October 2, 2014

Elyria
Fog
50°F
test

Ohio gay marriage ruling may just be beginning

Jim Obergefell, left and John Arthur, right, are married on July 11 by officiant Paulette Roberts in a plane on the tarmac at Baltimore/Washington International Airport in Glen Burnie, Md. Federal Judge Timothy Black on Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2013, questioned the constitutionality of Ohio's ban on gay marriage and whether state officials have the authority to refuse to recognize the marriages of gay couples who wed in other states. (AP Photo/The Cincinnati Enquirer, Glenn Hartong, File)

Jim Obergefell, left and John Arthur, right, are married on July 11 by officiant Paulette Roberts in a plane on the tarmac at Baltimore/Washington International Airport in Glen Burnie, Md. Federal Judge Timothy Black questioned the constitutionality of Ohio’s ban on gay marriage and whether state officials have the authority to refuse to recognize the marriages of gay couples who wed in other states. (AP Photo/The Cincinnati Enquirer, Glenn Hartong, File)

CINCINNATI  — A federal judge’s decision ordering Ohio authorities to recognize gay marriages on death certificates may be a narrow ruling, but observers — and even the judge himself — predict it will spark further litigation aimed at striking down the state’s ban on gay marriage.

In a broadly written ruling Monday, Judge Timothy Black said Ohio’s ban is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don’t like homosexuality.

Although the ruling applies only to death certificates, his statements about the ban were sweeping and unequivocal, and are expected to incite further litigation challenging the law. Ohio’s attorney general said the state will appeal.

Black cited the Supreme Court’s June decision striking down part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, saying the lower courts are now tasked with applying that ruling.

“And the question presented is whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004),” Black said in reference to the year Ohio’s gay marriage ban passed. “Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.”

His ruling stems from a July lawsuit by two gay Ohio men whose spouses recently died and wanted to be recognized as married on their death certificates.

The men’s attorney, Al Gerhardstein, said he was considering whether to file further litigation right away or let Black’s decision “percolate for a little bit.”

“I can tell you that the reasoning in this opinion is broad and the principals he set out are firmly rooted in solid legal arguments, but they would support a broader attempt on marriage recognition and marriage celebration in Ohio, so we’re looking at that,” he said.

Attorney General Mike DeWine said the state will appeal Black’s decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati. He called Monday’s decision “not a huge surprise,” given earlier rulings Black made in the case.

“Our job is to defend the Ohio Constitution and state statutes … and that’s what we intend to do,” DeWine said.

Bridget Coontz, the attorney who argued on behalf of the state, said Wednesday in Black’s Cincinnati courtroom that in the Supreme Court’s historic June decision, the justices also found that states have the right to decide for themselves whether to recognize gay marriage, and Ohio voters decided not to in 2004.

“Ohio doesn’t want Delaware or Maryland to define who is married under Ohio law,” she said. “To allow that to happen would allow one state to set the marriage policy for all others.”

Black said constitutional rights trump Ohio’s gay marriage ban, questioning whether it was passed for a legitimate state interest “other than simply maintaining a ‘traditional’ definition of marriage.”

He quoted then-Gov. Robert Taft, who said in 2004 that the law was intended “to reaffirm existing Ohio law with respect to our most basic, rooted, and time-honored institution: marriage between a man and a woman.”

Black wrote that “the fact that a form of discrimination has been ‘traditional’ is a reason to be more skeptical of its rationality.”

“No hypothetical justification can overcome the clear primary purpose and practical effect of the marriage bans … to disparage and demean the dignity of same-sex couples in the eyes of the state and the wider community,” Black wrote.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex weddings, up from six before the Supreme Court’s decision in June.

Also Monday, a federal judge in Utah allowed gay weddings to continue there, rejecting a request to put them on hold as the state appeals a decision that sent couples flocking to county clerks for marriage licenses.

Judge Robert Shelby overturned Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage on Friday, ruling the voter-approved measure is a violation of gay couples’ constitutional rights.

New Mexico’s highest court also legalized gay marriage Thursday.


  • CharlesMartel732

    Stand strong Ohio, the Gaystapo will be marching against you soon. The activist judges will legislate against the will of the people.

    • Paul Facinelli

      To deny people their Constituional rights you have to show, in court, that the exercise of those rights harms you. Tell me, Charles (or anyone else who shares his homophobia), how does marriage equality harm you? (Note: Hatred and the “e-e-e-e-w-w-w” factor don’t count.) Also, your religious beliefs are irrelevant. This is a secular issue. If your religion opposes marriage equality and this causes you distress, too bad. Distress does not equal harm.

      • Daniel Sutter

        This is a morale issue which is a state issue. Your “too bad” makes it obvious that you a typical liberal which cant stand any other opinion other then their own. Bashing opposing views only shows that you are a hating hypocrite.
        Only one solution, take it to the voters.

        • Heath J

          Agreed, until the voters speak ( like in California), and the Left doesn’t like the answer they get.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            That law was found unconstitutional as it was in Utah, New Mexico, and soon to be here in Ohio. The polls have since shifted in California and they now show that a majority of voters support marriage equality.

      • Pablo Jones

        Which constitutional right is being denied. I don’t recall there being any mention of a man marrying a man in the constitution.

        • Heath J

          “We hold these truths
          to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
          by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are
          life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

          Add that to the part where they mention

          “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.”

          Did I miss something, or have you just never bothered to read any of our founding documents??

          Did I miss the part about all men being created equal ( except those F@Gs!!)

          • CharlesMartel732

            ‘Created’ by their ‘Creator.’ Implying God. Reading the bible and studying the history of Christianity, sodomy is a grave sin. In fact it is one of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

            We are all sinners. We are called to repent, to reject sin, not to embrace it.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            This is not a Theocracy, it is the rule of law, not bible.

          • Pablo Jones

            “We hold these truths
            to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
            by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are
            life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

            That is the declaration of independence, not the constitution.

          • Heath J

            No $hit?

            So the Founders, the ones the penned the Constitution, didn’t mean any of the things they mentioned in the Declaration? You know, that document that more or less started thing?

          • Joe Sandor

            “We hold these truths . . .”
            Just shows the ignorance of the Left. This is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution! It has no bearing in law and has no legal rights attached to it! DUMB, REALLY DUMB. Thou shalt knowth before thou speaketh.

          • Heath J

            I need to start keeping score of how often I’m labeled a leftist. At one point I was as ignorant a Conservative as you.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            I think it was a right-winger like yourself that posted this.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            Nice shot of hatred in your argument. This is exactly you and yours are losing your argument nationwide, because it is based on hate and intolerance rather than the rule of law.

          • Joe Smith

            “We hold these truths
            to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
            by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are
            life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

            The above is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution and have no power of law. Not that I care either way about the subject about marriage.

        • Zen Grouch

          **I don’t recall there being any mention of a man marrying a man in the constitution.**

          Apparently, you’re a real black & white kind of guy.

          • Pablo Jones

            Well when it comes to the law it is best to be clear.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            There is no mention of voting rights for African Americans and women, but we sure have them now, don’t we?

          • Zen Grouch

            So, what’s your point?

        • Michael A. Figueroa

          Its called the Equal Protection Clause in the US Constitution. Read it.

          • Pablo Jones

            I’m pretty sure the law of a marriage is between a man and woman is being equally applied

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            Sorry, this has been found unconstitutional again and again.

          • Pablo Jones

            What lower courts rule has no weight. Often things are found unconstitutional and then reversed, or found constitutional and then reversed and made unconstitutional.

            In the constitution there is no guarantee of marriage. There is no part of the constitution that gives the Federal government the power to decide on marriage, therefore it falls to the States to decided. Once they decide on the law it has to be equally enforced. If they say marriage can be between any 2 people then so be it. If it says 1 man and 1 woman then it has to be enforced that way.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            The states can decide so long as it clears constitution muster, that is the power to decide that the federal government has. If it does not, than it can be thrown-out through challenges in the federal courts.

          • Pablo Jones

            And when that day comes, when the laws have been changed or if the supreme court over turns the law then it would be unconstitutional. But that hasn’t happened yet. So until it does it is constitutional and it is up to the states to decided. Which is what I said.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            It is not when you are a gay couple, thus it is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

          • Pablo Jones

            That is your opinion, when the law says a marriage is between a man and a woman that is the law. There is nothing discriminatory that prevents a gay man from marrying a women or vise versa. Just like a rich white family applying to medicaid, they wouldn’t be denied because they are being discriminated against because they are white, but because they don’t meet the conditions to apply.

            As I’ve said repeatedly, which you don’t want to hear, “there is no right to marriage.” Since it is not a right, it is subject to the constraints that have been placed by the law.

        • Michael A. Figueroa

          There is no mention of a man marrying a woman either. What is mentioned, however, is that everyone has equal protection under the law, meaning, that a law cannot be enacted that discriminates against people.

          • Pablo Jones

            There is no constitutional mention of marriage, that is correct, which means it is not a right and subject to the conditions placed on it by the law.

            Again, you could say the drinking age, driving age, or voting age discriminates against people. Do they not have equal protection under the law? They are laws that are applied equally to all people based on the age constraint established by law (or in the case of voting by the constitution for federal elections.)

    • http://comradealan.com/ Alan Pugh

      It’s probably pretty risky putting your full name on your hatred like this. It’s not the eighties anymore; it’s no longer acceptable to be a bigot openly supporting inequality in modern society. The will of the voters can’t result in discrimination, and this problem will be fixed.

      • CharlesMartel732

        Inequality? It seems to me the bigots are the sodomites who are going full tilt to use the courts and words such as “hatred” and “bigot” to try to silence their opposition. Along with activist judges who see “rights” where none exist.

        Just more evidence of moral rot and societal decay.

        What difference does it make if I post my name here? What are you going to do? Tell Barack on me? Get the courts after me? Turn me in to the moderator? Tattle on somebody and try to get them fired because your ‘offended?’

        • Michael A. Figueroa

          Not true. They are simply trying to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

          • Daniel Sutter

            They do have the same rights, but now they want special rights. The specials rights they want are based on the people of the state. If they would have gone for a CIVIL UNION instead of trying to redefine a word, they would have gotten acceptance from all states (or at least most). And then slowly over time got the marriage redefined. Accept for the redefining of a word, I really don’t care and probably a majority of the opposition.

          • http://comradealan.com/ Alan Pugh

            A “civil union” never existed until a group tried to redefine marriage, something that existed before the invention of the Christian religion, as being a Christian institution as opposed to a social and/or legal institution.

    • Michael A. Figueroa

      The “will of the people” is not always constitutional.

      • Heath J

        And should be ignored, with prejudice!

        If “The will of the People” is so bloody sacred, “The People” can have themselves a Constitutional Convention and garner 2/3′s of the vote. Baring that, “The People” can pound sand.

        Weren’t you just bleating about the rule of law? You can’t have it both ways.

  • Paul Facinelli

    Bravo, Judge Black. The courts stand as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Liberties that are the birthright of all Americans — again, ALL, not just some — are not subject to a vote, and there is no more fundamental right than being able to marry the person you love. Those who would fight against marriage equality will just have to marinate in their own hatreds, for in time — it is hoped, a short time — marriage equality will be the law of the land. When that happens, the United States will join many other civilized nations in the 21st Century. Again, well done, your honor.

    • Daniel Sutter

      Never seen anybody soo against the basic American system, that is the states set their own morals. It should go to the people, which is the United States. It should be voted on, why would you be so afraid of that?

      • Paul Facinelli

        Because the tyranny of the majority should be feared. That aside, you appear to be a religious zealot and so I’m probably wasting a lot of keystrokes, but let me give you a hypothetical: Suppose there was a ballot initiative in Ohio that stated that Muslim-Americans in the state should not be able to vote. It passes overwhelmingly. Would you support the outcome, regardless of how you voted on the initiative, as the “will of the people”? Here’s my point …. again. Basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution should NOT be put to a vote. Judges in many states have cited the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause as the basis for striking down bans on same-sex marriage. In other words, the right to marry whomever you want is a right enshrined in the Constitution. It’s not just some people who get to marry the person they love. We all do. Equal protection for all citizens. The “will of the people” does not apply.

        • Daniel Sutter

          Wow, bunch of bs. What is wanted is redefining the word marriage and forcibly make everybody live with what they feel is just. So, basically you are quilty of the crap you complaining about of others. Other then the fact of special treatment and forcing of redefining words, I don’t really give a darn. So we protect the rights of every small group, then lets get rid of laws saying that dads can’t marry their 18 year daughters (falls under the same crap you spew)or even 16 year olds (I believe that is the lowest age of consent in the US)(but you say those laws are ok? hypocrite) All I say is let the people vote on it. If the gay and lesbian crown really cared to fight for the rights, they would be fighting the Muslims or majority of countries where being gay is a crime. (but that would take more then crying) Without forcibly redefining of words, your arguments about twisting the 14 doesn’t hold light. Even you don’t want to give me the same right to voice my option as you (isn’t that a hypocrite? or just liberal)

          • CharlesMartel732

            Exactly, we are beginning to see what intolerant fascists the left really is. Soon they will be trying to force churches to ‘marry’ them or use the full power of the government to shut them down, fine and imprison them for the ‘hate speech’ of the Gospel.

          • Zen Grouch

            “Exactly, we are beginning to see what intolerant fascists the left really is. Soon they will be trying to force churches to…”

            Only in the minds of the paranoid and delusional who listen to the preacher man rather than think for themselves.

            And by “preacher man” I mean the right wing liars who spread fear and hate, by feeding on the ignorance of the paranoid sheep.

          • CharlesMartel732

            Yes, it’s our imagination that we are being branded sheep, racists, bigots, ignorant, homophobes. People who can’t think for themselves.

            It’s our imagination that the POTUS is forcing us to pay for things that violate our religion and conscience.

            I believe the ignorant are those who are listening to the siren song of tolerance, modernism and the destruction of civilization. The terrible tragedy is so many will lose their souls, trading their birth right for a mess of pottage.

          • Zen Grouch

            **Yes, it’s our imagination that we are being branded sheep, racists, bigots, ignorant, homophobes. People who can’t think for themselves.**

            “Branded” is a mighty strong word, but other than that, you seem to be picking up the gist of it.

            **…listening to the siren song of tolerance, modernism and the destruction of civilization.**

            The world can be a scary place when the Earth is flat, 6,000 years old and even the Amish believe you have an archaic perspective of life.

          • CharlesMartel732

            Well, I didn’t choose to be branded, the left seems to have chosen that for us. That’s what we get for having been ‘tolerant,’ to allow evil to flourish.

            History shows that perverted, self absorbed societies destroy themselves.

            Unless we turn back America will be one more country to be thrown on that ash heap.

          • Zen Grouch

            **That’s what we get for having been ‘tolerant,’ to allow evil to flourish.**

            Whaaa…. a Black President?

            I guess it’s no more ‘Mr. Niceguy’ from the frothing right.

          • CharlesMartel732

            Are you the frothing right? All you’ve thrown out so far are insults. Now your insinuating I’m a racist because there is a Black President?

            I voted for Ken Blackwell for Governor of Ohio. I also voted for Dr. Alan Keyes for President. Isn’t it funny how the left spouts ‘racism’ when you don’t agree with liberal blacks and ‘Uncle Tom’ when a conservative black runs for office?

            “”In his excellent study, When Nations Die, Jim Nelson Black identifies ten factors that have appeared in great civilizations of the past and led to their decline and fall. In some cultures, Black observes, as few as three or four of these symptoms of social, cultural, and moral decline would be enough to bring a society to the point of imminent collapse. The list includes

            1. Increase in lawlessness
            2. Loss of economic discipline
            3. Rising bureaucracy
            4. Decline in education
            5. Weakening of cultural foundations
            6. Loss of respect for traditions
            7. Increase in materialism
            8. Rise in immorality
            9. Decay of religious belief
            10. Devaluing of human life

            We have all 10 in America.

          • Zen Grouch

            Nice cut ‘n pasting!

            I wish I had a place to go for all the answers.

            **It’s not that I’m prejudice… it’s just that Blacks make Horrible presidents!**

          • CharlesMartel732

            So what’s wrong with cutting and pasting? Doesn’t make it any less true. I don’t think you quite comprehend the consequences for your enlightened viewpoint. Man is promising heaven on earth. Man can’t deliver that, all he’s ever delivered without God is tyranny.

            “I wish I had a place to go for all the answers.”

            Well, you do, it’s called the Bible. Repent and believe the Good News! The Way, The Truth and The Life.

          • Zen Grouch

            Dude… your religious beliefs mean nothing to me.

            Yeah, I know… I know… to you the bible is a cornucopia of pearls of wisdom and nothing I can say will make you see the contradictions within.

            So, why do you and yours insist on casting pearls before swine, when the bible tells you not to?

            In other words, if you keep it to yourself, we’ll have no problems.

            Hmmm… just realized that Gay ‘stuff’ and religion have much in common.

          • CharlesMartel732

            You can reject salvation if you want to, that’s your choice. I think it’s a big mistake and I will pray for your conversion.

            You still will suffer the consequences of living under man made tyranny by rejecting morality. Has nothing to do with the bible, check with history. Unfortunately our country is on the precipice now.

            Your going to lose all the way around.

          • Zen Grouch

            **You still will suffer the consequences of living under man made tyranny by rejecting morality.**

            Actually, I’m a very moral person.

            Difference in me and you though, is, the reasoning behind my morality is based on logic from, and observations of, the real world.

            I truly believe the morality you proudly drape yourself in, as if it were the flag, is based on, and motivated by a fear of going to an unpleasant place once you leave this Earth, and by the feeling that you’re always being watched and judged by some spirit from outer space.

            If fear blows your skirt up… that’s cool, but keep it to yourself, OK?

          • CharlesMartel732

            Ah, wrong again.

            I am not motivated by fear, although the Bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

            I am motivated by love. Because I know God is a loving Father who knows what is best for me and after I leave this world I will be happy with him in the next.

            I don’t know how you can call your stance moral when you are defending immorality.

            I don’t have to cut and paste this one, it’s simple, and it’s true. Know God, Know peace. No God, no peace.

            And this one: The man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

            Rest assured, without God, without morality, you (we) are going to lose. If you don’t think this country is rapidly moving towards tyranny your mistaken. And when it gets here your version of morality will be meaningless.

          • Zen Grouch

            Let me get this straight now…

            #1. You claim you are *NOT* motivated by fear.

            #2. You claim you *ARE* motivated by love.

            In your posts in this topic alone, FEAR seems to be the thing you are pushing the most.

            For example:

            ———-

            **…listening to the siren song of tolerance, modernism and the destruction of civilization. The terrible tragedy is so many will lose their souls, trading their birth right for a mess of pottage.**

            **…we are beginning to see what intolerant fascists the left really is. Soon they will be trying to force churches to ‘marry’ them or use the full power of the government to shut them down**

            **We are rapidly losing our freedom as we know it with these made up Constitutional rights.**

            **Unless we turn back America will be one more country to be thrown on that ash heap.**

            **Man can’t deliver that, all he’s ever delivered without God is tyranny.**

            **…our country is on the precipice now.

            Your going to lose all the way around.**

            ———-

            As far as you being motivated by “LOVE!?”

            That’s a laugh, I won’t even begin to explain… ya’ either get the joke, or you don’t.

          • CharlesMartel732

            My belief in and wanting to please God are based in love. I believe man is created in the image and likeness of God. Christ commanded us to love one another. The scriptures are a love story, the love of God for his children.

            That love also includes fraternal correction.

            What I am trying to do is warn people what they are going to lose. This country can only survive if the people are moral.

            Your running out of ammunition when all you can do is parse my words while ignoring the facts of history.

          • Daniel Sutter

            The left is your preacher that you are regurgitating their misinformation and lies feeding on your stupidity (you should know better). Your Zen are truly the “paranoid Sheep”

          • Zen Grouch

            I’ll bet you can’t, right here and now, give me 3 lies from the left that I’ve been “regurgitating.”

            If you can’t, that’s a good sign you’re delusional, ‘eh?

          • Daniel Sutter

            “And by “preacher man” I mean the right wing liars who spread fear and hate, by feeding on the ignorance of the paranoid sheep” This is the left playbook.

            “Nice cut ‘n pasting!” Trying to win arguments on grammer, spelling, and (now)improper cut and pasting (I know I will lose this debate because I didn’t leave a space between “)”.

            “In other words, if you keep it to yourself, we’ll have no problems.” Wow, you can have a opinion but if it isn’t what you think it should we should just be silent (the left is the most intolerable group I have ever seen).
            Ok, middle one is weak, but smug lefties always work it in. TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS. states set morality laws, that’s America. If the alternate crowd would have started off with Civil Unions and left religion (both churches and religious business owners) our of it, then they would have gotten it legal across the US, But no!!!! they want to redefine a word and MAKE everybody bow to their wishes. (left always has big egos).
            Really don’t know why I bother with such smug lefty, apparently I need a real life.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            It appears to me that the intolerant Fascists are white mostly christian men who cannot stomach the fact that they are losing their grip on power in this country, thus losing their ability to define what is/is not immoral/legal/a civil right according to THEIR religious beliefs and THEIR prejudices and hate.

          • Pablo Jones

            Well that is a false assumption. Half the country opposes gay marriage including half the black population. I hardly think half the country is made up of white men.

          • Daniel Sutter

            Wow, regurgitating the spew of the left. Didn’t see one thing of original thought in the last spew. You did see see how you liberals treated (hated) a man that says he loves everybody and its god who will judge. The left are the true hatters in life.

          • Daniel Sutter

            Please forgive my misspelling of guilty, (autocorrected), Love the haters that cant stand on their facts or arguments and then bring up spelling or grammar to prove their point.

        • CharlesMartel732

          Lots of spouting the Constitution. What’s your stance on the 2nd amendment? Liberals don’t seem to like that part of the Constitution very much.

          From what I’m reading, you’re saying that “Equal Protection for all citizens” somehow translates into the Constitutional right to marry whomever you wish?

          That certainly opens a Pandora’s box doesn’t it? We are rapidly losing our freedom as we know it with these made up Constitutional rights.

        • Pablo Jones

          Religion is protected under the constitution. Being gay is not. If the law is marriage is between a man and a women, that is the law and it is being equally applied, any man and women can get married. Allowing a man and man or woman and woman to marry would actually violate the 14th amendment because that would mean the law of marriage is between a man and woman was not equally enforced.

          • Michael A. Figueroa

            It means the right to marry is being applied to everyone, not just who you chose can be married based on your religious beliefs.

          • Pablo Jones

            Again marriage is not a right it is a law. And if the law is marriage is between a man and women then it is being equally applied. That is the condition. Just like the drinking age is 21. That is the condition that is being applied to everyone equally. Are you going to say that there is not equal protection under the law for people under 21 that can’t drink? Or people under 16 that can’t drive?

      • Michael A. Figueroa

        You cannot legislate morality. Whose morality do we choose? What if the shoe was on the other foot and the majority of this country decided YOU were immoral? Would you like to live by those standards?

        • Daniel Sutter

          All laws are morality, If you were not repeating the playbook of the leftist and able to think for yourself you would be able to see this simple fact.
          If I wanted to go smoke pot I would move to where I could.
          Gays could have civil unions, but they want special rights. They want to redefine a word (some say institution) for their own purpose, that is what I appose. I say we redefine liberals as being thinking impaired racists bigots that are the mindless drones of agenda’d few (Oh, that’s reality)

        • Pablo Jones

          again this post was removed. You can legislate morality, it is done all the time. Is it moral for a 53 year old to be in a sexual relationship with a 33 year old? Sure most people wouldn’t have a problem with that and there are no laws against it. Now would people have a problem with a 33 year old having a sexual relationship with a 13 year old? Yes they would and there are laws against it.

      • Michael A. Figueroa

        There was a time when the Jim Crow laws were what was “moral” in the deep south. Should that have been upheld and allowed?

        • Daniel Sutter

          According to your logic, I will redefine Jim Crow Laws to a different meaning and force everybody to agree. What, turnabout not fair play?

    • willlam

      The Bible says Adam and Eve! It does NOT say Adam and Paul or Eve and Susan! The world is getting sicker by the minute and you who support satans gay crap are sick puppies!

      • Bob Sweatt

        The Bible also said that Lot did it with his daughters. So I guess you are saying it’s OK to do it with your daughters but not for gays to do it?? That is sick if you ask me.

        • Amy Legg

          It said that Lot’s daughters made him drunk! He did not just lay with his daughters! You are sick!

          • willlam

            Amy is right. Lots daughters made him drunk,before the incest,happened

          • Bob Sweatt

            Well here is the funny thing about your Bible.

            Three different religions (i.e. Catholics, Jews and Christians) use the same Bible. And all three say the Bible says different things.You ask three different people what the bible says and you will get three different answers.

            So what you think it says is different from what I think it says. Plus there are religions that let you marry more then one woman. I believe that is a crime in must states.

        • willlam

          NO,that’s NOT what I said! Read and comprehend,Bob.

          • willlam

            ….and how do we compare incest (UGH..UGH) with being (ugh) gay? WHEN INCEST IS CLEARLY THE WORST OF THE TWO CRIMES!

          • Bob Sweatt

            You are not getting it. The bible talks about Lot laying with his daughters. So you saying it says Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Which leads me to believe you go by what the bible says. So I’m guessing it’s ok in your house to perform incest.

          • willlam

            You can NOT go about life “guessing” what people say or will not say. Saying incest is “ok” in MY HOUSE? Your thinking is sick and distorted! Read Gods Word,more offten.

          • Bob Sweatt

            Oh I comprehend very well what you said. You hate gay people. And I believe that bible says. Love thy neighbor as you would yourself.

          • willlam

            NO you do NOT comprehend the English dialog,at all! I did NOT say I “hate gays”. I do NOT condone the lifestyle because I do NOT have too! Your thinking is border line ignorance.

      • Michael A. Figueroa

        The bible says a whole lot of other things that you don’t follow as well. You cannot arbitrarily follow it, picking and choosing what you like/dont like.

        • willlam

          I try to follow Gods word as close as I can,NOT “arbitrarily”,as you suggest. The topic is gays,and that’s what my post is addressing! You do NOT know me. So don’t judge me nor my understanding of Gods word.

    • Smira29595

      So then is polygamy OK???

      • Zen Grouch

        Sure… why not… who cares?

        • Heath J

          bwahahahah. Thanks for showing up to this thread, my left leaning alter ego. Someone has to pick up my slack taunting the ignorant.

          The Conservatives here make me glad to be Libertarian.

          • Zen Grouch

            I probably shouldn’t say anything ‘cuz the subject reminds me of children covering their heads tightly under the covers, fearing something much worse than death delivered by the boogie man hiding in the closet.

            If people want to live in unwarranted fear, who am I to complain?

            **LOOK OUT! YOU MIGHT GET SOME GAY ON YOU!!!**

  • Heath J

    Clear the .gov red tape and make gay marriage equal with traditional marriage.

    Long as the .Gov isn’t forcing churches to preform the ceremony, What’s the problem? ( And there’s plenty of churches that have no issue with marring gay people)

    Why does the Right always go and pick this particular hill to die on? In 50 years this issue will be as dumb as segregated drinking fountains.

    • CharlesMartel732

      “Long as the .Gov isn’t forcing churches to preform the ceremony”

      Too late. A few European countries are already forcing churches to marry sodomites. Now that mentality is spreading throughout Europe. In America sodomites are taking cases to the courts and filing lawsuits against businesses that won’t cater to their ‘lifestyle.’ It won’t be long until The All Powerful State in America forces churches to do the same. Think Obamacare on steroids. Not only can Uncle Sam now force us to buy something, he’s also forcing churches to pay for contraception against church teaching. The case is going to court now.

      One of their mantra’s is calling churches and people who still know what they are doing is sinful, bigots and homophobes. Getting them fired from their jobs and dragging them into court.

      Modern man has watered down sin and punishment for sin trying to remake God in man’s image. God does not change, nor do His laws and decrees.

  • Joe Smith

    Let them have their gay marriage, when the divorces start up and they get their lives destroyed over it they may not think it was such a great idea. Be aware of what you wish for, you may just get it.

    • Bob Sweatt

      My feelings exactly. If they want to go through the Hell that is marriage. More power to them. LOL

      • willlam

        OH….that’s original. My wife and I have a perfect marriage. Because our marriage is God based. Sorry to hear yours is “hell”! Read more of Gods Word!

  • stop ur whining

    The fact that gay marriage is an issue with people is hilarious. All of you out there that oppose it ask yourselves why. Is gay marriage affecting your daily lives or do you oppose it because it simply goes against your beliefs?

    If you answer the latter, you should probably pipe down. Each and everyday in this country people go against your beliefs and opinions. The US is a mixing pot of many cultures, many different ideologies and although it is your right to voice your opinion on subjects like this, think about what you do behind your bedroom door and how it may offend others.

    If homosexuals want to be married let them. If they want to be miserable like the rest of us, knock yourselves out.

    • Smira29595

      so polygamy is alright too then????

      • stop ur whining

        What an apple and oranges argument. The idea that Gay marriage will lead to a Pandora’s box effect is stupid. For starters, polygamy has existed and was accepted for centuries and has its foundation in religion.

        But to answer your question, yes, in my opinion polygamy is just fine provided that the man can support his whole family. Now that is merely my opinion and is subject for debate. We live in a country that is a melting pot and was founded on its tolerance of others. Suppression of something because it “makes you sick” or is “moral indecent” is goes against everything this country was founded on. Today a majority of the population believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry and seeing as we reside in a democracy it is a pretty clean cut decision.

        What is not a subject for debate is saying that Gay marriage is a slippery slope that will lead to polygamy is nonsense.

        Now, i am not a republican or a democrat. I vote for whom i believe will do the best job.

        That being said i always find the far rights stance interesting. When it comes to second amendment rights all you hear is “banning something makes criminals of ordinary citizens”

        The far rights opinon on abortions BAN IT, on homosexual marriage: BAN IT.

        Kind of ironic don’t you think?

        • Smira29595

          But if one is OK why not the other, can’t a man love two or more woman, or woman the same thing? What if a bisexual wants to marry one of each? who is it hurting if all are consenting adults? Either government is in or out of marriage you can’t have it both ways.

          • CharlesMartel732

            And meanwhile, back at the ranch, pedophiles are trying to get the age of consent lowered and their lifestyle accepted. Who’d a thunk it?

          • willlam

            I can see you need help. Read I Cor. 7. The entire chapter!

          • stop ur whining

            again, i could care less whom wants to marry whom or how many they want to marry. I was merely responding to your comparison of the two.

        • CharlesMartel732

          With moral relativism like this it’s no wonder this country is sinking into the abyss. If Americans do not want to be ruled by God they will be ruled by tyrants. We are beginning to see this already with the current occupant of the White House.

          We are fooling ourselves if we think we can destroy everything that made us a great nation and suffer no consequences.

          • stop ur whining

            You are for starters assuming that GOD is what made this country great and two, that your way of living is the only way to live. I find that interesting seeing as this is a country that was founded on the tolerance of others and their beliefs. where does it end for you? I guess we can toss out the first amendment too?

            Just because you believe in a God, and just because that God tells you what is and is not acceptable based on a book written a thousand years after the life of Jesus Christ by normal men who then chose what would be included and excluded does not mean the rest of society is bound by it.

            Frankly, you have nothing more than an opinion, and a foolish one at that.

          • Pablo Jones

            ” I find that interesting seeing as this is a country that was founded on the tolerance of others and their beliefs.”
            The country was hardly tolerant when it was founded. The tolerance was at the Federal level, which was basically, we won’t judge a state by how they decide to do there business. That was the compromise to form the union. Different religions were tolerated / persecuted differently in each state. Not to mention slavery.

    • willlam

      Sorry to hear you are making your wife so “miserable”! Read and study 1 Cor.7.

  • Michael A. Figueroa

    You cannot stop progress. It is the twilight of the angry white guy majority in this country dictating to African Americans, LGBTs, women, and every other group in this country who isn’t like them what they can/cannot do. Yet ANOTHER victory for the tolerant and progressive upcoming majority.

    • Joe Smith

      Only tolerant when you agree with them you mean.

    • Daniel Sutter

      Seems to be the left dictating to everyone, but yet point their fingers at others.
      Soo Sad

    • willlam

      ….the White majority now,but losing ground VERY FAST to Latinos,Blacks and mixed-race peoples of America.

  • Pablo Jones

    For proponents of gay marriage. If you truly want gay marriage to be excepted, work to change the laws to allow gay marriage. If you go through the courts and it is ruled to be a constitutional right it will never be accepted, it would be ruled as something that was forced on people. Just look at abortions. That is one of the most polarizing issues. If the supreme court would have rejected the case and pushed it back on the states, Many would have approved it based on the will of the people and it wouldn’t be much of an issue today.

  • Michael A. Figueroa

    Right-wing haters, ask not for whom the bell tolls…

    • Joe Smith

      The left is the one usually spreading the hate.

      • Michael A. Figueroa

        Oh, that’s laughable!

        • Joe Smith

          Really? The rapes, robberies, murders and crapping on police cars happens at the left wing OWS rallys, the worse crime that I know of at a Teaparty rally was an arrest for disorderly conduct.

          • willlam

            NO the worst crime at a tea party rally was ……being ignorant of the facts. You see the Republicans have dropped them and are NOT recognizing them or their racist agenda.

          • Joe Smith

            You mean wanting to go by the Constitution and having smaller Gov and lower taxes like the country was founded on? I guess our founders were ignorant too then according to you. Please show me an example of their racism and not the fake race card racism the get accused of by the left.

          • Pablo Jones

            What is the tea party’s racist agenda? I haven’t seen any tea party rally that was race based. Have you? In fact the only ones that bring race into it are the people on the left.