If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 159
    More: News, United States Constitution, Ohio, James Obergefell, Anne Arundel County, same-sex marriages, death certificates, Rob Nichols, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

19794 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:51 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-22 09:21:15 PM
15 votes:

Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.


I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.
2013-07-23 01:57:24 AM
13 votes:

Mad_Radhu: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.


Civil rights should never be put to a vote.
2013-07-22 09:13:21 PM
13 votes:
i105.photobucket.com
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.
2013-07-22 10:34:44 PM
12 votes:
And here are the opening paragraphs of the judge's glorious opinion:

This is not a complicated case. The issue is whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against same sex marriages lawfully solemnized out of state, when Ohio law has historically and unambiguously provided that the validity of a marriage is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated.

Throughout Ohio's history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example, under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise, under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors.

How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single out same sex marriages as ones it will not recognize? The short answer is that Ohio cannot ... at least not under the circumstances here.

By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."


...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.

Let me repeat that last delicious bite for you ...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.
2013-07-23 02:03:08 AM
9 votes:

hardinparamedic: You sodomites. Don't you know this is just ANOTHER example of unconstitutional activist judicial law making that is sweeping our country since ZEROBAMA got into office? If we start becoming accepting of the homogay, another 9/11 is JUST AROUND THE CORNER as punishment from God for rejecting his founding principles of the United States.

You people should ALL BE ASHAMED that you have turned your backs on the one, true loving God which brought you into this world, and have embraced sinful lifestyle choices such as this. We should not encourage these mentally ill people to live in their sinful delusions!


I love that people say that their god is punishing everyone for gays and abortions and whatnot. He should be punishing his followers for being bigots, anti-poor, racist, self serving, greedy, ignorant, selfish, lying about their god, killing in name of their god, abusive because of their god, and other sins that are actually in the Bible.
2013-07-22 09:14:51 PM
9 votes:

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.


It just takes too long.
2013-07-22 09:30:43 PM
6 votes:
Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...
2013-07-23 01:37:32 AM
5 votes:

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?



i2.kym-cdn.com
2013-07-23 10:03:50 AM
4 votes:

StoPPeRmobile: Fine, I'll bite.

Calling someone a troll is lazy.

Try a real argument instead of some ad hominem/strawman falacy.


I daresay this weird shtick of chastising people for not getting into serious arguments with obvious trolls may be more irritating than the trolls themselves.
2013-07-23 02:51:20 AM
4 votes:

alienated: rynthetyn: ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.

Yeah, but Judge Walker is a homo so his opinion shouldn't be allowed to matter. Or something like that. I'm a little rusty on my NOM talking points.

And i never did hear if your friend of the court paper made it in. i have no quick comeback to judge walker is a homo


As far as the brief I worked on goes, one of the main focuses was on how the inability of their parents to marry is harmful to the children of LGBT parents. That was one of the things that Kennedy touched on in the Windsor opinion (and a point that Scalia flipped out on in his dissent). There's no real way of knowing whether that brief helped sway Kennedy or not, but who knows, maybe it had some small part to play in convincing Kennedy that DOMA hurt children by delegitimizing their families. The brief I worked on was the only one that specifically focused on that issue, but I still can't wrap my head around the possibility that something I worked on might have had even the smallest bit of influence in a major constitutional case.
2013-07-23 02:20:11 AM
4 votes:
But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww
2013-07-23 01:56:15 AM
4 votes:

Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.


^^^^ right up there, this.
2013-07-23 01:54:19 AM
4 votes:
The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.
2013-07-23 12:16:03 AM
4 votes:
Hopefully this will lead to something in Ohio. My home state needs to join the right side of history and et rid of this ban. If a judge has to tell them to be adults then so be it.
2013-07-22 09:59:34 PM
4 votes:

feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.


For a TRO to issue, the court must find the plaintiff likely to prevail. (Yes I am a lawyer who defends TROs regularly)

So it is indeed a BFD.
2013-07-22 09:39:04 PM
4 votes:
This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.
2013-07-23 11:22:00 AM
3 votes:
www.bitlogic.com
2013-07-23 09:19:30 AM
3 votes:

This text is now purple: exatron: That's an equal protection violation, so the only thing getting smacked down will be Ohio's ban.

How the fed rules on equal protection is remarkably subjective. Why does a marriage license transfer, but not a gun permit, or a professional certification? It's not like anatomy or gravity is different between Pennsylvania and Ohio.


Marriage licenses don't transfer per se. The problem is that Ohio recognizes marriage licenses for heterosexual couples from other states, even if that marriage couldn't be performed within Ohio, but doesn't do the same for a gay couple's marriage license.

For example, it's legal for first cousins to marry in New York, but not Ohio, and Ohio will still recognize that marriage license.

Meanwhile, it's also legal for gay couples to marry in New York, but not in Ohio, yet Ohio won't recognize the gay couple's marriage. That arbitrary division is denying gay couples equal protection under the law, and was driven by animus against then.
2013-07-23 07:11:58 AM
3 votes:

Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.


That may have been a joke, but it isn't even close to what he said...

Note: "Ohio's bans on recognizing same-sex couples' out-of-state marriages, while acknowledging its recognition of the marriages of opposite-sex couples who would not be allowed to marry in Ohio.."

So what he said was that Ohio has some categories of folks that aren't allowed to be married in Ohio.  However, Ohio will recognize those marriages if they were legal in the jurisdiction where they were performed.  Ohio tried to make an exception for same sex marriages, treating them differently than other marriages, and that is why this will not stand.  So if Ohio had refused to recognize 1st cousin opposite sex marriages performed in Kentucky (I don't know, just reaching for an example) then there would have to be a different justification.
2013-07-23 03:04:50 AM
3 votes:

alienated: rynthetyn: As far as the brief I worked on goes, one of the main focuses was on how the inability of their parents to marry is harmful to the children of LGBT parents. That was one of the things that Kennedy touched on in the Windsor opinion (and a point that Scalia flipped out on in his dissent). There's no real way of knowing whether that brief helped sway Kennedy or not, but who knows, maybe it had some small part to play in convincing Kennedy that DOMA hurt children by delegitimizing their families. The brief I worked on was the only one that specifically focused on that issue, but I still can't wrap my head around the possibility that something I worked on might have had even the smallest bit of influence in a major constitutional case.

Mayhaps. I would like to think that it did, and i never saw the final version. Cheers


If anybody's interested,  this is the brief I worked on. I was one of the coauthors on the Child Rights Project Survey that's cited heavily in section 3 of the brief.
2013-07-23 03:01:51 AM
3 votes:

TemperedEdge: davidphogan: How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?

Because Jeebus, AKA the standard modern argument for discrimination.


I figure the best proof that Jesus isn't real is that he hasn't come back to kick the ass of people who claim to be working on his behalf.
2013-07-23 02:30:12 AM
3 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Look, I know it's Buzzfeed and not real journalism, but when there's a story with major political implications, maybe your readers want to hear more about things like the court's reasons for making their decision and less about the personal lives of two random people we don't give a fark about?

I mean, there's a big difference between striking this on full faith and credit grounds (which higher courts have already rejected, see the most recent gay marriage ruling and concealed carry licenses) and striking it on equal protection grounds (which has some potential to actually stick).  Kind of an important part of the story.


The relevant part was already quoted upthread, but the Judge justified it that because Ohio has a precedent of honoring out-of-state marriages that wouldn't be possible in Ohio (such as marriages between first cousins and marriages involving minors) that homosexual marriages should be afforded the same rights.

Basically he said that if Ohio is going to accept as valid any marriage performed as valid in another state, they have to accept them all.
2013-07-23 02:13:20 AM
3 votes:

alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.


This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.
2013-07-23 12:38:54 AM
3 votes:

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


What a beautiful story. I can't believe that anybody could watch that and say that what those two men are doing is sinful, or destructive to society, or would "make God angry". Yet of course there are far too many people who hold that view.
2013-07-23 12:12:24 AM
3 votes:

feckingmorons: That is true, but the standard for a TRO is much different than any other action he could take. It needs to be put in perspective.


My perspective, as a lawyer who often defends TROs, is that it is often the whole ballgame.  You may pull it out after one is granted (in which case you look like a hero), but that is rather rare.  A federal judge is highly unlikely to be turned once granting initial relief like this

This is the judge's finding as to the likelihood prong of the TRO (actually PI, but whatever) test:

Even if the classification of same-sex couples legally married in other states is reviewed under the least demanding rational basis test, this Court on this record cannot find a rational basis for the Ohio provisions discriminating against lawful, out-of-state same sex marriages that is not related to the impermissible expression of disapproval of same-sex married couples.

Consequently, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits.


As to perspective, this decision is limited to the facts at issue and the relief is only granted to the two plaintiffs.  But the water just breached the dam in Ohio.
2013-07-22 10:35:56 PM
3 votes:
My sister and sister-in-law got married in a church in Illinois 5 years ago, still waiting to get married legally. We've invited them repeatedly to come to CT to get married, I don't know what they're waiting for.

I hope Ohio goes down soon, with many more states to follow, because it's stupid to think that you could be married between 9am and 5pm, in Manhattan, then go home to New Jersey, and not be married. And then go back to work the next morning, and be married again.
2013-07-22 10:15:38 PM
3 votes:
FYI y'all I am reviewing the docket in PACER right now and it appears that Defendants Kasich (Gov.) and DeWine (AG) actually responded to the TRO before the court ruled.  (Technically that takes it out of TRO territory and makes it a preliminary injunction).  Attorneys appeared and argued for all sides
2013-07-22 09:19:11 PM
3 votes:

dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.


Much too long.
2013-07-22 09:09:10 PM
3 votes:

feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.


The judge wouldn't have granted the preliminary injunction (TRO) if he thought it was merit-less.
2013-07-23 01:18:25 PM
2 votes:

Theaetetus: No, equal protection. It's that Ohio currently accepts those other types of marriages, but not these, and they don't have a sufficiently good reason to do so.


That's essentially the huge change in jurisprudence regarding gay rights. Even when equal protection was applied, often times appeals courts would reject the equal protection rule (because of its implications) and uphold the same result but on technical grounds. Even in Lawrence v. Texas, the liberals on the Court couldn't bring themselves to make an equal protection argument. Sandra Day O'Connor did, though, and I will always lover her for that.
2013-07-23 09:51:45 AM
2 votes:
Actually, these pro-same-sex-marriage rulings are kind of starting to piss me off. I'm still waiting on the end of days I was promised by conservatives and religious nuts regarding the FIRST ruling so many years ago.

Thirteen states and still no doomsday. WTF people? Where's our modern Sodom-smiting?
2013-07-23 09:45:47 AM
2 votes:

tkwasny: The only reason govts got involved in "marriage anything" started with the 16th amendment. It's placing taxing structures based on marriage status. It figures that its all about money. Hey all you politicians and lawyers, just leave people alone.


Taxation is only one of thirteen major categories of benefits and privileges extended based on marital status.

Other benefits include not having to testify against your spouse in a court of law, access to military housing and commissary privileges when your spouse is on active duty, eligibility for grants, loans, disaster relief, and other areas where combined married income is a factor... the list goes on.
2013-07-23 09:32:09 AM
2 votes:
Gimmick accounts should get IP permabanned.
2013-07-23 09:08:44 AM
2 votes:

duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR


This issue doesn't have the sheer worldwide impact of the fall of communism, but it's sure as sh*t very important. We're talking about the basic right to enjoy the benefits of the majority, and doing away with the cruel intentions of those who oppose it. In my book, and in Joe Biden's voice, it's a big f*cking deal.
2013-07-23 08:38:27 AM
2 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


People tend to champion the causes that are closest to them. While I'm sure a rainbow parade has sympathies for other minority rights groups, they're marching to raise awareness wrt a specific circumstance. The same goes for Trayvon rallies. Gun shows rallying around personal rights about bearing arms aren't expected to cheer for same sex marriage and racial equality simply because they're championing a civil liberties cause, are they?
2013-07-23 07:14:41 AM
2 votes:

gaspode: Keep trying, it wont change the fact that the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid. It is one of the fundamental planks of your union and they all know that. The conservative judges just try to avoid having to rule because they know how the ruling will go.


Constitution of the United States of America,
ARTICLE IV SECTION 1.   Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

/Stick a fork in it - it's done.
2013-07-23 07:13:19 AM
2 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: hubiestubert:  if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state.


Except that's not true.  This one(1) judge says it's true for Ohio, but that's not what the Supreme Court said.
This will likely go back to the Supreme Court... again.  Ohio doesn't want this.


No. A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. And a few rich guys (and organizations) from outside of Ohio don't want this. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.

/5 guys screaming are louder than 100 people reading the paper.
2013-07-23 04:19:00 AM
2 votes:

gibbon1: Am I the only one that's tired of hearing about gay marriage and abortion and womens rights, not because they aren't worthy, but they distract us from taking back the 30% of GDP that's being bogarted by the banking classes.  It's wrose than people think when you consider that economic growth has been sub par since we allowed the finance and insurance 'industries' to reap and pillage.


Monkey, I have a coworker who spewed crap like this prior to the 2012 election. He is a republican. After going off on how liberals distract the people from important economics issues by bringing up all the gay rights and abortion shiat I asked him, "so republicans should give in to the liberals on social issues and get more votes so they can win and fix the economy?"

His reply was 'of course not and then some trailing off'.

You say they are worthy, but yet you want them cast aside as issues? You contradict yourself, just like my coworker. What he and you mean is 'why can't everyone do what I want on social issues so we only get divided on this one area' and frankly that is ridiculous in a representative democracy.
2013-07-23 03:41:09 AM
2 votes:

ambassador_ahab: tinfoil-hat maggie: they'll pick up on this after their moms wake them up up for breakfast. they get done masturbating, because sex is evil (but in that super-secret way so Jeebus can't see, because it's also evil and stuff.)

That raises an interesting question.  Is masturbation also "sodomy" or does it have to involve another person to be "sodomy"?

/Proud sodomite either way.


If you want Biblical terms for sex acts, the correct term for masturbation is "onanism."
2013-07-23 02:38:38 AM
2 votes:

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


No dude.

From how this was explained to me is that marriage licenses are covered under the full faith and credit clause because they are judicial records. The FF&C clause has been interpreted as meaning that all judicial records and judgements will be recognized by all states. This is still up to debate with gay marriage because some states constitutions only recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But as for CCW permits, those aren't judicial records or judgements, they have been determined to be a matter of reciprocity were each individual state to make agreements on rather or not to recognize each others permits. Drivers licenses are actually a matter of reciprocity also
2013-07-23 02:37:49 AM
2 votes:

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-07-23 02:33:54 AM
2 votes:

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine (powered with the stem cells of aborted white babies) to go back to the 12th Century and impersonate Henry II to insert the idea of binding precedent into the common law system. He even called it "stare decisis", which is probably heathen-turban-wearing-camel-jockey-brown-people-speak for "Force gay Nazi commie Muslim sharia law marriages on everyone".

Just study it out.
2013-07-23 02:24:01 AM
2 votes:
Look, I know it's Buzzfeed and not real journalism, but when there's a story with major political implications, maybe your readers want to hear more about things like the court's reasons for making their decision and less about the personal lives of two random people we don't give a fark about?

I mean, there's a big difference between striking this on full faith and credit grounds (which higher courts have already rejected, see the most recent gay marriage ruling and concealed carry licenses) and striking it on equal protection grounds (which has some potential to actually stick).  Kind of an important part of the story.
2013-07-23 02:22:25 AM
2 votes:

Zeppelininthesky: Too bad the majority are making life harder by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation.


Exactly.  If you're in a straight marriage and want to stay in it, nobody is going to force you to get a divorce and then go get gay married.
2013-07-23 02:20:07 AM
2 votes:

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


Go back and read the article slowly, looking up the big words in a dictionary. It might help.
2013-07-23 02:18:11 AM
2 votes:

pootsie: Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.

Let me repeat that last delicious bite for you ...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.


Oh, that is beautiful. I can just imagine Scalia raging away when he finds out that his dissent was cited in this case.

I've got to say, ever since the Perry and Windsor decisions, I've been unable to get the least bit upset about people's anti-gay bigotry because it just feels like the impotent rage of those who know they've lost but refuse to admit it. Instead of getting upset or angry or depressed, I just laugh. Not that there isn't still a lot of work to be done, but it's all over but the shouting.
2013-07-23 02:12:39 AM
2 votes:

alienated: By the way- Maggie- I look at that and it seems crass and not at all what i meant to convey. oops
I was going for a play on me not posting pics, but SQUIRREL!


Squirrel?
farm8.staticflickr.com
No worries : )
2013-07-23 02:06:51 AM
2 votes:

tinfoil-hat maggie: Mad_Radhu: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Civil rights should never be put to a vote.


Same for someone pushing their religious beliefs as laws for everyone. It should never be put to a vote.
2013-07-23 02:02:39 AM
2 votes:

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.


Say that with a straight face to a 100% native American. If you can find one. Go Redskins.
2013-07-22 10:49:54 PM
2 votes:

pootsie: And here are the opening paragraphs of the judge's glorious opinion:

This is not a complicated case. The issue is whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against same sex marriages lawfully solemnized out of state, when Ohio law has historically and unambiguously provided that the validity of a marriage is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated.

Throughout Ohio's history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example, under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise, under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors.

How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single out same sex marriages as ones it will not recognize? The short answer is that Ohio cannot ... at least not under the circumstances here.

By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.

Let me repeat that last delicious bite for you ...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.


1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-07-22 09:23:51 PM
2 votes:

Aarontology: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


I'm sure that lots of people got the same pleasure when Louis XIV met his end, they just didn't have to wait for it.
2013-07-22 09:23:21 PM
2 votes:
Ahhh, progress. One state at a time, one country at a time. Sometimes it falters and appears to stall or even reverse. But slowly, inexorably, progress rumbles forward.
2013-07-22 09:07:51 PM
2 votes:
It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.
2013-07-22 08:59:30 PM
2 votes:
Subby, you couldn't even type out "same-sex marriage"? Really?
2013-07-23 02:39:51 PM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .


Concealed Carry is a Fundamental Right?  Who knew?

Neighborhood Watch: If the US Supreme Court majority believed that homosexual marriage was a constitutional 'civil right', then it would have said so and struck down DOMA in its entirety and all states would be compelled to honor homosexual marriages, period.


Everyone point and laugh at the troll who doesn't know the history of the Court hewing to the narrowest possible grounds for decision-making, and preferring to rule on procedure rather than the merits!
2013-07-23 02:22:26 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: Because all you need is for one state to recognize incestuous marriage.

Then everybody gets a deathbed wedding like these guys and no more estate tax.


 [quizzical_dog.jpg]
1. Estate tax kicks in when the estate is valued at more than $5.25 million per person - you're talking ~140,000 people in the entire country, or about 1,000 deaths in a given year.
2. If your assets are worth that much ($10.5 million for a married couple) and don't already have an AB Trust, you're a moron.
2013-07-23 01:22:53 PM
1 votes:

nickerj1: Theaetetus: nickerj1: SecretAgentWoman: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

I think you are missing the point - they DO recognize marriage licenses issued by other states. Just not teh gay ones. No different than saying they will honor all marriage licenses - except interracial ones. It's discrimination to accept one, and not the other.

He's correct in that it will change CC law.  But not in the way he is thinking.  Currently, some states have stipulations for accepting CC licenses.  For example, state A's license may be valid in state B, but only if the holder of the state A license is over 21 years of age.  Persons between 18-20 years of age, even with a state A license, can't legally carry in state B because state B prohibits CCing by anyone under 21.

Or:
State A only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+.
State B only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+ and pass proficiency exam.
State A and B sign reciprocity agreement to recognize everyone of either state who has a license from either state.
State A amends law to now issue CC licenses to people who are 18+.

State B then can't ban people between ages of 18-21 with a state A license from carrying.

Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay peopl ...

What's to stop Ohio from amending the marriage reciprocity agreement with the other state to contain language that basically says... "we will accept marriage licenses of Y type from other states but not marriage licenses of X type from other states"?

I didn't read the decision except for the snippet quoted further up, but to me it sounded like the whole decision was about the scope of reciprocity agreements.


There are no reciprocity agreements regarding marriage
2013-07-23 12:14:08 PM
1 votes:

nickerj1: What's to stop Ohio from amending the marriage reciprocity agreement with the other state to contain language that basically says... "we will accept marriage licenses of Y type from other states but not marriage licenses of X type from other states"?


This:

Theaetetus: States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay people," and that's just not good enough.


They can do it, but only if they have a sufficiently good reason. For example, even though Ohio currently allows first cousin marriages from other states, they could stop allowing those on the grounds that (i) first cousins are not a suspect classification, and (ii) the state has a reasonable interest in preventing probate-free inheritance within consanguineous relationships already covered by intestacy statutes.
However, they don't have sufficiently good reasons when the type depends on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

I didn't read the decision except for the snippet quoted further up, but to me it sounded like the whole decision was about the scope of reciprocity agreements.

No, equal protection. It's that Ohio currently accepts those other types of marriages, but not these, and they don't have a sufficiently good reason to do so.

Ohio could refuse to honor any out-of-state marriage that would be illegal in Ohio - no first cousins, no one under 18, no gay people, etc. - and that would address the issue raised in this decision, but it would raise several other issues like the one noted above.
2013-07-23 11:40:52 AM
1 votes:

Bendal: Utter Genius: Oh look, it's this non-issue again.

Sooooo important for gays to experience divorce.


There's a little more at stake for gays than getting to divorce each other. Visitation and legal rights if one is in the hospital, inheritances, adoptions, transfer of property, etc, basically, everything heterosexuals take for granted when they're married is at stake here. A friend of ours won't come visit NC because she's concerned if her or her partner have medical problems, for example, the other one would have no say on treatment, etc, while in this state.


I haven't read this thread but I hope this isn't the first time that the issues you just raised have been brought up. So many people are focusing on whether or not bakeries will accommodate same-sex couples. That's not what's at stake. The gay marriage fight isn't over the ceremony or the happy times -- it's about when shiat hits the fan and families are against the wall. It's about medical rights and taxes. Real things that affect families in the long term.
2013-07-23 11:27:40 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Theaetetus: Philip Francis Queeg: Theaetetus:
The FF&C clause isn't as helpful here as you'd think. Instead, it's really about due process and equal protection.

Both of which are denied to same sex couples.

And they all eat cheese!

Seriously, is it non sequitur day and I missed it? Those have nothing to do with what you said, which was "they passed a very specific law, not a general law". That's incorrect.

Sol how far do you think congress can go with this? State aren't required to recognize marriages of people named James? States aren't required to recognize marriages of left handed people with green eyes and black hair? States are not required to recognize marriages where one member of the couple is in a labor union, dives a Ford, and weighs over 175 pounds?


Under the FF&C clause, or under that "general law" requirement? Any of those are fine. They violate equal protection, but - and here's the part you may be confused on - it's possible for a law to be okay under one part of the constitution, but not okay under another part. For example, under Article I, Congress has the power to pass taxes. If they passed a 95% tax on people named "Philip", that would not be in violation of their Article I powers. It would violate due process and be an unconstitutional bill of attainder, but those are separate portions. You'd be wrong to say the law was unconstitutional because of article I.

Similarly, here, you're wrong to say that DoMA's clause 2 is unconstitutional because of the FF&C clause. It's unconstitutional because of the 5th and 14th amendments.
2013-07-23 11:24:19 AM
1 votes:

flondrix: make me some tea: Subby, you couldn't even type out "same-sex marriage"? Really?

On my screen, the headline reads:

Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution

So, looks like the subby did type it out.  What is your problem?


Fark admins fixed the headline. It did originally read SSM.
2013-07-23 11:07:13 AM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay people," and that's just not good enough.


Not quite:
"Marriage is 'one of the basic civil rights'" and "resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

/Loving it. (Section II.)
2013-07-23 10:59:32 AM
1 votes:

Utter Genius: Oh look, it's this non-issue again.

Sooooo important for gays to experience divorce.



There's a little more at stake for gays than getting to divorce each other. Visitation and legal rights if one is in the hospital, inheritances, adoptions, transfer of property, etc, basically, everything heterosexuals take for granted when they're married is at stake here. A friend of ours won't come visit NC because she's concerned if her or her partner have medical problems, for example, the other one would have no say on treatment, etc, while in this state.
2013-07-23 10:37:30 AM
1 votes:

bobbette: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Thank you for defeating Gay Communism, Ronald Reagan.


You know, I do credit Ronald Reagan for bringing us gay marriage. The whole "killing all the right people" sentiment from Regan Republicans (there was actually a bumper sticker) rallied the gay movement. This led to the push for gay marriage.
2013-07-23 10:27:13 AM
1 votes:
DeaH: skozlaw: Actually, these pro-same-sex-marriage rulings are kind of starting to piss me off. I'm still waiting on the end of days I was promised by conservatives and religious nuts regarding the FIRST ruling so many years ago.

Thirteen states and still no doomsday. WTF people? Where's our modern Sodom-smiting?

Here's the thing about the Sodom-smiting: it had more to do with hospitality than gayness. The crowd was upset that there were strangers present. They wanted to humiliate them. Rape is pretty humiliating, so that that  was what they were screaming they wanted to do. Lot chided them for their bad hospitality. Lot even offered up his own virgin daughters for the crowd to rape (Lot was a very attentive host), but the crowd wanted to punish the strangers for coming into their town.

So, long-story-short, you'll have to wait to see what happens with immigration before any smiting can happen.

/ftfm
2013-07-23 10:24:45 AM
1 votes:

skozlaw: Actually, these pro-same-sex-marriage rulings are kind of starting to piss me off. I'm still waiting on the end of days I was promised by conservatives and religious nuts regarding the FIRST ruling so many years ago.

Thirteen states and still no doomsday. WTF people? Where's our modern Sodom-smiting?


Here's the thing about the Sodom-smiting: it had more to do with hospitality than gayness. The crowd was upset that there were strangers present. They wanted to humiliate them. Rape is pretty humiliating, so that that what they were screaming they wanted to do. Lot chided them for their bad hospitality. Lot even offered up his own virgin daughters for the crowd to rape (Lot was a very attentive host), but the crowd wanted to punish the strangers for coming into their town.

So, long-story-short, you'll have to wait to see what happens with immigration before any smiting can happen.
2013-07-23 10:11:09 AM
1 votes:
sorry Amerika
but you don't actually get to 'vote'
on questions of human rights,

no matter how awesome your prejudice
2013-07-23 10:05:09 AM
1 votes:

randomjsa: The Constitution does not cover marriage


The Supreme Court disagrees.

The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There is no reason whatsoever for them to rule any differently on the question of two people of the same gender getting married than they did on the question of two people of different races getting married.

They sidestepped the issue on questions of standing last time, but there are no standing issues in this case.
2013-07-23 10:03:42 AM
1 votes:

randomjsa: I support same sex marriage but I do not think that it does. The Constitution does not cover marriage, so its a states rights issue.


The Lee v. Grant decision of 1865 put an end to concept of "states rights".
2013-07-23 10:01:21 AM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...


That's exactly what they want to do.  In fact, back when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he dusted off some old laws from the anti-miscegenation era to attempt to prevent his own state from marrying same sex couples from out of state (every little bit helps, I guess).
2013-07-23 09:55:40 AM
1 votes:

Silly_Sot: Fart_Machine: Silly_Sot: Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise?

0/10

Tell me what you think once you move out of mommy's basement and learn about the real world. In the real world, social change takes time. The alternative is mass murder and ending up no better than you started. Disagree, please show how Pol Pot actually did create a paradise.


So you're not a troll but just an idiot.  There is no progressive that believes Pol Pot created a paradise.  Now go back under your bridge.
2013-07-23 09:51:41 AM
1 votes:

Silly_Sot: Fart_Machine: Silly_Sot: Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise?

0/10

Tell me what you think once you move out of mommy's basement and learn about the real world. In the real world, social change takes time. The alternative is mass murder and ending up no better than you started. Disagree, please show how Pol Pot actually did create a paradise.


This is some of the laziest trolling I've seen all month.
2013-07-23 09:48:02 AM
1 votes:
Forcing states that do not allow gay marriage to recognize those marriages when preformed in states where they are allowed was the obvious next step in the march towards equal rights.

I'm kind of surprised that the lawsuit got underway so quickly though. Somebody was on the ball.

However, selecting the people who become the basis of lawsuits destined for the Supreme Court is important, and these guys certainly put a good face on the struggle.

If you study the history of the fight for Civil Rights for blacks in the court system, you'll see that things were accomplished in the same piecemeal manner, winning many decisions over time and not some big decision that happened all at once.
2013-07-23 09:42:54 AM
1 votes:

jso2897: Gimmick accounts should get IP permabanned.


I was once on a much smaller, focused messaging board with an extended group of friends.  Anytime someone tried to troll with an alt, the moderator would out them immediately.  "YerMomma is posting from the same IP as BillJohnson".  Put an end to that shiat real quick.  It was even more fun that we could publicly shame the idiot afterwards.

My favorite FARK anecdote (don't know if it's true, gotta believe the poster when they said a mod confirmed this at a FARK party), is that FARK has people argue with their own alts in order to spur debate on an issue.  That's some farked up shiat right there.

Oh, and hurray Maryland!  For standing up and voting for marriage equality in this past election!  Next up:  medical marijuana!
2013-07-23 09:33:02 AM
1 votes:

EnglishMan: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.

You must be under 20 years old.

Nope, I was 7 when the Soviet Union finally collapsed. This is bigger, because the Soviets were only a threat in the sense that they might have bankrupted us first.

Oh, I guess all those wars and dead people aren't as important as a few gays having tacky weddings.


Wars over nothing? Yeah. They 100% aren't as important as living up to the concepts laid down by the Constitution.
2013-07-23 09:29:41 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.

You must be under 20 years old.

Nope, I was 7 when the Soviet Union finally collapsed. This is bigger, because the Soviets were only a threat in the sense that they might have bankrupted us first.


Oh, I guess all those wars and dead people aren't as important as a few gays having tacky weddings.
2013-07-23 09:19:54 AM
1 votes:

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


I think you are missing the point - they DO recognize marriage licenses issued by other states. Just not teh gay ones. No different than saying they will honor all marriage licenses - except interracial ones. It's discrimination to accept one, and not the other.
2013-07-23 09:16:44 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.


You must be under 20 years old.
2013-07-23 09:16:12 AM
1 votes:

dickfreckle: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

This issue doesn't have the sheer worldwide impact of the fall of communism, but it's sure as sh*t very important. We're talking about the basic right to enjoy the benefits of the majority, and doing away with the cruel intentions of those who oppose it. In my book, and in Joe Biden's voice, it's a big f*cking deal.


Also, I believe the original poster was making comparisons based upon the historic enormity of the issue at hand. I, too, saw the Berlin Wall come down, albeit I was a kid. But it was one of those things that define a generation. I'm hoping that allowing gays to enjoy basic liberties I take for granted will be something that happens before I die of lung cancer or liver disease. We're talking about a cultural milestone, here.
2013-07-23 09:11:25 AM
1 votes:

duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR


Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.
2013-07-23 09:09:23 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


Loving v Virginia clearly established that marriage is a civil right.

And do you practice being this dense or is it a natural talent?
2013-07-23 08:59:24 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: Biological Ali: The fark is wrong with you?


Nothing, that I know of.


Look, I get that you made this account to troll Trayvon Martin threads - that shtick may have been mildly amusing for maybe a couple minutes or so. But coming into threads like this and pulling this kind of threadjack nonsense? That's pretty farking pathetic. Give it a rest.
2013-07-23 08:50:33 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


The fark is wrong with you?
2013-07-23 08:46:09 AM
1 votes:

RealFarknMcCoy2: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

No he won't. The state has already set precedent by recognising marriages from other states that aren't allowed in Ohio (as cited in the ruling). THAT is the precedent that applies.


I'll go with McCoy on this one.   Pretty sure the guy who spells it "precident" is not going to be my legal adviser anytime soon.
2013-07-23 08:46:00 AM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


It's got all the marks of a great troll, including the quite brilliant Judiciary-vs-veto fail, but for some reason, it just doesn't sing. You need to do something to juice this up.

And saying "weird ass-rule" won't be the one.
2013-07-23 08:34:56 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


And the troll gets back to his comfort zone.
2013-07-23 08:28:50 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


Hmm.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Skinner v. Oklahoma,  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&v ol=316&invol=535#541" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; ">316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill,  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invo l=190" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; ">125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Yeah, you're right. There's absolutely no precedent.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Yup.  Marriage is not a civil right.
2013-07-23 08:25:51 AM
1 votes:

Oxygen_Thief: Neighborhood Watch: gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.


I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?

did you read US v. Windsor?



Reading are hard for Neighborhood Watch. Give the 4 day old sock puppet troll alt a break.
2013-07-23 08:25:25 AM
1 votes:

Oxygen_Thief: MyRandomName: hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...

This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .

I'm just asking..but don't most states allow concealed  carry?
/not a gun nut


It isn't always reciprocal. If you plan to conceal carry across state lines you better be damn sure what states honor your permit.
2013-07-23 08:24:59 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?  Marriage equality is a civil rights issue that social conservatives have already lost, get used to it.
2013-07-23 08:18:41 AM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...


This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .
2013-07-23 08:18:29 AM
1 votes:

Kuroshin: Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.

Same here in Oregon.  Record voter turn-out, constitutional ban passed by a landslide.

Wiki

We are going to be one of the last to break.  It will not happen by internal forces, due to the difficulty in reversing constitutional amendments in this state.  It will require some sort of federal action (protected class, reversing DOMA, etc.).

Gays shouldn't feel singled-out though!  Oregon has a long history of bigotry and being slow to allow equal rights.  We were one of the slowest to desegregate, and our Jim Crow laws were right up there with the worst of 'em.


Oregon is a beautiful state but the huge support to ban gay marriage was actually a big reason my wife and I didn't move there. We figured if people were that willing to take away the rights of minorities we'd rather not support the local government with our taxes.

In other words, tell your fellow residents to get their shiat together. It is actually costing your state money.
2013-07-23 08:12:43 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.


I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?


did you read US v. Windsor?
2013-07-23 08:09:41 AM
1 votes:

exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.



When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights
2013-07-23 07:59:40 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: Neighborhood Watch: They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


KeatingFive: No. It takes a majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the actual people.

Again, a small band of nuts with 100% participation sounds like a majority of everyone. It's simply not true. And a small band of nuts can get away with things, for a while, until the actual majority wakes up and pays attention.


By your logic, a few hundred screaming feminists (hurling tampons, urine and feces) should have been able to overturn Texas' ban on abortions past 20 weeks... just because they were the loudest.  They couldn't.  They couldn't do it because that's not what Texas voters (i.e. the actual majority) wanted.

Same thing in Wisconsin with the union vote do-over and the election do-over.

Same thing in Ohio.

If you're saying that the 'real majority' couldn't be bothered to vote against a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, then that so-called 'real majority' only exists in your imagination.  There's a way to test that, though.  Democrats can propose amending the state constitution again, for the purpose of un-doing the previous amendment.  Like, why not try that and see if the 'real majority' shows up this time?  Why not just try a Wisconsin style do-over to get the 'real majority' to the polls?


Or we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.
2013-07-23 07:55:53 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.



KeatingFive: No. It takes a majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the actual people.

Again, a small band of nuts with 100% participation sounds like a majority of everyone. It's simply not true. And a small band of nuts can get away with things, for a while, until the actual majority wakes up and pays attention.



By your logic, a few hundred screaming feminists (hurling tampons, urine and feces) should have been able to overturn Texas' ban on abortions past 20 weeks... just because they were the loudest.  They couldn't.  They couldn't do it because that's not what Texas voters (i.e. the actual majority) wanted.

Same thing in Wisconsin with the union vote do-over and the election do-over.

Same thing in Ohio.

If you're saying that the 'real majority' couldn't be bothered to vote against a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, then that so-called 'real majority' only exists in your imagination.  There's a way to test that, though.  Democrats can propose amending the state constitution again, for the purpose of un-doing the previous amendment.  Like, why not try that and see if the 'real majority' shows up this time?  Why not just try a Wisconsin style do-over to get the 'real majority' to the polls?
2013-07-23 07:40:20 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


A majority of people who happen to vote at that one vote. In NC, they tacked on the constitutional amendment vote with the Republican primary. Surprisingly enough, a majority of Republicans voted during that election, even though Republicans don't even make up a plurality of registered voters in NC.
2013-07-23 07:36:07 AM
1 votes:

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


No he won't. The state has already set precedent by recognising marriages from other states that aren't allowed in Ohio (as cited in the ruling). THAT is the precedent that applies.
2013-07-23 07:33:06 AM
1 votes:

FormlessOne: twat_waffle: Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine

OK, you had me at "B-Rock".


"Now, B-Rock says this. He's going to take your ban on same-sex marriage.... shine it up real nice.... turn that sumbiatch sidewys, and stick straight up Ohio's candy ass!"

"If you SMEEEELLLLLLLLLL LAALALALALALAAAAAAAAA.... WHAT B-ROCK.... IS.... COOKIN'!"
2013-07-23 07:19:46 AM
1 votes:

KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.



They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.
2013-07-23 07:16:13 AM
1 votes:

SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


IIRC, Ohio contains the second- or third-largest gay community in the country.

The problem with Ohio is that it's small, dense pockets of sanity surrounded by a bazillion acres where corn and derp are grown.
2013-07-23 07:16:03 AM
1 votes:

gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.



I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?
2013-07-23 07:12:33 AM
1 votes:
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
2013-07-23 07:07:35 AM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: hubiestubert:  if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state.


Except that's not true.  This one(1) judge says it's true for Ohio, but that's not what the Supreme Court said.

This will likely go back to the Supreme Court... again.  Ohio doesn't want this.


Keep trying, it wont change the fact that the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid. It is one of the fundamental planks of your union and they all know that. The conservative judges just try to avoid having to rule because they know how the ruling will go.
2013-07-23 07:05:59 AM
1 votes:
The decision was good. Calling out Scalia was great.

State's rights: we're taking it back.
2013-07-23 06:58:54 AM
1 votes:

HMS_Blinkin: revrendjim: doglover: revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.

But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....

I spent five years of my life in Ohio. Eighth grade through high school graduation. The fact that I left for the Army two weeks later and have never again set foot in the state again means something.

I'll third you guys on the Ohio hate----but it IS a BFD.  Ohio (suck though it does) is a bellwhether and swing state---if this holds up in OH, the rest of the nation won't be far behind.


C'mon, Ohio is so bad, it leads the nation in natives who wanted out so bad they escaped into space.
2013-07-23 06:56:29 AM
1 votes:
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution: "Section 1. 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."

I dunno, seems pretty farking clear to me.
2013-07-23 05:22:13 AM
1 votes:

tinfoil-hat maggie: bk3k: Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.

JESUS

Oh,, now I'm hoping that was a joke but well if not please describe the passages where Jesus talks about such things : )


Do you think these people give a wet shiat what Jesus said? Do you think they've bothered to even read their own holy book? Please.
2013-07-23 04:47:36 AM
1 votes:

Aarontology: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


Of course the funnier part is that because they have put bigotry into the center of their religion, when their bigotry gets defeated it makes their version of God a loser too.
2013-07-23 04:38:32 AM
1 votes:

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p



What these people went through to get what so many people take for granted is simultaneously disgusting and heroic.
2013-07-23 04:24:11 AM
1 votes:

tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: Gyrfalcon: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

One person's lifetime? Holy crap, Loving v. Virginia has been in MY lifetime, how much faster can social mores change? Given the glacial pace of the court system, this is like watching one of those time-lapse films of a star exploding or something. I mean, I understand that people think "yesterday" would be much too late for this kind of thing to happen; but honestly, things have to take SOME time.

I was just looking at Wikipedia's timeline of LGBT history. When I was born in 1980, you could literally count the number of openly gay elected officials on one hand. Virtually no one of any import was out back then and we were still six years away from the Supreme Court finding Georgia's sodomy laws constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick. There were no openly gay federal judges until I was 14.

We may very well make it from Stonewall to complete equality in under 50 years, which is a blink of an eye in the timelines of massive social change.

I know I said it in another thread but yea, even though we have a long way to go we have come so far in such a (relatively)short time it is amazing.



It's crazy thinking of all the things I take for granted today that teenage me would have never thought possible if I'd have realized I was gay back then.
2013-07-23 04:02:00 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

One person's lifetime? Holy crap, Loving v. Virginia has been in MY lifetime, how much faster can social mores change? Given the glacial pace of the court system, this is like watching one of those time-lapse films of a star exploding or something. I mean, I understand that people think "yesterday" would be much too late for this kind of thing to happen; but honestly, things have to take SOME time.


I was just looking at Wikipedia's timeline of LGBT history. When I was born in 1980, you could literally count the number of openly gay elected officials on one hand. Virtually no one of any import was out back then and we were still six years away from the Supreme Court finding Georgia's sodomy laws constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick. There were no openly gay federal judges until I was 14.

We may very well make it from Stonewall to complete equality in under 50 years, which is a blink of an eye in the timelines of massive social change.
2013-07-23 04:02:00 AM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: ciberido: If you want Biblical terms for sex acts, the correct term for masturbation is

Ok, but is "onanism" a form of sodomy, or is it a whole separate thing?

Question 2:  If "spilling your seed" is against biblical law, then is it ok for women to have at it since their "seed" doesn't get spilled, per se?


Dammit. No.
Onan had a responsibility to give his brother an heir. It's called Levirate marriage.
Instead, he had his fun with the widow, but pulled out, spilling his seed on the ground.
Because of that, he was struck dead.
Onanism is coitus interruptus.
Male masturbation? Take a shower, wash any affected clothing and bedding, and wait for sunset.
Sexytime? Take a shower together, wash any affected clothing and bedding, and watch the sun go down.
/Bonus: Nobody sleeps on the wet spot.
2013-07-23 03:41:15 AM
1 votes:

gibbon1: Am I the only one that's tired of hearing about gay marriage and abortion and womens rights, not because they aren't worthy, but they distract us from taking back the 30% of GDP that's being bogarted by the banking classes.  It's wrose than people think when you consider that economic growth has been sub par since we allowed the finance and insurance 'industries' to reap and pillage.


Mmmkay, financial concerns are important too, but that's not what this particular article is about.  I mean, all these issues are happening at the same time, so they're all relevant.
2013-07-23 03:37:30 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: ciberido: Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?

There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.

Laramie? Are people still derping about Matthew Shepard?


Story
Fark thread.

It's about a play about the event, but yes, it concerns Shepard's death.  the story is worth reading if only for the quote from the principal.
2013-07-23 03:32:08 AM
1 votes:

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


Both states issue marriage licenses, do they not?
2013-07-23 03:30:12 AM
1 votes:

ciberido: Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?

There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.


Laramie? Are people still derping about Matthew Shepard?
2013-07-23 03:26:14 AM
1 votes:

Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?


There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.
2013-07-23 03:24:22 AM
1 votes:

Harry_Seldon: Rachel Maddow is going to be insufferable awesome tomorrow.


FTFY.
2013-07-23 03:23:31 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: I don't see the patchwork solution lasting for very long. Even though Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect, tossing Section 3 while keeping Section 2 creates such a legal clusterfark that it's only a matter of time before Section 2 gets found unconstitutional as well. Once DOMA goes away altogether, we're ripe for a constitutional challenge of the whole shebang.


ryn, I have full faith that you'll be loving the outcome of this.
It's inevitable.
2013-07-23 03:20:48 AM
1 votes:
Tick tock, motherfarkers.
2013-07-23 03:18:40 AM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: Zeppelininthesky: Too bad the majority are making life harder by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation.

Exactly.  If you're in a straight marriage and want to stay in it, nobody is going to force you to get a divorce and then go get gay married.


Sure.  That's what the Gay Turtle Mafia WANTS you to think.  Wake up, sheeple!

/summon xkcd
2013-07-23 03:16:07 AM
1 votes:

alienated: tinfoil-hat maggie: Mad_Radhu: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

what would repeating bears talk about ? a bad bug season or not enough flowers to eat ?


Their own arms, and their right to leave them undressed?
2013-07-23 03:16:05 AM
1 votes:

ongbok: The FF&C clause has been interpreted as meaning that all judicial records and judgements will be recognized by all states.

"

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "

That is amazingly unambiguous really. no-one could rationally describe a state marriage registration as not being a 'public act, record or judicial proceeding'.

While that clause does not make a state perform marriages it does make it recognise them. How someone can be a hardcore defender of the exact language of one amendment and yet not want to not accept this clause of the main constitution is unfathomable.
2013-07-23 03:14:21 AM
1 votes:

Zeppelininthesky: Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.

Turtles and cats, apparently.


No, because then people would start giving birth to hybrid cat-turtles, and that path leads only to madness.

/curtles?
2013-07-23 03:12:26 AM
1 votes:
i44.tinypic.com

Now we make marriage
2013-07-23 03:11:55 AM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?

A cat is fine too.


Ok, fine, but for the love of God keep your filthy, perverted hands off the ducks.
2013-07-23 03:10:02 AM
1 votes:

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


You're supposed to marry a GAY turtle, obviously.
2013-07-23 03:09:05 AM
1 votes:

Aarontology: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


There's no profit in homophobia. (that sounds like it should be one of the Rules Of Acquisition).

Drug prohibition is the real money maker, which is why it will last.
2013-07-23 03:07:17 AM
1 votes:

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


What the hell is wrong with you?  Are you a major shareholder in Kleenex or something?
2013-07-23 03:06:07 AM
1 votes:

Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.


One person's lifetime? Holy crap, Loving v. Virginia has been in MY lifetime, how much faster can social mores change? Given the glacial pace of the court system, this is like watching one of those time-lapse films of a star exploding or something. I mean, I understand that people think "yesterday" would be much too late for this kind of thing to happen; but honestly, things have to take SOME time.
2013-07-23 03:01:46 AM
1 votes:

revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.


You know it feels good to be alive.
2013-07-23 02:58:53 AM
1 votes:

davidphogan: How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?


Because Jeebus, AKA the standard modern argument for discrimination.
2013-07-23 02:57:27 AM
1 votes:

tinfoil-hat maggie: GloomCookie613: tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.

I hope to be around to see that day. Stories like this give me hope that I will. I'd like to be able to dance with the grooms at my best friend's wedding reception someday.

I hope we do see it and soon I don't like this some states thing we we're supposed to be the United States, and well the current situation isn't tenable.


I don't see the patchwork solution lasting for very long. Even though Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect, tossing Section 3 while keeping Section 2 creates such a legal clusterfark that it's only a matter of time before Section 2 gets found unconstitutional as well. Once DOMA goes away altogether, we're ripe for a constitutional challenge of the whole shebang.
2013-07-23 02:56:51 AM
1 votes:
Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.
2013-07-23 02:55:21 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: As far as the brief I worked on goes, one of the main focuses was on how the inability of their parents to marry is harmful to the children of LGBT parents. That was one of the things that Kennedy touched on in the Windsor opinion (and a point that Scalia flipped out on in his dissent). There's no real way of knowing whether that brief helped sway Kennedy or not, but who knows, maybe it had some small part to play in convincing Kennedy that DOMA hurt children by delegitimizing their families. The brief I worked on was the only one that specifically focused on that issue, but I still can't wrap my head around the possibility that something I worked on might have had even the smallest bit of influence in a major constitutional case.


Mayhaps. I would like to think that it did, and i never saw the final version. Cheers
2013-07-23 02:38:47 AM
1 votes:

GloomCookie613: tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.

I hope to be around to see that day. Stories like this give me hope that I will. I'd like to be able to dance with the grooms at my best friend's wedding reception someday.


I hope we do see it and soon I don't like this some states thing we we're supposed to be the United States, and well the current situation isn't tenable.
2013-07-23 02:38:11 AM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: GloomCookie613: tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.

I hope to be around to see that day. Stories like this give me hope that I will. I'd like to be able to dance with the grooms at my best friend's wedding reception someday.

I think it'll be sooner than you think.  A few more crushing defeats for the GOP in elections and they'll realize that the average citizen in the US is far more socially liberal than they currently believe.  If they stop ostracizing their own party members who stand up for civil liberties there will really be nothing stopping the movement.


Never underestimate stupid people in large groups.
2013-07-23 02:37:52 AM
1 votes:

twat_waffle: Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine


OK, you had me at "B-Rock".
2013-07-23 02:32:53 AM
1 votes:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

What is a license. Discuss.

2013-07-23 02:28:04 AM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: I mean, there's a big difference between striking this on full faith and credit grounds (which higher courts have already rejected, see the most recent gay marriage ruling and concealed carry licenses) and striking it on equal protection grounds (which has some potential to actually stick). Kind of an important part of the story.


If it's really a TRO then neither is the case for now.

tl; dr.
2013-07-23 02:27:29 AM
1 votes:
Needs a HERO tag.
2013-07-23 02:24:24 AM
1 votes:

SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww


The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.
2013-07-23 02:21:55 AM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


That's some comedy gold right there.

/pocket ninja still does it better
//slashies
2013-07-23 02:18:08 AM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.


And oddly, in a way, they did set a precedent. Does Walker, who is retired, have any friends in other states within the 9th ? He just might . i will wait and see.
2013-07-23 02:15:52 AM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.


Too bad the majority are making life harder by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation.
2013-07-23 01:55:04 AM
1 votes:
Can this go where I think it can go? DRTFA.
/Good to hear all the same.
//It's past time
2013-07-23 01:54:36 AM
1 votes:

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.


The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
2013-07-23 01:54:07 AM
1 votes:
Right Wing heads are going to be exploding tomorrow.
2013-07-23 01:44:06 AM
1 votes:

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


A cat is fine too.
2013-07-23 01:27:19 AM
1 votes:
Wow, a judge from a typically conservative state getting this right, a buzzfeed link that has actual content, and a comment section under the article that isn't filled with hateful bile?  It's like Christmas in July.
2013-07-23 12:52:46 AM
1 votes:
If you are having access or connection issues, check out the video of the couple here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/john-arthur-jim-obergefell- ga y-wedding_n_3598627.html
2013-07-22 10:47:29 PM
1 votes:

kimwim: My sister and sister-in-law got married in a church in Illinois 5 years ago, still waiting to get married legally. We've invited them repeatedly to come to CT to get married, I don't know what they're waiting for.

I hope Ohio goes down soon, with many more states to follow, because it's stupid to think that you could be married between 9am and 5pm, in Manhattan, then go home to New Jersey, and not be married. And then go back to work the next morning, and be married again.


Giggity
2013-07-22 10:39:51 PM
1 votes:

kimwim: My sister and sister-in-law got married in a church in Illinois 5 years ago, still waiting to get married legally. We've invited them repeatedly to come to CT to get married, I don't know what they're waiting for.

I hope Ohio goes down soon, with many more states to follow, because it's stupid to think that you could be married between 9am and 5pm, in Manhattan, then go home to New Jersey, and not be married. And then go back to work the next morning, and be married again.


She might be holding out to get married in Massachusetts, so that she and her bride can do a honeymoon on the Cape?
2013-07-22 10:25:26 PM
1 votes:

pootsie: FYI y'all I am reviewing the docket in PACER right now and it appears that Defendants Kasich (Gov.) and DeWine (AG) actually responded to the TRO before the court ruled.  (Technically that takes it out of TRO territory and makes it a preliminary injunction).  Attorneys appeared and argued for all sides


Just favorited you as Ohio PACER Guy. Hope to see you in the rest of these threads.
2013-07-22 10:22:49 PM
1 votes:
If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p
2013-07-22 09:56:48 PM
1 votes:
As an Ohio resident and government lawyer, allow me to say,
WOOOHOOOO!
2013-07-22 09:30:27 PM
1 votes:

Aarontology: I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


Too true; there is that sadistic satisfaction that I feel when their efforts to spread ignorance goes by the boards.
2013-07-22 09:22:33 PM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


God, trolls let anyone in their club these days.
 
Displayed 159 of 159 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report