It's kind of scary how many conservatives want to marry their mothers,
sisters, pigs and trees. At least I assume that's what they want to do
since they are so sure that's what everyone else wants to do. Good thing
the laws that only allow marriage between a man and a woman have been on the
books or who knows how many conservatives would have entered into these wacky
"Every child deserves a mom and a dad, and the people of Oklahoma confirmed
that at the ballot box when they approved a constitutional amendment that
affirmed marriage as a man-woman union," said Byron Babione, senior attorney
for the Alliance Defending Freedom"(Defending Freedom?
Hardly)Denying marriage to LGBT people does nothing to ensure that
every child gets a mom and a dad. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Niente. Nothing.@Avenue;Hats off to the judges ruling that the US
Constitution protect ALL citizens from having their rights removed by other
citizens.@Something to think about;Thank you. Even
though you are morally disapproving, you support equality. Thank you again.
I find the whole SSM debate interesting because of the arguments made against
it. They are often the same arguments that were made to defend a State's
right to slavery and later segregation. I am morally against SSM.
As a result I will not marry a person who's the same sex as I am. I'm
an American and have the right to choose who I marry. Having said that, I
acknowledge that two people, regardless of their gender, should have the same
"right" to choose who they marry in this Country.If you
believe that marriage is NOT a 'right'.. then fight to remove all
marriage benefits awarded by our government. Married people are given benefits
by the gov't. So, to deny others those same rights would be, and should be
unconstitutional.Oh, and the talk about 'activist'
judges... that wears me out! They're doing their jobs. They're
reviewing cases brought before them. Maybe if we had "activists" in the
Executive and legislative branches more would get done around here.
@avenue. "no matter how "bigoted" the atheistic left
tries to make us, the religious, sound." When you are trying to claim
that you are being unfairly branded a "bigot" it might be best to stay
away from the stereotyping,
@Avenue: "The only reason the federal government should get involved is if
the laws are unconstitutional. This law was not unconstitutional, no matter how
"bigoted" the atheistic left tries to make us, the religious,
sound."Twenty-plus judges, appointed by presidents ranging from
Reagan to Obama and then approved by Congress over three decades, and sadly not
one of them knows anything about the Constitution or constitutional law. Really? Mostly, the best way to make the religious sound
bigoted is to repeat what they said, verbatim and without editing. But that only works with religious people who are bigots. Religious people who
are not bigots don't sound like bigots, no matter what.
Hats off to Governor Fallin and the good people of Oklahoma who are fighting for
the right of the citizens to pass laws in their own state, without intervention
from the federal government. The only reason the federal government should get
involved is if the laws are unconstitutional. This law was not unconstitutional,
no matter how "bigoted" the atheistic left tries to make us, the
I read some excerpts on this ruling on another website. This judge, in his
ruling, cited some of the clear hate speech that drove the law to be passed in
the first place. Quotes from politicians who supported and pushed the law. They
were very open, it wasn't religion it was prejudice. He cited
that as the clear animus that drove the law in the first place and supported
What's good for Oklahoma is good for Utah.
Cletus from Coalville says: "We should now start seeing wedding
announcements for polyandry, polygyny, group marriage, and family intermarriage.
After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander."Goose? Gander? This phrase would be better used in arguing for equal pay: as
in, "What's good for the male is good for the female."But
it's a strange choice, this hetero-normative gender phrase, given the
terrifying future of inter-generational, inter-species marital chaos you're
trying to invoke! It'll be OK. "What's good for the
goose and the gander" is also good for the "goose and the goose" and
the "gander and the gander." The gay birds can marry. The straight
birds can marry. See? Everybody's happy.After all, birds of a
feather do flock together. Honk honk.
I'm not very sentimental about founder fathers or divine notions of our
Constitution. However, I cannot deny that I am very happy with the separation of
powers and thank goodness for the judicial system.@ A Quaker: Thank
you for your entries, they are always on point, respectful and display no
animosity. I enjoyed reading your post and this one was no different.@ Cletus from Coalville:My friend you and your ilk seemed to have fallen
and be trapped in a destructive dimension. You attack something, in this case
SSM. Yet those being harmed are yourselves. You feel the pain and yet continue
doing what generates it.Your conclusion and fears based on SSM
cannot be taken seriously, they have not been taken seriously, yet you
persist.My friend, if you believe that innocence should prevail
until proven guilty, shouldn't you let SSM take its course and see what
happens. You may be surprised.In the meantime: CONGRATULATIONS to
@Father of FourAfter doing some searching it seems that most of the others
have their oral arguments in August and so they wouldn't get their rulings
until later. Virginia's appeal has been heard though so that should be the
next one to come. I think there are five different appeals courts that have
cases going through, a lot of them have been essentially lumped together (like
Michigan/Ohio/Kentucky/Tennessee and Utah/Oklahoma) so there's something
like 10 states altogether in this.
I'm starting to think the Supreme Court may not hear cases on this issue,
intentionally.This is a very big issue for the country, certainly,
but the Supreme Court has become very acrimoniously divided, and no matter which
way they decide, it would further poison the justices against each other. It may be wise for them to avoid this issue, or at least to let more
appellate cases to be ruled. The longer the Supremes waits, the more public
opinion will sway toward equality, making the issue a moot point.
OK, now it appears the courts are just running up the score. One analogy that
comes to mind is the SSM opponents acting like Charlie Brown trying to kick the
football one more time.
@Cletus: Congratulations on your excellent performance as a fearmonger! You
got just the right theatrical tone in there. I hope no one is
concerned by your performance, though, as it bears no relation to reality. Any
court that has been presented with such a "slippery slope" argument has
reacted with the judicial equivalent of laughing it out of court.Absolutely nothing in any of the decisions gives polygamists, zoophiles, or
child abusers any hope whatsoever that legal marriage will ever include their
desired partners. The essential definition of marriage is not changing. It
remains:Two,Consenting (above the state's age of consent
and legally competent),Unrelated (to the extent of non-consanguinity set
by state law),Uncommitted (not otherwise bound by marriage or civil
union),Adults.Once you learn to put aside homophobia, one
finds that those are the essential factors that society requires. It's a very simple fact that homosexuality is legal, that gay couples
form marital bonds, and that they can spiritually marry in several
denominations. It's not for us to deny them the rights that flow from that
that the rest of us enjoy.
"Now let us Mormons and non Mormons get ready to celebrate all the upcoming
weddings."We should now start seeing wedding announcements for
polyandry, polygyny, group marriage, and family intermarriage. After all,
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.Another
victory on the march to equality.
Another victory on the march to equality. Justice prevails, sometimes slowly,
but she prevails.
26 rulings. 26 activist judges (or panels of judges).Or, maybe.
Just maybe, such laws really are unconstitutional. Crazy thought, I know.
So it is my understanding that there are five Court of Appeals rulings expected
this summer. We have seen the first two. Does anyone know what the other ones
are and when they are expected?
I ask you Amerikans do we have a great country or not? Equality always wins in
the end.Now let us Mormons and non Mormons get ready to celebrate all the