- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
TULSA, Okla. — A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Oklahoma’s gay marriage ban, ruling that it violates the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern handed down the ruling in a lawsuit filed by two same-sex couples. Kern immediately stayed his ruling pending appeals, meaning gay marriages won’t happen in Oklahoma right away.
The gay couples had sued for the right to marry and to have a marriage from another jurisdiction recognized in Oklahoma.
Kern ruled on a constitutional amendment approved by Oklahoma voters in 2004 that says marriage in the state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. He said the measure violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause by precluding same-sex couples from receiving an Oklahoma marriage license.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s office did not immediately have a comment on the ruling.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more @: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban - The Washington Post
Yes! Another state moving in the right direction! :applaud:applaud
"The Oklahoma judge cited that case (Utah) in staying his ruling."
Haha.
What were you saying about butthurt progressives? :lol: "If I don't get my way, Civil War?" Meanwhile, your notion of "second class citizens" is once again a complete laughingstock.Hopefully such an intrusion of rights will be repealed and reversed. Turning voters into second class citizens in leu of social changes and butthurt progressives wanting to declare perversion as a protected right worthy enough to completely redefine the English language is not something that should happen.
If this insanity is upheld I sincerely hope that there is a revolt and maybe even a split of the union. For far too long the rights of people have been eroded by this progressive philosophy of anit-religion and anti-voters rights when issues are not popular among secular liberals/progressives. Such a sweeping change of hundreds of years of marital practice should not happen due to perversion becoming more socially acceptable, especially not without a Constitutional Amendment that removes the rights of states to define marriage.
Giving LGT community rights won't turn anyone into a second class citizen just as giving blacks and women rights didn't turn white men into second class citizens.Hopefully such an intrusion of rights will be repealed and reversed. Turning voters that have issues with changing the definition of marriage into second class citizens in lieu of social changes and progressives/liberals wanting to declare perversion as a protected right worthy enough to completely redefine the English language is not something that should happen. When in doubt, when politics don't go your way just file with the courts and hope some activist judges will give your opinion on a political/social issue legal protection :shrug: everyone does it.
If this insanity is upheld I sincerely hope that there is a revolt and maybe even a split of the union. For far too long the rights of people have been eroded by this progressive philosophy of anit-religion and anti-voter's rights/sate's when issues are not popular among secular liberals/progressives. Such a sweeping change of hundreds of years of marital practice should not happen due to perversion becoming more socially acceptable, especially not without a Constitutional Amendment that removes the rights of states to define marriage.
What were you saying about butthurt progressives? :lol: "If I don't get my way, Civil War?" Meanwhile, your nonsense about "second class citizens" is once again a complete laughingstock.
Giving LGT community rights won't turn anyone into a second class citizen just as giving blacks and women rights didn't turn white men into second class citizens.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more @: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban - The Washington Post
Yes! Another state moving in the right direction! :applaud:applaud
Loss of state rights, abuse of voter rights yadda yadda yadda...
That's quite the statement. Many minority groups would still be out in cold with that attitude. This might-makes-right attitude is entirely antithetical to the freedom and equal citizenship you apparently hold in such high regard.Saying to an entire voting block and class of people that their legally held beliefs and laws can no longer be on the books because they "violate the Constitution" and forcing those laws, that have been held for many years and wanting to be changed due to changes in public opinion, is wrong.
The Feds/district judges have no right to do that.....
This is spawning an authoritarian government (not that our present government(s)) for the most part aren't already authoritarian.
Hell, I suppose in this case totalitarian would be a better word.
I'm not gay, evangelical, or live in OK, so please stop flaunting your bedroom practices in my face by making threads like these. It's non of anyone's business and I'll thank you to keep it that way.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more @: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban - The Washington Post
Yes! Another state moving in the right direction! :applaud:applaud
Incorrect. Saying to an entire voting block and class of people that their legally held beliefs and laws can no longer be on the books because they "violate the Constitution" and forcing those laws, that have been held for many years and wanting to be changed due to changes in public opinion, is wrong. Telling people that they have no right to make or enforce marriage laws like upholding traditional marriage does turn a voting class of people into second class citizens and restricts their freedoms.
And don't try to correlate this with women's rights or minority rights, totally separate issues.
I'm not gay, evangelical, or live in OK, so please stop flaunting your bedroom practices in my face by making threads like these. It's non of anyone's business and I'll thank you to keep it that way.
The Feds/district judges have no right to do that.....
This is spawning an authoritarian government (not that our present government(s)) for the most part aren't already authoritarian.
Hell, I suppose in this case totalitarian would be a better word.
giving more rights to people=authoritarian? What world do you live in?
Thank you. That's the quote I needed for future use. The next time I object to some random pro-SSM argument, I will inevitable be accused of trying to put the government in the bedroom, or some similar nonsense. I trust you won't mind my quoting you so as to set them straight (no pun intended).This isnt a bedroom practice this is marriage.
Incorrect. Saying to an entire voting block and class of people that their legally held beliefs and laws can no longer be on the books because they "violate the Constitution" and forcing those laws, that have been held for many years and wanting to be changed due to changes in public opinion, is wrong.
Hopefully such an intrusion of rights will be repealed and reversed. Turning voters that have issues with changing the definition of marriage into second class citizens in lieu of social changes and progressives/liberals wanting to declare perversion as a protected right worthy enough to completely redefine the English language is not something that should happen. When in doubt, when politics don't go your way just file with the courts and hope some activist judges will give your opinion on a political/social issue legal protection :shrug: everyone does it.
If this insanity is upheld I sincerely hope that there is a revolt and maybe even a split of the union. For far too long the rights of people have been eroded by this progressive philosophy of anti-religion and anti-voter's rights/sate's when issues are not popular among secular liberals/progressives. Such a sweeping change of hundreds of years of marital practice should not happen due to perversion becoming more socially acceptable, especially not without a Constitutional Amendment that removes the rights of states to define marriage.
As far as I'm concerned the State and Feds shouldn't be involved in the "marriage businesses" for numerous reasons.
I edited that, was a tad too harsh.
And yes, maybe not a war but at least rebellion and a split of the union. In America the Constitution has been used to legalize and protect abortion, and now they are wanting to try and use it to protect perverted definitions of marriage coupled with moronic rulings and lawsuits against "religion" on government property and whatnot. I would hope that this is the last straw that breaks the camel's back if it is upheld. I for one do not want to live in a nation that restricts my freedoms to vote on social issues, legalizes things with Constitution protection that I consider to be the biggest ethical evil of our time (abortion) and backs the secular while restricting the rights of expression of the religious. Tyranny due to social change is wrong, especially without new Amendments to the Constitution. I know many may think my opinions or beliefs on the issue are extreme or harsh, but they are. As a citizen I'm sick of such things happening and it worries me to see that the Constitution of this country wants to protect such evils, it's inhumane and should not be tolerated by people of like mind up to the point of rebellion and separation from the union.
Incorrect. Saying to an entire voting block and class of people that their legally held beliefs and laws can no longer be on the books because they "violate the Constitution" and forcing those laws, that have been held for many years and wanting to be changed due to changes in public opinion, is wrong. Telling people that they have no right to make or enforce marriage laws like upholding traditional marriage does turn a voting class of people into second class citizens and restricts their freedoms.
And don't try to correlate this with women's rights or minority rights, totally separate issues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?