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

Jun 13, 2013 Full story: Daily Kos 214

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 .

Full Story

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#186 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a clue, it doesn't need to be. Do you know why? Because the 14th Amendment mandates states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
<quoted text>
Can you indicate a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of man to being between a man and a woman?
If you can't, then such a restriction cannot pass the judicial level of review of strict scrutiny, and the restriction is unconstitutional.
Absolutely.

If the state redefines the ages-old definition of marriage, under the guise of "equality under the law," then no other proposed form of "marriage" could be denied to any citizen.

Utter chaos.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#187 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Interracial, heterosexual marriage falls within the legal definition of marriage [see above].
A same-sex partnership does not.
Your claim that marriage is not a constitutionally protected right having been negated, I do recognize that the current legislation involves a gap between constitutional rights afforded to all couples and their actual current status. I don't really think we'll have to wait too much longer to see this resolved.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#188 Jun 20, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim that marriage is not a constitutionally protected right having been negated, I do recognize that the current legislation involves a gap between constitutional rights afforded to all couples and their actual current status. I don't really think we'll have to wait too much longer to see this resolved.
How did Loving v. Virginia alter the legal definition of marriage?

Loving v. Virginia affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the state could not discriminate based on race.

No matter how hard you same-sex activists attempt to find a parallel...it is NOT there.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#189 Jun 20, 2013
Dan wrote:
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. 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).
Sorry Dan, this attempted rationalization does not pass muster. First almost 50% of the births in the US are to parents out of wedlock. The state does nothing to stop such out of wedlock births. The state does not prevent divorce of couples where children are involved. The state allows adoption even by single parents, and in most jurisdictions even homosexuals can adopt.

Each of these points solidly indicate that the state has no interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage, or that the state does not have an interest in a child being raised by their birth parents, two parents, or opposite sex parents.
Dan wrote:
SSM doesn't meet the test of this state interest as it cannot, by definition, conjoin both the mother and father to any child from an SSM union.
A state interest is needed to deny a right, not to grant one.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...

Unless you can indicate a compelling state interest served by limiting the protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, then that restriction is unconstitutional.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#190 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
Absolutely.
If the state redefines the ages-old definition of marriage, under the guise of "equality under the law," then no other proposed form of "marriage" could be denied to any citizen.
Utter chaos.
Your logic is faulty. Many forms of marriage have been found to be contrary to a state interest. We deny close relative the right to marry, we deny people to marry more than one person, we have laws against bestiality. Each of these restrictions serves a compelling state interest.

So far you have yet to offer so little as a rational basis to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Doing so will not change any of the other restrictions already in place. You see, different instances each have specific circumstances and specific remedies. The law is not as generic as you imply.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#191 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
How did Loving v. Virginia alter the legal definition of marriage?
It struck down unconstitutional bans that excluded interracial couples from marriage. The same will eventually happen with bans on same sex marriage because they serve no compelling state interest and therefore are unconstitutional.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#192 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Dan, this attempted rationalization does not pass muster. First almost 50% of the births in the US are to parents out of wedlock. The state does nothing to stop such out of wedlock births. The state does not prevent divorce of couples where children are involved. The state allows adoption even by single parents, and in most jurisdictions even homosexuals can adopt.
Each of these points solidly indicate that the state has no interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage, or that the state does not have an interest in a child being raised by their birth parents, two parents, or opposite sex parents.
<quoted text>
A state interest is needed to deny a right, not to grant one.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
Unless you can indicate a compelling state interest served by limiting the protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, then that restriction is unconstitutional.
Bottom line: The state has no interest in societal chaos, where marriage can be defined by the parties thereto under their so-called claim to "equality under the law."

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#193 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
How did Loving v. Virginia alter the legal definition of marriage?
Loving v. Virginia affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the state could not discriminate based on race.
No matter how hard you same-sex activists attempt to find a parallel...it is NOT there.
Loving v. Virgina altered the working concept of marriage both through supporting marriage as a constitutional right and through removing race linked conditions placed on the status.

Pre Loving - marriage = one man and one woman, unless barred by racial requirements at the state level
Post loving - marriage, which has been confirmed again through this ruling as a constitutional right is through that confirmation not to be obstructed with conditions which might prevent this right, in this case, racial requirements

To streamline things further, someone looking for a simplistic way to look at the state of marriage in affected states before and after Loving could say

Before = a pair of adult, unrelated, single partners of the same race
After = a pair of adult, unrelated, single partners

It's not terrible complicated. Loving changed marriage by removing a bar from a constitutionally protected right.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#194 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Dan, this attempted rationalization does not pass muster. First almost 50% of the births in the US are to parents out of wedlock. The state does nothing to stop such out of wedlock births. The state does not prevent divorce of couples where children are involved. The state allows adoption even by single parents, and in most jurisdictions even homosexuals can adopt.
Each of these points solidly indicate that the state has no interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage, or that the state does not have an interest in a child being raised by their birth parents, two parents, or opposite sex parents.
<quoted text>
A state interest is needed to deny a right, not to grant one.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
Unless you can indicate a compelling state interest served by limiting the protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, then that restriction is unconstitutional.
I didn't say anything about how the state treats out of wedlock births, divorce or how they treat adoption.

I told you why the state takes in interest in marriage. They don't care that you DO procreate, they take an interest as men and women CAN procreate.

There isn't a compelling state interest to change standing law that prohibits SSM, which would be denying a right you claim.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#195 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
Bottom line: The state has no interest in societal chaos, where marriage can be defined by the parties thereto under their so-called claim to "equality under the law."
The bottom line is that you have no valid argument specifically against same sex marriage.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#196 Jun 20, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
There isn't a compelling state interest to change standing law that prohibits SSM, which would be denying a right you claim.
Could you unpack this a bit more?

I'm really not sure I'm reading what you're intending to say.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#197 Jun 20, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virgina altered the working concept of marriage both through supporting marriage as a constitutional right and through removing race linked conditions placed on the status.
Pre Loving - marriage = one man and one woman, unless barred by racial requirements at the state level
Post loving - marriage, which has been confirmed again through this ruling as a constitutional right is through that confirmation not to be obstructed with conditions which might prevent this right, in this case, racial requirements
To streamline things further, someone looking for a simplistic way to look at the state of marriage in affected states before and after Loving could say
Before = a pair of adult, unrelated, single partners of the same race
After = a pair of adult, unrelated, single partners
It's not terrible complicated. Loving changed marriage by removing a bar from a constitutionally protected right.
You remain completely oblivious.

Loving v. Virginia affirmed marriage [as per the legal definition, i.e., one man-one woman] as an individual right free from racial discrimination by the state.

The legal definition of marriage was not altered.

Same-sex practitioners are not seeking marriage, as a same-sex relationship does not conform to said definition. And substituting the word "partner" for both "male" and "female" is a lame attempt to pretend otherwise.

Again, if "marriage" is to be defined by the parties thereto, then anything goes. And the state will be bound by the very concept under which it abridged the ages-old definition, i.e., "equality under the law."

That is not a society in which any thinking person wants to live.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#198 Jun 20, 2013
Dan wrote:
I didn't say anything about how the state treats out of wedlock births, divorce or how they treat adoption.
I told you why the state takes in interest in marriage. They don't care that you DO procreate, they take an interest as men and women CAN procreate.
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.
Dan wrote:
There isn't a compelling state interest to change standing law that prohibits SSM, which would be denying a right you claim.
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.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#199 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is that you have no valid argument specifically against same sex marriage.
Remedial reading is offered at your taxpayer-funded local library.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#200 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
Remedial reading is offered at your taxpayer-funded local library.
Is this supposed to serve as a tacit admission that you have no valid argument specifically against same sex marriage?

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#201 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You remain completely oblivious.
Loving v. Virginia affirmed marriage [as per the legal definition, i.e., one man-one woman] as an individual right free from racial discrimination by the state.
The legal definition of marriage was not altered.
Same-sex practitioners are not seeking marriage, as a same-sex relationship does not conform to said definition. And substituting the word "partner" for both "male" and "female" is a lame attempt to pretend otherwise.
Again, if "marriage" is to be defined by the parties thereto, then anything goes. And the state will be bound by the very concept under which it abridged the ages-old definition, i.e., "equality under the law."
That is not a society in which any thinking person wants to live.
Your argument is that Loving changed the definition of marriage but did not alter it?

I'm not really sure I follow what you're trying to say.

Loving quite clearly changed which legal requirements to marry could remain in place by removing one of them through its immediate ruling. I'm not entirely sure how one could argue that this change is not a change to the legal requirements to marry.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#202 Jun 20, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is that Loving changed the definition of marriage but did not alter it?
I'm not really sure I follow what you're trying to say.
Loving quite clearly changed which legal requirements to marry could remain in place by removing one of them through its immediate ruling. I'm not entirely sure how one could argue that this change is not a change to the legal requirements to marry.
You should visit your local library for remedial classes as well.
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>

The legal definition of marriage was not altered.
One-man, one-woman was affirmed as the standard...which the Lovings met.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#203 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this supposed to serve as a tacit admission that you have no valid argument specifically against same sex marriage?
No, it affirms that you cannot comprehend the written word.

Once more: The state's objection would be based on the fact that "marriage," when defined by the parties thereto, based upon their purported claim to "equality under the law," [which, however, involves their redefining the legal term "marriage"...how ironic], would result in the state's inability to deny "marriage" [of any kind] to any other citizen.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#204 Jun 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
No, it affirms that you cannot comprehend the written word.
Funny, coming from the one with no valid argument for their position.
-tip- wrote:
Once more: The state's objection would be based on the fact that "marriage," when defined by the parties thereto, based upon their purported claim to "equality under the law," [which, however, involves their redefining the legal term "marriage"...how ironic], would result in the state's inability to deny "marriage" [of any kind] to any other citizen.
Of course, this notion has already been proven to be invalid. Polygamy and incest, for example have been outlawed for some time. When Loving v Virginia struck down laws that banned interracial couples from marriage, it had no impact upon the existing restrictions against polygamy and incest. You see, in each of those specific cases the underlying reason the union is not allowed did not change when the laws against interracial marriage were struck down, which for the record, absolutely constituted a redefinition of marriage in the jurisdictions that had previously banned such unions. Removing barriers for one class because they serve no state interest does not automatically remove all legal boundaries. One would have to be a fool to imply that it did.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#205 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.
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.

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
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 2 min Pope Che Reagan C... 31,489
Armed Contractor on Elevator with President 2 min They cannot kill ... 18
Double standards for muslims, bending league rules 4 min Duke for Mayor 42
Dear Duke (Got a problem, I've got your solution) 6 min BizzyBee 70
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 27 min Pale Rider 3,548
The Political Nazi's are at it again! 1 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 80
7mo prego couple seeking bi girl. 1 hr Obama is Bush wit... 8
Two fish were swimming upstream.... 4 hr Duke for Mayor 385
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]