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 3 4 5 6 7

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Wait, I don’t agree and don’t like. Wrong poster I was replying to.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Bishop!!

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM

CCW permits are contracts.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:03 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

I don’t see how they could. If they win on that, the idea of minority rights would be gutted. I mean, you could justify almost anything.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:04 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

If anything the anti-gay marriage crowd ought to be begging Mike DeWine to shut up and bite the bullet on this one. If they fight this they will lose and lose badly all the way up to SCOTUS and if they go that far then what’s left of DOMA goes down for everyone everywhere, not just Ohio. We’ll see if strategery is his forte, or if he’d rather posture and puff his chest up even if it means his side loses nationally instead of just in one state.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:05 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

You must think Ed and Allahpundit are distinct humans. One is just the other without his medication ;)

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:05 PM

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

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM

And it’s a stupid argument, because it completely contradicts the way the courts have treated marriage. Like it or not, marriage is considered a federal right. The state does not need to demonstrate an interest in allowing something that is considered a federal right. It needs to demonstrate an interest in not allowing it (which is not impossible, but it needs real reasons, not made-up bullsh*t like “preserving the integrity of marriage” or some nonsense).

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 3:06 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

Nope, that is not what a Mass. court judge did last year. The judge ruled that ALL children born within a marriage would AUTOMATICALLY be considered the child of the homosexual partner. That is unprecedented. This completely takes away the bio parent’s rights by automatically giving parental rights to a third person without an adoption or a termination. It goes against all case law and statutes.

Like I said, it can’t stand. So I would lay odds that eventually the states will make ALL parents legitimize their children even within a marriage because of a small vocal victim group who throws a judicial tantrum about being treated “biologically” unfair.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 3:06 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

The US Constitution says that the Ohio Constitution can’t treat their citizens differently.

Do you disagree with that?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:07 PM

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM

You shouldn’t talk about children around the Tazmanian. It makes him grumpy.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I don’t see how they could. If they win on that, the idea of minority rights would be gutted. I mean, you could justify almost anything.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM

That’s a misnomer. There are rights. What you are advocating is a special privilege beyond the rights of others.

That is the basis of so-called “minority rights.”

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM
CCW permits are contracts.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Yup, that’s my point. I wholeheartedly agree that NY should recognize AZ open carry, because it’s a constitutional right.

But that’s not the same as NY being required to recognize a contract created in AZ. My other point is that, if libs really want marriage to be just a contract, then the state can’t limit the number of contracts one enters into.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM

And it’s a stupid argument, because it completely contradicts the way the courts have treated marriage. Like it or not, marriage is considered a federal right. The state does not need to demonstrate an interest in allowing something that is considered a federal right. It needs to demonstrate an interest in not allowing it (which is not impossible, but it needs real reasons, not made-up bullsh*t like “preserving the integrity of marriage” or some nonsense).
Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Marriage is a federal right?
That’s complete nonsense.
If it were then polygamy would not be outlawed.
If it were then Kennedy wouldn’t have repeatedly reiterated in his DOMA majority that the states decide marriage law.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 3:09 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

Now you’re talking out of three sides of your a$$. You posted multiple times about how a Ohio law that required recognition of out of state marriages somehow superseding the Ohio constitution. Now your previous posts apparently do not exist and you only speak about the federal constitution trumping the Ohio constitution. Which brings us right back to my point: If Ohio can be forced to recognize the contract of other state’s marriages, why can’t states be forced to recognize out of state CCW contracts? Don’t get dizzy now spinning back around to talking about Ohio law trumping the Ohio constitution in response.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:09 PM

And it’s a stupid argument, because it completely contradicts the way the courts have treated marriage. Like it or not, marriage is considered a federal right. The state does not need to demonstrate an interest in allowing something that is considered a federal right. It needs to demonstrate an interest in not allowing it (which is not impossible, but it needs real reasons, not made-up bullsh*t like “preserving the integrity of marriage” or some nonsense).

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Ahh no, my argument wasn’t stupid. As I said basically the same damn thing you said that the rulings and arguments have been that gay marriage does not harm so that the state has no rational reason to deny it. The difference you are having is that “no harm” requires a moral judgment something that gay marriage supporters insist has no place in the law. As I have said, the same arguments that say that gay marriage does no harm logically extend to polygamy and incest.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM
CCW permits are contracts.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM

OK, I need new glasses or something. I thought you had a “not” in there. No, CCW permits are not contracts. Otherwise it would be a CCW contract, not a permit. There is no contractual obligation being created between the two parties (you and the sheriff/state), merely a recognition of the sheriff/state allowing you to carry. Just like a driver’s license is a license, not a contract between you and the state.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM

That’s a misnomer. There are rights. What you are advocating is a special privilege beyond the rights of others.

That is the basis of so-called “minority rights.”

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM

In this specific case, what’s the special privilege?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM

The US Constitution says that the Ohio Constitution can’t treat their citizens differently.

Do you disagree with that?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:07 PM

How exactly was the Ohio constitution treating people unequally? Were not all same-sex marriages unrecognized? Were not all men and women barred equally from state recognized same-sex marriages? I look forward to your confused and illogical response.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Marriage is a federal right?
That’s complete nonsense.
If it were then polygamy would not be outlawed.
If it were then Kennedy wouldn’t have repeatedly reiterated in his DOMA majority that the states decide marriage law.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 3:09 PM

It also would stand that some states could not have common law statutes or allow first cousin marriage while others did not if it was considered a “federal right.”

Marriage is governed differently in all 50 states.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 3:12 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

Now you’re being either really dense, or deliberately obtuse. Marriage already existed, and always has, as an institution between a man and a woman. Social conservatives are not the ones advocating to change that. Therefore, to say that social conservatives want to use government force is absurd.

Neither would it prove anything even were it true. If a man kills someone in self defense, we don’t pretend that he’s no better than the attacker. We recognize that he only used deadly force in defense of himself, and is therefore blameless.

So if a radical progressive movement tries to force the government to redefine a human institution that existed long before the first government, much less our government, then it would be absurd to blame those trying to defend themselves against that in the only way they have available, petitions for government action, as if they were the ones who resorted to force.

Libertarians should be standing with social conservatives to reject this tremendous government overreach. But too many would rather stand around and preen about how they’re opposed to government action while tacitly endorsing it. Then, hypocritically, declaring they’re on the side of “small government.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:15 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.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

That is entirely incorrect. The amendment says that the GOVERNMENT cannot tell you what to do or think or say. It is a contract between the people and the GOVERNMENT.

Our LAWS are what protect our freedoms between each other.

Thus, I am not guaranteed a freedom FROM religion, as in a federally-mandated atheist state. I am guaranteed a freedom OF the religion of my choice, free of government infringement, up to and including no religion.

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Now you’re talking out of three sides of your a$$. You posted multiple times about how a Ohio law that required recognition of out of state marriages somehow superseding the Ohio constitution. Now your previous posts apparently do not exist and you only speak about the federal constitution trumping the Ohio constitution. Which brings us right back to my point: If Ohio can be forced to recognize the contract of other state’s marriages, why can’t states be forced to recognize out of state CCW contracts? Don’t get dizzy now spinning back around to talking about Ohio law trumping the Ohio constitution in response.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:09 PM

You’re clearly confused. There is no Ohio law that forces the state to recognize out of state marriages. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution has been interpreted by the Ohio courts to mean that the state must recognize marriages performed in other states even if those marriages could not have been performed in Ohio because they conflict with Ohio law or the Ohio state constitution. In this particular case there is a conflict with the latter.

segasagez has been perfectly correct and consistent this whole time, you don’t seem to know exactly what you’re talking about.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Now you’re talking out of three sides of your a$$. You posted multiple times about how a Ohio law that required recognition of out of state marriages somehow superseding the Ohio constitution. Now your previous posts apparently do not exist and you only speak about the federal constitution trumping the Ohio constitution. Which brings us right back to my point: If Ohio can be forced to recognize the contract of other state’s marriages, why can’t states be forced to recognize out of state CCW contracts? Don’t get dizzy now spinning back around to talking about Ohio law trumping the Ohio constitution in response.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:09 PM

It doesn’t supersede the Ohio constitution. The aspect of the amendment was ruled unconstitutional due to the existence of the law. Because you fail to see the distinction, you’ve created an analogy that isn’t analogous. You’ve simplified it to a point of meaninglessness.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Your incredible stupidity continues.

The state doesn’t doesn’t get any benefit from additional family ties or additional family units. There insufficient interest in banning marriage equality. Only bigots think that it should be banned. Your lame excuse is evidence of your bigotry.

blink on July 23, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Only bigots think that I’m incredibly stupid. So there. :P

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:16 PM

The US Constitution says that the Ohio Constitution can’t treat their citizens differently.

Do you disagree with that?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:07 PM

So pedophiles can’t be regulated by the Ohio Constitution or by law?

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Marriage is a federal right?
That’s complete nonsense.
If it were then polygamy would not be outlawed.
If it were then Kennedy wouldn’t have repeatedly reiterated in his DOMA majority that the states decide marriage law.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 3:09 PM

This comes back to what I said earlier: the state needs a legitimate interest in disallowing a particular right (i.e. voting, owning a firearm: these are rights, but felons are forbidden from exercising them in all or most jurisdictions because of their criminal behavior). Polygamous marriage is outlawed because no court has found that a state cannot demonstrate a legitimate interest in forbidding it.

I’m just telling you how the federal court system sees this issue, and has seen it for nearly a century. Save your appeals against that jurisprudence for them, not me. I’d be much happier to just let each state handle marriage by itself, period.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 3:17 PM

OK, I need new glasses or something. I thought you had a “not” in there. No, CCW permits are not contracts. Otherwise it would be a CCW contract, not a permit. There is no contractual obligation being created between the two parties (you and the sheriff/state), merely a recognition of the sheriff/state allowing you to carry. Just like a driver’s license is a license, not a contract between you and the state.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I would disagree. Here in Michigan there are certain obligations I must meet in order to qualify for, and retain, my CCW. If I fail to meet those obligations the permit is void. To my thinking that is a contract. Heck, a driver’s license is a contract. I agree to certain terms and obligations in order for the state to grant me privileges on public roads. If at any time I violate the terms of the agreement I may have the contract revoked on me by the state.

Of course the right to bear arms is different then a driver’s license because the right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution. So yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to carry anywhere in the United States regardless of contracts. But I am only focusing on contracts in arguing that if a marriage must be recognized the contract of a CCW must also be recognized.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:18 PM

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

Congrats!

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).

See here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

No dividing by anything.

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

You claim my stats are “false” yet you offer not one single bit of proof to back up that claim. Just because you don’t like the numbers doesn’t mean it isn’t factual. Usually it’s the liberals who act that way…not those who claim to be conservative.

How many social cons get a divorce? I’d have to go search that…would be interesting tho. But again, you offer up nothing except wishful thinking. I wonder how much you protest liberal dimwits getting married…since they’re doing damage to the institution of marriage and all…may has well, right?

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 3:18 PM

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

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Ha! Agreed.

Except Johnny Bench and Pete. They can dance all they want.

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 3:18 PM

How exactly was the Ohio constitution treating people unequally? Were not all same-sex marriages unrecognized? Were not all men and women barred equally from state recognized same-sex marriages? I look forward to your confused and illogical response.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Jesus, look up the pool tax…

You’re arguing stuff that’s been settled for a long, long time.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:19 PM

It doesn’t supersede the Ohio constitution. The aspect of the amendment was ruled unconstitutional due to the existence of the law. Because you fail to see the distinction, you’ve created an analogy that isn’t analogous. You’ve simplified it to a point of meaninglessness.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I give up. You are one of the dumbest mother Flukers to ever post here…is that you nonpartisan?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:19 PM

So pedophiles can’t be regulated by the Ohio Constitution or by law?

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 3:17 PM

That’s correct.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM

It also would stand that some states could not have common law statutes or allow first cousin marriage while others did not if it was considered a “federal right.”

Marriage is governed differently in all 50 states.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 3:12 PM

So are gun laws. States are given leeway to moderate or restrict even explicitly constitutional rights.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I give up. You are one of the dumbest mother Flukers to ever post here…is that you nonpartisan?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:19 PM

And gays are having their marriages recognized in Ohio. It’s whatever.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:21 PM

That’s correct.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Excuse me while I go outside and laugh my *** off. Dude, you lost me there.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 3:22 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

Whereas if you can call it “discrimination,” then you’re already on the side of the angels of human progress.

Classical laughable liberal logic.

It’s not an issue of discrimination, but of definition. Marriage by nature is between a man and a woman. It makes no more sense to assert that two men can be married than to assert that a man can marry his boat, or his mother, or his uncle. If a man wants to marry his dog, am I discriminating against him when I say it can hardly be a marriage if one of them is not human? Is it discrimination to say that a man cannot marry his sister’s daughter?

You bring in the word discriminate as if it means anything. What you really mean is to call people bigots, as you are so fond of doing.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Jesus, look up the pool tax…

You’re arguing stuff that’s been settled for a long, long time.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:19 PM

I assume you mean poll tax. At this point calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.

In Ohio everyone has the right to get married. In Ohio everyone is treated equally under the law as far as marriage is concerned. A poll tax is not analogous because a poll tax prevented people from voting, thus treated people unequally. I know you’re too thick to understand this, but I have to at least try.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Excuse me while I go outside and laugh my *** off. Dude, you lost me there.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Feel free to find a law that regulates pedophiles.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:25 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

You’re the one advocating for change to the most basic human institution in existence. The burden is on you to show it will not be harmful. Otherwise, to proceed not knowing the potential damages would be the act of madness.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:26 PM

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

LincolntheHun on July 23, 2013 at 11:25 AM
.

I couldn’t agree more.

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

JetBoy on July 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

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

listens2glenn
on July 23, 2013 at 12:14 PM
.

except the Constitution

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

.
Uh, no.

We’re on the brink of losing the Constitution because of rejection of God.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 3:27 PM

In Ohio everyone has the right to get married. In Ohio everyone is treated equally under the law as far as marriage is concerned. A poll tax is not analogous because a poll tax prevented people from voting, thus treated people unequally. I know you’re too thick to understand this, but I have to at least try.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM

I can’t believe you just wrote that. I mean, it’s consistent with your understanding of the issues, but I would think that actually writing that paragraph would make something click.

You’re on the literal losing side, and it’s easy to see why.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:28 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 Second Amendment is a FEDERAL amendment that covers ALL states.

You’re welcome, idiot.

Maddie on July 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM

So are gun laws. States are given leeway to moderate or restrict even explicitly constitutional rights.

Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM

That’s where you and I differ than. I don’t think that marriage is a Constitutional right. I think freedom of association is, and the freedom to partner up, but I don’t think it is a Constitutional right that the government has to recognize that association or partnership.

melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Dear Lord. It must be “Use the Nurses’ Station’s Computer Day” on the Psych Ward.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Uh, no.

We’re on the brink of losing the Constitution because of rejection of God.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Why would that be? God was never in the Constitution to begin with.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I can’t believe you just wrote that. I mean, it’s consistent with your understanding of the issues, but I would think that actually writing that paragraph would make something click.

You’re on the literal losing side, and it’s easy to see why.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Yeah, I feel so stupid and chagrined since the guy who keeps saying Ohio law supersedes the Ohio constitution tells me this. Obviously you have no clue what equal treatment under the law means. Gays are not required to pay a tax to get married (or take a literacy test). They can get married just as easily as everyone else in Ohio.

You sir are a foolish twit. Keep doing yourself proud.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Dear Lord. It must be “Use the Nurses’ Station’s Computer Day” on the Psych Ward.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Do you recall seeing this segasagez person before? The stupid is so deep with him I’m starting to think it is nonpartisan reincarnated.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:35 PM

This comes back to what I said earlier: the state needs a legitimate interest in disallowing a particular right (i.e. voting, owning a firearm: these are rights, but felons are forbidden from exercising them in all or most jurisdictions because of their criminal behavior). Polygamous marriage is outlawed because no court has found that a state cannot demonstrate a legitimate interest in forbidding it.
I’m just telling you how the federal court system sees this issue, and has seen it for nearly a century. Save your appeals against that jurisprudence for them, not me. I’d be much happier to just let each state handle marriage by itself, period.
Armin Tamzarian on July 23, 2013 at 3:17 PM

You’re conflating several important and distinct things.

Your (federal) right to marriage is really just a restatement of your property rights and freedom of association. Currently gay couples are absolutely free to exercise this right in every state.

A marriage license is something else entirely. You have a right to be free from the states interference in your relationships but you don’t have a right to demand special treatment or licensure. You have a right to freely associate but not to demand that the government officially and formally recognize your relationships.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 3:35 PM

That’s where you and I differ than. I don’t think that marriage is a Constitutional right. I think freedom of association is, and the freedom to partner up, but I don’t think it is a Constitutional right that the government has to recognize that association or partnership.
melle1228 on July 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Exactly. Well said.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 3:37 PM

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion
because there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as “godless” or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 3:37 PM

“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron, no matter who tells you otherwise. If it were about fairness and rights, then the battle wouldn’t be over REDEFINING WORDS a la “1984″ / newspeak.

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
- Abraham Lincoln

CanofSand on July 23, 2013 at 3:37 PM

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:35 PM

yeah. He’s been around. They sound alike because they are all part of the Hive Mind, The “Collective”, if you will, comrade.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Yeah, I feel so stupid and chagrined since the guy who keeps saying Ohio law supersedes the Ohio constitution tells me this. Obviously you have no clue what equal treatment under the law means. Gays are not required to pay a tax to get married (or take a literacy test). They can get married just as easily as everyone else in Ohio.

You sir are a foolish twit. Keep doing yourself proud.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM

And as I said earlier, gay marriage continues to be recognized in Ohio. Fine. I’ll be the twit.

(And if you can’t tell, I’m pointing to the scoreboard)

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:39 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

Probably not for long. Such a broad reading of “Full Faith and Credit” would necessarily mean that anything legal in one state must be allowed in any other.

Yes, I know this is what progressives have been hoping for all along: to get same-sex marriage passed in one state, then force all other states to accept it. But this is a federal judge, not the Supreme Court. It is not over yet. Even as much as SCOTUS, and Kennedy in particular, wants to legitimize unnatural marriage everywhere, they’re not going to be able to get past the federalism issue. If a state can put the definition of marriage in its constitution and still be overridden, then the state has no power at all.

And if you actually were to read the Constitution, the federal government was created by the various states, and has only the authority those states granted to it within the Constitution itself. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that all other powers are reserved to the states and to the people.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM

yeah. He’s been around. They sound alike because they are all part of the Hive Mind, The “Collective”, if you will, comrade.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 3:39 PM

It’s about that time of the day. Looks like the circle-jerk is starting.

We’ve beat the issue dead. Might as well beat something else. Enjoy folks.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Point taken. I would then push this on the liberals (as I’ve already stated) that if marriage is just a contract to be enforced across state lines like other contracts–then why can’t I be in more than one?!?!?!?!? (hey, libsucks, are you still awake or is it brea$st-feeding time?).

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Probably not for long. Such a broad reading of “Full Faith and Credit” would necessarily mean that anything legal in one state must be allowed in any other.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM

This case wasn’t decided on Full Faith and Credit, but under equal protection. The judge mentioned full faith and credit simply because Ohioans explicitly decided to get full faith and credit to marriage licenses from other states. Rescinding that full faith and credit through a constitutional amendment made the amendment run foul the us constitution’s equal protection.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:44 PM

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Classy. Are you speaking from experience?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM

This is judicial terrorism, nothing more. Leftists don’t care about the rule of law. They only care about winning. If it’s done with blood on their hands they don’t care.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Dear Lord. It must be “Use the Nurses’ Station’s Computer Day” on the Psych Ward.

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Or in the case of this thread, use the Femmy Receptionist’s Computer Day so you can sit on his lap.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Point taken. I would then push this on the liberals (as I’ve already stated) that if marriage is just a contract to be enforced across state lines like other contracts–then why can’t I be in more than one?!?!?!?!? (hey, libsucks, are you still awake or is it brea$st-feeding time?).

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:44 PM

I’ll entertain the idea. Have a few more minutes left.

I would argue that government shouldn’t restrict polygamous relationships. I don’t know how all the tax and estate and etc issues would be resolved, but you’re completely correct. What interest does the government have to restrict marriages in this way? I don’t support polygamy, but should my support of it determine government’s restriction of it?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:47 PM

“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron, no matter who tells you otherwise. If it were about fairness and rights, then the battle wouldn’t be over REDEFINING WORDS a la “1984″ / newspeak.

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
- Abraham Lincoln

CanofSand on July 23, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Got to move with the times. This is the new version:

“How many legs does a dog have if a Supreme Court Justice calls the tail a leg?”

“Five, homophobe! It’s a leg if SCOTUS says it is!

But I don’t think Abraham Lincoln would claim this version.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM

This is judicial terrorism, nothing more. Leftists don’t care about the rule of law. They only care about winning. If it’s done with blood on their hands they don’t care.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM

If you don’t like the Constitution then you’re free to leave. :)

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM

I feel this thread slowing down. Come on guys, Ed/AP are desparate for a good 1000+ comments thread.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM

If you don’t like the Constitution then you’re free to leave. :)

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM

But but but, I have a RIGHT to be here no matter what anyone says (channeling run-of-the-mill lib).

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM

I can’t believe you just wrote that. I mean, it’s consistent with your understanding of the issues, but I would think that actually writing that paragraph would make something click.
You’re on the literal losing side, and it’s easy to see why.
segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:28 PM

As much as liberals love to co-opt the language and moral authority of the civil rights movement your argument is a fail.

Not everyone can vote. You have to be a citizen of age and a resident. In other words there is a legal definition of who can vote. Marriage also has a legal definition. Poll taxes were designed to prevent the otherwise lawful exercise of a right. If the law doesn’t recognize your marriage then it doesn’t recognize it. There is no analogy with a poll tax. If you want to be consistent then you’d also have to argue that outlawing (and not just refusal to officially sanction as is the case with SSM) polygamy, incest or any other coupling is tantamount to poll taxes and Jim Crow laws. Go for it.

gwelf on July 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I stumbled across this today: http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147535810

Basically, the Full Faith and Credit clause is primarily aimed at judicial decisions and as a result: “Marriages do not stand on the same constitutional footing as litigated judgments. As a result, whether a state chooses to recognize a same-sex marriage celebrated in another state is a function of the recognizing state’s law and its conflict-of-laws principles and not a matter of constitutional compulsion.” “

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM

LOL!!!

Bmore on July 23, 2013 at 3:56 PM

This is judicial terrorism, nothing more. Leftists don’t care about the rule of law. They only care about winning. If it’s done with blood on their hands they don’t care.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM

If you don’t like the Constitution then you’re free to leave. :)

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM

To the left, the “rule of law,” like “truth” itself, is just the majority opinion of those in power.

So, basically, meaningless.

It’s not the Constitution that’s at issue. The Constitution says not the first thing about marriage, much less homosexuality.

All we really have is the left using whatever rationalization is required to pretend that the Constitution comports with what progressives desire.

The Constitution says nothing about contraceptives, abortion, homosexuality, marriage, or socialized medicine. And why would it? None of that is relevant to the states coming together to form a federal government.

And yet every single one of them has been the subject of rulings by Supreme Court Justices, who can find anything in the Constitution they want.

One wonders why they even pretend they are using the Constitution anymore.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:57 PM

There are plenty of state laws that “regulate” pedophiles. Here’s an Ohio law.

blink on July 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM

The law doesn’t regulate pedophiles. It’s prohibits an action. It’s legal to be a pedophile. It’s illegal to go around touching kids. Against, a distinction with a difference.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I stumbled across this today: http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147535810

Basically, the Full Faith and Credit clause is primarily aimed at judicial decisions and as a result: “Marriages do not stand on the same constitutional footing as litigated judgments. As a result, whether a state chooses to recognize a same-sex marriage celebrated in another state is a function of the recognizing state’s law and its conflict-of-laws principles and not a matter of constitutional compulsion.” “

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Yep. And if same-sex couples wanted to get divorced in Ohio they always could. But the courts would have used the laws of the state the got married in, not Ohio law.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:01 PM

The law doesn’t regulate pedophiles. It’s prohibits an action. It’s legal to be a pedophile. It’s illegal to go around touching kids. Against, a distinction with a difference.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:58 PM

By your logic, the law doesn’t regulate homosexuals. It prohibits an action. It’s legal to be a homosexual. It’s illegal to proclaim themselves “married”. Again, a distinction with a difference.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 4:02 PM

The law doesn’t regulate pedophiles. It’s prohibits an action. It’s legal to be a pedophile. It’s illegal to go around touching kids. Against, a distinction with a difference.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:58 PM

So what you’re saying is, a law restricting sexual activity by pedophiles is not anti-pedo legislation?

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 4:03 PM

The law doesn’t regulate pedophiles. It’s prohibits an action. It’s legal to be a pedophile. It’s illegal to go around touching kids. Against, a distinction with a difference.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Let me guess, you attended Harvard Law.

A person is not pedophile until committing an act of pedophilia. A murderer is not a murderer until committing an act of murder. A thief is not a thief until committing an act of thievery. And so on and so on.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

By your logic, the law doesn’t regulate homosexuals. It prohibits an action. It’s legal to be a homosexual. It’s illegal to proclaim themselves “married”. Again, a distinction with a difference.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 4:02 PM

That’s exactly right. And the prohibition of the action was ruled unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

So what you’re saying is, a law restricting sexual activity by pedophiles is not anti-pedo legislation?

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Definitely. Very anti-pedo. And very pro-kid-not-having-to-get-touched-by-pedos too.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

By your logic, the law doesn’t regulate homosexuals. It prohibits an action. It’s legal to be a homosexual. It’s illegal to proclaim themselves “married”. Again, a distinction with a difference.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 4:02 PM

That’s exactly right. And the prohibition of the action was ruled unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Lol. Segasagez needs a show. Let’s call it “Kindergarten Lawyer”.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

That’s exactly right. And the prohibition of the action was ruled unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.
segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

By one federal judge in one state, who happens to be appointed by an Administration with a vested interest in the matter.

Gay Marriage is not the Law of the Land.

Your nickname wouldn’t be “Pinwheel”, would it?

kingsjester on July 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

To the left, the “rule of law,” like “truth” itself, is just the majority opinion of those in power.

So, basically, meaningless.

It’s not the Constitution that’s at issue. The Constitution says not the first thing about marriage, much less homosexuality.

All we really have is the left using whatever rationalization is required to pretend that the Constitution comports with what progressives desire.

The Constitution says nothing about contraceptives, abortion, homosexuality, marriage, or socialized medicine. And why would it? None of that is relevant to the states coming together to form a federal government.

And yet every single one of them has been the subject of rulings by Supreme Court Justices, who can find anything in the Constitution they want.

One wonders why they even pretend they are using the Constitution anymore.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 3:57 PM

But it does say plenty about equal protection and due process.

It was in the 1920s I believe that the Supreme Court ruled (unanimously) that the Constitution protected a parent’s right to send their child to a private school of their choosing and that the states couldn’t compel that children be sent into the public school system instead. There’s nothing at all in the Constitution about any of that. Did the court get it wrong?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

A person is not pedophile until committing an act of pedophilia. A murderer is not a murderer until committing an act of murder. A thief is not a thief until committing an act of thievery. And so on and so on.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Making up your own definitions of words now too?

ped·o·phile (pd-fl, pd-)
n.
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedophile
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

That’s exactly right. And the prohibition of the action was ruled unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

…by an activist judge who ignored the sovereign right of a state to make its own laws as allowed by the US Constitution.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Just say no! Judge’s need to stop making law by fiat. let the Judge stop the stampede…

Don L on July 23, 2013 at 4:08 PM

But it does say plenty about equal protection and due process.

It was in the 1920s I believe that the Supreme Court ruled (unanimously) that the Constitution protected a parent’s right to send their child to a private school of their choosing and that the states couldn’t compel that children be sent into the public school system instead. There’s nothing at all in the Constitution about any of that. Did the court get it wrong?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Where is the compulsion to get married? And where is the unequal protection under the law?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:08 PM

blink on July 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Yep. And if same-sex couples wanted to get divorced in Ohio they always could. But the courts would have used the laws of the state the got married in, not Ohio law.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:01 PM

No. To get divorced in a state, you must satisfy the residency requirements (if any) of THAT state (the one you are filing in) and the laws of the state of residency apply. So if I get married in MN and want to get divorced in WI, I must first satisfy the WI residency requirement and the divorce will then be governed by WI law.

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

We are talking about the law. No one is a pedophile until they commit an act of pedophilia. Are you really going to claim a murderer is a murderer just because they think about murder, but don’t actually commit one?

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM

No. To get divorced in a state, you must satisfy the residency requirements (if any) of THAT state (the one you are filing in) and the laws of the state of residency apply. So if I get married in MN and want to get divorced in WI, I must first satisfy the WI residency requirement and the divorce will then be governed by WI law.

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM

True. However, under the Ohio constitution’s definition of marriage, it would only apply to hetero couples.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM

True. However, under the Ohio constitution’s definition of marriage, it would only apply to hetero couples.

Turtle317 on July 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Exactly. Same-sex couples can theoretically run into a problem where they have changed from a state of residence that recognized same-sex marriage to a state that does not. Since the new state of residence does not recognize the marriage, they can’t be divorced there. More amusingly, since they are no longer a resident of the state where they were married, they cannot get divorced in that state either.

Of course, the unhappy couple could appeal to the court in their new state of residence for equitable relief where the judge sort of waves his gavel like a wand and tries to make things “fair” for the couple.

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM

No. To get divorced in a state, you must satisfy the residency requirements (if any) of THAT state (the one you are filing in) and the laws of the state of residency apply. So if I get married in MN and want to get divorced in WI, I must first satisfy the WI residency requirement and the divorce will then be governed by WI law.

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Apples and oranges. Wisconsin recognizes your Minnesota marriage, so Wisconsin law governs the divorce. But in cases concerning contracts where a state’s laws are in conflict with another state’s the state law in which the contract originated would be given preference. It’s also usually agreed to by both parties which jurisdiction’s laws will be used in a contract dispute. We see this most often in contract issues settled in the United States concerning contracts made in a different country. US courts will use the other countries laws as much as they can, as long as those laws do not violate our own constitution, since the contract was drawn up under that other nation’s governing authority.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM

The original intent and largely the reason as to why marriage was performed was to protect the created offspring of two heterosexual individuals. Marriage of two heterosexuals to protect the offspring. Traditionally this has remained so over thousands of years. Now please feel free to correct me on this but are homosexuals the same as heterosexuals? Don’t homosexuals by their very nature fail the most basic of reason for marriage? The inability to pro create?

Bmore on July 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM

The Second Amendment is a FEDERAL amendment that covers ALL states.

You’re welcome, idiot.

Maddie on July 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM

You’re missing the context of conversation simply to disagree with me.

The Second Amendment grants all citizens the right to defend themselves and hunt or collect arms or just own guns ’cause they look purdy.

Though I wish it were, nationally, CCW IS NOT A RIGHT. It is a privilege. If you want to prove me wrong drive cross-country concealed-carrying, chart your path for us. Let’s see how far you get.

CCW requires a permit. Some of us just do what we have to do.

Capitalist Hog on July 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM

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

For the record, Jane Wyman left Ronald Reagan, not the other way around. As for gay relationship track records, you might want to check with Melissa Etheridge, Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, Barney Frank….

Maddie on July 23, 2013 at 4:20 PM

My post is self-explanatory. Ohio law doesn’t make pedophilia illegal. It regulates the activities that they might otherwise engage in. It makes some activities illegal while keeping other activities legal.

That is regulation.

blink on July 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

The activities of people are regulated. By definition, the activities of pedophiles are regulated as a class of people. The activities of pedophiles are not regulated explicitly and distinctly.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7