- Joined
- Jul 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1,066
- Location
- Mmm. Bacon.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.”
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.
".....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"
The cemetery does not get to declare who can be buried in a plot which is bought and paid for.
1. Your own OP says otherwise. Someone set up that directive and the cemetery has the fiduciary duty to whomever did
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;
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
a family plot bound by a directive that only permits his lawfully wedded spouse to be interred alongside him.
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]
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]
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.
They are lawfully married - in Massachusets. Therefore, they should be able to be buried next to each other - in Massachusetts.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?