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.
So is Texas next or Arizona?
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.
That's what I'm afraid of.
time to start making imperial judges disappear
The article says federal district judge. The sodomites always go to the profligate federal courts first, now.
“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.
“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.
If you notice, they’re striking the conservative heartland and most religious states first, just to be wickedly spitefully.
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
“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.
they should know better. 0bama and crew are about to erect their monument to satan in the state capital. of course homos are welcome
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.
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.
My question is, why hasn’t the Oklahoma state guard (or the equivalent) been activated for war?
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”.
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.
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.
“ban on marriage equality”
I’ll say one thing about progressives. they sure do know how to spin the language.