Gay couple returns to Oklahoma after marriage

Associated Press ^ | May 28, 2004 | Associated Press Staff

[okkev68]

Sorry, that should have ended "butt..."

[longtermmemmory]

They just gloss over the fact that out of state resident marriages were invalidated. They are not married per Mass.

[MeekOneGOP]

Awww !! They'll be SOOOoooo broken-hearted ! (LOL!)

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Every one of the illegitimate gay weddings from all places is a potential legal challenge in the making. That's why the gaystapo wanted them so badly, and that's why many public officials violated the law to give the licenses .

The state may be forced to accept these fruits someday but I don't.

[hardhead]

I think you're wrong. The next step is to try and force churches to accept their lifestyle and their 'marriage'. Its going to be happening in Chicago this weekend where the 'rainbow sashers' are going to attempt to receive communion in the Catholic parishes with their sashes on - a public statement of opposition to church teaching.

[Bernard]

So if two things come from Oklahoma, where are the steers?

[schaketo]

Mr. Moore, who works in a beauty salon, and Mr. Watts, a student who sells cars, say they plan to move Massachusetts within a year.

Here’s a thought. How about convincing all homos to move to Mass. Call it a Mass migration. Get em all in one location. Let em have it. Call it Liberia, or Lesberia, or Gayberia …

[MeekOneGOP]

.... Let em have it. Call it Liberia, or Lesberia, or Gayberia …

..... or Faggachusetts ??

[smcmike]

you've got a good point, but that will be left up the churches. Even they know that the courts can't force churches to accept them. And this couple seems mostly interested in legal definitions.

[RichInOC]

Gunny Emil Foley was right.

[middie]

There will be some really interesting "Full Faith & Credit" constitutional legal actions regarding other states' failure to recognize the legal status of these marriages. The federal courts will necessarialy engage in what FR's most vocal adherents loath. The courts will have to determine: (1) is the recent Defense of Marriage Act contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and its application of the Full Faith & Credit mandate? (2)If so, what role does the Tenth Amendment play with regard to any given state's authorization and recognition of these marriages? - -The courts will necessarily need to d follow the mandate of marbury v. Madison (1803) and determine what the law is--ie: engage in the anathematic act of "making law." Ooooh, how scary, judges actually doing what their oath of office requires them to do.

[COEXERJ145]

Of course Congress could simply remove the ability for the federal courts to hear such cases but for some reason, no one has proposed it.

[MeekOneGOP]

Oh, yeah. Compared to Oklahoma, I'm sure it's significantly higher .....

[MeekOneGOP]

..... and welcome to FreeRepublic.com !

[middie]

I have absolutely no doubt that such an Act would be DOA at the federal court and its enforcement enjoined at the district court level within minutes of a restraining order motion being filed. Congress would not, should not and cannot fracture the separation of powers doctrine. The result would be much more deleterious to our government and society than the perceived evil that would be the focus of such proposed legislation.

In a balancing of the harms analysis, (something the courts do regularly) the harm done to us by Congress trying to enforce such an ill-advised Act would be much greater than the perceived potential harm by the application of the Full Faith & Credit mandate to these marriages.

The vast majority of the public simply doesn't give a tinker's damn about them. In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to predict that ten years from now the furor won't even rate a footnote in the history of the opening years of this century. It will be as non-eventful as the former state statutes prohibiting interracial marriages.

Is it merely rhetorical to ask: What if Congress had been persuaded by Southerners in the 1960s to forbid the federal courts from taking jurisdiction of cases on state statutes forbidding interracial marriages or desegregation in public faciliities or in interstate commerce? Yes, it is rhetorical, such an attempt would have failed miserably---and properly so.

[COEXERJ145]

Actually, Congress is granted the power decide what the courts can and cannot hear (with a few exceptions) per Article III, Section 2.

[scripter]

Ping.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.0)

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

[Stagerite]

Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Also grounded in religious belief? I mean, murder and theft are rampant in nature.

Good point, but it makes me wonder why same sex relationships aren't mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

There are only ten. Marriage as one man, one woman is implied in the commands about not coveting your neighbors wife (Exodus 20:17) and not committing adultery. There is no commandment against rape, bestiality or child molesting either you know. Surely you do not question if God hates those things.