Judge rules Oklahoma's gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jan 14, 2014.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    I love the sound of equality in the morning.


    http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomane...r.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=koconews
     
  2. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #2
    them terrible rights only if it is freedom of religion or guns are the only ones that matter.
     
  3. dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    That's correct, entrenched freedoms only.

    No room for anything new at this point in History. We is prefect now. ;)
     
  5. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    Colour me shocked and surprised. I surely did not see this one coming. I would have suspected Oklahoma, Texas, and a few other states in the South to be last for something like this, but wow.. I am truly shocked.

    I assume there is a delay in implementing this for appeal?

    BL.
     
  6. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #6
    That guy who went on a hunger strike now has to give up football life is tough.
     
  7. JHUFrank macrumors 6502a

    JHUFrank

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    #7
    I am currently passing out a lot of hankies to a lot rump hurt neighbors. Mary Fallin is about to get on TV and speak a lot about the sanctity of marriage. Nevermind her affair with her bodyguard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin
     
  8. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #8
    Looks like Oklahoma won't have to go through the same legal mess as Utah--with SSM possibly being legal only for a short time--since the judge was smart enough to put the ruling on hold immediately pending the appeals process.
     
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    Let's flip the boat on this one, going back to Prop. 8.

    When Prop. 8 was passed, same-sex marriage was legal. Prop. 8 was passed, which right after that, a lawsuit was filed. If you like the logic here, shouldn't Prop. 8 have been put on hold pending the appeal to the courts?

    Because it wasn't. You should have been outraged at that as well.

    BL.
     
  10. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    Simple logic dictates that the answer is no.

    If prop8 had been put on hold, then there would have likely thousands of couples who got married in the meantime. Then what happens when they find out after the ruling that their marriages were invalid if that were to happen?

    The stay is designed to prevent that scenario
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    Wouldn't that be the same thing that has happened in Utah? Marriages were performed are now invalid..

    But absolutely nothing happened to heterosexual marriages in California while Prop. 8 was in effect while being appealed.

    We can't have it both ways, or we live in a world of double standards.

    BL.
     
  12. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #12
    Marriages that were performed in Utah are invalid at the moment. They will either be permanently invalidated if Utah's appeal goes through, or they will be acknowledged by the state if the state loses.

    It's a mess, and it wouldn't have been the case if a stay had been granted because those marriages wouldn't have been performed until the matter was sorted.

    Which is exactly why the judge in the Utah case was in the wrong to not grant a stay.
     
  13. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #14
  14. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #15
    This could be interesting considering the language of the court regarding DOMA:

    Could be an interesting SCOTUS case if the court goes into this on the side of states rights first.
     
  15. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #16
    And everything should have been the opposite for California.

    • Prior to the 2008 election, SSM marriage was legal.
    • During the 2008 election, Prop. 8 was passed, banning SSM.
    • Lawsuit was filed to repeal Prop. 8.
    • During the appeal process no stay to stop the enforcement of Prop. 8 was issued.

    By your logic and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there should have been just as equal outrage over no stay for the 5-year enforcement of Prop. 8 as there was for Utah's immediate enactment of SSM without a stay.

    But there wasn't. So again, I ask "why no outrage over the enforcement of Prop. 8 when there was an appeal for it pending, but there was outrage during Utah's enabling of SSM with no appeal/or appeal pending?"

    Or is it only because heterosexual marriage wasn't impacted?

    You can't have it both ways.

    Anyway, back to Oklahoma. Fallin spoke, and cited the typical outrage, "will of the people" schtick; the same rhetoric that was said in California. I'll let some dead people respond to that:

    I think those say it all.

    BL.
     
  16. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #17
    [​IMG]

    Maybe by the end of this year the US as a whole, will join the rest of us in the 21st Century.:D
     
  17. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #18
    I'm pretty sure the wheels of Social Change will turn much more slowly than that.

    Although I was very surprised at the speed of things in 2013...
     
  18. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #19
    You're going to need to do a little better than that bradl, are we seeing more of the winter quarters type tactic here?

    Cite a source demonstrating this "outrage" in Utah over SSM's done before the appeal was filed. I follow local Utah news quite closely and I have yet to see much of any outrage at all, much less in the few days between the ruling and the appeal.
     
  19. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #20
    It causes a lot more problems to have a stay that gives a new right rather than one that keeps things how they are. If a stay in the enforcement of prop 8 had been granted and then it had been upheld then you would have had 5 years of SSM that are just suddenly invalidated. That's a lot more complicated to deal with and a lot worse for the couples involved than if they just have to wait to get married.
     
  20. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    If you want to start that again, open a thread, and we'll have it out.

    Also, I was going to take the higher ground and reply back to your PMs. Now, I think I'll just delete them and move along. It's obvious you want to call me out, and I'm not taking your bait. Nice try though.

    Back on topic.

    Look no further than back to the Utah thread:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=18612119&postcount=112
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=18612353&postcount=115

    It wouldn't be termed an 'emergency order' if there weren't any outrage about their SSMs going into effect.

    Now, do you have anything more to say about Oklahoma's issue? If so, please continue it here, or open up another Utah SSM thread and we'll discuss this there.

    BL.
     
  21. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #22


    I see how it is ;)


    Both those links prove my point, there would have been no need for an emergency stay by the Supreme Court had the initial request to judge Shelby been granted. It was the Supreme Court, not the state of Utah, who labeled it an "emergency stay"

    Still how does that constitute "outrage" on the part of Utah or it's citizens?
     
  22. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #23
    +1

    Judge Kern understood the gravity of his ruling and appropriately stayed it immediately.

    In my opinion, Judge Shelby in Utah was a little too giddy about what his ruling would entail and enjoyed/is enjoying the fireworks that have ensued.
     
  23. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #24
    In short, to paraphrase Leonard Nimoy, "The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few".

    Which all leads back to why the rights of the minority should never by usurped by the tyranny of the majority.

    Thank you for providing that wonderful example to corroborate the quotes I provided.

    BL.
     
  24. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #25
    Regardless on where you lie on this issue, there is still the rule of law that must be followed. With a dramatic change in law as seen in Utah and Oklahoma, it is entirely appropriate to stay those laws until the appeals process can run its course. And if the Utah or Oklahoma rulings are upheld by the Circuit Courts--and potentially the SCOTUS--then SSM will be legal and those that want to get married will be able to. Allowing SSM prior to the appeals process running its course only creates confusion and legal chaos if said rulings are subsequently overturned and if the original law is reinstated. Even if you believe SSM will be the law of the land and the appeals in Utah and Oklahoma have zero chance of success, a stay is still the appropriate court action.
     

Share This Page