Gay marriage voted down in Oklahoma

[Deleted]

In order for that to happen, (I.e Federal Courts overturning the states legislation) They would have to argue that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, similarly to Plessy vs Ferguson, Dredd Scott decision, etc... Not going to happen, marriage has always been legally defined as the union between man and woman. If the federal court was going to overturn the popular decision based on 'civil rights' why not allow Polygamous relationships?

You're missing the point.

Polygamous relationships ARE allowed. You just can't marry multiple persons and thus gain multiple perks with taxes. They could adopt each other for example.
All the gay people want is to be recognized and allowed to share the same rights as the other couples do which can marry. They want to share the name, want to be officially related to each other (and thus be able to speak for their spouse if an accident happens and the doc for example needs to make a decision).

I think its hilarious... and America calls itself the land of freedom. <3 Yes, free to do as the dictatorship pleases you to do.

[Dasffion]

In order for that to happen, (I.e Federal Courts overturning the states legislation) They would have to argue that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, similarly to Plessy vs Ferguson, Dredd Scott decision, etc... Not going to happen, marriage has always been legally defined as the union between man and woman. If the federal court was going to overturn the popular decision based on 'civil rights' why not allow Polygamous relationships?

Marriage was already declared a basic human right in Loving v Virginia. It IS unconstitutional to say that one group of people are free to get married while another aren't. It's not a question of if the Supreme Court will rule this way, it's a question of when. It will happen eventually. It might not happen this year but it will happen.

[buck008]

Sounds like the system is working. Just because something sounds "good" or "right" to one person, doesn't mean that applies to everyone else. Majority rules.

Using "majority rules" to justify discrimination is reprehensible.


Oh and @Seani: If by "always defined as man and woman" you mean since 1996 when DOMA passed, sure.

[Zogash]

So let every state vote on it. I don't have a problem with gay marriage if the majority of people want it.

The thing with rights like this is that the majority is utterly unaffected by the vote's outcome, a minority is.

If it is voted to be legal that's great for gays who finally get equal rights, while the majority isn't affected in the slightest.

If it is voted to be illegal, gays are screwed (and I don't mean that in the good way ) and keep on being discriminated against, while the majority isn't affected in the slightest.

The thing with democracy is that it always has to keep the need of minorities in mind, especially when the majority is uninformed, prejudiced, and/or religiously indoctrinated regarding the issue at hand.

[Elegiac]

Sounds like the system is working. Just because something sounds "good" or "right" to one person, doesn't mean that applies to everyone else. Majority rules.

We should allow states to discriminate on the basis of race or gender, then?

[Deleted]

Sounds like the system is working. Just because something sounds "good" or "right" to one person, doesn't mean that applies to everyone else. Majority rules.

So in 1933 in Germany the system worked too? Thats nonsense and when you actually try to think about, even you should get it.
The majority isn't always right.

[Seani]

No, it hasn't been legally defined as such a way, and your attempt to slippery slope can be discarded.

Find any legal text that defines marriage as anything other than a man and a woman.

[bohapjut]

this could not be accomplished with civil unions?

[Felya]

Frankly I find you insulting. You took my opinion that no one should force this upon a church etc (which I stated was an opinion) and then try to get me to justify my self on it? If you didn't intend it I would apologize. As I stated a few times theres been a few rumblings over it in the UK. For the record I have 0 issues with Marriage, be it same sex or opposite. You should be allowed to be married and share all the same freedoms as anyone else.

I took your opinion and justify you in it, by asking questions? You find that people who without insult ask you to reiterate your opinion are insulting you? Perhaps if your opinion wasn't so infallible, it wouldn't seem insulting.

To answer your question, in theory it should not in practice its highly unlikely to affect it. your second point I already stated in the UK there is talk about it and its involved voting among the members of the church of England, in the US I have not seen any such talk among your politicians to be fair.

It has been legal in practice, not in theory. Gay marriage ceremonies have been legal in practice, it is theory that deems that marriage license will change that. Even that theory doesn't hold up as no one is forcing churches to do anything in Washington state as it pertains to gay marriage licenses being legal. I even keep asking for what that theory is and your only answer is rumbling you hear in UK? Even in the UK, it's voting amongst members of the church and not government?

[Elegiac]

Find any legal text that defines marriage as anything other than a man and a woman.

You mean like all the legislation in the countries and states where gay marriage is legal?

[Jaxi]

this could not be accomplished with civil unions?

The argument used is separate but equal is not equal. Basically, you can have the exact same rights, but it is the title of marriage that is the icing on the cake.

[Adam Jensen]

Sounds like the system is working. Just because something sounds "good" or "right" to one person, doesn't mean that applies to everyone else. Majority rules.

Go read up on the tyranny of the majority. It was in fact a major issue the founding fathers wrestled with.

[buck008]

Find any legal text that defines marriage as anything other than a man and a woman.

The Constitution defined black people as 3/5 of a person. It had ALWAYS been done that way in the United States. Was that a good rule?

[Elegiac]

this could not be accomplished with civil unions?

No. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

[Rukentuts]

No. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Not to mention the legal benefits of each are already unequal.

[Seani]

Exactly why should equality under the law be held to a vote. These are exactly the same tired old arguments used against people of colour.

I don't think so, and this is why I mentioned Plessy vs Ferguson and Dredd Scott decision. If your not American, I would understand why you haven't heard of these cases. But they are instances where the Federal Supreme Court overturned State decision based on the constiutionality of their outcomes. If you treat Gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and have the Federal Government enforce homosexual marriages against the popular you get a Dictatorship instead of a Democracy.

[khalltusk]

I took your opinion and justify you in it, by asking questions? You find that people who without insult ask you to reiterate your opinion are insulting you? Perhaps if your opinion wasn't so infallible, it wouldn't seem insulting.



It has been legal in practice, not in theory. Gay marriage ceremonies have been legal in practice, it is theory that deems that marriage license will change that. Even that theory doesn't hold up as no one is forcing churches to do anything in Washington state as it pertains to gay marriage licenses being legal. I even keep asking for what that theory is and your only answer is rumbling you hear in UK? Even in the UK, it's voting amongst members of the church and not government?

No I find it insulting that i'm being essentially interrogated for what should be pretty simple to see. I shall make it clear for you, so there is no miss understanding. As long as no one forces a church or other religious entity to marry people against it's will I have no problems. As much as I don't see a valid reason for denying anyone the right to marry (aside biological brothers and sisters etc marrying as thats genetically bad) they should be allowed their view point as its a religious freedom of expression. It is merely my opinion on the matter and I DON'T have to back up with sources or fact.

It's not entirely members of the church voting there was debate among the parties about same sex marriage having the same status as any other marriage. As long as Marriage has equal access to all parties I am fine with it.

I only took insult to the fact you seem to be high and mighty I might be getting the wrong end of the stick but you come across overly patronizing. If you were genuinely curious and I took it in the wrong way I apologize. If you were trying to prove your superiority then we're done here.

[buck008]

I don't think so, and this is why I mentioned Plessy vs Ferguson and Dredd Scott decision. If your not American, I would understand why you haven't heard of these cases. But they are instances where the Federal Supreme Court overturned State decision based on the constiutionality of their outcomes. If you treat Gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and have the Federal Government enforce homosexual marriages against the popular you get a Dictatorship instead of a Democracy.

How, exactly, are those cases different? How does enforcing laws protecting against one kind of discrimination qualify as dictatorial, and not the other?

[Elegiac]

I don't think so, and this is why I mentioned Plessy vs Ferguson and Dredd Scott decision. If your not American, I would understand why you haven't heard of these cases. But they are instances where the Federal Supreme Court overturned State decision based on the constiutionality of their outcomes. If you treat Gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and have the Federal Government enforce homosexual marriages against the popular you get a Dictatorship instead of a Democracy.

No, you get a constitutional republic.

[Skayth]

No. I do not tout democracy as the answer to everything; I hold the general public to be on the whole an unregenerate mass too ignorant to be trusted with political power. Hence why there are checks on the People just as there are checks upon every other branch of government; the inability to submit things to referendum is one such check.

Touche. Yet general mass of humanity is this though, including more than half the politicians.