Labor group asks bishop to talk gay r...

Labor group asks bishop to talk gay rights in the wake of teacher's firing

There are 214 comments on the Daily Kos story from Jun 13, 2013, titled Labor group asks bishop to talk gay rights in the wake of teacher's firing. In it, Daily Kos reports that:

[email protected], a group tied to the AFL-CIO, has joined the effort to get Carla Hale rehired by Ohio's Bishop Watterson High School, which fired her after her mother's obituary named her female partner .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Kos.

Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

#206 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You should visit your local library for remedial classes as well.
<quoted text>
One-man, one-woman was affirmed as the standard...which the Lovings met.
Which shows that the standard is not eternal and static.

As a democracy we have a say in the laws we live under. They can be changed to suit the times.

As I said before, gay marriage will not affect my life. How will it affect yours?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#209 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
I stated that same-sex individuals enjoy each and every constitutional right guaranteed to every other citizen.
And they do.
Well, let see. The SCOTUS says that marriage is right (that's their job, you know, to find when something is Constitutional or not), and we cannot marry the person we desire in some states. You can (assuming you are straight).

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#210 Jun 20, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal requirements pre Loving in affected states were:
Two partners of opposite sex, of legal age, unrelated, single and of the same race (there are some other fiddly ones as well, but we'll skip them for simplicity's sake).
Loving removed the ability to set a requirement for race, altering the requirements to marry.
Saying that Loving didn't alter the legal requirements to marry because it didn't alter the gender requirements seems to be what you're getting at?
The idea that the legal definition of marriage is "one man, one woman" seems more born of bumper stickers than of an understanding of the legal requirements. While it is a current requirement, it does not make up the whole of the legal requirements for a valid marriage.
I can't marry a 12 year old/sibling/currently married person/trafficked person of the opposite sex. Because the requirements for marriage encompass more than the gender of the participants.
Tl;dr: A change need not be comprehensive to be a change.
In the case of Loving v. Virginia, Virginia had applied an artificial construct to the legal definition of marriage. The state's attempted alteration was declared invalid.

In other words -- for the umpteenth time -- the legal definition of marriage was affirmed.

When a same-sex practitioner is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex, s/he will have a case.

Until then...so sorry.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#211 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
In the case of Loving v. Virginia, Virginia had applied an artificial construct to the legal definition of marriage.
The law itself is an artificial construct, as is the current restriction in many jurisdictions defining marriage as being between a man and a woman in many jurisdictions. The Constitution requires states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and marriage is a protection in every state.

If one holds your position, then in order for the artificial construct within the marriage law limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman to be constitutional, it must serve a compelling state interest.

Thus far you have failed to indicate any such interest.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#212 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The law itself is an artificial construct, as is the current restriction in many jurisdictions defining marriage as being between a man and a woman in many jurisdictions. The Constitution requires states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and marriage is a protection in every state.
If one holds your position, then in order for the artificial construct within the marriage law limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman to be constitutional, it must serve a compelling state interest.
Thus far you have failed to indicate any such interest.
The compelling interest is in the state not being compelled to recognize any and all definitions of "marriage" as valid.

Definitions matter.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#213 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
The compelling interest is in the state not being compelled to recognize any and all definitions of "marriage" as valid.
Definitions matter.
The state doesn't have to accept any and all definitions, and this absurd notion that they do does not constitute a compelling state interest to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

One would need to be pretty dim to think that it did.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#214 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, but you were arguing a state interest in procreation and child rearing relative to the legal protections of marriage.
I brought up those things because they disprove that notion. It's called making a factually supported argument.
<quoted text>
Once again, you seem not to understand the application a a compelling state interest. It is part of the judicial level of review of strict scrutiny, and it is applied to determine if an existing law is constitutional. Allowing same sex marriage does not need to fulfill a state interest, it is covered by the equal protection clause. Denying equal protection, as same sex marriage bans do, must meet strict scrutiny, so they need to serve a compelling state interest.
However, let's assume for a moment that your assertion was correct, and the state had to provide a compelling state interest served by allowing same sex couples to marry. Is enforcing our Constitution a state interest? If so, then the state interest is enforcing the equal protection clause.
No, I never argued a state interest in procreation. You made a factually supported argument against something I didn't assert.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#215 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
In the case of Loving v. Virginia, Virginia had applied an artificial construct to the legal definition of marriage. The state's attempted alteration was declared invalid.
In other words -- for the umpteenth time -- the legal definition of marriage was affirmed.
When a same-sex practitioner is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex, s/he will have a case.
Until then...so sorry.
I think I see the problem!

What "definition" of marriage are you using?

Legally, a marriage has to have a number of requirements and duties, which collective make up the legal definition of marriage. These have changed through Loving.

Are you using a definition of marriage which is made up entirely of there being a union of a man and woman, which is separate to the legal definition?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#216 Jun 20, 2013
Dan wrote:
No, I never argued a state interest in procreation. You made a factually supported argument against something I didn't assert.
So in post #185, you didn't say the following?
"Marriage exists, and the state takes an interest in it, because the sexual union of a man and woman produces children. Children have and need both a mom and a dad. The state incents marriage as to attempt to maintain this basic societal unit (so they don't have to care for the child)."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T73PFDFK5...

That is arguing a procreative and child rearing element relative to the legal protections of marriage.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#217 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The state doesn't have to accept any and all definitions, and this absurd notion that they do does not constitute a compelling state interest to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
One would need to be pretty dim to think that it did.
So...you would deny others the very "equality under the law" that you believe you are currently denied.

How tolerant.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#218 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
So in post #185, you didn't say the following?
"Marriage exists, and the state takes an interest in it, because the sexual union of a man and woman produces children. Children have and need both a mom and a dad. The state incents marriage as to attempt to maintain this basic societal unit (so they don't have to care for the child)."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T73PFDFK5...
That is arguing a procreative and child rearing element relative to the legal protections of marriage.
I'm not "arguing" it. It just IS, and that's the reason for the state's interest in marriage. The protections are post-facto. I'm simply stating why the reason for the state's interest.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#219 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is that you have no valid argument specifically against same sex marriage.
Yup. NONE of them ever do.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#220 Jun 20, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I never argued a state interest in procreation. You made a factually supported argument against something I didn't assert.
lides has never made a factually supported argument.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#221 Jun 20, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Legally, a marriage has to have a number of requirements and duties, which collective make up the legal definition of marriage. These have changed through Loving.
Loving changed nothing, one man and one woman.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#222 Jun 20, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You can in case of marriage.
Marriage exists, and the state takes an interest in it, because the sexual union of a man and woman produces children.
That is the case whether there is a marriage or not, and marriages are not REQUIRED to produce children, so is irrelevant.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#223 Jun 20, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal requirements pre Loving in affected states were:
Two partners of opposite sex, of legal age, unrelated, single and of the same race (there are some other fiddly ones as well, but we'll skip them for simplicity's sake).
Can you provide an example of a law before Loving that specified "opposite sex"?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#224 Jun 20, 2013
"Marriage… is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

- Black's Law Dictionary, dating back to 1891

Reflecting the reality of time immemorial.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#225 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
"Marriage… is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."
- Black's Law Dictionary, dating back to 1891
Reflecting the reality of time immemorial.
So you couldn't find a law either.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#226 Jun 20, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you couldn't find a law either.
It's an established legal definition.

Tony, you cannot seriously be claiming that you require case law to establish the time-honored definition of marriage.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#227 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an established legal definition.
Tony, you cannot seriously be claiming that you require case law to establish the time-honored definition of marriage.
The OP said "The legal requirements pre Loving in affected states were: Two partners of opposite sex,"

I simply asked for a law that actually stated that. A "law dictionary" is not a law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Donald J. Drumpf: Scumbag 5 min Mimzy 3
Trump's Wall 23 min Go Blue Forever 790
Donald Trump - Hillary Clinton Presidential Debate 23 min Duke for Mayor 44
Jews 🔯 55 min Duke for Mayor 9
Italian Bearded Lady! 58 min Mimzy 2
Whopper time! 1 hr Mimzy 3
Tyre King 1 hr common sense 18

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages