• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio plans unspeakably cruel appeal of dying man's last wish

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ohio Plans Unspeakably Cruel Appeal Of Dying Man's Last Wish | ThinkProgress

In his final days, Arthur wants to honor his commitment to his husband. He wants his own death certificate to list Obergefell as his “surviving spouse.” And he wants to die knowing that his partner of 20 years can someday be buried next to him in a family plot bound by a directive that only permits his lawfully wedded spouse to be interred alongside him. And, on Monday, a federal judge ruled that Arthur should indeed have the dignity of dying alongside a man that Ohio will recognize as his husband.

And now, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) wants to take that dignity away from Mr. Arthur. The day after a judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring Ohio to list Arthur’s husband as his “surviving spouse” on his death certificate, DeWine announced that he would appeal this decision and try to strip a dying man of his final wish.

There are marriage equality cases with sweeping national implications. This is not one of them. The judge’s order is limited exclusively to Arthur and Obergefell. Indeed, as the judge explains, “there is absolutely no evidence that the State of Ohio or its citizens will be harmed by the issuance” of an order requiring Ohio to acknowledge the two men’s marriage. “No one beyond Plaintiffs themselves will be affected by such a limited order at all.”


My guess is this is one that will be fought after the man's passing.

My guess is also DeWine is a dick.

 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I disagree that no one beyond the plaintiffs would be affected. Even beyond that, I hope that the cometary still keeps him out if its restrictions would be reasonably construed to not put the dead boyfriend there. Bury them elsewhere.
 

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I disagree that no one beyond the plaintiffs would be affected. Even beyond that, I hope that the cometary still keeps him out if its restrictions would be reasonably construed to not put the dead boyfriend there. Bury them elsewhere.
The cemetery does not get to declare who can be buried in a plot which is bought and paid for.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The cemetery does not get to declare who can be buried in a plot which is bought and paid for.
".....can someday be buried next to him in a family plot bound by a directive that only permits his lawfully wedded spouse to be interred alongside him"
1. Your own OP says otherwise. Someone set up that directive and the cemetery has the fiduciary duty to whomever did; and

2. The SCOTUS has ruled that states that have bans can keep their bans ergo he is ineligible to be deemed married under the Ohio law; and

3. Making an exception to the law creates a door through which 1,000 cases would follow so it is the AG's job to keep it shut and maintain the integrity of Ohio law which has been upheld by the SCOTUS's ruling. Don't like it, change the law through the legislative process.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
18,774
Reaction score
6,646
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The cemetery does not get to declare who can be buried in a plot which is bought and paid for.
Yes they do. People buy property subject to the rules and restrictions in place. Cemetaries, like other restricted areas, have restrictions to protect the owners, and all purchasers are made aware of those restrictions. Don't like the rules, don't purchase the property.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
11,007
Reaction score
4,099
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
1. Your own OP says otherwise. Someone set up that directive and the cemetery has the fiduciary duty to whomever did
Then they also have a fiduciary duty to bury him in that plot if he dies at any time prior to an appellate court ruling in favor of the State or a stay on the district court ruling.

2. The SCOTUS has ruled that states that have bans can keep their bans ergo he is ineligible to be deemed married under the Ohio law;
The Supreme Court made no such ruling. The constitutionality of State bans wasn't even addressed.
 

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes they do. People buy property subject to the rules and restrictions in place. Cemetaries, like other restricted areas, have restrictions to protect the owners, and all purchasers are made aware of those restrictions. Don't like the rules, don't purchase the property.
Funny, I get the impression there's some baiting going on here.

Pass.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
18,774
Reaction score
6,646
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Funny, I get the impression there's some baiting going on here.

Pass.
Not from me. You stated that the cemetary does not have the right to make the rules That's incorrect. The purchaser needs to understand the rules prior to purchase. If you don't agree, don't purchase there.

Think of the cemetary committee as a homeowners association. Same rules apply.
 

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not from me. You stated that the cemetary does not have the right to make the rules That's incorrect. The purchaser needs to understand the rules prior to purchase. If you don't agree, don't purchase there.

Think of the cemetary committee as a homeowners association. Same rules apply.
And it is doubtful a gay couple would pick such a cemetery, and unnecessarily cruel to say that he would make sure they weren't buried together.

That's baiting.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I disagree that no one beyond the plaintiffs would be affected. Even beyond that, I hope that the cometary still keeps him out if its restrictions would be reasonably construed to not put the dead boyfriend there. Bury them elsewhere.
Really? How in the **** would this hurt anyone? How would letting these two people having the dignity of being buried next to each other hurt anyone else?

This is the stupidity, and the evil of laws against SSM.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Ohio Plans Unspeakably Cruel Appeal Of Dying Man's Last Wish | ThinkProgress



My guess is this is one that will be fought after the man's passing.

My guess is also DeWine is a dick.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
It has never been about whether or not it effects straight people. It has always been about the selfish spiteful acts of homophobic bigots. You saw what happened with prop 8 being overturned for the last time by the supreme court, and still the asshole homophobes wanted to make the injunction last as long as possible despite the case being decided against them. There is no good reason, and it is just them trying to get their last moments of hate in as the tide turns against them. Someday they will be treated like the springer guests they are.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Really? How in the **** would this hurt anyone? How would letting these two people having the dignity of being buried next to each other hurt anyone else?

This is the stupidity, and the evil of laws against SSM.
Because whoever put that restriction on the gravesite had a right to put that restriction on the plots. Nobody is stopping them from being buried together--Absolutely nobody. This person feels entitled to be buried with whom he wants where he wants and the right to be buried there is limited by the person who set it up. They can be buried together, side by side, in any cemetery who will sell them plots and it is not about their orientation. Straight unmarried people could not be buried together there either. These particular plots are specially designated and he is trying to force his will onto others. He is not a victim of discrimination. He is nothing more than another pathetic agenda driven "I am entitled" person. If he wants to be buried next to his boyfriend, go to another freaking burial site.
 

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It has never been about whether or not it effects straight people. It has always been about the selfish spiteful acts of homophobic bigots. You saw what happened with prop 8 being overturned for the last time by the supreme court, and still the asshole homophobes wanted to make the injunction last as long as possible despite the case being decided against them. There is no good reason, and it is just them trying to get their last moments of hate in as the tide turns against them. Someday they will be treated like the springer guests they are.
I quite agree.

And thank you.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Because whoever put that restriction on the gravesite had a right to put that restriction on the plots. Nobody is stopping them from being buried together--Absolutely nobody. This person feels entitled to be buried with whom he wants where he wants and the right to be buried there is limited by the person who set it up. They can be buried together, side by side, in any cemetery who will sell them plots and it is not about their orientation. Straight unmarried people could not be buried together there either. These particular plots are specially designated and he is trying to force his will onto others. He is not a victim of discrimination. He is nothing more than another pathetic agenda driven "I am entitled" person. If he wants to be buried next to his boyfriend, go to another freaking burial site.
They are married. That is the problem with your spite. They have a legally recognized marriage in MA. If a straight couple married in MA wanted to get buried together there would be no problem, and they certainly would not have to jump through hoops to have their legal marriage recognized by another state. The two of them are legally married in a contract that otherwise would be respected across the entire US. This is why they should be buried together and any of these technicalities you mention are just spiteful rhetoric to cause pain to them because you and the homophobes like you are all about making life as hard as possible on homosexuals while you can. Enjoy it, and enjoy every losing battle from here on out. The supreme court may not have legalized marriage all across the country, but they removed the only barrier in the federal government the regarded gay marriages as different from straight ones. Now challenges will pop up in every state and destroy all of those laws due to their prejudicial and spiteful nature.
 

AuntiE

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
100
Reaction score
39
Location
44th Least Free State
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And it is doubtful a gay couple would pick such a cemetery, and unnecessarily cruel to say that he would make sure they weren't buried together.

That's baiting.
The article indicates it is a "family plot", which may indicate he did not purchase the plot. My thought would be it has been held by the family for an extended length of time.

Historically families purchased group plots in cemeteries to provide contiguous burial for families.
 

paddymcdougall

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
3,032
Reaction score
1,687
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While I don't care where I'm buried - I want to be cremated and could care less what happens to the ashes -

from the story it says
a family plot bound by a directive that only permits his lawfully wedded spouse to be interred alongside him.
They are lawfully married - in Massachusets. Therefore, they should be able to be buried next to each other.

What happens with the death certificate is a whole other thing; I understand that might be governed by state law; but the cemetery has no reason to ban them from being interred together.

Perhaps the poor guy should go die in Massachusetts so the death certificate reflects the marriage.

I agree this is an example of the problem of not having marriage equality nationwide. It needs to happen. It needs to happen sooner rather than later.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,635
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ohio Plans Unspeakably Cruel Appeal Of Dying Man's Last Wish | ThinkProgress



My guess is this is one that will be fought after the man's passing.

My guess is also DeWine is a dick.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
I personally don't have a problem with this but I'd make a couple of points:

1. DeWine is not a "dick" for trying to uphold the laws of his state - that's what he was elected/appointed to do - one could only hope that the President of the United States and his Attorney General had the same level of honor to duty.

2. It's a lie to say this doesn't affect anyone else. If this was a Catholic cemetery, as an example, would the other people who bought plots there, particularly those beside this man's plot, just have to suck it up and accept that their loved one is buried next to someone who went against the teachings of their faith?

3. Why is it acceptible, simply because the man happened to be gay and have a gay spouse, that a death bed wish can overrule the laws of the state. Maybe it would be okay if on my death bed I put in my will that my son should be allowed to speed 20 miles over any speed limit because he always made me happy when he drove fast.

Why do courts and judges always have to stick their social engineering noses into everyone's business. I'm sure there are lots of cemeteries in Ohio where a gay couple could be buried together, no questions asked, no problems, but this has to be forced on an unwilling cemetery because the gay agenda has to rule all.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,227
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just because you are dying doesn't mean you get to change the law. If SSM is not legal then his relationship is moot, they aren't "married" and the state is under no obligation to appeal to emotion and meet his wants before he dies.

What I think is unspeakably cruel is the idea that this guy thinks he has a special sense of entitlement because he's about to die and as such disregard the law or force the state to do something that is not lawful.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

paddymcdougall

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
3,032
Reaction score
1,687
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just because you are dying doesn't mean you get to change the law. If SSM is not legal then his relationship is moot, they aren't "married" and the state is under no obligation to appeal to emotion and meet his wants before he dies.

What I think is unspeakably cruel is the idea that this guy thinks he has a special sense of entitlement because he's about to die and as such disregard the law or force the state to do something that is not lawful.
It IS legal in Massachusetts, where they got married. Does the cemetery have a clause that the marriage has to be legal in Ohio? Or is it just "lawfully married spouse" per the article?

Bury the people together. Give them peace. Who are these jerks that deny a dying man peace of mind?

And by the way - they went to court; the court said put the partner on the death certificate. It's not emotion now, it's law.
 

paddymcdougall

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
3,032
Reaction score
1,687
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
and by the way - the bright side is that it's states doing stupid stuff like this that will hasten the arrival of marriage equality everywhere. People in general aren't that nasty, aren't that cruel, and they can see how stupid rules like these are.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
54,669
Reaction score
22,205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Just because you are dying doesn't mean you get to change the law. If SSM is not legal then his relationship is moot, they aren't "married" and the state is under no obligation to appeal to emotion and meet his wants before he dies.

What I think is unspeakably cruel is the idea that this guy thinks he has a special sense of entitlement because he's about to die and as such disregard the law or force the state to do something that is not lawful.
If I ever hear you open your mouth about "human rights" on this forum, I promise you, I'm going to go on a Zyphlin-style tirade calling bull****. It'll be fun to watch you squirm at this:

Right to Marriage and Family


16.

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.


Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.


The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I want to see your mental acrobatics then.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,227
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If I ever hear you open your mouth about "human rights" on this forum, I promise you, I'm going to go on a Zyphlin-style tirade calling bull****. It'll be fun to watch you squirm at this:

Right to Marriage and Family



I want to see your mental acrobatics then.
Nice challenge, it seems your argument lacks a fundamental understanding on the definition of "marriage" though with the states being allowed to define it as man and woman or as between two people regardless of gender. Heck, they can even toss in polygamy if they want. Where is not allowing SSM discriminating somehow against race, nationality, or religion? The closest thing you could probably say is that it discriminates based on sex, but notice how your quote doesn't even list that (and even so that would be an overreaching argument to make). I'm not so sure I'm the one here that is going through mental acrobatics :)
 
Last edited:

ChuckBerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
2,546
Location
Lafayette, Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I object to the characterization of this story as "unspeakably cruel". The two men in question merely will be unable to be buried at the same plot at the cemetery in question; though we may differ on our definition of "cruel", it's hardly "unspeakable".
 
Top Bottom