Another day, another judge unilaterally throws out a state's ban on same sex marriage

It's so common now that it's not even first-page news anymore. It's open season against any state's individual laws and the will of the people by the tyrannical one-man rule known as "Federal judges": http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/14/federal-judge-strikes-down-okla-same-sex-marriage-ban/

I'd been having this axe-fight about "the will of the people" in another thread, and then this news out of Oklahoma popped up. When the RULE OF THE PEOPLE is thrown out by these dictatorial judges, there's nothing left but Nazi-like tyranny and overbearing injustice against the majority of the citizens of the United States and its sovereign states.

Hitler proved that ONE MAN can seize power, interpret the law, and dominate an entire country. The Federal judges of this country have seized complete power using the very same brutal, blind interpretations that justify their own power. The country cannot survive this kind of deliberate power grabbing by the judiciary for much longer.

 

yea, that pesky constitution getting in the way of nanny state conservatives again.

 

From the link.

Oklahoma's gay marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

Damn that pesky Constitution preventing the implementation of of discriminatory laws.

As these laws continue to fall, I would imagine eventually same sex marriage will be legal throughout the country.

- - - Updated - - -

Beat me by 1 minute!

 

The 14th amendment wins again. The judge makes an excellent point about equal protection under the law.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...s-down-oklahoma-ban-on-same-sex-marriage?lite


It won't be long now until Supreme Court upholds same sex marriage once and for all.

 

Another complete subversion of the Will of the People, from another fascist leftjudge, wiht ZERO Constitutional basis.

(BTW- the Fourth Amendment is about unlawful search and seizure, etc. I think you , incorrectly still, meant the "14th Amendment" which is constantly "reinvented" by tge gay cabal?)

Please cite a SINGLE LAW ANYWHERE which applies only to gays.

There are NONE.

 

Until recently redefined by activist judges, marriage has always been about one man and one woman joining in a union.
How can you discriminate against same sex couples given what marriage is?

 

It is my mistake on the correct amendment. The 14th amendment does not only apply to gays. It applies to everyone. IE equal protection. Surprisingly gays are included in that.

Also the will of the people does not trump equal rights or equal protection under the law.

 

And, as I said, please cite the "unequal" laws, that are NOT THE SAME FOR EVERYONE, thus afoul of the 14th.

THERE ARE NONE.

The entire phony 14th Amendment claim of the LGBT Attack Squad is a COMPLETE FALSEHOOD.

 

Let me guess. You also think Brown v. Board of Ed. was wrongly decided?

This is such a lousy distinction and I'm tried of destroying it.

Say there were a law banning the practice of Christianity. That law wouldn't apply only to Christians. It would also apply to all Muslims because they couldn't practice Christianity either.

Your obvious response will be BUT HEY THAT LAW IS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. That's beside the point. Remember that you're the one who raised the point about bans on gay marriages affecting everyone equally. My point here is that is completely (*)(*)(*)(*)ing irrelevant. Even without the constitutional limitation, a ban on practicing a religion would be completely unjust as is a ban on gay marriage.

 

WTF are you talking about? Here is Oklahoma's amendment

That appears to only apply to gays, does it not?

 

You cannot destroy anything I post, sorry, and this is no exception.,

Race is NOT sexual behavior, and they are NOT equally protected by the Constitution.

Race will be "the same" as behavior, when a black man can hold a press conference and declare himself "white".

There is a VERY CLEAR Constitutional protection for Free Practice of Religion, as well as against discirimination based on Race; there is NONE for preferred gentitalia.

If you can "destroy" my point..DO SO: Let's see the laws that "apply differently to gays"..IN REALITY, not in Leftgoofyworld Euphemisms...

 

Judge Terence Kern going up... Same-Sex Marriage ban is looking around... ELBOW FROM THE SKY by Judge Kern.

That pesky 14th Amendment... always ruining plans

 

Nope. NO ONE can marry someone else of the same gender; not just gays. Sorry, leave your EMOTIONS at the dorr, when you seek to debate legalities.

There is NO LEGAL or LOGICAL validity to the bogus claim of inequity under the law by the LGBT Attack Squad.

There is NO Constitutional protection for GENITAL PREFERENCE.

- - - Updated - - -

More like the 14th Amendment, breing completely DISTORTED by the LGBT Attack Squad.

 

I have to repost this because you either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it.

 

Oh really? So section 1 of the 14th Amendment is being distorted. OK, explain how this is being distorted. I'll even save you the trouble and post section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Have at it Hoss

 

This is the most poorly constructed bull(*)(*)(*)(*) argument I have ever read.

By your definition, interracial marriage bans were totes ok since they applied to everyone.

 

How is denying two people the right to marry considered equal? America is about the land of equal oppurtunity and freedom and telling someone that they can't marry the person they love simply because you disagree with it seems very unAmerican to me.

 

There is NO BAN on "gay marriages"; there is a ban on marriages to people of the SAME GENDER, which applies to EVERYONE, gay or not.
ONce again, leave your EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE at the door when trying to debate legal issues.

There is NO LEGAL/LOGICAL basis for the 14th Amendment claims of the LGBT Attack Squad, and it will be SETTLED, as a States' Right issue, once and for all:

Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-Sex Marriage on Hold


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/supreme-court-puts-utah-sex-marriage-hold-21434966

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same thing will apply to the gay-activist Bozojudge in Oklahoma.

 

As with Utah, this federal judge made a ruling that is in conflict with the federalism basis for Windsor. The judge in Utah was a little more bizarre by using Scalia's dissenting opinion though.

As this progresses, it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will contradict itself regarding Windsor ruling.

 

The 14th Amendment did not protect marriage of any type. It was a specific and narrow amendment. The equal protection was only meant to apply to the due process of the freed slaves.

 

No matter which way you spin it, banning people of the same gender from being able to marry is still not equal protection under the law. It is still excluding a specific group of people, as heterosexuals are not inclined to get same sex marriages. Arguments like this are EXACTLY the reason the 14th amendment exists.

Would you also have said interracial marriage was not violating equal protection under the law? Technically it applies to both white's and "coloreds" equally as neither could marry the other.

There is not a single logical reason that same sex marriage should not be legal. Not one.

 

You keep dodging the point. Remember saying this?

I'm telling you that the fact that a ban on gay marriage applies to everyone is irrelevant to the constitutional argument. I'm not saying that necessarily makes the argument that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. I'm saying that a law that applies to all people is not necessarily a law that cannot be found unconstitutional. Do you understand now? How much clearer do I have to make this for you?

I used the religion example earlier to demonstrate this. You kept bringing up the First Amendment as if it has any bearing on my point. So for your benefit, to avoid any further confusion, let's change it from religion to something that doesn't have any constitutional protection.

How about a ban on people listening to country music. Note that there is no explicit constitutional guarantee to be able to listen or even read. There is only a protection for writing and speaking.

A ban on listening to country music would apply to everyone, but it clearly doesn't affect everyone equally. Obviously people who like country music will be more affected by the ban.

Now do you see how mind mindnumbingly stupid your reasoning is?

 

Too bad that's not how it is phrased then isn't it? The 14th amendment has already been applied to marriage cases.

 

Can you explain how interracial marriages violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in the context of the same Congress who wrote the 14th Amendment approved laws and state constitutions that prohibited interracial marriages during reconstruction?

- - - Updated - - -

What matters more, how it is phrased by 21st Century interpretation, or its origin and intent by the men who created it?

 

Could you explain to me what this country was founded upon regarding federalism and the Bill of Rights not applying to the states? And the ruling in Windsor, which ruled DOMA was unconstitutional because if violated the state's rights to define marriage?