having for decades and it's just a distraction.

Setting aside voting, fundamental rights are rights that the SCOTUS has recognized as "fundamental" and are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Among them are the right to marry, procreate and travel from state to state. Marriage is a right being denied gay and lesbian couples. (in some states )

I hope that the federal courts strike down all the laws against same sex marriage so that conservative will wake up and smell the coffee; the GOP does not represent them, but only the wealthy who use them for voting dupes at election time then ignores them the rest of the time.

If we can replace the GOP with a real conservative opposition, then things will get much better.

 

[Silhouette]

So now we're having a discussion that Constitutional scholars have been having for decades and it's just a distraction.

Setting aside voting, fundamental rights are rights that the SCOTUS has recognized as "fundamental" and are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Among them are the right to marry, procreate and travel from state to state. Marriage is a right being denied gay and lesbian couples. (in some states )

And also a right being denied polygamists and incest couples too; don't forget. ie: what makes LGBT so special? That will be asked by SCOTUS at this year's Utah case. Prepare for an alternative ending to your dream.

Don't forget about another constitutional right: The first amendment and freedom of religion. Jude 1 in the Bible and Poets 26 in the Koran both forbid the practice or enabling of a homosexual culture. The destruction of a complete city with all its inhabitants, gay and enabling was set forth as an example of other societies like it that will be condemned to the pit of fire forever for this mortal sin. Few are such examples in the New Testament of clear and concise "thou shalt not" "or else". Promoting homosexuality is one of those examples.

So you will have clear and undeniable first amendment issues squaring off with wobbly and hazy, behavioral issues taking a stab at the 14th.

Like I said, prepare for an alternative ending to your dream and a strange fall of dominoes thereafter...

 

[daws101]

The PEOPLE of Oklahoma banned queer marriage. They did this with 75 percent support of the vote.

And a single federal judge negated it.

The PEOPLE don't want it.

But an activist judge thinks they're wrong.

So there is a stay until the appeals are done.

Have fun waiting.

Welcome to the United States and the federal courts' power to declare laws unconstitutional. It's part of the wonderful system of checks and balances we have here.

Actually, it's how tyranny of a minority is accomplished.

And judges who legislate from the bench are actually breaking the law. In case you didn't know. It's how we had RvW forced upon us too.

so it's tyrannical only when you asshats aren't doing it?

 

[daws101]

geezus people this whole gay marriage thing is about political entitlements nothing more.

HOWEVER there is a greater issue to be concerned with here.

The fact that "We The People" of OK voted how "We The People" of OK desire to govern ourselves and some court denied us the constitutional democratic right to self government.

Lets just abolish the facade and instead of "We The People", call it l.ike it really is:

this coming from a guy who believes no plane hit the twin towers on 9/11/01..

 

[Silhouette]

The tide is turning, no matter how badly you don't want it to. Same thing happened to California, funny you left them out of the equation.

California voted against gay marrige, remember? Well we can credit liberals to spend all their energy on this, instead of the economy. This is why that family froze to death. Liberals want social issues done, not economic ones taken care of.

Like I said, worry not. Gays think these small victories are "signs of the times to come, inevitable!"...

...and I've got news for them. The law doesn't work that way. They should meditate long and hard about why the US Supreme Court issued a stay on marriage when the AG in Utah cited Windsor. The AG also cited a mandate to follow state law as it is written: the same argument California used and was denied. Curious a stay was issued to Utah, isn't it?

Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Read Windsor. http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-doma-full-decision-text-pdf/

Then get back to me on rainbow-optimism..

 

[daws101]

The tide is turning, no matter how badly you don't want it to. Same thing happened to California, funny you left them out of the equation.

California voted against gay marrige, remember? Well we can credit liberals to spend all their energy on this, instead of the economy. This is why that family froze to death. Liberals want social issues done, not economic ones taken care of.

Like I said, worry not. Gays think these small victories are "signs of the times to come, inevitable!"...

...and I've got news for them. The law doesn't work that way. They should meditate long and hard about why the US Supreme Court issued a stay on marriage when the AG in Utah cited Windsor.

Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Then get back to me on rainbow-optimism..

funny "they said the same thing about slavery, women's suffrage,desegregation etc ..
"they" were wrong then too!

 

[Silhouette]

California voted against gay marrige, remember? Well we can credit liberals to spend all their energy on this, instead of the economy. This is why that family froze to death. Liberals want social issues done, not economic ones taken care of.

Like I said, worry not. Gays think these small victories are "signs of the times to come, inevitable!"...

...and I've got news for them. The law doesn't work that way. They should meditate long and hard about why the US Supreme Court issued a stay on marriage when the AG in Utah cited Windsor.

Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Then get back to me on rainbow-optimism..

funny "they said the same thing about slavery, women's suffrage,desegregation etc ..
"they" were wrong then too!

Slavery and women's sufferage are not in any way equivalent to men wanting sex with minor boys.

Harvey Milk vs Utah is likely to have some surprises in store so all I'm saying is, prepare yourself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

California voted against gay marrige, remember? Well we can credit liberals to spend all their energy on this, instead of the economy. This is why that family froze to death. Liberals want social issues done, not economic ones taken care of.

Like I said, worry not. Gays think these small victories are "signs of the times to come, inevitable!"...

...and I've got news for them. The law doesn't work that way. They should meditate long and hard about why the US Supreme Court issued a stay on marriage when the AG in Utah cited Windsor.

Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Then get back to me on rainbow-optimism..

funny "they said the same thing about slavery, women's suffrage,desegregation etc ..
"they" were wrong then too!

The political patronage system that harbored these miscarriages of law and justice will soon pass and its appalling obscenities with it.

 

[daws101]

Like I said, worry not. Gays think these small victories are "signs of the times to come, inevitable!"...

...and I've got news for them. The law doesn't work that way. They should meditate long and hard about why the US Supreme Court issued a stay on marriage when the AG in Utah cited Windsor.

Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Then get back to me on rainbow-optimism..

funny "they said the same thing about slavery, women's suffrage,desegregation etc ..
"they" were wrong then too!

Slavery and women's sufferage are not in any way equivalent to men wanting sex with minor boys.

Harvey Milk vs Utah is likely to have some surprises in store so all I'm saying is, prepare yourself.

best false comparison award goes to.....
that's pedophilia

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation



Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.

It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.

Public belief in
the stereotype The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977.

Examining the
Research Even though most Americans don't regard gay people as child molesters, confusion remains widespread in this area. To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of scientific research.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

 

[daws101]

Like I said, worry not. Gays think these small victories are "signs of the times to come, inevitable!"...

...and I've got news for them. The law doesn't work that way. They should meditate long and hard about why the US Supreme Court issued a stay on marriage when the AG in Utah cited Windsor.

Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Read Windsor. Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Then get back to me on rainbow-optimism..

funny "they said the same thing about slavery, women's suffrage,desegregation etc ..
"they" were wrong then too!

The political patronage system that harbored these miscarriages of law and justice will soon pass and its appalling obscenities with it.

keep dreaming jim bob.. YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY...

 

[Silhouette]

I'm left wondering, if this is such a slam-dunk for gay marriage as the Harvey Milk club is so sure it is, why was a stay issued in Utah? Why did the judge for Oklahoma make a stay part of the "overturned" package?

Why didn't SCOTUS last Summer just say that states don't have the "unquestioned authority" under the context of the discussion of gay marriage and be done with it?

There are still some very curious anomolies lingering which may not necessarily be such a guaranteed "in your face" victory for the Harvey-Milkers...?

 

[daws101]

I'm left wondering, if this is such a slam-dunk for gay marriage as the Harvey Milk club is so sure it is, why was a stay issued in Utah? Why did the judge for Oklahoma make a stay part of the "overturned" package?

Why didn't SCOTUS last Summer just say that states don't have the "unquestioned authority" under the context of the discussion of gay marriage and be done with it?

There are still some very curious anomolies lingering which may not necessarily be such a guaranteed "in your face" victory for the Harvey-Milkers...?

when all other bullshit fails use the anomalies ploy.....