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.

d pantz

Akron, OH

#745 Mar 22, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you need a marriage license from the state to have a marriage. A marriage confers over 1100 federal benefits, and lots of responsibilities. It certainly is a contractual matter.
Now, they might call it "family law" or "divorce law," but that is beside the point.
As long as we agree it is the state which governs "marriage" whatever nomenclature you want to make up, and then contradict, and then assert again, is fine.
Just so long as we don't have "religious" or other freeeks running around saying how the government does not or should not have any role in marriage. That's the main point.
no its not. In some states you can still have a common law marriage. You don't know what you're talking about, friend. I never said the government does not regulate marriage, and still think they should stay out of it. Before you call me a religious freak, why don't you explain why you think it's so necessary for the state to reward married couples and write a bunch of stupid divorce law...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#746 Mar 22, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
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.
Taxation is not a protection of the law. Try again.

Your example is both spurious and irrelevant. Well played.
Duke for Mayor

Massillon, OH

#747 Mar 22, 2014
Here we go again....another five days of Panty Boy arguing with himself.

woof
d pantz

Akron, OH

#748 Mar 22, 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.
risk factors have everything to do with insurance and how much you pay. You may have more to protect, or the risk of incident is greater.Though a person making more income may or may not use more infrastructure, that's not what taxes rates are based on.
Drank some beer called "Fat Tire" last night. Really good, have you tried it? Good ale I recommend it if drink beer.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#749 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.
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.
Awww...you seem a little bitter. Are the continuing judicial losses an affront to your hatred?
d pantz

Akron, OH

#750 Mar 22, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
would be nice if a small business owner could by insurance from the government to cover their losses from trade deals passed by a limited congress. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_ (trade)
d pantz

Akron, OH

#751 Mar 22, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you need a marriage license from the state to have a marriage. A marriage confers over 1100 federal benefits, and lots of responsibilities. It certainly is a contractual matter.
Now, they might call it "family law" or "divorce law," but that is beside the point.
As long as we agree it is the state which governs "marriage" whatever nomenclature you want to make up, and then contradict, and then assert again, is fine.
Just so long as we don't have "religious" or other freeeks running around saying how the government does not or should not have any role in marriage. That's the main point.
I never said it wasn't a contract just not limited to being just a contract and a license still isn't a contract.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#752 Mar 22, 2014
No its not. The IRS has promised that if you aren't signed up to a healthcare plan, you will be penalized. That's stars NOW.
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
It still is.
http://www.atr.org/irs-warns-obamacare-tax-mu...

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
d pantz

Akron, OH

#753 Mar 22, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
and he had to give your vows before he could sign the certificate.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
d pantz

Akron, OH

#754 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.
that's what I'm saying. Saying that marriage is just a contract, or just a license, or between opposite sex, or a holy covenant or union is questionable. I think because people "believe" they need to get married, its for different personal reasons,and really that's all it is..a belief . So in their best interest (the government), they should just authorize prenup contracts to couples and stay out of the "marriage" part by not writing 1000 new laws defining it and stop rewarding monetary benefits to people based on "marital" status thus taxing everybody equally and eliminating insurance and lending laws that discriminate a much larger group than same sex couples who also believe the "need" to get married.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
d pantz

Akron, OH

#755 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 ...
that wasn't the issue. Brotherly Love said marriage license is a "contract enforced by the government", not the marriage itself...

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#756 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
that's what I'm saying. Saying that marriage is just a contract, or just a license, or between opposite sex, or a holy covenant or union is questionable. I think because people "believe" they need to get married, its for different personal reasons,and really that's all it is..a belief . So in their best interest (the government), they should just authorize prenup contracts to couples and stay out of the "marriage" part by not writing 1000 new laws defining it and stop rewarding monetary benefits to people based on "marital" status thus taxing everybody equally and eliminating insurance and lending laws that discriminate a much larger group than same sex couples who also believe the "need" to get married.
A) Legal marriage is not a belief, it is a legal contract which exists to secure legal rights and protections.
B) There is no need for "1000 new laws" in order to provide equal protection of the law for all Americans. Every state already has civil marriage. At question is whether there is a compelling governmental interest in restricting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#757 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
A) Legal marriage is not a belief, it is a legal contract which exists to secure legal rights and protections.
B) There is no need for "1000 new laws" in order to provide equal protection of the law for all Americans. Every state already has civil marriage. At question is whether there is a compelling governmental interest in restricting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.
I never said it wasn't a contract. Its more, obviously since you care so much about the "marriage license" so much.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#758 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
I never said it wasn't a contract. Its more, obviously since you care so much about the "marriage license" so much.
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.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#759 Mar 22, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> I never said it wasn't a contract. Its more, obviously since you care so much about the "marriage license" so much.
Over the course of the last two weeks, you have advocated for every side of this argument.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#760 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxation is not a protection of the law. Try again.
Your example is both spurious and irrelevant. Well played.
according to you, and I respectively disagree.

any discrimination is unconstitutional, and taxation is pure discrimination against ambition.

all men are created equal until it is April 15th according to you.

F that.... if you want my consideration, I expect yours as well.

you say irrelevant, but I did not have to re-define words that are 1000's of years old to make my point.

I can show you taxation in the Constitution, you show me marriage.

and you say I am irrelevant.

guess you re-defined that word as well.

PS: you never got off the bench to play.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
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!

“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.

“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.

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
Poll Who Do You Support For President 2 hr Colonel Pale Rider 411
Obama rated 5th best POTUS in history! 5 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 98
updated list of firsts for forty-fore 6 hr server wiper downer 3
Absolutely Worthless RINO Republicans 8 hr Disapointed Conse... 1
Arby's ground zero in war on cops 9 hr Spit on a cops bu... 14
Extra. Extra. Read all about it! 9 hr Spot for Guvnah 4
Robert Krutko's new nickname, TURDKO CRAPKO OR ... 11 hr Krutkoneighbor 39
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages