Amend Ohio Constitution?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

April 26th, 2004, 10:08 PM
Lew

Bottom line is, what motivated the Ohio Legislature (at least in part) is the blatant judicial activism of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Our own Supreme Court has acted this way in the past (remember the fuss over school financing?) I realize you can't keep politics out of it altogether, but the fact is, each branch has its role, and the role of the judiciary is to interpret laws made by someone else, not to make their own laws.

I'm not going to argue against Brown v. Board of Education, but the fallout from it is that its principles have been endorsed by anyone and everyone since then who wanted to force change on the public via the judiciary. Brown was the right decision, but it should be left to its own legacy. Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, therefore the inequality of its availability is NOT a violation of equal protection or due process. We don't let children marry. We don't let siblings marry. We don't let living people marry the dead. We don't let humans marry animals.

If the legislature wishes to change the marriage laws, that's their business to do so. And as I've said before, if they allow gay marriage, I'm not one of these people who thinks the sky will fall. I tend to agree with Greg's opinion of it.

But one thing I will always object to is a court playing legislative body. And I support most any measure to curtail such abuse of power.
April 27th, 2004, 09:30 AM
LanDroid

"Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care. I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special."

It is amusing how frequently anti-gay rhetoric employs homo-erotic imagery. [img]graemlins/rainbow.gif[/img] [img]wink.gif[/img] I think that is quite revealing. [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]

OK so we don't allow gays to marry now, but if we changed the law to allow them to marry, how is that granting gays "special rights"?

If you're referring to anti-discrimination laws, we also prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, religion, age, gender, disability, and military service. As has been noted numerous times, these protections cover a large majority of the population. So how would adding protection for gays constitute "special rights" that the rest of us do not enjoy?
April 27th, 2004, 07:07 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.

Why must they be "married"?

Or for that matter, why must you be married? I mean what the hell makes you so special?
April 27th, 2004, 07:09 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by gae:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.

Why must they be "married"?

Because the love each other I would assume. Just like I want to marry Lindsay, I am sure Bill wants to marry Keith, out of love.<hr /></blockquote>Raven, I'm with you on the love part. However, the word "marriage" has traditionally implied man and woman.

Find another word.

Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care.

I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special.<hr /></blockquote>Woman, open a history book and don't come back here until you've got your head out of your ass.

Marriage is an evolving thing, and same sex unions are not a unique thing. We have numerous mainstream clergy people more than willing to perform the ceremonies. We only have people like you getting in the way.
April 27th, 2004, 07:15 PM
reason

.

[ April 27, 2004 04:51 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
April 27th, 2004, 07:15 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Lew:
Bottom line is, what motivated the Ohio Legislature (at least in part) is the blatant judicial activism of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Our own Supreme Court has acted this way in the past (remember the fuss over school financing?) I realize you can't keep politics out of it altogether, but the fact is, each branch has its role, and the role of the judiciary is to interpret laws made by someone else, not to make their own laws.

I'm not going to argue against Brown v. Board of Education, but the fallout from it is that its principles have been endorsed by anyone and everyone since then who wanted to force change on the public via the judiciary. Brown was the right decision, but it should be left to its own legacy. Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, therefore the inequality of its availability is NOT a violation of equal protection or due process. We don't let children marry. We don't let siblings marry. We don't let living people marry the dead. We don't let humans marry animals.

If the legislature wishes to change the marriage laws, that's their business to do so. And as I've said before, if they allow gay marriage, I'm not one of these people who thinks the sky will fall. I tend to agree with Greg's opinion of it.

But one thing I will always object to is a court playing legislative body. And I support most any measure to curtail such abuse of power.

Lew is a prime example that just because one has years of education and can form a sentence doesn't necessarily mean that one is smart.

The exercise in abject stupidity as witnessed by Lew's essay above, is rife with illogical ramblings.

For example, comparing the marriage of two consenting adults with children getting married. Good grief, where do you come up with this stuff?

Or siblings for that matter. Hey, I'm surprised you didn't add animals in the mix for that matter, Lew.

Marriage provides all sorts of legal and social advantages. Good things we've got our resident legal dolt Lew to expound on what's wrong with the right.

Get the fucking government out of our bedrooms. That's what this is about - what happens in the privacy of our bedrooms.

Added comment after edit: I missed the fact that Lew did in fact mention humans marrying animals, just proving just what a idiot he really is. Personally I don't think fat, ugly people should marry...Let's add that to the Constitution and see how Lew likes THAT! Afterall, it's not a fundamental right and the reason for restriction similarly arbitrary, eh Lew?

[ April 27, 2004 04:59 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
April 27th, 2004, 07:23 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by gae:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.

Why must they be "married"?

Because the love each other I would assume. Just like I want to marry Lindsay, I am sure Bill wants to marry Keith, out of love.<hr /></blockquote>Raven, I'm with you on the love part. However, the word "marriage" has traditionally implied man and woman.

Find another word.

Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care.

I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special.<hr /></blockquote>The Catholic Church didn't even bother to make marriage a Holy Sacrament for over 1,000 years after the birth of Christ. In the meantime, the whole idea of same sex unions was by and large hunky dory. But then, the Church figured the transfer of money was involved, so then they decided marriage was so much holier than it ever was before.

As time progressed, politics got involved, and religion decided that homosexual sex just wasn't cool and didn't do much to fill the ranks, so people started changing the interpretation of the Bible.

So today, we've got Bible thumpers and supposed conservatives "protecting" something that half those who attempt fail at anyway, wanting to hop into the privacy of our bedrooms and telling us who can and can't marry because of what we do there.

For the record, a good conservative doesn't want to amend any constitution to serve his/her religious beliefs, much less peek through the curtains so the government can regulate such activity.
April 27th, 2004, 07:26 PM
Emperor Napoleon

Reason while I respect your feelings in this matter, and always respected you as a person, I do not understand the hostility. You don't post for months, and months and then suddenly start attacking others? Doesn't sound like the Reason I remember. Whazzup with that?
April 27th, 2004, 07:43 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by G L G:
Reason while I respect your feelings in this matter, and always respected you as a person, I do not understand the hostility. You don't post for months, and months and then suddenly start attacking others? Doesn't sound like the Reason I remember. Whazzup with that?

Lets see, someone compares a relationship I have with marrying an animal. Or marrying a child. Or marrying the dead. Do you have any idea how utterly offensive, much less uneducated that is?

Lew deserves it. He is so completely obtuse about this, it's amazing.

What's worse, is that he's wrapping himself as some upstanding moral conservative, when in fact he's endorsing government regulation of the most private activities two adults can share. That's wrong. I'm sure he doesn't see it that way, but that's exactly what he's endorsing.

And about not being here...I wouldn't be here except Gail lured me back. Hmmmm....maybe I know why.

As far as my other rants, I suggest you blow those off. I don't mean those. Lew, on the other hand, is an idiot. I'd say it to his face. His post is grossly more offensive and rude than mine...by far. It's sad that we live in a world that someone can make such comparisons yet still think of themselves as a highly involved intellect.

Besides, who are you to judge...you've done a pretty good job over the years at trying to be annoying.

[ April 27, 2004 06:15 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
April 27th, 2004, 08:38 PM
reason

One last comment, and I'm out of here. Last summer I had the privilege of sitting in on a service at Crossroads Community Church at the corner of Ridge and Madison.

The demographics are nice, the service is fun and interesting. A guy I work out with takes his family there, and suggested I go, too.

I went once, twice, but I knew something wasn't right. A few months later, it must've been God calling me. One Sunday morning I woke up and said, "I'm going to church."

So I did.

The topic? Homosexuality.

The minister pulled all the usual tricks, bringing up Leviticus, where sex with animals, same sex sex and assorted other "perversions" known to the Jews were forbidden.

Leviticus is really an interesting read. Unfortunately, you only hear about the specific items Lew brought up. Not that Lew mentioned Leviticus, but it's common practice to lump same sex sex with bestiality among other things, and it manages to routinely get converted into political speak about what's right and what's wrong.

Too bad the rest of Leviticus doesn't get the same attention. Funny people only pick out the stuff they like and ignore the things that are irrelevant to their daily lives.

I really think I should depart from this board, because I can more productively spend my time elsewhere. Otherwise, I'd start a Leviticus thread, so we can all learn the practice clean living...other than abstaining from homosexual sex. I guarantee you, we have a bunch of sinners here, violating Leviticus with abandon. We need to learn all the rules of Leviticus. Otherwise, how would you all separate yourselves from the Gentiles?

[ April 27, 2004 05:39 PM: Message edited by: reason ]

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page