The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I had a couple discussions about the "Oklahoma gay marriage" case with several people.  Most had not read and will not read the holding.  They had an opinion one way or another, and wanted to discuss their opinion instead of the holding.  A non-attorney friend asked me for an "executive summary" of the case in "non-lawyery words" so I did my best to comply.  I share here.

For those interested in the holding of the Oklahoma gay marriage case.  I have condensed a 68 page ruling into a 2 page summary.  The full opinion and the amendment in question is linked at the bottom.

1.   Long discussion on jurisdictional issues, each couple had standing on different issues and were challenging different portions of the law.  The DOMA challenge was deemed moot (thrown out by SCOTUS).  In the end, §A of the Oklahoma constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman and prohibited legal benefits of marriage to gay couples was the only portion decided.
2.   The actual decision begins on page 30,
a.   with a discussion of a distinguished case (holding Baker v. Nelson, 1972, which held that gay marriage laws in MN are not a Federal Question, does not apply because circumstances have materially changed);
b.   discussing the impact of Windsor (2013 Supreme Court holding that DOMA identified a subset of marriages and made them unequal in violation of the US Constitution); and
c.   a discussion of how marriage works in Oklahoma (apply for a State license [cannot be related, cannot be currently married, must be 18 or…, and cannot be same sex], have a ceremony to “solemnize” the marriage, file the marriage license and the marriage certificate with the State).

3.   Starting on Page 41 the Court goes into the equal protection discussion (legal holding)
a.   Does the challenged state action intentionally discriminate between groups of persons? And if so…
b.   Can state’s intentional decision to discriminate be justified by reference to some legitimate government purpose?  If no… it is unconstitutional and the State cannot do it.

4.   Does it discriminate?   Yes, yes it does. (starting on P. 42)
a.   The group singled out is “Same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license”
b.   The amendment prevents every same-sex couple in Oklahoma from receiving a marriage license, and no one else.
c.   The amendment was adopted for the purpose of excluding some Oklahoma citizens from marriage (citing many statements from politicians on their intent).  “Exclusion of a defined class was nota  hidden or ulterior motive, it was consistently communicated to Oklahoma citizens as justification for SQ 711.”  P.
d.   “This is a classic, class-based equal protection case in which a line was purposefully drawn between two groups of Oklahoma citizens”

5.   Is the intentional discrimination justified?  No, no it is not. (starting on P. 47)
a.   Sexual orientation is not a protected or suspect class (race, religion, etc.), so the government only needs a “rational basis” to discriminate against homosexuals.
b.   The government needs to show “any conceivable state of facts that couple provide a rational basis for the classification” and discrimination.
c.   The state fails to show any rational basis for the following reasons:

6.   What were the stated basis , and why they are not rational? (starting on p. 53)
a.   Promoting Morality – moral disapproval of a class of persons is not a permissible justification for a law discriminating against them
b.   Encouraging Procreating – We don’t require anyone else to procreate, or have the ability to procreate in order to get married.  Also, banning gay marriage is not likely to encourage anyone to procreate that wasn’t already considering it (can’t get gay married?  OK fine, I’ll have a baby with a man).
c.   Responsible Procreation – it is in the state’s interest to encourage couples to have children in wedlock (reduces the burden the chances of the State having to pay for the kid), but there is no link between gay marriage and the goal of having procreating couples be married.    “Permitting same-sex couples to receive a marriage license does not harm, erode, or somehow water-down the “procreative” origins of the marriage institution” any more than marriage of couples who cannot ‘naturally procreate’ or do not wish to ‘naturally procreate.”  Also – if the stated goal is to have children born into married couples, allowing gay marriage will enhance this goal as currently unmarried gay couples can, and do have children and are prohibited from marriage.
d.   Lack of interest – the argument that the State of Oklahoma has no interest in gay marriage because it doesn’t advance a State interest fails because in this instance the State took specific action to prevent it.  Not caring is not justification to ban it.
e.   Promoting the “Optimal Child-Rearing Environment” – Excluding gay couples from marriage does not make it more likely that a same-sex couple desiring or already having children will change course and marry an opposite-sex partner.  Gay marriage does not make it more likely that a heterosexual couple will decide to forgo marriage and have children out of wedlock.  Same-sex marriage does nothing to promote stability of heterosexual parenting.  No other couple is required to provide an “optimal” child rearing environment to get a marriage license.  If the goal is to promote stable, loving, financially successful, and responsible parenting by a committed couple – gay marriage actually helps this goal.
f.   Negative Impact on Marriage – No other couple is tasked with upholding the entire institution of marriage as a condition of getting a license.  Oklahoma consistently is near the top of the nation in the divorce rate for heterosexual couples, accusing same sex couples of eroding the institution of marriage is ”insulting to the same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, and enduring relationships.”  “Preserving the institution  of marriage” is just another inappropriate way of passing moral judgment disguised as law.
g.   NONE of the reasons hold up as rational

7.   The amendment to the Oklahoma constitution is “an arbitrary exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit.  Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed.  It is not a scarce commodity to be meted our begrudgingly or in short portions.  Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights. The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationship for many years… and want to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities . Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without legally sufficient justification.”  P.67

8.   “The Court declares that Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment to the US Constitution by precluding same-sex couples from receiving an Oklahoma Marriage license.”  P.67

9.   The order is STAYED in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Utah case.  No marriage licenses can be issued in Oklahoma to same-sex couples until the 10th Circuit rules.

The full case (68 pages) is available here:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US-news-PDFs/130114-oklahoma-marriage-ruling-maj.pdf

The section of the Oklahoma constitution that has been struck down is here:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=441397

Well-written CF.

I especially like 6a and 7.

Thank you for that!

Yes, thanks for that easy to understand summary, c_f!

Sorry, I just have to highlight this bit of orwellian newspeak on the part of the defendant's attorneys:

Smith is represented by ... attorneys with an organization known as the “Alliance Defending Freedom.”

Wow!  Well done, cf.  Now, what recourse do people like the governor have to overturn this ruling?  Things this good never last in OK.  What's next?  Reasonable liquor laws?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

I expect that when this is final and the state loses its appeal, Fallin & Co. will do everything possible to delay or deny implementation.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Mind if I repost this on my blog?

Post away, feel free to clean it up.  Also please post the link to the full version.

will do

Sent from my galaxy, far far away, with tapatalk

Done, and just quoted you straight from the post. You did such a great job I didn't see any need to clean it up. If your interested, here is the link.

http://corylgage.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/judges-doing-what-judges-do-go-figure/

Looks like there will be an appeal and another attempt at legislating this issue.

I knew it would happen.  I wonder of they think that passing it again will make it any less unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Someone needs to explain to Sally that sexual orientation is not a reason to deny someone civil rights based on religious moral code.  We are a nation which was formed with the concept of freedom from religious oppression.  If this isn’t a form of religious oppression, I’d like to see a valid argument denying it.  To date, I’ve not seen it yet.  That’s what the far right conservatives keep missing on this issue. 

I don’t want to be gay married, but I fail to see why it’s okay to keep denying certain civil rights that others enjoy because of their heterosexual orientation.

Here’s the full story on Turner’s new bill.  If it’s been ruled unconstitutional once, why would it not be ruled unconstitutional again?

Why wouldn't they keep trying to pass it? It costs them personally nothing. In fact being associated with the effort makes it easier to fund the next election cycle.

 If this legislation is on the agenda every session, followed by court decisions, they have effectively prohibited gay marriage in OK. Expensive strategy for the tax payer, but we elected them so we deserve the treatment.

Yes, the political benefits of wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on passing and defending obviously unconstitutional bills are legion in this state. Otherwise, why would half the legislature play the game every single bucking year?

Here's a pro tip, guys: If you feel so strongly about the subject that you feel the need to ensure that everyone in the state knows your position, you can pass a resolution saying how much you hate the gheys. That is much cheaper than defending your failed laws in court and has just as much effect as a law declared unconstitutional, just without all the expensive parts. Whatever happened to fiscal conservatism?

Apparently Oklahoma’s school children aren’t the only slow learners in the state, Nathan.  I finally woke up and realized there were so few in the OK Legislature who really care about fiscal conservatism vs. writing moral code.  That’s when I left the GOP and registered as IND.

Don't worry, they are now working on destroying the independant judiciary.  They want to make judges, particularly appellate judges, political positions.  That way, donors, big business, religious groups, and politicians can influence justice.

HORRIBLE idea.  Oklahoma's judiciary is actually admired. Turning it from merit based to political is a death knell.

I think Texas judges are elected and often rely on big donors for campaign funds. Predictably, when those donors are involved in litigation, they try to have the cases heard by those judges they helped to elect.

Quid pro quo.

You are worried about judges becoming "political positions"? Just a reminder, federal judges are picked by politicians for life, and one of them just wrote the Bishop opinion.  As far as Oklahoma's judiciary being admired, can you provide us some examples of their better written opinions?

Here is an idea being thrown around.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/26/video-oklahoma-proposing-to-ban-all-marriages/

By our very own group of Simple Jacks.

I say lets do it!  This is the type of thing that can ruin a political party for a generation.

Incredible. +92358092. Couldn't agree more.

I hope someone publishes the budget for this farcical display of "fiscal conservatism."

The difference being that occasionally the other party gets to pick a federal judge.

Alliance Defending Freedom?  Whose freedom are they defending?  According to the story as it was read on the news this morning, this group seems to think that gay marriage will lead to more hetero couples getting divorced before their kids are grown.

Uh, what am I missing here?

Intellectual dynamos

(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/He_9203ca_2559938.jpg)

The brief is extremely tired.  it argues:

1) Tradition
2) Will of the voters
3) Think of the children
and 4) Procreation

All of those have been repeatedly and consistently tossed out as reason to discriminate. 
1) Tradition isn't a reason to discriminate (ask blacks, the Irish, women, etc.),
2) voter will is irrelevant on unconstitutional actions,
3) three parts a) no marriage doesn't stop gays from having children, b) marriage (of any parties) increases the stability of a family for children and decreases the likelihood that the State has to raise or pay for the children, and c) studies repeatedly confirm same sex families have a higher "success" rate raising children. And
4) We do not require marriage to procreate and we do not require procreation for marriage.  The point is moot.

Whew!  There, it took 2 minutes to destroy their tired brief.  Cut and paste from a dozen failed briefs of the past.

It's an effective way to blow through our excessive cash reserves.

And Texas...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/texas-same-sex/

Elevating the discourse to new levels...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/19/pastor-posts-church-sign-about-stoning-gays-that-youll-have-to-see-to-believe/

You are close to going full retard...

That is an impressively literal reading of the Bible. Seems like he has trouble with the concept of parable.

That's a bit low on the list of that clown's problems...

And now there is another reason to never go to Illinois, besides their gun control ignorance.  Are they getting a big migration of some of our worst?  Will that make Oklahoma a smarter place?

I'm thinking that since we get about the most tornadoes, then that must mean we have a larger proportion of gay people....except so many I have known have moved out of state....  what is going on in the world?  Oh, wait,....I know....it's RWRE extremism hard at work in the heartland!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/susanne-atanus-congress-_n_4993555.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Colorado stones homos....    And straights...   Hell, Colorado thinks everyone should be stoned.

thank you, i'll be here all week (http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot&play=true)

The interesting debate would be if he can be charged with inciting violence.  If the KKK were to say "the bible says black people should be hanged, we should do what the Bible says," they would be charged with inciting violence.  Same if religion was used as an excuse to incite violence against Jews.

But a Christian saying we should murder gay people, then there is a question if he committed a crime (potential criminal act > his 1st amendment right).  Generally, your right to free speech stops when you advocate criminally revoking someone else's rights.  Murder, for instance.

A 2 minute research:  it appears you can try to get a crowd to lynch people in Oklahoma unless the person against whom you are encouraging violenece is based on race, religion or ethnic origin.  Political beliefs, sexual orientation., or anything else either isn't protected under state law - PR is pigeoned toed under some other law.

Hard to believe "you should kill group X or you will go to hell" is protected speech.  It calls for violenece, not a statement of belief.

Better likelihood of it if he were white.  At least there would be more of an outrage.

Consider how Al $harpton and Je$$e Jacka$$ can get away with hurling all sorts of epithets toward Jews and white people without anyone so much as batting an eyelash.

Eyelashes are batted.  ("Himey Town" from memory)

To be clear, insults, slurs and epithets should NEVER be criminalized.  Only a call to cause violence to another which is not hyperbole and has a likelihood of fruition.  Jesse Jackson can calle whatever name he wants, when he encourages others to harm me... he crosses the line.

So the question is, really, can you hide behind religion while encouraging people to murder someone?

Maybe he meant all the gay people should be forced to smoke the wacky terbacky?  :P

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/bob-dylan-thumb.jpg)

I don't know of Reverend Sharpton hurling epithet(S) towards whites and Jews.  He may pi$$ off some people because of positions that he takes that differ from his detractors, but such actions don't constitute racial name calling.  There would certainly be outrage if he did so, because there is outrage expressed towards him by his enemies over any comments he makes.  

Whites, Jews, Asians, homosexuals, even Mormons.  He’s equal-opportunity.  Loves the N word too.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUjlle7ZVo[/youtube]

Well, there's this. Sexual orientation/gender identification as a defense to murder.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/transgender-woman-male-persona-serial-killer/story?id=22959423

If it goes against what al $harpton believes, it's racist, hatred, bigoted, slander, vile, vulgar, and basically against what he believes. And if you are against him in any way, you should be dealt with appropriately, and you have no right to speak.

He will tell you that everything you believe, and the way you were brought up is wrong, and his is the only path to take.

The first clip is mostly comedic stuff taken out of context, crudely pointing out some historic truths to empower African American audiences that he was addressing.  He and the former NYC mayor David Dinkens did not like each other to put it mildly, and the mayor also called Sharpton some stuff that is not printable.  I recall some of their battles.  These other youtube "favorites" again are showing nothing but his positions that are unpopular among his haters (the caption put on the Larry King interview clip called him a dude bag).  If this is all that his most ardent haters are compiling, it's really weak.

It's also a much too often used and old low brow tactic to make the monumental inference that attempts to ascribe all that is African-American to the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson, and then try to use it to rationalize the angst and cynicism of some whites.  Neither are as relevant and influential in African-American communities today as they once were (for whatever reasons good or bad).  Many people including their haters know this to be true, but their haters still insist on trying to use them both to their perceived advantage.  No group of people should be painted with too broad or too narrow a paint brush.   

Would not the same have to be said for $$$$$Rush, $$$$O'Reilly, $$Hannity and $others?

Sharpton makes the above look like amateurs.

Please.

Google "Tawana Brawley" and get back to us how Rush and Hannity did something like that..

Only if the truly promote racial divide, and spend most of their lives continuing to promote and reinforce racism, and claim that any one is a racist for disagreeing with them. Guess it's alright for Sharpton and the like to claim that they are suffering from suppression form the white man, and that's the end of the subject.

Sharpton has a goal to rip apart everything that changed over the last 50 some years.

If those comments were attributed to a white speaker, it would be “Off with his head!” 

People in the black community would do well to steer clear of these two, and no one I know is ignorant enough to “ascribe all that is African-American” to these two hooligans.  They make their money by whipping up racial tension.  They are racist and look for the racist bogeyman constantly so they can stay relevant and so their coffers stay flush.

If you believe they make money this way, many more of their white counterparts are making a whole lot more bling (for themselves, networks, and owners) doing the same thing daily.  They desperately endeavor to stir up white rage.  Apparently, couldn't do nearly enough of it to turn the last 2 presidential elections, but oh boy didn't they try.

Don't need to google Tawana Brawley, nor any of the crap that these 2 morons spew out daily.

How many of you Sharpton haters were livid at the idea of changing the name of the Brady District so it is not named after one of the most virulent racists in Tulsa's history? Oddly, there seems to be a strong correlation... Hmmm...  :-*

So...Oklahoma Gay Marriage...

Let’s have some!

Are you by any chance related to Sharpton?   I cannot imagine anyone wanting to defend his rhetoric.

Essentially, today’s stake-holders in the Brady District were being held accountable for the supposed actions of Tate Brady almost 100 years ago.  Lee Roy Chapman’s evidence against Brady was weak at best.  I also didn’t understand the singular vendetta against Brady considering many of the city’s early fathers likely held the same views, yet other streets and neighborhoods are still prominently named for them.  There’s no proof anywhere that Brady was any more or less racist than any other prominent Tulsan of the time.

Think of all the cities around the country that should have their names changed because their namesake was a slave owner or pig-headed racist back in the day.

Other than the fact he was a KKK member. If it comes to light that others were, we should not name things after them, either. That other cities choose to continue to honor their racists doesn't make it right that we do. That said, I'm sure many of the fine folks of Tulsa are totally behind him tarring and feathering the wobblies. We hate unions more than we hate acknowledging the terrible aspects of our history.

We covered this ad nauseum under a thread about changing the name of the Brady District.  Feel free to re-hash over there, if it interests you. 

Good call, and thanks for illustrating my point. ;)

Hey Red by by those comments, I'm starting to imagine the breadth of your family tree!! 

I'm not supporting nor defending, I'm all about fairness.  My point is that for anyone who has an issue with Mr. Sharpton, then how can they not take issue with the pro-white anti-minority diatribe that is spewed out daily by some of his national media counterparts and local wannabes in every U.S. market.  1). Either such individuals hopefully aren't listening to it or 2). They agree with the crap.

I'm sorry, who are these pro-white, anti-minority counterparts?  I'm not aware of any.  I wasn't aware David Duke has his own program.

Start with three of the most highly paid ones that I referenced earlier in this thread, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity.

Do me, and other people here a favor, provide one, just one credible and verifiable or documented case where any of those, have made statements that the white race is the way to go. Show me where they have been racist. Show me where they are espousing John Birch, KKK, or white supremacist rants, speech, or otherwise racist speech.

Here are some quotes from Sharpton's friend Louis Farrakhan. Show me where those you don't like have said something similar.







From Sharpton.....

You obviously have some family tree that you are ashamed of.  Not here.  My father's side is Polish.  Grandpop was born in Poland.  Grandmom was born in the USA to Polish immigrants.  Mom's side of the family is British Isles, mostly from northern England/southern Scotland and they came to the US in the late 1800s. For you to try to brand me as some kind of bigot because I am not black says more about you than it does about me.


The letters BS come to mind.


Please provide specific examples of your favorite fall guys being anti-minority.  Perhaps you believe that being pro family and personal responsibility is being anti-minority.  I will have to disagree.

www.newser.com/tag/44698/1/rush-limbaugh-racist-quotes.html

Do you actually think someone has to act like a David Duke extremist to articulate similar views?  Do you think someone is going to risk a $30 million contract by explicitly espousing or supporting the views of the John Birch society, KKK, or other extremist organization?  No these types walk a fine line being careful not to blatantly cross it, and they sometimes cowardly hide behind codified and dog whistle language that won’t put them in hot water.  Limbaugh probably believes he has more power than that combined in those pitiful hate organizations.

I don’t watch Fux News nor listen to talk radio because I’d had enough some time ago.

See the reply below to Red Arrow for what you asked for.

I thought it was either crazy or insensitive of you to inquire if I was related to Al Sharpton.   Hoping it wasn’t the second, I said I’m imagining the breadth of your family tree because I jokingly thought you might be a little “crazy” for making that suggestion.  I don’t know you or your family, nor whether you were black, white, green, or polka dot, and I certainly didn’t brand you as bigots as per your accusation.  On the contrary, from what you stated, it sounds like you come from a fine family. 

I am African-American born and raised in upstate NY with roots from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.  My great grandfather (my paternal grandmother’s father) was a slave from Virginia who eventually ended up in Tennessee before being freed as a young man in his late teens.  He was 97 when he died in 1941.  My family is hardworking, decent, and humble, and we don’t have anything to be ashamed of as you so obviously believe from your prefacing remark.

It is all about fairness.  If BS comes to your mind, I have no control over it.

To the suggestion that I perhaps believe that being pro family and personal responsibility is being anti-minority; no I don’t.   But I guess a better question for you and your stand up guys is whether you believe that minorities are anti -family and anti-personal responsibility?

Here is a sample of what you and Dbacks fan asked for as if it’s so difficult to find.
 
http://www.alternet.org/20-most-racist-things-rush-limbaugh-has-ever-said (http://www.alternet.org/20-most-racist-things-rush-limbaugh-has-ever-said)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/07/the-20-worst-racial-attacks-limbaughs-advertise/184776 (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/07/the-20-worst-racial-attacks-limbaughs-advertise/184776)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/07/the-20-worst-racial-attacks-limbaughs-advertise/184776
http://www.newser.com/tag/44698/1/rush-limbaugh-racist-quotes.html (http://www.newser.com/tag/44698/1/rush-limbaugh-racist-quotes.html)
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rush-limbaugh-racist-quotes-070710 (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rush-limbaugh-racist-quotes-070710)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/28/bill-o-reilly-to-blacks-stop-listening-to-gangsta-music.html#url=/articles/2014/02/28/bill-o-reilly-to-blacks-stop-listening-to-gangsta-music.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/28/bill-o-reilly-to-blacks-stop-listening-to-gangsta-music.html#url=/articles/2014/02/28/bill-o-reilly-to-blacks-stop-listening-to-gangsta-music.html)
http://www.newshounds.us/20140304_bill_o_reilly_smears_african_american_pinhead_professor_rants_about_evil_rap_music_again (http://www.newshounds.us/20140304_bill_o_reilly_smears_african_american_pinhead_professor_rants_about_evil_rap_music_again)
http://rollingout.com/politics/8-dumbest-quotes-from-bill-oreillys-racist-rant-to-black-america/7/ (http://rollingout.com/politics/8-dumbest-quotes-from-bill-oreillys-racist-rant-to-black-america/7/)
http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/09/21/oreilly-surprised-there-was-no-difference-betwe/139893 (http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/09/21/oreilly-surprised-there-was-no-difference-betwe/139893)
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/hannity-defends-racist-rodeo-clown-mo-stat (http://crooksandliars.com/heather/hannity-defends-racist-rodeo-clown-mo-stat)
http://thegrio.com/2012/07/20/sean-hannitys-record-of-defending-accused-racists/ (http://thegrio.com/2012/07/20/sean-hannitys-record-of-defending-accused-racists/)

You left out Herman Cain.  He espouses exactly the same views as those commentators you mentioned.  Doesn't that make him racist too?  Ardent Obama hater, must be racist.  Probably a closet caucasian.

Ah, yes. The obligatory anything that someone makes a commentary on, or says something that you disagree with is automatically "racist hate speech".

I respectfully walk away from this discussion, because it's starting to devolve, and I'm not going down that road. You have your opinion and I have mine, and obviously mine flies in the face of your reasoning.

Oddly, that seemed to be the only thing I could take away from your collection of quotes from Al Sharpton. Every one of which is just plain true, regardless of whether you think it's racist or not. In fact, I'm struggling to see how any of your quotes except the first are in any way racist or even examples of problematic stereotyping.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that former slaves (like the native americans) were promised a lot of things that were not delivered. I'm even more sorry that it offends you that the news media has a strong bias towards only sensationalizing the murders of white people, with one recent notable exception that proves the rule. How can you claim we are a in a post racial society with a straight face when stuff like this (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/11/americans-see-innocent-black-kids-as-guilty-adults.html) is the status quo?

That something touches on race or acknowledges race does not make it racist. Treating other people better/more fairly does not take anything away from you. In fact it gives something to you: A better society. A lot of us white people (especially we men) don't seem to grasp that it isn't about us. Nobody is calling you a racist. Nobody is calling me a racist. Acknowledging that other people say and do racist things doesn't hurt our position in any way. It only makes us better people to acknowledge reality as it is, rather than as we wish it were.

Edited to add: Unrelated to this specific thread, one of the things that never ceases to amaze me is how people make things about themselves and go on the defensive rather than just accepting that people are telling the truth about their lived experience. You (the royal you) are not an a**hole, that's great. That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of assholes constantly spewing their bile in the direction of the disadvantaged. I'm sincerely glad that you aren't one of them. Why do you feel the need to ignore their existence?

I don't know where I learned my tolerance and acceptance from, it wasn't from my parents, nor was it from my siblings, there must be something screwed up in my mind that I am an acceptance person. It may sound cliché, but I don't care who you are, if you are more qualified to do a job, or hold a position in a company or government, you have the right to do so.

As for reparations or conciliations, I don't know of anything more that can be done. I just think that so much now has become racial, and I think that "racist" and "hater" is sadly thrown around, without understanding the history behind it. The renaming of the Brady District has been cause for discussion. It seems that it was based on speculation, half truths, and an attempt to somewhat white wash things that go back to the race riot. I did my senior research paper at Nathan Hale in 1980 on the race riot, and the KKK, and the involvement of the leaders of Tulsa in the 20's. It's really sad that back then, the microfilms of the news articles were ripped out before they were imaged. It's even worse when 30+ years later, I have had people ask me if I have a white hood and cloak in my closet, being that I am an Oklahoma native. I just feel that everything that was fought for in the early to mid-late 20th century is being undone. Read the list of "10 Things about Tulsa" in another thread, and other than the burger joints, it reminds me of why I won't move back, and in a way it's sad, because I was born in the pink palace at 61st and Yale. Mom gave birth to me, and my dad was coaching YMCA baseball across the street.

Back on topic, I have been a supporter of gay marriage since 1983, and asked to leave Tommy's Irish Pub at 21st and Utica in 1984 for my beliefs. I have always thought give them the right to marry, and in the case of divorce, give them the same rights.

I don’t like to waste time googling unnecessary information.  But you begged me to support my assertions, so I reluctantly “obliged” you.  As Nathanm posted, those old Sharpton comments gave the same obligatory effect.  At least the information that I provided was current.

This discussion devolved several days ago when it was posted that “Better likelihood of it if he were white.  At least there would be more of an outrage.  Consider how Al $harpton and Je$$e Jacka$$ can get away with hurling all sorts of epithets toward Jews and white people without anyone so much as batting an eyelash” in reference to inciting hate.  As someone who is non-white, and whose personal experience has well informed him otherwise, that statement is unequivocally and patently untrue.  The examples of Sharpton and Jackson were probably among the worst 2 that could be used in this case to justify the posters position for there is more outrage over everything that either says compared to just about anyone else I can think of.  My point was only to inform that there are other race baitors out here that spew vitriol and hate, and some are paid a whole lot more money for doing so than the aforementioned pair.

Your statement about self-learning of tolerance and acceptance is very similar to my experience and evolution.  I’m sure it harkens back to my youth when I simply wanted to know what went on outside of the boundary conditions of my existence.  Probably part of the reason I’m in Oklahoma today.  I’ve always had an affinity for recognizing and understanding differences.  I endeavor to go beyond just acceptance, but actually to affirming and respecting everyone’s rights.  Those of course include any rights that are still being denied.

Sounds like race baiting to me.   A lot of people cannot accept the fact that others cannot agree with Pres. Obama's views of how to get to a "better" society or sometimes even what "better" may be. 

Families stick together.

Given the context of the discussion, "crazy" or "insensitive" never entered my mind.

Thank you for the vote of confidence but you really don't know anything about my family.  It turns out that they are/were OK people. 

True, you have no control over my mind just as I have no control over yours inserting racism into quotes where others may not see it as racism but potential solutions to inequities in today's society.  I can certainly see how you may disagree that the proposed solutions may be valid but to instantly insert racism is, in my mind, incorrect.

Good.

My "stand up guys"?  Not really, but I don't believe them to be the blatant racists you appear to believe they are.

My impression of them is not that they believe all minorities are anti-family and anti-personal responsibility so much as they believe that significant portions of (at least some) minorities have a track record which indicates no sense of responsibility toward their offspring.   

The samples you provided are hardly the epitome of objectivity.  You have chosen examples that do exactly what you accuse Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity of doing.
   

How 'bout them gays?  :p

They are happy!

I don't know any. None in my family. Wouldn't know one if I saw one. Gays are likely as common as aliens in Oklahoma. And just as illegal. So, no problems with them marrying as far I can see. Anyway, why shouldn't they get to share the misery the rest of us have? That is if they exist. And they don't.

They will be getting cured of that particular affliction (happiness) real soon now....they can get married now in a lot of places!

Don't remember where it was, but heard a news thing a few days ago that was making a big deal out of a couple who were "early adopters" of the divorce process.....

microaggressor...

No doubt. Everyone seems to be taking offense at everyone else's language and behavior even when innocently used. Then you add in the seriously sarcastic and hateful language and behavior and we might as well all just shut our pie holes, sit tailor fashion and clasp our hands.

"Can't we just get along?"

No...he's is simulating the typical Okie....

Very good. It was a little Onion humor.

Sounds about right....


I told some guys at work about Jeff Gordon coming out about his relationship with the other NASCAR driver (not Danica!) that was reported on Empire Sports.... they took it hook line and sinker.   Empire Sports is The Onion for sports....

Damn, sure wish I’d known that before MC and I got married.  I hope they don’t come seek us out and make us procreate so that our marriage will be valid.  ::)

I’m trying to figure out why our local court clerk is fighting this so hard.  Don’t we have better things to be spending money on than legal fees for unnecessary legal work?

The state Attorney General is handling the case, and any case challenging a state law.  The Court Clerk is the figure head state employee whose "action" gave rise to the suit.  Jurisdiction and standing issues abound... but that's the non law nerd version.

Neither the Attorney General nor his Solicitor General is involved in the Bishop case. After the first appeal (several years ago), the district court dismissed the State as a defendant. The county clerk, Ms. Smith, was defended by a district attorney and a public interest group - Alliance Defending Freedom. The appeal is also being handled by the same two entities with ADF taking the lead. Here is the ADF press information about the oral argument:

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8880

And here is Ms. Smith's opening brief:

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/US-BishopOpeningBrief.pdf

The AG is doing a lot of things, but this is not one of them.

Thank you Spike.  I should have clarified at the District Court level...

In argument the State is hanging their hat on "procreation" as the grounds to discriminate.  As far as ibam aware, that argument has always failed since:

1) straight couples are not required to procreate
2) couples incapable of having children can get married
3) people have children out of marriage
4) gay couples can and do have children, and
5) if "think of the children" is the priority and children are better off in a two person household, then allowing gay couples to wed actually furthers that state interest.

Many previous gay marriage cases have destroyed this argument.

Court: Utah Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional; No Ruling Yet on Oklahoma's Ban

http://kwgs.com/post/court-utah-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-no-ruling-yet-oklahomas-ban (http://kwgs.com/post/court-utah-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-no-ruling-yet-oklahomas-ban)

Maybe the term “unconstitutional" is going to finally sink in at some point:


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-s-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional-federal-appeals-court/article_b6675f9d-bef3-501f-b10f-6243e53fbaf3.html

Knowing a proposed law would never pass a constitutional test has never stopped opportunistic career politicians from scoring points with ignorant voters.

The day SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional, there will be a minimum of five bills in the OK legislature to try again.

Only five?  That will just be "Teh Kern’s" contribution.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Mh1TZAM-AWU/R9Xku9RL-rI/AAAAAAAAA3U/-9SMLP7-HVc/s400/kern.jpg)

She might be a closet case.  She looks pretty butch.

Oklahoma Governor Decries Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201407/Fallin-PTA.jpg)

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-governor-decries-same-sex-marriage-ruling (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-governor-decries-same-sex-marriage-ruling)

At least she reduced the minimum age of the bodyguards she can seek consolation from...

How did this woman become governor with such a limited understanding of government? States rights people. Geez.

Ok guvnr. The states may pass quite popular laws that are simply not in line with the federal constitution. When that happens the judicial system is there to protect the rights of others as enunciated in the constitution. We all signed on to that to gain admission to the Union. Remember taking some kind of oath of office that mentioned allegiance to the USofA? Check your VCR. You may have a difference of opinion as to whether they made the correct decision and you may appeal to a higher court but they are doing their job as laid out by our founding fathers. You will need to secede to get the powers you think the state deserves.

No doubt that would also pass with a 76% margin and you would vote for it.

This just in.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-s-same-sex-marriage-ban-heads-to-u-s/article_b962cc0c-f740-5ac2-b628-90b36d55ad7c.html

Misleading headline...

It isn't heading to the Supreme Court.  Its being appealed to see if they will take it.  As far as I know, all circuits are in agreement.  The Court may not want to take the case to avoid the inevitable as National law.

I will wait and see if the Supremes take it before I comment on the merits. I wouldn't rule anything out before it decides cert. Remember, the law of the land up until a few years ago was DOMA. So if the circuits agree or not is in part meaningless.

I think now would be a good time for a little drama.....



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151452282261742&fref=nf

Guido...

The circuits agree BECAUSE of the DOMA decision.  In the past 2-3 years there has been no change in Court personnel.  What, pray tell, would change.

You've sniped in this thread since day one.  Lay out your logical argument.  I will start with the basics:

- Marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia)
- the government must have a compelling interest reasonably related to restrictions on fundamental rights, and apply that interest in the least restrictive means possible
- Religion, tradition, and social bias are not justification for denial of rights, let alone fundamental rights (Lawrence v Texas)
- Fundamental rights apply to the states (14th Amendment)

So... Lay out your argument.  I've never seen you do so.

Will you go with States Rights (decided by civil war and the civil rights movement).
Maybe the procreation argument (decided by the fact that if gay get married, they still won't procreate and straight people still could).
Maybe the off beloved bastion of failed logic... The slippery slope.  Surely granting rights to cokpetent US Citizens will soon mean children and animals can get married!  (For example, now that black people can stay in white only hotels, now horses think they can too!)

Lay out your argument, or admit we are just blowing money we don't have on a political stunt.

Your bullet points are gross oversimplifications, shallow, and condescending. Not interested. I also am not as excited as you are about this issue.   

Deflection.  Dissemination.  Avoidance.


I gotta get enrolled in TU law school so I can perfect these techniques!  guido, can I get a letter of recommendation...??

Hillary Clinton post in 3.....2.....1.....

Guido, it was you who resurrected this thread with the appeal post.  I'm not asking for a dissertation, but some bullets on point maybe.

Leave guido911 alone. He said he wanted to wait until other lawyers on the Supreme Court spoke so he would know what to say.

Yeah. Leave me alone, because I always base my opinions on what others say. Not because I have any, say, actual experience in these matters... :o ;D

Just not as excited about this as others. I posted an update to this thread because, um, there was an update. And TU has standards last I checked. I can't help you.  :P

Yeah, they do....and I got in before you did!!  Already been there, done that, got the t-shirt...and the "ticket".  That's gotta sting, huh?

Oklahoma Same Sex Marriage Case Appealed to High Court

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-same-sex-marriage-case-appealed-high-court (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-same-sex-marriage-case-appealed-high-court)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201408/SallHoweSmith_0.jpg)

It could also very well be that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear it.  Isnt' that what it's been doing lately (refusing to hear)?

Newer developments.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/03/federal-judge-louisianas-law-banning-gay-marriage-is-constitutional/

The 7th Circuit finds gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D09-04/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

Not to worry, the Oklahoma Legislature will keep on passing gay marriage bans, even if a Constitutional amendment were ever passed I’m sure they would keep on with this nonsense.

Damned you bigots!!!! (shaking fists at sky)...

http://rebelpundit.com/white-lesbian-sues-sperm-bank-after-having-black-baby/

Feel bad for the baby.

This is strange...my marriage still feels the same.

How's it going for everyone else?  SCOTUS decision make your marriage less...something?

To be fair, in Oklahoma your marriage was ruined last October......

Wow!!  In spite of the expectations, exhortations, and protestations of the RWRE....heterosexual marriage remains unchanged in any way, shape or form!!  Wife and I are both happy for some friends who now get to participate more fully!

And like with Affordable Care Act, a whole new set of people get to enjoy having the same rights as the rest of us....What is this country coming to??  Could it be the realization of the ideals we have spouted for so long about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness??


Next stop - fixing rogue cops!!  Granted, it is a small number, but even small is way too many!

I think it may take up to 48 hours to feel the effects.

I have started taking aspirin as a precautionary measure, just in case....

Damnit.

Now I can't find my wife...

Curse you RGB!


Does it seem like the world is growing up a bit this week?

Watching all the right-wingers soil themselves over not just this, but the ACA ruling yesterday, is fun to watch.

Where's my popcorn?

SCOTUS has been busy this week.

I think my favorite thing out of all of this is that a justice, in a dissenting opinion, used the term 'jiggery-pokery'.

 :D

Doesn't count.  Oklahoma is moo.  It's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.

No.  We are still in Okrahoma....and all that entails.

Mad props on the Friends reference, Townsend.

My latent heterosexuality is still intact...for now.

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/LZfZXcFNOOzw4/200_s.gif)

How long until Sally Kern's head explodes?

That would be the icing on the cake, now wouldn't it? I listened to Hannity on the way home and thought he was going to have a seizure.  It was glorious.

So what's everyone's favorite Bette Midler album?














oh crap.....

It just that when that small number is the leadership, it tends to spoil the whole lot.