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:

Pride@Work, 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.

First Prev
of 11
Next Last

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#228 Jun 20, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Early Virginia statutes refer to "man" and "wife."

http://www.wvculture.org/history/marriagelaws...

Naturally, it has been understood from its inception that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Hence, the backlash at homosexual activists' efforts to redefine it.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#229 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Early Virginia statutes refer to "man" and "wife."
http://www.wvculture.org/history/marriagelaws...
Naturally, it has been understood from its inception that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Hence, the backlash at homosexual activists' efforts to redefine it.
Non responsive.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#230 Jun 21, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you provide an example of a law before Loving that specified "opposite sex"?
Yes and no.

Because marriage laws are a bit scatter-shot you get a wide range of statutes with varying language for the requirements to marry. I think petitioners in Mass* were able to apply for wedding licenses and then sue upon refusal because the language of the state laws contained no reference to gender. Collectively we agree on the nature of the contract (though that's changed so much over time!) but the details vary a bit, which is why you see the courts involved to enforce access to marriage rights at the federal level. The same way that the language of some statues doesn't bar cousins marrying or may have flexible age requirements (look this up, it's pretty creepy), some areas have/had built law which didn't specify gender.

It wasn't deliberate, these gender variances in historical laws. It's more a matter of oversight. The same way the declaration of independence advertised "life, liberty..." for all in the time of slavery. They didn't write these laws with the eye that same gender couples would one day use them, they wrote the laws unable to comprehend that these people would ever step forward to claim their rights, the same as former slaves claimed access to the rights written to technically include them within a system built on exclusion.

While their are laws which have and do specify gender, I think the current legal debate is best framed as the competition between a constitutionally protected right to marry and a historic mindset which is unable or unwilling to process these groups seeking access to these rights. Pointing to an extralegal "definition of marriage" (seriously guys, if there's a common legal definition, go and fetch it, common means easy to find) made solely of a male and female partner, is easier than engaging with the complex legal framework and applicants as agents of the process.

*I'm actually not wonderfully sure which state it was, sorry.
truth

Perth, Australia

#231 Jun 21, 2013
after gay and lesbian sida and aids they will put in constitution eat human meat too as canabilisam..

this corupt leadrs are nothing at all just rubbish
which they put in mind whats so ever..
byyyyyyyy
S Freud

Dayton, OH

#232 Jun 21, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and no.
Because marriage laws are a bit scatter-shot you get a wide range of statutes with varying language for the requirements to marry. I think petitioners in Mass* were able to apply for wedding licenses and then sue upon refusal because the language of the state laws contained no reference to gender. Collectively we agree on the nature of the contract (though that's changed so much over time!) but the details vary a bit, which is why you see the courts involved to enforce access to marriage rights at the federal level. The same way that the language of some statues doesn't bar cousins marrying or may have flexible age requirements (look this up, it's pretty creepy), some areas have/had built law which didn't specify gender.
It wasn't deliberate, these gender variances in historical laws. It's more a matter of oversight. The same way the declaration of independence advertised "life, liberty..." for all in the time of slavery. They didn't write these laws with the eye that same gender couples would one day use them, they wrote the laws unable to comprehend that these people would ever step forward to claim their rights, the same as former slaves claimed access to the rights written to technically include them within a system built on exclusion.
While their are laws which have and do specify gender, I think the current legal debate is best framed as the competition between a constitutionally protected right to marry and a historic mindset which is unable or unwilling to process these groups seeking access to these rights. Pointing to an extralegal "definition of marriage" (seriously guys, if there's a common legal definition, go and fetch it, common means easy to find) made solely of a male and female partner, is easier than engaging with the complex legal framework and applicants as agents of the process.
*I'm actually not wonderfully sure which state it was, sorry.
Utter worthless babble.

Take a chill pill, retard.
Larry Kramer

Dayton, OH

#233 Jun 21, 2013
In adddition to fedgov protection of porn, elective abortion, and sodomy, here's another nasty problem that freedom-loving gay victim cultist bring to America...

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/atag...

Estimated New HIV Infections in the United States, 2010, for the Most Affected Subpopulations:

White MSM (MSM = male homosexual)
Black MSM
Hispanic MSM
Black Hetero Women
Black Hetero Men
White Hetero women
Hispanic Hetero Women
Black Male IDU (IDU = intravenous recreational drug user)
Black Female IDU

The chart indicates the number of new HIV infections per year in the US.

The highest incidence rate of new HIV infections is white male homosexual. A close second is black male homosexual. There is no category for white straight male HIV infection rate because the number is statistically insignificant.

All of the groups of people listed on the x-axis of the CDC chart are American victim cult class people.

The chart establishes a little known fact: victim cult people are solely responsible for virtually all of the new HIV infections in the US.

Here's another fact:

"Tuberculosis or TB was a leading cause of death in early nineteenth century. It was number one cause of death in children aged 1 to 4. However, better living conditions and easy access to medical care helped in eradication of this disease from the US by 1960. Very few cases of TB were reported thereafter. However, this disease has been slowly making a comeback as the cases of HIV are on rise. HIV compromises your immune system to a great extent and makes you susceptible to various diseases and infections, including TB."
truth

Perth, Australia

#234 Jun 21, 2013
Did you include para-evil program under ID record?
Why not..future will revile medical dictators too who ever they are and leaders of them.
truth

Perth, Australia

#235 Jun 21, 2013
Who can and who can't?
ID record which dictators used in many case who can and who can't..today many many are target..Is that crime..if not please tell me why not!!!
Dan

Omaha, NE

#236 Jun 21, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the case whether there is a marriage or not, and marriages are not REQUIRED to produce children, so is irrelevant.
You have the same comprehension issues has lides;

I didn't say procreation is REQUIRED. I said that the state takes its interest in marriage as children ARE produced out of unions, and the state wants to keep that basic unit together so it doesn't have to care for the children (thus the incentives the state provides).

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#237 Jun 23, 2013
Dan wrote:
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.
You ARE, in fact arguing it, whether you admit as much or not.

You have two choices... Either you ARE making the argument that traditional marriage is the legal and valid option, or you are a disingenuous liar.
Larry Kramer

Dayton, OH

#238 Jun 23, 2013
What activities have gays done for which they have the most pride?...

federal protection for sodomy?
federal protection for elective abortion?
federal protection for porn?
federal sponsored AIDS hysteria?
federal prosecution of hate speech?
federal taxpayer support for queer art?
sodomizing RCC schoolchildren?
queer education in public schools?
forcing RCC hospitals to perform elective abortions?
redefining marriage as adult hedonism?
HIV, STD, and tuberculosis proliferation?
Hollywood shlock?
wars to promote and protect victim cult ideology in the world?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#239 Jun 23, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the same comprehension issues has lides;
I didn't say procreation is REQUIRED. I said that the state takes its interest in marriage as children ARE produced out of unions, and the state wants to keep that basic unit together so it doesn't have to care for the children (thus the incentives the state provides).
I didn't claim you did, I said that SINCE it is not required (either procreation out of marriage, or marriage as a prerequisite to procreation), it is irrelevant to the states' interest.
Gonzo

Dayton, OH

#240 Jun 23, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't claim you did, I said that SINCE it is not required (either procreation out of marriage, or marriage as a prerequisite to procreation), it is irrelevant to the states' interest.
It's difficult to compel people to procreate, but they can be incentivized.

Creating new taxpayers and decent citizens is obviously in the people's interest.

Marriage is one of the mechanism the people use to incentivise procreation.

The strongest argument against pervert marriage is that sodomy and abortion proclivities of perverts are damaging activities toward the goal of raising children.

In the not so distant past, local governments and state governments could deny a marriage license for a variety of good reasons....

sodomy
elective abortion
obscenity
child endangerment
mental deficiency
STD
moral turpitude
extreme poverty

Perverts have used shyster lawyer methods and fedgov bullying to eliminate the power of local governments to impose minimum standards for acquiring a marriage license. Perverts have caused the problem of many bad marriages today, due to their deliberate crusade to eliminate minimum standards imposed by state and local government. When perverts claim they deserve a marriage license because the governments gives it now to irresponsible straight deadbeats, the perverts are conveniently forgetting to mention they had a hidden hand in lowering the standards for awarding a marriage license.

Pervert shysters successfully lobbied to get elective abortion, sodomy, pornography, AIDS treatment and hate speech prosecutions all recognized and protected as federal civil rights.

Perverts often refer to their proclivities as love, perverting language too. If you've been paying attention, you'd notice that mass media never mention the word "sodomy" anymore. Mass media perverts instead refer to sodomy as anal sex or oral sex, perverting the original meaning of the word sex, a reproductive act.

Likewise, abortion is referred to as a "reproductive right" by mass media queers.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#241 Jun 23, 2013
Gonzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's difficult to compel people to procreate,
It IS ?!?!?!?!?

but they can be incentivized.
Creating new taxpayers and decent citizens is obviously in the people's interest.
Marriage is one of the mechanism the people use to incentivise procreation.
The strongest argument against pervert marriage is that sodomy and abortion proclivities of perverts are damaging activities toward the goal of raising children.

How does allowing gays to marry disincentivize straight couples from procreating? "Sorry honey, but they allow gay marriage now, so we can't do it"? And do you think these gays are suddenly going to get with the opposite sex and procreate if you deny them the right to marry? Of course not. That's why it's irrelevant.
In the not so distant past, local governments and state governments could deny a marriage license for a variety of good reasons....
In the not-so-distant past, blacks and whites couldn't marry each other, people were allowed to own other people, and women couldn't vote; for what I'm sure people thought were "good reasons" at the time. Seems someone discovered over time that those reasons weren't as good as first thought, and the law changed.

What it boils down to though is that, unless you are demonstrably harming someone else (and when harm is shown in one instance, only that one instance should be limited (It's why, for example, they don't take everyone's guns away when one person commits murder with theirs)), you should be allowed to do pretty much what you want.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

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
Body Camera For Police 41 min Annie 25
Muslims beat woman for wearing bikini French ou... 2 hr Tattle Tale 23
Poll Panty hose vs bare skin What is your preference? 2 hr Seriouslady 142
News Mosquito boom: Pests, including West Nile carri... 3 hr Duke for Mayor 4
For Cat Lovers Only! 4 hr Doc 175
Police are cowards 4 hr Duke for Mayor 24
Fake Plastic Surgeon Performs Procedures On Doz... 4 hr Duke for Mayor 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages