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 5 7

You know, this judge was working with Ed to get another 1000+ comment thread. HA has been pretty dry lately.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 1:22 PM

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:21 PM

So, you don’t believe in the concept of Good overcoming Evil?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM

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

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Except the kids. Oops, silly me, I still think marriage involves kids. My mistake.

And it also affects the society asked to give legal force to it when one side doesn’t honor it. By forcing property distribution, support, fidelity, etc. Oops, silly me, I still think (socially recognized) marriage should involve a shared, understood definition, and not by up to the individual on a case-by-case basis. My mistake.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Fortunately, the coercive power of the state won’t be used to compel private citizens and institution to obey the judge’s ruling.

goatweed on July 23, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Only a bigot wouldn’t support marriage equality – which includes polygyny and polyandry.

blink on July 23, 2013 at 1:22 PM

To say nothing of familial marriages closer than cousins, or discrimination based on age.

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM

What about requiring states to extend that FF&C to CCW’s?
When will the Federal Courts do that?

Another Drew on July 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM

why do we even have 50 states then- what’s the point? why not have just one big one? The United State of America. there you go.

Sachiko on July 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM

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

Could be worse. At least he doesn’t have an embedded video that autoplays on load and hasn’t a functioning pause/stop button.

I’m looking at you, HuffPo.

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM

You know, this judge was working with Ed Allahpundit to get another 1000+ comment thread. HA has been pretty dry lately.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM

This decision is fully in keeping with previous decisions which struck down miscegenation statutes applied to interracial couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I don’t agree with the concept of gay marriage, but once one state decides to allow it, all states are bound by the Constitution to recognize the contract that one state has allowed.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM

This is great news. All of the states that don’t have an income tax can now be used to force all the other states to give up the income tax. I have a right to my property don’t I?

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM

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

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 12:14 PM

except the Constitution

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM

The United State of America. there you go.

Sachiko on July 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM

They’ll tell you that it’s the United States OF America, not from or versus or whatever else you will.

But then, these are also the same people who tell you that the First Amendment is the freedom FROM religion, so it’s hard to peg their priorities when it comes to rigid use of prepositions.

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM

why do we even have 50 states then- what’s the point? why not have just one big one? The United State of America. there you go.

Sachiko on July 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Our Constitution made a strong federal entity — and the 14th Amendment, by making the Federal Government the guarantor of the Bill of Rights — including equal treatment under the law — made it even stronger.

We are now “the United States”, not “these United States”.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM

While you’re at it, judge, can you force NY to recognize my NC gun-carrying permit?

It IS my second amendment right, after all….

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:31 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

Patience, alchemist. Patience.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:31 PM

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

Socratease on July 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM

LOL, Thanks for clearing that up for me!

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

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

As others have pointed out, children are involved, and I for one know kids need a mother and a father. I read your comments about concealed carry. Consider investing yourself in all those rights. You never know when you may need them.

dogsoldier on July 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM

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

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 12:14 PM

except the Constitution

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM

As if separating it from its cultural context hasn’t rendered it pretty much a dead letter.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:32 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 marriage. It is a fundamental redefinition of marriage which changes certain foundations of family law i.e., children born within a marriage are automatically legally the spouses etc. A state that does not have gay marriage now has to wade into the family law boondoggle that is “gay marriage” and overhaul their whole system to accept something that is not legal in their state.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM

I think what a lot of you are missing is that Ohio has a law that specifically says it will honor marriages from all States. All other States don’t have this law, so I’m not sure it entirely falls under the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Some states have laws that accept other jurisdictions CCW permits. PA is one of States. Should every State have to accept CCW permits from every other State because PA does?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Should every State have to accept CCW permits from every other State because PA does?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Actually… yes. See second amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Libertarians overjoyed that citizens of the many states will be overruled and FORCED to accept the depravities sanctioned in other states.

astonerii on July 23, 2013 at 1:34 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

Because that rate is a result of redefinition of marriage, the “subjectification” of it. If I can up and leave a “life-long commitment” be redefining it to allow no-fault divorce after 90 days to 1 year, then I can re-define other terms of it, even unilaterally. So, no more monogamy for me, no need to cohabitate, or attend family functions, or support kids, or share property, etc. Then, when the other spouse disagrees with you on one of those topics, it results in divorce. Because you both do not have an EXTERNAL, THIRD PARTY DEFINITION of marriage to work toward to. You have your own, separate ones. No “meeting of the minds” to form the contract, as it were. Thus, when one thing goes south, no-fault allows an easy out.

Once that successful re-definition took place, changing a life-long commitment, dissolved only due to death or “fault” proven in court, to the equivalent of a 90-day one-night stand, hell, why not redefine it to include same sex? Why not redefine it to include multiple people? Why not redefine it formally to remove certain legal conditions (like monogamy)?

There is no “gay” marriage. There is no requirement to sodomize your partner in front of the license clerk. It’s same-sex marriage, which allows anyone of the same sex to marry. It doesn’t require the traditional roles or standards, or isn’t restricted by old laws against incest.

And we’ll see this collapse play out over the next 10-20 years, and we’ll survey the damage after lives are ruined. because to consider it beforehand is just “bigotry”.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Because gay marriage is not marriage.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Marriage is whatever we say it is.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:35 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?

Because gays say that it is! And if you don’t support them, you’re just a HATEFUL person!

GarandFan on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

As if separating it from its cultural context hasn’t rendered it pretty much a dead letter.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM

It’s still the law of the land, idiot. And it still guides our lawmaking, idiot. And gays are entitled to equal protection therefrom, idiot.

The only people who argue against this reality are anti-gay bigots.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

This decision is fully in keeping with previous decisions which struck down miscegenation statutes applied to interracial couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I don’t agree with the concept of gay marriage, but once one state decides to allow it, all states are bound by the Constitution to recognize the contract that one state has allowed.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM

That discrimination was based on a “protected class”, race, an immutable characteristic. Otherwise, the marriage was “one man, one woman”, no different than any other marriage. Produced kids, etc.

Are we really gonna make “sexual orientation” a protected class? Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM

except the Constitution

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM

The Constitution was not originally separated from God. That came later, and the result is not good.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Marriage is whatever we say it is.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM

No. It’s not. Words mean things.

Are you a human being, or a baboon?

Wait before you answer that.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

But then, these are also the same people who tell you that the First Amendment is the freedom FROM religion, so it’s hard to peg their priorities when it comes to rigid use of prepositions.

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM

It is indeed freedom from religion — the amendment, boiled down to its bare essentials, allows every individual the right to exercise their conscience in thought, word, and deed — until said exercise inhibits others from their rights to exercise their consciences in thought, word, and deed. It’s that boundary of just where your right damages my right which is at the heart of the current philosophical fight between liberals and conservatives.

That’s the basic 1st Amendment argument used nationwide to quash a requirement for observant Christians to purchase abortifacients or contraceptives…

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

It’s still the law of the land, idiot. And it still guides our lawmaking, idiot. And gays are entitled to equal protection therefrom, idiot.

The only people who argue against this reality are anti-gay bigots.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

You suffer from a severe lack of historical perspective on the Constitution and its interpretation, don’t you?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Are you willing to extend the full faith and credit clause along with the 14th amendment to concealed and open carry of weapons. As a citizen of Arizona I can do both without a permit. So by the reasoning you put forth for gay marriage I should have the same rights in the other states.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Sure are a lot of leftist bullies in this thread. They have nothing but insults and browbeating because we won’t give them free reign based entirely on where they stick their tongues.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

The only people who argue against this reality are anti-gay bigots.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Okay,genius. Please cite the passage where the word “marriage” is listed in the Constritution.

We’ll wait.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Libertarians overjoyed that citizens of the many states will be overruled and FORCED to accept the depravities sanctioned in other states.

astonerii on July 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM

You’re still having a problem with basic word definitions. Liberals use government force. Social conservatives want to use government force. Libertarians never ever want government force.

Why is your brain stuck on this?

John the Libertarian on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Only idiots argue by calling others idiots.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

This decision is fully in keeping with previous decisions which struck down miscegenation statutes applied to interracial couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I don’t agree with the concept of gay marriage, but once one state decides to allow it, all states are bound by the Constitution to recognize the contract that one state has allowed.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM

That discrimination was based on a “protected class”, race, an immutable characteristic. Otherwise, the marriage was “one man, one woman”, no different than any other marriage. Produced kids, etc.

Are we really gonna make “sexual orientation” a protected class? Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Of course the laws against interracial marriage also violated equal protection. States refusing to recognize same-sex marriage is not a violation of equal protection.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

So by the reasoning you put forth for gay marriage I should have the same rights in the other states.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Ditto.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Are you a human being, or a baboon?

Wait before you answer that.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Depends on which video game he’s playing at the moment.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Now we know why law is studied line by line and context means nothing. When Ohio first passed their law recognizing marriages of first cousins from Massachusetts (figures) do you really believe their intent was to recognize gay marriages?

DDay on July 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM

And gays are entitled to equal protection therefrom, idiot.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Yes, you are correct. Men who serially sodomize one another are entitled to equal protection of the law but that doesn’t mean they are guaranteed the right to redefine words and institutions so they’ll feel better about their sexual choices.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM

It’s still the law of the land, idiot. And it still guides our lawmaking, idiot. And gays are entitled to equal protection therefrom, idiot.

The only people who argue against this reality are anti-gay bigots.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Methinks you don’t know what the Fluke equal protection means.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:43 PM

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM

LOL!

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:43 PM

It’s still the law of the land, idiot. And it still guides our lawmaking, idiot. And gays are entitled to equal protection therefrom, idiot.

The only people who argue against this reality are anti-gay bigots.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Methinks you don’t know what the Fluke equal protection means.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Idiot.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Actually… yes. See second amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Fine. But that’s on Second Amendment grounds. Not on Full Faith and Credit grounds.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Because that rate is a result of redefinition of marriage, the “subjectification” of it. If I can up and leave a “life-long commitment” be redefining it to allow no-fault divorce after 90 days to 1 year, then I can re-define other terms of it, even unilaterally. So, no more monogamy for me, no need to cohabitate, or attend family functions, or support kids, or share property, etc. Then, when the other spouse disagrees with you on one of those topics, it results in divorce. Because you both do not have an EXTERNAL, THIRD PARTY DEFINITION of marriage to work toward to. You have your own, separate ones. No “meeting of the minds” to form the contract, as it were. Thus, when one thing goes south, no-fault allows an easy out.

Once that successful re-definition took place, changing a life-long commitment, dissolved only due to death or “fault” proven in court, to the equivalent of a 90-day one-night stand, hell, why not redefine it to include same sex? Why not redefine it to include multiple people? Why not redefine it formally to remove certain legal conditions (like monogamy)?

There is no “gay” marriage. There is no requirement to sodomize your partner in front of the license clerk. It’s same-sex marriage, which allows anyone of the same sex to marry. It doesn’t require the traditional roles or standards, or isn’t restricted by old laws against incest.

And we’ll see this collapse play out over the next 10-20 years, and we’ll survey the damage after lives are ruined. because to consider it beforehand is just “bigotry”.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Assuming you’re married, you must feel that your marriage is pretty worthless these days then, right? Since the institution has been completely devalued and all and is heading towards total collapse in a decade’s time.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM

The Constitution was not originally separated from God. That came later, and the result is not good.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Well at least you admit you hate America.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM

So, you don’t believe in the concept of Good overcoming Evil?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Of course I do. What I don’t believe in is the notion that the United States (or anyplace else for that matter) will be punished by a vengeful God by having fire literally rained down on them as described at Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Methinks you don’t know what the Fluke equal protection means.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:43 PM

and you’re Hugo Black

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Well at least you admit you hate America.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Anyone who doesn’t hate what America has become either hasn’t been paying attention or has actively contributed to its decline.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Yes, you are correct. Men who serially sodomize one another are entitled to equal protection of the law but that doesn’t mean they are guaranteed the right to redefine words and institutions so they’ll feel better about their sexual choices.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM

How much time do you spend thinking about gay sex?

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:47 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?

Dude!!! We passed an amendment to our constitution that does not recognize or say that gay marriage is valid in Ohio! That’s why the gay marriage advocates here in Ohio are trying to get gay marriage on the ballot again! Marriages between first cousins was not written into the amendment.. The amendment only dealt with same sex marriage

OliverB on July 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Marriage is whatever we say it is.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Yes, I have seen that in play, but it doesn’t hold water under the law. That is why I see NO reason to sanction two people doing the horizontal mambo and living together. Marriage should only be so that two people commit to raise their biological children. THAT is the ONLY stake the state has in marriage. Everyone else can get private property/partnership contracts to fill in the gaps.

Why is a private sexual relationship protected by the state? Love certainly isn’t the key since a mother and a daughter love one another, so why does sex make a difference especially since the gay argument is that PROCREATION has not place in marriage?

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Fine. But that’s on Second Amendment grounds. Not on Full Faith and Credit grounds.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Why not? I sign a contract in state A to conceal carry so it should be recognized in state B as well, yes?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Maybe the actual deviants are all these people who worship while hating whom others hump.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM

So by the reasoning you put forth for gay marriage I should have the same rights in the other states.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Ergo Constitutional grounds. The order of law is as follows in this country.

1) The Constitution rules supreme.
2) Unless the Constitution specifically allows it, the Federal government must not act.
3) Unless the Constitution specifically forbids it, the States may pass laws to regulate.

Full Faith and Credit grounds be dam#ed.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM

and you’re Hugo Black

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM

That doesn’t change the fact that you’re one of the most ignorant posters around here.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM

You’re still having a problem with basic word definitions. Liberals use government force. Social conservatives want to use government force. Libertarians never ever want government force.

Why is your brain stuck on this?

John the Libertarian on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Not true at all friend. You enjoy the use of force to be used to make other people tolerate individual choices which are degenerate. You then enjoy the use of force to be used to appropriate wealth from virtuous people to be handed to your degenerate friends so they can live their lives the way they want unhindered by the laws of nature. Then you enjoy the use of force to appropriate even more wealth from the virtuous to pay for the failed lives of these degenerate friends of yours so they can be cared for until they finally die off and go to hell.
I am sorry, where exactly is your personal outrage over social security, medicare, medicaid? Does not exist, because they benefit you.

astonerii on July 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Why not? I sign a contract in state A to conceal carry so it should be recognized in state B as well, yes?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM

The right to carry extends between states. CCW is not a right, it is a privilege.

Also, you’re an idiot.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM

CapHog sure is a hateful little bigot.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Our Constitution made a strong federal entity — and the 14th Amendment, by making the Federal Government the guarantor of the Bill of Rights — including equal treatment under the law — made it even stronger.

We are now “the United States”, not “these United States”.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM

no, i still think we are just one state. the federal government can do whatever it wants if a state does something it doesn’t like.

btw, i don’t see why some people think gay marriage is just like interracial marriage. i never understood why people think race and sex are similar to each other. race is all about physical characteristics and it’s often a tool used to pointlessly pit people against each other for no reason. it’s not that important. but sex doesn’t just affect appearance- it affects personality. males and females are different. we were purposely designed to be different, and compliment each other. whoever wants to pretend that the two sexes are interchangeable is foolish.

Sachiko on July 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM

How much time do you spend thinking about gay sex?

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Only when it’s forced into my consciousness by activist judges and homosexuals who can’t seem to get enough wrong attention because their father never gave them the right kind of attention.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM

And an ignorant one at that.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Getting married is not a right either.
Also, you’re an idiot.

astonerii on July 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Only idiots argue by calling others idiots.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

You learn that by arguing in mirror, idiot?

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Maybe the actual deviants are all these people who worship while hating whom others hump.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Nobody really cares if you bite pillows. That’s your problem. But being the disingenuous a$$ that you are you of course ignore what the real discussion is.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Assuming you’re married, you must feel that your marriage is pretty worthless these days then, right? Since the institution has been completely devalued and all and is heading towards total collapse in a decade’s time.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM

The ONLY thing my state marriage has been good for is legitimizing my children and giving my husband automatic parental rights to his bio kids born within a marriage. The piece of paper that is marriage has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my actual marriage or my commitment. In fact, if the state came to me and said I couldn’t be married tomorrow- I would find it funny. I don’t need state sanction to approve my “marriage.”

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Why not? I sign a contract in state A to conceal carry so it should be recognized in state B as well, yes?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Because it’s against the law. It’s just that simple. You can’t because it’s against the law.

Are you asking if it should be against the law? I dunno. I think it’s weird that lawyers can only practice law in certain states. I think it’s less weird that PA allows people to drill in certain areas, and simply because they can drill in PA, they can’t just roll into Jersey and start drilling there.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Sounds like someone’s going to pop a gasket soon.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Only when it’s forced into my consciousness by activist judges and homosexuals who can’t seem to get enough wrong attention because their father never gave them the right kind of attention.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Yes, they “forced” their the graphic-images of di**s into your brain.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Of course the laws against interracial marriage also violated equal protection. States refusing to recognize same-sex marriage is not a violation of equal protection.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Yep. Because the laws affected “similarly situated” people/groups. Equal protection also uses “protected classes” to vary the test applied toa “discriminatory” law, i.e. race and gender are harder to discriminate against than any other “classification” (age, etc.).

ASIDE from race, mixed race couples were the same as same-race couples in orientation, practice and deed. RACE was the only real distinction, and why it was unconstitutional. There may be cultural issues involved, but those aren’t limited or solved just with race classifications.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class. So, anyone that practices homosexuality is engaging in a legal act, like playing a sport. That’s it. You may play football, and I may play hockey, but you don’t receive special privileges for doing so. Marriage wasn’t created and legalized to punish gays and rewards straights, otherwise it also punishes singles – it was created to provide a social support structure for kids, i.e. a family.

If gays want sexual orientation to be a protected class they’d better 1) explain in detail what causes homosexuality IN ALL DOCUMENTED CASES and 2) in turn separate their orientation from those who claim that they are attracted to kids/dogs/corpses, etc. from birth. Otherwise, the whole deviant lot comes along for the ride because we can’t discriminate based on orientation.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

CCW is not a right, it is a privilege.

Also, you’re an idiot.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM

So is marriage or it wouldn’t require a license. Licenses are EXCLUSIONARY by nature.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

The right to carry extends between states. CCW is not a right, it is a privilege.

Also, you’re an idiot.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM

The very existence of the CCW laws is an affront to the 2nd amendment. The Federal Government and the States do not have the right to regulate what is a natural law. See John Locke. If you wish to delve into the matter further, read the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton has a few interesting tidbits on the subject.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Yes, I have seen that in play, but it doesn’t hold water under the law. That is why I see NO reason to sanction two people doing the horizontal mambo and living together. Marriage should only be so that two people commit to raise their biological children. THAT is the ONLY stake the state has in marriage. Everyone else can get private property/partnership contracts to fill in the gaps.

Why is a private sexual relationship protected by the state? Love certainly isn’t the key since a mother and a daughter love one another, so why does sex make a difference especially since the gay argument is that PROCREATION has not place in marriage?

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM

This is an argument that’s already been lost though. You’re arguing from a position that hasn’t been true for a long, long time in America. Hundreds of years.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Only when it’s forced into my consciousness by activist judges and homosexuals who can’t seem to get enough wrong attention because their father never gave them the right kind of attention.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM

You are henceforth known to me as “likes it rough.”

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

The right to carry extends between states.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Go carry in New York city without a permit. I dare you.

CCW is not a right, it is a privilege.

You do realize there is more than one amendment to the Constitution, right?

Also, you’re an idiot.

Coming from you I’ll take that as a compliment.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Hey, at least let us be honest here. When one speaks of “gay rights” he’s always talking about deviant sexual practices, not inherent human political rights, ok?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:54 PM

The ONLY thing my state marriage has been good for is legitimizing my children and giving my husband automatic parental rights to his bio kids born within a marriage. The piece of paper that is marriage has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my actual marriage or my commitment. In fact, if the state came to me and said I couldn’t be married tomorrow- I would find it funny. I don’t need state sanction to approve my “marriage.”

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM

But, apparently, that same level of commitment doesn’t exist in the gay community unless they can force churches, ministers, bakeries, reception halls, photographers, etc. to give legal and moral fealty to their desires.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:55 PM

You are henceforth known to me as “likes it rough.”

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

LOL!

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:55 PM

You are henceforth known to me as “likes it rough.”

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I’m sure that gives you a thrill but, take the deviant sexual aspect away from the debate, and the issue disappears, doesn’t it?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

That discrimination was based on a “protected class”, race, an immutable characteristic. Otherwise, the marriage was “one man, one woman”, no different than any other marriage. Produced kids, etc.

Are we really gonna make “sexual orientation” a protected class? Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Exactly. It’s all part of the liberal cultural and legal push to erase all sorts of biological and cultural distinctions. Men and women are not the same. Gay couplings are not the same as straight couplings. Children deserve both a mother and a father.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I own more guns than I’ve had birthdays. I wish what you said held weight. It doesn’t.

CCW is not a right. If it was why would local agencies issue permits and not state or feds?

Nice tri-corner hat though.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

You are henceforth known to me as “likes it rough.”

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

LOL!

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I don’t think he’s quite got the hang of the whole “pick up line” thing.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Yes, I have seen that in play, but it doesn’t hold water under the law. That is why I see NO reason to sanction two people doing the horizontal mambo and living together. Marriage should only be so that two people commit to raise their biological children. THAT is the ONLY stake the state has in marriage. Everyone else can get private property/partnership contracts to fill in the gaps.

Why is a private sexual relationship protected by the state? Love certainly isn’t the key since a mother and a daughter love one another, so why does sex make a difference especially since the gay argument is that PROCREATION has not place in marriage?

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM

+1

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

take the deviant sexual aspect away from the debate…

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Then you would not have anything to fantasize about while pretending not to be gay-curious.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

This is an argument that’s already been lost though. You’re arguing from a position that hasn’t been true for a long, long time in America. Hundreds of years.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I realize that hence why despite as many times as you say it is; gay marriage is not nor will ever be marriage. It may be a partnership or a relationship, but not marriage, because if marriage is subjective and/or a matter of opinion- then it can be anything. So I say bring on the mother/daughter, bigamy combos. Since it means nothing let it be everything. And when the state subsidizes EVERY private relationship under the sun with bennies that run out; no “pro-gay marriage” conservatives or liberals better cry when those same bennies run dry.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Because it’s against the law. It’s just that simple. You can’t because it’s against the law.

Are you asking if it should be against the law? I dunno. I think it’s weird that lawyers can only practice law in certain states. I think it’s less weird that PA allows people to drill in certain areas, and simply because they can drill in PA, they can’t just roll into Jersey and start drilling there.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:52 PM

And same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in Ohio either. Yet if Ohio is forced to recognize the marriage contract of another state why can we not force New York to recognize the CCW contract of Michigan?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

And, you will be known as “Pro-Pederasty”.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Nice tri-corner hat though.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Thanks CH.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I don’t agree with the concept of gay marriage, but once one state decides to allow it, all states are bound by the Constitution to recognize the contract that one state has allowed.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Why does Maryland law trump Ohio law?

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Don’t feed the trolls, folks.

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM

It’s still the law of the land, idiot. And it still guides our lawmaking, idiot. And gays are entitled to equal protection therefrom, idiot. The only people who argue against this reality are anti-gay bigots.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Laws?!? LAWS?!?!?? Hahahaha! The laws are whatever some leftist thinks they are. There aren’t any laws anymore. This is a nation of politicians, feelings, and public opinion and polls. There’s no law anymore. Look no further than Eric Holder and the IRS scandals to prove it.

Harbingeing on July 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM

The ONLY thing my state marriage has been good for is legitimizing my children and giving my husband automatic parental rights to his bio kids born within a marriage. The piece of paper that is marriage has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my actual marriage or my commitment. In fact, if the state came to me and said I couldn’t be married tomorrow- I would find it funny. I don’t need state sanction to approve my “marriage.”

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM

That’s my attitude as well.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM

He couldn’t think his way out of a shredded paper bag that is in the last stages of decomposition.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM

The pressure’s building. One of the trolls is about to pop. It’s only a matter of time.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Can’t deal with it rationally, can you? Have to drag it into the mud where you feel more comfortable, right?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Hey, at least let us be honest here. When one speaks thinks of “gay rights” he’s always talking about deviant sexual practices, not inherent human political rights, ok?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 1:54 PM

When you think of gay anything, you think about gay sex. When you think about sex you think about gay sex as a threat to your sexuality.

Interesting that your sex life is so full of gay sex fantasies “forced” images of ****s.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Pass the popcorn. Warm up the Ban Hammer.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7