Same-sex marriage was illegal in all 50 states as recently as 2003. That was the year in which Justice Anthony Kennedy invoked the “emerging awareness” doctrine in the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling:
In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.
From this decision — premised on the oddly arbitrary claim that “laws and traditions” antedating 1953 are invalid or irrelevant “in matters pertaining to sex” — it was a swift race to the point at which a federal judge appointed in 1994 by President Clinton could declare that a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional:
A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday that the state’s constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the federal Constitution, the latest in a string of legal victories for gay rights and one that occurred in the heart of the Bible Belt.
The state’s ban on marriage by gay and lesbian couples is “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit,” wrote Judge Terence C. Kern of United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Tulsa, deciding a case that had languished for nine years. The amendment, he said, is based on “moral disapproval” and does not advance the state’s asserted interests in promoting heterosexual marriage or the welfare of children. . . .
The Oklahoma amendment under question, stating that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman,” was adopted by referendum in 2004 with 75 percent of the vote.
So, the votes of 75 percent of Oklahoma’s citizens are invalid, because the “emerging awareness” doctrine declares that 5,000 years of human tradition constitute “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion.”
Are you sure there is such a law concerning any STD? First, I was pretty sure the only law there is concerns HIV only – and aren’t these kinds of laws at state level and different from each other?
The problem with this law is also that it requires the perpetrator to have known their disease status, and many garbage of LGBTs make it a point not to test what they have.
Nonsense. That is simply not true. Anyone can have any sort of marriage ceremony they desire to. People in weird cults do it all the time. The fundamentalist LDS polygamists do it all the time. (And polygamy ACTUALLY IS illegal… for now.) Are their marriages recognized by the state? No. But some people actually DON’T want to be recognized by the state. If homosexuals had been having their own celebrations (and some did – albeit very few) they could have had their own marriages that they then could have been fighting to have recognized. They didn’t do this. They demanded state recognition before they did anything.
I will concede that anyone can get together with a like minded group of people and have some ceremony that they can put whatever label on that they wish. But, it will not mean that society at large will recognize it as such. If 20 people gather to anoint one of the group as Grand Poobah, it does not mean that everyone else that he comes across will start addressing him as “Your Poobahness”. And, before a few judges started making their decrees, for society at large, a marriage consisted of a man and a woman.
It light of the fact that Stacy was talking about SCOTUS rulings, I think it is fair to assume that he was talking about legal marriages. And for those, you need a license.
Interesting that “constitutional” conservatives reject taxes supported by popular majorities (despite the Article I Taxing and Spending Clause), yet claim popular majorities as sufficient grounds to deny LGBT marriage (despite the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause).
Homos aren’t “minorities”. They’re deviants.
Criminal
transmission of an STD crimes commonly encompass different types of
diseases. Though state laws differ, they typically include both HIV as
well as other communicable or contagious sexually transmitted diseases.
Some state laws list the individual diseases covered by name, while
others use more general language that includes any type of communicable
or sexually transmitted disease. Also, some states limit these crimes to
the transmission of HIV, while others include HIV as one of the
diseases covered by the law; yet others provide for additional penalties
if the transmitted disease is HIV.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/transmitting-std-criminal-laws-penalties.htm
I didn’t say it was a federal law, just that it was considered criminal activity, but the penalties do have federal ramifications, ie. possible felony conviction and being placed on the national sex offender registry.
But the burden of proof is definitely on the prosecution.
Morality changes, amirite? Let’s go BBQ a baby!
Or subsidize it.
Oh, it’s for YOU to decide!
Guess what? Fuck you.
Where do you find conservatives rejecting voter approved taxes?
BTW, for the frillionth time, no one is denied marriage. What you want and are denied is the redefinition of marriage so that it suits your deviancy.
Sodomites are very well known for infecting un-suspecting partners with their filthy diseases.
RE: ” These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.”
Hmmm.
I have an “emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons” regarding all privacy rights.
Therefore, we should round up all those in the NSA who are spying on Americans, place them in NSA buildings, blow the buildings up, burn the remains with napalm, and pound the rubble into powder. All CEOs of high tech companies that cooperated should be publically shot. And all politicians that funded this mess should be rounded up, hung from lamp posts on K street and the bodies left in the sun for at least three months — as justice, as punishment, and as a warning to others.
My legal justification? That are traitors.
Cruel and unusual punishment? Haven’t you heard? It’s a living constitution.
Hmmm, where do I find anyone on the right rejecting taxes supported by popular majorities?
And for the frillion-and-oneth time, “marriage” is not a mere personal claim. It is a legal status that bundles hundreds of state and federal rights and benefits. As the court held yesterday, to deny those rights and benefits – without even a legitimate state interest – is to deny “equal protection of the laws” as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment.
“We don’t like Those People” is not a legitimate state interest … no matter what percentage of voters agree with it.
[…] The ‘Emerging Awareness’ Continues : The Other McCain. […]
LOL well that did take for for the trolls true colors to appear
Thus it’s facile and fallacious arguments.
How about some links that meet the request- voter approved taxes? Your one doesn’t cut it.
People have rights, relationships don’t. You can get just as married as I can. You’re denied nothing that anyone else is entitled to.
A lot of people angry with GHWB over breaking his tax pledge and failing to get the promised spending cuts in return voted for Perot or stayed home, allowing Clinton to be elected. They got for their trouble more spending, a bigger tax hike, and this judge and hundreds of others.
True.
Don’t blame the people mad at the breaking of faith. Blame the one who broke the faith.
Civil rights issues should never be decided at the ballot box.
Why, just a few months ago, I was being told – nay, screamed at – that “90% of America agreed …” with making sales and inheritance of guns illegal, and banning scary-looking guns.
(Nevermind the lack of an actual plebiscite or reliable polling.)
Almost the same people now who are decrying the people voting now were really hep to claim that “all the people have spoken” (Even though they haven’t.)
In several states, ballot measures have been placed, and the best they’ve ever done was in California, with a 50/50 split. Almost every other state has had a ~ 3/1 ratio of (depending on the question) enforcing one man/one woman as a “marriage” or declaring any changes to be the purview of the legislature.
Can’t find what doesn’t exist. I find their entire “take” on rights to be fallacious. Our founding documents clearly state that rights are endowed by our creator not the state. Yet these folks deny that the state (i.e., the citizens or We the People) have the purview to define rights and also deny the existence and action of our Creator to endow us with rights. So whare do the rights they proclaim come from? Do certain subgroups have the purview to pull rights from their ass and impose them on everyone?
You know what hurts another person?
Abortion.
Life, liberty, etc…
People who don’t really believe in what they claim to believe. And liars.
Uh, space case, segregation and black voting were decided in Congress.
It’s the penumbra after the aura that said abortion was a right.
Try to turn down a gay couple’s rental application for your apartment house and see who’s a protected class.
Odds are more likely the Reverend Bruce will say, “Awesome! I want in!”
Tell me that when I’m driving behind a stoner on the freeway.
Go look up Patient Zero for AIDS, the gay Brazilian airline steward who told his victims, “I have the gay cancer. And now you have it too.”
Everyone fell for the joke in Marbury v. Madison, that somehow ONLY the Supreme Court has a say in the Constitution. It’s a lie, of course.
Things like Jury Nullification, the Vote, Impeachment, and one court overturning another are proof of inarguable ways the Constitution gains life by other agencies than the SCOTUS. They are weak compared to the power of the court, but they are very real.
However, the Constitution was written with contention in mind, and nowhere therein is power granted to any Final Arbiter (save the One we all must face alone).
If every citizen ignored the #Shutuppery of the left and insisted that whatever homosexuals want or have, it cannot be “marriage,” then such rulings would become meaningless.
As far as I’m concerned, two homosexuals can form whatever union suits them, but it isn’t marriage, no matter what the law says, and neither one of them is either a husband nor wife, nor spouse.
We should tell them, “Go be homosexual all you want. Just stop telling me what to do, and stop telling me you’ve taken over the language. You haven’t.”
So basically, the left is mistaking “goodies I want” for “natural rights” and throwing temper tantrums when they’re told “no” yet again?
I have decided that winning the lottery is a right. I’m being denied my rights!
Conservatives were sold a bill of defective goods on this issue. Gods. Guns. Gays. The first two always made sense. The third never did because gay people do not have the numbers to pose any kind of actual threat, even if they all banded together and moved as a single entity, which they most certainly do not.
Conservatives will simply have to move on to another tiny minority to pick on. Luckily, they hate muslims even more, so there’s really no end in sight.
Only thirty years ago most homosexuals were reasonably aware that they had excluded themselves from marriage, and that same-sex marriage was an oxymoron, as the essential characteristic of marriage is the reproductive bond, and its true purpose is to bind males to their offspring. At the time, adoption by homosexuals was an issue, and opponents argued that caving to that demand would lead to calls for gay marriage. Many proponents replied: “Don’t be ridiculous!” Well, here we are.
For my part, I consider the the criminalization of homosexual activity to be the true violation of their rights. No one was more pleased than I when our governments decided to cease punishing it with incarceration.
As for the equality argument, no one ever prevented homosexuals from marrying a beard. To claim that equality demands recognition of same-sex marriage requires changing the definition of marriage, and I see no one caring to offer a clear re-definition. It could be love, or it could be simply who diddles whom, but any such re-definition eliminates the reproductive bond, the essential characteristic.
I’m of the view that the definition of the concept belongs to the culture at large, and not to the arbitrary reasoning of communist intellectuals. The results of all the marriage referenda tell me that our culture wishes to retain the traditional definition.
This leads to the tragic irony in this entire fracas. The push for gay marriage has been empowered by the communists in academia and the judiciary, most of them straight, for the purpose of tyrannizing and marginalizing the majority who actually understand what marriage is and is for, and of arrogating to the governing classes the power to dictate concepts. They don’t really care about gays’ feelings and desire for respect. The opprobrium for this exercise in tyranny will fall upon gays alone, rather than upon the communists who made it happen. The push for gay marriage will lose them the tolerance and respect they have gained.
Such lack of foresight may well deserve the opprobrium. They should blame the communists who led them down this primrose path.
In order for a “right” to actually be a right, it must be 1) Applicable to all equally, not a “protected class” or subset of the whole. 2) Creates an obligation to respect said right in all others not a subse of the whole.
Remember, the state doesn’t “grant” rights only the Creator can endow us with rights. The state can only leglislate behaviors not create or grant rights.
Whatever happened to the Consent of the Governed, Vox Populi, and a Representative government?
It’s rapidly being displaced by a dictatorship from the bench, which has slipped the chains of the Constitution and decided now what is best for America, even if it is against their will, and placing the stamp of governmental approval on a debased fetish that is rife with contagious, incurable and fatal diseases (yes, it’s not just AIDS and HIV now, that’s you degraded sodomites) and rife with child molestation (even Kinsey determined that 37 percent of homosexuals had molested little boys).
It’s time to re-take our government back from this debauched group of Statists who only use the trappings of government to provide a facade of Constitutional legitimacy.
Funny.
When the Constitution was drafted, homosexuality was a serious crime, punishable by hanging or other serious felony punishment.
They drafted, and ratified the Constitution knowing full well such laws were on the books in every State, and lifted nary a finger to include bu-fu’ing into the pantheon of human rights.
It was, in fact, a vile act and a detestable degradation, and a crime which dare not speak its’ name. So, it was pretty clear the Founders were not Richard Simmons fans.
Then, after the Civil War, the post Civil War Amendments, giving rise to the civil rights rectum-philes are caterwauling about.
Again, the laws severely punishing buggery and sodomy were on the books and the Amendments did nothing to include Coprophiles in with the newly-freed slaves.
YOU CAN’T CHANGE LAWS AFTER TH E FACT. Homosexuals were NEVER included in the Constitutional meaning of Civil Rights.
What has changed are rogue judges on the bench, assuming power which is not theirs.
Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that “the ultimate touchstone of
constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.”
To hold otherwise is to abolish the House, Senate and office of the presidency, burn the Constitution and allow the Justices to make all our laws.
How about the truth that homosexual infection rates for HIV are 44 TIMES that of Normal People, their AIDS infection rate is 50 TIMES that of Normal people and overall infection rate 200 TIMES that of Normal people?
How about the CDC reporting that one in five homosexuals is already HIV infected?
How about the truth that, on average, homosexuals die some 20 years ahead of Normals?
What homosexuals do is filth and translates into early death.
Deviancy is not a civil right.
Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic.
It is not a race.
It is not a sex.
It is not a national origin.
It IS a mental disease and sexual aberration, giving rise to deviant BEHAVIOR, which, in turn, gives rise to a massive rate of disease.
There.
Fixed it for you.
Homosexuals are not a race, like Blacks.
Homosexuals are not a race, like women voting.
Homosexuals ARE an incredibly dangerous disease vector.
No government should encourage a demonstrably dangerous fetish or behavior.
Because Bathhouse Barry is now in the Oval Office and making sure that his fellow rectum-philes get their way… one way or the other.
Oh? We’ve got 34 million HIV infected world wide, many of them infected by closeted homosexuals or homosexuals donating infected blood. That’s why those receiving infected blood transfusions were killed by the THOUSANDS, all because homosexuals valued their self image over the lives of innocents.
Homosexuality kills, millions.
I gather you consider yourself a Libertarian.
If any of you have a moment, would you be so kind as to inject some truth into the comments at the link below to counter the aggressive attempts being made to advance the homosexual agenda within the Virginia GOP:
http://bearingdrift.com/2014/01/13/state-democrats-to-pursue-a-social-agenda-as-economic-policy/
I have an emerging awareness that America and The West are doomed.
One thing about Oklahoma that complicates the ruling of the 10th Circuit: the judge is forcing the Native American Nations to accept gay marriage, which they do not. The judge has no standing to force the Nations to do anything – because of treaties, the Department of the Interior and the US Senate are the two agencies that can force gay marriage.
Regardless, Oklahoma will pass another law that nullifies the judge’s ruling, and after the SCOTUS, it will do it again. If the GLBT really wanted to win in Oklahoma, they’d tie gay marriage to legalizing the meth industry.
This may be asking a lot, but would you, by any chance, have a few moments to inject some of that sage sanity into the midst of the Virginia GOP’s aggressive attempts to advance the homosexual agenda?
Relevant comments here:
http://bearingdrift.com/2014/01/13/state-democrats-to-pursue-a-social-agenda-as-economic-policy/
This may be asking a lot, but would you, by any chance, have a few moments to inject some of that sage sanity into the midst of the Virginia GOP’s aggressive attempts to advance the homosexual agenda?
Relevant comments here:
http://bearingdrift.com/2014/01/13/state-democrats-to-pursue-a-social-agenda-as-economic-policy/
“And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!”
— Samuel L. Jackson
[blam! blam! blam!]
.. says the poster whose life revolves around the intentional and repeated use of his sfincter for immoral purposes.
Rightttttt.
That 75% is of those that voted, not the entire population.
What percentage of the population voted?
Yes, like how hoe moes always stick up for each other, but as for AIDS, they’ll all get it in the end.