Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 265

Thread: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying a lot.

    You don't get to vote in an unconstitutional law that takes away someone else's rights. Sorry if that bothers you so much. Wait, no I'm not.
    Some may see it as that, and honestly I could care less and expect many of your opinion to see my post and views that way.

    The state's should have the right to define marriage and uphold the traditional definition of marriage that has been the legal precedence for many years. There have been no new amendments to the Constitution regarding sexuality or private sex practices. People have been making the political and ethical arguments that one's personal sex choices and relationships are somehow a protected right and no state can uphold traditional marriage because those sex practices and relationships do not fit within that definition. If they want this a Constitutional Amendment should be added, rulings shouldn't happen due to changes in public opinion or judicial activism. Stretching the Constitution to make classes of people, based on their sexual preferences and practices, protected classes and revoking and denying people the ability to make laws that are very much in line with past popular beliefs is tyranny. It is tyrannical to force the states that have upheld traditional marriage, and the people of those states who voted on such, to remove those laws is making those people second class citizens, trampling on their state's right to govern, and imposing a social view in a tyrannical way without an amendment ratified into the Constitution. I don't think any rational person would say that such rulings would happen 50 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago, only until recently with political pushes and changes in social beliefs do we see these things. People lost political battles, and now they want to force their opinion and beliefs into laws by trying to enshrine their views as the ultimate law of the land and in doing so restricting the freedoms of others to vote. I have absolutely no problem if states want to legalize SSM or if they want to uphold traditional marriage. However, that should be left up to the states and the Constitution, as it is now, should not force states that uphold traditional marriage to reject legally held definitions and having social changes on the issue be the driving force behind revoking the voting privileges and rights of others.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #32
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Not a valid comparison because reasons.
    It is absolutely a valid comparison. The anti-marriage equality bigots don't want to view themselves as being similar to the anti-inter-racial marriage bigots....but when they look in the mirror...that is exactly what is staring back at them.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    A belief you never once expressed until it became clear same-sex marriage was a fight you were losing.
    I care more about the contractual idea of marriage than I do religious...

    Marriage is a contract - not a state sponsored recognition like most of the gay proponents believe it is.

  4. #34
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Some may see it as that, and honestly I could care less and expect many of your opinion to see my post and views that way.

    The state's should have the right to define marriage and uphold the traditional definition of marriage that has been the legal precedence for many years. There have been no new amendments to the Constitution regarding sexuality or private sex practices. People have been making the political and ethical arguments that one's personal sex choices and relationships are somehow a protected right and no state can uphold traditional marriage because those sex practices and relationships do not fit within that definition. If they want this a Constitutional Amendment should be added, rulings shouldn't happen due to changes in public opinion or judicial activism. Stretching the Constitution to make classes of people, based on their sexual preferences and practices, protected classes and revoking and denying people the ability to make laws that are very much in line with past popular beliefs is tyranny. It is tyrannical to force the states that have upheld traditional marriage, and the people of those states who voted on such, to remove those laws is making those people second class citizens, trampling on their state's right to govern, and imposing a social view in a tyrannical way without an amendment ratified into the Constitution. I don't think any rational person would say that such rulings would happen 50 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago, only until recently with political pushes and changes in social beliefs do we see these things. People lost political battles, and now they want to force their opinion and beliefs into laws by trying to enshrine their views as the ultimate law of the land and in doing so restricting the freedoms of others to vote. I have absolutely no problem if states want to legalize SSM or if they want to uphold traditional marriage. However, that should be left up to the states and the Constitution, as it is now, should not force states that uphold traditional marriage to reject legally held definitions and having social changes on the issue be the driving force behind revoking the voting privileges and rights of others.
    In other words, you believe it was wrong for the Court's to strike down inter-racial marriage bans because states should be free to discriminate if they want to? Afterall, "traditional" marriage before striking down inter-racial marriage bans did not involve marriages between the races. THAT would have been "non-traditional" at the time. So are you for tradition or against it Digs?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Some may see it as that, and honestly I could care less and expect many of your opinion to see my post and views that way.

    The state's should have the right to define marriage and uphold the traditional definition of marriage that has been the legal precedence for many years. There have been no new amendments to the Constitution regarding sexuality or private sex practices. People have been making the political and ethical arguments that one's personal sex choices and relationships are somehow a protected right and no state can uphold traditional marriage because those sex practices and relationships do not fit within that definition. If they want this a Constitutional Amendment should be added, rulings shouldn't happen due to changes in public opinion or judicial activism. Stretching the Constitution to make classes of people, based on their sexual preferences and practices, protected classes and revoking and denying people the ability to make laws that are very much in line with past popular beliefs is tyranny. It is tyrannical to force the states that have upheld traditional marriage, and the people of those states who voted on such, to remove those laws is making those people second class citizens, trampling on their state's right to govern, and imposing a social view in a tyrannical way without an amendment ratified into the Constitution. I don't think any rational person would say that such rulings would happen 50 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago, only until recently with political pushes and changes in social beliefs do we see these things. People lost political battles, and now they want to force their opinion and beliefs into laws by trying to enshrine their views as the ultimate law of the land and in doing so restricting the freedoms of others to vote. I have absolutely no problem if states want to legalize SSM or if they want to uphold traditional marriage. However, that should be left up to the states and the Constitution, as it is now, should not force states that uphold traditional marriage to reject legally held definitions and having social changes on the issue be the driving force behind revoking the voting privileges and rights of others.
    AHHHH wall of text!!




  6. #36
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    1.)Marriage isn't a right first off all
    2.) and secondly marriage is a state recognized contract..
    3.)Want to argue with that?
    4.)Why not just argue for anarchy and abolish the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution while we're at it or are you just selective in which rights you recognize and those you don't?
    5.)As far as I'm concerned the State and Feds shouldn't be involved in the "marriage businesses" for numerous reasons.
    1.) facts prove you wrong on this already has pointed out by many posters
    2.) yes it is but doesnt allow them to violate individual rights
    3.) nothing to argue facts prove you wrong and all you have is opinion
    4.) yes that should be your argument since thats what you want you think its ok for the state to violate individual rights
    5.) you are free to have this opinion
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    In other words....
    10th Amendment. Marriage is a right, but it's not a specifically enumerated right, so according to the 10th Amendment regulating the right of marriage falls to the states.

  8. #38
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Yeah? go look up what legal marriage is... Outside of Church vows...

    What is it tell me!!!!
    Marriage is a legal contract of committment. It is still laughable to believe that a court saying that a state cannot impose discriminatory limitations on the rights of its citizens to enter into that contract is somehow "Authoritarian". If anything....it is the exact opposite.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Marriage isn't a right first off all....
    Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry:


    1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”


    2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.


    3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race


    4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions


    5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”


    6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship


    7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment


    8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”


    9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”


    10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”


    11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment


    12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”


    13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”


    14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”


    Marriage itself is a right, and the right to marry someone of the same-sex falls under your right to free association.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    The real legal argument here is that if someone is truly gay or are using the "loophole" as a tax evasion mechanism - yeah like that Adam Sandler movie....

    Social welfare is already abused - why would this be any different.

    What we going to do hire social welfare workers making union wages to check up on these alleged "gay couples" to ensure they're "gay."

    It may sound comedical but it's true...

Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •