lawmakers declare ‘all-out assault’ on marriage for same-sex and atheist couples in Oklahoma

a reply to: nullafides
That is why i only said it points to certain religions because it is broad enough to be extended at the same time.

At the least it is clever wording that was designed to be debated.

In no factual way can we say that either of the interputations are false or correct.

Not too long ago the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled:

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.

So even if these pass in Oklahoma (and sadly it is possible) they will presumably get the same treatment.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: nullafides
That is why i only said it points to certain religions because it is broad enough to be extended at the same time.

At the least it is clever wording that was designed to be debated.

In no factual way can we say that either of the interputations are false or correct.

I agree. And the fact that it is open to interpretation is why there are courts to decide the exact nature of what aspect of it should or should not be allowed to become law


With any luck, it might work in the favor of the humans that inhabit those states. Most likely, it won't.


- Pessimist

a reply to: deadeyedick

LOL you truly stretch meanings to perform those mental gymnastics.

I purposely put one word and old world definition in there just to watch you do flips.

Husband from “hus” and “bunda”(old German) mean house and owner.

So going by original definitions you should be fine with two women getting married as long as one owns a house.


As far as your assertion that the country was founded on the definition that marriage is defined as between a man and a women. Well, that would be an assertion you need to provide evidence for so until you can produce documentation stating such from a founding father stating such then you are simply making things up.

a reply to: Elton

At least for a few more days until the scotus ruling to come in the matter.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Grimpachi, what is wedged up in your panties?


I did not claim to be an attorney. As a matter of fact though, about 80% of my friends from H.S. became attorneys as we lived in the DC metropolitan area. Some are fast headed into a career in politics beyond the local level. The viewpoints (yes, viewpoints) I've expressed are based on discussions I've had with them....


At the heart of your statement that I am replying to, you almost sound as if you are agreeing with me. But yet, you're being highly combative and aggressive towards me.


Why?



-NF

a reply to: deadeyedick

I seriously doubt the SCOTUS is looking for a Constitutional way to legalize discrimination based on gender.

a reply to: Grimpachi

What meaning was streched?

None of those definitions that changed were ever laws.

What makes you think i done flips?

If the founding fathers or any majority group up until 1938 thought that marriage should extend to same sex then they would have made it law when defining the law. That is all the proof one needs to see that the founders did not accept same sex marriage as being an action that would benefit the country in any way that was majorly accepted.

a reply to: Elton

discrimination laws are removing our freedoms. the solution is not to have laws that discriminate based on sex or beliefs but to simplify cesears marriages to becoming just what they really are. contract signing creating a civil union.

Marriage ceremonies should be a thing of beauty and not controversy and they should extend to who ever the belief system sees fit. It has already been noted by several on here that they in their belief system would love to do same sex ceremonies. Let us get government away from religions and belif systems. Let contracts be contracts and marriages be marriages.

Do we really need the government telling us that you can not have sex outside of marriages and determining court cases based on such? That is something that belongs in the belief section or state law maybe.

a reply to: nullafides

Why?

I don't really feel like arguing over it, but as I already stated the consensus of Americans United is that the bill is specific to those two faiths. I am going to go with their legal analysis on the matter since they have actual legal teams that review these things.

Americans United is dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation and have been doing so for over six decades they have tackled issues and gone to court winning several legal battles many all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court so when they speak on the legal ramifications of bills they speak with a bit of authority.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Do we really need the government telling us that you can not have sex outside of marriages and determining court cases based on such? That is something that belongs in the belief section or state law maybe.

What is the 'belief section' and why would state law or the 'belief section' supersede the Constitution of the United States?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

What meaning was streched?

You stretched the meaning of my entire post.

If the founding fathers or any majority group up until 1938 thought that marriage should extend to same sex then they would have made it law when defining the law.

If they thought it shouldn't have been extended to the same-sex they would have made it clear to all.

That is all the proof one needs to see that the founders did not accept same sex marriage

The proof needed is a statement from the founding fathers on the issue. You should be able to find such if one exists.

an action that would benefit the country in any way that was majorly accepted.

I have asked you before in the thread on at least one other occasion. Do you know what a constitutional republic is? I sincerely doubt you do because you have repeatedly appealed to a majority rules paradigm.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
If they thought it shouldn't have been extended to the same sex they would have made it a law.

This is the major malfunction, you are dealing with someone who does not understand the fundamentals of the Constitution.

It is not a list of things you cannot do, it is a list of things the government cannot do.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

belief systems not sections typo

states should have the write laws and enforce them even if they pertain to beliefs as long as they are not unlawful.

States rights and is the heart of the upcoming scotus ruling

originally posted by: deadeyedick
states should have the write laws and enforce them even if they pertain to beliefs as long as they are not unlawful.

States rights and is the heart of the upcoming scotus ruling

ANY state law that legislates based on a religious belief system is automatically un-Constitutional.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well yes if it is soley based on the belief system but if the belief system holds the views that are in line with the will of the people then it is not unconstitutional. You can not negate a law simply because it is in line with a belief but you can pass laws that alighn with beliefs if they are the will of the people.

discrimination laws are slowly eroding freedom. They are however necessary without permanancy in some cases when other solutions can not be reached such as race but in the case of sex and marriage we have the option to make it a contract not reflecting any belief system on a federal level and then states can go from there.

You should try to comprehend my words before you twist them.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Well yes if it is soley based on the belief system but if the belief system holds the views that are in line with the will of the people then it is not unconstitutional.

That is patently false and I challenge you to show me one law that supports your point.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

murder is illegal and is a sin and the majority of the people agree with this.

not all belief systems feel that murder is wrong so we will not be making it legal to appieze a minor few that believe against the majority.

Therefore abortion and euthenasia should be illegally but states should have the right to discern also in non specific cases that do not directly reflect federal law.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Do you really need us to give you all the logical rational secular reasons why this law exists?

If you do, I expect the same from you on why gay marriage should be illegal.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
murder is illegal and is a sin and the majority of the people agree with this.

The basis for the illegality of homicide is not founded in religious beliefs.

Try again.

not all belief systems feel that murder is wrong so we will not be making it legal to appieze a minor few that believe against the majority.

It is also not a requirement to HAVE a belief system to understand why homicide is illegal.

Try again.