• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

digsbe said:
Hopefully such an intrusion of rights will be repealed and reversed.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.

.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, the victim card!

The definition of marriage includes alot more than gender distinctions for Americans. All Americans. Two bodies with interchangeable parts are not ALL that a marriage is based on.

Some 'definitions' have been declared unConstitutional, like the ones where it was illegal for birracial couples to marry too. Were the citizens of VA that objected to Loving vs VA also '2nd class citizens?'

The change is based on equal rights and equal protection under the law. If you can tell me how SSM harms non-SSM marriage in anyway, I'd like to hear it.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

What bedroom practices are you referring to?
 
Deuce said:
All of which are irrelevant to state recognition of a same-sex marriage contract.

What is your objection to state recognition of a same-sex marriage contract?
Click to expand...

If you want to believe that - go ahead and challenge that in court. I suppose at that point it would only matter at how sympathetic your opposition is...
 
Mr.Nick said:
It depends, I cant give you a 101 on **** **** (I'm criminal law but know litigation and what I call **** **** "marriage ****")

Maybe I'm just too blunt..... sorry.

BTW, I don't advocate any divorces or want my legal ideas to be used is such a manner..... (also they generally apply in Illinois).

I'm merely just pointing out that marriage is a legal contract and is NOT some sort of state recognition...

So there was no bias there to begin with - gays can sign legal contracts too, they're not "legally married" but the benefits that a married couple would have exist to both."
Click to expand...

No, the state and federal governments do not recognize just any old contract for marital protections, it has to be a state issued marriage license/certificate. I can sign any other contract I want, but if it isn't a state issued marriage license then NONE of those 1100+ legal protections will apply.
 
disneydude said:
Prenup places modifications on the contract. There is nothing about a prenup that violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly it was in response to English Law.... I don't have any idea of how that works.... Well a little bit but not in the terms of divorce.....
 
Mr.Nick said:
If you want to believe that - go ahead and challenge that in court. I suppose at that point it would only matter at how sympathetic your opposition is...
Click to expand...

That is being challenged in court which is why this thread exists in the first place. I'm glad we're on the same page now.
 
wolfsgirl said:
No, the state and federal governments do not recognize just any old contract for marital protections, it has to be a state issued marriage license/certificate. I can sign any other contract I want, but if it isn't a state issued marriage license then NONE of those 1100+ legal protections will apply.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly what I said...

You can't marry 2 people by the way the states don't recognize bigamy ...
 
How is this
wolfsgirl said:
No, the state and federal governments do not recognize just any old contract for marital protections, it has to be a state issued marriage license/certificate. I can sign any other contract I want, but if it isn't a state issued marriage license then NONE of those 1100+ legal protections will apply.
Click to expand...

Saying what you said when you said this
"So there was no bias there to begin with - gays can sign legal contracts too, they're not "legally married" but the benefits that a married couple would have exist to both."

Mr.Nick said:
Yes exactly what I said...

You can't marry 2 people by the way the states don't recognize bigamy ...
Click to expand...

If the state does not recognize the contracts as a legal civil marriage there is no way they will be providing those benefits of marriage to them.

The state has a contract called marriage. If I go write up a contract and sign it, but it is not a state recognized marriage license, there are none of those legal protections that come with marriage.
 
Deuce said:
That is being challenged in court which is why this thread exists in the first place. I'm glad we're on the same page now.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and challenge contract then.

The best you will come up with is spoiling heterosexual marriage contracts and that will just piss off the strong majority of the heterosexual marriage contracts and make them hate gays even more....

Gay's aren't even in a position to negotiate beyond what these fool politicians imply.

Do you honestly believe the legislature is going to push this issue as a contract issue (like the did Obamacare) and piss millions of people off just so gays can get married and create an entire new way for fools to rip the government off?

No, that is why you need to present it as "inequality" as a social issue rather than a financial issue that could be exploited without any audits....

I see the flaws that are ripe, not only that but the slippery slopes.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...


Really, what it comes down to and what you should be asking yourself is this: Is marriage about love and commitment or is it about a penis and a vagina?
 
Do people not realize that state issued marriage licenses are legal contracts?

Yeah, that is why a woman can sue a man and take all his **** in a divorce!!!!

This has nothing to do with recognizing marriage!!!!
 
disneydude said:
LOL....no. Actually the majority of the population favors marriage equality.
Click to expand...
This is a complete lie even "Liberal" California rejected it only to have the authoritarian left reverse it, which is now the leftist model for what to do in the rest of the country. Impose it on the people despite many who dont agree, with an Iron fist! .... or gavel if you will.

evenso...Constitutional rights are not subject to a "referendum" of the popular vote.
Click to expand...
Please show me where in the constitution it gives this right? The founders of that era would have never even considered this and it would be absurd to think otherwise as it was mostly christians whom wrote the document. The definition of marriage to these people was between a man & a women ( as do many today) so theres no way they would have enshrined any such right.

This is a pipe dream.

I love it when people try to argue that laws that grant freedom to people are "socialist". It is a completely illogical argument.....one where expansion of rights is viewed by the extreme right wackos as "Authoritarian". Welcome to backwards day.
Click to expand...
The US Constitutuion gives freedom & Liberty to "the Individual" more than any system than I can think of today. Please show me a Socialist country where "the people" have faired better? Spain? Greece? How bout Argentina? How much freedom do they have in socialist China? How bout North Korea? Socialist policies all sound good in the beginning but as history shows us it never delivers as advertized. The end result is usually either bankruptsy like Greece, Argentina & Spain or Authoritarianism such as China & North Korea. Even if its not perfect a Constitutional Republic with Capitalism is by far the best system "for the people". Unfortunatly we are currently being led down the socialist rathole despite the many examples in history of its failure to improve the average citizens lifestyle or freedoms.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Do people not realize that state issued marriage licenses are legal contracts?

Yeah, that is why a woman can sue a man and take all his **** in a divorce!!!!

This has nothing to do with recognizing marriage!!!!
Click to expand...

Other than the 1100+ legal protections and benefits that come with a state and federally recognized marriage. None of those will come with me writing and signing a contract, UNLESS that contract is a state issued marriage license.
 
Iron Yank said:
This is a complete lie even "Liberal" California rejected it only to have the authoritarian left reverse it, which is now the leftist model for what to do in the rest of the country. Impose it on the people despite many who dont agree, with an Iron fist! .... or gavel if you will.

Please show me where in the constitution it gives this right? The founders of that era would have never even considered this and it would be absurd to think otherwise as it was mostly christians whom wrote the document. The definition of marriage to these people was between a man & a women ( as do many today) so theres no way they would have enshrined any such right.

This is a pipe dream.

The US Constitutuion gives freedom & Liberty to "the Individual" more than any system than I can think of today. Please show me a Socialist country where "the people" have faired better? Spain? Greece? How bout Argentina? How much freedom do they have in socialist China? How bout North Korea? Socialist policies all sound good in the beginning but as history shows us it never delivers as advertized. The end result is usually either bankruptsy like Greece, Argentina & Spain or Authoritarianism such as China & North Korea. Even if its not perfect a Constitutional Republic with Capitalism is by far the best system "for the people". Unfortunatly we are currently being led down the socialist rathole despite the many examples in history of its failure to improve the average citizens lifestyle or freedoms.
Click to expand...

Prop 8 was failing badly in California until the Mormons poured millions of dollars into an unprecedented propaganda campaign that was full of ugly lies that fooled the voters. Polls taken afterward have consistently shown that Californians regret that vote and favor gay marriage now by about 70%....this is consistent with the exponential change in favor of marriage equality nationwide.

Show you where the Constitution gives this right? Are you familiar with the equal protection clause? Ever heard of it?

BTW....YOU were the one that called granting individuals rights "socialist"....not me.

I think you need to stop listening to the right-wing radio propogandists. It is obvious from reading your post here that they have you by the hook and are just reeling you in. Pick up a newspaper, read a little and don't rely on what the blowhards are paid to tell you.
 
digsbe said:
1.)Equal protection means protecting the rights of voter's
2.) and respecting state laws and autonomy on marriage policy.
3.) Losing a political battle in a state and trying to work around it in the courts with courts reacting on social opinion and personal values is tyranny.
4.)The judge in this case waited 9 years before making this ruling and quoted the current case in Utah as precedence (one that has stay and is being appealed).
Click to expand...

1.)voters rights are protected and 100% intact
2.) state laws are 100% intact
3.) good thing none of this factually happened
4.) i hope it goes all the way so equality will prevail
 
digsbe said:
The act of taking away state's rights to set policy and removing the ability of citizens to vote on an issue that should be perfectly acceptable for them to vote on and have their beliefs put into law restricts them to second class citizens and overlooks their right to vote and their state's right to make policy for the state.
Click to expand...

translation: it factually doesnt

this factually wasnt taken away states still have that right, stop with the dishonest posts
their right to vote is 100% in tact again stop with the dishonest posts

you simply dont get to ignore the fact this is a equal and individual rights issue and it proves the dishonesty hyperbole of state/voter rights completely false.

just like in womans rights minority rights and interracial marriage which are all factually the same. Equal/human/civil rights issues.
 
Deuce said:
No it doesn't. It means the opposite. It means protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority or of the state.



You don't have the right to vote away someone else's rights. You've never had that right, and you never will.
Click to expand...

bingo 1 and bingo 2
 
digsbe said:
Those poor polygamists :( Living under tyranny because states won't regocnize multiple partner marriages. Heck, some of them may even say it not only infringes on their rights as loving, committed people but also their religious freedom because their religion may encourage polygamy or allow it with the state not accommodating that.

Seriously, it isn't tyranny for the state to uphold traditional marriage. What it is is an outcome that some people dislike. The tyranny is taking away the freedom to make those laws and imposing unjust rulings based on social opinion and changes in societal values and not on the letter of the law or new amendments. For years traditional marriage has been law in many states, only until recently fueled by social outcry and politics have we seen a change. Let Oklahoma be Oklahoma with their marriage policies and definitions and let Massachusetts be Massachusetts with the citizens of those states voting and law makers creating and directing policy.
Click to expand...

translation: if Mississippi doesnt want blacks to be equal let them do that, if jersey doesnt want women to be equal let them do that, if north dakota doesnt want blacks to marry whites let them do that, if north Carolina doesnt want Christians to marry jewish people let them do that, if texas wants gays not to be equal let them do that



NO THANKS, americans have rights and we want them protected, ALL OF THEM lol
 
Mr.Nick said:
Contract IS NOT BIASED (unless you're getting divorced)..

The United States DOES NOT and states DO NOT recognize marriage...

They recognize what you would understand as a compound contract...

The Church recognizes marriages, Christians recognize marriages as do the majority of religions - it's a religious even and celebration but NOT A STATE SPONSORED CELEBRATION...

That is the epic flaw in the homosexual psyche...

States and the Federal Government understand contracts NOT marriage.

I'm sorry if this is too hard for someone to understand.
Click to expand...

do you ever make a post that isnt factually wrong?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Do people not realize that state issued marriage licenses are legal contracts?

Yeah, that is why a woman can sue a man and take all his **** in a divorce!!!!

This has nothing to do with recognizing marriage!!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, but in marriage contracts, there is gender discrimination.
 
Mr.Nick said:
It depends, I cant give you a 101 on **** **** (I'm criminal law but know litigation and what I call **** **** "marriage ****")

Maybe I'm just too blunt..... sorry.

BTW, I don't advocate any divorces or want my legal ideas to be used is such a manner..... (also they generally apply in Illinois).

I'm merely just pointing out that marriage is a legal contract and is NOT some sort of state recognition...

So there was no bias there to begin with - gays can sign legal contracts too, they're not "legally married" but the benefits that a married couple would have exist to both."
Click to expand...

another factually wrong post, its almost as if you think honest and educated posters are fooled by them and believe them
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are on the wrong side of history, the public and what is right.

You want to split the nation? Go form your own damned country. We are doing just fine in these 50 states.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Go ahead and challenge contract then.

The best you will come up with is spoiling heterosexual marriage contracts and that will just piss off the strong majority of the heterosexual marriage contracts and make them hate gays even more....

Gay's aren't even in a position to negotiate beyond what these fool politicians imply.

Do you honestly believe the legislature is going to push this issue as a contract issue (like the did Obamacare) and piss millions of people off just so gays can get married and create an entire new way for fools to rip the government off?

No, that is why you need to present it as "inequality" as a social issue rather than a financial issue that could be exploited without any audits....

I see the flaws that are ripe, not only that but the slippery slopes.
Click to expand...

Inequality regarding gender is the reason this is a contract issue.
 
disneydude said:
Prop 8 was failing badly in California until the Mormons poured millions of dollars into an unprecedented propaganda campaign that was full of ugly lies that fooled the voters. Polls taken afterward have consistently shown that Californians regret that vote and favor gay marriage now by about 70%....this is consistent with the exponential change in favor of marriage equality nationwide.
Click to expand...
So the Mormans convinced the black community to majority vote against it? Nice try, also polls can be skewed and regularly are by the statist run propaganda machine called the media. If you were to have another vote today, if people wernt being bullied & villified by the gay mafia, I'd bet it would lose again.

Show you where the Constitution gives this right? Are you familiar with the equal protection clause? Ever heard of it?
Click to expand...
Ya gotta like how the left twists what the constitution really means. If they are not ignoring it outright :roll:

I think you need to stop listening to the right-wing radio propogandists. It is obvious from reading your post here that they have you by the hook and are just reeling you in. Pick up a newspaper, read a little and don't rely on what the blowhards are paid to tell you.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one thats seeing things from a narrow perspective here. I didnt grow up in a 1 party state where the educational system was dominated by far left wing thought. Where having a difference of opinion can get you called all kinds of names villified as a hater and in places like Hollywood and academia you will not be given a job cause you dont tow the leftist line. I'm sure you are a nice enough guy but I think you may want to consider the possibility that its you the one that is being lied to and propagandized. Some of us see it so clearly and some of us are oblivious to what this corrupt progressive authoritarian goverment is lying about.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom