Ohio plans unspeakably cruel appeal of dying man's last wish (1 Viewer)

[DiAnna]

A completely dick move on the part of the Ohio DA, and some of the posts in this thread reek of self-righteous bigotry and homophobic hatred. For shame. :2mad:

 

[Somerville]

People, people . . . pay attention to the facts, not one person has posted the correct place of the marriage between Jim Obergefell and John Arthur. It was Maryland, NOT Massachusetts.

Ohio must recognize gay couple's marriage, judge rules

— A federal judge in Ohio has ordered state officials there to recognize the Maryland marriage of a terminally ill gay Cincinnati man on his state death certificate.

The man and his husband, who were wed in Maryland, where gay marriage is legal, expect he will die soon.
<snip>
In his decision Monday, (U.S. District Judge Timothy S.) Black wrote that his order restraining the state from enforcing its laws applied to Arthur and Obergefell only, through Aug. 5 or as extended by the court. It will not affect Ohio or its other citizens, the order said.

But Black also took aim at the state's current law, saying Arthur and Obergefell were "not currently accorded the same dignity and recognition as similarly situated opposite-sex couples" in Ohio.

Black referred to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the federal law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal, and he challenged the notion that Ohio could pick and choose which out-of-state marriages to recognize — even among those that would be illegal in Ohio.

Black found that Ohio recognized opposite-sex marriages between first cousins and minors that are legally performed in other states, though they are otherwise illegal in Ohio.

That finding by the Judge in regards to other marriages that are illegal in Ohio but recognised by Ohio if said "illegal" marriages are performed in other states, is the one which will stop Ohio's Attorney General.

 

[Somerville]

Not all Ohio Republicans are homophobes

A prominent Ohio Republican and former Cabinet member of Gov. John Kasich’s administration said Monday he supports an effort to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, contending the prohibition fosters intolerance and creates a roadblock to diversity.

Jim Petro, a former attorney general and state chancellor of higher education, has a daughter who is gay. She and her wife, who live in Massachusetts, are expecting their first child this fall.

“I believe in marriage equality, and I believe Ohio will be better and have better prospects for economic growth and prosperity if we did not have restrictive language in our Constitution as [the ban] provides,” he told reporters at a news conference in Columbus.

 

[joko104]

"Unspeakably cruel" might be a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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]

No.

The burial is one thing, I fail to see the issue there - but marriage does not and cannot happen after you die.

It is to the living only.

States do allow gay marriage - they should move if it's that vital.

 

[Gipper]

Was thinking the same thing...unspeakably cruel? Hyperbole much?

Dude couldn't be buried next to another dude. Call a cop.

 

[SMTA]

A completely dick move on the part of the Ohio DA, and some of the posts in this thread reek of self-righteous bigotry and homophobic hatred. For shame. :2mad:

He is following the law - he has no choice,

 

[polgara]

He is following the law - he has no choice,

Greetings, SMTA. :2wave:

:agree: Since when has following the law become "unspeakably cruel?" Sheesh! This sounds like another emotional diversion to avoid discussing our $17 trillion dollar debt, growing at $10 million dollars a minute, which is cruel to millions who will be affected if we go over the edge of the cliff!

Since the cemetery has guidelines and rules in place, why don't the men involved consider cremation? Both urns of ashes could probably be buried in the same plot, side by side, which would guarantee that they would be together for eternity, if that is their wish. Our family has done this. Just a suggestion... eace:

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since the cemetery has guidelines and rules in place, why don't the men involved consider cremation? Both urns of ashes could probably be buried in the same plot, side by side, which would guarantee that they would be together for eternity, if that is their wish. Our family has done this. Just a suggestion... eace:

They aren't "cemetery guidelines" nor is the plot management a state function. The article says " in a family plot bound by a directive that only permits his lawfully wedded spouse to be interred alongside him" The family bought the plots years ago and setup directives on how they were to be managed. Basically the plots were purchased and setup in a trust and it is the directives of the trust that require legal spouses only in the plots for none blood family.


>>>>

 

[polgara]

They aren't "cemetery guidelines" nor is the plot management a state function. The article says " in a family plot bound by a directive that only permits his lawfully wedded spouse to be interred alongside him" The family bought the plots years ago and setup directives on how they were to be managed. Basically the plots were purchased and setup in a trust and it is the directives of the trust that require legal spouses only in the plots for none blood family.


>>>>

Greetings, WorldWatcher. :2wave:

Ah, that explains the current problem. :thanks: It will be interesting to see the solution to this. eace:

 

[SMTA]

Greetings, SMTA. :2wave:

:agree: Since when has following the law become "unspeakably cruel?" Sheesh! This sounds like another emotional diversion to avoid discussing our $17 trillion dollar debt, growing at $10 million dollars a minute, which is cruel to millions who will be affected if we go over the edge of the cliff!

Since the cemetery has guidelines and rules in place, why don't the men involved consider cremation? Both urns of ashes could probably be buried in the same plot, side by side, which would guarantee that they would be together for eternity, if that is their wish. Our family has done this. Just a suggestion... eace:

Morning!

As with any transaction, you read everything before signing it to save later surprises.

It is not the fault of anyone but these clowns who did not read. Period.

Pissing and moaning to the media with hyperbole bull**** ain't cuttin' it at all.

It is their own fault.

 

[humbolt]

No.

The burial is one thing, I fail to see the issue there - but marriage does not and cannot happen after you die.

It is to the living only.

States do allow gay marriage - they should move if it's that vital.

I think they're having more satisfaction arguing that it's unspeakably cruel than actually arranging a happy outcome.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

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.



The Supreme Court made no such ruling. The constitutionality of State bans wasn't even addressed.

Correct. Which means that those state laws are sill in effect... even in Ohio.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I think they're having more satisfaction arguing that it's unspeakably cruel than actually arranging a happy outcome.

People are full of themselves, sometimes, when they expect the state to change laws and magic to happen just because it's their last-wish. Someone at some point tried to get a CEO of a corporation fired.

 

[Dapper Andy]

Was thinking the same thing...unspeakably cruel? Hyperbole much?

Dude couldn't be buried next to another dude. Call a cop.

That's not even the issue.

He just can't be buried next to another guy in that plot.

Nothing is actually stopping him from being buried next to the other guy elsewhere.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It will be interesting to see the solution to this. eace:

Iirc, the OH judge decided that since OH recognizes other out of state marriages which could not be performed in OH, (like between 1st cousins and the marriage of minors, etc) that OH couldn't decide to not recognize just the one kind of out of state marriage which could not be performed in OH.

 

[Sherman123]

Too many people haven't come to terms with the fact that they lost the culture war and they are in the twilight years of their struggle. Spiteful rear guard actions like this wont change the fact that gay marriage, like so many other things, is coming to a place near you.

 

[Sykes]

That's not even the issue.

He just can't be buried next to another guy in that plot.

Nothing is actually stopping him from being buried next to the other guy elsewhere.

That's not even the issue. It's just a spiteful hate comment made by someone upthread.

Correction: They need to be married in Ohio for him to be buried with his spouse, and Ohio is challenging the judge's decision in their favor.

Buttheads.

 

[Dapper Andy]

That's not even the issue. It's just a spiteful hate comment made by someone upthread.

It seemed a pretty reasonable comment to me.

I certainly don't consider spouses being buried separately as "unspeakably cruel".

As I said though, the guy could just as easily be buried with his husband. He's the one who is basically choosing not to.

How unspeakably cruel can it be when he's basically inflicting it upon himself?

 

[Sykes]

Interview transcript;

Gay Marriage Activists Turn Focus On States That Ban It : NPR

---

SMITH: The Ohio judge used an equal protection argument like the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to say that since Ohio already recognizes other kinds of out-of-state marriages that don't meet Ohio standards - for example, marriage of minors or first cousins - it's unfair for Ohio to only refuse out-of-state gay marriages. Al Gerhardstein is the couple's attorney.

AL GERHARDSTEIN: I suspect there will be lots of places where same-sex couples could make this same argument. So no state ultimately may be free of this legal reasoning.

SMITH: And once courts rule that states can't ignore gay marriages from other states, it may not be long before states are told they can't deny gay marriage in-state either.

STEVEN SCHWINN: I do think it's kind of like a sequence of dominos.

---

Further;

---

It’s unclear why NPR felt it necessary to include Sprigg and Eastman in the story, and it’s particularly troubling that it neglected to offer any context about their organizations or their beliefs. Peter Sprigg, notably, believes that gay people should either be imprisoned or kicked out of the country and is an outspoken advocate for harmful ex-gay therapy. FRC has been classified as a hate group specifically for promoting such dangerous rhetoric.

A man is dying, but Sprigg and Eastman only care about maintaining anti-gay discrimination. If NPR is going to bother interviewing them, it should hold them accountable for the implications of their beliefs — for couples like Obergefell and Arthur and others — instead of giving them free reign to trivialize the situation. GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project provides helpful background about anti-LGBT pundits to help avoid allowing them to enjoy an unfiltered mainstream platform.

Today, the judge in the case extended the temporary restraining order blocking Ohio’s laws from applying to Arthur’s death certificate for an additional two weeks to ensure the couple is protected as negotiations continue.

---

NPR Invites Hate Group To Weigh In On Ohio Man's Marriage Recognition Death Wish | ThinkProgress

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's not even the issue.

He just can't be buried next to another guy in that plot.

Nothing is actually stopping him from being buried next to the other guy elsewhere.

Sure he could. If he was buried next to a brother, uncle or even if his father was gay he could be buried next to a gay guy.


From my under standing of the OP article, there is no restriction on two gays being buried next to each other.



>>>>

 

[Sykes]

It seemed a pretty reasonable comment to me.

I certainly don't consider spouses being buried separately as "unspeakably cruel".

As I said though, the guy could just as easily be buried with his husband. He's the one who is basically choosing not to.

How unspeakably cruel can it be when he's basically inflicting it upon himself?

Is this like "the sequester is Obama's fault, because he didn't put down a mattress when the GOP started with the tantrums?"

 

[Dapper Andy]

Sure he could. If he was buried next to a brother, uncle or even if his father was gay he could be buried next to a gay guy.


From my under standing of the OP article, there is no restriction on two gays being buried next to each other.



>>>>

Well, I'm talking about next to each other in that specific plot. It looks like only a spouse can be buried with the guy.

 

[Sykes]

Sure he could. If he was buried next to a brother, uncle or even if his father was gay he could be buried next to a gay guy.


From my under standing of the OP article, there is no restriction on two gays being buried next to each other.



>>>>

He has to be his spouse to be buried in his spouse's family plot. This IS his spouse. A judge ruled this to be true. And Ohio chose to fight it, despise the fact that the man with the family plot is dying of Lou Gehrig's disease.

 

[Dapper Andy]

Is this like "the sequester is Obama's fault, because he didn't put down a mattress when the GOP started with the tantrums?"

I don't even know what that means but I guess it shows your maturity level.