US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

Samhain said:

Its no different than typical contract law, and since its a common practice, it would be pretty simple to adopt.

Let the government create a designation, like a benefactor, and replace all law references to "spouce, partner, marriage" etc with designated benefactor. Now all citizenry can choose 1 person, whomever they want, to get those special protections and privileges. It eliminates the state's involvement with any type of marriage, and turns it all into basic contracts.

If the state wants to regulate those contracts, by being the keeper of the records, so be it, but its a much better system than what we have today.

Click to expand...

And it would still fail to establish a legal kinship that is established through legally recognized marriages. Something that is otherwise established through birth records (for the most part, some is adoption records or now DNA tests) for other legally recognized relations.

The people want marriage. You might not. Just as some do not think there should be a standing military or others do not believe that we should have public services, such as a police force, or EMTs, or firefighters, or public schools. But the majority, vast majority of citizens want those things, including marriages. So unless that changes to where the majority wants the government out of marriage, then it isn't going to happen because there is no legal standing to honestly challenge marriage as a legal entity itself within US laws.

I think its great the people of both Oklahoma and Utah have been shown that voting is nothing but a joke. The more people that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government the better. The country is a rotten tree that's leaning and just needs pushed over. This helps it get there...the sooner the better.

Lysander said:

1.)I think its great the people of both Oklahoma and Utah have been shown that voting is nothing but a joke.
2.) The more people that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government the better.
3.) The country is a rotten tree that's leaning and just needs pushed over.
4.) This helps it get there...the sooner the better.

Click to expand...

1.) me too, its always a joke when people try to vote away others rights.
2.) to bad the opposite is happening with this topic.
3.) you are free to feel this way, you could always go to russia if you dont like freedom and rights
4.) i agree if this gets you to russia and all those that opposes equal rights the sooner the better! the country will be better because of this and without those who oppose it.

Lysander said:

I think its great the people of both Oklahoma and Utah have been shown that voting is nothing but a joke. The more people that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government the better. The country is a rotten tree that's leaning and just needs pushed over. This helps it get there...the sooner the better.

Click to expand...

Is the Constitution a joke?

Lysander said:

I think its great the people of both Oklahoma and Utah have been shown that voting is nothing but a joke. The more people that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government the better. The country is a rotten tree that's leaning and just needs pushed over. This helps it get there...the sooner the better.

Click to expand...

What if people in N Carolina voted Jews were second class citizens? Would you be okay with that?

Lysander said:

I think its great the people of both Oklahoma and Utah have been shown that voting is nothing but a joke. The more people that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government the better. The country is a rotten tree that's leaning and just needs pushed over. This helps it get there...the sooner the better.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think its great that people are finding out that we live in a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. Your vote is not supposed to be so powerful that it can be used to treat others wrongly, take away rights or prevent them from obtaining rights. Tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny, and exactly why we are a constitutional republic.

roguenuke said:

Other activities that the people want them to handle, including some they already do, such as education and the mail and protection of the public through police (something that really wasn't even done until the last century and a half or so, at least not recognizable as we do it now), to name a few. There are plenty of things that the public, voters, citizens ask the government to do for them because it is more efficiently done by the government rather than privately with each individual.

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure why people always include police with education, mail, roads, healthcare, and now apparently marriage. The police are an arm of the law and make it possible for the state to act on criminals. It's not just more efficient, or cheaper, but necessary for that to occur. The government has no reason to involve itself to make things cheaper or more efficient for the people. If the people want something for themselves there is no reason the state should provide them assistance to reach their own personal goals. The government is not an individual service provider and should not be used towards those ends.

winston53660 said:

What if people in N Carolina voted Jews were second class citizens? Would you be okay with that?

Click to expand...

Once again, race and creed are protected by constitution, sexual orientation is not.

Poor Oklahoma. The state already experiences more of God's wrath than any other state in the union..



What sort of plagues will they now have to endure because they allow the sodomites to marry...

AGENT J said:

doesnt have to be :shrug:
its also not my argument, it has nothing to do with me its just facts and reality
see all the court cases, laws, rights and court precedence that prove you wrong

what FACTS do you have that says otherwise and says all the facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedence doesnt matter? please let us know

Click to expand...

if that were true, it would be legal in all states. Again just that easy I prove you a liar.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Poor Oklahoma. The state already experiences more of God's wrath than any other state in the union..

View attachment 67160258

What sort of plagues will they now have to endure because they allow the sodomites to marry...

Click to expand...

Henrin said:

I'm not really sure why people always include police with education, mail, roads, healthcare, and now apparently marriage. The police are an arm of the law and make it possible for the state to act on criminals. It's not just more efficient, or cheaper, but necessary for that to occur. The government has no reason to involve itself to make things cheaper or more efficient for the people. If the people want something for themselves there is no reason the state should provide them assistance to reach their own personal goals. The government is not an individual service provider and should not be used towards those ends.

Click to expand...

You obviously have very little clue on the history of the police or law enforcement, even in our own country. Posse comitatus for instance isn't really about the military at all (the Act is, the phrase is not). It in fact comes from the belief that the people are responsible for policing themselves and to help their community. For a very long time throughout Western history, the people actually did police themselves. Learn a lot when you study criminal justice at a college. The communities policed themselves for quite some time before people started to realize that it leads to corruption to allow those with power unrestrained reign over the laws and enforcement of such over others. Heck, our current police force organization and ideals only came into being around the early 1900s. And we took some of our ideas from the British, who only started doing it about a century before, getting their ideals/beliefs/system from Sir Robert Peel (he is believed to be the reason British officers are called "bobbies").

So yes, the police force run by the government is in fact a relatively new concept established as a service to the community because it is much less corruptible and much more efficient (not to mention less prone to apathy over enforcement since a system prior to that set up people on basically a rotation dealing with their standing within the community rather than being a full time job) to allow the government to run it.

clownboy said:

Once again, race and creed are protected by constitution, sexual orientation is not.

Click to expand...

Everyone is protected by the Constitution, including sexual orientation because it is people, citizens that are protected. The level of protection that the gain may be determined by other things, but everyone is protected from unequal treatment under the laws.

roguenuke said:

You obviously have very little clue on the history of the police or law enforcement, even in our own country. Posse comitatus for instance isn't really about the military at all (the Act is, the phrase is not). It in fact comes from the belief that the people are responsible for policing themselves and to help their community. For a very long time throughout Western history, the people actually did police themselves. Learn a lot when you study criminal justice at a college. The communities policed themselves for quite some time before people started to realize that it leads to corruption to allow those with power unrestrained reign over the laws and enforcement of such over others. Heck, our current police force organization and ideals only came into being around the early 1900s. And we took some of our ideas from the British, who only started doing it about a century before, getting their ideals/beliefs/system from Sir Robert Peel (he is believed to be the reason British officers are called "bobbies").

So yes, the police force run by the government is in fact a relatively new concept established as a service to the community because it is much less corruptible and much more efficient (not to mention less prone to apathy over enforcement since a system prior to that set up people on basically a rotation dealing with their standing within the community rather than being a full time job) to allow the government to run it.

Click to expand...

Fine, you win on the police argument. I honestly don't care about your non sequiturs.

roguenuke said:

Everyone is protected by the Constitution, including sexual orientation because it is people, citizens that are protected. The level of protection that the gain may be determined by other things, but everyone is protected from unequal treatment under the laws.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and SCOTUS in their original ruling on DOMA found there was no "unequal treatment". Now was the original ruling correct or the subsequent one? Did the text of the Constitution change? How about voting law then, are sub-18 year olds treated unequally? How about any state licensing, are those unequal treatment of priviledge because they have certain requirements to meet licensing that not everyone has? And what of states that disallow first cousins and siblings to marry, is that unequal treatment?

clownboy said:

Indeed, and SCOTUS in their original ruling on DOMA found there was no "unequal treatment". Now was the original ruling correct or the subsequent one? Did the text of the Constitution change? How about voting law then, are sub-18 year olds treated unequally? How about any state licensing, are those unequal treatment of priviledge because they have certain requirements to meet licensing that not everyone has? And what of states that disallow first cousins and siblings to marry, is that unequal treatment?

Click to expand...

Wrong. SCOTUS made no such ruling on DOMA. They have yet to address the constitutionality of DOMA in full or the mini-DOMAs of the states.

The text of the 14th, which is where the EPC is found and the Amendment that deals with equal protection of state laws (basically limiting state governments the same way that the federal government is), states quite clearly that the states cannot treat people unequally under the laws. The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that this applies to many different things/characteristics/traits of people, limited mainly by the type of law/characteristic and the level of state interest involved in the law and how it balances the treatment.

ALL license restrictions must be justified with some state interest. For instance, a state could not decide at random that men ages 35 to 45 cannot be licensed to drive a car or that people with blue eyes cannot be licensed to be nurses or that people with long blond hair cannot have access to a concealed carry permit, because the state could show no legitimate state interest in any of these restrictions that pertain to the action being licensed, just as they cannot show any legitimate state interest in restricting people from marriage based on their relative genders because there are no state interests being furthered by such gender-based restrictions.

Rocketman said:

if that were true, it would be legal in all states. Again just that easy I prove you a liar.

Click to expand...

what FACTS do you have that says otherwise and says all the facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedence doesnt matter? please let us know

iliveonramen said:

I haven't moved a goal post. What the government does and why it supports what it does isn't some binary pass X and you're good. If you have some simple black and white criteria for what the government does good for you...a lot of us don't think that way.

Click to expand...

You are now up to four goal post changes. My argument was an argument of logic, not what the government supports given a certain day.

Sure...that's why we have court systems and elections. We do it every day. The battles in Washington are about expansion of government versus limiting it. The battle has been fought since the countries inception.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand logic. If your argument is the government should take part in activities if it can make them easier for the people to partake in there is no logical reason to limit your argument.

No...I've said human beings have been coupling together forever...older than the act of marriage or government.

Click to expand...

No, you didn't, but I don't care. It was just another goal post change of yours anyway.

AGENT J said:

what FACTS do you have that says otherwise and says all the facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedence doesnt matter? please let us know

Click to expand...

as usual nothing of substance back from you. One has to be able to read to see those facts, I guess that point alone makes this moot.

Rocketman said:

as usual nothing of substance back from you. One has to be able to read to see those facts, I guess that point alone makes this moot.

Click to expand...

translation: you got nothing and your post and lies are again destroyed by facts continuing my amusement and entertainment.

when you have anyfFACTS that show this is not a equal rights issue and that all the facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedence that make it an equal rights issue are factually wrong, please let us know.
We have facts all you have is "nu-huh" and feet stomping lol

Heck when you have ONE fact let us know, until you can do that and stay on topic there will be no reply and its yet another loss, failed lie and destroyed post of yours. Cant wait to see it you do it but my guess is youll supply ZERO and and simply accept your loss.

AGENT J said:

translation: you got nothing and your post and lies are again destroyed by facts continuing my amusement and entertainment.

when you have anyfFACTS that show this is not a equal rights issue and that all the facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedence that make it an equal rights issue are factually wrong, please let us know.
We have facts all you have is "nu-huh" and feet stomping lol

Heck when you have ONE fact let us know, until you can do that and stay on topic there will be no reply and its yet another loss, failed lie and destroyed post of yours. Cant wait to see it you do it but my guess is youll supply ZERO and and simply accept your loss.

Click to expand...

If your arguments held any water all states would allow it, they don't end of story, you lost again. I love beating you down on this issue over and over

Henrin said:

You are now up to four goal post changes. My argument was an argument of logic, not what the government supports given a certain day.

Click to expand...

Yeah...faulty logic and black or white thinking.

You don't seem to understand logic

Click to expand...

I do...and when I state as a reason that government should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses is to make individuals lives easier, you turning it into a statement that the government should do everything that makes people's lives easier is just A) Bad logic and B) Just plain idiotic pre-school debate tactics to the point that responding to you starts to become less likely.

If your argument is the government should take part in activities if it can make them easier for the people to partake in there is no logical reason to limit your argument.

Click to expand...

No...it was pretty much you that made that my argument. I made it one reason for government to intervene. You wrongly claimed I was "moving the goalpost".

No, you didn't, but I don't care. It was just another goal post change of yours anyway.

Click to expand...

You are completely confused on what "moving the goalpost" means.

For example "I don't believe Obama was born in the US because I haven't seen his birth certificate"
Obama releases his birth certificate
Response: "That's not good enough...I need to see the long form birth certificate"
Obama gets a special exception from Hawaii and releases the long form version
Response: "That's not good enough we need to see his college and school records!

What I did was give one argument. You didn't even respond to the argument but completely misrepresented my argument (strawman) by over simplifying it.

So why don't you respond to my arguments or I'm no longer wasting my time!

Lysander said:

I think its great the people of both Oklahoma and Utah have been shown that voting is nothing but a joke. The more people that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government the better. The country is a rotten tree that's leaning and just needs pushed over. This helps it get there...the sooner the better.

Click to expand...

They shouldn't have the right to vote, i agree. At least, not most of them. Anyone who voted against marriage equality should be sued by these couples, have their own marriages annulled, and be given baby cribs to sleep in and a pacifier.

Rocketman said:

If your arguments held any water all states would allow it, they don't end of story, you lost again. I love beating you down on this issue over and over

Click to expand...

That simply isn't how our system works. It takes time for any battle to overturn laws to work its way through our system, and there are plenty of hurdles to overcome on the way. And then it does take time to allow for at least some social change to occur as well, even if it is advanced due to a different SCOTUS decision (yes, the Lawrence decision did help to further the cause against same sex marriage bans, but that was along with other things, especially public opinion change to the inevitable acceptance and/or support of same sex marriage being the majority, particularly among younger generations). It took almost 100 years between the first decision in the SCOTUS on interracial marriage laws and a second decision that basically overturned the first. At the time of the Loving decision, 15 states had laws still banning it and in fact criminalizing interracial relationships (the Lovings weren't just merely prevented from getting married or being recognized as such, but also from even being in a relationship) and around 70% or more of the entire US population supported making interracial relationships across the country illegal. On top of that, it took well over 100 years since the first interracial marriage bans went into place til around 1967 to get those not struck down by Loving gone. So far, getting same sex marriage legal has been going much quicker, since the first state legalizing same sex marriage was just about a decade ago only, and now we have something like 15 states where it is legal, and lots more with legal battles in motion or pushes to overturn the laws through legislation. Plus, over half the country supports same sex marriage being legal.

Henrin said:

I'm not really sure why people always include police with education, mail, roads, healthcare, and now apparently marriage. The police are an arm of the law and make it possible for the state to act on criminals. It's not just more efficient, or cheaper, but necessary for that to occur. The government has no reason to involve itself to make things cheaper or more efficient for the people. If the people want something for themselves there is no reason the state should provide them assistance to reach their own personal goals. The government is not an individual service provider and should not be used towards those ends.

Click to expand...

Who wants to rule over a land of destitution? Sounds like those in government have a vested interest in minimizing the # of citizens without any teeth or education.

They should really kick mississippi out of the union if anything.