Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#54 Jun 26, 2013
What a shock...my alma mater is on Google...
The trolls could even find Ohio State's too, if they tried. Naturally, that proves nobody on Topix went there, either.
Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

#55 Jun 26, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
If two members of the same sex introduce themselves to me as "married," I'll simply do what I did when I was visiting someone in the hospital not too long ago and a woman entered the room saying she was the chaplain...I smirked and said, "Sure you are..."
That Colby class always shines through.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#56 Jun 26, 2013
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
That Colby class always shines through.
Just think...now you and Uncle Ernie can move to California and get married.
They cannot kill a spook

Detroit, MI

#57 Jun 26, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
Very excited to see the response from the federal gov (what kind of timeline is going to be set for adjustments on their end) and the legal actions that follow.
Good on them for framing it as a state's rights issue.
Hell, good on them for all of it.
Isn't tough to chew carpet with rotting green teeth? Wonder which smells worse, a dirty box for lunch or your breath?
Slim

Delaware, OH

#58 Jun 26, 2013
Allright, listen up all white Republicans. You will accept gays getting married whether you like it or not. If you don't, we will make you. You will also accept that women can get an abortion any time she wants on your dime. Who cares if she's over 30 weeks pregnant. It's her choice. It's more important for her to be comfortable with her decision than the size of the baby when she finally decides. You will also be held responsible for anything you've said since birth and will be punished as we see fit if we find out you said something we don't like. You could be smeared in the news, lose your job, etc. You are not allowed to speak your mind, have an opinion, or disagree with anything we say. Again remember this goes for white Republicans only. Anyone else can do as they please. Signed, The Democrats.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#59 Jun 26, 2013
Slim wrote:
\You will also accept that women can get an abortion any time she wants on your dime. Who cares if she's over 30 weeks pregnant. It's her choice.
They'll have to put me in prison for tax evasion.

With at least a million alongside me, good luck holding us all.

But I guess we'll just be gassed, as we don't fit into the New Order.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#61 Jun 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are going to engage in civil disobedience? What happened to the Civil War?
Can't remember where in the 60' x 120' backyard he buried the guns.

woof
Slim

Delaware, OH

#62 Jun 26, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
They'll have to put me in prison for tax evasion.
With at least a million alongside me, good luck holding us all.
But I guess we'll just be gassed, as we don't fit into the New Order.
I wouldn't be surprised if that day comes. You will not disagree with anything they say or do. If you do, they will make an example of you. And you better not own a business or anyone in your family. They will be sure to ruin that for you. By the way, did you know that Democrats have never said the N word? Not one of them. It must be a great life to be so perfect. Only white Republicans use racial slurs and are racists. Every single one of them. Who knew?
VADoc

United States

#63 Jun 26, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, if the courts are honest, I get to CCW in NYC now.
Exactly if they are going to shit on one states' rights issue then they should be ready to do the same with others. Anything less to me is pure activism on behalf of the court.

Personally I think they should stay the hell out of state issues unless they violate the constitution and from what I've seen states are the ones who issue CCW permits and marriage licenses.

“The One! The Only! RUKiddingme”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey, Baby!

#64 Jun 26, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
They'll have to put me in prison for tax evasion.
With at least a million alongside me, good luck holding us all.
But I guess we'll just be gassed, as we don't fit into the New Order.
Ooh-fah! The victim mentality on you people. You'll never amount to anything.

“The One! The Only! RUKiddingme”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey, Baby!

#65 Jun 26, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
What a shock...my alma mater is on Google...
The trolls could even find Ohio State's too, if they tried. Naturally, that proves nobody on Topix went there, either.
Why, yes George, yes. Your alma mater is on the internets:

http://www.phoenix.edu

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#66 Jun 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
Wow...since SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection -- and not states rights, as I believe it clearly is -- then Prop 8 will be struck down.
The homosexual activists will be correct today in stating that no state can legally prevent them from entering into marriage.
I don't think so. It only says the feds have to recognize a marriage that was legal in the state where it occurred (basically how it was before DOMA). Clearly a states' rights victory, even if not specifically stated.

In my opinion the reason for the ruling on prop 8 was that they had the right (regardless of how they got it), then it was taken away. Since Ohio, for example, never had the right, the ruling doesn't apply to Ohio. Basically once a state has granted the right, it can never take it away, but it has the right to determine the initial granting.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#67 Jun 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think so. It only says the feds have to recognize a marriage that was legal in the state where it occurred (basically how it was before DOMA). Clearly a states' rights victory, even if not specifically stated.
In my opinion the reason for the ruling on prop 8 was that they had the right (regardless of how they got it), then it was taken away. Since Ohio, for example, never had the right, the ruling doesn't apply to Ohio. Basically once a state has granted the right, it can never take it away, but it has the right to determine the initial granting.
Rescinding DOMA on the basis of equal protection is an obvious step toward nationalized same-sex marriage. Homosexual activists announced today that their achievement of this goal is expected within five years. And, as I posted earlier, there can be no doubt that new legal challenges to "traditional marriage" states are being prepared at this very moment.

The Prop 8 case [brought by an intervenor, and not the state] was denied standing before SCOTUS because the State of California refused to defend it...setting the dangerous precedent that elected officials may selectively refuse to defend laws -- in direct opposition to the will of the citizens.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#68 Jun 26, 2013
mike wrote:
<quoted text>
The question the court answered, correctly, is by what legal precedent does the court have to deny gays the right to marry. Basically, those opposed to gay marriage can no longer use animus - or moral disapproval - to enact laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same sex.
Not exactly. The states can do whatever they want (according to the rules in that state) AS LONG AS they do not remove an already-existing right (as was the case in California, and why the ruling only affects California). California's case was not a gay rights issue per se, it was a deprivation of rights issue that happened to affect gays.
And yes - the question of wether or not polygamy can be made illegal will inevitably follow on the same grounds.
Not on the same grounds. Nobody alive has standing to say those rights were taken away from them.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#69 Jun 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Rescinding DOMA on the basis of equal protection is an obvious step toward nationalized same-sex marriage. Homosexual activists announced today that their achievement of this goal is expected within five years. And, as I posted earlier, there can be no doubt that new legal challenges to "traditional marriage" states are being prepared at this very moment.
The Prop 8 case [brought by an intervenor, and not the state] was denied standing before SCOTUS because the State of California refused to defend it...setting the dangerous precedent that elected officials may selectively refuse to defend laws -- in direct opposition to the will of the citizens.
It's quite simple, if Kennedy retires from the court while a D is in office, they will appoint Goodwin Liu (Asian) to his place and they will have the votes to get SSM imagined into the Constitution.

If one is against it, you best realize that you are no longer part of this country.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#70 Jun 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
...Not on the same grounds. Nobody alive has standing to say those rights were taken away from them.
Wrong, as equal protection would apply to each US citizen.
The slippery slope is before you.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#71 Jun 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly. The states can do whatever they want (according to the rules in that state) AS LONG AS they do not remove an already-existing right (as was the case in California, and why the ruling only affects California). California's case was not a gay rights issue per se, it was a deprivation of rights issue that happened to affect gays.
<quoted text>
Not on the same grounds. Nobody alive has standing to say those rights were taken away from them.
Wasn't that the District Court opinion?

I thought the Supreme Court only ruled that the private parties cannot have standing, if CA had a different Attorney General they could still pursue the case at the Circuit level.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#72 Jun 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Rescinding DOMA on the basis of equal protection is an obvious step toward nationalized same-sex marriage.
I do not believe so. Only a few states recognize common-law marriages, for example, and the federal government recognizes those marriage ONLY FOR CITIZENS OF THOSE STATES WHERE IT IT LEGAL (not shouting, emphasizing). What the ruling did today was restore that practice (treating equally) to homosexual marriages ONLY FOR CITIZENS OF THOSE STATES WHERE IT IT LEGAL. Basically what they said was, "We defer to a state's definition of marriage when dealing with citizens of that state." It does not give the rights of citizens of one state to citizens of a different state.
Homosexual activists announced today that their achievement of this goal is expected within five years. And, as I posted earlier, there can be no doubt that new legal challenges to "traditional marriage" states are being prepared at this very moment.
Probably, but the arguments will bear no resemblance to the arguments used in either of the cases decided today.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#73 Jun 26, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
why don't we just take government out of marriage completely?
The federal government IS out of it now. But I agree with you in principle.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#74 Jun 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not believe so. Only a few states recognize common-law marriages, for example, and the federal government recognizes those marriage ONLY FOR CITIZENS OF THOSE STATES WHERE IT IT LEGAL (not shouting, emphasizing). What the ruling did today was restore that practice (treating equally) to homosexual marriages ONLY FOR CITIZENS OF THOSE STATES WHERE IT IT LEGAL. Basically what they said was, "We defer to a state's definition of marriage when dealing with citizens of that state." It does not give the rights of citizens of one state to citizens of a different state.
<quoted text>
Probably, but the arguments will bear no resemblance to the arguments used in either of the cases decided today.
This was not a states' right victory. SCOTUS invoked equal protection for a reason; when it is applied to the states, as it will be under the upcoming legal challenges, states will be found denying the same to the class known as same-sex individuals.

There can be no denial of this plain fact.

Further, your reassurances remind me of Obama's claim that Catholics would not be forced to pay for contraception under Obamacare...and, more specifically, of his claim today that he [the benevolent dictator, who assumes he has such power] would not require churches to perform same-sex weddings.

There can be no denial that Obama means neither.
He simply forgot to add the word "today" to the end of each of his statements.

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
The Middle East 6 min Pale Rider 38
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 9 min Pale Rider 4,913
2 magical days until Christmas 1 hr Big Papa Tea 62
Merry Christmas everybody 3 hr Duke for Mayor 17
COPS lives MATTER 3 hr Duke for Mayor 133
Police ID man found fatally stabbed in North Si... 6 hr now hey 4
Joe Cocker is dead. 8 hr Duke for Mayor 47
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:45 am PST

NFL10:45AM
One Preview: Steelers could ride 'Triplets' to division title
ESPN10:56 AM
Pettine: Manziel will get chance to compete
NBC Sports11:18 AM
Rookie Shaw excited about chance to start for Browns - NBC Sports
NFL11:45 AM
Injury roundup: A.J. Green misses Bengals practice
NBC Sports 1:46 PM
Mike Pettine: Our first-round picks aren't busts