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.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#725 Mar 21, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
So everybody's taxes should be the same amount? Is that your point? Should we expect an itemized bill for each bomb dropped?
As I've explained, some services should be charged the same for each person, some should be charged in proportion to the person's use, some are a combination. You pay for the bomb as it is bought, as part of the military's budget.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#726 Mar 21, 2014
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
A rich person has much more at stake, and presumably has benefitted more from the security provided by military defense.
A reasonable argument, but he is already paying more in the form of property taxes. If a bomb hits his house, it is his local fire department who will respond to try to save his property, not the army. On the other hand it costs the same for the military to shoot down a missile heading for a rich person's house as a missile heading for a poor person's house.

And even if I accepted your argument, it would support a tax on wealth, not on income.
A Bentley should cost more to insure than a Hyundai.
The government does not insure private property. That's up to the owner (And I suspect the Bentley owner DOES pay more).
Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

#727 Mar 21, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government does not insure private property. That's up to the owner (And I suspect the Bentley owner DOES pay more).
Brilliant. Just f cking brilliant.

Now let us look a little closer at insurance. A group of people pay into a pool to protect their property. Some have more to protect than others, and some stand to benefit more in absolute terms than others. It seems reasonable for the premiums to reflect that disparity.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#728 Mar 21, 2014
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant. Just f cking brilliant.
Now let us look a little closer at insurance. A group of people pay into a pool to protect their property. Some have more to protect than others, and some stand to benefit more in absolute terms than others. It seems reasonable for the premiums to reflect that disparity.
difference is, until Obamacare, insurance was voluntary.
Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

#729 Mar 21, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
difference is, until Obamacare, insurance was voluntary.
It still is.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#730 Mar 21, 2014
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant. Just f cking brilliant.
Now let us look a little closer at insurance. A group of people pay into a pool to protect their property. Some have more to protect than others, and some stand to benefit more in absolute terms than others. It seems reasonable for the premiums to reflect that disparity.
Premiums reflect risk. Bad drivers (higher risks) pay more for insurance than good drivers, independent of their incomes. Same should be true of health insurance. People with unhealthy habits or defective genes should pay more.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#731 Mar 21, 2014
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
It still is.
Eventually the penalty will challenge the cost of coverage for some.
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#732 Mar 21, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Always on the rag eh?
Rag herring. Get an arougeument.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#733 Mar 22, 2014
Duke for Mayor

Massillon, OH

#734 Mar 22, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/michigan -ban-same-sex-marriage-unconst itutional-judge-rules-21201895 3.html
Another one bites the dust.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-...

Poor Tippy.

Probably drunk.

woof
Pappy

Dayton, OH

#735 Mar 22, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/michigan -ban-same-sex-marriage-unconst itutional-judge-rules-21201895 3.html
Another one bites the dust.
Your link is yet another example of judicial activist manipulation by fedgov and queer lobbyist.

Activist judges are deliberately misinterpreting the 14th amendment again.

The 14th amendment only extends and applies the Bill of Rights to the states govs.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights regarding marriage as a civil right.

In addition, you have already admitted that a marriage license is a privilege, not a civil right.

Constitution is the law of the land, and activist judges routinely ignore it. Stupid and evil people cheer their judicial activist activities.

Queer marriage is yet another judicial fraud imposed on the people by the diversity mafia hiding under black robes.

Diversity is a class-warfare, national victim cult scheme that dominates the politics of both the US and Israel. Diversity people are the super majority of voters by design, both in the US and Israel by design. Diversity people are conditioned to trade votes for privilege provided by a strong central government.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#736 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb things you said in post #683
"are you sure a "fundi" isn't somebody who disagrees with you that a marriage license isn't a contract? Lmao"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCD5PPKSV...
Sorry, Charlie, legal marriage is a contract to secure certain legal rights and protections. Were you not an idiot, you would understand that.
the definition of marriage is more than just a contract and if you knew it you wouldn't quote it because it says: " In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." and a marriage license is not a contract , though it contains many of the same elements of a contract. Its analyzed under different doctrine. Hope your Friday was as fun as mine :)

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#737 Mar 22, 2014
Pappy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link is yet another example of judicial activist manipulation by fedgov and queer lobbyist.
Activist judges are deliberately misinterpreting the 14th amendment again.
.......
Where did you earn your law degree, and how long have you been a federal judge?

Sorry, you might be ethically spiritually bankrupt yourself, but protecting good families regardless of the genders of the spouses is ALWAYS a positive thing.

Equal protection under the law cannot be denied without a rational reason, and so far, no one has come up with one that shows gay couples and their kids, and society in general, are better off if gay people cannot legally marry.

Have you come up with a new one that makes sense in light of constitutional rights regarding liberty, privacy, and equal protection?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#738 Mar 22, 2014
Pappy wrote:
Your link is yet another example of judicial activist manipulation by fedgov and queer lobbyist.
Feel free to articulate how applying the 14th Amendment, which mandates states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, is activist.
Pappy wrote:
Activist judges are deliberately misinterpreting the 14th amendment again.
The 14th amendment only extends and applies the Bill of Rights to the states govs.
There is nothing in the Bill of Rights regarding marriage as a civil right.
There doesn't need to be anything in the bill of rights regarding marriage. However, once a state decides to provide a legal right or protection of marriage, they must afford that right equally to all persons within their jurisdiction equally, unless denying such equal protection serves a compelling governmental interest. The court did not mandate that any state provide marriage, they have all elected to do so on their own.
Pappy wrote:
In addition, you have already admitted that a marriage license is a privilege, not a civil right.
Constitution is the law of the land, and activist judges routinely ignore it. Stupid and evil people cheer their judicial activist activities.
It provides protection under the law, and such protection must equally be afforded to all persons within a state's jurisdiction. This is why you are losing in court.
Pappy wrote:
Queer marriage is yet another judicial fraud imposed on the people by the diversity mafia hiding under black robes.
And idiotic arguments, like the one you have just made, are advanced by people to dim to understand the law, or offer a rational argument.
Pappy wrote:
Diversity is a class-warfare, national victim cult scheme that dominates the politics of both the US and Israel. Diversity people are the super majority of voters by design, both in the US and Israel by design. Diversity people are conditioned to trade votes for privilege provided by a strong central government.
Inclusion of all people is freedom. Don't like it? Move to Russia.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#739 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> the definition of marriage is more than just a contract and if you knew it you wouldn't quote it because it says: " In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." and a marriage license is not a contract , though it contains many of the same elements of a contract. Its analyzed under different doctrine. Hope your Friday was as fun as mine :)
Actually, when you enter into a marriage, there are certain LEGAL rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with it. It is a legal agreement, enforceable by law, and requires legal agreement to invalidate it.

Sounds a bit like a contract to me. Read through the ENTIRE definition.

con·tract
noun
&#712;kän&#716;trakt/
1.
a written or spoken agreement, esp. one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

synonyms: agreement, commitment, arrangement, settlement, understanding, compact, covenant, bond; More
the branch of law concerned with the making and observation of contracts.
informal
an arrangement for someone to be killed by a hired assassin.
"smuggling bosses routinely put out contracts on witnesses"
BRIDGE
the declarer's undertaking to win the number of tricks bid with a stated suit as trump.
"South can make the contract with correct play"
dated
A FORMAL AGREEMENT TO MARRY
verb
verb: contract; 3rd person present: contracts; past tense: contracted; past participle: contracted; gerund or present participle: contracting
1.
decrease in size, number, or range.
"glass contracts as it cools"
synonyms: shrink, get smaller, decrease, diminish, reduce, dwindle, decline More
antonyms: expand, increase
(of a muscle) become shorter or tighter in order to effect movement of part of the body.
"the heart is a muscle that contracts about seventy times a minute"
synonyms: tighten, tense, flex, constrict, draw in, narrow More
antonyms: relax
shorten (a word or phrase) by combination or elision.
"“quasistellar object” was soon contracted to “quasar.”"
synonyms: shorten, abbreviate, cut, reduce; More
antonyms: expand, lengthen
2.
enter into a formal and legally binding agreement.
"the local authority will contract with a wide range of agencies to provide services"
synonyms: undertake, pledge, promise, covenant, commit oneself, engage, agree, enter an agreement, make a deal ...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#740 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> the definition of marriage is more than just a contract and if you knew it you wouldn't quote it because it says: " In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." and a marriage license is not a contract , though it contains many of the same elements of a contract. Its analyzed under different doctrine. Hope your Friday was as fun as mine :)
That definition has been specifically ruled by the US Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. So, you are not citing a current definition, nor are you citing a constitutional one.

Are you smart enough to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying two people of the same sex the legal protections of marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid?

I don't think you are up to the task.

Before one cites a definition, they might take the time to determine if that definition is current, applicable, and constitutional. Citing something that has been overturned by the US Supreme Court merely makes on look foolish, or ignorant.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#741 Mar 22, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, when you enter into a marriage, there are certain LEGAL rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with it. It is a legal agreement, enforceable by law, and requires legal agreement to invalidate it.
Sounds a bit like a contract to me. Read through the ENTIRE definition.
con·tract
noun
&#712;kän&#716;trakt/
1.
a written or spoken agreement, esp. one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.
synonyms: agreement, commitment, arrangement, settlement, understanding, compact, covenant, bond; More
the branch of law concerned with the making and observation of contracts.
informal
an arrangement for someone to be killed by a hired assassin.
"smuggling bosses routinely put out contracts on witnesses"
BRIDGE
the declarer's undertaking to win the number of tricks bid with a stated suit as trump.
"South can make the contract with correct play"
dated
A FORMAL AGREEMENT TO MARRY
verb
verb: contract; 3rd person present: contracts; past tense: contracted; past participle: contracted; gerund or present participle: contracting
1.
decrease in size, number, or range.
"glass contracts as it cools"
synonyms: shrink, get smaller, decrease, diminish, reduce, dwindle, decline More
antonyms: expand, increase
(of a muscle) become shorter or tighter in order to effect movement of part of the body.
"the heart is a muscle that contracts about seventy times a minute"
synonyms: tighten, tense, flex, constrict, draw in, narrow More
antonyms: relax
shorten (a word or phrase) by combination or elision.
"“quasistellar object” was soon contracted to “quasar.”"
synonyms: shorten, abbreviate, cut, reduce; More
antonyms: expand, lengthen
2.
enter into a formal and legally binding agreement.
"the local authority will contract with a wide range of agencies to provide services"
synonyms: undertake, pledge, promise, covenant, commit oneself, engage, agree, enter an agreement, make a deal ...
a minister had to sign my marriage certificate and mail to county for record.

2010 marriage.

fact, and in Franklin County. License was purchased downtown.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#742 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That definition has been specifically ruled by the US Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. So, you are not citing a current definition, nor are you citing a constitutional one.
Are you smart enough to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying two people of the same sex the legal protections of marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid?
I don't think you are up to the task.
Before one cites a definition, they might take the time to determine if that definition is current, applicable, and constitutional. Citing something that has been overturned by the US Supreme Court merely makes on look foolish, or ignorant.
then by same logic...a flat tax every single person pays, or it is discrimination by exact same way your marriage is.

discrimination.

it is only fair and equal that everyone be treated exactly the same by law.

today by law...we discriminate ambition, and penalize those who possess it.

expect as your argument progresses in the courts, that the tax issue follows.

a win win is marriage is not governments business, and the IRS disbanded when a flat tax is implemented.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#743 Mar 22, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're getting the same thing, you should pay the same amount. Two people go to the store for a loaf of bread. They each pay $2.89. For one, that is 1% of his weekly pay, for the other, 1/10th of a percent. To do otherwise is to reward one for less work.
I don't think that's a good analogy . Food is a commodity, not a tax or fine. Plus if you can't afford to buy bread, they don't send men with guns to make you buy it. Its supply and demand not demand you buy it or you go to jail. Plus if you can't afford bread you can get food stamps/cards to buy it.
So how's your weekend so far T?
d pantz

Akron, OH

#744 Mar 22, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're getting the same thing, you should pay the same amount. Two people go to the store for a loaf of bread. They each pay $2.89. For one, that is 1% of his weekly pay, for the other, 1/10th of a percent. To do otherwise is to reward one for less work.
oh yeah, and just because you make less than 6 figures doesn't mean they don't work hard.:)

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
Republicanism or Communism? 50 min Free Pizza 4 U 4
Poll Trump/Palin 2016? 1 hr pahs13 45
Happy Black History Month! 1 hr American hell obs... 127
50 pie recipes 2 hr Free Pizza 4 U 18
News Woman convicted in ex-quarterback fraud scheme ... 2 hr They cannot kill ... 2
State Lottery Shame! 3 hr They cannot kill ... 2
BB's Current Events Thread 4 hr Male 41
Part two...dedicated to Duke as promised 12 hr d pants 397
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages