"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

I Told You So: Fed Judge Orders Ohio To Recognize Maryland SSM

To all those who yelled at me in the combox, sent me chastising tweets, and condescending emails about how the recent Supreme Court decisions were really a boon to States rights, I have one thing to say.

I told you so.

Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland
A federal judge in Ohio ordered state officials Monday to recognize the marriage of two men that was performed in Maryland
...

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. The Windsor decision that the court cites here in support of its ruling held that section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages performed in pro-SSM states, is unconstitutional. The point of the Ohio ruling is that section 2 of DOMA, which allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, should also be deemed unconstitutional under the logic of Windsor. Is that true, though? Read pages 18-21 of Kennedy’s majority opinion. He’s making two arguments, really. One is that, as the Ohio judge notes, the legislature can’t impose special restrictions on gays consistent with the Equal Protection Clause. The other, though, is that Congress overreached with DOMA by intruding on the states’ sovereign prerogative to regulate marriage as they see fit. It’s not just an equal protection ruling, it’s a federalism ruling too. And unlike Section 3, Section 2 of DOMA attempts to preserve state sovereignty by allowing each state to decide for itself whether gay marriages from other jurisdictions will be recognized there, which might be a complicating factor for Kennedy if this case works its way up to SCOTUS. It shouldn’t be, says the Ohio judge — equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment trumps states’ rights, especially when you have a history of full faith and credit for out-of-state marriages as precedent
I will accept your apologies in the combox or by certified mail.


*subhead*Of course.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

19 comments:

Proteios1 said...

The commoditization of marriage. That's consistent with the atheistic and very pro consumer mindset our secular culture has. Marriage is a mere commodity to be regulated. Just like oil, corn or rights.
Fr the record. I'm not on board with that mindset.

Robert said...

That was quick. I figured it'd be at least a couple months before some fed would try to force homosexual pseudo-marriage on us but I think we're still a few days shy of 30 days.

Pat said...

Don't you want YOUR marriage recognized when you cross state lines?

Gail Finke said...

They are from my city. You should have seen the newspaper story about it -- front page of the Sunday editorial section last week, a three-hankie tearjerker. It was on the editorial page because the last paragraph was about how the men's devotion to each other was what marriage was supposed to be all about, and it's why the paper is for "gay marriage." Admirable as devotion is, that is not what marriage is about.

Thom said...

You left out the fact, conveniently, that one of the men is dying from ALS. They flew to Maryland last week by air ambulance and were married on the tarmac. This is their last mile as a couple after having spent the last 20 years of their lives together.

That ought to mean something. That ought to elicit a bit more of a compassionate response than "I told you so."

I also know I'm wasting my breath.

Nik J. said...

Gee, this sounds vaguely familiar. The name Dred Scott comes to mind.

Jericho said...

Thom, didn't your blog say that you left the Church over the whole sodomy thing? Is there a reason why you keep beating a long-dead horse on Catholic blogs? You cannot marry a man, Thom. Not in the Church and not (really) in the secular world either. Homosexuality is not special. Habitual masturbators and pedophiles are not special either, though no politicians and Hollywood types back them.


You are not a sodomite, Thom. You are a human person. The fact that you might like dudes is really irrelevant and something you should not act upon. No different than a pedophile or an alcoholic. Take up your damn cross or quit following Christ.


It's sodomy or Christ, Thom. Choose one.

Jericho said...

Oh, and sodomy is not marriage.

Pat said...

Jericho, why do you hate gay people so much? Your comparisons of them to pedophiles, serial masturbators and alcoholics is shameful. Those comparisons are unsupported by fact or reasonable analogy. You are either unhinged or calculating and evil. I'm guessing the latter.

Jericho said...

Actually, no. Sodomy is a sinful act no different in gravity than masturbation, bestiality, contraception, and pedophilia.

Sex outside marriage is sinful. Those who do it are persons committing sin. I do not hate them, I hate their sin.

No one's disorder, be it alcoholism, sme sex attraction, or pedophilia defines a person. Hating disorder is not the same as hating a person.


I hate cancer, but I don't hare cancer patients. If you cannot separate persons from acts or disorders, you must be very hateful and bigoted.

Pat said...

Jericho,

There is no such thing as sin in matters of civil law like marriage. Are you typing from Saudi Arabia?

And gay people are not disordered just because your village priest says they are. Do you turn to him for advice on all medical, health and sociological matters? Are you living in the 1200s?

Pat said...

The judge had no choice - he's merely respecting Ohio law: "Longstanding Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized....Ohio has adopted this legal approach from its inception as a State."

For example: Ohio recognizes as valid 2 first cousins who legally marry in Massachusetts and then come to live in Ohio, where first cousins may not marry. Ohio also recognizes as valid the Georgia marriage of 2 17-year olds when they return to live in Ohio, even though that couple is expressly prohibited from marrying in Ohio.

This is the same thing.

the mysterious said...

Pat, wear the swastika while you're at it.

Sophia's Favorite said...

@Thom: why would it mean a damn thing? No sob story has the power to alter reality.

And as for the "valid where solemnized" thing, what about the marriages of Arab polygamists? Ohio doesn't recognize more than one of those.

Suzanne Carl said...

We are in dark and dangerous times. The Military can't pray, the politicians don't, and the civilians are forced further and further into silence in the secular sphere. The only shoe left to drop is forcing churches to comply with these laws or never marry couples again!

Pattymelt said...

Perhaps all Catholic priests should not civilly marry parishioners, just witness to the Sacrament of Marriage. Of course, this would mean that couples would have to visit the courthouse for the civil marriage and then the church for the Sacrament. But didn't the faithful do this in Communist countries?

Nan said...

Pattymelt I think it's true of most european countries, not just communist ones. Courthouse for legal marriage, church wedding to follow.

The thing about the Catholic Church though, at least in my parish, is that they really will only let practicing Catholics who are faithful to church teaching marry. Nor do they rent space to others as that would be taxable income. There's no reason that a same sex couple would think they could get married at my parish; they're not faithful to church teaching so can't use the Church. Renting the hall isn't an issue as it isn't used for weddings.

Pat said...

Nan, it sounds like your parish has the perfect solution: everybody gets what they want and nobody's rights are infringed.

Proteios1 said...

In with nan and pat. The civil authorities can screw up our institutions however they want. They are good at that as it is. The Church should provide Catholics only with holy matrimony. This obviates the problem and as long as the gay hat groups who sue everyone who argues against them are not permitted to sue the church that denies them holy matrimony, the civil courts can follow civil laws. Done.

Post a Comment