Judge to strike down part of Ohio gay marriage law

State will have to recognize out-of-state marriages after Judge Timothy Black's April 14 ruling
Associated Press
Apr 4, 2014

 

A federal judge said Friday that he will order Ohio to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, a move that would strike down part of the state's ban on gay marriages but stop short of forcing it to perform same-sex weddings.

Judge Timothy Black announced his intentions in federal court in Cincinnati following final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban.

"I intend to issue a declaration that Ohio's recognition bans, that have been relied upon to deny legal recognition to same-sex couples validly entered in other states where legal, violates the rights secured by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Black said. "(They're) denied their fundamental right to marry a person of their choosing and the right to remain married."

Black said he'll issue the ruling April 14. The civil rights attorneys who filed the February lawsuit did not ask Black to order the state to perform gay marriages, and he did not say he would do so.

Gay marriage is legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia. Federal judges have also struck down bans in Michigan, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia, and ordered Kentucky and Tennessee to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, though stays have been issued pending appeals.

Pam and Nicole Yorksmith, a Cincinnati couple who married in California in 2008 and have a 3-year-old son, were among the four couples who filed the lawsuit challenging the gay marriage ban and said Black's comments Friday gave them validation.

"It also validates to our kids that we're bringing into our marriage that their parents are recognized by the state that we live in, and that's extremely important," Pam Yorksmith said. "We're teaching kids of future generations that all families are different and just because our family doesn't look like your family doesn't mean that ours shouldn't be recognized."

Nicole Yorksmith is pregnant through artificial insemination with the couple's second child and is due in June.

The Cincinnati-based legal team asked Black to declare that Ohio's gay marriage ban is "facially unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable," and indicated that following such a ruling, the window would be open for additional litigation seeking to force the state to allow gay couples to marry in Ohio.

"This is a serious problem at the basic level of human dignity," civil rights attorney Al Gerhardstein told Black during Friday's arguments. "That human dignity is denied by the way Ohio treats same-sex couples. This is central to our whole commitment as a nation to equality."

Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Ohio's attorney general, said the state will appeal Black's order when it comes out but declined to comment further.

Attorneys for the state argued that it's Ohio's sole province to define marriage as between a man and a woman, that the statewide gay marriage ban doesn't violate any fundamental rights, and that attorneys improperly expanded their originally narrow lawsuit.

"Ohio has made its own decision regarding marriage, deciding to preserve the traditional definition," state's attorneys argued in court filings ahead of Friday's hearing.

They argued that striking down the law would "disregard the will of Ohio voters, and undercut the democratic process."

Black didn't say why he made the announcement on his ruling before he issues it. But by stating his intention ahead of his ruling, Black gave time for the state to prepare an appeal that can be filed as soon as he does. The state can also work on asking Black for a stay in his ruling pending appeal.

Gay rights organizations praised Friday's development.

"It's only a matter of time before marriage equality is the law of the land in not just Ohio, but every corner of America," said Chad Griffin, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign.

"The court's forthcoming action shines a bright light on the fact that same-sex couples are denied their 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection," said Ian James of FreedomOhio, a group working to have voters overturn the state's ban as soon as this fall.

Phil Burress, who chaired the 2004 effort to ban same-sex marriage and is the president of Citizens for Community Values, said his group is prepared to fight any ballot initiative to repeal the ban.

He said he's confident the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts will overturn Black's coming order and the seven recent rulings overturning statewide gay marriage bans elsewhere or ordering states to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

"The domino effect you're talking about is going to be short-lived," he said. "This is not the will of the people. This is a Hail Mary pass to get everyone forced to recognize same-sex marriage by having the courts do their dirty work."

The lawsuit originally only asked Black to force Ohio to recognize out-of-state gay marriages on birth certificates. Attorneys later expanded it for a broader and more significant ruling, a move that irked the state's attorneys.

"It could require a sea change in the way numerous government agencies and departments (not parties to this litigation) fulfill their duties," they wrote in court documents, referring to a ripple effect that could encompass Ohio statutes on insurance, mortgages, child guardianship and property.

The lawsuit built on the success of another one also filed by Gerhardstein that sought to force Ohio to recognize out-of-state gay marriages on death certificates.

In December, Black granted that request, saying that Ohio's ban on gay marriage demeans "the dignity of same-sex couples in the eyes of the state and the wider community."

The state appealed that ruling, and the case is pending in the 6th Circuit appeals court.

Comments

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

And yet another Federal judge overrules the will of the people.

Homosexuals had all the rights of marriage under civil unions, but they needed to redefine the word marriage in order to render the institution meaningless, and to use it as a legal device to force Christian businesses to support acts of perversion or be sued for discrimination.

All races of people already have equal rights under the law. Those afflicted with the homosexual disorder have no parallel with race/skin color, which is fixed, and the choice to be homosexual, which is not fixed.

Homosexual rights were never about civil rights, but about creating a special class of people.

The true model of a family was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

bnjjad

If marriage is truly a religious thing then the government should not have any say in the matter to begin with. They should not distribute marriage certificates or have a say in divorce proceedings unless the divorce is to separate/dissolve the civil union.

If they did then this wouldn't be an issue. Marriage should be an equal opportunity thing if the government has any say in it or has any involvement in its proceedings and offerings.

Separation of church and state.

mikeylikesit

fred phelps would be proud of you.

44846GWP

The Rev. Bigot spews his venom once again.

KnuckleDragger

And...the resident religious bigot is trolling the boards once again.

worddrow811

Your comment is a laughable affliction based on the belief that one's sexuality can be changed. Are you seriously that uninformed in this day and age? People do not choose their sexuality any more than they choose their eye color, hair color or handedness.

Where does it say that a woman shall leave her mother and father and cleave unto a man? I don't recall that it does because women have been treated like property.

If two men or two women want to get married, it's none of anyone's business!

God may have made them male and female, but sexual attraction is predetermined and not a choice.

coasterfan

Actually, the judge sided WITH the majority of Americans who aren't anti-gay. Your thinking is way way WAY old-fashioned. You actually think homosexuality is a "disorder" and an "act of perversion"? I happen to think that religion is a disorder, an irrational belief in a non-existent deity.

anthras

Re:"Actually, the judge sided WITH the majority of Americans who aren't anti-gay."

Are you saying that when the states voted for anti-gay marriage that it became law because of the minority vote? Gee I was thinking that the laws were voted in because the majority of the people voted in favor of the law.

Listentothis

I did not choose to be gay. I did not choose to be hated by bigots as yourself. I did not choose to be bullied and discriminated. If I could choose to live a heterosexual life, I would just so I wouldn't be hated my so many humans. But then I would be lying about my true self. God loves me for who I am, he made me. He's my judge, no gown, no gavel. So who are you to call me an act of perversion or tell me I choose to be this way. You don't know me and you never will. God is about love, not spreading hate. Jesus is my savior, I'm gay and I'm going to heaven. My name is Kayla Miller.

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Who am I?

Simply a man of God, spreading the truth in love. But truth is hate to those who hate truth.

Unlike those who pretend to care about homosexuals by accepting this perverted lifestyle, in spite of God’s clear teachings against it, true Christians who speak the truth about homosexuality, do so with the homosexual’s best interest at heart. Not only for in this life, but for the life to come.

Recognizing sin is the first step to overcoming, no matter which sin is being discussed. But today, many, like yourself, say that homosexual sex is OK in the eyes of God, this is the reason I address it. I attack the sin, never the sinner.

Is homosexuality a choice?

Secretly, you already know that people’s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context, however politically undesirable or somehow anti-progressive that may seem.

Homosexuality is a state that a person degenerates into. (Romans 1:18-32).

Marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. The idea of two homosexuals marrying is an offense to the God who created marriage.

Homosexuals have chosen their psychological disorders as a result of the sinful human nature. And no, this is not an excuse for you to be homosexual or any other form of immoral lifestyle in God's eyes.

Is God love?

Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness”

God is holy and our free will to sin against Him has separated us from Him. On the other hand God loves us and has shown His love by sending His Son for our reconciliation and forgiveness.

The answer is Jesus Christ. He is the fulfillment of God's justice and love.

That's why Jesus is the key, and life's supreme question becomes, what will you do with Christ?

Jesus expects righteousness and morality, but rather than give up your disobedience, you’re content to follow the wide path that leads to destruction.

Jesus not only loved us enough to die for our sins, so that those that believe may be saved, but he also loved us enough that He provided a way for us to overcome our sins, through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

worddrow811

@think again, your words are nothing but hypocritical blathering and I thank God that not all believers think like you do. You cannot spew hateful words and call yourself a man of God. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Listentothis

I do not have a psychological disorder because I am gay. I am a hard working, God fearing person. I question myself everyday, not because I feel who I am is wrong, but because people like you always tell me it's wrong and I'm a horrible person for being gay. You say you don't "attack" people, only "preach" and that you do so in love. I was always taught that love is kind and generous, not boastful. I suppose we have different interpretations of love, hate, sinners and preaching. I'm not going to go into some long debate with you about who I am and that I was created this way, but I will tell you this; if you believe so passionately that I have a psychological disorder, I am an act of being a pervert, and you care so deeply about me and my afterlife, then why are you so hell bent on continuing to spew hatred. A real Christian would recognize that my judgement day will come and I will be before God answering for my sins. If you had any clue at all, you would realize that my sins I will be answering for has nothing to do with my homosexuality. The only thing that angers me to no end with you is that you are a stubborn, close hearted individual who is unhappy if anyone goes against your beliefs and you stand up for what you believe in all in the name of Jesus. Jesus would never talk to me as you do, he would never look at me as you do and he would always look at me as he does any other person. You think you are above me, better than me. I feel sorry for your small mind and closed heart. I pray one day you see me for who I am, not who I love. I pray you see me as an equal, as another child of God. Let me deal with my sins, they never have been your problem.

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

If it soothes your guilty conscience, feel free to falsely judge me however you wish. Your argument is not with me, but with the One who created you.

“my sins I will be answering for has nothing to do with my homosexuality.”

You claim to be a Christian, yet proudly wear the mantle of a practicing homosexual in spite of God’s clear teaching against it.

No matter what excuse you may offer, homosexuality is a sin. It always has been and it always will be. Like all sin, homosexuality is a choice made from free will.

Many people do not want to believe in a God who demands righteousness and morality, so they invent a God who makes no such requirements.

I will spend my days obeying Christ’s command to be salt and light to a lost and dying world. A work that every Christian can and must give themselves to.

Listentothis

You're right, my argument is with the one who created me. So why is it such a big deal for me to have equal rights? I don't necessarily want to or have to be married in a church. Why is it so hard for you to accept me as an equal? I don't have a guilty conscience. It's people like you that always throw it in my face that I CHOOSE to be this way and it's wrong. When in fact, I was born this way. One day you will see it's written in our DNA just like the color of our skin or the pigment of our hair. I'm not falsely judging you either, that would be your job. I interpret the Bible differently.

ladydye_5

Listentothis--pay no mind to thinkagain....he has not real thoughts of his own. All he does is quote a really old book. He cannot say or site any reasons without using the bible as reference. And I will also tell you this...if heaven is filled with people like HIM, I would much rather be in HELL.

4-wheeler al

sick

indolent indiff...

i love watching the old conservatives and religiuos nuts complain! this is a great time to be alive

JMOP's picture
JMOP

I'm a conservative, not old, nor would I fit to be called religious.

I find it disturbing the simple minded goes by how Hollywood and the Dems define conservative republicans. Don't buy into their thoughts please.

coasterfan

Maybe it's because many conservatives are simple-minded folks who cling to 1950's dogma that has repeatedly been proven to be wrong.
I don't buy anything Republicans are selling.

JMOP's picture
JMOP

Two words:
Reid Pelosi

Donegan

Clinton Signed DOMA, in the 80's.
You bought that didn't you?

KnuckleDragger

I agree, people like Coaster lump all of us together. I am a conservative but not affiliated with the Republican party and tend to be mostly a fiscal conservative and a moderate socially. For example I have no problem with gay marriage, I don't think it in any way cheapens my hetero marriage. There is still a difference between a religious marriage performed in a church under the auspices and blessing of God and one performed by a judge that is essentially done to satisfy contract law (a legal marriage) so the separation is still there. Nobody is forcing churches to marry Gay men and women. If a church so chooses to it is on them. I find myself closer to being a liberatarian than a republican. I think both major parties are broken and no longer represent anything other than their own wallets.

44846GWP

I agree with what you say. Why are you busting my chops? Just feeling nasty today?

wasthere

I wouldn't listen to much of what coaster has to say. Once you read a few of his posts, that will tell you all you need to know. He like to lump everyone into two groups. The ones that are wrong........and him.

JMOP's picture
JMOP

Why live in a state where we the people, voted against their definition of "marriage"?

bnjjad

Why live in a state that does not practice separation of church and state and instead institutionalizes religious practices and then limits those practices by allowing a majority vote on something that shouldn't even be an issue?

JMOP's picture
JMOP

Because marriage is a church issue. If they want a civil union so be it, it's not a marriage. It's true, we shouldn't have had vote on it, but we did. Not like it seems to matter if we voted against or not, judges are striking the laws against the will of the people in many states.

Please tell me a state where this federal tyranny wont go against the will of the people, I'll gladly move there.

coasterfan

Marriage is NOT a church issue. Or at the very least, marriage doesn't HAVE to be a church issue. I got married in an atheist ceremony on the beach, and god and religion were not included in any way.

It's NOT tyranny when other people don't allow you to force your religion on others. Your rights end when they infringe on others. I don't push my atheism on anyone, and resent when religious folks think they can and should be able to force their religious beliefs on me.

The current voting issues are due to the realization that we forgot about the separation of church and state, and therefore, are an attempt to fix that mistake.

JMOP's picture
JMOP

What is an atheist ceremony? Promising never to bring god into the marriage? Who officiates? Why even get married? For benefits?

The religious people, and Ohioan voters, are reinforcing straight marriage, it's the gays and their supporters telling the them they need to make exceptions to the rules. So yes, you are INFRINGING the rights of others.

Tyranny is when Holder said "state attorneys generals are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory." "BELIEVE" not proven, or by the will of the people. What's your definition of tyranny?

The church and state separated? Fine. We can agree to call it a civil union, or do you want to infringe the rights of the opposition?

Donegan

You sure enjoy pushing your politics on people though. Remember DOMA? Yeah hypocrite.

FormerSanduskian84

Churches do not own marriage. In fact, a marriage doesn't exist without a marriage license - a marriage license that is issued by the state. Marriage licenses are not issued by churches. A church is NOT required for a marriage, but a state-issued marriage license is. Get married in a church without a marriage license? You're not married. So please stop with the ridiculous claim that churches own marriage.

Additionally, courts exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because a majority passes a law doesn't make it constitutional, and the minority has the right to ask the courts to protect their rights. Tradition is also no excuse to continue denying people the rights they are guaranteed under the constitution. Our rights are guaranteed under the constitution, not a religious book.

Babo

You are legally correct about government issued licenses for "marriage" but whether these licenses are morally correct is very debatable.

Maybe it s time to change the name of the required government issued license recognizing a relationship partnership between two people regardless of gender to "civil union" and reserve the term "marriage" which does historically arise from religion to those civil unions consecrated in a religious ceremony. In other words all marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages.

In any event the problem that will arise is with Birth Certificates as "father" is legally defined as the male parent of a child whether married or not but there's an assumption in law that the male member in a marriage is the father of any child born within that marriage.

Now that's not a problem with male-male "marriages" because no male can give birth to a child and be a "mother" so there can never be a child born into a male-male marriage. However, it's a possibility in a lesbian marriage because one female member can give birth to a child but it is a biological impossibility for the other female to be named as the "father" to her partner's child.

The terms mother and father are gender based and reveal our Creator's roles for us and the intended unit to best raise children. It is shameful that the special even holy roles of mother and father are being twisted into something else to indulge the self absorbed.

JMOP's picture
JMOP

I totally agree Babo.

FormerSanduskian84

As soon as every state government agrees to issue civil union licenses - and only civil union licenses - and every federal and state right currently enjoyed by couples with a marriage license is automatically granted to those with civil unions (and only civil unions - marriages do not count), then we can talk about you "taking back" the word marriage. You need to accept the fact that the states issue marriage licenses and those marriage licenses are what dictate rights and responsibilities. Standing in front of a minister or in a church has nothing to do with it. Go get "married" in a church without a marriage license and let me know how successful you are in getting all of the legal rights that go with a marriage license. Your church does not own the word marriage.

You mention the "creator" because you believe that. I don't, and not everyone in our country does. Your religion has no place in our laws and should never be used to take away my rights or the rights of any other American citizen who doesn't believe what you do. Your religion. Keep it in your church and out of our laws and my life. Your morals - as dictated by your religion (well, the parts you and your religion choose to use to justify your bigotry, because you certainly ignore plenty of other things in the bible) should have no bearing on my rights.

Self-absorbed? How ridiculous. Two people who choose to adopt a child or become parents through artificial imsemination are anything but self-absorbed. They are choosing to be parents and doing their best to provide a safe and equal home for the child. You are so blinded by your faith that anything that goes against YOUR beliefs is automatically and inherently wrong. That is self-absorbed.

Shameful is the way you use your religion to dictate how I or any other American citizen should be treated or what rights we are due.

Babo

You are in denial about reality and IMO extremely mean-spirited.

FormerSanduskian84

I'm mean-spirited? Really. Am I trying to deny you or any other person his/her rights or equal treatment under the law? No. Have I called people names? No. Have I said anyone should not have the right to practice a religion or lead their life according to those beliefs? No.

Maybe it's just that I don't bend over backward to say your religion is more important than my rights.

Let's talk about mean-spirited. The state of Ohio fighting to remove a husband's name from a death certificate. The state of Ohio fighting to deny the couple adopting or raising a child the dignity of both being listed as parents. The state of Ohio fighting to deny one parent the rights and responsibilities that go with being listed on a birth certificate. The state of Ohio fighting to deny a child the dignity of having both parents listed on his/her birth certificate. Yeah, you're right. I'm the mean-spirited one here. (Sarcasm intended)

I'm in denial about reality? Please. I live life being denied rights, respect and dignity because of who I am and the way I was born. Being in denial about reality is refusing to accept that there are people who are not like you and who don't believe in what you do.

Babo

Yes IMO, you are trying to deny other people's rights to advance your own agenda and you are very hateful and self absorbed. You lack an understanding of law. The US Supreme Court did not state there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. It left it up to the states and in this state marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Thus you are trampling on Ohioans' rights (do you even live here?) to define marriage.

I acknowledged that to solve the problem there should be under the law a legal status that grants all people in a committed personal partnership of two people the same rights of what we presently call marriage. However, the term "marriage" whether you like it or not arises from the religious traditions of this nation and it offends many people to cheapen or devalue that term by applying it to a legal relationship that morally offends them. We do have a right to our thoughts and moral views and not to have them forced upon us.

Thus, I suggested the nation change the legal status we presently describe as "marriage" to civil union or another term is domestic partnership and grant everybody the same rights in that legal entity. In other words, everyone would have to obtain a civil union license before entering into the "union" or partnership through a civil ceremony or through a religious ceremony. The term "marriage" and terms husband and wife would be reserved to the subset of civil unions performed in a religious manner between a man and a woman.

Importantly there would be no distinction on legal rights between the two, but would acknowledge the religious rights (that pesky first amendment right you want to deny the majority of this nation)and biological reality.

FormerSanduskian84

Lack of understanding of the constitution? I'd like to remind you that states' rights end where individual rights begin. States cannot pass laws that infringe upon the individual rights of citizens. If they do, the courts can - and do - rule them unconstitutional.

Not that it matters or that you have any right to know, but yes, I am an Ohioan. I'm an Ohioan who is tired of being treated as a second-class citizen. I'm an Ohioan who is tired of religion being used to deny me rights. I'm an Ohioan who is tired of people saying their beliefs carry more value under the law than my individual rights. I'm an Ohioan who is tired of people hiding behind "we voted on it in 2004" as a a valid reason the law should remain on the books. I'm an Ohioan who's tired of the phrase "activist judge" when those judges are doing what they're supposed to do, make decisions based on the constitution, not a religion, in order to protect the rights of all Americans.

How exactly am I, or any other person advocating equal rights, denying your constitutional right to practice your religion? Am I preventing you from believing or practicing your religion? No. Am I preventing you from living your life according to your religious principles? No. Have i stopped you outside your house of worship and said sorry, you can't go in? No. Have i said you must marry a person of the same sex in your church? No. Have I said your marriage in a church is now worth less because two woman got married? No. So many people seem to think that freedom of religion means you're free to impose your religion on everyone else. Freedom of religion means I also have the right to freedom from religion. So, please, explain exactly how I am denying you the right to believe and worship as you wish. I'm really curious to know how I have such power. You, on the other hand, want to use your religion to dictate my morals. My rights. My life. My value as a human being.

You say you have the right not to have others' moral views forced upon you. What exactly are you doing by denying me the right to marry, have my legal marriage recognized, adopt, inherit, etc solely because your religion thinks I'm somehow less worthy of rights? What laws have gay rights groups proposed that would restrict your right to practice the religion of your choice? None. You seem to be a proponent of laws that deny me the same rights you enjoy. Is it because your morals are better than mine? Or more important? Do your religious tradition trumps my rights?

There are those words again. Religion. You still have the right to practice your religion but I should have the right to be treated equally without respect to your religion. Tradition. Traditions are always good things and we should hold onto them regardless of everything, right? Tradition would dictate, therefore, that women have no rights, African Americans have no rights, Native Americans have no rights, blacks and whites can't marry. Shall I go on? Tradition. Such a lovely word, especially when it's used by the majority as an excuse to continue discriminating against the minority.

Whether you like it or not, the state issues marriage licenses, not a religion. Marriage is a civil institution that includes legal rights and responsibilities. Those rights and responsibilities are granted whether or not a mister or church was involved. The word marriage may have begun with a religious connotation but that time is long past. Your church doesn't own that word. The church I was raised in doesn't own that word. Churches that welcome and bless same-sex marriages don't own that word. No church or religion owns that word.

Biological reality? So, if two men shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate, then why are people past child-bearing age allowed to marry? Why are infertile people allowed to marry? Why are people who choose not to have children allowed to marry?

Marriage is not solely about procreation. You can choose to believe that, but I don't have to. I can be just as offended that you think marriage is solely about procreation as you are offended that I don't. Words change. The world changes. Traditions can be great things, but even traditions change.

Babo

Everything you write is about your rights, while you care nothing about others rights. You cannot point to a single society in history that claims "marriage" is between two adults of the same sex.

I have acknowledged now three times that the legal status we have traditionally referred to as marriage in this country needs to be re-evaluated and renamed civil unions. You would receive all the rights that "married" people would receive. But you're not happy with being treated "equally" you want to diminish an institution that many if not the vast majority of us believe is a sacred state created by God to foster families and contribute to the well being of society.

You are not entitled to rights that do not occur in the natural state of mankind. Men are men and women are women and two homosexuals can never procreate. IMO, the essence of homosexuality is love of self to the exclusion of the other gender. It's the ultimate act of self love.

ladydye_5

How does a homosexual relationship diminish the institution of marriage? Does it make women less womanly? Or men less manly? Does it someone affect love and commitment between a man and a woman? Does it threaten your marriage? Are you that insecure? If EVERYONE is in a loving and committed relationship (hetero/homo) what is there to worry about??? Not sure why every says this threatens the sanctity of marriage. Or diminishes the institution of marriage. Can someone explain this??? I think everyone just keeps repeating it without even know WTF it means!

Babo

For thousands of years the "institution of marriage" has existed in human civilization and it has never been recognized as between people of the same gender. For the past 1000 years or more Western Civilization has recognized marriage or matrimony as a religious rite that became interwoven with civil law. In other words governments co-opted the institution of marriage because governments found the institution to be beneficial to stable societies.

Many of us believe marriages to be sacred and arise from vows made before God. I understand the argument that two people in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as traditional marriages. My point is the state should not call them marriages (which is a religious term that the government co-opted) regardless of whether they are between men, women or a man and a women but civil unions.

Everybody has to obtain a government civil union license instead of a marriage license. People can go and be joined in a civil union in a civil ceremony.

It devalues the "Institution of Marriage" which was and should remain a religious rite by lowering the bar to entry. Just like there are a variety of Universities and they all award degrees, some universities have higher standards of acceptance and people aspire to a higher level of conduct and self control.

I am personally insulted and think men and women in general are demeaned that two men think they can replace the role of women in society and child rearing and two women think they can replace the role of men in society and child rearing. But that's what happens when society is all about the rights of an individual and loses sight of the rights of everyone else

ladydye_5

Again...HOW does it devalue YOUR marriage or mine? Does it make you less of a person in your marriage????? Does it affect your marriage? Is it getting in the middle of YOUR bed and affect your sex life? Does it devalue your love or lessen it? Does it take your husband/wife away from you? Are you threaten by it? All you have is it"Lowers the bar"? You are insulted that two men or two women can raise a child BETTER than you? Because I know that I have personally seen some than can raise children ALOT better than some. There are stories EVERY day in this exact paper of some parents that are not MARRIED (by your exact definition in the religion meaning) that should never ever procreate. I mean they are definitely NOT parent of the year material. I also know some same sex couples that have children that are taken care of better than Prince George himself. So take your bible thumping self righteous bullsheet and hush.

Babo

What they or anyone else that views it as strictly a matter of a government license and civil ceremony have and not a matter of religion is not a "marriage" but a civil union recognized by the state.

I object to government co-opting "marriage" from religion where the institution began. You and everyone else can have their civil unions just don't describe it as marriage or holy matrimony because it isn't one.

We obviously disagree and there is no point to trying to persuade you or you to try to persuade me. I believe marriage to be created by God and a holy union between one man and one woman. You believe it to be a civil partnership, a type of business relationship set up for companionship.

ladydye_5

No, I believe it to be between two people who love each other and vow to love, honor and cherish each other. LOVE is not a "business relationship". What I have is a MARRIAGE. I was married in a church to a man. I have a marriage license. I have a marriage certificate. No matter who else gets married, be it a man, woman, or even when the freaks who have little weird ceremonies for their dogs, I am still a married woman who is deeply committed to my marriage and my husband. It does not matter what you call it or who does it. I still do not understand why you are so bothered by who gets MARRIED or how it demeans you or your marriage.

Babo

Why were you "married" in a church to a man and vowed before God and your community if you do not believe in God's institution of marriage? Your "license" is a creation of government and ought to be renamed to a civil union license that's my point. Government co-opted "marriage" and devalues the institution of Holy Matrimony.

ladydye_5

Well to be honest with you...I was legally married by the mayor of my home town in my mothers home. After my husband returned from overseas I "renewed my vows" in a church. This was more for the tradition and to keep our mothers happy. It really did not make a difference to me. My husband has different views on some things than I do and I respect them. Marriage is a compromise after all isn't it. I have a marriage. I am married. And like I have stated before. No matter WHO else is married it does not affect me. I am NOT devalued by anyone or anything. I just do not understand why you are so threatened by it. Not very secure in yourself or your marriage?

Babo

So you are a hypocrite and not credible. You wanted all the trappings of a Church wedding to keep people happy but you did not believe the vows you made before God.

Again, what you have in my opinion is a civil union created by the state not a marriage as defined by God. Why use a religious term to describe your partnership with your husband if you do not believe in its foundational tenets?

Thus, you appear to be insecure and in your "marriage". You desire the respect accorded the status of Holy Matrimony or Marriage for the sake of appearances and pleasing people but refuse to acknowledge its origins with the Creator.

ladydye_5

I believe in the vows I made to my HUSBAND. I pledged my love to my husband. I made my mother happy. I am NOT insecure or threatened by anything. You are the one with issues about people using a word or certain people calling a marriage a marriage. Guess it really bothers you when those freaky ones in California let their dogs get married huh.

worddrow811

no comment

JMOP's picture
JMOP

Tyranny is done by the government, not by the people. The majority of Ohio defined marriage as one man one woman.
Yes, we live in a republic where individual rights are suppose to be protected. We can see that isn't happening. I think we can all agree on that.

44846GWP

jmp......move.

JMOP's picture
JMOP

So commanding! Lol!!!

ladydye_5

I still do not understand how they say a homosexual marriage somehow renders my heterosexual marriage meaningless. How does anyone else's marriage, relationship or bedroom habits have anything to do with me and my husband? How does it affect my marriage? Does it make me love less? Does it make my husband love less? Does it make me less of a woman? Or him less of a man? Does our 20 years not count the same as everyone elses? How does 2 men or 2 women getting married affect us or our marriage?

Stop It

Bible thumpers are control freaks lady. Plain and simple. They also believe in people getting swallowed by whales and living, women getting pregnant not by their husband, but he doesn't get bent and a big a$$ed boat that two of every animal cohabitating with all other species is viable.

coasterfan

Excellent comments, ladydye! These are people who always complain about "government intrusion", yet they think they should be able to tell someone else how to live, what they can/can't do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Jesus was a "Live and Let Live" kind of guy; how interesting that these supposed Christians are nothing like Jesus.

KURTje

Das alte leid..........

Dr. Information

This is a Democracy correct? Put controversial stuff like this up for vote. If it is what the people want or don't want, let them decide.

Donegan

Dr. Info. Why have anyone decide about the personal lives of others citizens as long as it does not harm anyone outside the household? Screw voting about the lifestyle choices of others, Its none of their business.

sand-town-refugee

What the heck are people SO afraid of?? Gay marriage is not going to infringe on anyone unless they allow it to. Have "Christians" forgotten they had to fight to practice their religion way back in Roman times? At one time their way of life got them thrown to the lions. Did the "Christian" beliefs infringe on anything? Yes, because for some reason our God and bible became the ONLY thing that could be believed in for a religion and if you didn't you were going to hell. So how is that really any different than what the Romans believed in? Being thrown to the lions was bad enough, but one advantage to that was you died and "went to heaven", but the "Christian" way is if don't believe you go to hell for eternity.
So why is it such a huge deal that two people of the same sex be denied a marriage? Minds were changed over religion, and now "religion" is waved in everyone's faces that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that is the ONLY way.
There so many people out there that claim to live by our God Almighty's word but I know there is also a whole bunch of those same people that are about the most hypocritical people when it comes to their own lives and following the bible. They thump the bible out in public but behind closed doors it's a whole different story. And speaking of the bible and it's word... wasn't sex supposed to be solely for procreation? So if that is the case then heterosexuals are committing a whole lot of sin too.
Religion has become a much bigger of a source of power than it should be. It's supposed to make you feel good and love all no matter what, but it's become this "thing" that if you don't believe what I do then you're unholy and your soul is dammed. Gay marriage or honoring one that was done outside the state hurts no one...NO ONE! It's only because someone thinks their way is the only way that this is even an issue.
Oh and by the way... I consider myself a "Christian".

Babo

You can consider yourself whatever you want, but reality is another story. You sound like an agnostic to me.

huronguy2

I'm with Dr. Info! Majority rules. As far as folks siding with thi, it's because you have very low morals and values. Any of you guys on this board, I challenge you to put a big fat D in your mouth today and if something inside of you is not repulsed then your just sick in the head! we all have a moral compass some choose to follow others do not, but I know personally if I was to even think about performing a homosexual act my mind body and soul would scream to the heavens that this is not right. Christians are far from perfect and I must admit many go about trying to bring others to Christ in the wrong way and tone. If you have ever truly been "born again" the Holy Spirit will not allow you to do this because it is Not God's will. Again non Christians I don't expect you to get this but those of you that are born again, you understand.
In 50 years from now I seriously believe that Libs will deem it their "civil rights" to mate with animals we are lowering the bar everyday and before you know it the line in the sand will disappear.
I'm all for civil rights. A person can't control their race or color but you do have the choice to act out your sexual perversions or NOT!
Think Again! I admire you. At least you stand for something and won't back down because deep in your heart You also know this isn't right.
Just like libs think it's ok to kill babies but don't wanna see murderers be put to death.
I'm not smart and will never claim to be but I at least know we will ALL face judgment one day. We all have a soul and that soul lives on after the body is dead.

Rosa

Don't forget, you will be judged also, and you have a lot of hatred in your heart. And you pubs want to limit contraception but once these unwanted children are born, you don't want anything to do with them.

huronguy2

Knuckledragger you bring up valid points as well, whether I agree with them or not.
Majority should decide and whatever they decide that should be it whether you agree or not with the homosexual stance.

44846GWP

So if the south voted to ban blacks and whites from being married to each other that would be ok because majority rules? No, some things are wrong, no matter what the vote is. Two men or two women being married affects you how?

Aeres

It really is amazing to know that we are truly living in the last days. As followers of Christ, it is a God given Mandate that we go out and spread the good word of the Gospel. Unfortunately, the world views our "spreading of the good word" as shoving religion down their throats, or hateful bigotry. But if we don't spread the Word to the world, then on the last day when each and every living soul that ever walked the earth has to stand before the Throne of God and give account of everything he/she did in life, then we are held accountable for not preaching the gospel to the lost. It is a serious violation of the Christian faith to not spread the word. (In my opinion) The word of God tells us to Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

2 Timothy 3: 1-7

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,
4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

People I urge each and everyone of you to take a good look at whats going on around you. I challenge each and everyone of you to just do a little bit of research about the end times prophecies that are written in the Word of God. Do your research, please do not be ignorant of the biblical events that are unfolding each and every second of every day. The Evidence that you seek is everywhere around you. Remove the veil from your eyes. Don't let the devil trick you into thinking otherwise as he has done for thousands of years. God Bless you All.

Stop It

lol...

sorry, couldn't help myself. Musta been that fire and brimstone burp from supper. Either way, someone needs to come up with a better recipe book that leaves a good taste instead of that nasty one you try to rule by. Any god who spews hate is no god of mine.

Your handle comes so very close to the Greek god of war, I wonder if that was your intent.

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Stop It
Fri, 12/27/2013 - 5:05am
“The gov't stole my home and my job. I’m old, unemployed and living with my mom. Been through catholicism , protestant, baptist , fundamentalist, evangelicalism, and pentecostalism.”

The truth is, life tested your faith, and unlike Job, who refused to curse God, you blame Him for all your shortcomings. Man up and except responsibility for your lot in life.

Now you’re just a bitter old Christaphobe, who spends his days trolling and lashing out after the comments of Christians. Mocking, ridiculing and blaming God and Christians to shore up your low self-esteem after failing at life.

KURTje

Well there was the Loving family from Virginia, circa 1958.

Ralph J.

A federal judge said Friday that he will order Ohio to recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Let's expand this to also allow all out of state people licensed to carry bring concealed handguns into Ohio and also allow out of state medical marijuana patients to bring marijuana into Ohio. That is just a start. How about legal prostitutes from Nevada come to Ohio to work? That is their occupation. Let the gays get a civil union in Ohio. Add to the Ohio law a "civil union" wording. That way, if the civil union does not work out, they can get a divorce and pay divorce lawyers, pay alimony, sell the house, split up assets, cash in life insurance policies and other costs including child support. In states where gay unions are legal, gay divorce is a legal nightmare.

http://www.today.com/news/gay-co...

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3101

1luckydog

huronguy, love how you have obviously thought about putting a Big Fat "D" in your mouth. Just joking, but made me laugh. But as a gay man, it is not about marraige, but equal rights. Whether you agree with them , or not. We, as all citizens ,should be recognized. I for one, do not want to be "married" just treated equal in the eyes of the legal system.

grumpy

There are churches, and there are religions that will "marry" gay couples. I don't know of any churches or religions that marry multiples or include puppy dogs or farm animals but I suppose you could find one that is recognized by the State. So breaking it down by the State giving a civil union and a church to marry won't keep the term marriage from being used or accepted when it pertains to gays, multiples or critters. There will always be some church that is recognized, by the State, or some State, that will "marry" any two, any multiples, or any critter(s), as long as there is at least one human, in the group. So keeping "marriage", or at least that term, only for one man and one woman won't happen.

The State might not recognize the marriage between multiples or that includes a critter or so, but if marriage is redefined as marriage in the church, they might get masrried but not have a civil union, but they would be married.

Hope I made my point that the term marriage being determined by a church ceremony won't keep gays, multiples, or critters being married. You can find a church that allows almost anything.

pntbutterandjelly

America is maturing...slowly.

Once upon a time...
* Blacks were not given any rights and were held as property
* Native Americans were treated worse than animals
* Irish were considered as second-class citizens
* Italians were openly called Wops or Dagos
* Jews were ostracized
* Asians were treated as a lower class group
* Hindus and Muslims were shunned
* Blacks couldn't marry whites
* Japs were interned
* Mexicans were considered lazy
* Women couldn't vote

But some "God-fearing" Christians massed together silently behind their majority "walls of law" and pious thoughts of supremacy and looked the other way while Jesus wept again for His outcast children.

Babo

Yep women couldn't vote or own property but still comprise a majority of the population and are subjected to hate crime through rape and pornography; sold into slavery as girls and women; and still don't have equal rights in a nation that pays them less though they are better educated as a class than men.

pntbutterandjelly

To Kayla Miller,

I do not "know" you but I know your heart and that is enough for me to say the following. "You are brave. You are compassionate. You are passionate. You are sensitive. You are intelligent and I am proud and happy to see what you have written." "I also think you are probably empathetic, creative and...a GOOD person." "I wish I could somehow get to know you better." Few are capable of knowing the personal pains you may have felt and the indiscretions you may have had imposed upon you because of who you are.

Be safe, be healthy and be happy.

Sincerely,
PB&J

Listentothis

Thank you. Everything you wrote is true. I give the shirt off my back without thinking twice. I give money because it's materialistic. I help people because I want to not because I feel the need. I always get rejected or blamed. I usually get a slap in the face or someone telling me how wrong or how much better I can do. What happened to being kind and loving; generosity and people who care? Everyone is so fixated on looking at one problem or belief that they feel to be true that they forget to let go of themselves and just be there for people. I know you didn't have to write this, it was very kind and heartfelt.

anthras

Re:"I usually get a slap in the face or someone telling me how wrong or how much better I can do. What happened to being kind and loving; generosity and people who care?"

I am a very religious conservative elderly man and I just want you to know that although I do not know you personally I do love you. My love for God is no greater than the person I love the least the reason of course is that everyone is a creation of God. I do admit that at one time I did have a problem as there were persons that I did not feel that I could love. A priest and a very good personal friend of mine told me that I should try praying for the persons that I had a problem loving and remember to separate the person from what I felt was the wrong doing and it has worked very well. I do wish you well and hope you can really learn to just tune out the persons that are judging you and let us remember what Pope Francis said when the news media wanted him to comment about the subject he said "who am I to judge" and if you feel you are ready to meet your creator and judgement day do not pay any attention to the mere mortals on earth.

Aeres

Jesus saves.

pntbutterandjelly

Kayla,

"You are so welcome." I know I "didn't have to write that" but I just felt a deep need to say what I wrote to and for you. It was...my pleasure. I hope in some way it helped you and others who feel that life can be made even more challenging due to the ignorance, greed and bigotry that permeates Mankind.

The world has too many people who could really care less for others while spouting loudly their venomous, shallow and small-minded thoughts and deeds.
It's unfortunate you, and too many others, have felt the sting of those whom hate. However, you are not alone as even those among them who chastise, criticize and trod on others are themselves subject to the wrath of their own kind.

Please...do not LET them fill your spirit with like-minded hatred. They are not worth your energy, time or consideration. Rather... always keep in your heart and mind that true goodness is greater than all their hate combined.

Move forward as best you can each and every day while you have the opportunity to walk upon our planet. Do what is good and right for others and let the rest go. Rejoice and be proud for who and what you are and forget those who don't understand and have no desire to listen.

Kayla...Shed your glowing light and gentle love where its warmth and healing powers will sprout more of the same. Leave the shadowy darkness and self-righteousness for others to hide and fester within.

Your task isn't to change the unchangeable or persuade the unwilling but is to bask in the sincere love shown by others and that which you so willingly give.

Carry on and have a great day!

PB&J

Listentothis

Simply beautiful.

pntbutterandjelly

Kayla,

Thank you for your last post. And...thank you too for being you!

smiles and best wishes

PB&J