Tulsa Couple Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Gay Marriage Case

There are 42 comments on the NewsOn6 Tulsa story from Aug 28, 2014, titled Tulsa Couple Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Gay Marriage Case. In it, NewsOn6 Tulsa reports that:

Lawyers for a same-sex Tulsa couple seeking the right to marry in Oklahoma have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to take up their case.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsOn6 Tulsa.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#1 Aug 28, 2014
Has this couple and their legal team coordinated this petition with all the other counsel involved in marriage equality cases across the country?

I'm betting, "no."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2 Aug 28, 2014
Xstain Mullah Franchisee wrote:
Has this couple and their legal team coordinated this petition with all the other counsel involved in marriage equality cases across the country?
I'm betting, "no."
Why should they?
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Why should they?
I'm happy to explain things to you as though you have the intellect of a young child:

The legal strategy for controversial civil rights causes should be coordinated so you don't get incompetent morons filing cases using forms they found on the internet from some other case (as a pair of Midwestern lesbians did some years ago,) which could then result in a bad precedent affecting everyone.

There may also be questions of when an issue is ripe. Some local, grandstanding lawyer should not be making that judgment, even if she's minimally competent.

Of course this lawyer here could be affiliated with the ACLU or with one of the national lgbt groups pursuing marriage equality. The article didn't make this clear.

But the main thing is that we know you don't have the slightest conception of strategy or tactics.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4 Aug 28, 2014
Xstain Mullah Franchisee wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm happy to explain things to you as though you have the intellect of a young child:
The legal strategy for controversial civil rights causes should be coordinated so you don't get incompetent morons filing cases using forms they found on the internet from some other case (as a pair of Midwestern lesbians did some years ago,) which could then result in a bad precedent affecting everyone.
There may also be questions of when an issue is ripe. Some local, grandstanding lawyer should not be making that judgment, even if she's minimally competent.
Of course this lawyer here could be affiliated with the ACLU or with one of the national lgbt groups pursuing marriage equality. The article didn't make this clear.
But the main thing is that we know you don't have the slightest conception of strategy or tactics.
So aside from you snide first sentence and last sentence, what you are saying is you have no idea of what their tactics are or if the have a coordinated strategy since it's not clear in the article and so you think it's bad they filed.

Is that simple enough and child-like enough for you and to understand?
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
So aside from you snide first sentence and last sentence, what you are saying is you have no idea of what their tactics are or if the have a coordinated strategy since it's not clear in the article and so you think it's bad they filed.
Is that simple enough and child-like enough for you and to understand?
Okay, based on your question you have no conception of a "bad lawyer," or "bad precedent" or "un ripe issue" or that any of these things would definitely be adverse.

My post was clear about my assumption - I said I'm betting, "no." Then I said the article did not explain anything about who the counsel is or whether they're affiliated with any of the national groups.

Like I said, mind of a young child.
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

#6 Aug 28, 2014
If the chickenshit, cowardly representatives of psychiatric health and jurisprudence in America had any balls, they'd reestablish homosexuality as a vice and a criminal orientation degrading the culture. This is demonstrable in numerous ways. By criminalizing homosexual public behavior once again as it has been criminal for thousands of years in every society on Earth, the issue of "marriage" for these maladjusted, exhibitionist predators and main sources of pornography, drugs, disease, early death and other societal ills would be moot.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#7 Aug 28, 2014
Xstain Mullah Franchisee wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, based on your question you have no conception of a "bad lawyer," or "bad precedent" or "un ripe issue" or that any of these things would definitely be adverse.
My post was clear about my assumption - I said I'm betting, "no." Then I said the article did not explain anything about who the counsel is or whether they're affiliated with any of the national groups.
Like I said, mind of a young child.
Up yours.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#8 Aug 28, 2014
Xstain Mullah Franchisee wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, based on your question you have no conception of a "bad lawyer," or "bad precedent" or "un ripe issue" or that any of these things would definitely be adverse.
My post was clear about my assumption - I said I'm betting, "no." Then I said the article did not explain anything about who the counsel is or whether they're affiliated with any of the national groups.
Like I said, mind of a young child.
You failed to answer my first question. Instead you issue childish insults so I respond in kind.
The strategy is pretty clear to me. Force SCOTUS to have to definitively rule on this issue once and for all by insuring that as many cases get into the system as we can.

As for "bad lawyers" let me assure you, experience has taught me I would never take legal advice from one like you.
Go back to posting about how pic of the Chilean radar tech doesn't ping your gaydar.
karlschneider

Coweta, OK

#10 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Up yours.
You're an amusing little prick. Did you learn that idiotic bigotry from your Uncle Dad?
karlschneider

Coweta, OK

#11 Aug 28, 2014
My comment just a minute ago was meant for "Cordwainer Trout", not sure why DNF is in the quoted part...something went amuck.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#12 Aug 28, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
If the chickenshit, cowardly representatives of psychiatric health and jurisprudence in America had any balls, they'd reestablish homosexuality as a vice and a criminal orientation degrading the culture. This is demonstrable in numerous ways. By criminalizing homosexual public behavior once again as it has been criminal for thousands of years in every society on Earth, the issue of "marriage" for these maladjusted, exhibitionist predators and main sources of pornography, drugs, disease, early death and other societal ills would be moot.
You keep living in the 19th century, Coldweener. Meanwhile, state after state and country after country keeps legalizing same sex marriage.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#13 Aug 28, 2014
Xstain Mullah Franchisee wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, based on your question you have no conception of a "bad lawyer," or "bad precedent" or "un ripe issue" or that any of these things would definitely be adverse.
My post was clear about my assumption - I said I'm betting, "no." Then I said the article did not explain anything about who the counsel is or whether they're affiliated with any of the national groups.
Like I said, mind of a young child.
RE: Bad lawyers and forms on the internet, I have to admit that the wedding photographers, bakers and all the rest that have tried to claim that religious rights trump State Rights and Federal Law by claiming that the 2nd Amendment's religious freedom clause trumps The Civil Rights Act's ban against using religion to discriminate probably should have opted to pay for a decent lawyer who would have told them they have no case.
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

#14 Aug 28, 2014
Gremlin wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep living in the 19th century, Coldweener. Meanwhile, state after state and country after country keeps legalizing same sex marriage.
The 1950s and 60s were not the 19th Century.
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Why should they?
Hey moron, I clearly already answered this stupid question of yours.

You witlessly asked why would or should these local attorneys coordinate their goings on with the national litigators and lgbt rights groups.

I answered: We don't want crummy lawyers setting a bad precedent; and, we don't want incompetent or competent lawyers going to the US Supreme Court until the issue is ripe.

None of this was complex. It's utterly basic, a tautology. As usual, a simple explanation was too much for you even to recognize the existence of, let alone to evaluate on the merits.
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#16 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You failed to answer my first question. Instead you issue childish insults so I respond in kind....Go back to posting about how pic of the Chilean radar tech doesn't ping your gaydar.
You should learn to read.

Also, there is nothing wrong with a joke about a navy guy who came out as gay not pinging my gayday. It is a harmless pun.

I think something is horribly wrong with your fussbudget mind.
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>RE: Bad lawyers and forms on the internet, I have to admit that the wedding photographers, bakers and all the rest that have tried to claim that religious rights trump State Rights and Federal Law by claiming that the 2nd Amendment's religious freedom clause trumps The Civil Rights Act's ban against using religion to discriminate probably should have opted to pay for a decent lawyer who would have told them they have no case.
You're off topic and ignorant.

Although it is worth noting that Thurgood Marshall when litigating at the NAACP spent decades preparing the way for the Brown decision and then the Civil Rights Act. He didn't just rush to the Surpreme Court immediately.

This stuff is _basic_.

In the case of these businesses refusing lgbt customers that has been a national, coordinated strategy by the religious conservatives and their legal groups. They instigated that whole area of litigation.(I don't know how coordinated at a national level the resulting lgbt lawsuits have been in those cases.) You got this exactly backwards.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Aug 28, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
If the chickenshit, cowardly representatives of psychiatric health and jurisprudence in America had any balls, they'd reestablish homosexuality as a vice and a criminal orientation degrading the culture. This is demonstrable in numerous ways. By criminalizing homosexual public behavior once again as it has been criminal for thousands of years in every society on Earth, the issue of "marriage" for these maladjusted, exhibitionist predators and main sources of pornography, drugs, disease, early death and other societal ills would be moot.
Awww, does somebody need a nap?

Might I suggest a dirt nap to solve all your problems.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Aug 28, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1950s and 60s were not the 19th Century.
And this is the 21st century.

Cry all you want, but the racist, sexist, homophobic society you dream of is on the ash heap of history where it belongs. Hopefully you'll be joining it soon.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#20 Aug 28, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1950s and 60s were not the 19th Century.
Yes, they were. In every relevant way, they were.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#21 Aug 29, 2014
Xstain Mullah Franchisee wrote:
Has this couple and their legal team coordinated this petition with all the other counsel involved in marriage equality cases across the country?
I'm betting, "no."
You'd be right on that. Everyone at HRC, Lambda Legal, ACLU, etc. were taken by surprise by this one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oklahoma Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jim Inhofe Koch bros' water boy (Oct '14) 20 hr steve 3
News Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Endorses Stoning Gays (Jun '14) Tue Former republican 76
News U.S. Republicans navigate the new politics of e... Mon Prosperity Fundie... 6
Where did Pastor Gary Edenfield go? (Mar '10) May 24 praying 10
News Oklahoma City to host Republican presidential c... May 24 BFD 5
News Could Oklahoma Benefit From Advance Earthquake ... May 23 Go Blue Forever 1
News Scott Hines (Sep '10) May 20 another victim 17
More from around the web