November 23, 2014

Elyria
Cloudy
50°F
test

Judge orders Ohio authorities to recognize out-of-state gay marriage

Attorney Al Gerhardstein, left, stands with several same-sex couples at a news conference April 4 in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/Al Behrman)

Attorney Al Gerhardstein, left, stands with several same-sex couples at a news conference April 4 in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/Al Behrman)

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge on Monday ordered Ohio authorities to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states, the latest court victory for gay rights supporters.

Judge Timothy Black ruled that refusing to recognize gay marriage is a violation of constitutional rights and “unenforceable in all circumstances.”

“The record before this court … is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the state’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Black wrote.

The order does not force Ohio to allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.

The state plans to appeal Black’s ruling, arguing that Ohio has a sovereign right to ban gay marriage, which voters did overwhelmingly in 2004.

Black delayed deciding whether to issue a stay of his ruling pending the state’s appeal in the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until after attorneys on both sides present arguments on the issue by Tuesday.

However, Black said he is inclined to stay his ruling pending appeal, except for a portion that applies to the four gay couples who filed the February lawsuit that led to the court case. That would mean the state would immediately have to recognize their marriages and list both spouses as parents on their children’s birth certificates.

If Black declines to stay his broader ruling, that would allow gay couples in Ohio to obtain the same benefits as any other married couple in the state, including property rights and the right to make some medical decisions for their partner.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine told The Associated Press last week that he believes marriage is between a man and woman, and that Ohio voters decided the same in 2004 when they passed the statewide gay marriage ban.

“My job as attorney general is to defend statutes and defend Ohio’s constitutional provisions,” he said Wednesday. “This was voted on by voters so my job is to do that.”

DeWine declined to speculate what the outcome of the state’s appeal will be or the future of gay marriage rights as a whole.

“Every state is having a lively debate over this and I think that’s a proper thing to do,” he said. “I think it’s pretty obvious that all these issues are going to be resolved by the 6th Circuit and some cases are going to get to the Supreme Court. They’re going to have a decision in the United States Supreme Court and we’re all going to have to accept that.”

Attorneys representing the four same-sex couples who filed the lawsuit that triggered Black’s ruling argued that it amounts to state-approved discrimination and likened it to when interracial marriage was illegal in the United States.

Gay marriage is legal in 17 states and Washington, D.C. Federal judges recently have struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia, though stays have been issued pending appeals.

Similar to Ohio’s ruling, judges in Kentucky and Tennessee have ordered state officials to recognize out-of-state gay marriages. The Kentucky decision has been stayed pending appeal, while Tennessee’s ruling applies to only three couples.

Al Gerhardstein, the Cincinnati civil rights attorney who has filed three gay marriage lawsuits in Ohio since June, said several gay couples who want to win the right to marry in Ohio have contacted him. He’s considering filing a new lawsuit on their behalf aimed at striking down Ohio’s gay marriage ban entirely.

“The ultimate goal is full marriage equality,” Gerhardstein said.


  • Mark B

    Then why cant Ohio recognize out of state recommendations for use of Medical Marijuana ?

    • stop ur whining part deux

      Hahaha. awesome.

  • Paul Facinelli

    There is no more basic human right than to be able to marry the person you love. Bravo, your honor. You dragged Ohio, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century. Well done.

    • SniperFire

      How about your sister? Or all of your first cousins, simultaneously? And I assume it is fine with you for a dying rich man to marry his daughter to avoid paying inheritance tax?

      • stop ur whining part deux

        Yea because homosexual marriage leads to that. That is the same B.S. rhetoric that was uttered protesting inter-racial marriages. That was also viewed as a huge break down in “values and morality”.

        • SniperFire

          ‘Yea because homosexual marriage leads to that. ‘

          It is either a ‘basic human right,’ or it isn’t.

          • Tom

            Yes. It’s a basic human right to marry the person you love. No incest and statutory rape is in no way a part of that. No you cannot wed an inadament object. Common knowledge. No this isn’t the domino effect of marriage. It’s just two unrelated people of the same sex wanting to have to same rights as everyone else, period.

          • SniperFire

            ‘No incest and statutory rape is in no way a part of that.’

            WHY is marrying your sister not a basic human right, but marrying a guy in your carpool is? That is a serious question.

          • Starryeyes63

            So you are alright with polygamy?

          • Daniel Sutter

            So Tom, there are morals that the people have to agree on!!!!! Unrelated, no incest, my my aren’t we the hater.. HYPOCRITE….

          • stop ur whining part deux

            Nice deflection.

            You speak above about staying on point and refer to those that go off topic as gutless. Fact is you are not only gutless, but unintelligent to boot. You are a sad pathetic little boy.

            You inaccurately claim that homosexual marriage will lead to a a decay of marriage and morals and whatever other b.s. you spout off about. That is the exact same rhetoric that has been used with inter-racial marriages. What say you little man?

            Any wisdom on the topic or are you going to continue to duck, dodge and dip out of every debate you start becuase you are too stupid to continue it?

            Sniper Fire….spare me….is that your xbox user name?

          • SniperFire

            ‘Nice deflection.’

            I deflected nothing. We need to decide if marriage actually is a ‘basic human right’ before I read the rest of your nonsense. Well, truthfully, I probably won’t read your nonsense, anyways. LOL

          • stop ur whining part deux

            Your topic was that recognition of homosexual marriage is a slippery slope towards incest, a dad marrying his daughter and whatever foolishness you spout off about.

            So again little guy, i am waiting for a clear and educated retort based on and supported by fact. Without it you are just a angry, sad fool.

          • Pablo Jones

            Well it is only incest if they sleep together. If they don’t it is just a tax loop hole

          • SniperFire

            ‘Your topic was that recognition of homosexual marriage is a slippery slope towards incest’

            Nope. You aren’t bright. The question is whether or not marriage is a ‘basic human right.’ Did you see the example above of offering your marriage as a fee service to peeps in Haiti?

          • stop ur whining part deux

            No my friend I am intelligent. Been successful my entire life. You can pretend to hide your hate and stupidity in open end comments but it changes nothing.

            As i said in past posts, you are a sad little boy.

      • Paul Facinelli

        These absurd, ancillary issues that you raise indicate one thing to me: Way too much Fox, way too much right wing radio. You need to have more of a calmness of spirit, an open heart and, above all, less fear. Gay people who marry are no threat to you. They just want to have the same liberties that are every American’s birthright. What’s scary about that?

        • SniperFire

          ‘These absurd, ancillary issues ‘

          It is either a ‘basic human right,’ or it isn’t.

          Truth is, you have no idea what human rights are, and you just regurgitate nonsensical talking points you heard on the ‘Ellen Show.’

        • Starryeyes63

          So is Polygamy OK too then????

          • SniperFire

            Of course. He says marriage ‘is a basic human right.’

            By his logic, a government worker in Elyria could marry all pregnant unwed mothers in the County and then have them all claim spousal healthcare benefits for the birth. Heck, for all that matters, he could just marry those already married to help them out as well.

      • B4CE

        It’s not my cup of tea, but If that’s the way you want to roll, and you can gather enough public support to change the majority of people’s minds. I say you should take the bull by the horns and at least make your argument before the general public. I’m pretty sure all it takes is a lawyer that believes you have a case. If it’s important to you, you have nothing to lose!

        Good luck to you and your sister Sniper!

        • SniperFire

          ‘but If that’s the way you want to roll, and you can gather enough public support to change the majority of people’s minds.’

          But why should minds need to be changed if it is a ‘basic human right’? Who are you to deny such ‘basic human rights’ to anyone?

          • B4CE

            I’m not denying you and you sister anything. Unfortunately the law does.
            Fight to have the law changed! Fight in court.
            I wish you and your sister nothing but happiness!

          • SniperFire

            You are fairly dense. Let me dumb it down for you. If marriage is a ‘basic human right’, why should anyone who wants to marry anyone be denied by law?

          • B4CE

            Woa tough guy. Your sister is never gunna want to marry a guy that flies off the handle so quickly!
            I’ve been called worse.
            Way back when, marriage was arranged to benefit the families. Someone fought to make it about love.
            The bi racial couples had to fight the courts to be permitted to be legally married.
            Next was the gay and lesbian community fighting unjust laws.
            Sniper, you and your sister are free to take up your cause of this “basic human right” if you feel strongly enough about it. Laws and public perception are sometimes slow to change.
            Good luck to you and your sister! May you live happily ever after

          • SniperFire

            You continue to duck the questions. You are quite gutless. and have been crushed in debate.

          • B4CE

            How is that? I offered you advice to secure what you believe in. You marrying your sister is only a decade or so and many court battles away from becoming reality.
            I have ducked no question, only offered support to your cause. I’m happily married and therefore it does not affect my marriage or beliefs.
            Fight the good fight sniper. For you and your sister!

          • SniperFire

            ‘How is that? I offered you advice to secure what you believe in.’

            Actually, you are engaging in Reductio ad absurdum because you haven’t the intestinal fortitude to answer the direct questions put to you. Look that up. LOL

          • B4CE

            I’m sorry, I thought the question was why you can’t get hitched to your sister?
            Go for it!
            As far as the dying old man marrying his daughter, I’m sure there is a easier way to avoid taxes.
            But if the court says ok to either, I’m ok with that. As long as it doesn’t directly affect someone’s life that doesn’t want to marry their sister or dad. What ever the court decides is in line with current laws is ok with me.

          • Pablo Jones

            But it would affect people because they won’t be paying taxes.

          • B4CE

            So , for you this is less about traditional marriage and more about making sure everyone pays their taxes?
            Do you really think they would risk judgement to save a few tax dollars?

          • Pablo Jones

            Well you know how those evil 1%ers are. They’ll do anything not to pay taxes.

          • B4CE

            Sounds pretty liberal to me. A concern that not everyone would be paying their fair share? Not creating controversy?
            It really sounds like you should be in favor of this ruling.
            What’s the real reason you want to deny the right to be legally married to others?

          • Pablo Jones

            Again where is it stated that marriage is a right?

          • SniperFire

            ‘I’m sorry, I thought the question was why you can’t get hitched to your sister? ‘

            No, that was not the question. But it is well established you aren’t exactly the sharpest Crayola in the 64 pack.

            LOL

          • B4CE

            Quick with the insults, why is that?
            Yes, in America, it should be a basic right to marry .and if you’d like to add to the definition, petition the courts.
            Good luck to you and your sister

          • SniperFire

            ‘Yes, in America, it should be a basic right to marry ‘

            LOL. You are low hanging fruit. Now, it is no longer a ‘basic human right’, but should be an American basic right? You clearly haven’t a clue on what a right even is.

          • Pablo Jones

            Well you say to fight and change the law. But the gay marriage proponents are not fighting to change the law. They are fighting to have judges over turn the law. And historically whenever a judge/court has over turned a law it just creates more controversy because it is not the will of the people and it isn’t accepted (e.g. Roe v Wade, or Florida Recount). If they would actually work and have the law change there would be greater acceptance.

          • B4CE

            So, for you, it’s not about traditional marriage, but about not creating controversy? Aside from an outdated idea of a traditional marriage and a definition, why are you against this? And how does it negatively affect your marriage?

      • Joe

        no inheritance tax in Ohio.

    • Pablo Jones

      How exactly is it a right?

      • Sis Delish

        Yeah, sounds like a Left to me!

      • Air and Light

        There is the funny thing called ruled of law. People can’t vote to deny individuals constitutional rights.

        Marriage is a protected civil right protected by the 14th amendment since 1968. DEr…

        • Pablo Jones

          Marriage is neither a constitutional right, nor a civil right.

    • golfingirl

      And there is no more important institution to a stable family life than a great, traditional marriage.

      I don’t dislike gays, nor am I homophobic, but I do believe traditional marriage is best for children.

      • Paul Facinelli

        Gay couples have more stable relationships than straight couples — stay married longer, divorce less frequently — so if stability is your touchstone (and I agree … kids need a stable home life), extolling “traditional marriage” as the best way to achieve stability is, well, misguided.

        • golfingirl

          I can’t imagine my children, or any of their friends introducing two mothers, or two fathers to their friends.

          Like it or not, this would be beyond humiliating to them. I would never subject any child to this arrangement.

          We just disagree on this. No problem.

          • Rtgh123

            Why would it be embarrassing for a child to introduce the two PEOPLE who love and care for them? Would it be more embarrassing than a child who introduces married heterosexual drug addict parents? Married heterosexual child abusers? Married heterosexual bigots? Those introductions would be much more embarrassing.

          • Summer Smart

            drug addicted parents are not asking their children to introduce them as such, but homosexuals are demanding to be introduced as they are.

          • golfingirl

            The child is embarrassed. Don’t you think?

            If you are using heterosexual drug addicts, bigots and child abusers as your threshold to make gay couples look better, it is not a very high bar to cross.

            So if your point is they are better than the above class of people you mentioned.

            We can agree on that one.

          • Rtgh123

            No, I don’t think they are embarrassed. I know a lesbian couple. They adopted two boys as infants who are teenagers now. The boys are very well adjusted sports “stars” at their Catholic high school. They are very matter of fact when discussing their parents and aren’t embarrassed at all. It’s all they’ve ever known. That’s just their life. That’s the only example that I know personally. As a middle aged mother who grew up in the 80s, I know that I embarrass my teenagers, just like I was occasionally embarrassed by my own parents when I was a teenager and we are all heterosexual.

          • golfingirl

            Good for them. They sound well-adjusted.

            Have a great day.

          • Sis Delish

            Um, may be a silly question, but do the boys feel left-out on Father/Son events? Or, do their same-sex parents file a lawsuit on behalf of the little guys?

            What happens on Mother’s or Father’s Day in this household?

            And, what about one of those 10-Commandments which states, “honor thy mother and thy father”… ?

            Just curious.

          • Air and Light

            Just as you understand you’re wrong and we’re right. We’re cool.

        • golfingirl

          Stay married longer?…..Gay marriage hasn’t even been around very long.

          Can’t get divorced, if you aren’t married.

          As I said, I do not feel believing in traditional marriage makes me “misguided.”

          Honestly, we will never agree on this point. We have differing opinions, I respect yours and really have no desire to debate it here.

          • Godfather

            In other words;

            I am goofygirl and what I say is right. ( In my twisted bizarre warped sense of reality)

          • Paul Facinelli

            You’re assuming, wrongly, that I speak only of marriage equality in the United States. Marriage equality is common in many, many (more enlightened) countries and studies show more stability in same-sex marriages.

          • golfingirl

            Honestly Paul, I really don’t care.

            No offense, but I just could care less what goes on in “enlightened” countries.

          • Sis Delish

            Hey Paul, Marriage Equality is exactly what in the more enlightened countries you speak of… ?

            Examples of countries and equalities not seen in this country, please.

            More stability in same-sex marriages, you say? Just what do you mean by “stability”?

            What is your definition of Stability? Equality?

            Caution, Your definitions may differ from everyone else’s.

            It’s important that if You are going to Support the idea of renaming words to fit your thoughts, it’s only fair that we know ahead of time. Right?

          • Air and Light

            Read the Constitution.

            Read the Bill of Rights.

            Read some history and learn why the founders distrusted “the dictatorship of the majority.” Our country was not founded on the principle of mob rule. It was founded on the principle of “Inalienable rights”.

          • Sis Delish

            The Constitution and Bill of Rights of what other “more enlightened” country?

          • Pablo Jones

            And who says what countries are enlightened? I’m sure the countries you believe are enlightened have more problems in other areas that you are just over looking.

            Which countries do you feel are more enlightened?

          • Air and Light

            “…really have no desire to debate it here.” – Golfingirl. Remember that you wrote that. Please.

      • Godfather

        Nobody cares what you think.

        You live in a warped sense of reality.

        • Air and Light

      • Air and Light

        Dude. Really ?

    • golfingirl

      “Dragged Ohio, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century. Well done.”

      Why not let the people decide instead of “dragging” them into a place they choose not to go?

      • Air and Light

        The vote of the people means nothing if it is in violation of civil rights. I’m positive the K.K.K. and the Westboro Baptist Church are just as upset as you. Sorry, but you asked for it…don’t flinch, but…you just got…

  • Pablo Jones

    I’ve asked this before. What rights are being denied besides them receiving a paper that says marriage?

    The only “right” that someone has been able to come up with is they can’t file a joint Ohio tax return. Which actually means they pay less in taxes.

    So is gay marriage about rights or is it just about the word marriage?

    • Paul Facinelli

      Pablo (from Pablo): Far from just the word “marriage,” there are more than 1,000 rights, benefits and protections that are conferred upon married people under federal law that unmarrieds do not enjoy. If you care to read more about this, here’s a link: https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples Glad to help.

      • Pablo Jones

        An outdated list with nothing currently relevant. All the items listed are not an issue. Gays and straight couples are treated the same for each of them.

    • B4CE

      Pablo, it may be just a word. We change definitions of words all the time. It won’t change my marriage.
      Please explain how this ruling will adversely affect yours.

      • SniperFire

        His own marriage isn’t his argument. Is marriage a ‘basic human right’, or is it not?

        • B4CE

          Sure, I don’t see why not? Can you?

          • SniperFire

            OK. So we are on the same page, let me test that. Is it a basic human right to then, for you offer your marriage as a fee service to, oh, perhaps anyone living in Haiti , and then demand your employer provide spousal insurance and retirement benefits to them all?

          • B4CE

            Wait, is this about preserving the sanctity of marriage, your saving your company a couple of bucks on the family insurance plan?
            Is your sister Haitian?

          • SniperFire

            You continue to duck the questions which makes your claim that marriage is a ‘basic human right’ fail as the absurdity which it is. LOLOL

          • B4CE

            Sniper, I never made that claim. To me , marriage is a legal contract at the state level. I have a friend that is a able to perform marriages. There is nothing religious about them. But they are legally recognized in the state of ohio. A marriage can be legal or faith based. This ruling doesn’t require churches to conduct marriages, only that the state recognize them

          • Pablo Jones

            Then would you be for the state to establish “civil unions”? Then they would be recognized by the state and have all the benefits, including paying more in state taxes.

            But again the gay marriage proponents who say it is about equal rights, have shot this down as well. Which leads me again that it isn’t about equal rights, it is about the word marriage.

            It reminds me of the school play ground. Some kids have a club and those that aren’t in it go an tell the teacher to let them join the club.

            If you water down the meaning of the word it becomes meaningless.

          • B4CE

            Marriage is nothing more than a “club ” to you? Why are you so against letting others into your club?

          • Pablo Jones

            You didn’t answer the question. Would you be fine with Civil unions? Or will nothing short of Marriage due?

            If that is the case it isn’t about equal rights.

          • B4CE

            I think marriage is more appropriate. It obviously means a lot to these couples, why not allow them to legally marry?

          • Pablo Jones

            If marriage means a lot to them and marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, why do they want to change it?

            Again they say it is about rights and being treated equally. But having the same rights and being treated the same isn’t good enough.

            If they are happy and in love, does not having a piece of paper that says marriage mean they love each other less.

          • B4CE

            Evidently it means a great deal to them.
            Why is it so important to you to deny them the ability to legally obtain this piece of paper?

          • Pablo Jones

            If the word marriage is a big deal for them why are they saying it is about rights. Either they don’t know what they want or they don’t want to say what they want.

          • B4CE

            Is being legally recognized as married in the state of Ohio important to you?- why do you think it means any less to them?

          • Pablo Jones

            I don’t think the state should recognize any marriage. If the state only recognized civil unions and marriages were recognized within churches I’d bet the proponents of gay marriage would try and sue the churches to marry them.

            Why do I think it means less to them? Because marriage for thousands of years has been between a man and a woman (regardless if it was for love or per-arranged or what not). They say it is important for them but they want to change the meaning of it.

            If I valued a college education from a school I would want them to keep the same standards not water it down so that those that couldn’t meet those standards also receive a degree. Or if a person worked hard to become an Eagle Scout they wouldn’t want all the conditions lowered so that everyone could be one. Doing so lessens the meaning of it.

          • B4CE

            Are you saying that their relationship is “less” than yours simply because it’s not “traditional”?

            Please Tell me why you do want to continue to deny them the right to be legally married?
            Tradition & outdated definition are not legitimate reasons.
            A REAL reason please

          • Pablo Jones

            I didn’t say it was less, more, or the same. I am saying it doesn’t meet the standard definition that has existed for thousands of year, a definition that they say they value so deeply.

            Again I will repeat myself, where is marriage defined as a right? In Ohio it is defined by a set of criteria. You get a marriage license if you meet the criteria, just like a drivers license has criteria. A drivers license is not a right, a 15 year does not meet the criteria of being 16 is not having his rights denied. A 16 year old who doesn’t go through drivers ed can’t get a license isn’t having his rights denied.

            Now if we are talking about equality under the law between straight and gay couples they have equality everywhere except where they file a State of Ohio tax return and that inequality results in them paying less in taxes.

          • B4CE

            I believe you have answered your own question. Ohio defines the criteria, they have asked the courts to change the criteria to include them. As of now, they have been successful .
            I have not sidestepped anything. On the other hand, you have not stated the reason you object to them having a legal right to marry. Aside from ” tradition” and an outdated definition. Nor have you said how this will have an adverse affect on you.
            Please elaborate .

          • Pablo Jones

            Ohio did not define the criteria. The voters in Ohio defined the criteria. If the proponents want it changed they should follow the same path as those that previously officially defined marriage between a man and a woman. As I said earlier in American history there has been greater acceptance of change if it is voted on by the people than if decided by a court. If they truly want to be viewed and treated as equals it will not happen if they go through the courts.

            Why do I disagree with this decision

            1. Going through the courts will not work, in terms of how the marriages are viewed.
            2. They have been saying it is about equal rights, they have equal rights.
            3. You say marriage is traditional and outdated definition. If it means so little then why change it for everyone else.
            4. I believe in the proper way of changing the law. For the record I voted against the change to the constitution. The gay marriage crowd pushed for change before the time was right and it bit them in the behind. They have to live with the consequences of that decision until the population of Ohio votes to over turn the constitution.

          • B4CE

            Thank you for your sincere and well thought out response. I agree with you that this should have never been entertained as a constitutional amendment. But it served the right’s intended purpose in getting people to the voting booth. Fear is a powerful emotion.
            I also agree that the voting booth is the best way to over turn the amendment. But in this case, I think it would be a very close vote. And in cases of discrimination ( even if you are only discriminating based on who can use a word) the majority should not be the deciding factor.
            I don’t think that changing the traditional definition should change what marriage means to you. It certainly won’t for me. To me it means a life long commitment to the one that I love. As it should for everyone that wants to marry!

          • Air and Light

            Here dude. Here’s what it says at dictionary.com (see esp. #1 and #5)

            marriage
            noun
            1.
            (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:, Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times. See word Story at the current entry.
            2.
            a.
            Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. See also traditional marriage ( def 2 ) .
            b.
            this institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage .
            3.
            the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.
            4.
            the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
            5.
            a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage….

          • Sis Delish

            How convenient to use a .com dictionary.

            How ’bout we use the standard of dictionaries, Websters, to reveal the definition of the word Marriage as it has been known for ages:

            mar·riage noun ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij
            : the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

            : a similar relationship between people of the same sex

            : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

            Full Definition of MARRIAGE
            1
            a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlockc : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

            2
            : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

            3
            : an intimate or close union

            So, the question then becomes who decides on the version of the definition of the word for U.S. use and more specifically, for the use by individual States?

            Your version which implies a standard used world-wide to encompass as many “enlightened countries” as possible, who, by the way have absolutely no influence in domestic laws here, nor should they,
            or,
            Websters Dictionary which you may find in more Legal Libraries than Dictionary.com

            Dictionary.com
            vs.
            Websters

            That is the question here.

          • Pablo Jones

            Oh well it’s on the internet it must be true.

          • Air and Light

            Because marriage for thousands of years has been between a man and a woman (regardless if it was for love or per-arranged or what not).- Pablo Jones What ?!?!? ahahahaha

          • Pablo Jones

            Wow. Your response is from an internet image and a book you don’t believe which is out of the context. I haven’t seen this kind of debate mastery since the 6th grade.

          • Pablo Jones

            Again you keep side stepping the issue or answer with a question. I just want to know where they stand. Do they want Ohio to recognize and allow a marriage between homosexual couples because of equality of rights or because they just want the word “marriage” on a piece of paper?

          • Air and Light

            This is me slaying you…There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. https://www.hrc.org/resources/

          • Pablo Jones

            Again, I have already addressed that list. It is outdated going back to 2003. None of the issues listed apply any more.

          • Air and Light

            Ah hum *cough* *cough*…and those 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law ? What about those…dude ? https://www.hrc.org/resources/

          • Pablo Jones

            It’s like I’m dealing with a teenager who thinks they are smarter than they really are. They think they are smart enough to do a quick google search for something that they think proves their point, but they don’t verify it for accuracy. It is an outdated list of “benefits” that are no longer relevant or really weren’t benefits.

          • Air and Light

            For the 3rd time now…There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law that aren’t recognized in a civil union. https://www.hrc.org/resources/

          • Pablo Jones

            For the 3rd time now you are making yourself look like a bigger fool.

          • SniperFire

            ‘Sniper, I never made that claim. ‘

            LOL. You said ‘Sure,why not” when asked. Fail. Again.

          • B4CE

            Omg, you are relying on word games to win your argument ?
            I replied to your suggestion. It was not part of my original argument.
            Why are you so opposed to this?

          • SniperFire

            ‘Omg, you are relying on word games ‘

            Not at all. I am replaying your idiocy. LOL

          • Air and Light

            Because he discriminates..

          • Air and Light

            It is a constitutional right…gee whiz…again…

          • SniperFire

            You wouldn’t know a ‘Constitutional right’ if it slapped you up the side of your butch haircut.

          • Pablo Jones

            If your argument is “sure I don’t see why not”, then the same argument can be made for marriage is between a man and woman. Sure marriage is between a man and woman, I don’t see why not.

          • B4CE

            If ” I don’t see why not ?” Is your argument, then why not marriage of the same gender?

      • Pablo Jones

        I’m trying to figure out what the real motivation is behind the push. The proponents say it is about equal rights, that they are being treated as second class citizens. But in reality they can do the same things as married couples (aside from filing a joint tax return in Ohio, which means they pay less in taxes. Sounds like a benefit married couples would like).

        So if it really isn’t about being treated the same it comes down to the word. And like you said the definition and meaning of words changes all the time. In some cases that is true and other cases it isn’t. Many proponents have that view point, that the meaning should change. But if they have such a disregard for the meaning of the word, why do they care so much about saying they are married? You are essentially saying the meaning is worthless and should be changed, but the meaning of the word means so much that their rights are being taken away unless it is acknowledged. So which is it? Is it a word with very little meaning that the definition can be change? If so why is their happiness dependent on a meaningless word? But if it does have meaning that is important why do they want to change it?

        Going by your explanation of it’s just a word and the definition should change, let’s apply it to other things and see if it is fine to change

        New meanings
        Purple Heart – any injury, even a stubbed toe qualifies for a purple heart.

        Prisoner of War – Any person stuck in another country, even if you were just stationed there

        College graduate – You don’t have to pass your class, just need to show up for a year

        Baby in the womb – an uncontrolled growth of cells in a woman.

        Baby in the womb – a separate living life form

        A business man – a lying stealing 1%er

        A business man – a pillar of society paying taxes and creating jobs.

        • B4CE

          I think the real motivation is to be legally recognized as married in the state of Ohio.
          If you feel so inclined, petition the courts to have those things changed

          • Pablo Jones

            It isn’t about changing those. Changing them would be wrong, change their meaning, and it would disrespect those that met the original standard.

        • Air and Light

          One more time for those who weren’t listening…There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. https://www.hrc.org/resources/

          • Pablo Jones

            That is right you are still wrong. If you would have just spent a fraction of the time finding these pictures to post to check the accuracy of the items on that list you would have realized you were wrong. The best part is you are pointing to federal law when the topic is Ohio law.

          • Pablo Jones

            Copy and paste over and over just makes you look like a fool. Especially when you are wrong. This is your 8th time now.

    • Air and Light

      Ask and you shall receive…Okay class…everyone listening ??? There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

      • Air and Light

        Wait for it…wait for it…

      • Pablo Jones

        That hasn’t been the case since the defense of marriage act was struck down by the supreme court. And those “benefits” that marriage people received were….higher taxes.

  • Pablo Jones

    How about a judge force Ohio to recognize no State income tax.

    • Mark B

      Or paying for schools with property taxes

    • brenda

      Lolol.

    • Air and Light

      Pablo Jones, Sniper fire, and Sis Delish, I swear you three are border-line neo Nazis. I bet you’re still upset about: non-segregated schools, inter-racial marriages, common core testing, science, equal rights, the affordable health care act, gun control laws, kids forming groups because of people like you, family planning, welfare, health classes, car insurance, cell phones, evolution, climate change, John Lennon, Carl Sagan, financial aid, the internet, video games, music, video cameras, romance, passion, democracy, sports, and slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. Basically, it seems your against anything for the free, lower class or all social classes, blacks, immigrants, latino and Latinas, the LBGT community, or anything that advances our civilization. You three encourage bigotry, ignorance, and fear.

      • SniperFire

        ‘Pablo Jones, Sniper fire, and Sis Delish, I swear you three are border-line neo Nazis. ‘

        All I did was ask a question – one which I believe you don’t have the guts to answer, either.

        • Air and Light

          I answered it. Oh, trust me girl. I answered it. I gave it all it was worth and then I put in extra credit.

          • SniperFire

            So you agree that marriage is a ‘basic human right, then? Say, then, if you worked for the Elyria Public Schools, you could you marry every poor person in Haiti – for a small fee – and then demand that Elyria extend spousal health care benefits to them? I mean, do you even pause to realize how much of an idiot you are?

      • Godfather

        I agree, but you forgot to add golfiygirl to the list.

        Carry on.

      • Pablo Jones

        Please show any post of mine where I have promoted bigotry or fear? Since when does questioning the motives of something create hatred? I think you need to be more open minded and less critical of people.

      • Sis Delish

        You feel better now? That was some diatribe x 3.

        You should know by your chosen method of being identified “Air and LIght”, that both are Necessities in Life.

        Gay Marriage is Not.

        • Air and Light

          No marriage is…gay or not.

          • Sis Delish

            Okay, then marriage is not a necessity of life, so why is it eminently important to make laws which essential say they are necessities, especially for a very select smidgen of the overall population…?

    • Air and Light

      That’s unconstitutional, so no, that won’t ever happen dude.

    • Guest

      That would be unconstitutional. smh

  • Starryeyes63

    The Guvment either need to be in or out of marriage.

  • Sis Delish

    If you were Hungry, and hadn’t Eaten in a Week, and if the Government gave you the choice of eating Or voting for Gay Marriage in Ohio, which would you choose?

    It’s really that simple. One is a necessity, the other is not.

    • Air and Light

      The vote of the people means nothing if it is in violation of civil rights. Duh !

  • Pablo Jones

    What else should we have the courts overturn as “unconstitutional”?

    1. Voting age of 18. Everyone should be allowed to vote regardless of age
    2. Collecting SS. It is age discrimination to take money from others to give to a select group of people that meet certain age requirements.
    3. Driving age. It is age discrimination to not let those under the age of 16 drive. If they can pass the test let them drive.
    4. Remove all testing for driving. Why should we discriminate against people that test poorly
    5. Senior citizen discounts. Why should old people get discounts because of their age
    6. Remove homestead or age credits on property taxes. Either everyone gets a break or no one does.
    7. etc.
    8. etc.

    All we have to do is find a judge that will say it is wrong.

    • Air and Light

      ,,,

      • Pablo Jones

        Awwwe. All you have learned to do was copy and paste. My three year mastered that 2 years ago.

  • Air and Light

    I love how in “The Plain Dealer” comments section they post music video’s to lightin’ things up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmUwcwnSnKI

    • golfingirl

      Please spare us your usual onslaught of meaningless music videos.

  • Air and Light

    Most of the comments here are bridled with fear, hatred, and anger. They masquerade their comments as being fair and righteous. They are not fair or righteous. They are not polite, at heart. They are sinister and malicious, behind closed doors. They think you have a disease that can be cured. But, they are losing, so keep it up. I don’t like discrimination or unequal rights either. “Give me liberty or give me death ! “- Patrick Henry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLgQBhpbQDE

    • golfingirl

      Please spare us the usual onslaught of meaningless music videos.

      • Air and Light

        Change your profile pic and name, because I’ve pretty much destroyed all your credibility.

  • Air and Light

    Oh no ! The heterosexual who doesn’t discriminate against the LBGT community is here.

  • golfingirl

    Please spare us the usual onslaught of meaningless music videos.

  • Sis Delish

    I don’t recognize Out-of-State Gay Marriage… if it walks by me, will I be able to recognize it?

    What does it look like?

    Is it recognizable to the folks at the Airport Security?

    • Air and Light

      As soon as they have their children’s birth certificates I’m sure one couple, if you identify yourself, will gladly wave it in your face. Most likely, sooner than later.

      • Sis Delish

        Does the “children’s birth certificates” say who Daddy is?

  • Air and Light
  • Air and Light
  • http://politicsarepersonalblog.blogspot.com/ Suzan Smith

    Have you ever noticed that, even if the voters say “no”, politicians just keep pushing? What’s next “bestiality”?

    • Air and Light

      You ever notice the constitution ?

      • http://politicsarepersonalblog.blogspot.com/ Suzan Smith

        Yes, I have. The vote of the People is often usurped by members of the court and the legislature; like with medicaid expansion. Ohio voters said NO, but Kasich & legislators gave authority to the Controlling Board to approve it any way. This is the same thing – the judge is making the decision; not the vote of the People. Sometimes – we have to look beyond the issue to find the real issue; the vote of the People is being usurped by elected officials. Is that a Constitutional loop hole?

    • Air and Light

  • Mike Hunt

    Im a man who doesnt like cherries or fudge, but i would really like it if golfingirl would shut up.

  • Air and Light
  • Guest

    Good Golly Molly I’m slaying them now. Jackie Borchardt, Northeast Ohio Media Group

    22 Hours Ago

    “”There is an effort to ask Ohio voters whether to legalize same-sex marriages in Ohio as soon as November. The group collecting signatures for that effort plans to circulate a new petition that clarifies churches and other houses of worship would not have to perform or recognize a marriage.

    State attorney general OKs new language for issue to repeal Ohio’s gay marriage ban
    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/04/st…”

  • Air and Light

    In case you missed it…”Marc Spindelman, professor of law at The Ohio State University, said Judge Black’s decision provides indicators that the end of Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage is in sight. The question is not if, but when that will happen.
    “This decision contains reasoning that points toward bringing all discrimination against same-sex couples under Ohio law to an end.”

    • golfingirl

      I hope it does come to a vote. Decide the issue once and for all.

      • Air and Light

        There is the funny thing called rule of law. People can’t vote to deny individuals constitutional rights.

        Marriage is a protected civil right protected by the 14th amendment since 1968. You are the loser anyway we play it girl. We are rocking you.

  • Simon Jester

    Either there’s full faith and credit or there isn’t (Hint, this one is constitutional)

    IDGARA what the gays do. Want legal recognition? Great, have at it!! Long as they’re not forcing churches that don’t subscribe to gay marriage, I’m fine with it.

    That said, I want TOTAL CCW reciprocity, throughout all 50 of the states. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

    • Air and Light

      Biblical Marriage…hahahaha

      • Air and Light

        Believe me, you do not want to bring up the religion card here. I will roast you.

  • Air and Light

    The man of the hour…

  • Sis Delish

    Ancestory.com will now have to have a standalone service for children of Gay parents. Won’t be much of a value, as it will only go back a few years.

    • golfingirl

      Plus, if being gay is a genetic trait, as many claim, within a few generations, it will pass.

      No natural procreation, no transfer of gay genetic material, means no gay offspring in the future.

  • golfingirl

    Air and Light,

    Honestly if you want to place your male appendage into the rear of another man, that is your business. I really could care less.

    Just something about a man, rooting around in another man’s colon, that doesn’t appeal to me. But hey, if that is what you enjoy, carry on.

    I just have a problem with that visual. My issue I suppose.

    You are right, it is your choice, and I guess I just have to accept the fact this is what you enjoy.

    • golfingirl

      Had to tone down my original description. I was “censored.”

  • B4CE

    A cigarette or a derogatory slur?

  • Starryeyes63

    As I lived many years in England is a cigarette.

  • B4CE

    To be clear, I was attempting to illustrate that a word can evolve from its original meaning

  • Pablo Jones

    If they evolve they are no longer the same. So why is the word married so important to them if it want be the same. Why change the meaning of one word when they can have a word(S) that represents what they want. Civil Union.

  • Air and Light

    Golfingirl, ” I just find it difficult to believe a child is not harmed by having two “daddies” or two “mommies.” This should really blow your mind, by the way it’s 2014. You know that right ? http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/27/health/transgender-kids/

  • Air and Light

    A civil union doesn’t have those 1,138 rights, benefits, and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. omg…wait for it again…here it comes…

  • Air and Light

  • Pablo Jones

    Ummm, like really, like didn’t ya um hear that ah the defense of marriage act was like ah struck down by the supreme court or whatever. So um yaa you are wrong.