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 6 7

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

+ 1000

That’s my attitude as well.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM

That’s because “marriage” has suddenly become about bennies and less about commitment. If people cared more about the commitment and less about the bennies; it wouldn’t be in the state it is in now.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I’m still waiting for a judge to tell my state to allow a Colorado resident can smoke pot here…..

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:01 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

Actually, I do. Just as I feel my college and law degrees have become devalued. And my property. And our currency.

Marriage still maters to me, but socially it’s looked down on, and is treated more as a “accessory dog” like Hilton’s Tinkerbell for those that want attention.

Hey, if I worked for 10 years to become a doctor, and then turned around and discovered the title was handed to anyone that graduates middle school so they don’t feel “slighted or discriminated against”, you’re right, I would feel that my degree, my status is pretty worthless. Ask any immigrant that came here legally and watches a wall-jumper get handed to them what they themselves earned.

If I’m at a dinner party and assert my wife and I are committed and monogamous, and another married couple brag that they “swing” and aren’t even sure if “their” kid is actually both theirs, then I guess I have no right to feel or assert that my marriage is “better”, since marriages are all socially subjective now. I’m “sacrificing” for a greater good that society no longer recognizes. My wife may appreciate it, and my kids, but I can’t even advertise my method is better, as it’s all subjective. On a personal level, I may be fulfilled, but on a societal level, my wife and I would be out-of-touch suckers stuck in the 50′s.

Right?

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 2:02 PM

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

The ability to bear arms isn’t a right?
Then what makes the ability to get married a right?
The right to keep and bear arms is written into the constitution.
The constitution says nothing about marriage.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 2:03 PM

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

You should have stopped at just being merely wrong.

“The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness,
and the end of his talk is wicked madness.”
Ecclesiastes 10 :13

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Right on.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:04 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

For my ignorant piggy friend…

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is a RIGHT, not a privilege, as contained in the clear letter of the LAW.

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

If I’m at a dinner party and assert my wife and I are committed and monogamous, and another married couple brag that they “swing” and aren’t even sure if “their” kid is actually both theirs, then I guess I have no right to feel or assert that my marriage is “better”, since marriages are all socially subjective now. I’m “sacrificing” for a greater good that society no longer recognizes. My wife may appreciate it, and my kids, but I can’t even advertise my method is better, as it’s all subjective. On a personal level, I may be fulfilled, but on a societal level, my wife and I would be out-of-touch suckers stuck in the 50′s.

Right?

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I have been married almost 22 years. I work in a family law office and handle divorces everyday. Some days I am convinced that I AM the weird one, since both my husband and I are still on our first marriage raising our bio children we have had together AFTER marriage.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 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

Yes, because discriminating against two guys who want to get married is rational. Basing your logic on OT Bible quotes when you’re a Christian is even more rational.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 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

Yes they are dork. They are licenses awarded by the state based on the state’s requirements and are acts that make sovereign states sovereign. These are certificates issued by the state acknowledging that the state sanctions the behavior or lifestyle choice. Naturopaths in one state may not be able to practice in others; some may require board certification in some areas etc.

If state A does not wish to sanction the lifestyle choice of two fags playing house it doesn’t have to for the same reasons it need not sanction doctors who get their MDs from Bolivia or hunting permits from AK.

As for fags, you just made the argument for polygamy. Those Mormons in Utah should be able to have x wives. Each is a separate marriage contract after all. Why not.

Bubba Redneck on July 23, 2013 at 2:06 PM

It is a RIGHT, not a privilege, as contained in the clear letter of the LAW.

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

…as I was saying.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:06 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.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Except that there is a difference. What you refer to is a law. The banning of homosexual marriage is written into the state constitution. The state constitution supersedes state law.

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

It’s quite rational. You’re running off at the mouth, accusing people of being closeted gays, whom you don’t even know, is paranoid, bordering on psychotic. How old are you, 14?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Yes, because discriminating against two FOUR guys who want to get married is rational. Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

FIFY

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:09 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

Then explain to me the thought process of social “conservatives” that legalizing gay marriage has a depreciating effect on the institution as a whole. Letting gays marry would not in any way frustrate your ability to legitimize your children or give your husband automatic parental rights. I’m assuming by “actual marriage” that you’re referring to matrimony in a religious sense. Are you afraid that the government recognizing same-sex marriage will have a cascade effect that forces God to recognize it too? If not, then you have nothing short of naked, obvious bigotry to motivate your opposition to same-sex marriage.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

i’m starting to think the government should just get out of marriage. i’m tired of trying to convince people that males and females were purposely designed to be different and compliment each other. if people are too hard-headed to accept that then fine. and what i’m also tired of is people trying to convince me to ignore God’s design for marriage and accept some human’s idea of marriage as superior to God’s design. that’s what gay marriage supporters want me to do: just ignore what God has already designed and be forced to agree with an incorrect definition of marriage.

so i guess that both sides should just give up trying to convince the other side. and marriages can be recognized privately by churches, OR other private groups that do all kinds of marriage! if someone wants to marry their dog then cool. whatever. “love is love” right? “equality” right?

and yet i know that the gay marriage side is not going to give up trying to convince traditional marriage supporters, and trying to get the government on their side. so i guess that means we can’t give up either. this is so annoying! if there were some way for the government to “get out of marriage” then i’m for it.

Sachiko on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

It is a RIGHT, not a privilege, as contained in the clear letter of the LAW.

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Selective outrage.

Read my entire comment or FOAD.

I wish your analysis held water. It doesn’t. Arguing that it does simply makes you well, you. If CCW was a right I would not spend so much money on ski snowboard-jackets in this weather.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

You are not the weird one. You work predisposes you to seeing the failed side of marriage yet 8+ out of 10 marriages are still intact.
In my family all of us are in long term, first marriages. Older, sister, younger sister and I are all in the 40+ year mark of our marriages. Younger brother is in the 25 year mark of his first marriage. On my wife’s side her parents made 50+ years prior to the death of her mom. Her older sister has been married 2 months longer than us and her younger sister is in the mid 30′s of her first marriage. My parent were headed to 50 years when my dad died. Marriage is doing fine the problem is like the inner city black issue. That’s all that is publicized yet 70% of blacks are middle class and don’t cause the inner city issues

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 2:13 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

Perhaps you need to explain that concept to your Tyrant in Chief who arbitrarily suspends laws (Obamacare waivers, which are not in the law) and refuses to enforce laws (deportation of illegal aliens) and refuses to defend laws (DOMA in the SC). Why is he able to arbitrarily bend, ignore and break the law and we can’t? Are we a nation of laws or not? Why should I have to obey the laws when someone else is given a pass on them?

Answer me that princess.

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Pass the popcorn. Warm up the Ban Hammer.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM

TROLLNIR!!

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

I have been married almost 22 years. I work in a family law office and handle divorces everyday. Some days I am convinced that I AM the weird one, since both my husband and I are still on our first marriage raising our bio children we have had together AFTER marriage.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Good lord, you’re a “dodo” as I call it, a rare specimen indeed. Worthy of some govt. protection, no? LOL.

As a lawyer that (in the past) handled divorces/custody, I agree. That was depressing work, like working in a morgue. Or making sausage.

I grew up in a similar, stable family, and the friends I have that didn’t have PROBLEMS. Some people simply aren’t cut out for that commitment. And that’s ok, stay single. But others insist on trying to run that commitment down or fundamentally change it so they and their marriage-compatible practices become a part of it, because they can’t achieve it or be successful at it. And others just use it as a status symbol, to feel accepted. Neither of which are reasons to be married.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Then explain to me the thought process of social “conservatives” that legalizing gay marriage has a depreciating effect on the institution as a whole. Letting gays marry would not in any way frustrate your ability to legitimize your children or give your husband automatic parental rights. I’m assuming by “actual marriage” that you’re referring to matrimony in a religious sense. Are you afraid that the government recognizing same-sex marriage will have a cascade effect that forces God to recognize it too? If not, then you have nothing short of naked, obvious bigotry to motivate your opposition to same-sex marriage.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I can’t. Anymore than I can explain the rationale of those who say that gay marriage WON’T effect anyone else. Do I think it devalues marriage? No, I think it undefines it. I also think heteros and the state have had a hand in doing that long before gay marriage. I see gay marriage as a way for progressives to gain more power over the populace. By taking parenting out of a marriage, by saying a mom or a dad is expendable, and many other reasons I have stated ad nas– on these boards. There are many LEGAL reasons that I see that gay marriage devalues freedom like creating another perpetual victim class etc., but as for effecting my relationship with my husband– Nah

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

FIFY

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM

You honestly think the polygamy laws will go down when the gay marriage bans do, melle?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Then explain to me the thought process of social “conservatives” that legalizing gay marriage has a depreciating effect on the institution as a whole. Letting gays marry would not in any way frustrate your ability to legitimize your children or give your husband automatic parental rights. I’m assuming by “actual marriage” that you’re referring to matrimony in a religious sense. Are you afraid that the government recognizing same-sex marriage will have a cascade effect that forces God to recognize it too? If not, then you have nothing short of naked, obvious bigotry to motivate your opposition to same-sex marriage.
Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

The state doesn’t have an interest in gay couplings like it does in straight couplings.

If “it does no harm so it should be actively supported by government” then on what basis are any of the ancillary legal benefits of marriage be denied to anyone or any coupling arrangement?

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Selective outrage.

Read my entire comment or FOAD.

I wish your analysis held water. It doesn’t. Arguing that it does simply makes you well, you. If CCW was a right I would not spend so much money on ski snowboard-jackets in this weather.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Hilarious.

On the one hand you argue same-sex marriage is a right despite the fact that the vast majority of states refuse to recognize it, and it is not mentioned in the Constitution. On the other you claim CCW is a privilege despite a majority of states being shall issue, and the right to bear arms being explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Please, chase your tail some more. It’s rather entertaining.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Conservatives need to ask themselves is it worth staying in this political union. I know you all are in love with “America” but does this political union result in you being better off? For the last 100 years conservatives have been dragged into all of the Left’s “progress”. Isn’t it time to say bye bye to this union? Shouldn’t we start using the “s” word as the solution to our problems?

antifederalist on July 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM

This must be what it was like watching Southern Democrats’ heads explode over civil-rights for Black-Americans.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM

You honestly think the polygamy laws will go down when the gay marriage bans do, melle?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Yes, I think they have to. I think when a state can no longer regulate marriage, and Lawrence i.e., due process under privacy becomes the prevailing wisdom of legalizing gay marriage– then that has to legally apply to consensual polygamy. It is the legal evolution, and if you deny it; then you are doing so based on morals and NOT legality.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Selective outrage.

Read my entire comment or FOAD.

I wish your analysis held water. It doesn’t. Arguing that it does simply makes you well, you. If CCW was a right I would not spend so much money on ski snowboard-jackets in this weather.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I did read your entire ignorant rant. CCW is a right, just like OPEN CARRY. And I pointed to the Law, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I wish your analysis held water. It doesn’t. Arguing that it does simply makes you well, you. If CCW was a right I would not spend so much money on ski snowboard-jackets in this weather.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

His analysis DOES hold water. As I stated before, the federal and state governments willfully ignore the second amendment, while exercising complete prejudicial treatment of some rights over others, with total disregard to the restraints placed upon the federal government, while depriving the states the right to pass laws which the Constitution allows.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM

CapHog’s showing more projection than a 15-screen multiplex.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM

antifederalist on July 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Dante…is that you?

Why do you go find Gilligan’s Island…and set up your own kingdom?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I wish your analysis held water. It doesn’t. Arguing that it does simply makes you well, you. If CCW was a right I would not spend so much money on ski snowboard-jackets in this weather.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM

How does the Constitution address the mode of bearing arms?

Open carry? Lanyard? Holster? Truck rack? Safety(s)? Loaded or not? Single shot/unlimited feed system?

Let me save you some time: It doesn’t.

Using your logic, since the Constitution doesn’t specify how you may bear arms, please explain the methods which are acceptable (meaning ‘Constitutional’) for bearing arms.

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Homosexuality is a sexual preference. Not a race.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM

If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy.

ahem

Chubbs65 on July 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM

antifederalist on July 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Dante…is that you?

Why do you go find Gilligan’s Island…and set up your own kingdom?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Nah. antifed is nowhere near as in love with himself as Dante was. I was gonna say it was his reflection, but even that’s unlikely.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Homosexuality is a sexual preference. Not a race.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Now you’re just confusing him.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 2:20 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

This!

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM
You are correct. this is why I brought this up.

dogsoldier on July 23, 2013 at 2:21 PM

You honestly think the polygamy laws will go down when the gay marriage bans do, melle?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

I do. The exact same legal arguments used for gay marriage will be used for polygamy.

Some “light” reading for you from Eugene Volokh.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:21 PM

This must be what it was like watching Southern Democrats’ heads explode over civil-rights for Black-Americans.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Getting too hot for you?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Right on.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I have observed the current troll being rude and tossing insults in other threads. That’s their schtick.

dogsoldier on July 23, 2013 at 2:23 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

Sam-sex marriage is legally recognized in Ohio because Ohioans drafted a law that says that they’re recognize legal marriages in other states. They aren’t forced to recognize the marriage contract of another state, they chose to do so.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Which is why I am glad I live in one of the states that has come to recognize that. I can open or concealed carry without a permit.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Sam-sex marriage is legally recognized in Ohio because Ohioans drafted a law that says that they’re recognize legal marriages in other states. They aren’t forced to recognize the marriage contract of another state, they chose to do so.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM

So Ohio law supersedes the Ohio constitution?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:25 PM

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I agree.

dogsoldier on July 23, 2013 at 2:25 PM

The Full Faith & Credit clause has a public policy exception.

Resist We Much on July 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM

You honestly think the polygamy laws will go down when the gay marriage bans do, melle?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Why wouldn’t they. The same “logic” used to overturn ssm laws applies to all forms of plural relationships.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Which is why I am glad I live in one of the states that has come to recognize that. I can open or concealed carry without a permit.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I can open carry here, but CCW requires a blasted permit. That may change soon, though, if our current legislature decides to address it. :)

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I can’t. Anymore than I can explain the rationale of those who say that gay marriage WON’T effect anyone else. Do I think it devalues marriage? No, I think it undefines it.

It undefines a legal institution whose only real purpose, in your own words, is to legitimize your children and grant automatic recognition to your husband as their father? Come now, that’s just stupid, unless you can propose a plausible chain of events that starts with gays being allowed to marry and ends with children born within a legal marriage no longer being recognized as legitimate.

There are many LEGAL reasons that I see that gay marriage devalues freedom like creating another perpetual victim class etc., but as for effecting my relationship with my husband– Nah

Perpetual victim class? Really? Gays would actually have a much harder time claiming to be members of a victimized class if, in the span of a few decades, they went from homosexual behavior being outright banned in a number of states to having same-sex marriage recognized in most.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 2:27 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

I’ve been married 23 years to my one-and-only. I bet most of the posters here could top that.

I’d be interested to see a breakdown of that 50% which end in divorce (which is a myth, by the way, simply taking the number of divorces in a year and dividing by the number of marriages). How many of them are social conservatives who hold marriage sacred, and how many of them were brainwashed, immature liberals? That might tell us a whole lot more about the institution of marriage than your false statistics and false equivalencies.

Maddie on July 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Except that there is a difference. What you refer to is a law. The banning of homosexual marriage is written into the state constitution. The state constitution supersedes state law.

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 2:08 PM

The ban is unconstitutional. You can’t write a law that says “All Ohioans can dance until midnight”, and then amend the constitution to say “Except people from Cincinnati”.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Methinks this forcing of one states laws on another wouldn’t play quite so well if they were wanting to push Texas gun laws on say, New York or California.

catmman on July 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM

This must be what it was like watching Southern Democrats’ heads explode over civil-rights for Black-Americans.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Dems were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.

Thanks for pointing that out.

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM

You honestly think the polygamy laws will go down when the gay marriage bans do, melle?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

I do. The exact same legal arguments used for gay marriage will be used for polygamy.

Some “light” reading for you from Eugene Volokh.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:21 PM

This is what happens when you make it easier for pets to inherit than gay partners. Evil grievance mongers take things like this as a license to destroy religious liberty with “gay marriage.” Anyone delusional to think that creeps like Socialist Pig and slavenowandie want a -full- and -fair- door of separation of church and state are living in a delusional dreamworld. The State will always have the right to crush the Church in their little slave-world dystopia.

ebrown2 on July 23, 2013 at 2:29 PM

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

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I agree. It’d just be nice if ND30 made less use of the “bigot” term. I know it’s used somewhat in jest against the libs constant use of it–but it still gets annoying.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Does this mean I can legally shoot a perp trying to steal my car because it is legal to do so in Texas or troll the high schools for dates because in New York the legal age of consent is 16 while smoking a joint because that’s legal in Colorado while practicing law even though I only passed the bar in Michigan and pack an AR-15 fully loaded with a bayonet in public because the Mississippi legislature said I could.
Yeah baby!!!

Bubba Redneck on July 23, 2013 at 2:29 PM

So Ohio law supersedes the Ohio constitution?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:25 PM

The judge ruled that the ‘recognizing’ part of the Constitutional amendment was invalid.

That’s what judges do.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:31 PM

The ban is unconstitutional. You can’t write a law that says “All Ohioans can dance until midnight”, and then amend the constitution to say “Except people from Cincinnati”.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM

From? Did you mean “in” instead? Being “from” somewhere implies that I am no longer there.

As written, your law would ban dancing for anyone, anywhere, who used to be “in” Cincinnati and is not currently.

Words have meaning.

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 2:32 PM

The ban is unconstitutional. You can’t write a law that says “All Ohioans can dance until midnight”, and then amend the constitution to say “Except people from Cincinnati”.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Where in the US Constitution is it illegal to ban homosexual marriage? It isn’t specifically addressed that the STATES can’t do it. While the Federal government is thus restricted by its very absence, the absence itself cedes that right to the states.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:32 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

Hey libsucker, if it’s really a contract, then why can’t I be in more than one? I can certainly enter more than one auto lease contract.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 2:32 PM

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:31 PM

So you worship the judges. Judges in the 1990′s said bans on sodomy were fine then judges in 00′s changed there mind. Judges in the 1860′s said that owning slaves were fine and we had to fight a war and pass a constitutional amendment to overrule that. Judges are not infallible they make rulings based on their worldviews and presuppositions. We are then forced to live with those rulings right or wrong.

chemman on July 23, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Come now, that’s just stupid, unless you can propose a plausible chain of events that starts with gays being allowed to marry and ends with children born within a legal marriage no longer being recognized as legitimate.

Yes, the evolution of gay marriage is conflicting with bio parents rights. In Massachusetts, a judge recently ruled that the state has to recognize children born in the marriage as automatically the gay spouses. First, that defies common sense and biology and second it completely takes away the rights of an ACTUAL BIO parent who the state knows to exist.

The reason biological children are automatically recognized as the hetero marriage spouses is because there is a biological PROBABILITY that that child is the spouses. Most states allow for exceptions if the spouse has an affair etc.

Extending this provision to gay couples when there is no logical or biological reasoning to do so conflicts with biological parental rights. So the evolution of this(so that gays don’t scream unequal protection) will be that ALL children born within a marriage will have to be legitimized via the court system. A simple marriage certificate will no longer do it.

This is what I am talking about when I say “perpetual victim class.” Even common sense legal principles become a “discrimination” court case.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM

If I’m at a dinner party and assert my wife and I are committed and monogamous, and another married couple brag that they “swing” and aren’t even sure if “their” kid is actually both theirs, then I guess I have no right to feel or assert that my marriage is “better”, since marriages are all socially subjective now. I’m “sacrificing” for a greater good that society no longer recognizes. My wife may appreciate it, and my kids, but I can’t even advertise my method is better, as it’s all subjective. On a personal level, I may be fulfilled, but on a societal level, my wife and I would be out-of-touch suckers stuck in the 50′s.

Right?

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Which group was desperate for public recognition and applause again”? Gays or heterosexuals? Because this is so monumentally whiny, I can not take it.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM

The judge ruled that the ‘recognizing’ part of the Constitutional amendment was invalid.

That’s what judges do.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Yes, many judges make wrongheaded rulings, but no law ever supersedes a constitution within a jurisdiction. And not even activist judges are stupid enough to pull a stunt like that. This judge is using the federal constitution to supersede the Ohio constitution, not Ohio law. So now we are back to our original argument about recognizing contracts and equal application of the law. If the federal constitution can somehow force Ohio to recognize the marriage contract of another state, why can’t a CCW permit from one state be forcibly recognized in another?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Yes, I think they have to. I think when a state can no longer regulate marriage, and Lawrence i.e., due process under privacy becomes the prevailing wisdom of legalizing gay marriage– then that has to legally apply to consensual polygamy. It is the legal evolution, and if you deny it; then you are doing so based on morals and NOT legality.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Interestingly, Loving was unanimous at SCOTUS but that wasn’t the first time a court struck down a law forbidding interracial marriage. The first court to do it was the California Supreme Court, they did so by a 4-3 split and the dissent in that case argued that the legal reasoning behind the anti-miscegenation laws was the same as the laws against incest and polygamy so that once interracial marriage was legalized then those were right around the corner. That was in 1948.

But to the point, you can legalize gay marriage and keep incest and polygamy illegal pretty easily. Gay marriage does nothing to harm existing families, and in fact it promotes the formation of new ones. Polygamy and incest both by their very definition occur within an existing family (so the state doesn’t get the benefit of the formation of a new family unit that it does get with gay marriage) and alters it. That’s a huge distinction, and one any court should be able to easily recognize. The polygamy laws will stand.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Which group was desperate for public recognition and applause again”? Gays or heterosexuals? Because this is so monumentally whiny, I can not take it.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM

So leave. Go wallow in imagined misery with your bigoted perfesser buddies.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM

The state doesn’t have an interest in gay couplings like it does in straight couplings.

If “it does no harm so it should be actively supported by government” then on what basis are any of the ancillary legal benefits of marriage be denied to anyone or any coupling arrangement?

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM

You’ve got things backwards. The state doesn’t need to have an interest in gay couplings (same-sex marriage). It needs to demonstrate a valid reason for not allowing them.

And this is where a lot of socons trip up by stupidly citing various supposed public health risks caused by homosexuality, while ignoring the fact that (A) those supposed health risks are going to happen regardless of gay marriage, and (B) there is a wealth of research demonstrating that married people take better care of themselves. It actually undermines their own argument when they rant like bigoted morons about how dangerous homosexuality is, because containing the dangers of homosexuality in hopefully monogamous relationships would actually be the more rational step to take from a public health perspective.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Where in the US Constitution is it illegal to ban homosexual marriage? It isn’t specifically addressed that the STATES can’t do it. While the Federal government is thus restricted by its very absence, the absence itself cedes that right to the states.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:32 PM

And the State of Ohio said they there will recognize all legal marriages from other states. They explicitly said this.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM

From? Did you mean “in” instead? Being “from” somewhere implies that I am no longer there.

As written, your law would ban dancing for anyone, anywhere, who used to be “in” Cincinnati and is not currently.

Words have meaning.

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Actually, “from” doesn’t speak to where a person currently is at all. I am from Pennsylvania. I still am in Pennsylvania, but I’m from here as well.

And screw people from Cincinnati. They should never get to dance.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM

And the State of Ohio said they there will recognize all legal marriages from other states. They explicitly said this.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Okay, so why need a judge to pass this ruling? If the State of Ohio is cool with it – like you say – why the publicity stunt that flies in the face of the order of law?

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:44 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

The Ohio Constitution says only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized as valid. I’d say that trumps any mere law.

But nice try, I guess.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 2:44 PM

If the legal logic of this ruling is applied that Ohio must recognize the gay marriage of another state, doesn’t it also hold true that a state must accept a gun permit from the state it was issued without that permit holder being required to seek another permit? Doesn’t equal protection apply also?

JimGeb on July 23, 2013 at 2:45 PM

But to the point, you can legalize gay marriage and keep incest and polygamy illegal pretty easily. Gay marriage does nothing to harm existing families, and in fact it promotes the formation of new ones. Polygamy and incest both by their very definition occur within an existing family (so the state doesn’t get the benefit of the formation of a new family unit that it does get with gay marriage) and alters it. That’s a huge distinction, and one any court should be able to easily recognize. The polygamy laws will stand.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Ahh, but that has not been the argument for gay marriage. There is actually NO benefit for the state to recognize gay marriage. The argument has been that gay marriage doesn’t harm the state so therefore the state has no basis to deny. If procreation is no longer the basis for marriage, then there is no harm to incest- there fore the state has no rational basis to deny. If restricting gay marriage is discriminatory then so is polygamy for bisexuals. The legal arguments extend and make themselves.

Biracial relationships were specifically illegal i.e, people went to jail for marriage and children. The state had an interest in the children from the relationships. Since procreation is no longer and issue; then that argument cannot be used against polygamy and incest.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM

The state doesn’t have an interest in gay couplings like it does in straight couplings.
If “it does no harm so it should be actively supported by government” then on what basis are any of the ancillary legal benefits of marriage be denied to anyone or any coupling arrangement?
gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM
You’ve got things backwards. The state doesn’t need to have an interest in gay couplings (same-sex marriage). It needs to demonstrate a valid reason for not allowing them.
And this is where a lot of socons trip up by stupidly citing various supposed public health risks caused by homosexuality, while ignoring the fact that (A) those supposed health risks are going to happen regardless of gay marriage, and (B) there is a wealth of research demonstrating that married people take better care of themselves. It actually undermines their own argument when they rant like bigoted morons about how dangerous homosexuality is, because containing the dangers of homosexuality in hopefully monogamous relationships would actually be the more rational step to take from a public health perspective.
Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Uh, no I don’t have things backwards and you’re pretending I’ve made arguments I haven’t actually made while completely ignoring the ones I have.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Yes, many judges make wrongheaded rulings, but no law ever supersedes a constitution within a jurisdiction. And not even activist judges are stupid enough to pull a stunt like that. This judge is using the federal constitution to supersede the Ohio constitution, not Ohio law. So now we are back to our original argument about recognizing contracts and equal application of the law. If the federal constitution can somehow force Ohio to recognize the marriage contract of another state, why can’t a CCW permit from one state be forcibly recognized in another?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM

“can somehow force”

It’s not forcing Ohio to recognize the marriage contract of another state. Ohio made a law that it will honer the marriage contract of another state.

If a state made a law that said it would honor the CCW permits of another state, and then amended their constitution so as to not recognize the out-of-state permits of males, would that be unconstitutional?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM

If the legal logic of this ruling is applied that Ohio must recognize the gay marriage of another state, doesn’t it also hold true that a state must accept a gun permit from the state it was issued without that permit holder being required to seek another permit? Doesn’t equal protection apply also?

JimGeb on July 23, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Ahh, but that has not been the argument for gay marriage. There is actually NO benefit for the state to recognize gay marriage. The argument has been that gay marriage doesn’t harm the state so therefore the state has no basis to deny. If procreation is no longer the basis for marriage, then there is no harm to incest- there fore the state has no rational basis to deny. If restricting gay marriage is discriminatory then so is polygamy for bisexuals. The legal arguments extend and make themselves.
Biracial relationships were specifically illegal i.e, people went to jail for marriage and children. The state had an interest in the children from the relationships. Since procreation is no longer and issue; then that argument cannot be used against polygamy and incest.
melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM

You see that Armin? That’s the argument I’m making.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM

The Ohio Constitution says only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized as valid. I’d say that trumps any mere law.

But nice try, I guess.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Uh, you might want to read the post. As of right now, all legal out-of-state marriages are now recognized in Ohio, despite what you’d say.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM

It’s not forcing Ohio to recognize the marriage contract of another state. Ohio made a law that it will honer the marriage contract of another state.

If a state made a law that said it would honor the CCW permits of another state, and then amended their constitution so as to not recognize the out-of-state permits of males, would that be unconstitutional?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM

…and by definition of Ohio’s Constitution, it recognizes marriages between a man and a woman from another state. It does not, however, recognize homosexual marriages. Your judge ignored Ohio Constitutional Law.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM

You’ve claimed to be a libertarian/conservative and now you’re arguing that the government doesn’t have to claim some sort of state interest before exerting it’s power it just has to claim it isn’t doing any harm (and of course liberals will always argue that more government is always benificial).

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Okay, so why need a judge to pass this ruling? If the State of Ohio is cool with it – like you say – why the publicity stunt that flies in the face of the order of law?

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:44 PM3 at 2:44 PM

Because minorities have rights, and while the majority can strip a minority of their rights simply because they don’t want them to have them, the judicial branch can right the injustice.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

From the state of Ohio’s Constitutional amendment.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM

“can somehow force”

It’s not forcing Ohio to recognize the marriage contract of another state. Ohio made a law that it will honer the marriage contract of another state.

If a state made a law that said it would honor the CCW permits of another state, and then amended their constitution so as to not recognize the out-of-state permits of males, would that be unconstitutional?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM

You seem to be stuck on stupid here. Ohio law does not supersede the Ohio constitution, period. Imagine if we amended the federal constitution to bar ethanol. Does that mean that the current laws mandating ethanol supersede the federal constitution just because, or is our federal constitution above the law?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Because minorities have rights, and while the majority can strip a minority of their rights simply because they don’t want them to have them, the judicial branch can right the injustice.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM

There is no basis for the US Constitution to intercede here. As RWM noted, the US Constitution has an exclusion clause for public policy. States may ratify their constitutions AS THEY SEE FIT as long as they abide by the US Constitution.

The judge is in error.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:56 PM

…and by definition of Ohio’s Constitution, it recognizes marriages between a man and a woman from another state. It does not, however, recognize homosexual marriages. Your judge ignored Ohio Constitutional Law.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:50 PM

State constitutions have to adhere to the US Constitution though, and the judge ruled that this aspect of the State Constitution didn’t. Do you disagree with the justification of judge’s ruling, or the outcome of the judge’s ruling?

Consider my CCW example: A state says it will honor all CCW permits from other States. A Constitutional amendment is then added that says that out-of-state male CCW permits would not be honored. Would that be constitutional?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I can not take it.

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Then please let the door hit you – hard – on the way out.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 2:56 PM

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

Who you talking about?

Ronald Reagan? (divorced/married multiple times)
Henry Hyde? (affair/out of wedlock kid)
Rush Limbaugh? (married multiple times)
David Vitter? (diaper boy)
Newt Gingrich? (divorced/married multiple times)
Bob Livingston? (affair)
Larry Craig? (wide stance)

Or Edie Windsor, who was with her partner for 44 years.

inklake on July 23, 2013 at 2:56 PM

The Left is suckering us into a fight over marriage, when in reality the fight is over Natural Law. If America turns her back on Natural Law, then at the same time she nullifies our core tenet: that men have God-given rights that no govt may take away and that no man may give up. Marriage is defined by Natural Law as a lifelong bond between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and education of offspring. The different states may set various restrictions, but none can alter the true definition of marriage without violating Natural Law.

The Left wants to keep injecting emotion into the battle because they find it easier to exploit a moment of weakness than to make a solid argument. If, however, we admit that we do not have the right to abrogate THE law…Natural Law…then we’ll find that in those moments when we feel sympathy for our opponents we will yet not be persuaded to condone their destructive desires. Imagine how much more screwed up the world would be if every toddler that made their parents feel bad were given their way. We need to start saying no, stand our ground, and let the Left gnash their teeth and whine as much as they want. Give them their way on “marriage” though, and Natural Law and our American belief system which is built upon it will crumble faster than a stale cookie.

TXJenny on July 23, 2013 at 2:57 PM

You seem to be stuck on stupid here. Ohio law does not supersede the Ohio constitution, period. Imagine if we amended the federal constitution to bar ethanol. Does that mean that the current laws mandating ethanol supersede the federal constitution just because, or is our federal constitution above the law?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM

The State law isn’t superseding the constitution. That aspect of the amendment is being ruled unconstitutional, based on the US Constitution.

I think you’re avoiding my CCW permit example, and for good reason.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Ahh, but that has not been the argument for gay marriage. There is actually NO benefit for the state to recognize gay marriage. The argument has been that gay marriage doesn’t harm the state so therefore the state has no basis to deny. If procreation is no longer the basis for marriage, then there is no harm to incest- there fore the state has no rational basis to deny. If restricting gay marriage is discriminatory then so is polygamy for bisexuals. The legal arguments extend and make themselves.

Biracial relationships were specifically illegal i.e, people went to jail for marriage and children. The state had an interest in the children from the relationships. Since procreation is no longer and issue; then that argument cannot be used against polygamy and incest.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM

You don’t think the state has an interest in protecting existing families?

And have there been any successful challenges to polygamy or incest laws citing Loving or Perez v. Sharp (the California case where the dissenters said those would have to be legal now) that I’m not aware of. I haven’t been able to turn any up and I know you’ve got Findlaw access so perhaps you’re a better researcher than I am. :)

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 2:59 PM

If the federal constitution can somehow force Ohio to recognize the marriage contract of another state, why can’t a CCW permit from one state be forcibly recognized in another?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM

A small distinction that might be getting lost here, the constitution requires equal recognition of contracts, but not necessarily other laws. So if I buy a car in Ohio, that contract is also enforceable in Minnesota. If I only have to be 18 to buy beer in Minnesota, Ohio doesn’t have to allow it if their law is 21.

However, this opens another can of worms for the libs. If marriage has been reduced to simply being a contract, then there is no way the state can stop me from being in more than one at a time.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM

There is no basis for the US Constitution to intercede here. As RWM noted, the US Constitution has an exclusion clause for public policy. States may ratify their constitutions AS THEY SEE FIT as long as they abide by the US Constitution.

The judge is in error.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 2:56 PM

And the State of Ohio can argue to the Supreme Court that their amendment is justified based on the public policy clause. And they’ll lose. The public policy clause isn’t the same as “because we want to”.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Can this be used to get other states to recognize my rights, as an Arizonan, to carry concealed without a permit?

I hope so.

keving on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Consider my CCW example: A state says it will honor all CCW permits from other States. A Constitutional amendment is then added that says that out-of-state male CCW permits would not be honored. Would that be constitutional?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:56 PM

That’s a poor example. States are already in violation for ignoring the second amendment. CCW is an affront to the second amendment. Now if you would be so kind as to point out where the US Constitution says the Ohio Constitution may not define marriage?

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Yes, the evolution of gay marriage is conflicting with bio parents rights. In Massachusetts, a judge recently ruled that the state has to recognize children born in the marriage as automatically the gay spouses. First, that defies common sense and biology and second it completely takes away the rights of an ACTUAL BIO parent who the state knows to exist.

The reason biological children are automatically recognized as the hetero marriage spouses is because there is a biological PROBABILITY that that child is the spouses. Most states allow for exceptions if the spouse has an affair etc.

Extending this provision to gay couples when there is no logical or biological reasoning to do so conflicts with biological parental rights. So the evolution of this(so that gays don’t scream unequal protection) will be that ALL children born within a marriage will have to be legitimized via the court system. A simple marriage certificate will no longer do it.

This is what I am talking about when I say “perpetual victim class.” Even common sense legal principles become a “discrimination” court case.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM

That would only defy common sense and biology if the state recognized the non-parental same-sex partner as the biological parent (to the extent that the state distinguishes between a biological parent and an adoptive parent for the purposes of child custody). As far as you’ve indicated, it instead treats them, for all intents and purposes, as an adoptive parent, with all the custodial rights implied with that title. Where’s the problem?

And it’s quite a non-sequitur to claim that this will lead to all children needing to be legitimized by the courts if the law automatically recognizes children born within marriage as belonging to both partners. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I think you’re avoiding my CCW permit example, and for good reason.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:58 PM

I agree with your premise and like the analogy, but see my post above at 3:00 pm. There’s a difference between recognizing contracts acrosse states, and recognizing laws across states.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:01 PM

And the State of Ohio can argue to the Supreme Court that their amendment is justified based on the public policy clause. And they’ll lose. The public policy clause isn’t the same as “because we want to”.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM

That’s the crux of the argument, then. I think Ohio would win in a Supreme Court case.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 3:01 PM

So leave. Go wallow in imagined misery with your bigoted perfesser buddies.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM

He can’t leave. One of two possibilities.

1. He’s on someone’s payroll to troll here. That’s unlikely, but it’s the only reason a sane person would troll as much as this one does.

2. He suffers from some sort of mental/emotional disorder that manifests itself in an uncontrollable desire to insert himself in situations where he knows he’s not welcome for the sole purpose of making himself unwelcome. Like a kid who crashes the party just so he can spill everyone’s drink, berate the other guests, and generally make a mess. One has to wonder what sort of shallow, unfulfilled life such a person leads that the only release is trying to make others miserable.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Or Edie Windsor, who was with her partner for 44 years.

inklake on July 23, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I have no problem with Windsor or her partner. I do have problem with SCOTUS who gave her standing. She sued because DOMA supposedly hurt her, yet she was married in Canada and lived in New York which at the time of her partner’s death did NOT recognize SS unions. So even if DOMA had not been the law of the land- her marriage still would not have been recognized under New York law at the time of her suit.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 3:02 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

Sadly, this is how these people think. If the government says it’s a marriage, they think it becomes a marriage.

The story’s been told of King Canute pronouncing a royal decree to stop the tides. The tides, of course, ignored the decree.

The point being that the government, contrary to the devoutly held beliefs of progressives everywhere, is not God. The government can declare that two men are legally married and punish anyone who won’t accept that. But they’re still not married, because marriage between two members of the same sex is an absurdity without meaning. You might as well declare that the sky is now orange. The names of colors are far more arbitrary in comparison to basic biology.

Contrary to what progressives tell themselves, marriage is simply the human and social institution that corresponds to the basic biological fact that reproduction can only occur between one man and one woman. Children should be raised by a father and mother. Two homosexuals calling themselves married cannot reproduce, and cannot be a father and mother anymore than they can be a husband and wife.

People have pointed out that once you divorce from the institution of marriage the concept of a man and a woman, you literally are left with no definition of marriage at all. None.

Marriage is between two people, not three, because reproduction requires two sexes, not three. We are made male and female. It is inherent in every human being.

Even homosexual men who declare themselves to be attracted to other men, in the very process of rejecting heterosexuality, admit that we are male and female. They merely reject the natural pairing in favor of what is against nature, but they can’t change the fact that even homosexuals are still male and female.

Why do you think male homosexuals are notorious for promiscuity? Because men tend to be more promiscuous by nature, and their nature is still male, in spite of their behavior.

You progressives fight against the very nature of the human race, and tell yourselves it is progress. What it actually is, of course, is vanity.

We are beings on multiple levels: moral, physical, spiritual, emotional, intellectual. Marriage is tied to the physical in the matters of sexual reproduction, but also to the moral, the spiritual, and the emotional. That’s why marriage, while tied by nature to sexual reproduction, is bigger than mere nature and mere reproduction.

Two men do not have the physical relationship, the ability to reproduce, the responsibility to plan for the raising of the product of their copulation, and the ability to provide both male and female role model and guidance for offspring. Lacking these things, their relationship is by its very nature defined by selfishness, and therefore inherently immoral. And being completely useless as the single bedrock element of our society, the most basic of all human institutions, same-sex or unnatural marriage is inherently flawed.

No amount of “marriage is what we say it is” can overcome that.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7