It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Judge to Ohio: Recognize Out-of-State Gay Marriages



CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge on Monday ordered Ohio to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states, and civil rights attorneys and gay marriage supporters immediately began looking ahead to their next fight: a lawsuit seeking to force Ohio to allow gay couples to marry.


I think it's kind of strange that Ohio will have to recognize gay marriages from other states, when they don't even have gay marriage themselves, but I'm sure that is soon to come, as a lawsuit is scheduled to be filed in the next couple weeks.



Ed FitzGerald, the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor in the November election, said Black's ruling "begins to open the door to full marriage equality in Ohio" and criticized Republican Gov. John Kasich for opposing equal rights.


Seems like the states are falling like dominoes this year.




posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I am not against gay marriage, but I am against some Federal judge telling my state to comply with laws somewhere else. Next thing you know they will be telling Ohio they need comply with UN AGenda 21. I don't agree with or accept Federal authority over my state.

FEDS go home.


edit on 2014/4/14 by Metallicus because: sp



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
If heterosexual Marriage is accepted and acknowledge in every state Homosexual marriage should also.

i don't like the fact that other people are voting and debating if i am "Allowed" to get married as a Human



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Metallicus
 


The way I see it, if a state accepts legal marriages from other states, then it's unconstitutional (14th amendment) to deny marriages from one particular group of people. States can make all the laws they want, as long as they don't violate the Constitution.

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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


A union between two people is just that, a union between two people.
I hope everyone eventually begins to understand this is a growing trend and even though many of us, like myself, are not GLBT we still need to treat them like human beings.

BenevolentHeretic I hope you don't face the hatred and anger some directed toward me in the recent thread I did. All of which didn't even read the title, just tried and are still trying, to push an agenda of there own.
Hint: You might want to look to see who they are. . .

Good Luck!
edit on 4/14/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


Thanks. I have faced so much anger and hatred over the years here, I hardly notice it anymore.
I certainly don't take it personally.


For those who disagree with this ruling, I'm very interested in how you reconcile your position with the 14th Amendment, specifically:



No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Since marriage is a contract with the state, it seems to me that disallowing a gay couple the privilege of marriage (when other couples can marry) or refusing to recognize a legal marriage from another state (when you recognize some marriages from other states), clearly violates the 14th Amendment. I'm very interested in any arguments with that position.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
How does a small, microscopic minority gain so much power, so much so, that they can force other states to go along with their agenda?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I know for a fact that if you get a divorce in one state....the alimony and child support payments follow you no matter where or how far you run. Not from my personal experience; I don't have any kids and my ex'es still love me.... but my neighbor is destitute from supporting 2 families.

If divorce laws are legal in different states.........so should marriage laws.
edit on 14-4-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

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


It's called being an American, and the power is the power of the US Constitution.
edit on 18Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:28:33 -050014p062014466 by Gryphon66 because: Apostrophe.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

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


Do you mean the agenda of being equal under the law?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Fylgje
 


do you mean the Church and using Religion to dictate Laws?

for people who are using the "Freedom of religion" you also have to use the Separation of church and state, Religion cannot hold Laws over States or people, it's a belief system



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
This is why having any government involved in the concept of marriage is folly.

Following this ruling, it could then be argued that any state that any state would have to respect the licenses of a citizen to carry a weapon concealed that was issued from another state.

While marriage of anyone is a private matter and not mentioned in the constitution, the right to bear arms is. But when the government starts getting involved in anything, nothing good can come of it.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Metallicus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I am not against gay marriage, but I am against some Federal judge telling my state to comply with laws somewhere else. Next thing you know they will be telling Ohio they need comply with UN AGenda 21. I don't agree with or accept Federal authority over my state.

FEDS go home.


edit on 2014/4/14 by Metallicus because: sp


This is really, really not the act of an "activist judge" ...



US Constitution

Article IV, Section 1:

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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


And also accept citizens of states that are allowed open carry without a "permit", to do so unmolested in all 49 other states as well.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


Sodomy is illegal in most states because of how dangerous it is.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Fylgje
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


Sodomy is illegal in most states because of how dangerous it is.


Oh for ...

Yes, but after 2003, they're all unconstitutional. Most were repealed in the 1970's.

I know you mourned the loss of the stocks in the public square as well. Sadly, most of those were lost by the 1820s.

/eyeroll



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Fylgje
 


This has been answered. But it's not just the small minority of gay people who strive for equal treatment under the law. I'm not gay and it's an important issue for me. There are literally millions more like me. The truth is, we're not a minority.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 



Wolf321
Following this ruling, it could then be argued that any state that any state would have to respect the licenses of a citizen to carry a weapon concealed that was issued from another state.


If straight people's concealed carry privileges were honored in another state and gay people's weren't, then you'd have a point. So many people make this mistake (as you can see in this thread).

Ohio isn't being forced to accept a general law from another state. They already accept straight marriages. They are being forced to accept that same contract when made between two gay people.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 



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


You make the same mistake that Wolf321 does. This is not a precedent for equal laws across all states. It's simply saying that since the state of Ohio accepts straight marriages from other states, they must treat citizens equally under the law and accept gay marriages, too. The Constitution says so...

If Ohio accepted the concealed carry of SOME people (let's say white people), but not one group (black people), then you'd have a point.
edit on 4/15/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join