Oklahoma ban on gay marriage overturned

[timpage]

Thank God for the federal courts so they can reign in the troglodyte whackos.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justic...-gay-marriage/

[CuteOldGuy]

Government has no business deciding who can marry who. The purpose of marriage is to provide for the orderly transfer of property on your death. Who gets your stuff, as it were. Beyond that, marriage is more of a quaint social custom, which many find secure and rewarding. What difference does it make who you choose to marry?

[Yssup Rider]

I have to agree with dipshit COG.

I believe the hysteria and venom over gay marriage is little more than a holdover from "he-who-must-not-be-named's" administration.

On the other side of the coin, gay couples are now facing the moral dilemma of actually having a reason to move to Oklahoma!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

Thank God for the federal courts so they can reign in the troglodyte whackos.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justic...-gay-marriage/

I have to disagree.

I want gay marriage legalized, but if the courts do it instead of the legislatures, then you will have a repeat of Roe v. Wade.

Abortion opponents claim - with some justification - that their votes were essentially negated by a Supreme Court that removed abortion from the public sphere. They can play the oppressed group because they never even get the chance to lose in the legislature.

Now, Bible thumpers can start making the same claims about gay marriage. If gay marriage wins in the legislature or by state amendment 60%-40%, then the opponents are stuck. They had their chance at the ballot box and lost big.

But if a court simply overturns the law, then they can claim that judicial tyrants are imposing their beliefs on them.

Gay marriage supporters are winning state after state. And public opinions are rapidly swinging in their favor everywhere. In less than 10 years this will be a dead issue - even in Mississippi.

I think the court actions are premature. Legislation by litigation is not always a good idea.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Government has no business deciding who can marry who. The purpose of marriage is to provide for the orderly transfer of property on your death. Who gets your stuff, as it were. Beyond that, marriage is more of a quaint social custom, which many find secure and rewarding. What difference does it make who you choose to marry?

You can't marry your goat.

[JohnnyCap]

I'm surprised there isn't more of an anti-big-government faction looking at the distinction between legalizing and not legalizing. These things should not be legal, they should be not illegal. They shouldn't be in the lawbooks at all.

That's why I'm a moronic homophobe against legalizing gay marriage. Lesbos and fags should just get married anyhow, you goddamn pansies. Take a real stand! Has anyone ever been incarcerated for getting married, in modern times at least?

[timpage]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I have to disagree.

I want gay marriage legalized, but if the courts do it instead of the legislatures, then you will have a repeat of Roe v. Wade.

Abortion opponents claim - with some justification - that their votes were essentially negated by a Supreme Court that removed abortion from the public sphere. They can play the oppressed group because they never even get the chance to lose in the legislature.

Now, Bible thumpers can start making the same claims about gay marriage. If gay marriage wins in the legislature or by state amendment 60%-40%, then the opponents are stuck. They had their chance at the ballot box and lost big.

But if a court simply overturns the law, then they can claim that judicial tyrants are imposing their beliefs on them.

Gay marriage supporters are winning state after state. And public opinions are rapidly swinging in their favor everywhere. In less than 10 years this will be a dead issue - even in Mississippi.

I think the court actions are premature. Legislation by litigation is not always a good idea.

Legally, the issue becomes "ripe" the second someone's constitutional rights are violated. Adjudication by courts is one of the things that can hurry along public opinion.

I hope your correct about it being a dead issue in ten years. You're way more optimistic about that than I am. I think we're a generation or two away from widespread cultural acceptance. Maybe when the children of today's younger generation reach majority. Until then, it's the job of the courts to ensure equal treatment under the law.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I'm surprised there isn't more of an anti-big-government faction looking at the distinction between legalizing and not legalizing. These things should not be legal, they should be not illegal. They shouldn't be in the lawbooks at all.

That's why I'm a moronic homophobe against legalizing gay marriage. Lesbos and fags should just get married anyhow, you goddamn pansies. Take a real stand! Has anyone ever been incarcerated for getting married, in modern times at least?

It's not a criminal issue.

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by timpage

It's not a criminal issue.

Wow, you have to love the moments you just feel real dumb.

But in that case it just makes it about financial benefits right? Taxes and insurance, and estates? I haven't spent an second of my life desiring marriage, I find weddings disgusting. But if it is just about money, fuck 'em.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Wow, you have to love the moments you just feel real dumb.

But in that case it just makes it about financial benefits right? Taxes and insurance, and estates? I haven't spent an second of my life desiring marriage, I find weddings disgusting. But if it is just about money, fuck 'em.

It's about being treated like everybody else.