Federal Judge Rules that Ohio Must Recognize Gay Marriages from Other States

reply to post by Fylgje


This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject, but it's simply not true.

Sodomy Laws in the US

Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual morals led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I would disagree.

Per Ohio law, marriage is recognized as being between a man and a woman. The state does recognize all other states male to female marriages.

My analogy would still be valid, as there are states that issue CCP, but don't recognize the permits of certain other states CCP.

Source

Fylgje
How does a small, microscopic minority gain so much power, so much so, that they can force other states to go along with their agenda?

I think the answer may lie in your view of how large that minority is. The gay population is roughly 20% of our total population.

What Percent of the Population is Gay? More Than You Think

According to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, about 20 percent of the population is attracted to their own gender. That’s nearly double the usual estimates of about 10 percent. The authors explain that their methodology might have something to do with it:

The current population in the US as per the US census is 317.9 million people. 20% of that number is 63.58 million. I'd say that's quite a bit larger than a "small, microscopic" minority. Heck, looking at it another way, 20% is 1/5th of the population. When I interpret fractions, I generally don't consider 1/5th to be that small of a fraction.

The article even mentions that before this survey was conducted, the population size was estimated at 10% of the American people. That's 1/10th of the population. Again not exactly a super small fraction that warrants the adjective "microscopic".

The sooner we can all get past the irrational animosity towards whom should marry whom, the sooner we can focus on issues that actually matter.

reply to post by Wolf321

Wolf321
Per Ohio law, marriage is recognized as being between a man and a woman. The state does recognize all other states male to female marriages.

Sorry, your statement doesn't hold up. Ohio doesn't only recognize marriages from other states that conform to their own marriage laws. For example, in Ohio, a man has to be 18 to marry. In Alabama, he only has to be 16, yet Ohio recognizes ALL of Alabama's marriages between opposite genders.

Source

Benevolent Heretic
Ohio doesn't only recognize marriages from other states that conform to their own marriage laws.

With regards to gender it does. Per my original source:

(1) Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state.

(2) Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.

reply to post by Wolf321


I guess we'll see which has more power. Ohio's Legal Code or the US Constitution.

In more news:

Judge Stays Most of Ohio Gay Marriage Ruling

Ohio officials must immediately recognize the same-sex marriages of four couples who sued over the state's gay marriage ban, a federal judge said Wednesday, while staying the broader effects of his ruling to avoid "premature celebration and confusion" in case it's overturned on appeal.

Judge Timothy Black stayed his ruling ordering Ohio to recognize the marriages of gay couples who wed in other states pending appeal in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The appeals process likely will take months.

So, basically, the four couples who sued now have their marriage recognized in Ohio, but other couples will have to wait until the appeals process is over. One tiny step, but at least it's in the right direction. (Toward equality)

Benevolent Heretic
States can make all the laws they want, as long as they don't violate the Constitution.

A state making a law that denies equal treatment under their laws is definitely a violation.

...now if you'd simply accept this legal fact in the second ammendment arguments... Let's be adults here, most Americans are hypocrites unless they are true Libertarians.

OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Cool... now that a legal precedent has been set, I expect the FedGov to force all states to recognize my concealed carry permit.

For that matter.. In my state I own a 22 long caliber semi auto pistol with a 6 inch rifled barrel - It's one of the deadliest 22's you can find. I do not need a permit to carry it openly in a hip holster nor am i required to register it at all - they don't even have to know I own this gun. So i call for all states to recognize my ability to carry this gun without any permit or registration in every state.

They want to play games fast and lose for their own agenda.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apparently this not recognizing gay marriages was something the people of Ohio wanted. Yay for them using Democracy.

It's o.k. Ohio, if you don't like the gays your local business you can Always Refuse service to them for Any reason.

Edit: above I said Any reason but that's not quite true..

Federal Law and Private Businesses

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

State, Local Anti-Discrimination Laws

However in some states like California and New York, discrimination based on sexual orientation by private businesses is prohibited by state law. In many of these states, bona fide religious organizations and religious non-profits have been exempted from these laws when they conflict with their religious beliefs; private businesses are not exempt.

Even in states which do not prohibit refusing service to gays -- like Texas or Arizona -- local laws or ordinances in specific cities may prevent LGBT discrimination. This may be part of the reason for Arizona's controversial SB 1062, a bill which would reinforce the ability of private business owners to refuse to serve gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs.

Regardless of whether SB 1062 passes in Arizona, private business owners can still legally refuse to serve gays and lesbians under state law, barring a local law that may say otherwise.

blogs.findlaw.com...

So as long as your stated reason for refusing the gays doesn't include those things above,you can refuse them.. just don't be stupid enough to claim your refusing them because they are gay and your golden baby.

People mention the US Constitution - this needs to be repeated:

Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

burdman30ott6
...now if you'd simply accept this legal fact in the second ammendment arguments... Let's be adults here, most Americans are hypocrites unless they are true Libertarians.

What second amendment argument?

THIS argument is that a state accepts SOME marriages from other states, but doesn't accept marriages between certain people. If you can show me a state that accepts another state's CCP from SOME people, but not from others, then I'll agree with you.

I don't know of a state that accepts CCPs from other states' white people, but doesn't accept CCPs from other states' black people.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Not discussing CCPs at all, I'm referring to your statement that "States cannot pass laws that are against the Constitution." It was a wonderful, true, and very deep comment, by the way. It applies to gay marriage to a degree, but it applies even moreso to RIGHTS that have been specified and concisely laid out throughout the Constitution, such as the RIGHT to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. I think it is wonderful that you're on the cusp of an evolution of personal ethos to the degree that you are understanding that TSATES CANNOT PASS LAWS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS. I applaud you for it!

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Well, needless to say, I don't want to turn this into a 2nd amendment discussion. I don't know of any state laws that ban firearms, though...

Benevolent Heretic
I guess we'll see which has more power. Ohio's Legal Code or the US Constitution.

Considering the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter of marriage, but defers non-covered issues to the states, then it would seem Ohio's Legal Code would stand alone, not in opposition to the Constitution.

If this were to develop in a positive way, IMO, then it would simply lead to governments of any level getting out of peoples personal lives and not need to 'bless' peoples personal relationships.

Fylgje
How does a small, microscopic minority gain so much power, so much so, that they can force other states to go along with their agenda?

Can you post a copy of that agenda? I keep hearing so much about it!

reply to post by Wolf321

Wolf321
Considering the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter of marriage, but defers non-covered issues to the states, then it would seem Ohio's Legal Code would stand alone, not in opposition to the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't just defer non-covered issues to the states. I assume you're talking about the tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Fact is, the 14th amendment PROHIBITS states making laws that treat people differently under their laws.

The Constitution doesn't enumerate the right to vote, either. It does, however, have PLENTY to say about equal treatment of citizens under the law. And if Ohio accepts marriages from other states that don't conform to their marriage laws, then it's a violation of the Constitution to deny legal gay marriages in their state.

If this were to develop in a positive way, IMO, then it would simply lead to governments of any level getting out of peoples personal lives and not need to 'bless' peoples personal relationships.

Something we can agree on! But it's not required to have the government's "blessing" to have a personal relationship. Many people live together for many years and never ASK for the government's blessing. If you want government out of marriage, all you have to do is not request that they get involved.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Although there is equal treatment under the constitution, it has always been allowed to have and recognize differences in gender. Separate bathrooms, sleeping quarters, fitness standards etc. The relationship of gender to marriage can be viewed the same way. Any decision to open up a state sanctioning of gay marriage on the basis of equality would tear down the wall on accepted social gender norms in every aspect in a way that I am not sure society wants or could even handle.

Unless congress were to pass a law, and I think it would have to be a constitutional amendment, specifically referring to sexuality/gender, I can see legal interpretation for states to restrict certain things on the basis of gender.

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Well, needless to say, I don't want to turn this into a 2nd amendment discussion. I don't know of any state laws that ban firearms, though...

I'm sure you realize that's impossible on ATS! The"clever ones" can turn a discussion about velcro into a
2nd amendment rant. Clearly an exceptional talent!

I'll wager if they would pay as much attention to their wives as they do their firearms; the marriage would be much happier!

olaru12
I'll wager if they would pay as much attention to their wives as they do their firearms; the marriage would be much happier!

Interesting analogy...one I've suspected!!

olaru12
I'll wager if they would pay as much attention to their wives as they do their firearms; the marriage would be much happier!

Date night usually includes range time... the Mrs. packs some serious heat, too. Just sayin.

I'd also like to point out that I was making a general statement about people using the Constitution to selectively buttress their arguments while refusing it in arguments they disagree with the Constitution over. If the USA had a Libertarian government, we'd all actually be free as our Constitution would have us to be. Free to marry whoever, free to own whatever firearm we wanted, free to make a difference with the extra money we'd have in our wallets if the feds didn't steal it from every paycheck, just overall a free society. That's my damn issue, if you feel strongly about gay marriage rights, vote libertarian... just don't expect it to be without tradeoffs.

burdman30ott6
If the USA had a Libertarian government, we'd all actually be free as our Constitution would have us to be. Free to marry whoever, free to own whatever firearm we wanted, free to make a difference with the extra money we'd have in our wallets if the feds didn't steal it from every paycheck, just overall a free society. That's my damn issue, if you feel strongly about gay marriage rights, vote libertarian... just don't expect it to be without tradeoffs.

We can only keep fantasizing about such an America.