Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland

Hot Air.com ^ | July 23, 2013 | ALLAHPUNDIT

[FreedomPoster]

I’m glad I’m not the only one wondering why that wouldn’t be the same.

[Timber Rattler]

Needless to say, if other courts follow this lead, we’ll have coast-to-coast legal gay marriage as a matter of Full Faith and Credit with the only limitation on gay couples their ability to travel to a pro-SSM state temporarily to get hitched.

Just as well all predicted...

[Amendment10]

The judge in question was probably indoctrinated with post FDR-era interpretations of the Constitution in law school, more specifically perversions of the Constitution established by FDR's activist justices. And if such is the case, then it's no surprise that the judge is not snapping to the fact that, not only have the states never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights regardless of PC interpretations of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment (14A), but government power to regulate marriage, including making laws that discriminate against gay marriage, is a 10th Amendment protected state / people power issue.

Before I go any further, a good case to study concerning the states being able to discriminate against citizens based on criteria not expressly protected by the Constitution is Minor v. Happersett.

Minor v. Happerset

The Minor case reflects on gay marriage because the Supreme Court disagreed with Virginia Minor's argument that her citizenship automatically gave her the right to vote. But the Court argued that the Constitution didn't protect voting rights on the basis of sex regardless of the equal protections clause of 14A. The states subsequently ratified the Constitution with the 19th Amendment to allow women to vote.

Also regarding the Minor case, note that activist justices and activist judges in California wrongly ingored Minor v. Happerset as it related to 14A's equal protections clause with respect to abusing judicial power to promote gay marriage.

Also, since the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) has been mentioned, let's consider how that clause is being abused to promote so-called gay rights. Note that before Congress established constitutonally indefensible national drinking age law, for example, that a 19 year old living in a state where legal drinking age was 19 could not vacation in a state where drinking age was 21 and buy booze on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The only thing that the Full Faith Clause required the vacation state to do was to acknowledge that the person trying to buy booze was legally 19 years old according to the official records of the person's home state.

Likewise, the only thing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires any state which has laws which discriminate against gay marriage is to acknowledge is that such people are legally married imo. Otherwise, since gay rights are not a constitutionally enumerated protection regardless of PC interpretations of 14A, just as the states could prohibit women from voting before the Constitution was amended to protect voting rights on the basis of sex, the states can reasonably discriminate against gay marriage.

Finally, I have heard that Texas has a law which prohibits gay marriage partners from divorcing. While some people think that this is a meaningless law, I suspect that Texas lawmakers are trying to prohibit same-sex friends from getting married as a fad.

[DaveyB]

Ohio decided long ago that Full Faith and Credit means honoring marriages performed in other jurisdictions ....

Will Ohio also honor sates prohibitions on same sex marriage? Seems like goose and gander, it would be queer to only have tolerance run one direction.

[GingisK]

...judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland...

"Yes, I recognize the fact that you are married in Maryland."

[Amendment10]

Here's a link to Justice Story's expert explanation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1298--1307

The Full Faith Clause means that the states essentially have to respect the legal records of another state. But where the pro-gay movement is getting the wires crossed with repect to 14A's Equal Protections Clause is that only constitutionally express protections can prohibit a state from discriminating against a person regardless of that person's legal information imo.

[Theodore R.]

The American people, who revel in their alleged “open-mindedness” would sooner endorse an open communist slate of officials, which they will do in time anyway, rather than support a federal marriage amendment.

[tanknetter]

So here’s a full faith and credit question. Let’s say that instead of gay marriage, MD had lowered the legal age of consent and marriage to 10. An adult male marries a 10 year old girl in MD, moves to OH and OH then has to consider the marriage (and what would be considered statutory rape/child molestation) valid?

Something tells me that’s not the case, that there are limits on what full faith and credit applies to ...

[Lancey Howard]

Funny part is, the turd pokers may have their fake "marriages" recognized by faceless scumbag government, but they'll never have it recongnized by most normal people.

There's a reason kids today still use phrases like, "That's so gay," as a deragatory comment. Kids understand naturally, instinctively, that there is just something sick about a man pushing a penis into another man's anus full of turd. It's one of those things nobody needs to teach, and it is why homos instinctively feel ashamed of what they are and what they do, and why they suffer the tears of a clown as they march with fake smiles in fake "pride" parades.

It's like the communist rats thinking they can create what Austrian economists called "the socialist man". It cannot be done because it is simply antithetical to human nature. It's the same with homosexuality - - it will always give normal people the creeps, and there's nothing the scum can do about it.

[Amendment10]

Although your highly unlikely hypothetical scenario is food for thought, it seems to have missed the point of my previous example concerning different legal drinking ages in different states as it relates to the FF&CC.

My hypothetical analysis of your scenario is as follows. Regardless if OH is required to recognize the marriage in MD, that’s beside the point. The man has no constitutional protection preventing OH from putting him in prison for rape and child molestation even if that child is his legally married wife. (We’re not in Kansas anymore Toto.)

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Maryland “Freak State” PING!

[matt60]

Like it or not the ruling concerns honoring a contract. Marriage is a contract, while gun laws and age of consent are not.