Ohio gay marriage judge respected by ...

Ohio gay marriage judge respected by colleagues

There are 63 comments on the WKYC-TV Cleveland story from Oct 20, 2013, titled Ohio gay marriage judge respected by colleagues. In it, WKYC-TV Cleveland reports that:

A federal judge who recently ordered the out-of-state marriages of two gay couples to be recognized in Ohio has infuriated some conservatives who say he should be impeached.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WKYC-TV Cleveland.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Nov 09

Columbus OH

#1 Oct 20, 2013
The conservative individuals are used to always having their way. Now they are now upset because the tables are turning. The decisions of a judge are not grounds for impeachment.
David Traversa

La Rioja, Argentina

#3 Oct 20, 2013
Every time I hear the word " conservative " a moron comes to mind .. The term has gained a terrible reputation ..

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Oct 20, 2013
The reemergence of FF&C as a living component of the U.S. Constitution is most gratifying!

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

#5 Oct 20, 2013
If any judges should be impeached it should be Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court. They cannot separate their own religious beliefs with Constitutional rights. And Thomas in particular is such a hypocrite. He took advantage of affirmative action, but constantly rails against it. And of course it was the Supreme Court that mandated legalization of interracial marriages, like his, nationwide. Heaven help anybody else who wants to have marriage equality!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Oct 20, 2013
The judge in this case is just fulfilling his oath of office because he is upholding the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. That is what he is SUPPOSED to do.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7 Oct 20, 2013
Dubya wrote:
If any judges should be impeached it should be Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court. They cannot separate their own religious beliefs with Constitutional rights. And Thomas in particular is such a hypocrite. He took advantage of affirmative action, but constantly rails against it. And of course it was the Supreme Court that mandated legalization of interracial marriages, like his, nationwide. Heaven help anybody else who wants to have marriage equality!
It's not as ironic as it seems that Thomas benefited from affirmative action programs, but now strongly opposes them. The fact is that he believes he has earned all of his achievements. Granting him that belief, we understand why he bristles at the suggestion that he achieved what he did only because of affirmative action, not because of his brilliance and diligence.

The reality is that many deserving people have been stifled by our system--whether because they are poor, because of their race, because of the public school system where they grew up, because their parents couldn't provide as much support as they needed...

Affirmative action does not fix any of these problems. It does, however clumsily, attempt to give opportunities to those whose families have been systematically discriminated against for generations.

There are, of course, many minority children growing up with all the advantages of a typical middle class white and more. And there are many white children growing up with severe external impediments to their own success.

In the conversation about affirmative action, we should start by admitting that it is a clumsy attempt to counter past wrongs. It is neither all good nor all bad. Affirmative action itself creates new unfair situations with different victims. We should also realize that nobody succeeds because of affirmative action: They succeed because affirmative action allowed them to overcome disadvantages through their own hard work and determination.

Then we should ask how people come to qualify for affirmative action. Should minorities from middle-class families with college-educated parents benefit from admissions policies designed to boost minority representation? Or should preferences be granted only to those who've struggled harder and shown a determination to overcome the disadvantages? Is there an advantage to society in simply having more diverse leadership?

There are lots of good questions and lots of room for improvement of the programs. But stigmatizing the beneficiaries of affirmative action is a cynical (and effective) means to discredit the entire idea, as well as the minority itself.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8 Oct 21, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
The judge in this case is just fulfilling his oath of office because he is upholding the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. That is what he is SUPPOSED to do.
Exactly!

But it has been SO long that I can hardly believe that I'm seeing it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Oct 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not as ironic as it seems that Thomas benefited from affirmative action programs, but now strongly opposes them. The fact is that he believes he has earned all of his achievements. Granting him that belief, we understand why he bristles at the suggestion that he achieved what he did only because of affirmative action, not because of his brilliance and diligence.
The reality is that many deserving people have been stifled by our system--whether because they are poor, because of their race, because of the public school system where they grew up, because their parents couldn't provide as much support as they needed...
Affirmative action does not fix any of these problems. It does, however clumsily, attempt to give opportunities to those whose families have been systematically discriminated against for generations.
There are, of course, many minority children growing up with all the advantages of a typical middle class white and more. And there are many white children growing up with severe external impediments to their own success.
In the conversation about affirmative action, we should start by admitting that it is a clumsy attempt to counter past wrongs. It is neither all good nor all bad. Affirmative action itself creates new unfair situations with different victims. We should also realize that nobody succeeds because of affirmative action: They succeed because affirmative action allowed them to overcome disadvantages through their own hard work and determination.
Then we should ask how people come to qualify for affirmative action. Should minorities from middle-class families with college-educated parents benefit from admissions policies designed to boost minority representation? Or should preferences be granted only to those who've struggled harder and shown a determination to overcome the disadvantages? Is there an advantage to society in simply having more diverse leadership?
There are lots of good questions and lots of room for improvement of the programs. But stigmatizing the beneficiaries of affirmative action is a cynical (and effective) means to discredit the entire idea, as well as the minority itself.
DAMN!

When are you running for office ?!!?

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

#10 Oct 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not as ironic as it seems that Thomas benefited from affirmative action programs, but now strongly opposes them. The fact is that he believes he has earned all of his achievements. Granting him that belief, we understand why he bristles at the suggestion that he achieved what he did only because of affirmative action, not because of his brilliance and diligence.
The reality is that many deserving people have been stifled by our system--whether because they are poor, because of their race, because of the public school system where they grew up, because their parents couldn't provide as much support as they needed...
Affirmative action does not fix any of these problems. It does, however clumsily, attempt to give opportunities to those whose families have been systematically discriminated against for generations.
There are, of course, many minority children growing up with all the advantages of a typical middle class white and more. And there are many white children growing up with severe external impediments to their own success.
In the conversation about affirmative action, we should start by admitting that it is a clumsy attempt to counter past wrongs. It is neither all good nor all bad. Affirmative action itself creates new unfair situations with different victims. We should also realize that nobody succeeds because of affirmative action: They succeed because affirmative action allowed them to overcome disadvantages through their own hard work and determination.
Then we should ask how people come to qualify for affirmative action. Should minorities from middle-class families with college-educated parents benefit from admissions policies designed to boost minority representation? Or should preferences be granted only to those who've struggled harder and shown a determination to overcome the disadvantages? Is there an advantage to society in simply having more diverse leadership?
There are lots of good questions and lots of room for improvement of the programs. But stigmatizing the beneficiaries of affirmative action is a cynical (and effective) means to discredit the entire idea, as well as the minority itself.
I thought Thomas blamed the fact that he couldn't land the position he wanted, or thought he deserved as a graduate of a prestigious institution, on his BELIEF that firms thought he hadn't earned his degrees honestly. Perhaps, but possibly they recognized he didn't have the qualities they were looking for. In other words, Thomas's blaming Affirmative Action for his short comings seems to be consistent with his being. Blaming the program that gave him a head start over 90% of applicants is both disingenuous and arrogant, just like his record on SCOTUS.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11 Oct 21, 2013
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought Thomas blamed the fact that he couldn't land the position he wanted, or thought he deserved as a graduate of a prestigious institution, on his BELIEF that firms thought he hadn't earned his degrees honestly. Perhaps, but possibly they recognized he didn't have the qualities they were looking for. In other words, Thomas's blaming Affirmative Action for his short comings seems to be consistent with his being. Blaming the program that gave him a head start over 90% of applicants is both disingenuous and arrogant, just like his record on SCOTUS.
That is exactly what I'm talking about: Thomas assumes that he deserved everything he achieved, but he believes others assume that his achievements resulted from affirmative action.

I'm not here to comment on Thomas's brilliance or arrogance. But he would certainly not be the first person to overestimate his own capabilities and blame his disappointments on external factors. If he had achieved as much as he did without any specter of affirmative action, he would probably assume that disappointments occurred because of his race.

And Thomas refuses to acknowledge that he may never have had a chance at all without affirmative action. Whether he would have overcome the institutional obstacles on his own is purely speculative. And I will refrain, at this time, from sharing my personal speculation about the forces that propelled Thomas to one of the most revered offices in the world.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#12 Oct 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality is that many deserving people have been stifled by our system--whether because they are poor, because of their race, because of the public school system where they grew up, because their parents couldn't provide as much support as they needed...
Affirmative action does not fix any of these problems. It does, however clumsily, attempt to give opportunities to those whose families have been systematically discriminated against for generations.
There are, of course, many minority children growing up with all the advantages of a typical middle class white and more. And there are many white children growing up with severe external impediments to their own success.
In the conversation about affirmative action, we should start by admitting that it is a clumsy attempt to counter past wrongs. It is neither all good nor all bad. Affirmative action itself creates new unfair situations with different victims. We should also realize that nobody succeeds because of affirmative action: They succeed because affirmative action allowed them to overcome disadvantages through their own hard work and determination.
Then we should ask how people come to qualify for affirmative action. Should minorities from middle-class families with college-educated parents benefit from admissions policies designed to boost minority representation? Or should preferences be granted only to those who've struggled harder and shown a determination to overcome the disadvantages? Is there an advantage to society in simply having more diverse leadership?
There are lots of good questions and lots of room for improvement of the programs. But stigmatizing the beneficiaries of affirmative action is a cynical (and effective) means to discredit the entire idea, as well as the minority itself.
Clearly hell has frozen over. I either agree with what you say, or have some disagreements.

I agree that AA does not fix any problems. I further agree that, even assuming good intentions, it is a clumsy attempt. But now a question on which I think we'll disagree. Is it government's job to correct all societal ills or inequities? I think not. Life isn't always "fair" (whatever that means). Some times bad things happen to good people and too often, good things happen to undeserving people.

I'll even agree that AA stigmatizes some of the recipients. The usual argument is that it "levels the playing field" (again, whatever that silly buzz phrase means). Some people get an arbitrary advantage. Then some others get a conversely disadvantage as evidenced by lawsuits like Bakke and others. And some staunch supporters in universities are bending the rules with word games to keep the charade up. Personally, I think such dishonest "educators" aren't really educating at all, just arbitrary, and somewhat illegal and unethical tortured social engineering.

Your rebuttal is invited.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#13 Oct 21, 2013
Some non-invective disagreements, to wit: Okay so we disagree. Let's exchange ideas and not demand the other change his beliefs.

Does that work for you?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14 Oct 21, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly hell has frozen over. I either agree with what you say, or have some disagreements.
I agree that AA does not fix any problems. I further agree that, even assuming good intentions, it is a clumsy attempt. But now a question on which I think we'll disagree. Is it government's job to correct all societal ills or inequities? I think not. Life isn't always "fair" (whatever that means). Some times bad things happen to good people and too often, good things happen to undeserving people.
I'll even agree that AA stigmatizes some of the recipients. The usual argument is that it "levels the playing field" (again, whatever that silly buzz phrase means). Some people get an arbitrary advantage. Then some others get a conversely disadvantage as evidenced by lawsuits like Bakke and others. And some staunch supporters in universities are bending the rules with word games to keep the charade up. Personally, I think such dishonest "educators" aren't really educating at all, just arbitrary, and somewhat illegal and unethical tortured social engineering.
Your rebuttal is invited.
Review the Preamble to the Constitution with special attention to "extablish Justice" and "promote the general welfare".

You will recall, too, in Amendment.I.: " ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Such petitions may be presented to any or all of the three Branches of Government. Pursuant to the responsibility to satisfy such Right of Petition, the SCotUS sits not only on Appeal, but receives such cases sitting in Justice and EQUITY. When a Court sits in Equity it is specifically tasked with the "redress of grievances", and it's decisions carry the force of Law.

You live in a time when all three branches of our Government have been wrestling with such issues as never before in the history of human civilization.

Feel blessed to be seeing it with your own eyes. Centuries filled with people have lived and died hoping for what you see right in front of you.

Take it seriously, and as the dawning of the age of our ancestors' impossible dreams.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15 Oct 21, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly hell has frozen over. I either agree with what you say, or have some disagreements.
I agree that AA does not fix any problems. I further agree that, even assuming good intentions, it is a clumsy attempt. But now a question on which I think we'll disagree. Is it government's job to correct all societal ills or inequities? I think not. Life isn't always "fair" (whatever that means). Some times bad things happen to good people and too often, good things happen to undeserving people.
I'll even agree that AA stigmatizes some of the recipients. The usual argument is that it "levels the playing field" (again, whatever that silly buzz phrase means). Some people get an arbitrary advantage. Then some others get a conversely disadvantage as evidenced by lawsuits like Bakke and others. And some staunch supporters in universities are bending the rules with word games to keep the charade up. Personally, I think such dishonest "educators" aren't really educating at all, just arbitrary, and somewhat illegal and unethical tortured social engineering.
Your rebuttal is invited.
This segue into affirmative action is pretty far from topic, so I'll briefly respond:

I certainly never said that "affirmative action does not fix any problems." I did say it was clumsy. At the time affirmative action began, however, a blunt approach may have been more appropriate than it is now. When I was a kid--even in the North--blacks weren't allowed in certain stores. Widespread habits of blatant discrimination called for broad--if imprecise--countermeasures.

There is clearly much more to be done. But with examples of successful leaders from minority backgrounds readily available, I doubt that broad measures will be effective.(Even when they were new, the measures were often abused, for instance, by using token minority partner interests to gain bidding advantages.) I'd like to see a movement toward creating opportunities for ANYONE who has overcome disadvantage.

Some people think that more proportional representation of minorities in leadership positions will be better for society. I tend to agree with that and, therefore, support consciously encouraging more diverse participation in our institutions.

I do not, however, believe that diversity is an overwhelming goal in and of itself. I do not support promoting people who are likely to founder in their positions. It's not fair to them or the institution, and it reflects poorly on the entire community.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#16 Oct 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
This segue into affirmative action is pretty far from topic,...
I stand corrected. You were responding to Dubya.
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text> ...so I'll briefly respond:
I certainly never said that "affirmative action does not fix any problems." I did say it was clumsy. At the time affirmative action began, however, a blunt approach may have been more appropriate than it is now. When I was a kid--even in the North--blacks weren't allowed in certain stores. Widespread habits of blatant discrimination called for broad--if imprecise--countermeasures.
Are you suggesting that reverse discrimination is an acceptable countermeasure?(This is neither a rhetorical nor a trick question.) And where I grew up, I did not see the blatant discrimination you describe. Not saying it didn't exist. I just do not recall seeing it. Maybe I'm younger than you which, sadly, is damn near impossible.
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text> There is clearly much more to be done. But with examples of successful leaders from minority backgrounds readily available, I doubt that broad measures will be effective.(Even when they were new, the measures were often abused, for instance, by using token minority partner interests to gain bidding advantages.) I'd like to see a movement toward creating opportunities for ANYONE who has overcome disadvantage.
Some people think that more proportional representation of minorities in leadership positions will be better for society. I tend to agree with that and, therefore, support consciously encouraging more diverse participation in our institutions.
I do not, however, believe that diversity is an overwhelming goal in and of itself. I do not support promoting people who are likely to founder in their positions. It's not fair to them or the institution, and it reflects poorly on the entire community.
Fair enough. I agree that arbitrary and/or forced "diversity" (I hate that bullsh!t buzzword) is, as you said, "an overwhelming goal." I'm a fan of personal responsibility (*another buzzword) and initiative. I fully agree with your last point re promoting those who really shouldn't be promoted.

I also do not support arbitrary, forced (read: bullsh!t) diversity. I want the best person to the task, whatever that task may be. For instance, can you name one person who is/was better at basketball than Michael Jordan? I can't. But should we require more "diversity" in the NBA? Clearly whites are "under represented." The NFL is (was, not sure of the current percentage) 56 percent black which does not reflect the racial percentage in the general population. Baseball is over represented with Latinos and hockey seems the only sport left for white guys. Okay, maybe gymnastics. And tennis. And, of course, curling (not exactly a major sport). It would seem that diversity is a requirement of "convenience" when a specific group wants an advantage, and not germaine to, or in, the real world.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#17 Oct 22, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Review the Preamble to the Constitution with special attention to "extablish Justice" and "promote the general welfare".
You're kidding, right? I thought you were a lawyer, or at the very least smarter than playing that gambit. Maybe I was in error.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18 Oct 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Are you suggesting that reverse discrimination is an acceptable countermeasure?
Where there is no pool of equally-qualified candidates to choose from, it may be necessary to actively prefer adding minorities to the roster in order to kick-start their entry onto the playing field. Today, there are likely to be fully qualified candidates from all backgrounds to fulfill positions. In order to achieve a broad profile of ideas and backgrounds in your institution, it may be useful to actively recruit minority candidates. That is not the same as giving the job to a less-qualified candidate. Instead, encourage a diverse group of candidates to apply.

And even if the minority remains underrepresented in a particular field, the specter of success will encourage future entrants.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#19 Oct 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Where there is no pool of equally-qualified candidates to choose from, it may be necessary to actively prefer adding minorities to the roster in order to kick-start their entry onto the playing field. Today, there are likely to be fully qualified candidates from all backgrounds to fulfill positions. In order to achieve a broad profile of ideas and backgrounds in your institution, it may be useful to actively recruit minority candidates. That is not the same as giving the job to a less-qualified candidate. Instead, encourage a diverse group of candidates to apply.
And even if the minority remains underrepresented in a particular field, the specter of success will encourage future entrants.
So how long is "affirmative action" supposed to go on ? 40 years ? 50 years ? 75 years ? 150 years ? How long ?

I've been discriminated against because I'm openly gay and openly short. Where's my affirmative action ???

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#20 Oct 22, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I stand corrected. You were responding to Dubya.
<quoted text> Are you suggesting that reverse discrimination is an acceptable countermeasure?(This is neither a rhetorical nor a trick question.) And where I grew up, I did not see the blatant discrimination you describe. Not saying it didn't exist. I just do not recall seeing it. Maybe I'm younger than you which, sadly, is damn near impossible.
.
I don't know your age, but I am 69 years old. My entire immediate family were in union jobs. I was a teamster, my father a laborer, one brother was a printer, and the other was a steamfitter. My brothers and I entered the labor force in the 60's. We all saw discrimination, blatant discrimination, in the unions. Blacks were not even allowed in our unions then. Slowly they did get admitted, but when I moved up in my company I saw blatant discrimination well into the late 1990's, and it was based on color, not abilities.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#21 Oct 22, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So how long is "affirmative action" supposed to go on ? 40 years ? 50 years ? 75 years ? 150 years ? How long ?
I've been discriminated against because I'm openly gay and openly short. Where's my affirmative action ???
Smart organizations will probably always practice the kind of affirmative action that I am talking about: Reaching out to let everyone know that the institution values them. It is human nature to bond with similar people, and we will always have differences that divide us into separate communities. Organizations that desire to pick from the largest possible talent pool and to reach the largest available set of communities will actively nurture their ties with various communities. And having members of those communities on staff is a highly visible approach.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 57,623
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 416
News MassResistance Warns America Against Homosexual... 2 hr Oliver 40
News This "Christian" thinks a secret "gay Nazi regi... 2 hr Oliver 19
News Amid Egypt's anti-gay crackdown, gay dating app... 2 hr Oliver 11
News The gaydar machine: a backlash 4 hr Kerosene 12
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr Freedomofexpression 13,271
More from around the web