Congratulations, Oklahoma!!

[bodecea]

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.

Ah...that is incorrect. But isn't it just like some "christians" to tell other people what they "worship".

 

[bodecea]

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.

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

 

[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.

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

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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?

 

[Seawytch]

There is no Constitutional right to travel to Alabama!

 

[Nate]

Damn, let a man ignore the news for a day and this happens! Love these Oklahomans to death but there's no way this will stand... Hell, tattoos only became legal in this State in '06, it's ridiculous to think same sex marriage will be legal any time soon in the Sooner State.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

We all knew that this was coming. Oklahoma, proud to be one of the REDDEST states in the union (an acknowledgement to our brothers in the great state of Texas), KNEW this was coming. We discussed it on this board many, many times. In 2004, 75% of the citizens of the state of Oklahoma voted a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I worked for that amendment and I gave money to support its passage. I continue to support it and believe that conduct or behavior is NOT constitutionally protected. I did not then, nor do I now, take that position lightly.

A federal district judge gave his opinion that the constitutional amendment in the state of Oklahoma violates the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. However, in the opinion that struck down the federal DOMA law, the US Supreme court COULD HAVE (as they did in the case of Roe v Wade) made same sex marriage viable across all 50 states. They did not, and as a matter of fact alluded to the belief that it WAS individual states rights to define marriage. In the case of Utah and Oklahoma, they WILL have to take a stand on this question: Is it the individual states right to define marriage? The district judges ruling was immediately stayed and NOTHING CHANGES for now.

The title of this OP is misleading because the state of Oklahoma did NOTHING to change its constitutional amendment and all polls show that it is still supported by a vast majority of the citizens of this state. We believe now, as we did in 2004 that it is the states RIGHT to define marriage and we have done so over whelmingly. If other states wish to acknowledge and recognize same sex marriage, I believe that is their right to do so.

IF the Supreme Court upholds this and the judge in Utah's opinions, affirms that the states do not have the right to define marriage, then the matter will be settled. Incorrectly, I believe. I also believe that the flood gate for behavior to be protected under the 14th amendment will be opened.

 

[bodecea]

Damn, let a man ignore the news for a day and this happens! Love these Oklahomans to death but there's no way this will stand... Hell, tattoos only became legal in this State in '06, it's ridiculous to think same sex marriage will be legal any time soon in the Sooner State.

Wait...tattoos were illegal?

 

[Nate]

Damn, let a man ignore the news for a day and this happens! Love these Oklahomans to death but there's no way this will stand... Hell, tattoos only became legal in this State in '06, it's ridiculous to think same sex marriage will be legal any time soon in the Sooner State.

Wait...tattoos were illegal?

In a sense. Tattoo parlors were. The few I got before '06 were done in a garage.

 

[hazlnut]

The decision is stayed pending appeal, just like Utah.

The idiots in Utah ran out and got married and now all those marriages are invalid.

No they're not.

Why do you make comments that are completely untrue?

 

[jknowgood]

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Woden?

Zeus?

Mithras?

Brahma?

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

Ah...that is incorrect. But isn't it just like some "christians" to tell other people what they "worship".

Did'nt say you worshipped satan, but there is heaven and hell in the after life. By your own words, you don't believe in God. So the other is hell, got it?

 

[hazlnut]

Damn, let a man ignore the news for a day and this happens! Love these Oklahomans to death but there's no way this will stand... Hell, tattoos only became legal in this State in '06, it's ridiculous to think same sex marriage will be legal any time soon in the Sooner State.

Sorry, their laws and constitution CAN NOT violate the U.S. Constitution.

All states will soon have marriage equality.

 

[Nate]

Damn, let a man ignore the news for a day and this happens! Love these Oklahomans to death but there's no way this will stand... Hell, tattoos only became legal in this State in '06, it's ridiculous to think same sex marriage will be legal any time soon in the Sooner State.

Sorry, their laws and constitution CAN NOT violate the U.S. Constitution.

All states will soon have marriage equality.

Hey, more power to the Gay community if they want to ruin what they have by getting married... You're more than likely right, same sex marriage will eventually be legal in all 50 States, I'm just saying Oklahoma will likely be one of the last to legalize it.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.?

Yes, civil unions would be granted and you've pick up your permit, no official ceremony, if you want one fine, but the permit would work. I'd also get rid on monetary benefits, like tax breaks. Love is supposed to be the reason to get together, not legal benefits.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This is some of the most important news to come out in months!

Seriously. I wish we had a better priority level in this country. This is groundbreaking fro the few thousand homosexuals in Oklahoma.

 

[bodecea]

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

Ah...that is incorrect. But isn't it just like some "christians" to tell other people what they "worship".

Did'nt say you worshipped satan, but there is heaven and hell in the after life. By your own words, you don't believe in God. So the other is hell, got it?

Not everyone believes in a heaven.

Even less believe in a hell.

And many don't even believe in an afterlife.

Why do you feel the need to make everyone believe as you do? Is that the only way you can convince yourself?

And while I may not believe in YOUR god...who says I don't believe in A god...or gods...or goddesses?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No one cares what you people believe in. Belief is a completely personal, yet useless emotion.

 

[Katzndogz]

The decision is stayed pending appeal, just like Utah.

The idiots in Utah ran out and got married and now all those marriages are invalid.

No they're not.

Why do you make comments that are completely untrue?

Why don't you become better informed.

Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(CNN) – Utah will not recognize the hundreds of same-sex marriages that were temporarily allowed by a federal judge's ruling but before the Supreme Court issued an injunction, the state announced Wednesday

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/u...e-wont-recognize-same-sex-marriages.html?_r=0

DENVER — The fortunes of 1,300 newlywed same-sex couples in Utah were thrown into turmoil on Wednesday after the governor’s office announced that it would not recognize their marriages while it presses its legal efforts to limit marriages to one man and one woman.

After unsuccessfully petitioning two lower courts to halt those weddings, Utah succeeded Monday in persuading the United States Supreme Court to issue a stay while the state appeals. The ruling blocked any additional same-sex unions from taking place and effectively reinstated Utah’s disputed ban.

RELATED COVERAGE

Moudi Sbeity, left, and Derek Kitchen, two of the lead plaintiffs in the legal challenge against Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.Uncertainty in Utah as Appeals Process Plays Out Over Gay MarriageJAN. 7, 2014
Michael Ferguson and Seth Anderson, the first gay couple to receive a marriage license in Utah, in Salt Lake City on Monday.Justices’ Halt to Gay Marriage Leaves Utah Couples in LimboJAN. 6, 2014
“The original laws governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts,” Derek Miller, the chief of staff to Gov. Gary Herbert, wrote in a memo to state officials outlining the state’s move. “It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriages but also recognizing same-sex marriages.”

 

[bodecea]

The decision is stayed pending appeal, just like Utah.

The idiots in Utah ran out and got married and now all those marriages are invalid.

No they're not.

Why do you make comments that are completely untrue?

Why don't you become better informed.

Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(CNN) – Utah will not recognize the hundreds of same-sex marriages that were temporarily allowed by a federal judge's ruling but before the Supreme Court issued an injunction, the state announced Wednesday

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/u...e-wont-recognize-same-sex-marriages.html?_r=0

DENVER — The fortunes of 1,300 newlywed same-sex couples in Utah were thrown into turmoil on Wednesday after the governor’s office announced that it would not recognize their marriages while it presses its legal efforts to limit marriages to one man and one woman.

After unsuccessfully petitioning two lower courts to halt those weddings, Utah succeeded Monday in persuading the United States Supreme Court to issue a stay while the state appeals. The ruling blocked any additional same-sex unions from taking place and effectively reinstated Utah’s disputed ban.

RELATED COVERAGE

Moudi Sbeity, left, and Derek Kitchen, two of the lead plaintiffs in the legal challenge against Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.Uncertainty in Utah as Appeals Process Plays Out Over Gay MarriageJAN. 7, 2014
Michael Ferguson and Seth Anderson, the first gay couple to receive a marriage license in Utah, in Salt Lake City on Monday.Justices’ Halt to Gay Marriage Leaves Utah Couples in LimboJAN. 6, 2014
“The original laws governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts,” Derek Miller, the chief of staff to Gov. Gary Herbert, wrote in a memo to state officials outlining the state’s move. “It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriages but also recognizing same-sex marriages.”

Well, there will be lawsuits on that then, the Constitution does not allow ex post facto laws.

 

[namvet]

chains and whips and chips and dips. sign up for obozocare and get a discount

Strap On Sex Toys: Strap On Dildos and Harnesses