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.

d pantz

Akron, OH

#761 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
At issue is equal protection of the law, which only involves the state involvement and the legal rights and protections that the state is Constitutionally beholden to apply equally to all in its jurisdiction.
Any additional spiritual significance is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
so single people taking a financial burden is equal protection? Why because you feel government needs to write laws that establish the belief that people should get married? And people who don't believe, that's too bad for them? They deserve it, right? Because they believe differently than you and made different choices. Ones that hurt no one.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#762 Mar 22, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
according to you, and I respectively disagree.
You could disagree, you would be wrong. Taxation is not a protection of the law.
Reality Speaks wrote:
any discrimination is unconstitutional, and taxation is pure discrimination against ambition.
all men are created equal until it is April 15th according to you.
Actually, the states are allowed to discriminate if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. Feel free to illustrate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry.
Reality Speaks wrote:
F that.... if you want my consideration, I expect yours as well.
Why would I care about your consideration? You clearly don't care about facts. I don't require validation from an ignorant fool.
Reality Speaks wrote:
you say irrelevant, but I did not have to re-define words that are 1000's of years old to make my point.
Nor do I. Equal protection is equal protection, and thus far you have not been able to illustrate that historical discrimination is a rational basis for continued discrimination.
Reality Speaks wrote:
I can show you taxation in the Constitution, you show me marriage.
and you say I am irrelevant.
It need not be in the US Constitution. Once a state provides marriage as a set of protections of the law, they are beholden to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of that law unless denying such equal protection serves a compelling governmental interest.

I see you still aren't smart enough to understand that taxation is not a protection of the law.
Reality Speaks wrote:
guess you re-defined that word as well.
Not at all. If the definition is the best argument that you have, you have no argument whatsoever.
Reality Speaks wrote:
PS: you never got off the bench to play.
And you apparently never matured mentally past the age of six.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#763 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
so single people taking a financial burden is equal protection?
When last I checked, marriage is a choice. So long as that single person has equal ability to marry should they so choose, equal protection of the law is satisfied.
d pantz wrote:
Why because you feel government needs to write laws that establish the belief that people should get married?
No. I believe in freedom and equality. Should one choose not to marry, that is their choice. There are, of course, real life consequences and legal ramifications of such choices. As I noted above, so long as that single person has equal ability to marry should they so choose, equal protection of the law is satisfied.
d pantz wrote:
And people who don't believe, that's too bad for them?
As I noted above, marriage is a choice. So long as that single person has equal ability to marry should they so choose, equal protection of the law is satisfied.
d pantz wrote:
They deserve it, right?
They have equal protection to marry should they choose to do so. Electing not to marry does not mean that one does not have equal protection under the law.
d pantz wrote:
Because they believe differently than you and made different choices. Ones that hurt no one.
Once again, they have equal protection to marry should they choose to do so. Electing not to marry does not mean that one does not have equal protection under the law.

Do you ever offer relevant and intelligent arguments? The line of argument you have attempted to deploy here is beyond pathetic.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#764 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.
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.
Doesn't matter whether it's defined as a civil right or not. Governments (even the "will of the people" must adhere to making laws which treat everyone equally. They cannot legislate that it's legal for one group of people to paint their house pink but make it illegal for another group to do so.
dont get me started

Cambridge, OH

#765 Mar 22, 2014
Well it seems like we are going back to the old ways like white and blacks have to use different bathrooms seems too me that gays and straight will have there bathrooms now I am gay myself but I am a professor this is so stupid to me it's the 21st century get over your selfs

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#766 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> I don't think that's a good analogy . Food is a commodity, not a tax or fine.
Which brings up a small point... speeding tickets are the same dollar amount for everyone.
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?
Great! And I'm retired, so it's ALWAYS the weekend :)

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#767 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> oh yeah, and just because you make less than 6 figures doesn't mean they don't work hard.:)
There's hard with the body and hard with the mind. Capitalism has decided the value of each.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#768 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxation is not a protection of the law.
It should be.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#769 Mar 22, 2014
It's coming; nothing you can do to stop it.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#770 Mar 22, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
It should be.
Not at all.

The system has always been progressive and has extracted greater sums from those with more disposable income, which only makes sense.

Taxation is not a protection of the law.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#771 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You could disagree, you would be wrong. Taxation is not a protection of the law.
<quoted text>
Actually, the states are allowed to discriminate if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. Feel free to illustrate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry.
<quoted text>
Why would I care about your consideration? You clearly don't care about facts. I don't require validation from an ignorant fool.
<quoted text>
Nor do I. Equal protection is equal protection, and thus far you have not been able to illustrate that historical discrimination is a rational basis for continued discrimination.
<quoted text>
It need not be in the US Constitution. Once a state provides marriage as a set of protections of the law, they are beholden to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of that law unless denying such equal protection serves a compelling governmental interest.
I see you still aren't smart enough to understand that taxation is not a protection of the law.
<quoted text>
Not at all. If the definition is the best argument that you have, you have no argument whatsoever.
<quoted text>
And you apparently never matured mentally past the age of six.
hey Einstein........show me marriage in the constitution, and how your right's are being infringed.

some states have amendments because the majority voted for it.

some do not.

in religious states, they believe same sex marriage a sin.

where is your tolerance?

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#772 Mar 22, 2014
Nickled Dimed wrote:
It's coming; nothing you can do to stop it.
nothing?

you best open your mind further.

and be very cautious being that naive.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#773 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all.
The system has always been progressive
Not "always".
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

You just hate those who achieve.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#774 Mar 22, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
hey Einstein........show me marriage in the constitution, and how your right's are being infringed.
some states have amendments because the majority voted for it.
some do not.
in religious states, they believe same sex marriage a sin.
where is your tolerance?
If you believe same sex marriage is a sin, don't marry someone of the same sex.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#775 Mar 22, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
hey Einstein........show me marriage in the constitution, and how your right's are being infringed.
It doesn't need to be directly addressed by the US Constitution. Equality under the law is addressed, and the second a state makes a law establishing the protections of marriage, which every state in the union has done, it is subject to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...
Reality Speaks wrote:
some states have amendments because the majority voted for it.
some do not.
Those amendments are not constitutional. This is why many courts are overturning them. Marriage has long been held to be a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court.
https://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-ca...

The US Supreme Court has also held that:
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/...
Reality Speaks wrote:
in religious states, they believe same sex marriage a sin.
Before the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion, it first bars congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. The US Supreme Court has long held that this provision also applies to states as well as city governments. Any law respecting an establishment of one religion does so to the detriment of the free exercise of any other.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first...
Reality Speaks wrote:
where is your tolerance?
I am tolerant of free exercise, but as I pointed out above, one has the right to free exercise, not the right to force others to live by their religious moral standards.

Is there any other argument you would care to advance in your quest to make yourself look foolish?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#776 Mar 22, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
Not "always".
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
You just hate those who achieve.
Nope, not at all. They simply have additional means, and can afford to pay at a higher rate.

Feel free to come back to the topic at hand. Actually, many of the years when our country was in much better shape (1950's and 1960's) the top tax rate was more than triple what it is now, and there appeared to be no adverse effect upon the wealthy, nor was there any disincentive to make money.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#777 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> I'm gonna go ahead and say that no matter how hard I think about it, I cant relate to someone who has questioned their sexuality (I don't judge them either, bumbaclot.). Ever since I've wanted to have sex, there was no questioning that I wanted women. Ever.
So what? As long as I wanted sex it has been with men. I grew up in the bad old days and had to deny it to all, including me, but it was a horrible time and I am just glad I did NOT marry like some guys my age did for trying to "cure' themselves. It never worked.

When I DID knock off the nonsense and false desires it was like taking off really tight shoes and putting on cushy house slippers.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#778 Mar 22, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
nothing?
you best open your mind further.
and be very cautious being that naive.
What are you going to do?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#779 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> and still think they should stay out of it
Of course you think government should stay out of regulating marriage.

That's been the premise.

Except marriage confers all manner of government benefits. Obviously the government oversees who gets what government benefits. And at what age people may marry. And how distant a relative must be for you to marry. And how disputatious parties end a contract.

Only insane talibangelicals and insane "libertarians" think the government "should not be involved in marriage."
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#780 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> I never said it wasn't a contract just not limited to being just a contract and a license still isn't a contract.
You're babbling. You're not saying anything.

There's no marriage without government say so. It doesn't matter if you want to whine that marriage is "more than" a contract. You still need the license.

Your common law marriage example is nonsense. Those are legally less than marriages in the context of government benefits and when going abroad, etc.

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
Lighthouses 2 min BizzyBee 3
High Crimes and Misdemeanors 16 min d pants 107
Who is the Biggest Liar? 28 min Male 99
Maybe there IS an "ET" out there..... 59 min Won Hung Lo 3
Keeps pushing and pushing.... 1 hr d pants 174
Troy Ohio Vs. Kasich 1 hr They cannot kill ... 2
43 Outback Steakhouse, Bonefish Grill and Carra... 1 hr BizzyBee 8
What is happening in Sweden? 2 hr Not here not ever 93
President Trump Rally 2017 Florida 13 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 104

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages