Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in ...

Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in Ohio?

There are 1176 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

#529 Mar 20, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
then you need to work harder so you can afford more, because things are not equal.
people are being discriminated against by looking at earnings to differentiate the person.
can't do that with color or sex, so how can it be logical by law to do it with income?
also do the the discriminatory action by our government, they have entire agencies to enforce the unconstitutional action.
If all men are created equal, when they start working they no longer are equal.
Income is not an immutable characteristic. To attempt to compare it to color or sexual orientation is to demonstrate that you have no clue about logic. The cost of food is the same for someone making minimum wage as it is for someone making $85k/year. A flat tax disproportionally affects low income people.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#530 Mar 20, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Income is not an immutable characteristic. To attempt to compare it to color or sexual orientation is to demonstrate that you have no clue about logic. The cost of food is the same for someone making minimum wage as it is for someone making $85k/year. A flat tax disproportionally affects low income people.
it also is disproportionally affects those who pay them.

all you want to do is rant about equal rights, and then change your mind about what you really meant.

equality is inclusive....you can't pick extra's out for yourself.

according to you we are doing that now, and just admitted you knew discrimination has been occurring for a long time.

re-defining words disproportionally affects the vast majority of married people in the world.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#531 Mar 20, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> wrong. Insurance companies and banks now honor your marriage with reduced premiums and loans. In Ohio anyway, you can't have a legally binding ceremony without the license.
:)
explain when couples live together for a certain time period, the courts decision to declare common law marriage?

then alimony payments, child support, and splitting the dishes.

just reminding you of more nanny state government over reaching.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#532 Mar 20, 2014
Post #528 reflects the success of this campaign:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/3_18_2...

Excerpted from:

Same Sex Marriage:'Thoroughly Tiresome,' by Design
by Doug Mainwaring

[from the book, "After the Ball"]

"We have in mind a strategy ... calculated and powerful ... manipulative ... It’s time to learn from Madison Avenue, to roll out the big guns. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign--we've called it the waging peace campaign--to reach straights through the mainstream media. We’re talking about propaganda (page 161).

You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think it is just another thing--meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders--then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."

....

Does this all sound familiar? I won't even get into the imperative of identifying anyone who objects to the gay agenda as a victimizer.

Overexposed?

Let's return to an earlier statement: "The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome."

The most recent Pew Poll found that public acceptance of same sex marriage is now up to 54%. Does this really reflect an enthusiastic embrace of the notion of same sex marriage?-- Or -- Is a vast swath of the population just sick and tired of hearing about gays in the news day after day for the last few years?

Maybe they're also sick and tired of irrational accusations of bigotry and homophobia every time they try to enter into a reasoned discussion about same sex marriage. Many who have been shut down for trying to engage in intellectually honest conversation, have concluded, "Why bother? Just let them have what they want. Maybe then they'll fade away."

Fade away? Don't count on it. There is never an end to progressive ideology. Statists never have enough power and control. This will never end until the very institution of marriage is obliterated from human civilization, in which case, we will no longer actually have a civilization.

I'm gay and I oppose same sex marriage because it is not marriage. It is something else. I, too, am tired of being labeled a "self loathing gay" and a "hater." I am not. But I refuse to be silenced by those who seek to manipulate and silence rather than enter into rational discussion.

Silencing techniques -- the modus operandi of the marriage "equality" activists -- will continue relentlessly until one day they discover that strategy no longer works. But it is only each of us refusing to be silenced which will hasten the arrival of that day.

It's Up to You!

In Conclusion, let's go to the book's introduction:

"In all candor, we’re convinced that the whole of our scheme will work as intended. Some elements, though potentially highly effective, will probably be rejected by gays out of hand, because they require too much effort or too much discipline or too much self-restraint or too much money or because, as Oscar Wilde once dismissed socialism, their accomplishment would take up too many nice evenings. To be blunt, we can only recommend. It is up to you, fearless reader, to act (xxviii)."

Remember, this was all written in the late 1980s. Twenty-five years later, this is now wise advice for all who are not “homo-haters,” who are in fact, lovers of all mankind, but who object to the implausible notion of same sex marriage. If you love humanity, and harbor no bigotry, but object to the demand to call two men or two women, married: "It is up to you, fearless reader, to act."

[Read the entire article at above link....]
d pantz

Akron, OH

#533 Mar 20, 2014
Fundies R Mentally ill wrote:
<quoted text>
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
no, they aren't. They are notarized by a notary or witnessed by someone with power vested in the state. Courts aren't involved unless the contract is broken. Stop calling people names, you don't know what your talking about.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#534 Mar 20, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
explain when couples live together for a certain time period, the courts decision to declare common law marriage?
then alimony payments, child support, and splitting the dishes.
just reminding you of more nanny state government over reaching.
that's not Ohio. Unless it. Was honored as a common law marriage in another state or happened more than 20 years ago.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#535 Mar 20, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of touch with reality, are you? Hillary is unbeatable.
let's see, she voted for the Iraq war and the haliburton loophole. She a piece of crap neocon and I'm not voting for her.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#536 Mar 20, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, he doesn't want any right that you will not also have.
he already has them, silly.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#537 Mar 20, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not an extra right. You would have it too.
and, if you don't want to get married (for whatever reason) because of a free choice, you're discriminated against. Do you know what equal protection means?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Akron, OH

#538 Mar 20, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
explain when couples live together for a certain time period, the courts decision to declare common law marriage?
then alimony payments, child support, and splitting the dishes.
just reminding you of more nanny state government over reaching.
Ohio eliminated common law marriage 20 years ago.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#539 Mar 20, 2014
d pantz wrote:
show me the bloomberg poll on Ohio or a Gallup pole. Otherwise I'm not really worried about it. We'll see! I will vote for David Pepper this year :)
It appears that all you have are your doubts, and you are incapable of offering data to the contrary.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/with-new...
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/gay-mar...
http://wvxu.org/post/will-ohio-reverse-course...
d pantz

Akron, OH

#540 Mar 20, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
you failed to recognize government involved with marriage by taxation, or involvement period.
my point.
remove government completely from marriage, and institute a flat tax utilizing exact same logic you are using for marriage to makes things equal.
by those standards I am in complete agreement with you because it is completely fair, and not biased.
at that point marriages are marriages, and taxes are exactly equal between man, woman, or alien.
otherwise it will be in court forever till fair is truly fair.
but if we did that people would have to get married for reasons like "love" and "religion" and not $$$. Plus everyone single or married would be equally protected. We can't have that! It makes everyone equal!
d pantz

Akron, OH

#541 Mar 20, 2014
lides wrote:
I guess we'll see!:)
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#542 Mar 20, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> if its just a contract
As you know, Rizzo, the marriage license is what confers the over 1.100 rights and responsibilities. Not jeesus. Not you. The government oversees who gets what government benefits and when, and any disputes get worked out by the government in the forum of the court system.

You're not making a point, troll.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#543 Mar 20, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like the current right only benefits non-gays.
gay people have the same right. They can run out and marry the opposite sex just like us. They don't want to. Why bother changing the definition of marriage? Just get the government out of it all together.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#544 Mar 20, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> how does the government staying out of marriage make it a "theocracy"??? How on earth? I'm deranged? You're the one who thinks you need them to be together, not me.
Yeah, you're crazy.

Because the nuts arguing that government should not be involved in marriage licenses granting government benefits don't want marriages handled by six year old Girl Scouts. They want marriages handled by clergy of various sorts.

But again, no matter how difficult simple definitions for talibangelicals to understand and accept, this is not a theocracy. We do not let clergy enact bestow government benefits on couples. Clergy may have an ancillary role in marriage, symbolic, but anyone may marry without clergy. The religious component of marriage is purely optional. The license, the state recognition, is not.

No one is really confused about this. You're really just arguing your fantasy polygamy troll again.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#545 Mar 20, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
And multiple husbands (wouldn't want to be sexist). I support that too. Anything between consenting adults that does not harm anyone or violate their superior rights.
I'm all for a flat tax and insurance/lending laws that don't discriminate based on marital status. After that I don't care what people do.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#546 Mar 20, 2014
TDP wrote:
The gay guys do look hilarious smooching it up on the church steps with their beards
We know you can't look away.

BTW, for a homophobic closet case, you used "beard" incorrectly here.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#547 Mar 20, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> no, they aren't. They are notarized by a notary or witnessed by someone with power vested in the state. Courts aren't involved unless the contract is broken. Stop calling people names, you don't know what your talking about.
You go to a marriage clerk of the state and get a marriage license. Not to some notary at a real estate office.

Next troll.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#548 Mar 20, 2014
Fundies R Mentally ill wrote:
<quoted text>
We know you can't look away.
BTW, for a homophobic closet case, you used "beard" incorrectly here.
Correct usage:

The photographer captured the shot of an awkward Barack kissing his beard, Michelle, for the cameras.

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
Hillary for POTUS 27 min d pants 3
Trump and Putin have ties..... 1 hr BizzyBee 49
people concerned about immigration are not racist 1 hr BizzyBee 3
Trump the Liar 1 hr BizzyBee 232
Gasp! Emails.....created crisis 1 hr BizzyBee 27
Don't trust Google... 3 hr UTrashy 47
Open season on Cops 7 hr d pants 116
why is chelsea clinton so ugly? (Apr '14) 7 hr UTrashy 74
Donald Trump - Dangerous 7 hr Pale Rider 26

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages