Bishop v. United States: Oklahoma gay marriage

[nathanm]

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?

[Conan71]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Ed W]

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.

[guido911]

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.

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?

[guido911]

Here is an idea being thrown around.

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

[Townsend]

Here is an idea being thrown around.

By our very own group of Simple Jacks.

[Cats Cats Cats]

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

[TheAnsonia]

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?

Incredible. +92358092. Couldn't agree more.

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

[TheAnsonia]

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?

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

[Conan71]

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?

Group Argues Gay Marriage In Oklahoma Would Hurt Children

TULSA, Oklahoma -
An organization representing Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith says a Tulsa federal judge was wrong to overturn the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriages.

Sharon Baldwin and Mary Bishop of Tulsa sued Smith after her office refused to issue them a marriage license.

On January 14, 2014, federal judge Terence Kern ruled in their favor, saying the "Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

In an appeal filed late Monday, the Alliance Defending Freedom cited previous rulings and anthropologists in arguing children are better off in a home with a mother and a father. The group also said Baldwin and Bishop had no fundamental right to marry.

1/14/2014 Related Story: Federal Judge In Tulsa Rules Oklahoma Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

But the state's appeal says that if Kern's ruling stands, it would send the message that marriage exists "to advance adult desires" rather than putting children's needs first.

The next step in the process is a hearing before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on April 17, 2014.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.newson6.com/story/24814250/group-argues-gay-marriage-in-oklahoma-would-hurt-children

[Townsend]

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

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Townsend]

The brief is extremely tired.  it argues:

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.

[cannon_fodder]

And Texas...

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