Congratulations, Oklahoma!!

[Jughead]

Oh? Segregation did not exist? You want to go with that?

Yup. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. Segregation began around 1814, about a half century before the start of the civil war.

And?

This is more meaningless nonsense predicated on the fact that your position is completely untenable.

Segregation was struck down as un-Constitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment:

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Brown v. Board of Education | LII / Legal Information Institute

Likewise, laws designed to disallow same-sex couples access to marriage law are also un-Constitutional because they violate the 14th Amendment, such as Utah’s Amendment 3:

Like in the Prop 8 decision, the federal district court judge in Utah based his ruling on the grounds that Amendment 3 denied gays and lesbians in Utah their 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

Concerning due process, the court found that marriage is a fundamental right, and to deny this fundamental right to the three couples wishing to marry -- based on nothing more than moral disapproval or tradition -- is unconstitutional.

The Utah laws also violate equal protection, even when the court applied the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, called rational basis review. Under this test, the court failed to find any rational connection between the government's interests in procreation or child-raising and the gay marriage ban.

Utah's Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional: Federal Judge - Decided

Consequently, it is on-point, relevant, and appropriate to compare segregation to laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as both are equally repugnant to the Constitution.

I realize what the courts have said. However what's written in the constitution, and what the courts have said are two different things. If you search the constitution, there is no reference to marriage or right to marry. I also realize that we are bound by the courts decision, however in my posts I was referring to the constitution.

 

[Papageorgio]

You’re not making any sense.

Is segregation a civil rights violation or not?

You claimed it was in post #72.

It’s likely you’re not making any sense because your position is untenable.

You oppose segregation because it adversely effects African-Americans; yet you’re unwilling to afford the same civil liberties to gay Americans because you hate them, the same hate that justified segregation over 50 years ago.

Segregation was a civil rights issue, however segregation began around 1814, after the constitution was adopted, thus there is no reference to it in the constitution.
I don't hate gays, I simply cannot endorse same sex marriage as it is in conflict with my faith. I will not renounce my faith in order to acknowledge gay marriage.

You said yourself that it was ok to not acknowledge gay marriage:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...y-marriage-with-a-vegeance-2.html#post8075708

To seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties is a manifestation of hate; you may hide behind your façade of religious dogma if you wish, but it doesn’t change that fact.

And although private entities are not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, they are also not at liberty to seek to codify their hate and ignorance.

Because measures that deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights fail even a rational basis test, the sole motivation for such measures is animus toward gay Americans.

Having an opinion that doesn't agree with you is not a manifestation of hate. I tire of the false arguments leftist throw out, claiming disagreement is hate.

I believe in all civil unions, marriage is a religious union, and thus each religion does and should. Your intolerance of ideas that conflict with your personal view point, could be viewed as a manifestation of hate, I think it is just your opinion.

 

[Amelia]

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.

Yes, people do get a vote. There's a whole lot of semantics and relativity going on. The right to marry is not denied to most gay people; just the right to marry whom they want is denied. And after gay marriage becomes the law across the U.S., some people will still be denied the right to marry whom they want.

There are plenty of things which are only "rights" because people voted and said they were rights.

If Wisconsin held a new vote about gay marriage, I would vote to allow it.

But, yeah, "rights" are subject to votes.

 

[bodecea]

Yup. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. Segregation began around 1814, about a half century before the start of the civil war.

So, there was no separation of the races before 1814? Prove that, please.

Segregation was a dark time in the United State's history. Segregation began around 1814. It ended after the Civil Rights Bill in 1965. Some places still tried to illegally segregate people after that.

When Did Segregation Start and End? - Ask.com

Did you see the first answer?

 

[jknowgood]

Which god?

The God you will probaly never meet, but that's a choice.

the you're going to hell ploy, right on cue!

I said probaly, it's up to her. Maybe you need to learn to read and understand english

 

[bodecea]

What would you like me to do? Marriage today is a huge farce, people don't stay together and it's just convenient. If you tire of the other, you divorce. Then you have a legal mess.

I won't go to anyone's weddings, I never give wedding gifts. If you are not going to stay with the person for life, then don't get married, don't have kids.

Gays want to get married, good, I won't go to their wedding either. It saves me a lot of wasted weekends.

so...you don't like it but you do nothing? No petitions started? No congressman written?

It isn't a big deal to me, get married and be off. Enjoy your life. I think marriage is between God and the couple. If you don't want God and you see divorce as an option, then it should be a civil union. Marriage today is an insult to God.

So you don't believe civil marriages are real marriages? That marriages between non-believers are not real marriages?

Not being snarky, just trying to understand your position.

 

[bodecea]

Any State that legalizes gay marriage is setting themselves for destruction by God. Let the Hell-fire begin!

Which god?

The God you will probaly never meet, but that's a choice.

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Woden?

Zeus?

Mithras?

Brahma?

 

[Political Junky]

The Number, Location, and Mothers of David's Children

David was married to Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacha, Haggith, Abital and Eglah during the 7-1/2 years he reigned in Hebron as king of Judah. After David moved his capital to Jerusalem, he married Bathsheba. Each of his first six wives bore David a son, while Bathsheba bore him four sons. Altogether, scripture records that David had 19 sons by various women, and one daughter, Tamar.


Where in the Bible Did David Marry Michal?

Missing from the 1 Chronicles 3 list of sons and wives is Michal, daughter of King Saul who reigned c. 1025-1005 B.C. Her omission from the genealogy may be linked to 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "to her dying day Michal, daughter of Saul, had no children."

However, according to the encyclopedia Jewish Women, there are rabbinic traditions within Judaism that pose three claims about Michal:

that she was really David's favorite wife;
that because of her beauty she was nicknamed "Eglah," meaning calf or calf-like; and

that she died giving birth to David's son Ithream.
The end result of this rabbinic logic is that the reference to Eglah in 1 Chronicles 3 is taken as a reference to Michal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hope no one here is claiming that for something to be a right, a civil right, the Constitution must mention it.

Unfortunately, yes; the usual suspects from the right.

This also explains why no opponent of equal protection rights for same-sex couples has cited any case law in support of his errant position.

 

[Papageorgio]

so...you don't like it but you do nothing? No petitions started? No congressman written?

It isn't a big deal to me, get married and be off. Enjoy your life. I think marriage is between God and the couple. If you don't want God and you see divorce as an option, then it should be a civil union. Marriage today is an insult to God.

So you don't believe civil marriages are real marriages? That marriages between non-believers are not real marriages?

Not being snarky, just trying to understand your position.

You aren't being snarky at all, I see most marriages to really be civil unions.

Marriage, to me, is a real commitment, rarely do you see a marriage last a life time.

Bad times, good times, you stick it out and endure, you struggle, you accept, you give in and give in and give in, because love in not about one person, it is shared between two. I am not one to quote a scripture however 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 defines love and the world would be better off if we all practiced that definition, I know it may sound silly and simplistic but it works for me. The principles are sound.

Man (I do not mean gays) have cheapened marriage and the marriage vows. Divorce, cheating, it is sad and disgusting.

Christian and non Christian have nothing to with it. I know non-Christians that have great marriages, and are great people, I have found many Christians to be hypocrites.

I also believe marriage is a religious ceremony, a civil union is a government ceremony.

I don't mean to imply any marriage is less than another. Does that help explain my position?

 

[Asclepias]

Segregation was a civil rights issue, however segregation began around 1814, after the constitution was adopted, thus there is no reference to it in the constitution.
I don't hate gays, I simply cannot endorse same sex marriage as it is in conflict with my faith. I will not renounce my faith in order to acknowledge gay marriage.

You said yourself that it was ok to not acknowledge gay marriage:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...y-marriage-with-a-vegeance-2.html#post8075708

Segregation was a Black issue. Who does "Civil" identify?

You answered it. It was a black issue. The Civil rights movement helped put a stop to segregation.

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?

 

[jknowgood]

Which god?

The God you will probaly never meet, but that's a choice.

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Woden?

Zeus?

Mithras?

Brahma?

No, the way you talk your Lord will be satan.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Civil unions were prohibited in OK.

 

[Seawytch]

Having lived in the Sooner state, I thought for sure the numbers to reject same sex marriage would have been more like 90% instead of 75%. Still, 75% clearly indicates that this is not popular in Oklahoma.

I'd still be there if it were not for the twisters.

Desegregation wasn’t popular in Oklahoma, either.

Not the same issue at all. Segregation was a clear violation of civil rights. Marriage is not listed in the constitution as a fundamental right.

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.

 

[Jughead]

Segregation was a Black issue. Who does "Civil" identify?

You answered it. It was a black issue. The Civil rights movement helped put a stop to segregation.

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.

 

[Jughead]

Desegregation wasn’t popular in Oklahoma, either.

Not the same issue at all. Segregation was a clear violation of civil rights. Marriage is not listed in the constitution as a fundamental right.

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.

 

[Seawytch]

Not the same issue at all. Segregation was a clear violation of civil rights. Marriage is not listed in the constitution as a fundamental right.

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.

 

[Seawytch]

You answered it. It was a black issue. The Civil rights movement helped put a stop to segregation.

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.

So Loving v Virginia wasn't a civil rights case?

 

[bodecea]

It isn't a big deal to me, get married and be off. Enjoy your life. I think marriage is between God and the couple. If you don't want God and you see divorce as an option, then it should be a civil union. Marriage today is an insult to God.

So you don't believe civil marriages are real marriages? That marriages between non-believers are not real marriages?

Not being snarky, just trying to understand your position.

You aren't being snarky at all, I see most marriages to really be civil unions.

Marriage, to me, is a real commitment, rarely do you see a marriage last a life time.

Bad times, good times, you stick it out and endure, you struggle, you accept, you give in and give in and give in, because love in not about one person, it is shared between two. I am not one to quote a scripture however 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 defines love and the world would be better off if we all practiced that definition, I know it may sound silly and simplistic but it works for me. The principles are sound.

Man (I do not mean gays) have cheapened marriage and the marriage vows. Divorce, cheating, it is sad and disgusting.

Christian and non Christian have nothing to with it. I know non-Christians that have great marriages, and are great people, I have found many Christians to be hypocrites.

I also believe marriage is a religious ceremony, a civil union is a government ceremony.

I don't mean to imply any marriage is less than another. Does that help explain my position?

Yes. Thank you. So one more. You would support legislation changing all legal marriages to civil unions then? With all the involved changes in laws, statutes, etc.?

 

[bodecea]

Segregation was a Black issue. Who does "Civil" identify?

You answered it. It was a black issue. The Civil rights movement helped put a stop to segregation.

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?

Civil rights are not just for blacks. In fact, read the 1965 Civil Rights Act, while it is most known because of its effect on black civil rights, it did not just apply to blacks. Also women and other minorities.