(12-19-2013 02:11 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So basically all the blue states. I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Are you thinking this is going to start happening in solid red states?

New Mexico has a republican governor.

(12-19-2013 05:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 02:11 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So basically all the blue states. I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Are you thinking this is going to start happening in solid red states?

yes.

The forces of bigotry and hate have lost the war - they just haven't realized it yet.

With in the next 10 years, gay marriage will be legal in every state.

Could be as soon as next year.

You can laugh, then you will cry, and then you will realize that when gay marriage is legal in Oklahoma, your life didn't change one bit (unless you have been waiting to ask Jerry out)

(12-19-2013 05:34 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 02:11 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So basically all the blue states. I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Are you thinking this is going to start happening in solid red states?

yes.

The forces of bigotry and hate have lost the war - they just haven't realized it yet.

With in the next 10 years, gay marriage will be legal in every state.

Could be as soon as next year.

You can laugh, then you will cry, and then you will realize that when gay marriage is legal in Oklahoma, your life didn't change one bit (unless you have been waiting to ask Jerry out)

(12-19-2013 03:44 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I just want to point out that even though California is a liberal crazytown, in a straight up vote, gay marriage was defeated....twice.

Which is why you don't vote on Civil Rights...should segregation have been put up for vote? I bet MS and AL would still have Jim Crow laws.

(12-19-2013 04:32 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Why are there guys on this forum that get excited about this?

Same reason the religious nuts start anti-gay threads every day on here...

(12-19-2013 10:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 03:44 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I just want to point out that even though California is a liberal crazytown, in a straight up vote, gay marriage was defeated....twice.

Which is why you don't vote on Civil Rights...should segregation have been put up for vote? I bet MS and AL would still have Jim Crow laws.

Civil right?

(12-19-2013 10:49 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 10:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 03:44 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I just want to point out that even though California is a liberal crazytown, in a straight up vote, gay marriage was defeated....twice.

Which is why you don't vote on Civil Rights...should segregation have been put up for vote? I bet MS and AL would still have Jim Crow laws.

Civil right?

Just ask the NAACP...

http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-pa...e-equality

Why are they the authority on what a civil right is?

It will eventually be legal in all states. It's a civil rights issue.

(12-19-2013 10:53 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Why are they the authority on what a civil right is?

Nope...the court is.

Marriage was ruled "basic civil rights of man" in Loving v Virginia...google it.

(12-19-2013 04:03 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 03:54 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Yep. Because everyone knows that the interracial marriages (the "gay marriage debate" of the 20th century) ruined our country, right? It's burning to the ground right now, because of people in love. That's what happens.

“Immorality affects our ability to reason properly regarding moral and spiritual matters. We begin to reason in ways that supports what we want to be true, rather than what we know to be true. For example, to avoid the conviction of our conscience when engaging in immorality, we first attempt to justify/rationalize our behavior as an exception to the moral law. Eventually, however, we find it easier to deny the moral law-giver Himself. If there is no moral law-giver, there is no moral law; and if there is no moral law, then we are not moral law-breakers, so the guilt we feel for doing X can be safely ignored, suppressed, or explained away. Such reasoning leads to self-deception, and ultimately deadens one’s awareness of God.”

I love it when Christians pseudo-philosophize. You can try to make things sound as logical as you want, but there is no denying that these arguments end with something that is by nature irrational (faith in god).

(12-19-2013 05:16 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 03:44 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I just want to point out that even though California is a liberal crazytown, in a straight up vote, gay marriage was defeated....twice.

And would pass overwhelmingly today.

If the previous votes were close, Dback.. I'd say you were right, but let's not forget the vote was not close either of the last two times... (and i thought the gap got wider on the 2nd vote?)

(12-19-2013 11:34 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:16 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 03:44 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I just want to point out that even though California is a liberal crazytown, in a straight up vote, gay marriage was defeated....twice.

And would pass overwhelmingly today.

If the previous votes were close, Dback.. I'd say you were right, but let's not forget the vote was not close either of the last two times... (and i thought the gap got wider on the 2nd vote?)

What kills me about those votes is that constitutional amendments that the electorate approved of were deemed unconstitutional. WTF? Once they passed they should have been part of the state constitution, so how are they unconstitutional?

(12-20-2013 12:24 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  What kills me about those votes is that constitutional amendments that the electorate approved of were deemed unconstitutional. WTF? Once they passed they should have been part of the state constitution, so how are they unconstitutional?

The concept of judicial review is complex; probably the subject of hundreds (thousands?) of books, and thousands (tens of thousands?) articles in scholarly journals. I don't think anyone can fully unpack that issue in a forum like this. But at the deepest root, it means that if a judge feels sufficiently stirred about something, he can just simply write and claim whatever he wants, in defiance of past judicial precedent and current legislative statute, and essentially dare other judges or other branches of government to do anything about it.

Indiana is going to be putting a constitutional amendment regarding "traditional marriage" on its 2014 ballot. Current polling shows it is going down in flames by about a 2 to 1 margin. Last I checked, Indiana is a pretty conservative state. Public opinion on gay marriage has changed dramatically in the last few years to the point that it is acceptable to the voters in solidly red states. It's only a matter of time before it is legal in all states.