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 4 7

Just Pondering; Have you ever noticed how the “smart” people on the Left always are the one one who paint themselves into a corner on political issues?

Tater Salad on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

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

I couldn’t agree more.

Heterosexuals have nearly destroyed the institution of marriage…half end in divorce, then there’s pre-nups, custody battles, broken homes, etc. This has to end! No heterosexual marriage!

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 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

What the Fluke does this have to do with your question?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 12:08 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

Then explain conceal-carry reciprocity. Maryland doesn’t recognize permits from ANY state in the nation.

Washington Nearsider on July 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

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

.
Doesn’t wash … too much ‘contradictory logic’ between too many people.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

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.

Except for statistics that clearly show the following:

The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), presented at the 2010 National STD Prevention Conference in Atlanta.

In addition, the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.

Why should society endorse and support such behaviors?

Next up:

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.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Unfortunately, the reality is that what libfreeordie deems “innocent play” has created this result:

Overall HIV prevalence measured 10.5%–twice the estimated HIV prevalence among 15-to-49-year-olds in sub-Saharan Africa in 2009.

Moreover, this “innocent” play that libfreeordie practices with children has a particularly devastating effect on the black community.

Prevalence stood at 16.5% among young black MSM (almost as high as South Africa’s 17.8% adult rate), at 6.9% among Hispanic MSM, and at 6.2% among white MSM.

So what we see here is that libfreeordie is demanding that society promote and subsidize something that spreads lethal diseases, especially among children, at an exponential rate.

Why? Because libfreeordie practices it and wants welfare for doing it.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

And when three people want to marry, where is the limitation under “equal protection?”

HopeHeFails on July 23, 2013 at 12:09 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

Most of them – particularly in Europe – are experiencing a great deal of societal and cultural decay and destruction. This isn’t caused by gay marriage (or acceptance of it) but their acceptance of gay marriage is a big indicator of the devaluation of family and marriage that has occurred in their culture. To liberals the state is the ultimate and best parent and acceptance of gay marriage is simply an extension of this and Europe is a good example of the social problems that follow the state-as-parent model.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:10 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

The citizens of the Greek city-state of Corinth, circa 146 BC, would like to say something as well.

Aristophanes (approx. 450-385 BC) coined a new Greek verb – to Corinthianize – meaning participation in immoral sexual practices. The archaeological evidence suggests thriving homosexual practices also. A later historian (Strabo who wrote about 7 B.C.) spoke of a thousand temple prostitutes plying their trade in Corinth during its peak of prosperity. He quoted an old proverb that sarcastically suggested, “Not every man is man enough to go to Corinth.”

http://www.crivoice.org/books/1corinth.html

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 12:10 PM

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.

It’s never been about hearts and minds. Gays lost that battle time after time, even in California. Now it’s about only power. Naked political power, coercion, intimidation, and physical force applied by law enforcement ordered by liberal elitist judges. If you refuse to violate your personal mores or your religion forbids it, you’ll be taken to court, fined, or thrown in jail.

Socratease on July 23, 2013 at 12:11 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

Yet more mendacious hypocrisy regarding CCW’s from our resident irrationalist troll.

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 12:12 PM

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

I’m aware they don’t now. But they better answer that question now, before it’s too late.

You see, when you live by principles, you ask these kinds of questions.

As for why not recognize “gay marriage,” the fact that it doesn’t exist is a plenty good reason. It takes more than a government proclamation to make it a real marriage.

And the presumption that opposition to same-sex “marriage” is based on hatred and bigotry is stupid whether it comes from you or a so-called Justice.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM

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

.
I couldn’t agree more.

Heterosexuals have nearly destroyed the institution of marriage…half end in divorce, then there’s pre-nups, custody battles, broken homes, etc. This has to end! No heterosexual marriage!

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

.
Rejection of, and separation from God is what wrecks everything.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 12:14 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</blockquote
BS.

Or are you now going to argue that anti-sodomy laws were always correct?

Skywise on July 23, 2013 at 12:14 PM

I couldn’t agree more.

Heterosexuals have nearly destroyed the institution of marriage…half end in divorce, then there’s pre-nups, custody battles, broken homes, etc. This has to end! No heterosexual marriage!

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

LOL.

Just because your parents were worthless cheats doesn’t mean that the rest of ours were, or the fact that your siblings raise their children like Trayvon Martin doesn’t mean ours did.

Meanwhile, it’s interesting: organizations like Focus on the Family and others that support traditional marriage also speak out against all of the things that you mentioned.

Where are your gay-sex marriage organizations doing the same thing and stating that divorce is wrong, that broken homes are wrong, etc?

Oh, that’s right. Gay bigots like yourself don’t really care about marriage; it’s just an excuse to throw power plays and tantrums to take revenge against people you don’t like.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 12:15 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

Then explain conceal-carry reciprocity. Maryland doesn’t recognize permits from ANY state in the nation.

Washington Nearsider on July 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Washington Nearsider on July 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM

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

.
I couldn’t agree more.

Heterosexuals have nearly destroyed the institution of marriage…half end in divorce, then there’s pre-nups, custody battles, broken homes, etc. This has to end! No heterosexual marriage!

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

.
Rejection of, and separation from God is what wrecks everything.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 12:14 PM

There’s only one word that’s necessary to refute JetBoy:

“Breeders”

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 12:17 PM

So, when–and it is just a matter of when–libfree is finally banned here, then the rest of the interwebs must honor it. That would be awesome.

Second look at FF&C?

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Heterosexuals have nearly destroyed the institution of marriage…half end in divorce, then there’s pre-nups, custody battles, broken homes, etc. This has to end! No heterosexual marriage!
JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I’m all for that. You want to redefine marriage in your own way… Lets dissolve it outright as the anarchic institution you claim it to be.

But then this was never about rights or marriage… This was all about destroying our society and foverent by involving it in our personal relationships directly.

No love without government permission!

Skywise on July 23, 2013 at 12:17 PM

libnotfree, I answered you in the headlines thread, with Yes. Let the churches, sinagogues and mosques marry whom they please.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 12:15 PM

The first same-sex couple married in NY after the law passed got divorced eight months later.

Liam on July 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM

northdallasthirty, comment more often. The site is better off when you do.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:19 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

Yet more mendacious hypocrisy regarding CCW’s from our resident irrationalist troll.

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 12:12 PM

It’s piss-pants laughable that the bigot says a law cannot be arbitrary in light of his precious savior’s tendency to enforce or refuse to enforce laws on a whim.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

That totally violates the Enlightenment principles which undergird our system of laws,

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I say BS, LIB.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

States should start passing laws now to NOT recognizing marriage from other states.

If the (so-called) progressive community wants a war of laws, lets give them one.

Skywise on July 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

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

Obviously, my statement was a bit too subtle.

Kennedy is of course not senile, which means he saw this coming and didn’t care.

He’s still a fool, though.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM

No love without government permission!

Skywise on July 23, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Don’t forget “and without destruction of church/religion”.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM

I don’t think it should be. Next!

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

Gay marriage and straight marriage are not the same thing biologically, culturally or rationally.

Are you claiming that gay marriage and straight marriage are the same thing biologically, culturally and rationally?

If you are claiming they are the same thing then you are obviously an idiot. If you agree they are not the same thing then you’ve already started articulating a rational basis for a distinction between the two in the law and the state’s interest in them.

Scalia has already thoroughly destroyed your line of thinking in his DOMA dissent. In fact Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion didn’t even pretend or bother to confront the rational legal and cultural arguments against state recognition of SSM and show them to be irrational – he just ignored them and deemed maligned them as malicious. There are in fact rational legal arguments against state recognized SSM. You may disagree with them but you cannot credibly deem them to not exist. Marriage laws are definitely not arbitrary – one can still argue against them but it’s nonsensical to claim they are arbitrary.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 12:17 PM

The HA site would then miss its biggest racist and bigot.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:22 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

Yet more mendacious hypocrisy regarding CCW’s from our resident irrationalist troll.

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 12:12 PM

It’s piss-pants laughable that the bigot says a law cannot be arbitrary in light of his precious savior’s tendency to enforce or refuse to enforce laws on a whim.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

You said it, Obama openly flouts that on a daily basis. It’s just more lying Alinskyite garbage from our resident intellectual dishonesty vendor.

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 12:22 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

Because gay marriage and straight marriage are not the same thing.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Liberals wanted individually approved state sanctioned gay marriages based on the concept of states rights, only to attack states rights.

They always fight dirty and almost always win because we believe in the rule of law and they don’t.

smoothsailing on July 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM

It’s piss-pants laughable that the bigot says a law cannot be arbitrary in light of his precious savior’s tendency to enforce or refuse to enforce laws on a whim.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Indeed. One more question for the Perfesser for Better Bigotry that he won’t answer.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM

The HA site would then miss its biggest racist and bigot.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Heh. We’ll just have to take one for the team, I suppose.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

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

I couldn’t agree more.

Heterosexuals have nearly destroyed the institution of marriage…half end in divorce, then there’s pre-nups, custody battles, broken homes, etc. This has to end! No heterosexual marriage!

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

You rant about normal people to justify your own abnormality. You project your own guilt onto others on a pretext. The essence of hypocrisy.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Scalia has already thoroughly destroyed your line of thinking in his DOMA dissent. In fact Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion didn’t even pretend or bother to confront the rational legal and cultural arguments against state recognition of SSM and show them to be irrational – he just ignored them and deemed maligned them as malicious.
gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:20 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…
libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Imagine that…

Skywise on July 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

LOL.

Just because your parents were worthless cheats doesn’t mean that the rest of ours were, or the fact that your siblings raise their children like Trayvon Martin doesn’t mean ours did.

Meanwhile, it’s interesting: organizations like Focus on the Family and others that support traditional marriage also speak out against all of the things that you mentioned.

Where are your gay-sex marriage organizations doing the same thing and stating that divorce is wrong, that broken homes are wrong, etc?

Oh, that’s right. Gay bigots like yourself don’t really care about marriage; it’s just an excuse to throw power plays and tantrums to take revenge against people you don’t like.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 12:15 PM

I guess since only half of us get it right, we should just change the rules of the game so nobody has to.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

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

Because it’s constitution says “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions”?

kcewa on July 23, 2013 at 12:24 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

So why the force? Why do I even need to know what you acts you commit in the bedroom?

They are trying to appease someone like me because they want MY, and EVERYONE’S, recognition and acceptance of their glorified roomates-4-life relation via law and financial support as if it were the traditional marriage w/ children dynamic supported for a few centuries now. Why should they care whether I or anyone approves of whatever relation they have? Oh, that’s right, social approval and benefits. But never, ever, do they ask for it or try to educate or debate it – they just demand it, and slander anyone who disagrees with it.

They have SUCH a coalition of support that they haven’t turned society over to their cause via a qualified or majority of the popular vote, about a SOCIAL INSTITUTION, and instead HAVE to pursue their goals via courts and judges who FORCE acceptance.

For the record, what a stupid, dishonest trolling b@stard such as yourself doesn’t realize is that I don’t give a rat’s ass what you do behind closed doors (what “act” is committed) between consenting adults. I had no objection to legalizing the ACT of homosexuality via Lawrence v. Texas, as ya can’t really prevent it or ban it. What causes a person to commit a hompsexual act? A whole lot of different reasons, and thus, it is NOT a race or a gender – it is NOT an immutable characteristic deserving any special regard. But ti shouldn’t be criminalized.

But I draw the line at any attempt to make the commission of an act a “protected class”, or trying to re-define a thousand year old relationship to the point of absurdity and re-write family law to cater to a popular fad. Because I know what the legal effects will be, and I find supporters of same sex marriage that blow off those concerns or demonize people that hold them dishonest and sickening.

See? I used to support the legalization of homosexual acts, but the movement’s dishonesty and “devil may care attitude” on the legal effects, and now out-right legal thuggery, lost me.

I TOLERATE their ACTS because I can’t ever stop them. But do NOT force me to approve of it, pay for it, subsidize it, teach it, normalize it, cower before it or advance it.

You don’t care what I think? Then quit trying to force me to act or think a certain way, or support what I don’t support.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 12:25 PM

That took longer than I expected.

Physics Geek on July 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM

So what we see here is that libfreeordie is demanding that society promote and subsidize something that spreads lethal diseases, especially among children, at an exponential rate.

Why? Because libfreeordie practices it and wants welfare for doing it.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I think you’re on to something here. Because the gay lifestyle poses such a greater risk to one’s health, not unlike smoking, those who wish to participate in the gay lifestyle should pay for the burden this puts on our healthcare system through higher taxes, same as smokers do. I would think that making the fee for obtaining a marriage license for a gay couple should be around $5000. That would help cover some of those extra healthcare costs.

chewmeister on July 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Death penalty, now in all 50 states.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM

As usual at HA, the Homos and the homo haters dissolve into arguments about which is the most vile…

Ignoring that this is one more unconstitutional overreach by a despotic Federal government.

No wonder this country is in the horrible shape that it is.

LegendHasIt on July 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I couldn’t agree more.

Heterosexuals have nearly destroyed the institution of marriage…half end in divorce, then there’s pre-nups, custody battles, broken homes, etc. This has to end! No heterosexual marriage!

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Divorce rates being inaccurately reported aside, I agree that marriage and family are in a crisis in the Western world, including America.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that gay marriage caused it.

Our societal acceptance of gay marriage is a larger indication of the devaluation of marriage and family – acceptance of gay marriage being a symptom of the problem rather than the cause.

All the same forces that push for gay marriage are the same ones that push societal model that views the state as the ideal parent and provider. All these same forces have also pushed for decades for the erosion of the family, religion and anything else that promotes independence of the state. Charles Murray’s newest book and Timothy Dalrymple’s book about familial and societal deterioration in the UK highlight this.

You may not approve of the current state of the family in America but you are taking political and cultural sides with those who have ushered in this new post-family era.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Mitt Romney won at least one state last fall. Ergo, he won them all and is co-president with Obama.

Christien on July 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Ignoring that this is one more unconstitutional overreach by a despotic Federal government.

LegendHasIt on July 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Unfortunately, you are correct, sir. But it has become the norm and nothing is ever done about it.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM

It’s piss-pants laughable that the bigot says a law cannot be arbitrary in light of his precious savior’s tendency to enforce or refuse to enforce laws on a whim.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

+1

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM

I suppose you believe we should toss out Title IX?

mankai on July 23, 2013 at 12:35 PM

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

Bingo!. One would necessarily entail the other.

tommyboy on July 23, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Heterosexuals have nearly destroyed the institution of marriage…

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

..so let us homos put the final nail in its coffin.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 12:35 PM

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

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Cousin marriages can produce children.

Marriages with one partner under the age of majority can produce children.

I don’t care how pregnant your gerbil is, you are not the father.

Maddie on July 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

DOMA Section 2:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, your honor.

blammm on July 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM

LegendHasIt on July 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM

+ 200 million

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:37 PM

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

bgibbs1000 on July 23, 2013 at 11:35 AM

^^^THIS.^^^

Seriously, folks, we really need to start making plans for a new America under the Gadsden flag.

Maddie on July 23, 2013 at 12:37 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

Well, I happen to live in Ohio, and the answer was that the people passed a constitutional amendment not recognizing homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with kissing cousins.

OliverB on July 23, 2013 at 12:40 PM

That totally violates the Enlightenment principles which undergird our system of laws, or do you need to freshen up on your Paine and Locke

Really? What are those principles and how were they grounded in the enlightenment? I thought that they were grounded in the English Common Law tradition.

kcewa on July 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM

On the issue of concealed carry. I happen to not support these laws, but I also don’t think there’s a full faith and credit clause argument against allowing them to cut across state lines unless a state can demonstrably prove that doing so would place citizens at greater risk to harm from firearm death. That said, like polygamy it isn’t my job to *advocate* for such a move, as concealed carry is not a civil liberties issue that I’m at all invested in.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM

There you go, folks. Rights for me, but not for thee.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Really? What are those principles and how were they grounded in the enlightenment? I thought that they were grounded in the English Common Law tradition.

kcewa on July 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM

The bigoted/racist perfesser is not very bright.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM

as concealed carry is not a civil liberties issue that I’m at all invested in.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM

How “grounded and enlightened” of you!

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM

There you go, folks. Rights for me, but not for thee.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Pretty much.

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 12:50 PM

One way or the other the libs look like they may get SSM shoved down our throats. Unfortunately that may mean that some people who might have ultimately accepted it will resent having no choice. For those people SSM will always be seen as an aberration, not a real marriage. Calling a starling an eagle doesn’t make it true

katiejane on July 23, 2013 at 12:50 PM

States issue marriage licenses as well as a host of other licenses.
This now means that by extension lawyers licensed in MD can practice in OH without passing OH’s bar and all gun licenses in state A are valid in state B. Same for doctors.

The Supremes will have to take this up as full faith and credit has never been applied to permits and licenses. Got a hunting license from TX, go bag some deer in NY and see what happens to you; drink a Big Gulp while you are at it.

OH should simply ignore the ruling and arrest the perverts.

We really do need a constitutional amendment banning fag marriages.

Bubba Redneck on July 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

On the issue of concealed carry. I happen to not support these laws, but I also don’t think there’s a full faith and credit clause argument against allowing them to cut across state lines unless a state can demonstrably prove that doing so would place citizens at greater risk to harm from firearm death. That said, like polygamy it isn’t my job to *advocate* for such a move, as concealed carry is not a civil liberties issue that I’m at all invested in.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Figures. A$$wipe trying to make legal arguments only cares about equal application of the law for issues that give him a boner. Gee, maybe if the right to bear arms were actually mentioned in the Constitution you might care…oh wait.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Really? What are those principles and how were they grounded in the enlightenment? I thought that they were grounded in the English Common Law tradition.

kcewa on July 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM

He’ll never answer that because he can’t really defend that statement. He read it on some blog somewhere and it sounded profound so he uses it every once in a while to sound like he knows what he’s talking about.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Same for doctors.

Malpractice can harm citizens. Lawyers must be familiar with local law and regulations or they can not protect the rights of their citizens. A marriage contract between two private individuals does not effect anyone else. The issues are not analagous.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

That said, like polygamy it isn’t my job to *advocate* for such a move, as concealed carry is not a civil liberties issue that I’m at all invested in.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Oh, so the side that screams “EQUALITY!1!1!1!” and “CIVIL RIGHTS!11!1!eleventy!11!1″ as much as possible on as many issues as possible isn’t really for equality or civil rights – only when it touches on special cases of equality and civil rights.

This also shows the shallowness of your “equality” and “civil rights” arguments with regard to SSM. If states not recognizing SSM really is an egregious violation of rights then so are laws against polygamy (and even you say there is no legal basis to outlaw polygamy) then aren’t you obligated as a champion of “civil rights” and “equality” to care just as much about polygamists as gay couples? Either the laws you fight against aren’t egregious or you are a lousy and hypocritical champion of equality and civil rights.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

A marriage contract between two private individuals does not effect anyone else.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

This is false. Otherwise we wouldn’t have 50 sets of divorce and child custody and support laws.

alwaysfiredup on July 23, 2013 at 1:03 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

That’s funny because gay marriage has been legal in certain places in this country for almost a decade now, and in other countries for even longer than that and the hellfire and brimstone have been highly conspicuous by their absence.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM

OH should simply ignore the ruling and arrest the perverts.

We really do need a constitutional amendment banning fag marriages.

Bubba Redneck on July 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

This is one of the “normal” people.

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM

A marriage contract between two private individuals does not effect anyone else. libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The state recognizing a marriage contract and giving tax benefits to the parties to that contract affects others, doesn’t it?

kcewa on July 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM

The entire idea that a married couple’s marriage and divorce is of no consequence to society is mind-blowing, it really is. Marriage changes your entire relationship with the state. It’s supposed to. It takes you from being an individual to being a support for the family unit. Why on earth would we want to destroy the family unit?

alwaysfiredup on July 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Malpractice can harm citizens. Lawyers must be familiar with local law and regulations or they can not protect the rights of their citizens. A marriage contract between two private individuals does not effect anyone else. The issues are not analagous.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

I wasn’t aware that medicine changes across state boundaries.

And if you think newly minted lawyers know local law with any particular competency, you are sorely mistaken. The bar exam mostly follows majority rules. 48 states (all but Louisiana (a Napoleonic Code jurisdiction) and Oregon) dedicate an entire day of their examination to the Multistate Bar Exam, a multiple choice test that is graded based on the majority rule (even if it doesn’t match state law).

blammm on July 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Which one’s the wife?

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Why on earth would we want to destroy the family unit?

alwaysfiredup on July 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Why are you bringing up the problem with our astronomical divorce rate in a gay marriage discussion?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Malpractice can harm citizens. Lawyers must be familiar with local law and regulations or they can not protect the rights of their citizens. A marriage contract between two private individuals does not effect anyone else. The issues are not analagous.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Except the purpose of state recognized marriage is similar to the other cases you cite in that the federal government and the states have attached some government benefits, taxation, adoption powers, etc to the state’s marriage license. There are no laws preventing a gay couple from having a private relationship or making private contracts. When the couple wants the state to give that private relationship/contract special consideration in benefits or taxation then it’s no longer just a private matter.

If Full Faith and Credit applies to gay marriage then it must also apply to all the ancillary things that are attached to it – like rates of taxation and access to government benefits. A single person has just as much claim to favorable taxation and government benefits as a gay couple so on what grounds will you deny them their equality? If on state offers them this “equality” then how can another state do so?

A state saying it will give inheritance tax breaks to legally recognized spouses but not to parents/children cannot be forced to offer tax breaks to parent/child inheritance because another state does. But this is precisely what you are arguing.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Which one’s the wife?

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Who cares? Let them figure that out. It’s their lives so it’s their problem (albeit a very minor one).

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Why are you bringing up the problem with our astronomical divorce rate in a gay marriage discussion?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:07 PM

That some marriages fail does not mean marriage is meaningless, just that humans are fallible.

alwaysfiredup on July 23, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but a Federal Judge can not FORCE 1 state to recognize a marriage conducted in another state. That was part of the debacle resulting from the recent SCOTUS decisions regarding same-sex marriage recently!

easyt65 on July 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM

God doesn’t work on your time. Oh…and there are plenty of ways to destroy a country.

Go find a citizen of the Roman Empire and ask him about it.

Oh, wait…

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

I give up… Nothing we say or do matters anymore, if it ever did.

Our government is basically a despotic regime at this point. They can (and will) do whatever they want without regard to anything.

I don’t see the point in getting worked up about anything anymore. I’m broken… It’s better to just focus on your life and hope the government doesn’t mess with it too much.

Liberals win.

Nineball on July 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Who are all the idiots on here that claimed that consanguineous marriage, etc. was irrelevant with respect to gay marriage?

blink on July 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

It’s bigoted to compare gay marriage to incest or pedophilia. He must not have gotten the memo.

alwaysfiredup on July 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM

A marriage contract between two private individuals does not effect anyone else. libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The state recognizing a marriage contract and giving tax benefits to the parties to that contract affects others, doesn’t it?

Can you explain why I should give tax benefits to a same sex couple?

I’m willing to give them to a heterosexual couple to see that childbirth takes place within the context of a committed life-long monogamous relationship.

kcewa on July 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM

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

Exactly. And this also invalidates the condition that was put on Utah to join the union. We need to pass polygamous marriage NOW because frankly my wife and I are kind of sick of each other! ;)

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Must have attended the same law school Obama did. No concept of STATES RIGHTS!
F the judge and the phony grades he rode onto the bench with!

Delsa on July 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM

God doesn’t work on your time. Oh…and there are plenty of ways to destroy a country.

Go find a citizen of the Roman Empire and ask him about it.

Oh, wait…

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

The way it was being talked about it sounded like an imminent threat so I was wondering just how imminent. And as a personal aside, if God held off on the hellfire and brimstone during the Holocaust but lets loose because gay marriage is legalized then those are some screwy priorities.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM

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

We have, over and over. It’s your side that keeps saying things like first-cousin and incestual marriage are completely irrelevant–YET THIS VERY JUDGE USED IT TO SUPPORT HIS/HER DECISION!!!!11!!11!1!!1!!!

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Wait until the happy gay couples have to file their tax returns jointly. Just wait until they understand there is NO benefit!

Delsa on July 23, 2013 at 1:14 PM

or do you need to freshen up on your Paine and Locke?
libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Who would have disowned you in a heartbeat.

“If some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or, as the primitive Christians were falsely accused, lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly? I answer, No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God, or in any religious meeting.” -John Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 1:14 PM

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Did I miss something? Did the Nazis win?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Can you explain why I should give tax benefits to a same sex couple?

I’m willing to give them to a heterosexual couple to see that childbirth takes place within the context of a committed life-long monogamous relationship.

kcewa on July 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM

That sounds like a dangerous line of thinking – you might actually demonstrate a state interest in straight marriage vs gay marriage and a rational legal basis for that state interest.

It should also be noted that libfreeordie is being disingenuous or at least inconsistent here: He’s admitted before that most of the states laws regarding marriage are built up around a traditional marriage where the woman forgoes economic production in favor or bearing and raising children.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM

That some marriages fail does not mean marriage is meaningless, just that humans are fallible.

alwaysfiredup on July 23, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I won’t disagree with that at all, I’m just wondering what you were trying to say in your post at 1:05PM when you asked about destroying the family unit; gay marriage won’t do that (it hasn’t in Massachusetts, Iowa, Canada, most of Western Europe or any other place it’s been legalized) so I was left to assume if you’re talking about family unit destruction that you must have been talking about divorce.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:17 PM

it isn’t my job to *advocate* for such a move, as concealed carry is not a civil liberties issue that I’m at all invested in.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM

If you argue that the law cannot be arbitrary, then you do not get to pick and choose to what issues you support Full Faith and Credit. Either the states are forced to recognize state-rendered status from other states, or they are not.

On a more general note, all the Orson Scott Card haters were ripping on him for saying that The Gays had won the Culture War with the recent SCOTUS decision, even though it only overturned the federal benefits section of DOMA. But he had said that once the government rubber-stamped state SSM laws, that FF&C would be applied to have them recognized everywhere, and so the “victory” was a fait accompli at this point.

His point was so obvious an eventuality that I never understood the controversy. I certainly didn’t expect his prediction to come true literally weeks after the original decision.

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM

We have, over and over. It’s your side that keeps saying things like first-cousin and incestual marriage are completely irrelevant–YET THIS VERY JUDGE USED IT TO SUPPORT HIS/HER DECISION!!!!11!!11!1!!1!!!

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Yeah, this will be a decision to go back to over and over again.

Apparently the favorite argument of anti-SSM “trolls” is a good legal basis to demand SSM.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM

A marriage contract between two private individuals does not effect anyone else.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

You’re supposedly a professor at a university.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Figures. A$$wipe trying to make legal arguments only cares about equal application of the law for issues that give him a boner. Gee, maybe if the right to bear arms were actually mentioned in the Constitution you might care…oh wait.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

BINGO. He completely ignores the legal consequences of the arguments/rationales that achieved the decisions he “likes”, because “the ends justify the means”.

But take that rationale and apply it forward to another issue that he “hates”, and he disregards it, or claims it doesn’t apply “just because”, making law uncertain and unequal in application.

THIS is exactly what is wrong with the legal field – laws are supposed to help provide structure and certainty to social life 9to helps us, like, not eat each other), but instead are used to try to re-write immutable facts of reality and force change, heedless of warnings, and always with disastrous results which go intentionally unacknowledged and unaddressed.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Did I miss something? Did the Nazis win?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Because the Allies eventually won that means God did it? And millions of innocents who could have been saved if God had taken the old-fashioned hands-on approach described in the Bible were just collateral damage who weren’t spared for….. some reason? So if that’s the way it works (which is not the way it worked in Sodom and Gomorrah, as was stated in the original post I responded to) then who’s marching their army in with God behind them to punish us whenever God gets around to sending them?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:21 PM

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:17 PM

It’s still early. In Scandinavia where same-sex perverts were first allowed to pretend they were married, the rate of marriage is way down.

And divorce is up in the US because of state-enforced no-fault divorce laws. In other words, state interference in the definition of marriage has caused untold heartache.

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Click my name to read.

Charlemagne on July 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM

What? Just a boring article? I thought you had one of those cool click-my-name-to-see-my-kinky-video links.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7