Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland

posted at 11:21 am on July 23, 2013 by Allahpundit

Yes, he’s an Obama appointee.

Addressing the constitutional question, Black explained, “Although the law has long recognized that marriage and domestic relations are matters generally left to the states, the restrictions imposed on marriage by states, however, must nonetheless comply with the [U.S.] Constitution.”

To that end, the court examined the Supreme Court’s decision striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act this June in United States v. Windsor, the 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, and in other decisions addressing differential treatment found to be unconstitutional under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

Looking at Ohio’s bans on recognizing same-sex couples’ out-of-state marriages, while acknowledging its recognition of the marriages of opposite-sex couples who would not be allowed to marry in Ohio, Black concluded, “The purpose served by treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples is the same improper purpose that failed in Windsor and in Romer: ‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law.”

Needless to say, if other courts follow this lead, we’ll have coast-to-coast legal gay marriage as a matter of Full Faith and Credit with the only limitation on gay couples their ability to travel to a pro-SSM state temporarily to get hitched. The Windsor decision that the court cites here in support of its ruling held that section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages performed in pro-SSM states, is unconstitutional. The point of the Ohio ruling is that section 2 of DOMA, which allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, should also be deemed unconstitutional under the logic of Windsor. Is that true, though? Read pages 18-21 of Kennedy’s majority opinion. He’s making two arguments, really. One is that, as the Ohio judge notes, the legislature can’t impose special restrictions on gays consistent with the Equal Protection Clause. The other, though, is that Congress overreached with DOMA by intruding on the states’ sovereign prerogative to regulate marriage as they see fit. It’s not just an equal protection ruling, it’s a federalism ruling too. And unlike Section 3, Section 2 of DOMA attempts to preserve state sovereignty by allowing each state to decide for itself whether gay marriages from other jurisdictions will be recognized there, which might be a complicating factor for Kennedy if this case works its way up to SCOTUS. It shouldn’t be, says the Ohio judge — equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment trumps states’ rights, especially when you have a history of full faith and credit for out-of-state marriages as precedent — but only Kennedy knows which way that shakes out.

Speaking of full faith and credit, a key passage from the Ohio court’s ruling:

[U]nder Ohio law, as declared by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1958, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Mazzolini v. Mazzolini, 155 N.E.2d 206, 208 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1958) (marriage of first cousins was legal in Massachusetts and therefore is legal in Ohio regardless of the Ohio statute to the contrary).

Likewise, under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors. See Hardin v. Davis, 16 Ohio Supp. 19, at *22 (Com. Pl. Hamilton Co. May 18, 1945) (“But, although first cousins cannot marry in Ohio, it has been held that if they go to another state where such marriages are allowed, marry, and return to Ohio, the marriage is legal in Ohio”); see also Slovenian Mut. Ben. Ass’n v. Knafelj, 173 N.E. 630, 631 (Ohio App. 1930) (“It is true that, under the laws of Ohio, if she were his first cousin he could not marry her; but they could go to the state of Michigan, or the state of Georgia, and perhaps many other states in the United States, and intermarry, and then come right back into Ohio and the marriage would be legal”); see also Peefer v. State, 182 N.E. 117, 121 (Ohio App. 1931) (where underage couples leave the state to marry in a state in which their marriage is valid and return to Ohio, the marriage cannot be set aside based on Ohio’s law against marriage of underage people); see also Courtright v. Courtright, 1891 Ohio Misc. LEXIS
161, at *7, aff’d without opinion, 53 Ohio 685 (Ohio 1895) (marriage between persons considered underage in Ohio married in a state where their marriage is legal “cannot be set aside, either because it was not contracted in accordance with the law of this state, or because the parties went out of the state for the purpose of evading the laws of this state”).

Ohio decided long ago that Full Faith and Credit means honoring marriages performed in other jurisdictions even if those marriages conflict with Ohio’s moral and legal preferences. Why should gay marriage be different?

All of that said, there may be an opportunity here for social conservatives. The big problem with a Federal Marriage Amendment, which seeks to ban gay marriage nationwide, is that not only is it opposed by gay-marriage supporters, it’s even opposed by some gay-marriage opponents who resist it as an infringement on federalism. The Ohio court ruling yesterday brings the federalism argument over to the social conservative side: Why shouldn’t the states, the laboratories of democracy, be allowed to follow their own rules on SSM rather than the rules of another state? There may be meaningful support in Congress and at the state level for an initiative that makes section 2 of DOMA a constitutional amendment. I give it near-zero chance of passing, but it’s a better talking point for opponents of SSM than the FMA is.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

And this…the 10th is dead, dead, dead.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Gee! Who coulda seen this one coming!

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Wasting more time and money so that a few deviants can wreck an institution they don’t believe in in the first place.

LincolntheHun on July 23, 2013 at 11:25 AM

And this…the 10th is dead, dead, dead.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:23 AM

And it is painful to watch the procession…

right2bright on July 23, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Oh good, but can the Federal Court force states to recognize my CCW?

nobar on July 23, 2013 at 10:36 AM

nobar on July 23, 2013 at 11:26 AM

The point of the Ohio ruling is that section 2 of DOMA, which allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, should also be deemed unconstitutional under the logic of Windsor. Is that true, though? Read pages 18-21 of Kennedy’s majority opinion. He’s making two arguments, really. One is that, as the Ohio judge notes, the legislature can’t impose special restrictions on gays consistent with the Equal Protection Clause. The other, though, is that Congress overreached with DOMA by intruding on the states’ sovereign prerogative to regulate marriage as they see fit. It’s not just an equal protection ruling, it’s a federalism ruling too.

There’s no way Kennedy allows Federalism to get in the way of nationalized gay marriage.

The only way gay marriage gets sent to the ash heap is with a different set of justices on SCOTUS.

Stoic Patriot on July 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Wayne LaPierre, are you listening?

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Well, that was unexpected.

/sarc

JimLennon on July 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM

They were going to make it nationwide one way or other. Not unexpected, really.

The concept of state sovereignty is dead. At this point, it would just be easier to let Washington appoint governors like Britain does, dissolve the various legislatures, and be done with it.

Liam on July 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM

And this…the 10th is dead, dead, dead.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Do any conservative laws ever not get blocked by a judge? Voter ID? Any regulation of abortion? Straight marriage laws?

I remember Obama making a big fuss over the idea of judges overturning or blocking a law that was passed by a majority of elected officials. He said it was an usurpation of the will of the voters. Very upset he was. Haven’t heard much about that from him lately though.

forest on July 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM

The Ohio court ruling yesterday brings the federalism argument over to the social conservative side: Why shouldn’t the states, the laboratories of democracy, be allowed to follow their own rules on SSM rather than the rules of another state? There may be meaningful support in Congress and at the state level for an initiative that makes section 2 of DOMA a constitutional amendment. I give it near-zero chance of passing, but it’s a better talking point for opponents of SSM than the FMA is.

No, it’s a terrible argument. Any argument that relies entirely on an appeal to the division of authority rather than the merits of the case is one that’s doomed to defeat. The way to defeat gay marriage is to articulate the purpose of marriage and show how permitting gays to marry one another undermines that purpose.

Stoic Patriot on July 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

So, those fireworks you bought legally across the state line can be used legally back home, even if they are illegal and are not sold back home. Because commerceclauseequalprotectionclause.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

They were going to make it nationwide one way or other. Not unexpected, really.

Of course they were we all knew it. States rights? They don’t exist anymore…

sandee on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Ohio decided long ago that Full Faith and Credit means honoring marriages performed in other jurisdictions even if those marriages conflict with Ohio’s moral and legal preferences. Why should gay marriage be different?

Can any opponent to same sex marriage answer this key question?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Prop 8 will come back to nail libertarian and libertine gays in the butt.

Only corrupt politicians and judges can rule over you, fools. No more propositions from the people. I hope the fluke you royally and you get what you asked for, the few ruling over all. Love your tyrannies, idiots of the world. YOU deserve no less.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

they fluke you

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Unexpectedly!

I’ve always thought that the “overturn DOMA, leave it to the states” line was just a smokescreen for federal courts to ride roughshod over state votes, state legislatures, state courts and eventually state constitutions. If a new “hidden right” is “discovered” in the US constitution, that will trump anything and everything states decide. If that new “hidden right” was not just “discovered” here, it will be very soon.

Marcola on July 23, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Of course they were we all knew it. States rights? They don’t exist anymore…

They would if we elected 10th Amendment conservatives to state offices and demanded they follow the Constitution including nullifying unconstitutional federal legislation. Obamacare would be a good place to start.

Charlemagne on July 23, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Just bring on the civil war already so we can fix this degenerate tyrannical goverment.

bgibbs1000 on July 23, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Polygamy/polyandry and pederasty, ho!

When you change the basic meaning of a word like “marriage” it no longer has any intrinsic meaning.

We are now in silly putty world.

Muslims will now be thrilled to add their extra 3 wives to the welfare roles.

Even the 8 year old ones.

profitsbeard on July 23, 2013 at 11:35 AM

So if this is the case all States must abide by whatever any States “laws” are? So CCW everywhere, teaching credentials, and Law licenses and contractors licenses will be valid in all States right?

sandee on July 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM

and tomorrow, Conceal Carry Laws and purchasing Health Insurance across state lines—right Libtards???

hillsoftx on July 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Yay reciprocity for my CCW!!! It’s good to know that I’ll be able to conceal carry every state now!! Yaaaay!

What? This ruling won’t apply to my 2nd Amendment rights?

Hill60 on July 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM

So, those fireworks you bought legally across the state line can be used legally back home, even if they are illegal and are not sold back home. Because commerceclauseequalprotectionclause.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

And don’t forget pot! Legal in Colorado, why should Kansas harsh the buzz of citizens who crossed state lines?

Happy Nomad on July 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Says so right in the 17.5th amendment, you fools.

Try not being such racists next time and you might understand better.

Bishop on July 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Why shouldn’t the states, the laboratories of democracy, be allowed to follow their own rules on SSM rather than the rules of another state?

Because that sort of thinking is not tolerated in the socialist utopia that is the USA.

Or as now call it, the country of Detroit.

Gatsu on July 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Constitutional convention coming soon.The states will take back this country from the courts and power hunger people in DC.Even Mark Levin now supports this approach saying last week.It,s the only way to save this country.I think over 30 states have agreed in some form to call for one.If 38 call for one then the congress,president and the courts have no say so in the convention.It,s up to the states to say want this country will stand for.

logman1 on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I’m assuming you support polygamy then, right? And you would support forcing all states to recognize those marriages should just one legalize them, correct?

Charlemagne on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM

It had to happen, I’m just surprise on how fast it’s come. This is the easiest way to fight the issue instead of a one by one fight in each state. Each state recognizes each others laws, always has until the gay marriage issue.

libs are relentless, they never, ever give up or in.

De Oppresso Liber on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Pot is legal in all states because it is legal in WA?

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Get help

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM

“So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key.” “Already Gone” –The Eagles

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Oh good, but can the Federal Court force states to recognize my CCW?

nobar on July 23, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Some pigs are more equal than sheep.

Steve Eggleston on July 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Screw the conceal carry, Arizona has open carry which means any citizen of that state can now walk through Times Square with a 1911 in full view strapped to their hip.

So cool, I love this.

Bishop on July 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM

logman1 on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Short of a national divorce the only salvation is a return to federalism and a devolution of most power and authority back to the states.

I’ve written extensively about it at RedState. Click my name to read.

Charlemagne on July 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Ohio decided long ago that Full Faith and Credit means honoring marriages performed in other jurisdictions even if those marriages conflict with Ohio’s moral and legal preferences. Why should gay marriage be different?

Can any opponent to same sex marriage answer this key question?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Does Ohio allow polygamous marriages, as long as the marriages are performed elsewhere?

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Prop 8 will come back to nail libertarian and libertine gays in the butt.

Only corrupt politicians and judges can rule over you, fools. No more propositions from the people. I hope the fluke you royally and you get what you asked for, the few ruling over all. Love your tyrannies, idiots of the world. YOU deserve no less.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

They don’t care as long as conservatives also get it there.

Steve Eggleston on July 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM

If this is a Full Faith and Credit issue then there a bright side to this decsion if you hold a concealed hangun license. It means that if you issue CHLs then you must recognize another states CHL just like an out-of-state drivers license is recognized. Since gay marriage is already going be recognized and I have to say even as I oppose the concept that you can’t be married in one state and not another, all such contracts have to recognized across state lines. I am all for making lemonade out of lemons. Bring on national concealed carry.

jerryofva on July 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Charlemagne on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM

There is already marriage to inanimate objects in some cultures. OH must honor those marriages, too.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM

All of that said, there may be an opportunity here for social conservatives.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO OPPORTUNITY FOR SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES.

The system is rigged… you can’t win within it. In fact, it’s like a roach motel where if you struggle you get stuck more.

You either have to overthrow it, wait for it to undo itself, or throw your lot with another foreign system.

ninjapirate on July 23, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Texas is NO longer a free state. The 10th is dead, dead, dead.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I’m assuming you support polygamy then, right? And you would support forcing all states to recognize those marriages should just one legalize them, correct?

Charlemagne on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I’m not opposed to polygamous marriage if all parties are consenting and I wouldn’t oppose the polygamy movement using those tactics. I’m not part of that movement and won’t be devoting any time to it in terms of support of opposition. We’ll see what they can do.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM

States rights have just ceased to exist . . . Obama has won and the “people” have lost.

rplat on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

They don’t care as long as conservatives also get it there.

Steve Eggleston on July 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM

They are never liberal, nor progressive, nor free, only tyrannical.

Their azzes have overcome their brains.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

This nation will be finished within 50 yrs. Next they will be saying that a pedophile is born that way and should be able to have any child they desire.

rich8450 on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

But my conceal carry permit isn’t recognized in Maryland…

Washington Nearsider on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

DOMA was sold as a promise that one state would not be obligated to recognize a marriage between two men or two women in another state. The pitch was that a Constitutional amendment wasn’t necessary, that full faith and credit did not mean that one state was obligated to recognize a marriage in another state that would have been illegal under its own laws.

Obviously, a convenient lie.

This ruling, of course, means that no state’s laws have any meaning, because you can just run to another state where it’s legal, then come back to the state where you want to live.

Kennedy is senile if he didn’t see this coming.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Does Ohio allow polygamous marriages, as long as the marriages are performed elsewhere?

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM

No state currently recognizes polygamous marriage, so the answer to your question, as you’ve worded it. Is no.

Still no one has answered my or Allah’s question. Why should ohio recognize heterosexual marriages from one state but not gay marriages?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

liblikeaslave doesn’t use his brain, only his pants.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Can any opponent to same sex marriage answer this key question?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I think FFC has always had a public policy exception.

In this instance, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a state could decline to promote medically unhealthy sexual practices (sodomy and foreign objects) through its marriage laws. Likewise, given that little other than some sketchy studies support gays parenting children, a state wouldn’t seem unreasonable declining to acknowledge out-of-state unions as a marriage. And then there’s that issue of gays demanding that sex be introduced to minors at the youngest of ages rather than allowing minors to enjoy the innocence of childhood.

BuckeyeSam on July 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM

The United States of America is an anarcho-tyranny… what we have today is much worse than a monarchy. You can see a monarch and a monarch usually feels a duty towards his(or her) people.

ninjapirate on July 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Kennedy is senile if he didn’t see this coming.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Don’t be naive. This was Kennedy’s hope all along. He wants his legacy to be the “conservative” jurist who ended the question of same-sex marriage and anti-LGBT discrimination within the realm of the law. That was obvious from Lawrence v. Texas.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Can any opponent to same sex marriage answer this key question?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Can you explain why Maryland isn’t forced to recognize Virginia’s concealed-carry permits?

Washington Nearsider on July 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Does Ohio allow polygamous marriages, as long as the marriages are performed elsewhere?

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM

What the resident bigoted pederast, and his deviant ilk, really want is the total and complete dissolution of the concept of marriage. Traditional marriage is, and has been, the cornerstone of the family, another institution they want gone. You cannot have total allegiance to the Almighty State if there are petty things like marriage and family commitment in the way. The traditional aspects of it also introduce things like morality into the picture, and they definitely don’t want that.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Because commerceclauseequalprotectionclause.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Good point. And those firearms you bought over state lines. And those liquor bottles and cigarettes.

John the Libertarian on July 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Don’t dishonor his highness…

crazywater on July 23, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Can any opponent to same sex marriage answer this key question?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Yup.

Ohio never decided that ALL marriages contracted in other jurisdictions would be honored, only certain ones.

Which is their right under the Tenth Amendment.

You lose.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Why should ohio recognize heterosexual marriages from one state but not gay marriages?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

It shouldn’t. Get all marriages out of the state’s business. Let churches and mosques marry men with camels, goats, sheep and whatever. Rome lasted longer. For the future, the children, read all of it.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Which is their right under the Tenth Amendment.

You lose.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:50 AM

All lose. Federalism loses. Freedom loses. The obtuse are not concerned with logic and freedom, just with their pants.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM

I say embrace this. If gay marriage is a going to happen anyway, why not embrace the FF&C argument? It opens the door to a massive expansion of gun rights through the same Constitutional argument.

LukeinNE on July 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Now then,..let’s get to work on that age of consent thing. Just another small obstacle to overcome. /

a capella on July 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM

In this instance, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a state could decline to promote medically unhealthy sexual practices (sodomy and foreign objects) through its marriage laws.

Except that sodomy and penetration with toys can easily be practiced by heterosexual couples and is not required for sex between gay or lesbian couples. Marriage does not dictate anything about sex life, as many long suffering husbands can attest. So nice try.

Likewise, given that little other than some sketchy studies support gays parenting children, a state wouldn’t seem unreasonable declining to acknowledge out-of-state unions as a marriage.

Even if we were to invalidate all the studies which show same-sex marriage is a net positive for children there is zero evidence that same same-sex parenting harms children anymore than poverty stricken or drug addicted heterosexual families. Since there is no law which says addicts and poor people can not marry because it is harmful to children, why should there be a law against same-sex marriage on Christian hope that, one day, some study will prove that adopted kids in same-sex households are worse off?

And then there’s that issue of gays demanding that sex be introduced to minors at the youngest of ages rather than allowing minors to enjoy the innocence of childhood.

BuckeyeSam on July 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Honey, were you ever a child? In a world where there were no sexual predators, adults would not “introduce” children to sexuality, kids experiment on their own. Its called “playing doctor” or any other number of innocence sex games kids play with each other. Why is it that conservatives insist on pretending this behavior does not occur? It seems that the idea is to pretend children are not curious about sexuality in order to label those who point out this fact as pedophiles. It is profoundly intellectually dishonest.

Same-sex marriage, by contrast, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of sexual predation, which is a crime and should remain such, since it is limited to consenting adults.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Do any conservative laws ever not get blocked by a judge? Voter ID? Any regulation of abortion? Straight marriage laws?

I remember Obama making a big fuss over the idea of judges overturning or blocking a law that was passed by a majority of elected officials. He said it was an usurpation of the will of the voters. Very upset he was. Haven’t heard much about that from him lately though.

forest on July 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I’m sure liberal laws are challenged just as much, but I bet if someone took a closer look you’d find the judiciary much more eager to stomp out conservative ones.

And of course you could see this ruling coming from a mile away, and there’s no doubt in my mind SCOTUS will agree with it. State sovereignty is dead, along with the country we once knew.

changer1701 on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

The idea that traditional morality has no place in law because of discrimination, diversity, blah blah…

Will someone please show me this Secular Utopia where citizens abide by amoral law?

StubbleSpark on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Wait till this is extended to an immigrant, who comes here with four wives and a Federal judge decides the marriage laws of other countries must be recognized as legal over those of the states.

Liam on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

My word. Conservative ideals are being eviscerated in this country. We need a conservative leader NOW. It can’t wait any longer. My husband and I are already looking to relocate outside the U.S. once the kids have finished college. By that time, this country will be just like Europe-souless and penniless.

KickandSwimMom on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Does that mean my concealed carry license has to be accepted too? (I’ve always thought it should.) My drivers license is. Can someone explain why it isn’t?

dogsoldier on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Why aren’t the state laws of Ohio being forced onto Maryland?

Goose.Gander.

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

It’s going to be fun for Oregonians traveling out of state…no sales tax, and they get special treatment at the gas pump, too.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM

None of this is a surprise. I was taught in law school that this would be the outcome of such a SCOTUS/court decision 11 years ago, that Full Faith & Credit would compel one state to recognize another state’s marriages. Of course, if you pointed that out in the last, say, 7 years, you were a homophobe.

So much for “states’ rights” or for asking for “society’s recognition”.

Gays are “asking” for social acceptance and recognition of their relation by way of govt. license. When the people thereafter vote in any democratic forum to oppose same-sex marriage, their decision is promptly ignored and shot down by a judge.

Ergo, gays are not asking for society’s approval/support/consent/acceptance, they are forcing it, demanding it. State-by-state is too hard, so use the feds to do it all in one swoop.

Perhaps if they let society develop naturally over time, they’d get that acceptance with less ill will. But these social engineers can’t wait and instead force it.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Will someone please show me this Secular Utopia where citizens abide by amoral law?

StubbleSpark on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Well you could look at all the nations where same-sex marriage is legal. Have they fallen into ruin?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

If I were a state so inclined I would just say – nope. Not going to do that.

Zomcon JEM on July 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

It’s going to be fun for Oregonians traveling out of state…no sales tax

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM

And for Washingtonians — no income tax.

John the Libertarian on July 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Some pigs are more equal than sheep.

Steve Eggleston on July 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Thanks for the smiles. I love the site for such wit.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

So, those fireworks you bought legally across the state line can be used legally back home, even if they are illegal and are not sold back home. Because commerceclauseequalprotectionclause.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Hmmm. So I guess those high capacity magazines I bought in a state that allows them will be legal everywhere. Great!

chewmeister on July 23, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Well you could look at all the nations where same-sex marriage is legal. Have they fallen into ruin?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Greece, Spain, Italy, France, UK, Germany, and the rest of the EU.

You set yourself up for that one btw.

nobar on July 23, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Perhaps if they let society develop naturally over time, they’d get that acceptance with less ill will. But these social engineers can’t wait and instead force it.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Has it ever occurred to you that same-sex marriage activists have amassed such a large coalition of support that they simply do not care whether or not someone like you feels ill will towards them? If there goal was to appease someone like you they wouldn’t be trying to legalize same-sex marriage at all. Why don’t we move beyond thinking that this is about hearts and minds anymore. Enough hearts and minds (and wallets, free market remember) have been turned.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I’m pretty sure we all thought obamacare had zero chance of passing too.

rightside on July 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Even if we were to invalidate all the studies which show same-sex marriage is a net positive for children there is zero evidence that same same-sex parenting harms children anymore than poverty stricken or drug addicted heterosexual families.

Since you brought it up, we’ve spent billions of dollars to eliminate poverty and drug addiction.

“Same-Sex Parents; no different than poverty or drugs”

That’s one hell of a selling point.

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I cannot stand that people who hate marriage, divorce regularly, and constantly cheat think themselves in some position to know what is best for the institution.

And I am talking about the heteros — sorry, “opposite sexers”.

StubbleSpark on July 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Can any opponent to same sex marriage answer this key question?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Because gay marriage is not recognized by Ohio. Ohio decided long ago to recognize normal marriage because normal marriage is recognized in Ohio. Now tell us why you and your perfesser buddies are such giant bigots.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Can any opponent to same sex marriage answer this key question?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Sure, as soon as you explain why it’s legitimate for polygamy to be outlawed (actually outlawed, not like you pretend that gay marriage is outlawed).

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Greece, Spain, Italy, France, UK, Germany, and the rest of the EU.

You set yourself up for that one btw.

nobar on July 23, 2013 at 11:59 AM

As of July 2013, thirteen countries (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark,[nb 1] France, Iceland, Netherlands,[nb 2] Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Mexico and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry. Uruguay and New Zealand[nb 3] have both enacted laws to legalize same-sex marriage which will come into force in August 2013,[7][8] and a law has been passed by the United Kingdom, effective in England and Wales, which is expected to be fully in force in 2014.[9]

So when we look at the complete picture we see a range of nations who are in different economic stages for very different reasons. Clearly, controlling for same-sex marriage doesn’t tell us anything about a nation’s future.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The real question: Why have liberals latched on to the gay movement more earnestly and vociferously than any other minority movement?

The real answer: blacks and Hispanics go to church.

StubbleSpark on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

In the meanwhile

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Does that mean my concealed carry license has to be accepted too? (I’ve always thought it should.) My drivers license is. Can someone explain why it isn’t?

dogsoldier on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Because you’re a racist homophobic misogynistic gun-nut, that’s why.

Socratease on July 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM

StubbleSpark on July 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM

.
Well you could look at all the nations where same-sex marriage is legal. Have they fallen into ruin?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

.
Compared to the U.S., they’ve already been “ruined”, long before “gay marrige.”
.
Dittos what nobar said, above.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Your old Diners Club card? Now accepted everywhere!

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM

The real answer: blacks and Hispanics go to church.

StubbleSpark on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

…and are stupid enough to vote for them in spite of their convictions. They deserve their masters, in full.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Libfree – I still haven’t seen an explanation as to why some laws have to be forced across state lines, but others can’t be.

Explain why Virginia’s gun laws don’t count in Maryland, but Maryland’s marriage laws count everywhere.

Washington Nearsider on July 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Well you could look at all the nations where same-sex marriage is legal. Have they fallen into ruin?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Duh, perfesser, you’re not very smart.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Same-sex marriage, by contrast, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of sexual predation, which is a crime and should remain such, since it is limited to consenting adults.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Tell that to Trayvon Martin. Oh, that’s right, that homophobe is dead.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Has it ever occurred to you that same-sex marriage activists have amassed such a large coalition of support that they simply do not care whether or not someone like you feels ill will towards them? If there goal was to appease someone like you they wouldn’t be trying to legalize same-sex marriage at all. Why don’t we move beyond thinking that this is about hearts and minds anymore. Enough hearts and minds (and wallets, free market remember) have been turned.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM

If enough hearts and minds have been changed then why force things through the federal courts? Why erode democracy in the process like in the prop 8 case?

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Sure, as soon as you explain why it’s legitimate for polygamy to be outlawed (actually outlawed, not like you pretend that gay marriage is outlawed).

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

I don’t think it should be. Next!

Since you brought it up, we’ve spent billions of dollars to eliminate poverty and drug addiction.

“Same-Sex Parents; no different than poverty or drugs”

That’s one hell of a selling point.

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM

And if I were interested in “selling” gay marriage to you, that might matter. What I’m asking is for some kind of standard that can be used to establish a distinction within the law. Something measurable. And same-sex marriage opponents don’t have a thing to show me. Next!

Can any opponent to same sex marriage answer this key question?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Because gay marriage is not recognized by Ohio. Ohio decided long ago to recognize normal marriage because normal marriage is recognized in Ohio.
NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The law can not be arbirary, it must have a logic to it. You can not say “a law exists merely because it exists.” That totally violates the Enlightenment principles which undergird our system of laws, or do you need to freshen up on your Paine and Locke?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

So when we look at the complete picture we see a range of nations who are in different economic stages for very different reasons. Clearly, controlling for same-sex marriage doesn’t tell us anything about a nation’s future.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

.
The former citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah are screaming at you from the bowels of hell.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Still no one has answered my or Allah’s question. Why should ohio recognize heterosexual marriages from one state but not gay marriages?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

The “public policy exception” to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, traditionally used to prevent one state from forcing all other states to become like it. Which, about 12 years ago, still carried weight, but now that morals are on the outs and social engineers rule supreme, I’m sure has as much impact as a fart in a hurricane.

Oh, and thanks for NOW coming out in support of polygamy. Most same-sex marriage supporters held that close to the vest until the recent decision. Can’t be honest about the effects of the change until it’s made.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Explain why Virginia’s gun laws don’t count in Maryland, but Maryland’s marriage laws count everywhere.

Washington Nearsider on July 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM

He can’t, it would expose the hollow falsity and utterly hypocritical mendacity of his whole argument.

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

So when we look at the complete picture we see a range of nations who are in different economic stages for very different reasons. Clearly, controlling for same-sex marriage doesn’t tell us anything about a nation’s future.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

But general moral decay does. Gay marriage is just part of a larger whole.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Now, you can vote in all public elections and primaries in all 50 states!

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7