Sorry about earlier! I was confused about which side is which. Of course it is, it is discriminatory. This is the future. I wonder which state will be the last? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Both are adults. Both of them are consenting to the marriage. Some religions (some Lutherans, episcopal, Pentecostal, reform jews) and then suddenly the government says that these churches can marry these two consenting adults but the government won't even give them the same rights as a married person (over 1000 potential tax purposes, hospital visiting rights, ect.), let alone calling it a marriage. It's nothing but discrimination and obviously unconstitutional.
The constitution says, in its preamble, that it seeks to "secure the blessing of liberty" on the citizens of the United States. I understand that the thinking behind those lines was that the details of the government mechanics were the means of securing liberty that the preamble was speaking of, but the fact remains that the government should not be in charge of who can marry whom when all parties are consenting.
Yes, because Oklahoma, like many other states, instituted a state constitutional amendment barring homosexuals from marrying each other without rationale. Court after court find no rational reason for prohibiting gays from marrying each other except for animus or moral disapproval. Slippery slope arguments beg the question at hand. Procreation arguments fall flat, as NO state bars heterosexuals from marrying based on this criteria. Courts have also rejected the notion that because gays will be able to marry each other, then straight people will no longer be interested in marrying is both unfounded and perplexing. The vast majority of people who are against same sex marriage do so because of a basic dislike for homosexuals or for religious reasons, all of which are NOT applicable to civil marriage. Let us remember the anti-same sex marriage people are trying to STOP loving couples from being together, or, at the very least, make their lives more uncomfortable and difficult. I truly can not understand how people who claim to want to protect marriage wish to stop those from entering into a wonderful institution.
Yes. The right to be independent and live our lives how we want is being violated. Though its not in the Constitution its one of our rights as an American and if this law was to happen than that would mean gays will not find there match and will be miserable for the rest of there lives. Its also going to leave foster kids and orphans with out there own family because the gays are our main source of parents who will adopt. Banning same-sex marriage will leave so many kids with out parents and violates our unspoken and inalienable rights as an American.
I do not believe that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Constitution covered a broad spectrum of ideas and possible occurrences; none of which, required states to allow gay marriage. The Constitution said nothing regarding gay marriage therefore it fell under the rule of each individual state. Disagreeing with the state's law is one option but calling the law unconstitutional would be foolish and simply a lie.
No, Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional, because the constitution does not speak to protection of homosexuals. When the founding fathers drafted the constitution, they did not intended for equal rights to be translated hundreds of years later to requiring states to allow homosexuals to marry. Each state should have the option of whether to allow it or not.
The main problem with this opinion in general is it deals with the Constitution. Being a Christian I do not agree with same- sex marriage, but at the same time I know it is not my place to ridicule someone who chooses to partake in a same-sex marriage. The Constitution is a difficult article to interpret because it was written so long ago and society has changed immensely since then. This is not the first issue that has or has not been misinterpreted by the Constitution. I do not currently believe there are any articles or amendments that declares Oklahoma's ban unconstitutional.
National Constitution - First of all, the government (should, but doesn't in practice) has the powers granted to it in the Constitution. It even says that all the powers not specifically granted to the national government is granted to the states and the people. We have Amendments for voting rights, alcohol banning and unbanning, getting rid of slavery, and several others, but there is no part of the Constitution that addresses homosexual marriage. At. All. Nothing even relating to it. Also, while the Founding Fathers could have guessed about advances in gun making and still passed the Second Amendment, and maybe some social and political advancement, they would have never, in a million years, come up with homosexual marriage as a controversy. They would have laughed at the idea, if not yelling at you first for suggesting such a stupid idea. Ergo, they would have never thought to include something about this in the Constitution, because of it's extreme outlandishness and them never even considering it to become a topic. Therefore, it doesn't even get near to a violation of the national Constitution.
State - Now, the state constitution does not specifically mention marriage is between a man and woman. However, there was a recent vote in the state concerning this matter. A vast majority of the citizens in the state voted for an amendment that would specify marriage as between a man and a women. But no, the lawyers blocked it with legal BS about unconstitutionality, creating the debate we see here.
Overall, a ban on homosexual marriage is not unconstitutional at the federal or state level.
Saying that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it's discriminatory would be the same as saying a that it's unconstitutional for Women to be exempt from selective services and the draft because it's discriminatory.
Marriage has always been defined the same way. Laws concerning marriage are completely dependent upon the definition of marriage and without it the laws are no longer valid. Marriage is between one Man and one Woman...So it's not discrimination when someone asks to be married when they don't meet the criteria for marriage. Is is discrimination when a Man is refused Marriage to an animal? Of course it's not, animals cannot be married because they don't meet the criteria for Marriage. Is it unconstitutional that a Man be refused a Marriage license to himself? Of course not, people can't marry themselves because that's not what Marriage is. If you allow same-sex marriage then you open the door to have the term "Marriage" redefined...But not just once. If Marriage can be redefined to include two Men or two Women then it can be redefined to include Men and Animals. What's next, NAMBLA fights for a Man's right to marry a boy? It's not fair because we can't have what they have so we want the law to be changed for us so we can get what they have without doing what they had to do to get it...Is the premise for the deconstruction of our society.