Good lord
Sodomy must be celebrated. This is the new law in the USA.
According to many, this is the basic question we must answer in a compelling manner:
How does Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin being married hurt me and my marriage?
My one line answer is: Gay marriage makes my culture more dangerous.
Is there a better answer than that?
Of course, we could reject the above question as the basic question.
Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, doesn’t seem to accept that as the basic question. He said, “(this judge) is substituting his own ideology for the three-quarters of Oklahomans who voted to preserve marriage in their constitution as it has always been defined.”
He sees it as perhaps: “Why should one ideology rule over another?” (That could be framed better.)
While I think he is right, that approach hasn’t gotten any traction over the last decade or so. But, it that reason to give up on that approach.
U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern is a traitor to this country and if justice were to prevail he would be treated as a traitor. Since this will not happen, I can only wish him the worst (cancer would be fitting)
Many Gay marriages will self-destruct even more than heterosexual marriages. Mark my words on this date. It may be years, but their lifestyle is not workable.
When perverts become judges, expect the perversion of justice. A pervert in a blackrobe, is still a pervert.
Per the court’s (incorrect) equal-protection logic:
1. Can the state license ANY activity? (Hunting, fishing, practicing law, practicing medicine, practicing hair cutting, practicing family counseling, practicing psychiatric care, etc.)
2. Isn’t the state’s licensing of marriage inherently unconstitutional, as the license assumes applicants want to get married to each other, and establishes criteria which the applicants must meet, thereby “creating” a class of individuals who don’t want to get married to each other and do not meet the required criteria (and therefore, presumably, suffer from unconstitutional discrimination on equal-protection grounds)?
Example: The state licenses rabbit hunting with slingshots in March, for those who desire to hunt rabbits, and are willing and able to do so with slingshots in the month of March. Per the court’s reasoning, this state licensing is unconstitutional, as it (supposedly) excludes those persons who desire to hunt squirrels with shotguns in April. And per the court’s reasoning, the state license to hunt rabbits with slingshots in March SHOULD ALSO ALLOW squirrel hunting with shotguns in April (or any other animal with any other weapon in any other month).
Example: The state licenses 17 year-olds who pass a written test and a driving test to drive Volkswagons on the streets and highways. Per the court’s reasoning, this excludes those persons who’d prefer to drive Volkswagons on the city sidewalks, and those who’d prefer to drive Mopeds on the interstate, and those who’d prefer to do so at age 15, and those who’d prefer to take no test. Per the court’s reasoning, the driving license should be immediately extended to those who prefer to drive on sidewalks and those who prefer to drive tricycles on the interstate.
Example: The state licenses the practice of hair-cutting. Those who want to be beauticians happily apply for this license, pass some sort of test, and receive their hair-cutting license. This discriminates, of course, against those who desire the hair-cutting license to allow them to practice clinical psychiatry. The courts who claim that the marriage license allowing a single man to marry a single woman discriminates (somehow) against a lesbian woman who desires to marry another lesbian woman do inherently, by their decision and reasoning, extend the license of hair-cutting to those who want to practice psychiatry.
Bottom line: Bans on gay marriage are not equal-protection issues. Gay persons have EXACTLY the same rights to marriage, or to hunt, or to fish, or to become a practicing psychiatrists, as heterosexuals, or duck hunters, or lawyers, or fishermen, or fifteen year old teenagers. A gay man is free to marry a lesbian woman. A gay man is free to marry a heterosexual woman. A lesbian woman is free to marry a heterosexual man. A lesbian woman is free to marry a gay man. Heck, a lesbian man is free to marry a gay woman, or even a heterosexual psychiatrist. Their rights are equivalent.
If we want to extend the marriage license to marriages where a male marries a male, we can do so, but we can’t be compelled to do so for equal-protection reasons.
so does this mean equal protection covers ccw for nyc visitors? chicago? california?
We need to take back the Supreme Court, was never intended for them to have the power we have allowed them.
A good Christian Conservative could perhaps run for President with this platform
Other than that, Militia Time
Here’s the failure in logic... These judges are ascribing the rights of INDIVIDUALS to COUPLES. Each individual in this farce already has equal rights, even if the couples do not. The fourteenth amendment does not guarantee equal rights to couples, or any other plurality.
Stupid, and/or dishonest ruling. This is declaring language to be unconstitutional- which it is not. The Oklahoma amendment is redundant - two men or two women cannot be husband and wife - by definition. A man cannot be a wife, and a woman cannot be a husband - and a wife cannot be a wife without also having a husband, and vice versa. That's language - that's reality. It is what it is.
Not that I support violence but I am surprised more Judges aren’t attacked.
Terrence is indicative of how corrupt and stupid our entire system of courts and justice has become. His ‘logic’ adds to the feeling that the central socialist government octopus is much like Spain in 1936k.
Oppression and utter disregard of the rights of states to govern.