Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. District Judge Rules Oklahoma Ban on Marriage Equality Unconstitutional
Human Rights Campaign ^ | January 14, 2014 | HRC staff

Posted on 01/14/2014 2:33:09 PM PST by BurningOak

Today U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled that Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional. His ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in the Sooner State.

...

The ruling comes on the heels of a year-long string of electoral, judicial and legislative victories for marriage equality. In recent weeks both the New Mexico Supreme Court and a federal district judge in Utah have ruled in favor of marriage for lesbian and gay couples.

(Excerpt) Read more at hrc.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homonaziagenda; homonazimarriage; homonazism; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; religiouspersecution; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last
Sorry about gay activist source, as of this moment only news website story is posted.

Oklahoma judge legalizes same sex marriage in the state. Ruling on hold pending appeal. Same story as Utah, liberal judge forces homosexual marriage on a conservative state and issue goes to appeal and onto Supreme Court. The Kennedy decision in Windsor case this summer emboldened the judiciary around the nation to overturn the marriage protections in state constitutions. If forced to make a decision, current Supreme Court will likely legalize gay marriage nationally.

God is still in control.

1 posted on 01/14/2014 2:33:09 PM PST by BurningOak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

So is Texas next or Arizona?


2 posted on 01/14/2014 2:36:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Jealousy is when you count someone else's blessings instead of your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It is going to be decided nationally one way or another, state Constitutions are merely toilet paper to federal judges.


3 posted on 01/14/2014 2:38:31 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

That would depend; where are there pending lawsuits in Federal Court?


4 posted on 01/14/2014 2:38:51 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Is there a site tracking that?


5 posted on 01/14/2014 2:39:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Jealousy is when you count someone else's blessings instead of your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

One of the reasons I truly, truly am looking at secession as being the only recourse left.


6 posted on 01/14/2014 2:40:31 PM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

Oklahoma may have to become the firewall of Gay Marriage and thus we must make sure that the states more conservative than Oklahoma continue to protect traditional marriage.


7 posted on 01/14/2014 2:40:52 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak
God is still in control.

That's what I'm afraid of.

8 posted on 01/14/2014 2:41:19 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

time to start making imperial judges disappear


9 posted on 01/14/2014 2:42:21 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Good question. I have no idea, to be honest.


10 posted on 01/14/2014 2:42:22 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak
Oklahoma judge legalizes same sex marriage in the state.

The article says federal district judge. The sodomites always go to the profligate federal courts first, now.

11 posted on 01/14/2014 2:42:32 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

I’ll look around later.


12 posted on 01/14/2014 2:42:51 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Jealousy is when you count someone else's blessings instead of your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

“marriage equality”

Notice the abuse of language. Marriage has always been between man and woman. The language twisters alter the meaning of the word and then claim there is “inequality” because their altered meaning is not in force. Altering the meaning of words is how the left re-frames an issue. Don’t let them get away with it.


13 posted on 01/14/2014 2:42:57 PM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

“Two plaintiff couples, Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin and Gay Phillips and Susan Barton,”

You got to love the plaintiffs names: we have a Mary, a Gay and a Bishop.


14 posted on 01/14/2014 2:43:27 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
we must make sure that the states more conservative than Oklahoma continue to protect traditional marriage

Traditional marriage is illegal in all 50 states.

Louisiana tried to offer "almost traditional" marriage, as an option, and it was ruled unconstitutional and contrary to public policy.

15 posted on 01/14/2014 2:44:04 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

If you notice, they’re striking the conservative heartland and most religious states first, just to be wickedly spitefully.


16 posted on 01/14/2014 2:44:12 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

All it takes is one judge apparently, the voice of the people matters not


17 posted on 01/14/2014 2:45:00 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: greene66

Secession means armed revolution against the federal government. It means canyons filled with corpses and large parts of the nation turning into Syria or Somalia. I just can’t see it happening in this day and age, the average person is living well on some kind of federal subsidy, they aren’t going to cut off their own paycheck.


18 posted on 01/14/2014 2:45:30 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

The solution is to just not heed the judge’s ruling

Queers that think they are married should be sternly advised to move to California


19 posted on 01/14/2014 2:45:48 PM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

“ban on marriage equality”

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? Gotta love the typical leftist manipulation of language.


20 posted on 01/14/2014 2:45:50 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

they should know better. 0bama and crew are about to erect their monument to satan in the state capital. of course homos are welcome


21 posted on 01/14/2014 2:46:01 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Just-us” Kennedy will make it so.


22 posted on 01/14/2014 2:46:07 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
It's Now A Proven Fact
Liberals Flunked Anatomy Class


Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

23 posted on 01/14/2014 2:47:34 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak
Terrorists in black robes.
24 posted on 01/14/2014 2:47:52 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Osama Obama Care: A Religion That Will Have You On Your Knees!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

It’s not marriage.

But let’s push this out to its logical conclusion... There are NO relationships that the government can ban and must recognize.


25 posted on 01/14/2014 2:48:29 PM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

It is all rather insidious as all the gays need to do is find a federal judge appointed by Clinton or Obama, go to court and cite the 14th Amendment as well as the SCOTUS DOMA decision and the judge will rule in their favor.


26 posted on 01/14/2014 2:49:19 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Unfortunately, it’s just a matter of time. They have been able to brainwash all young people, so they’re just waiting for enough of the old people to die off.


27 posted on 01/14/2014 2:51:47 PM PST by skinndogNN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bert

“The solution is to just not heed the judge’s ruling

Queers that think they are married should be sternly advised to move to California”

Doesn’t work that way. Oh, state governments can cry and moan and bloviate and appeal and postpone and otherwise buy time. However, sooner or later the Supreme Court will declare for the federal government (as always) and the governor of the obstinate state will get a polite phone call from the White House. For decades states have leeched millions from the federal government, faced with the threat of financial retribution, state governments will fold like cheap lawn chairs.


28 posted on 01/14/2014 2:52:48 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

>> For decades states have leeched millions from the federal government

Their chain of enslavement. It must be broken. WE must take back control of the states from the Uniparty.


29 posted on 01/14/2014 2:54:46 PM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

As someone who has suffered through two bad marriages and would never do it again, I believe in everyone’s right to subject themselves to that misery.


30 posted on 01/14/2014 2:54:49 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Traditional marriage is illegal in all 50 states.

Excellent point. My hat is off.

31 posted on 01/14/2014 2:56:43 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: skinndogNN
This isn't so much about brainwashing anyone, only about installing their own Marxists in seats of power on the courts. They've been doing this for decades.

This is one Leftist's opinion, against tens of millions of citizens.

32 posted on 01/14/2014 2:57:26 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

FR really needs a “like” button.

lol


33 posted on 01/14/2014 2:58:16 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

My question is, why hasn’t the Oklahoma state guard (or the equivalent) been activated for war?


34 posted on 01/14/2014 2:58:34 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“This is one Leftist’s opinion, against tens of millions of citizens.”

That is 50% true. Sure its one judge against millions. But it is one judge against millions of people who are too busy playing games on their mobile phones, watching sports, trolling for online pornography, and reading gossip sites. Judge knew his ruling would be met with a collective shrug. No Russian judge would dare pull something like that.


35 posted on 01/14/2014 3:01:46 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

And Obastard is busy packing the courts with pro-homosexual activists who will decide that 98% of the country must bend over for the 2% in the name of “fairness”.


36 posted on 01/14/2014 3:03:11 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The War on Drugs has been used as an excuse to steal your rights. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

I somewhat agree with you. Most Americans have been lulled into a terminal malaise.


37 posted on 01/14/2014 3:03:35 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

A federal government that regards two perverted homos as a genuine married husband-and-wife is a federal government I view as without any legitimacy. I’ll happily see the country burn to the ground first. And I’d even do my best to lend the matches to get it started.


38 posted on 01/14/2014 3:03:44 PM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

Hell, the US Constitution is toilet paper to federal judges.


39 posted on 01/14/2014 3:04:15 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The War on Drugs has been used as an excuse to steal your rights. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“My question is, why hasn’t the Oklahoma state guard (or the equivalent) been activated for war??”

Yes it has. They faxed Obama and are awaiting instructions from their master. All large state level law/paramilitary organizations are federally owned, and mercenaries answer to whoever pays them. When you accept federal funding for your national guard units, you also accept the strings attached.


40 posted on 01/14/2014 3:05:34 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad
FR really needs a “like” button. lol

Apparently, nearly everybody has to try it for some reason.

41 posted on 01/14/2014 3:09:06 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
My question is, why hasn’t the Oklahoma state guard (or the equivalent) been activated for war?

Because the President can take over the state guard "to execute the Laws of the Union." (U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 15). The last time I can remember where a state refused to enforce a federal court order was when the federal courts ordered the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The federal judge sent U.S. Marshals to enforce the order; the Governor called out the National Guard to block them; so President Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and the school was desegregated.

42 posted on 01/14/2014 3:11:51 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Then we need to un-federalize the guard.


43 posted on 01/14/2014 3:15:30 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: greene66

I’ll supply the accelerant.


44 posted on 01/14/2014 3:16:32 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

If this be the logical conclusion, then a state should come out and flatly say that NO relationships will be recognized. If one wants a ‘marriage’ then find some religious institution to perform it. If you want the legal/economic benefits that used to come with state recognized marriage then obtain a civil contract to meet those needs.


45 posted on 01/14/2014 3:19:14 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

Decision is up: http://www.scribd.com/doc/199722739/4-04-cv-00848-272

The meat of it:

The Supreme Court has not expressly reached the issue of whether state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution. However, Supreme Court law now prohibits states from passing laws that are born of animosity against homosexuals, extends constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently. There is no precise legal label for what has occurred in Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with Romer in 1996 and culminating in Windsor in 2013, but this Court knows a rhetorical shift when it sees one. Against this backdrop, the Court’s task is to determine whether Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment deprives a class of Oklahoma citizens – namely, same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license – of equal protection of the law. Applying deferential rationality review, the Court searched for a rational link between exclusion of this class from civil marriage and promotion of a legitimate governmental objective. Finding none, the Court’s66 Case 4:04-cv-00848-TCK-TLW Document 272 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/14/14 rationality review reveals Part A as an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit. Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights. The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships for many years. They own property together, wish to retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another, and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without a legally sufficient justification.


46 posted on 01/14/2014 3:23:06 PM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66

I go back and forth between faint optimism and maximum negativity.

It was only 3-4 years ago that, every referendum except 1, voted to outlaw homosexual marriage. This even included California.

Now liberal and progressive judges are destroying the will of the people.

If they can do this, they can do anything they wish, take any freedom.

There is no Republican, Conservative, Constitutionalist or Libertarian that is going to save us.

I believe we are down to our final destruction. Only a massive Revolution will save us. Or a Spiritual Renewal.


47 posted on 01/14/2014 3:25:10 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Lectio Divina...Adoration...Mass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

I agree with you. I think the best possible scenario at this point would be the break-up of the country.


48 posted on 01/14/2014 3:28:38 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

We already have universal marriage equality. Anyone can be married as long as they follow the rule that everyone else has to follow, namely marrying someone of the opposite sex. They don’t want equality. They want special privledges that go above and beyond the privledges of others. I guess some animals really are more equal than others.


49 posted on 01/14/2014 3:32:13 PM PST by gop4lyf (Are we no longer in that awkward time? Or is it still too early?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

“ban on marriage equality”

I’ll say one thing about progressives. they sure do know how to spin the language.


50 posted on 01/14/2014 3:36:12 PM PST by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson