Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you can't run from the fact that the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled marraige is a fundamental right a total of 14 times. I don't know how the state of Oklahoma can get around that, unless it's going to recognize privately made marriage contracts, rather than issue marriage licenses. Even then that won't work with most Republicans, since the state could recognize a marriage contract signed by a same sex couple. And who's to say three or more people couldn't get together on a contract and label it a marriage?
Look, I don't give a crap about the Supreme Court. Why is their opinion any more valid than anyone else's? They have a history of overturning their previous rulings, almost all important rulings are split 5-4 decisions, and they just generally apply the constitution inconsistently whenever it suits them. For instance, if the equal protection clause means what it has become to mean, the 15th and 19th amendments wouldn't have ever been necessary.
If you take the Supreme Court case involving interracial relationship(Loving v. Virginia). Then you take the Supreme Court case ending the prohibition of sodomy(Lawrence v. Texas). And contrast both of those with "Pace v. Alabama". What do you notice?
In 1883, not only did the Supreme Court rule that the state of Alabama could make interracial marriages illegal. It ruled that the state could regulate any type of sexual relationship. And they didn't do this in some split decision. It was a unanimous, 9-0 Supreme Court decision.
Fast-forward 83 years, you have "Loving v. Virginia", and the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government had no right to prevent interracial marriage. Then in Lawrence v. Texas they ruled that the government didn't have the right to regulate any kind of relationship/
Obviously these two cases completely contradict each other. So which one got it right?
Did the Supreme Court of 1883, a mere 15 years after the ratification of the 14th amendment, not have a better understanding of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause than a court which came 100 years after?
If it is true that the constitution is a living document which can be interpreted to mean whatever the courts say it means, regardless of what previous courts ruled. Then what is the point of even having a constitution?
The concept of the constitution is to create a "fixed body of law" to prevent a "tyranny of the majority". If the Supreme Court is nothing but a representation of democracy, then what does it matter if it even exists? Why not just eliminate the Supreme Court altogether and just have Congress if we trust so much in democracy?
I always find it a bit ironic how people talk about democracy democracy democracy, and how laws need to reflect changes over time. Then as soon as you disagree with what democracy is doing, you declare everything you don't like unconstitutional.
You are inconsistent, you are a hypocrite, you are a bigot. And just like everyone else, you refuse to recognize it.
If you really believe that marriage was a fundamental right, you would move for the deregulation of marriage. If you really believed that the government should have no power to regulate any relationships that people have with each other. Then you would not support the government effectively forcing you to get married, following the rules they created, to receive benefits from the state.
If you really believed in freedom, you would get the government out of marriage. But we all know where you stand, you aren't for freedom at all. You are for your own brand of morality, and you want to shove it down everyone else's throats.
Its just ridiculous. But I'm sure the other lemmings who agree with you will call me the crazy one.
The briefing schedule concludes on April 7. The cases will be briefed and orally argued separately but potentially adjudicated in one comprehensive decision.
The briefing schedule suggests oral arguments will be heard in May, with a decision to be expected in perhaps July or August.
That would put the United States Supreme Court in position to consider in October in conference whether or not to hear the inevitable appeal.
Judges speaking AGAIN for the people!!! You cant tell me that the people of that state are okay with this!!
Yeah, the Oklahomans from tiny, remote backward towns, who have never met a gay person in their lives, are sure red faced mad against gay marriage. But people in much bigger towns, who have gays as friends and relatives, don't think it's that big of a deal and aren't against it.
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 01-29-2014 at 08:47 PM..
Judges speaking AGAIN for the people!!! You cant tell me that the people of that state are okay with this!!
So, you think the people of Oklahoma have some particular issue with judicial review? Apparently, you do. Tell us, just what do you think appellate courts do?
Anyway, they'll get over it, just like they got over it the last time judges told Oklahoma to change its marriage laws. That was in 1967, when Oklahoma and 15 other states were dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century and ordered to quit denying the right to marry to interracial couples.
And now Oklahoma is being dragging, kicking and screaming once again (collectively, mind you - I know there are plenty of individuals in Oklahoma in the minority who want nothing to do with the petty bigotry still being perpetuated by a majority of states), this time into the 21st century.
If you really believe that marriage was a fundamental right, you would move for the deregulation of marriage. If you really believed that the government should have no power to regulate any relationships that people have with each other. Then you would not support the government effectively forcing you to get married, following the rules they created, to receive benefits from the state.
If you really believed in freedom, you would get the government out of marriage. But we all know where you stand, you aren't for freedom at all. You are for your own brand of morality, and you want to shove it down everyone else's throats.
Its just ridiculous. But I'm sure the other lemmings who agree with you will call me the crazy one.
Never mind the marriage regulations, I feel less free from not having the right to do business at a liquor store on Sunday, because it's required to be closed and can't buy a car on that day either. I also don't feel like a free person, because I can't use marijuana, unless I want to risk going to prison. Not all is bleek. Only in the last year and a half, did I finally have the freedom to go to a restaurant on Sunday and order a drink, like a margarita, with my meal. It's ironic that this marriage conflict may be easier and quicker to settle than doing anything about correcting the oppressive policies noted above. Really when you think about it, we're really not FREE as a people. So many people don't believe seriously in freedom as reflected in how many new felonies legislators love to enact into law every year.
Like presidents and their policies, we simply have to live the best we can with Supreme Courts and their rulings.
Never mind the marriage regulations, I feel less free from not having the right to do business at a liquor store on Sunday, because it's required to be closed and can't buy a car on that day either. I also don't feel like a free person, because I can't use marijuana, unless I want to risk going to prison. Not all is bleek. Only in the last year and a half, did I finally have the freedom to go to a restaurant on Sunday and order a drink, like a margarita, with my meal. It's ironic that this marriage conflict may be easier and quicker to settle than doing anything about correcting the oppressive policies noted above. Really when you think about it, we're really not FREE as a people. So many people don't believe seriously in freedom as reflected in how many new felonies legislators love to enact into law every year.
Like presidents and their policies, we simply have to live the best we can with Supreme Courts and their rulings.
I agree we aren't free. But what are you doing about it? Do you really have to live that way? Why? Is there really nothing we can do except accept any pile of trash the Supreme Court throws at us in a 5-4 decision? Why in the hell would anyone who believes in either liberty or democracy allow their life to be dictated by unelected, life-termed lawyers, who can't even agree with each other 90% of the time.
To me, you sound like a coward. You don't love freedom, you pay it lip-service when its something you want, but you love to use the strong arm of government when it suits you. Who really controls the political and social discourse in this country? Is it really "the people"? Why is it that minorities, special-interest groups, the wealthy, and the media have such a disproportionate say in how our society is run? Why is it that Americans seem so cynical about the government that they voted to represent them? How is it remotely possible that Congress has an approval rating in the single digits? But yet continues to get relected over 90% of the time?
From what I can tell about my discussions with you, you seem perfectly accepting of the government completely taking over practically every aspect our entire economy. From education to energy to transportation to healthcare to retirement to sports to housing to finance to even manufacturing. You seem perfectly accepting of the idea that the government should be running, regulating, or subsidizing anything and everything.
What you refuse to recognize is that the reason why you feel the way you do, is because you were taught to believe those things, largely in government owned and operated public schools. You have people with agendas talking into your ear your entire life, telling you who your heroes should be, telling you what you should believe.
When I watched the State of the Union last night, all I heard was fascism. Seriously, watch it again, it was fascism at its finest. Its the state wanting to control everything and anything. Which inevitably benefits the corporations and special-interests the most, and most certainly leaves you less free. But fascism sounds good doesn't it? Mussolini made the trains run on time. What could Obama accomplish with the power of the government if Congress would just let him?
I still don't understand how people just lie down when it comes to the Supreme Court. Its pathetic. I'm not even just talking about this issue, I'm talking about all issues. The American people are a bunch of cowards. Believing so strongly in patriotism and loyalty to their country, that they just accept whatever pile of crap their country throws on their plate.
The Tenth Circuit has issued an order setting oral arguments in the Utah and Oklahoma same-sex marriage cases a week apart, in April. The arguments will be heard in a special session, since the only times the Tenth Circuit had previously set aside for arguments were in March and May.
The Tenth Circuit has the new schedule on its website: Kitchen v. Herbert, the Utah case, will be heard on April 10, 2014. Bishop v. Smith, the Oklahoma case, will be heard on April 17.
That means a decision would be issued as soon as late May, and almost certainly no later than July.
Standard procedure is to assign the three-judge panel that will hear both cases 10 days before oral arguments are scheduled - which, in this case, would be March 31.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You cant tell me that the people of that state are okay with this!!
