NationStates Jolt Archive

Can you believe it. Poor Oklahoma had a bit of a setback in their effort to make sure gays stay second class citizens. The recent Oklahoma law against recognizing out-of-state same sex couples adoption of children has been struck down as unconstitutional. It violates the equal protection clause.

Can anyone tell me why it's still alright to ban same sex couples from adopting in the state of Oklahoma? Wouldn't that violate the same clause? The federal judge said you can't pass a law removing rights from a certain group. You mean gays are supposed to have equal rights? Then why are we still making laws banning gay marraige?

Help me. I'm so confused.

Disgusting. Why should the good Christian people of Oklahoma have to change their laws to tolerate the choices of a few fags?

Such a law probably wouldn't stand up in a court challenge, but that wasn't the issue here.

Can you believe it. Poor Oklahoma had a bit of a setback in their effort to make sure gays stay second class citizens. The recent Oklahoma law against recognizing out-of-state same sex couples adoption of children has been struck down as unconstitutional. It violates the equal protection clause.

Can anyone tell me why it's still alright to ban same sex couples from adopting in the state of Oklahoma? Wouldn't that violate the same clause? The federal judge said you can't pass a law removing rights from a certain group. You mean gays are supposed to have equal rights? Then why are we still making laws banning gay marraige?

Help me. I'm so confused.

Oh noez! Those poor good Christians!

This... This is terrible!!

:rolleyes:

Fucking Oklahoma.

A linky: http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2006/05/oklahoma_adopti.html

From what it says here, the largest issue was the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Oklahoma cannot reject lawful proceedings such as adoptions from other states. Once the court established that the adoptive parents are legal parents because of the Full Faith and Credit clause and that Oklahoma must recognize their parenthood, it went on to find other issues.

The equal protection clause came in, from what I can tell, in two regards: one is that adoptive parents cannot be treated differently from biological parents who have custody. As such, removal of custody can occur only if the parents are shown to be abusing/neglecting/etc. the children in some way. This cannot possibly be shown simply by complaining about the sex of the parents, so their parental rights cannot be removed by the state.

Finally, the 14th amendment rights of the child were being violated here. An adopted child has just as many rights as one who is being raised by biological parents. Removing the parental responsibilities of one or both of the adoptive parents would violate the child's rights, by removing protections that would be afforded to any child in a home with biological parents.

At least, that's how I'm reading this. Someone more well-versed in the law here might be able to put it better.

I do think that this could be used as precedent for bringing down DOMA (if upheld in higher courts, that is) and causing states outside of Massachusetts to recognize marriages performed there, but it doesn't seem that it could be used as precedent for knocking down laws which ban states from granting same-sex marriage.

See? I told you christians were persecuted. :rolleyes:

A linky: http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2006/05/oklahoma_adopti.html

From what it says here, the largest issue was the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Oklahoma cannot reject lawful proceedings such as adoptions from other states. Once the court established that the adoptive parents are legal parents because of the Full Faith and Credit clause and that Oklahoma must recognize their parenthood, it went on to find other issues.
Please, the states and anti-gay crowd have been dancing on the Full Faith and Credit Clause's grave ever since the Defense of Marriage Act.

Oh come on. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbyya.

On second thought; can you become gay if you touch a gay?

Oh come on. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbyya.

On second thought; can you become gay if you touch a gay?

OF COURSE!!
Just like you can become tall if you touch a tall person! :eek:

See? I told you christians were persecuted. :rolleyes:

Yeah no kidding ... not getting to discriminate ... poor persecuted christians.

can you become gay if you touch a gay?

Depends on where you touch them!

This is clearly then end of Christendom and civilisation as we know it.
Depends on where you touch them!

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/balls_are_touching.jpg

Thanks, Dem. That makes a lot more sense.
I was looking for the original article I read so I could check it. Found this instead.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson, in a legal opinion to the department, said the Full Faith and Credit Clause required Oklahoma to recognize any validly issued out-of-state adoption decree.

A month later, legislators passed the 2004 law.

Can we say stupid? Actually just pandering to a state full of rednecks. Their own AG told them it wouldn't wash, but they did it anyway.

Please, the states and anti-gay crowd have been dancing on the Full Faith and Credit Clause's grave ever since the Defense of Marriage Act.

Indeed. But, if this ruling is upheld, it would appear that the pendulum is swinging the other way...

Oh come on. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbyya.

On second thought; can you become gay if you touch a gay?

It's gaydiation. *nod*

Your reading is pretty much right Demi. And yes this does lead to an interesting problem with how states will be able to refuse to recognize civil unions from CT, VT, NH and NJ as well as marriage from MA.

If they can't legally refuse to recognise gay adoption, how can they thus legally refuse to recognise gay marriage? let's hope this is the start of the end for the DOMA.

If they can't legally refuse to recognise gay adoption, how can they thus legally refuse to recognise gay marriage? let's hope this is the start of the end for the DOMA.

It's a key precedent in that direction. All that you would need now is a legally married gay couple in a state with a gay marriage ban taking their case to the Supreme Court.

It's gaydiation. *nod*

Didn't you know the Dawn of the Dead remake was an allegory of the perils of giving homosexual rights?

[/sarcasm]

It's gaydiation. *nod*

Oh noooooo! That explains why my taste in cloths has improved and I am getting better at flowers! There is time! I haven't taken to listening to Babs yet!

I would argue that transferring custody of a minor over to a gay couple constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment for that child; the practice should thus be illegal.

I would argue that transferring custody of a minor over to a gay couple constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment for that child; the practice should thus be illegal.

I would argue that up is down and left is right. It should be illegal to disagree with me.

I would argue that transferring custody of a minor over to a gay couple constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment for that child; the practice should thus be illegal.

Oh, defiitely. There's nothing quite as traumatizing as the unconditional love of parents. :rolleyes:

I would argue that transferring custody of a minor over to a gay couple constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment for that child; the practice should thus be illegal.

Yeah lots worse then living in the foster system until you are 18 :rolleyes:

I would argue that transferring custody of a minor over to a gay couple constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment for that child; the practice should thus be illegal.

What if they were terrorist kids?

Actually, it's cruel and unusual punishment for FAG to adopt a child. Or have one naturally.

I would argue that up is down and left is right. It should be illegal to disagree with me.

:confused: It isn't?

I thought all women thought that way. *nod*

See? I told you christians were persecuted. :rolleyes:


Persecuted? Get back to me when they are being used as cat food again.

Christians crying persecution is as disengenious as North Koreans being critical of human rights violations. :rolleyes:

Actually, it's cruel and unusual punishment for FAG to adopt a child. Or have one naturally.

It's notoriously difficult for trolls to mate. Worse than porcupines!

Persecuted? Get back to me when they are being used as cat food again.

Christians crying persecution is as disengenious as North Koreans being critical of human rights violations. :rolleyes:

Zilam was being sarcastic about that. At least I hope so or that means FAG bit him and spread the Bushevik virus.

I would argue that transferring custody of a minor over to a gay couple constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment for that child; the practice should thus be illegal.

I could argue the exact same thing about transferring the kid to a family that plans to raise it in their fundamentalist faith. Perhaps even go even a step further and call that molestation.

Can you believe it. Poor Oklahoma had a bit of a setback in their effort to make sure gays stay second class citizens. The recent Oklahoma law against recognizing out-of-state same sex couples adoption of children has been struck down as unconstitutional. It violates the equal protection clause.

Can anyone tell me why it's still alright to ban same sex couples from adopting in the state of Oklahoma? Wouldn't that violate the same clause? The federal judge said you can't pass a law removing rights from a certain group. You mean gays are supposed to have equal rights? Then why are we still making laws banning gay marraige?

Help me. I'm so confused.
Well, if you mean with regards to the issue of whether or not it would be unconstitutional I'm guessing the idea was challenged based on the whole "limit federal powers" thing being used as a reason to have the separate states have their own laws with regards to gay rights.

... or if you mean about why gays being discriminated against isn't being considered discrimination I'm guessing that's because of the popularity of Christianity. Many people claim that because the bible calls homosexuality immoral that it must be immoral, which is ridiculous, because there's plenty wrong with the bible, (http://youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E) but unforunately those who don't question it can't see that, (and the church tries to scare people out of questioning, like how when I was a little kid one church I went to gave out books that rebuted doubts like "what about other religions, couldn't they be right as well?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are only doubts that the DEVIL fills your mind with") and so long as homosexuals are seen as immoral, discrimination against them will be seen as just.

I would argue that transferring custody of a minor over to a gay couple constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment for that child; the practice should thus be illegal.
Punishment for what? o.o

Punishment for what? o.o

For being born out of wedlock to a whore. Everyone knows if you're up for adoption it's cause your mom was a whore.

For being born out of wedlock to a whore. Everyone knows if you're up for adoption it's cause your mom was a whore.

And everyone knows that the children of whores are themselves whores. So in other words, FreedomandGlory should be in favour of homosexuals adopting.

It's notoriously difficult for trolls to mate. Worse than porcupines!

Yeah. They have to get the clubs out of the way.

It's a key precedent in that direction. All that you would need now is a legally married gay couple in a state with a gay marriage ban taking their case to the Supreme Court.

With Scalito and their ilk on it, they'd lose. This ain't the old SCOTUS - this is the antediluvian SCOTUS.

With Scalito and their ilk on it, they'd lose. This ain't the old SCOTUS - this is the antediluvian SCOTUS.

I don't know, actually...the 10th Circuit is highly conservative and covers a good chunk of the heartland of the religious right, so it bodes very well for these cases' chances before the SCOTUS. The Chief Judge is a Reagan appointee and only six of the 22 members were appointed by Democratic presidents. while 11 were appointed by Bush and Reagan alone.

Not to mention it covers these states:
* Colorado
* Kansas
* New Mexico
* Oklahoma
* Utah
* Wyoming

So, if they could win in a heavily conservative district with two of the most religiously dominated states in the country, it's a good sign for future progress at the SCOTUS level.

So, if they could win in a heavily conservative district with two of the most religiously dominated states in the country, it's a good sign for future progress at the SCOTUS level.
Conservative is not the same thing that is running the USSC. The USSC is run by revisionists who are living in their own "no interpretive reading of the Constitution" fantasy world. They are like the "Vatican II is evil!" Catholics of the legal world.

Conservative is not the same thing that is running the USSC. The USSC is run by revisionists who are living in their own "no interpretive reading of the Constitution" fantasy world. They are like the "Vatican II is evil!" Catholics of the legal world.

That's true, but I am still skeptical that they would undermine a court of conservative Reagan appointees on such a decision.

With Scalito and their ilk on it, they'd lose. This ain't the old SCOTUS - this is the antediluvian SCOTUS.

Right now, the decision would boil down to what Kennedy does. He pretty much controls the court right now.

Actually, it's cruel and unusual punishment for FAG to adopt a child. Or have one naturally.

Oh, the punnery. How I missed thee.

That's true, but I am still skeptical that they would undermine a court of conservative Reagan appointees on such a decision.

I don't think they'll care if the court appointees were appointed by Reagan. They'll overturn it anyway.

Still, I'm glad this covers Colorado.

Oh, and am I the only one tempted to try to make the case for the Supreme Court by finding someone else and marrying them then moving to a state where gay marriage is banned?

I don't think they'll care if the court appointees were appointed by Reagan. They'll overturn it anyway.

I don't think so. I think Kennedy will do the right thing on this one, and we all know how the other eight will vote.

*hopes she's right*

I don't think so. I think Kennedy will do the right thing on this one, and we all know how the other eight will vote.

*hopes she's right*

I hope you're right too, Dem. I really do.

Oh, the punnery. How I missed thee.

I didn't notice the pun until after I posted it.

Can you believe it. Poor Oklahoma had a bit of a setback in their effort to make sure gays stay second class citizens. The recent Oklahoma law against recognizing out-of-state same sex couples adoption of children has been struck down as unconstitutional. It violates the equal protection clause.

Can anyone tell me why it's still alright to ban same sex couples from adopting in the state of Oklahoma? Wouldn't that violate the same clause? The federal judge said you can't pass a law removing rights from a certain group. You mean gays are supposed to have equal rights? Then why are we still making laws banning gay marraige?

Help me. I'm so confused.

It's more that Oklahoma can't violate the right of neighboring states to allow gay adoption. Once you are the parent of a child no state has the right to come along and say that you aren't.