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 4 5 6 7

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

The word “bear” in the 2nd Amendment does not refer to Yogi.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:23 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

Apples and oranges exactly. This just shows how differently marriage is treated and helps illustrate the point that the full faith and credit clause should not be used as a bludgeon to force states to recognize same-sex marriage.

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Marriage is whatever we say it is.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don’t make it a leg.

Abraham Lincoln

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 4:26 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

.
Who or what is the “Creator” that endows us with certain inalienable rights ?

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Actually I’ve just been researching it some and I may be talking out of my a$$ somewhat. So, mea culpa. I was working from some misremembered “facts”.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:29 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

Once you have those goal posts screwed in, let me know.

Actions are restricted and punished. Period.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Who or what is the “Creator” that endows us with certain inalienable rights ?

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 4:26 PM

That’s the Declaration of Independence.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Actually I’ve just been researching it some and I may be talking out of my a$$ somewhat. So, mea culpa. I was working from some misremembered “facts”.

NotCoach on July 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Hey, no problem man. :)

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 4:35 PM

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

No dividing by anything.

Based on your link that’s correct. That’s a RATE, not a PERCENT.

So, umm….why did you quote a percent? Where did you get that percent?

Math isn’t your strong suit, is it?

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.

Here you go. It’s from HuffPo, so you know it’s true. I didn’t post it because I figured you already had it bookmarked.

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

I don’t protest at all. I find the over/under for the duration of the marriage usually exceeds the amount I shell out for the wedding gift. Thanks for asking!

Maddie on July 23, 2013 at 4:41 PM

That is regulation. Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right…

blink on July 23, 2013 at 4:38 PM

My early comment should have said:
By definition, the activities of pedophiles are regulated as(they are) a class of people.

We don’t regulate being. We regulate doing. I don’t know how to put it any other way. Either we agree on this fundamental premise or we don’t.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

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

Nope.

Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

And:

Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Alchemist19 has the Obama view of the Constitution, which is that government has unlimited power and that people only retain those rights which are explicitly granted them.

The reality is the exact opposite.

The correct answer is that the people may elect to empower the government to register and recognize marriage, and that the people may establish the conditions under which marriages will be recognized.

Gay-sex liberals loathe that, mainly because gay-sex marriage supporters are driven by hatred and antireligious bigotry. Intelligent people recognize that gays and lesbians like JetBoy and their supporters do not actually care about or recognize the value of marriage and stable families for society, and have thus regularly and repeatedly repudiated their demands.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 4:43 PM

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

That’s what is funny, JetBoy.

Even “liberal dimwits” in opposite-sex couplings are better for society than you are.

Why? Because they’re probably going to produce children, and those children will eventually grow up and be able to enter the workforce.

You and your sexual partners won’t ever do anything of the sort. Indeed, you’re going to be a net drain on society, especially given the statistics on your likely STD rate and the fact that you and your fellow gay bigots like Dan Savage scream that monogamy and fidelity are “hurtful”.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Who or what is the “Creator” that endows us with certain inalienable rights ?

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 4:26 PM

That’s the Declaration of Independence.

CurtZHP on July 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Quite right, and the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the construction and functioning of the current government of the United States.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Alchemist19 has the Obama view of the Constitution, which is that government has unlimited power and that people only retain those rights which are explicitly granted them.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Strawman. I would think with as many times as I’ve smacked you down in the past when you’ve tried this that you would have learned your lesson by now but I simply will not allow you to hold me accountable for the words you have put in my mouth.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 4:56 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

What’s whiny? So, marriage DOESN’T have to require monogamy?

Or, are you saying I CAN assert that my marriage is preferable, better, superior? If I do, am I a “hater” because I don’t accept their lifestyle, or their “definition” of marriage? If I teach my kids to look down upon it, is that bigoted? I’m wrong because I “discriminate” against it, the same way I would if I chose a better car, or home, or meal?

Am I’m not allowed to assert that, or else I’m whiny, for reenforcing a time-tested relation that succeeds when both people agree upon and support it as mutually defined? To feel stupid for living by a standard, previously agreed-upon, that now is being redefined out of

Normal, conventional marriage ALREADY enjoys public recognition, for, like the past 2,000 years, as in “our child was born in wedlock, both parents live together and raise the child, we receive govt./societal ‘aid’ to allow us to save/pool money and resources to provide for that third, forth, fifth taxpaying life, BECAUSE our relation is different than roommates or hookups”.

Gays want that same recognition, but are NOT the same relation.

Honestly, I don’t really care if two gays call themselves married and live like it. Hell, I don’t care if you put a ring on a dog’s paw and call it your wife.

My approval or disapproval doesn’t affect your “subjective decision” to live that way unless YOU want me and the rest of us to go along with it, approve of it, fund it, NORMALIZE it, which would require massive redefinition of marriage and family law to accommodate it. But your subjective decision doesn’t require that I, and everyone else, has to share your attitude and raise your relationship to the level of a socially recognized marriage as defined by 2,000 years of law and history. It’s not.

Saltyron on July 23, 2013 at 5:03 PM

The activities of pedophiles are not regulated explicitly and distinctly.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM

The activities of homosexuals are not regulated explicitly and distinctly, either. All persons have the capacity to enter into a marriage contract between one man and one woman and gain the state-conferred benefits thereto.

The Schaef on July 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM

I hated judges

Bullhead on July 23, 2013 at 5:36 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

If only you libs would have understood that sooner. It’s legal to be a homosexual, it is was illegal to go around committing homosexual acts.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 5:38 PM

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Maybe he likes S&M. Are you bigot against S&M or something?

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM

GayHappy-sex liberals loathe that, mainly because gayhappy-sex marriage supporters are driven by hatred and antireligious bigotry. Intelligent people recognize that gays happy folks and lesbians residents of the island of Lesbos like JetBoy and their supporters do not actually care about or recognize the value of marriage and stable families for society, and have thus regularly and repeatedly repudiated their demands.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Just wondering how that sounded using the words’ correct meaning.

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM

That is regulation. Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right…

blink on July 23, 2013 at 4:38 PM

My early comment should have said:
By definition, the activities of pedophiles are regulated as(they are) a class of people.

We don’t regulate being. We regulate doing. I don’t know how to put it any other way. Either we agree on this fundamental premise or we don’t.

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Your confusion arises from the need to distinguish between homosexuality as a “sexual orientation” or “sexual preference,” and the more obvious definition of homosexual as “someone who performs homosexual acts.”

The distinction is vital to the mainstreaming of homosexuality, because it argues that one can be a homosexual without doing any homosexual acts.

But it’s at heart a tautology. You may have heard of a tautology before. It’s what you get when you say, for example, “marriage is whatever we say it is.” Tautologies are generally considered logical fallacies because they amount to saying, “I know this is true because I defined it as true.” In other words, circular reasoning.

Homosexuals distinguish between homosexuality as something you are rather than something you do specifically so they can argue that homosexuality is just “in their nature,” and therefore there is no moral guilt in acting accordingly.

But this is inherently unprovable, and essentially just an argument for convenience. Also known as, rationalization. Asserting that homosexuals are a separate class of people does not make them one. It would be just as logical to define homosexuals as people who perform homosexual acts.

In fact, in some ways that would make a lot more sense.

Now come back to pedophilia. If you draw the same distinction between pedophilia as something you are – just another sexual preference, in this case for young children — then you are halfway to declaring that a pedophile should be excused, or at least be given lenience, because he is acting in accordance with his nature.

By creating the artificial separate class of “sexual orientation,” you have established a new distinction between “what you are” and “what you do” that can be extended to pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and every kind of sexual perversion in existence.

Once you realize this, you’re left with 3 choices:
1) realize that this distinction between “what you are” and “what you do” is essentially meaningless, and that government always regulates actions regardless of any asserted nature
2) apply that distinction to every kind of created class of people with a particular set of desires — pedophiles, incest, bestiality, etc.
3) try to hang on to the distinction in the case of homosexuality, but ignore it for all other types of abnormal or deviant behavior.

The above may be complicated, but it’s exactly the can of worms you open up once you start saying that being a pedophile is just fine as long as you don’t do the acts of a pedophile.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 23, 2013 at 5:47 PM

State Constitutions trump state laws.

Federal law preempts and trumps many areas of the law.

There is an exception to the Full Faith & Credit clause that has been recognised in myriad Supreme Court cases.

Resist We Much on July 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Jetboy just remember where you stand on this….when we look bck 50 years from now. No , this is not like slavery or discrimination against race but down deep you know it.

CW on July 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Resist We Much on July 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

You’ve been very short and pithy today. Too much time spent royal baby watching?

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. And, those that are homosexual one day will have the right to marriage in all fifty states. Get used to the idea and stop with all the darn hysteria.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. And, those that are homosexual one day will have the right to marriage in all fifty states. Get used to the idea and stop with all the darn hysteria.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Homosexual conduct is a morally repugnant and utterly perverted behavior, not to mention being inherently unhealthy. Whether the urge to engage in it is due to mental illness, genetic predisposition, personal preference, global warming, sun spots, or little green aliens from Zeta Reticuli is irrelevant. The choice to actually commit the acts is a voluntary one.

We don’t excuse premeditated murder just because a murderer really, really, really wants to do it. Same applies for other repugnant acts. You really, really, really wanna? Tough crap. You’re an adult. Restrain yourself or suffer the consequences.

You can try to twist morality all you like, but you have as much chance of turning homosexual conduct into A Good Thing™ as you do repealing the laws of physics.

OhioCoastie on July 23, 2013 at 7:17 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

Are you faking stupid, or are you for real?

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.

The word “bear” IN THIS CONTEXT means to “carry”. Thus, we may not only own weapons, but carry them… and that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It is not only our RIGHT to concealed carry, but to openly carry. There is no restriction mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, but there IS a requirement NOT TO RESTRICT IT.

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM

God was never in the Constitution to begin with.
alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Article VII
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven….

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. And, those that are homosexual one day will have the right to marriage in all fifty states. Get used to the idea and stop with all the darn hysteria.
SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Nope.

I like better watching you squirm and make it clear how psychologically pathetic you are.

You have deluded yourself into thinking that gay-sex marriage is some kind of noble cause, when in fact it’s just a convenient smokescreen for small, petty bigots such as yourself to attempt to tear down and hurt others.

No one here seriously believes you value marriage or have any idea of its importance, especially given the gay-sex liberal belief that monogamy is “hurtful”. You simply are a snotty, bratty child resorting to vandalism when other children have something you want, under the belief that tearing down what they have will make you better.

You are addicted to hate. All of us here are aware that the instant you get gay-sex marriage, you will be agitating for speech bans, the instant you get speech bans you will be advocating for punishing religious belief, and so forth. That is reality. And since you have decided to make this a war on religious belief, free speech, and the right of people to govern themselves, you are being responded to in kind.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Article I Section VII
“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a law, in like Manner as if he had signed it.”

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM

After reading hundreds of your posts at HA, I have concluded that it is.

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 7:59 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

That is not at all what the 14th Amendment states. I believe you are referencing the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Clause 1 of the Amendment). Here it is for your reading…

14th Amendment 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Ohio Constitution states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Are you saying that men preferring sex with men are denied marrying a female, or a female preferring sex with females are denied marrying a male? Sorry, but those with homosexual preferences are already treated the same under the law. You just don’t like the law.

But funny that people point to the 14th Amendment, since I see a little gem in there that is ALWAYS ignored…

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Seems like the US Constitution explicitly outlaws abortion since it deprives a person of life without due process of law.

Thank you for calling that to our attention!

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 8:01 PM

dominigan on July 23, 2013 at 8:01 PM

The Court rejected the fetus’s standing as a person under the “Due Process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 8:07 PM

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

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM

You know, if it wasn’t for the censors I’d gladly share with you how I feel about you piece of trash traitors that have no clue what the Constitution says or how much blood was spilled defending your right to act like a tool. But you’ll meet God someday and will have to explain all your actions to Him. That should be a fun conversation.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM

segasagez on July 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

By your idiotic remarks the State would be perfectly able to ban homosexual activity contra to the Lawrence decision. You know that, right?

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Socialist Pig on July 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Now you’re not even trying. You’re obviously just trying to provoke a response with your idiotic remarks. You also clearly don’t own any guns as they’re too scary for you to use.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Maybe he likes S&M. Are you bigot against S&M or something?

Nutstuyu on July 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I’m not a fan but I’m not a bigot. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is no business of anyone else so long as no one gets hurt.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 7:58 PM

I would ask if that’s the best you’ve got but I already know the answer.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Why does Maryland law trump Ohio law?

BobMbx on July 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Because Maryland’s law involves a kind of contract. Read Art. I, Sec. 10 of our Constitution. It prohibits States from passing any law impairing an obligation of contracts. Given that a marriage certificate is a kind of contract — similar to deeds of title — the assertion follows naturally. If you read the decision in Loving v. Virginia, you can see that the Court used liberty of contract to strike down miscegenation laws.

If Ohio passed a law legalizing polygamy, Maryland would be obligated to honor the certificates of marriage, as the certificates were issued with the intent of enforcement in Ohio.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_contract_laws

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 8:28 PM

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

All laws are subject to Constitutional interpretation.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 8:31 PM

You know, if it wasn’t for the censors I’d gladly share with you how I feel about you piece of trash traitors that have no clue what the Constitution says or how much blood was spilled defending your right to act like a tool. But you’ll meet God someday and will have to explain all your actions to Him. That should be a fun conversation.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM

My family has been fighting and dying for this country since 1776, and I hold our Constitution in the highest of esteem. I’m talking about the whole Constitution, too, including the parts of it you seem to want to omit to better fit your personal agenda (like the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the guarantees to equal protection and due process). If what you really want is a theocracy and not the Constitution and everything it protects then move to Iran.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Hopefully the NRA is already filing lawsuits to make NYC recognize my Texas CHL. Same basis.

SDN on July 23, 2013 at 8:45 PM

I would ask if that’s the best you’ve got but I already know the answer. alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM

A.Word.A.Day
with Anu Garg

The French writer and philosopher Albert Camus once said, “Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.” Can you recognize people like that around you? This week’s words will help you describe them.
mumpsimus

PRONUNCIATION:
(MUMP-suh-muhs)

MEANING:
noun:
1. A view stubbornly held in spite of clear evidence that it’s wrong.
2. A person who holds such a view.

ETYMOLOGY:
According to an old story, a priest used the nonsense word mumpsimus (instead of Latin sumpsimus) in the Mass. Even when told it was incorrect, he insisted that he had been saying it for 40 years and wouldn’t change it. The expression is “quod in ore sumpsimus” (‘which we have taken into the mouth’). Earliest documented use: 1530.

USAGE:
“She knows the boss’s behavior is wrong but mumpsimus has set in.”
Mary Lou Dobbs; Repotting Yourself; O Books; 2010.

“Do not be a mumpsimus about networking. … Resist the popular notion that networking is all fake sincerity and pushy behavior.”
Dean Lindsay; Cracking the Networking Code; World Gumbo; 2005.

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 8:57 PM

I’m not a fan but I’m not a bigot. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is no business of anyone else so long as no one gets hurt.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:21 PM

But if you don’t support them receiving tax breaks to do it, you’re a bigot.

If you don’t support them doing so on public streets, you’re a bigot.

If you don’t support them teaching your child to do it in school, you’re a bigot.

If you don’t agree that they should be allowed to marry all their sexual partners, you’re a bigot.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 8:57 PM

My family has been fighting and dying for this country since 1776, and I hold our Constitution in the highest of esteem. I’m talking about the whole Constitution, too, including the parts of it you seem to want to omit to better fit your personal agenda (like the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the guarantees to equal protection and due process). If what you really want is a theocracy and not the Constitution and everything it protects then move to Iran.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:33 PM

To repeat myself,

You know, if it wasn’t for the censors I’d gladly share with you how I feel about you piece of trash traitors that have no clue what the Constitution says or how much blood was spilled defending your right to act like a tool. But you’ll meet God someday and will have to explain all your actions to Him. That should be a fun conversation.

Just because your ancestors (and your betters) sacrificed for our nation, does not mean you comprehend nor appreciate what they have done. Without our Christian values, we do not have a nation. The Founders all recognized that fact.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM

When e.g. I give my child advice, I may not annotate my comments with biblical quotations, but he will know that my advice is biblical.

The fact that there is a Bible on the desk and a cross on the wall may reinforce this assumption, even if I don’t wave the cross around and thump the Bible continuously.

The men who wrote the Constitution were almost without exception Christians, writing a document for a Christian people, and weren’t compelled to quote Scripture at every turn, since the underlying assumption of all they did was a Christian milieu.

If you want to pretend that they were anti-Christs like you, that’s your prerogative.

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 9:05 PM

If you read the decision in Loving v. Virginia, you can see that the Court used liberty of contract to strike down miscegenation laws.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 8:28 PM

And if you read Baker v. Nelson, a decision by the same court mere years later, you see that they had zero trouble with state laws banning gay-sex marriage with nary a whisper of violating “liberty of contract”.

So that argument doesn’t really fly, not to mention the numerous other examples of how contracts are by no means universally enforceable among the other states.

My family has been fighting and dying for this country since 1776, and I hold our Constitution in the highest of esteem. I’m talking about the whole Constitution, too, including the parts of it you seem to want to omit to better fit your personal agenda (like the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the guarantees to equal protection and due process). If what you really want is a theocracy and not the Constitution and everything it protects then move to Iran.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:33 PM

LOL.

Bigots like yourself scream “theocracy” every time someone who has ever in any way publicly professed their faith expresses an opinion on anything.

It’s a word like “racist” — a perjorative used by bigots to force other people to change their behavior. It shows what little intellect you actually have and how you are nothing more than a screaming, bratty child trying to force your way on others.

Especially when one considers how gay-sex marriage supporting bigots like yourself so clearly spit on and violate the Constitution.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 9:05 PM

“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.” -Joseph Story

You know who he is, right?

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 9:08 PM

“It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape.” -Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, Vol. III.

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Without our Christian values, we do not have a nation. The Founders all recognized that fact.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Which is why they enshrined so many Christian values in the Constitution. Oh wait…..

Just because you really want something to be true does not mean it is.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:09 PM

“Christianity… is not to be maliciously and openly reviled arid blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public… It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of… Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country… Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics… And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such [lay]men by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a Divine Revelation in the [school — its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay teachers? It may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of the religion of Christ? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?” -Joseph Story, Vidal v. Girard’s Executors

You know who Joseph Story was, right?

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I don’t deny for a moment that we are a nation founded by Christians, and thank goodness we were. But we were founded with a secular government.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Which is why they enshrined so many Christian values in the Constitution. Oh wait…..Just because you really want something to be true does not mean it is. alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:09 PM

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” -John Jay

You learned all about John Jay in Atheism 101, right?

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM

“The real object of the First Amendment was not to coutenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exculde all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.” -Joseph Story again,

Story was appointed to SCOTUS by Madison, who looked far and wide for an atheist to appoint and couldn’t find one, so he settled for Story.

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 9:14 PM

And if you read Baker v. Nelson, a decision by the same court mere years later, you see that they had zero trouble with state laws banning gay-sex marriage with nary a whisper of violating “liberty of contract”.

So that argument doesn’t really fly, not to mention the numerous other examples of how contracts are by no means universally enforceable among the other states.

If you had listened to even the first few minutes of oral arguments on the Prop 8 case you would have had it explained to you by a Supreme Court justice that Baker doesn’t hold much weight anymore, and no justice jumping in to say that it does.

LOL.

Bigots like yourself scream “theocracy” every time someone who has ever in any way publicly professed their faith expresses an opinion on anything.

I bring up the term “theocracy” whenever anyone cites Christian morality as a reasoning for why the government should do anything, because that is what they’re advocating.

It’s a word like “racist” — a perjorative used by bigots to force other people to change their behavior. It shows what little intellect you actually have and how you are nothing more than a screaming, bratty child trying to force your way on others.

If you’re a theocrat and the truth hurts then that’s your cross to bear.

Especially when one considers how gay-sex marriage supporting bigots like yourself so clearly spit on and violate the Constitution.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 9:05 PM

If you’re going to try the guilt-by-association game again can you at least try it with some guy who you’ve not had it explained to you acted in violation of his authority and was smacked down by his superiors the day after he said it? Did you think I would forget that you’ve had this explained to you before or is a discredited argument all you have?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” -John Jay

You learned all about John Jay in Atheism 101, right?

Akzed on July 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM

John Adams also said the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people, and that it was wholly inadequate for any other sort. But the opinions expressed by John Adams or John Jay or anyone else aren’t what’s actually in the Constitution, and it’s the words that are actually on the page that are what matter.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:24 PM

I bring up the term “theocracy” whenever anyone cites Christian morality as a reasoning for why the government should do anything, because that is what they’re advocating.

Ah, the hilarity.

I don’t deny for a moment that we are a nation founded by Christians, and thank goodness we were.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:11 PM

So the very people whose values you are trumpeting as a good thing are vicious, evil theocrats.

If you’re a theocrat and the truth hurts then that’s your cross to bear.

“If”?

So you’re namecalling and screaming that I’m a theocrat, but you don’t even know if I actually am one or not?

Thanks for making it clear that you’re just using it as a perjorative — and that you are thus a bigot and a hypocrite.

If you’re going to try the guilt-by-association game again can you at least try it with some guy who you’ve not had it explained to you acted in violation of his authority and was smacked down by his superiors the day after he said it? Did you think I would forget that you’ve had this explained to you before or is a discredited argument all you have?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Who are the “superiors” of an elected Chicago alderman?

You couldn’t make it more obvious that you didn’t read it, and that you’re just blathering out of your rear because you don’t have the balls to say that your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters like him are bigots who violate the Constitution.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 9:28 PM

John Adams also said the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people, and that it was wholly inadequate for any other sort. But the opinions expressed by John Adams or John Jay or anyone else aren’t what’s actually in the Constitution, and it’s the words that are actually on the page that are what matter.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Except there are no words about gay-sex marriage, or any other marriage for that matter.

There are PLENTY of words about freedom of religion and of speech, as well as the right of the voters to amend their own constitutions.

So why does your desperate need for gay-sex marriage trump those words, bigot?

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Except there are no words about gay-sex marriage, or any other marriage for that matter.

There are PLENTY of words about freedom of religion and of speech, as well as the right of the voters to amend their own constitutions.

So why does your desperate need for gay-sex marriage trump those words, bigot?

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Of course voters have the right to amend their own Constitutions. If the Due Process, Equal Protection or Full Faith and Credit Clauses are causing things to happen that you don’t like then by all means take them out. Or if you want to leave them in but explicitly define marriage as the union of one man and one woman then put that in. If you don’t have the support for those changes to the Constitution then that’s your problem.

You still have your freedoms of speech and religion too. The moment anyone tries to take those from you I’ll be right beside you defending your rights as strongly and passionately as I’m defending the people whose rights are being abridged right now. I stand up for freedom, even if it’s the freedom to do things I don’t personally care for or participate in.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Which is why they enshrined so many Christian values in the Constitution. Oh wait…..

Just because you really want something to be true does not mean it is.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:09 PM

They enshrined the 1st Amendment with a huge one, the right to protect the people from Congress enforcing another religion upon them. This nation was build upon Christian blood. Sorry if that disappoints your pagan beliefs.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 10:00 PM

John Adams also said the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people, and that it was wholly inadequate for any other sort. But the opinions expressed by John Adams or John Jay or anyone else aren’t what’s actually in the Constitution, and it’s the words that are actually on the page that are what matter.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Neither are the words of Thomas Jefferson in his private letters to the Danbury Baptists, but that doesn’t prevent you Christo-phobes from acting like it’s the only mention of religion in the Constitution.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 10:02 PM

I wrote a while back about my niece going to Massachusetts from Pennsylvania to get married. Her wife is a National Guard soldier and the entire first year they have been vocal and petitioning for the Army to bestow marriage benefits on them and other same sex marriage couples in the military. Their right to voice an opinion that they deserve it although I disagree with their position.

I also wrote that I was worried about her. On one thread there was a discussion off the main subject about domestic violence in lesbian marriages. I posted links to the gay community itself who said there was an alarming rise in domestic violence being reported within their community. My niece is back home with her parents and her face is still black and blue from the last beating from her wife. I’m just glad she’s safe. But I was excoriated by the “usual suspects” here to even voice my concern that it might be what was occurring in her situation. Now that she’s home, she says that it began almost immediately after they were wed.

For those of you who love to claim that gay marriages are going to be inherently more peaceful and somehow devoid of the problems in heterosexual marriages, you’re wrong.

hawkdriver on July 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Except there are no words about gay-sex marriage, or any other marriage for that matter.

There are PLENTY of words about freedom of religion and of speech, as well as the right of the voters to amend their own constitutions.

So why does your desperate need for gay-sex marriage trump those words, bigot? – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 9:30 PM

You are homosexual. Why do you always use the word bigot against gays who think that gay marriage is something that they have a right? Do you think that homosexuality should still be defined as a mental disorder by the medical community? Do you think you are mentally ill? You are obviously younger than myself. You have a lot to learn.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:05 PM

For those of you who love to claim that gay marriages are going to be inherently more peaceful and somehow devoid of the problems in heterosexual marriages, you’re wrong. – hawkdriver on July 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Hawkdrive, anyone who would make that assumption would be foolish.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:08 PM

hawkdriver on July 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM

I’m sorry to hear about your niece. I will pray for her. She’s lucky to have family like you and her parents to fall back on.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Or if you want to leave them in but explicitly define marriage as the union of one man and one woman then put that in.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Oh my.

So you’re acknowledging that the definition of marriage ISN’T in the Constitution?

Which means that your attempt to scream and rant that defining marriage as one man and one woman is “unconstitutional” is nothing but horse hockey.

And that makes this particularly hilarious.

The moment anyone tries to take those from you I’ll be right beside you defending your rights as strongly and passionately as I’m defending the people whose rights are being abridged right now.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM

You just admitted right above that gay-sex marriage is not a Constitutional right.

Yet you openly disparage the Constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and the rights of voters to amend their own Constitutions.

I have the same answer for you as I do your other Obama-supporting gay-sex marriage bigots: since you won’t defend my actual, written Constitutional rights, why should I be stupid enough to believe you would defend the fake made-up ones you’re trying to use to bribe me?

You are a bigot and a homophobe. Indeed, you treat gay people like morons and use their sexual orientation to carry out your hate against religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

Why are you such a coward? Be a man and admit that you’re an antireligious bigot, instead of whining about how you’re trying to protect my “freedoms”.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:16 PM

I am for gay marriage in churches that will allow them and of course for civil marriages. No church or religion should be forced to perform gay marriages as per the first amendment to the United States Constitution.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Hawkdrive, anyone who would make that assumption would be foolish.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Then there are a lot of foolish people commenting on this thread. Libfreeordie for one, (who ironically was talking about child predators earlier this thread in the third person) loves to discuss same-sex marriage as being almost intrinsically virtuous compared to the problems of heterosexual marriages.

hawkdriver on July 23, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Why are you such a coward? Be a man and admit that you’re an antireligious bigot, instead of whining about how you’re trying to protect my “freedoms”. – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:16 PM

ND30, you are gay. At one time laws were in force that banned you from even being employed by the Federal government. Was that a just law? Should it still be in force?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:20 PM

hawkdriver on July 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM
I’m sorry to hear about your niece. I will pray for her. She’s lucky to have family like you and her parents to fall back on.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 10:14 PM

It was really hard on her father. He is of the same mind as me. But he went. He gave her away. He even did all the traditional pictures. It’s still hard on him.

hawkdriver on July 23, 2013 at 10:21 PM

ND30, you are gay. Many posters on this board think that mental health professionals were forced/bullied to remove homosexuality in 1973 from the list of mental disorders. Do you think they are right?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:24 PM

You are homosexual. Why do you always use the word bigot against gays who think that gay marriage is something that they have a right?

Because you are using gay marriage as a smokescreen to carry out your bigotry and hatred toward others.

You are nothing more than a screaming Trayvon wannabe blaming straight people for all your problems. And like the Trayvons of the world, you are acting out of hatred and spite.

Do you think that homosexuality should still be defined as a mental disorder by the medical community? Do you think you are mentally ill?

Given that gays like yourself insist that your sexual orientation is why you sexually harass others, why you need to have sex in public, and why you are incapable of monogamy or fidelity in relationships, what else is society supposed to think?

You blame everything bad that ever happens on your sexual orientation. That IS a mental illness on your part.

You are obviously younger than myself. You have a lot to learn.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:05 PM

LOL, not unless I want to spend the rest of my life playing a victim.

And I’d rather be a responsible adult, which I am.

I know gays like myself make gays like you who blame all of your problems on your sexual orientation look like the pathetic whiny victims that you are, which is why you hate us so much.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Hawkdriver, I will pray that she finds someone with whom she can share her life, whether she gets married or not.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:26 PM

ND30, you are gay. At one time laws were in force that banned you from even being employed by the Federal government. Was that a just law? Should it still be in force?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Let’s see, what are gays and lesbians doing when they get into office?

Enter City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The future mayoral candidate drew her line of opposition to the chicken sandwich purveyor, stating, “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City as long as the company’s president welcomes continues to uphold and promote his discriminatory views.”

She is referring to President Dan Cathy’s remarks on his defense the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ and how America should stop questioning God – these statements were mentioned in yesterday’s piece as well. For Ms. Quinn, the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ is a far cry from reality, especially since she recently wed her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo.

And, with that, she has started her campaign to boot this organization from NYC’s restaurant ranks.

As that shows, gays and lesbians are antireligious bigots who cannot be trusted with power and will abuse it to attack people based on their speech and religious beliefs.

With that in mind, you’re damn skippy I will accept being discriminated if it keeps bigots like you and Christine Quinn away from government offices.

Just like I accept not being able to give blood because gay and lesbian bigots like yourself lied about your HIV status. You chose to act like idiots based on your sexual orientation; society took measures, and I accept those measures for the greater good.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:28 PM

ND30, I hate no one. Anyone who reads what you write can see that your heart is filled with hate.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:29 PM

For those of you who love to claim that gay marriages are going to be inherently more peaceful and somehow devoid of the problems in heterosexual marriages, you’re wrong.

hawkdriver on July 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM

You’re right, hawkdriver.

And they’re going to be worse, because there is literally no morality or restraint in the gay and lesbian community.

Anyone who speaks out against the wife-beating lesbian she married will be excoriated as “self-loathing”, just as we have the bigots like SC.Charlie and JetBoy screaming that any gay person who doesn’t support gay-sex marriage is mentally ill or a traitor.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Neither are the words of Thomas Jefferson in his private letters to the Danbury Baptists, but that doesn’t prevent you Christo-phobes from acting like it’s the only mention of religion in the Constitution.

njrob on July 23, 2013 at 10:02 PM

I’m not afraid of Christians, nor do I bear any animus for Christians at all whatsoever. The fact that I reject your personal interpretation of the Bible as the basis for law in this country does not mean that I have anything against Christianity or any other religion.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 10:32 PM

ND30, I am not responsible for everything that every gay activist has done, neither or you.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Anyone who speaks out against the wife-beating lesbian she married will be excoriated as “self-loathing”, just as we have the bigots like SC.Charlie and JetBoy screaming that any gay person who doesn’t support gay-sex marriage is mentally ill or a traitor. – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:31 PM

ND30, I have said no such thing as you just stated. I condemn what happened to Hawkerdriver’s sister. What I did ask you do you agree with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM back in 1973 as a mental disorder? If you do, we both fall in the category of being mentally ill. And, should be treated by mental professionals.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:39 PM

And they’re going to be worse, because there is literally no morality or restraint in the gay and lesbian community. – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:31 PM

You are gay and say such hateful things. Do you really believe this?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:41 PM

You are gay and say such hateful things. Do you really believe this?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Do you really want examples?

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:45 PM

ND30, I am not responsible for everything that every gay activist has done, neither or you.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Of course you are. Just like you rant every Christian is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened throughout history, including but not limited to the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, etc, etc, etc.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM

And they’re going to be worse, because there is literally no morality or restraint in the gay and lesbian community. – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:31 PM

You appear to have problems with your own homosexuality. I do pray that you come to terms with it.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Oh my.

So you’re acknowledging that the definition of marriage ISN’T in the Constitution?

I thought that was so obvious that it didn’t need to be acknowledged, but if it will make you feel like you’ve proven something then okay, I acknowledge that.

Which means that your attempt to scream and rant that defining marriage as one man and one woman is “unconstitutional” is nothing but horse hockey.

I’m attempting to have a reasonable discussion; screaming and ranting isn’t really my style, no matter how unreasonable the other side might be. I’ve compared arguing with the anti-same sex marriage crowd as playing Madden on the Xbox with the difficulty set to “Rookie” and if my opponents are that overmatched to start with (and they are! :) ) then I shouldn’t even need to entertain the notion of screaming.

And that makes this particularly hilarious.

It would be even funnier if you understood what you were talking about, albeit for a totally different reason than you find things funny now.

You just admitted right above that gay-sex marriage is not a Constitutional right.

It’s not in the text of the Constitution, but then again neither is the right to have a family and raise your children. What is in the Constitution are guarantees to equal protection and due process, both at the federal and state level.

Yet you openly disparage the Constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and the rights of voters to amend their own Constitutions.

Here’s where you’re being funny and don’t know it. I’ve disparaged none of those. Heck, I’m a card-carrying life member of the National Rifle Association. That card is in my wallet right next to my concealed weapons permit. But it fits your narrative to proclaim all those things and your narrative is your first priority, the truth be damned. Like I said, you’re funny but not for reasons you understand.

I have the same answer for you as I do your other Obama-supporting gay-sex marriage bigots: since you won’t defend my actual, written Constitutional rights, why should I be stupid enough to believe you would defend the fake made-up ones you’re trying to use to bribe me?

I do not now nor have I ever supported Barack Obama (remember what I just said about how you make things up to fit your narrative? Yeah, you’re doing it again). This is why I think you’re a clever troll; no real person trying to advance any agenda could possibly be setting themselves up for failure like you do. It’s just not possible. No one is this for out of it.

You are a bigot and a homophobe.

And again…..

Indeed, you treat gay people like morons and use their sexual orientation to carry out your hate against religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

I feel like I should stop you for your own good. Seriously, lie down before you hurt yourself.

Why are you such a coward? Be a man and admit that you’re an antireligious bigot, instead of whining about how you’re trying to protect my “freedoms”.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:16 PM

The only thing I’m really afraid of is if I rhetorically ask how or why I should admit to something that isn’t true that you might actually have an answer.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Of course you are. Just like you rant every Christian is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened throughout history, including but not limited to the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, etc, etc, etc. – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Again you lie. I have never said such things. I do recognize that Christianity is not perfect.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:50 PM

You appear to have problems with your own homosexuality.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Not at all. Unlike you, it doesn’t require me to have public sex, be an idiot in the workplace, hate Christians, or vote Obama.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM

ND30, I am a Christian, an Episcopalian.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM

Not at all. Unlike you, it doesn’t require me to have public sex, be an idiot in the workplace, hate Christians, or vote Obama. – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM

Strange, I didn’t know that having public sex and voting for Obama are requirements for being gay. I have done neither. Do you think that all other homosexuals except for you have public sex and vote for Obama?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:56 PM

ND30, I am a Christian, an Episcopalian.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM

ND30 has got to be a troll. I’ve seen you on here plenty, I’ve read your posts and I know your story well enough, as would anyone else who’s engaged you as much as I know ND30 has. There is no way he could be intellectually honest and still say things like he did in his 10:53PM post. “Clever, dedicated troll” is the best, most likely theory that fits the facts.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:00 PM

It’s not in the text of the Constitution, but then again neither is the right to have a family and raise your children.

Ninth and Tenth Amendment. We’ve already been over this. You ignore those because, like your Barack Obama, you believe that rights come only from government and that people should be punished by government for disagreeing with you.

What is in the Constitution are guarantees to equal protection and due process, both at the federal and state level.

Both of which you ignore in order to get the results you want. Everyone here knows that you are a lying bigot and hatemonger who screams that ANY result that isn’t what you want isn’t “equal protection” or “due process”.

I’m attempting to have a reasonable discussion; screaming and ranting isn’t really my style, no matter how unreasonable the other side might be. I’ve compared arguing with the anti-same sex marriage crowd as playing Madden on the Xbox with the difficulty set to “Rookie” and if my opponents are that overmatched to start with (and they are! :) ) then I shouldn’t even need to entertain the notion of screaming.

Which is why you rant that anyone with religious beliefs is a “theocrat”.

Here’s where you’re being funny and don’t know it. I’ve disparaged none of those. Heck, I’m a card-carrying life member of the National Rifle Association. That card is in my wallet right next to my concealed weapons permit. But it fits your narrative to proclaim all those things and your narrative is your first priority, the truth be damned.

Yup — as demonstrated by your screaming that anyone with religious beliefs is a “theocrat”.

If you actually had an argument, you wouldn’t need to lie like that. But you don’t. You’re a typical liberal bigot, screaming “racist” and “theocrat” and all these other words to bully people.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:01 PM

ND30, I am a Christian, an Episcopalian.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM

Actually, given that Episcopalians overwhelmingly deny Christ, I don’t think you can technically call yourself that.

But then again, Jesus was inconvenient. After all, worshiping gay sex and talking about your locker room sexual experiences like “Bishop” Gene Robinson did was more important. After all, “Bishop” Gene Robinson screams that all other Christians are murderers.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:05 PM

ND30 has got to be a troll. I’ve seen you on here plenty, I’ve read your posts and I know your story well enough, as would anyone else who’s engaged you as much as I know ND30 has. There is no way he could be intellectually honest and still say things like he did in his 10:53PM post. “Clever, dedicated troll” is the best, most likely theory that fits the facts. – alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Alchemist, I do know that ND30 is gay and is personally known by some gay conservatives. I just don’t understand why he is so bitter at the gay community, without finding any fault with our society as a whole in the manner homosexuals have been treated.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:06 PM

Strange, I didn’t know that having public sex and voting for Obama are requirements for being gay. I have done neither. Do you think that all other homosexuals except for you have public sex and vote for Obama?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Did you not already read the examples I sent you?

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Alchemist, I do know that ND30 is gay and is personally known by some gay conservatives. I just don’t understand why he is so bitter at the gay community, without finding any fault with our society as a whole in the manner homosexuals have been treated.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:06 PM

I find it amusing someone is whining about how gays are treated while ignoring how the gay and lesbian community screams and berates those who fire gays and lesbians who sexually harass others in the workplace or how the gay and lesbian community openly calls for the murder of people based on their political affiliation.

How exactly are you supposed to treat people who behave in this fashion, especially when they state outright that their sexual orientation makes them act this way?

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:11 PM

Ninth and Tenth Amendment. We’ve already been over this. You ignore those because, like your Barack Obama, you believe that rights come only from government and that people should be punished by government for disagreeing with you.

After saying an NRA member with a Springfield 1911 on his belt likes to disparage the right to bear arms, a non-troll would have learned about making assumptions. But there you go again.

Both of which you ignore in order to get the results you want. Everyone here knows that you are a lying bigot and hatemonger who screams that ANY result that isn’t what you want isn’t “equal protection” or “due process”.

I’m guessing I was doing this in the same place I was disparaging the right to bear arms.

Which is why you rant that anyone with religious beliefs is a “theocrat”.

Yup — as demonstrated by your screaming that anyone with religious beliefs is a “theocrat”.

SC.Charlie is an Episcopalian and he’s not a theocrat. Not that you’ve got a whole lot of credibility to assail but I thought I’d do it anyway.

If you actually had an argument, you wouldn’t need to lie like that. But you don’t. You’re a typical liberal bigot, screaming “racist” and “theocrat” and all these other words to bully people.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Just because you lost the argument and made a fool of yourself it doesn’t mean you were bullied, just that your arguments lacked merit. It’s okay, everyone’s been wrong before. Now do the adult thing, admit it, reevaluate your positions, change if it’s appropriate to do so and move on as a better person.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:11 PM

Did you not already read the examples I sent you? – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:07 PM

There is no need to. Why do you just continue to posts after posts what what some gay person said that you find offensive? Do you find it offensive that some conservatives post on this board that all homosexuals are mentally ill?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:15 PM

Alchemist, I do know that ND30 is gay and is personally known by some gay conservatives. I just don’t understand why he is so bitter at the gay community, without finding any fault with our society as a whole in the manner homosexuals have been treated.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:06 PM

You mean ND30 is real? And he really believes the things he posts?

.
.
.

You know that scene in the old movie Scanners where the guy’s head explodes? That’s me right now.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7