Skip to comments.Oklahoma Homosexual Marriage Ban Overturned - States' Rights In Jeopardy
Posted on 01/15/2014 3:56:13 AM PST by LD Jackson
I was under the impression that last year's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act did not federalize the issue of marriage. Rather, I thought it paved the way for states to decide the issue on their own. In my opinion, that's where the issue of marriage should be and should stay, a state issue. If this is the case, then someone forgot to tell U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern. He issued a ruling yesterday that effectively struck down the ban on homosexual marriage put into place by Oklahoma voters in 2004. This amendment to our state's Constitution was approved by 76% of the voters, but it was ruled unconstitutional by one man in a black robe.
You can agree or disagree with homosexuality all you want, but this has even more implications than federalizing the immorality that is inherent in homosexual marriage. The rights of the states to determine such issues is slowly being removed by a cadre of federal judges who seem to believe that every case is a federal case. I am afraid Charles Phipps is correct in his assessment.
OK Politechs - Readers of my blog know that I have previously predicted that homosexual marriage will one day be legal in all fifty states. Our country certainly seems to be headed in that direction. This case will most definitely make its way to the Supreme Court, but how they might rule is anyones guess. With the continued attack by the liberals and the federal government on states rights it would not surprise me in the least if the majority of the Justices rule that the ban is indeed unconstitutional. Once that happens I predict lawsuits will begin to be filed against churches and ministers who refuse to perform homosexual weddings. Step by step, destroying morality and any semblance of religious freedom is the lefts agenda.Oklahoma is considered by many Americans to be the reddest of red states. I am proud of that distinction, but that does not mean we are exempt from the continual onslaught and advancement of the liberal agenda. Even though well over one million Oklahoma voters approved the amendment that banned homosexual marriage in our state, our wishes have been turned away because of the far-reaching tentacles of a federal government that seems to know no boundaries.
Lawsuits like this one are classic examples of the importance of the presidency. Presidents appoint judges and one man in a robe can change society. But, while one man in a black robe may have the power to declare something legal, he will never have the authority to make it moral. Immorality and licentiousness have permeated our society, being highly promoted by those on the left and even many on the right. People do not want to be told their choices or their lifestyles are immoral and the best way for them to combat that is to legalize it, force society to accept it and silence those who dissent. That is precisely what the battle over homosexual marriage is about. With every state that declares homosexual marriage legal and with every judge who declares bans unconstitutional, the left achieves a victory that cannot be undone. There is no going back toward the right; only more left.
The liberal agenda has been firmly established in Washington, D.C. It is also deeply entrenched in the liberal strongholds that are the blue states. States such as Oklahoma and Texas have been long considered to be conservative strongholds, but the liberals want to change that. I have heard it said that the Democrats intend to turn Texas blue in a few years and I would not doubt they have the same designs on Oklahoma.
You may ask, why did I pivot from the issue of homosexual marriage to the liberal agenda? It's simple. You only have to look a little to see how this works. Little by little, states' rights are being removed. The issue of homosexual marriage is just one issue the liberals are working on. Gun control and abortion are two others. The United States Constitution specifically leaves most of the power in our government to the states. The liberal agenda is designed, no it requires, for that power to be removed from the states and given to the federal government. That's the only way the liberals can achieve their goals. I believe the issue of homosexual marriage is the backbone of a push that will lay the foundation for advancing every part of the liberal agenda.
In and of itself, homosexual marriage is a issue that will not go away. It is a battle we have to keep fighting, but the ramifications that are inherently carried within this issue will have far-reaching consequences for our country. It will help destroy the moral fabric that helps hold us together, but it will also help destroy the Republic that we are supposed to be. God help us all if it does.
Homosexuals getting “married” is the tip of an iceberg that’s already ripped the hull open.
The major rationale for homosexuals being allowed to do whatever is that EVERYBODY wants to do whatever, and that since being able to f*** who you want, when where and how you want, with the taxpayers responsible for the consequences is the only civil right that matters in 21st century America, the argument to prohibit only homosexuals from what everyone else demands is seen as weak.
I puzzle sometimes over why “marriage.” If anything is well documented to douse homosexual lust it’s a long standing committed relationship with a partner. It’s like they almost want to kill their own buzz. Except that the marriages scarcely even happen. Canada has less than 100 to show, IIRC, for 8 years of being officially open to it.
Ultimately it looks like a desire for punking of society, and it doesn’t even have directly to do with lust. It has to do with raw hate. The older homosexual sinners were content to keep it in private bedrooms (the “closet” is a misnomer, but so is “gay”) and let the straight world go its way. I believe they have actually gotten hijacked by a new breed of pied piper.
... and the hate they have, I believe, is projected upon (or as I might say it, engenders spiritual blowback from) society. That’s how they can argue so passionately about “animus.”
They really ought to be called on that “animus” as hypocrisy, with a good history lesson about how America got along pretty well with homosexuals in practice as long as they didn’t make big nuisances of themselves. They have swung their nose at what they knew was a fist, then hollered about how bloody the results are.
[They really ought to be called on that animus as hypocrisy, with a good history lesson about how America got along pretty well with homosexuals in practice as long as they didnt make big nuisances of themselves.]
That even goes for sodomy bans. Nobody had X-ray eyes. Nobody normally went in bedrooms without some special reason arising for it. “Keep the buggering to yourselves, don’t make it a nuisance in public, and, other than fluke happenstance, nobody is going to try to send you to jail for it.” They have taken tolerance and ruined it... and the result might not look very pretty for them. But again, I think maybe the good Lord did want us to take the “bull by the horns.” And teach him how to be a real masculine bull, to carry on the metaphor. Which is something hard to do because most of us men do not study to do that! We have the same God the Father as everyone else, for whom every family on earth is named, but when it’s like “hi, Pop” once a week at church services... what do you expect?
Ignore this ruling. The feds are out of control.
TENTH AMENDMENT, ANYONE?????
I agree. This judge has no jurisdiction over a state constitution. The power to define marriage is NOT mentioned in the Constitution of the united States. Therefore it is reserved to the people or to the States.
Hold that line Okies.
don’t give out licenses to homos and force the POSOTUS to send in an Army to correct it....
GOD BLESS OKLAHOMA!!!
“Ultimately it looks like a desire for punking of society,”
Good point. That’s why the Commies have taken it up. The Communist Manifesto is not about creating a workers paradise, but getting revenge on the Bourgeoisie. One way Marx proposed to do that was the attack and abolition of the traditional family.
Negative motives have ways of killing the golden goose, don’t they! Even if the bourgeoisie act like asses, they do society better good by being there than by being abolished by crude fiat. I’d love to have said asses as my customer, would be my viewpoint as a vendor of goods or services.
His argument as with all other such decisions is that the OK constitution violates the 14th amendment. I am no lawyer.
But it seems passing strange that so many laws set up classes of people who are eligible for one bennie or another at the expense of others. Welfare is one such example I can think of. You either qualify or you do not.
Homosexuals do not have their civic right denied: they can vote, participate in all the political functions of a democracy. Their rights are not violated.
Marriage is a man made institution that has its definition designated as being between a man and a woman. Period. This is no different than any other law that defines a personal condition or state. For example, there are specific laws that apply to women against men. Can I not argue that as a man I am being denied the same protections since women are more protected?
I cannot. Judges won’t hear of such.
And that is where I have an issue with some federal judge trying to change the explicit definition of what marriage is. It is in the state’s constitution. It was put there deliberately. It is a set of conditions which must be met to meet the definition, just like any other law that is enacted protecting or describing a segment of the population.
It can be peacefully if it is Prince-of-Peacefully.
Peace has to tread on egos sometimes. It isn’t a slack, paralyzed hand.
It’s gotten raw, crude, gut level. “Aaaaah, you haaaaaate gays!” is the mantra.
Well, “Aaaaah, you haaaaaaate straights” needs to be the answer. And it will be true and borne out by research. And with some skill, the projection exercised by the “gays” will be exposed. But it would make a wonderful media circus and I bet more likely than not the “gays” would shrink from such a public confrontation. Meaning it would never be able to gin up a court case to get a warped edict. Just my thoughts here.
I would think any reasonable person would have figured out that the goal was first to get one or more states to approve gay marriage, then force the others to recognize it.
Given Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution, there is even a quite good constitutional case to be made for this position. For instance, quite a number of states don't allow first-cousin marriage, but are, AFAIK, required to recognize the marriages of cousins legally married in another state.
Just because something is immoral and I don't like it, it is not automatically unconstitutional.
This judge exposes another issue regarding a COS (Convention of States)...
One argument put forth by opponents supposedly on the RIGHT against a COS is that states should use nullification. Well, if that is so, it does not appear from the likes of this judge and his ilk that nullification would get much mileage. Next time someone tries to tell me that a COS is a disaster because nullification is the way to go, this ruling can be a centerpiece in counterpoint.
10A should mean something, but in practice it doesn’t.
For it to be put into use would require the judiciary to decide to strip themselves of power, which they are not going to do. People, of any stripe, seldom do.
I used to be opposed to a Concon due to the threat of corruption by communists who would use it to implement some vile oppression of liberty,
but, I have since learned that before the Concon is voted on to convene, a specific agenda is laid out, limiting the scope to very specific items to be voted on - and each state has but one vote, removing the possibility of some high population liberal state overwhelming the others.
So, now we have the homos not only being used as a weapon to criminalize Christianity,
but to destroy states’ rights.
Yep, that’s one beauty of it... one state one vote.
I don’t call it con-con... that sounds negative and its not what it is... it is a convention of states or amendments convention. The one being promulgated at this time proposes to: “impose fiscal restraints... limit the power and
jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit terms of office...”. Each state application must state that more or less so that they get counted together as one “call”.
There has been exactly one “concon” Constitutional Convention, I wouldn’t expect another one, as it is unconstitutional to completely rip up the existing one and replace it entirely. Not that it couldn’t happen, but that would be after a protracted period of despotism, and then CW-III.