Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in ...

Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in Ohio?

There are 1159 comments on the The Marion Star story from Mar 1, 2014, titled Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in Ohio?. In it, The Marion Star reports that:

Robert Johnson-Keeton grew up in a religious community just outside Chillicothe.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Marion Star.

Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#420 Mar 19, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> which is why the government needs to stay out of marriage.
Hey Einstein. How does the government stay out of a legal contract?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#421 Mar 19, 2014
Pappy wrote:
The AIDS/HIV and STD epidemic will increase with queer marriage, and the public subsidy of AIDS hysteria and queer government-subsidized medical treatments will grow. The growth of antibiotic resistance will continue because queers are incubating superbugs due to their habitual promiscuity and dirty sodomy.
Any data to back up your hysteria?

Take a Midol.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#422 Mar 19, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
excuse me.....you are fantasizing again.
you have exactly the same rights as any American Citizen, and you want extra rights no matter your spin.
there is no debate.....you lose.
If you want a legal relationship with a same sex partner, then form an LLC.
If you want to argue and try force, then expect heels dug in fighting you 25 to 1. You are the single warrior against 25.
Tired of the spin and lies and distortion........pop culture will not change the face of America, and the next POTUS will bring back respect for society and country, or America fails.
Hillary 2016
Pappy

Mason, OH

#423 Mar 19, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Has no effect on your child raising.
<quoted text>
Marriage promotes faithfulness, which will reduce promiscuity.
<quoted text>
It is you who have had the privilege... and look what you've done with it. In places where gay marriage is permitted, the divorce rate among gays is half what it is among straights.
When straight couples cease to get a marriage license, thus refusing public support, it has an effect on child raising. The public benefits of inheritance, medical insurance, life insurance, child care, and tax benefits are lost to straight people with children that refuse to associate with queered marriage.

Queers are provably elective abortion advocates, and their first priority is not child raising.

Marriage is supposed to promote child raising, not necessarily faithfulness. Show your verifiable evidence that a marriage license promotes faithfulness amongst queers. Good luck.

You have at least admitted that a marriage license is a privilege rather than a civil right, which many queers will not admit. Queers pro-actively lobbied to introduce elective abortion, sodomy, and pornography as nationally protected civil rights. On a national scale, queers used judicial activism to reduce to nothing the minimum requirments for acquiring a marriage license. All of their lobbying activities were aimed at destroying traditional marriage.

What you can't admit is that sodomy is a major vector for HIV/AIDS and STD transmission. CDC data proves this idea to be true. Sodomy is a normal and frequent activity of queers. Fedgov AIDS hysteria is unique and biased government involved disease control, where the power of the queer lobby has made HIV/AIDS control and treatment a priority over more serious diseases of straight people.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#424 Mar 19, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> by not licensing it for fiscal benefits.
Huh? They are tax benefits, you dolt.
Mercury

United States

#425 Mar 19, 2014
Moral Truth wrote:
<quoted text>Have you had your dessert yet? Sh!t on a d!ck
Foul mouthed punk.
Pappy

Mason, OH

#426 Mar 19, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Einstein. How does the government stay out of a legal contract?
Marriage is a private contract.

The arbiter of a private contract is designated in the contract, and it is not necessarily a government.

A marriage license is the only legal public involvement in a marriage.

In a divorce, the marriage license is revoked by government, and many couples voluntarily and alternatively choose a government arbiter. However, a government arbiter is not required by law.

Usually it is women that resort to government arbitration thru a civil suit. Women have discovered they can flex their diversity in a civil court, and avoid marriage contract obligations.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#427 Mar 19, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a legal contract between two people administered by the government.
Your religion - all religions - are irrelevant to marriage law.
according to whom?

you?

prior to the United States Government ever being a blink in the founding fathers eyes, church's have been performing marriage ceremonies.

what are you.....19?

and your name...just think....I ask you when you are going to start thinking.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#428 Mar 19, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Hillary 2016
another fantasy.

better chance for jail than the oval office.
Pappy

Mason, OH

#429 Mar 19, 2014
I should have stated that the arbiter of a private contract cannot be a government when the arbiter is named in the contract.

A private contract cannot designate a government as an arbiter.

Only a civil lawsuit can potentially draw a government into contract arbitration. Government can declare a civil lawsuit frivolous, and refuse to arbitrate.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#430 Mar 19, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
We should change the law to prohibit atheists from getting married then, eh Walter?
and stupid had to chime in above proving lack of substance again.

your law is 225 years old. Prior to this new law....how was marriage handled by atheists?

Ohio has a law, and you demand it be changed. The law in Ohio was voted on for a State Constitutional amendment.

you do not like it.....we get it.

you like laws passed by politicians who don't even read them.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#431 Mar 19, 2014
Goo Goo Ga Ga Binky wrote:
<quoted text>
There's my little coward who couldn't answer my assertion over on the other board because it is incapable. Just look at its little infantile hissy fits on topix. Wittle baby.....
What assertion are you talking about, you sick pos?

Your assertion that you aren't a closet case troll?
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#432 Mar 19, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> no. Then they only have to worry about it if the "contract" (I'm sure that's all a marriage is to you) unless its broken. Like a normal contract. You know they have those, right. Contracts that require no license? Really a marriage doesn't require one.
Where does this level of complete ignorance come from? Marriage is a contract. It not only requires one, you don't have one without a license granted by the state, not by some dissembling, probably sexually confused cleric or other.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#435 Mar 19, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> which is why the government needs to stay out of marriage.
This isn't a theocracy. You don't get the government rights and responsibilities of marriage because some sexually addled, anti rational, fundamentalist con artist weds you.

Government benefits means government oversight, you deranged pos bigot.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#436 Mar 19, 2014
Pappy wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a private contract.
The arbiter of a private contract is designated in the contract, and it is not necessarily a government.
You're flat out mad. Contracts are overseen by courts, obviously.

Perhaps you don't realize the judiciary is part of the government.

You fundies are crazy beyond belief. It's astonishing these freeeks can turn appliances on and off, let alone get through the sixth grade in school
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#437 Mar 19, 2014
Pappy wrote:
I should have stated that the arbiter of a private contract cannot be a government when the arbiter is named in the contract.
A private contract cannot designate a government as an arbiter.
Only a civil lawsuit can potentially draw a government into contract arbitration. Government can declare a civil lawsuit frivolous, and refuse to arbitrate.
Oh, how learned.

So we've learned that divorces are not handled by judges, part of the government, but are handled by Jerry Falwell's towel boy.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#438 Mar 19, 2014
Pappy wrote:
I should have stated that the arbiter of a private contract cannot be a government when the arbiter is named in the contract.
A private contract cannot designate a government as an arbiter.
Only a civil lawsuit can potentially draw a government into contract arbitration. Government can declare a civil lawsuit frivolous, and refuse to arbitrate.
courts never refuse the cash cow called divorce....why is that?

or child support hearings or alimony hearings.

city government always has their hand out for any opportunity to steal money.

fact check with stop light cams.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#439 Mar 19, 2014
Gnu Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree with me then, that the separation of church and state prohibits the government from being involved in the marriage issue!
Thanks :)
show me in writing the separation of church and state.

my copy of the constitution is missing it.

help an uninformed guy out please.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#440 Mar 19, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
according to whom?
you?
prior to the United States Government ever being a blink in the founding fathers eyes, church's have been performing marriage ceremonies.
what are you.....19?
and your name...just think....I ask you when you are going to start thinking.
I stated:

"Marriage is a legal contract between two people administered by the government.
Your religion - all religions - are irrelevant to marriage law."

And you asked..."according to whom?"

According to the law, genius.

Or, to put it in terms that even you can understand:

Please name ONE religious requirement for marriage. Any one will do.

We'll wait.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#441 Mar 19, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
I stated:
"Marriage is a legal contract between two people administered by the government.
Your religion - all religions - are irrelevant to marriage law."
And you asked..."according to whom?"
According to the law, genius.
Or, to put it in terms that even you can understand:
Please name ONE religious requirement for marriage. Any one will do.
We'll wait.
well prior to the nanny state US government getting their filthy greedy hands on everything, and even being recognized as a country......church's performed all wedding ceremonies.

And by definition..........marriage is the union of man and women before God.

then liberals wrote new definitions.

you want the real definition of marriage defined by thousands of years of history, or your fantasy crusade of 20 years?

and you think you can outwit......how hysterical you are.

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
Dewiney ON Taylor ? 11 min Reality Speaks 9
Keep Scott Pruitt But Only at Min Wage Salary! 13 min Reality Speaks 24
Sean Hannity 15 min Reality Speaks 25
TrumpRussia's a chauffeur and gopher for GOP 19 min Reality Speaks 14
The Comey Interview 22 min 404 not found 133
Hi. I'm Holly Hylton and I was just doing my jo... 1 hr Leftist Handjob 7
Hi im Holly Hylton Your Local Racist Starbucks ... 8 hr Spook 49

Columbus Jobs

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages