Tenth Circuit Rules Okies Can Get Gay Married

 

The tenth circuit has upheld a lower court ruling striking down Oklahoma’s Constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

I am guessing that Oklahoma will take this to the Supremes.

it should be interesting to see if the Supreme Court agrees to hear this and, if they do, how they rule.

If they intended to destroy marriage by judicial fiat and not put their hands directly on it, they’ve succeeded brilliantly. However, if they really meant that marriage is not a federal issue and that the states should decide for themselves, they need to do some fine-tuning.

Either way, I am convinced that we are in for a long fight, probably a generational fight. But we will win in the long run. Of that I have no doubt.

To read the decision, go here.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Yes, the dominoes are falling. It’s predictable. I hope you’re right and we in time will win this. Unfortunately I’m not so sure. It’s rare that a “right” once given will be taken away. If it is I probably won’t live long enough to see it.

    • hamiltonr

      I’m not a seer Manny. I do know that this particular lie won’t live forever.

  • hamiltonr

    A lie can not live forever. And gay marriage is a lie, based on the fantasy that two men or two women are somehow or other the same as a man and a woman. It is a form of cultural insanity. It will lead to so much harm that people will eventually sicken of it.

  • hamiltonr

    Equality has nothing to do with this sister. It’s about a fantasy of sameness that is based on wishful thinking. That is not equality, it is emotional longing for a different reality.
    Codifying that longing does not change the reality, it only robs the law of its integrity. Any legislative body — or court bent on fiat — has the power to pass laws saying that water will boil at 32 degrees F at sea level and that there is plenteous oxygen on top Mt Everest. However, the reality will not change itself to conform to the law.

    We are already accepting massive human rights violations of whole classes of people in order to feed this fantasy.

    Over time, people will sicken of what they have wrought. This lie will not live.

    • islandbrewer

      I’m sorry you feel that way.

  • hamiltonr

    I think that in about 30 years, opposing gay marriage will be an obvious thing to do. Assuming, of course, that there is enough Western civilization left to oppose it. By that time, Europe may be heavily Muslim and Middle Eastern in its culture, rather than Christian and Western. That would certainly change the dynamic of gay marriage in Europe.

  • islandbrewer

    They’ve won, so let’s see if they are happy with what they’ve won.

    Can you come up with a specific reason why they wouldn’t be?

  • hamiltonr

    First, the people who predicted a slippery slope are right. The push to legalize polygamy has already begun.

    Second, the use of women and children as breeders and chattel to further the fantasy of gay marriage is already well established.

    Third, the attacks on religious freedom and even in some instances, freedom of speech are going apace.

    Fourth, the use of our public schools to indoctrinate young children in what amounts to sexual identity confusion is going right along.

    Many of the seeds of why this whole thing will implode are sprouting right now.

    • pesq87

      I challenge your first statement. There have ALWAYS been crackpots pushing for polygamy. And in the past 10 years there have been tens of thousands of gay marriages and marriage is legal in almost 20 states and more countries than I can count. Legislation allowing polygamy? Zero. Proposing it? Zero. At best, there are a few more crackpots than there was 10 years ago.

      Also, can you really blame they gays for all the surrogate parenting in the USA? Where are the numbers behind that statement?

    • Shaun G. Lynch

      Rep. Hamilton, you are free to choose not to engage in an ongoing discussion (as you note below), but that does nothing to validate your reasoning on the issue of LGBT rights.

      First, the people who predicted a slippery slope are right. The push to legalize polygamy has already begun.

      I’m aware of no such push here in Canada, where civil marriage has been legal for same-sex couples for nearly a decade. And, in any event, polygamy is a completely different issue with an entirely different set of arguments, both for and against it. Those who support polygamy may well try to employ some of the same reasoning as those who have been pushing for the legalization of same-sex civil marriage, but such argumentation will be entirely insufficient to win their case.

      Second, the use of women and children as breeders and chattel to further the fantasy of gay marriage is already well established.

      While this is true, and profoundly problematic, it is completely unrelated to same-sex relationships per se. The approach of artificial insemination and surrogacy as means of overcoming reproductive difficulties is used by vastly more heterosexual than homosexual couples. It is an issue in its own right, and should be approached as such. (And, for the record, you and I are probably not in complete disaccord on this issue.)

      Third, the attacks on religious freedom and even in some instances, freedom of speech are going apace.

      To the extent that “religious freedom” is used as a smokescreen to support intolerance and discrimination, it must be confronted and opposed. There must be reasonable limits on constitutional freedoms. LGBT people have civil rights too, and if it’s a choice between protecting their rights and protecting the “rights” of those who choose to act upon an irrational animus towards them, I am firmly on the side of the oppressed. And religion, especially the Christian faith, is no way, shape or form threatened in North America; any claim to the contrary is specious at best.

      Fourth, the use of our public schools to indoctrinate young children in what amounts to sexual identity confusion is going right along.

      Schools are addressing issues that had never been appropriately dealt with in the past. “Sexual identity confusion” has always been an issue for a very small minority of the population. In the past, the psychological and social pain of such confusion had to be borne in silence, or would result in tremendous, often violent, social opprobrium. Increasingly today, those having to deal with a sexual nature that is different from the norm are being offered support and empathy. That can hardly be characterized as a bad thing!

      Bottom line: none of your reasoning for opposing the legalization of same-sex civil marriage has any rational validity.

  • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

    Calling marriage a “fundamental right” didn’t originate there with the 10th. As you allude, it comes from the language of the 1967 Loving v Virginia case on interracial marriage, in turn citing the 1942 Skinner v Oklahoma eugenics case; but while procreation was addressed in the Skinner case, it was not discussed in the ruling of Loving. As such, it is not the use of this language that would render the ruling suspect.

    Additionally, the SCOTUS has addressed bans on polygamy previously and upheld them. It is almost certain that there will be a court challenge to the polygamy bans in the next few years, but (unless Scalia is feeling really pissy afterward over how the gay marriage cases go) it’s also almost certain to fail. If nothing else, current political support for it is miniscule, even lower than 1980s support for gay marriage; a federal amendment to ban polygamy could pass lightning-quick today, aside from delays from fighting over whether or not its language would distinguish straight marriage and gay marriage.

  • hamiltonr

    No back and forths for me. No time. No interest.

  • pagansister

    I have great admiration for your sister and her partner! There are so many children who need love and care in a “forever” home.

  • pesq87

    I just finished it also. Too much standing boredom, but the crux of the holding seems to be that (1) people who wish to marry are seeking to exercise a “fundamental right”; (2) OK law denying gay couples a marriage license impinges on this fundamental right; (3) a prohibition on a fundamental right must be narrowly tailored to achieve the desired end (which seems to be promoting the procreative potential of straight marriages); and (4) banning all gay couples from marrying each other does not narrowly serve the goal of promoting the procreative potential of straight couples.

    #1 is settled law. #2 is patent. #3 is settled law and #4 is the only reasonable conclusion to the question.

  • FW Ken

    Your argument is ad hominem, which is not an argument, since you prefer to diss the source rather than demonstrate that the events they claim happened did not happen. I could diss media matters as a propaganda organ, bur why bother?

    You understand nothing but your own prejudice.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X