Congratulations, Oklahoma!!

[bodecea]

Exactly...no other gods before me....in other words, "I" am #1. Can't have a #1, can't have "no other gods before me" if there aren't other gods for your god to be "before".

Your proof public education is a failure.

Normally i wouldn't point this out but you spelled you're incorrectly.

Part of the Irony I referred to.

 

[BDBoop]

It was declare such by the SCOTUS...on no less than three occasions. Loving v Virginia was a civil rights case...and it was all about marriage.

True, I am not denying that Scalia et al ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. However there is no reference to it in the constitution as currently written.

Do you believe you have a right to interstate travel? To procreate? To vote? Where are those right enumerated in the Constitution? Oh, that's right...they are considered fundamental rights and do not need to be expressly mentioned.

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

Look 'em up...fundamental right to marry.

Bears repeating.

I am up to here with people trying to explain why their rights don't extend to gays.

If y'all don't think marriage is a right - yeah. I would LOVE to see the howling that starts up when all marriages are dissolved.

And nobody can have sex anymore, because Christians don't do sex outside of marriage.

Love it.

That would be just grand.

 

[BDBoop]

Why was it called Civil if Blacks were the only ones affected? Why wasn't it called Black rights just like there is gay rights or womens rights?

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 .....

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Stand down Oklahoma, righteousness has finally arrived. You must move into the current century, go ahead and skip the last one since you missed it anyway.

LOL -- funny!!

Really? The conversation in Oklahoma at the moment is a discussion of whether the governor can / could issue an Executive Order directly to State employed court clerks, if the stay is lifted, that forbids the issuance of Oklahoma marriage licenses by court clerks based upon the fact that Oklahoma's Constitution expressly forbids it. Then directing those same-sex couples who want to get legally married to a federal courthouse.

Sounds like something Barry would do, doesn't it? Ignoring a 'law' and issuing an executive order.

Hmmmmm... we'll see what happens in the Supreme Court. And what if they advise that it is an issue to be decided by the state? They struck down DOMA and indicated that it was a state determined issue.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Hmmmmm... we'll see what happens in the Supreme Court. And what if they advise that it is an issue to be decided by the state? They struck down DOMA and indicated that it was a state determined issue.

Yes they did.

Pure 10th AMD.

 

[koshergrl]

Why congratulate Oklahoma? The OK people from the OK state don't want same sex marriages. Congratulate the federal judge who overrode the will of the people.

I wish people would stop using this misnomer" will of the people" ,for that to be true ALL of the people would have to agree or disagree.

Exactly.

Because the people and the government are one in the same, both are subject to the Constitution and its case law, where any act of the government at the behest of the people found to be repugnant to the Founding Document is invalidated.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

I think the homo lobby hysterics who are busily donning their jack boots are vastly underestimating the determination of the people of Oklahoma.

Fairies in jack boots aren't anywhere near as imposing as you seem to think they are.

 

[bodecea]

I wish people would stop using this misnomer" will of the people" ,for that to be true ALL of the people would have to agree or disagree.

Exactly.

Because the people and the government are one in the same, both are subject to the Constitution and its case law, where any act of the government at the behest of the people found to be repugnant to the Founding Document is invalidated.

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.

 

[bodecea]

I think the homo lobby hysterics who are busily donning their jack boots are vastly underestimating the determination of the people of Oklahoma.

Fairies in jack boots aren't anywhere near as imposing as you seem to think they are.

You, on the other hand................

 

[koshergrl]

Bode, report to sickbay...it is time for your suppository!

 

[Seawytch]

I wish people would stop using this misnomer" will of the people" ,for that to be true ALL of the people would have to agree or disagree.

Exactly.

Because the people and the government are one in the same, both are subject to the Constitution and its case law, where any act of the government at the behest of the people found to be repugnant to the Founding Document is invalidated.

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.

Yeah...damn those activist judges...

(Loving v VA was in 1967)

 

[Seawytch]

Bode, report to sickbay...it is time for your suppository!

I don't think you're her type...besides she's happily married. You're kinky though, that's interesting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

queer marriage.

And here we see an example of the hate and ignorance common to most on the social right, the same hate and ignorance that the Constitution and its case law are designed to protect Americans’ civil liberties, including gay Americans.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; where the citizens of the Republic are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, Proposition 8 and Utah’s Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Consequently, it makes no difference as to the percentage of residents of a given state who support a measure offensive to the Constitution; the people lack the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, and laws that seek to violate the civil liberties of gay Americans will continue to be invalidated accordingly.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Queer marriage can become the norm in this country. Then God will destroy us. No problem. He'll handle it. He'll make the appropriate accommodations for humans that decide to pervert what He has sanctified. Marriage is a sanctified union in The Bible. God makes it very, very clear that marriage is between a man and woman and that it is a sacred union.

If the nation insists on going queer, that will be just fine.

Decisions have consequences.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

This has nothing to do with ‘liberals,’ ‘liberals’ aren’t spending their energy on anything.

This has solely to do with private citizens seeking relief from government excess in Federal court pursuant to their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, in this case the state of Oklahoma violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

civil unions were offered a while ago, with the same rights of married MEN AND WOMEN. Liberals are never satisfied.

Obviously you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same contracts administered by marriage law, there is no need for ‘civil unions.’

Again, it has nothing to do with ‘liberals’ being ‘satisfied.’ It has to do with the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons be afforded access to all the laws of a given state, including marriage law. It’s ignorant idiocy to propose a state write two separate ‘laws’ with identical provisions.

This is why there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage, one law same- and opposite-sex couples may participate in.

 

[Jughead]

It was declare such by the SCOTUS...on no less than three occasions. Loving v Virginia was a civil rights case...and it was all about marriage.

True, I am not denying that Scalia et al ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. However there is no reference to it in the constitution as currently written.

So? Are we a nation that believes that something isn't a right unless it is mentioned in the Constitution?

Of course not, that would be silly. I was merely saying that marriage is not specifically listed in the constitution as a right, unlike say voting which is. The ninth amendment acknowledges that not all rights are listed within the constitution.

 

[daws101]

if god existed i know who would be on his damnation list and it would not be marriage equality people..

 

[koshergrl]

Exactly.

Because the people and the government are one in the same, both are subject to the Constitution and its case law, where any act of the government at the behest of the people found to be repugnant to the Founding Document is invalidated.

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.

 

[Jughead]

Do you believe you have a right to interstate travel? To procreate? To vote? Where are those right enumerated in the Constitution? Oh, that's right...they are considered fundamental rights and do not need to be expressly mentioned.

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

Look 'em up...fundamental right to marry.

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.

 

[Jughead]

Why was it called Civil if Blacks were the only ones affected? Why wasn't it called Black rights just like there is gay rights or womens rights?

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.?

Well, you never referred to Loving vs Virginia in your prior post. You asked why it was a civil rights issue.