Weed is now legal in OH!!!!
 

Ohio Out-of-State Gay Marriage Recognition Ban Is Overturned (1) - Businessweek

I wonder how they feel about TX gun laws in OH as well...

LOL.

I am for homosexuals being able to marry personally. I don't give two shits what religion has to say on the matter. I also don't give two shits what a supposed majority thinks other people ought to be able to do. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone from your gender.

But what legalistic BS. Let me see if I understand: Say I have the right to drive in reverse everywhere I go in oh, I don't know, Maryland. I then, by choice, move to Idaho. In Idaho going down the highway in reverse is not legal. But because I got my license in MD, they have to allow me to drive in reverse on the freeway. Otherwise I am being denied my rights.

I think I will run into a granite block and then sue the owner because it denied me my rights in that space.

Shit like this is why people have no faith in our supposed leaders. Even when we agree with the goal they are still full of it.

This thread isn't about the gays--It's about the OH Court ruling that laws of other states supersedes laws/constitution of its own.

The basically nullified every one of their own laws at the same time enacting every other state law.

Ohio's way of solving a problem was to go ahead and put a bandaid on it. Nevertheless I'm happy that people can be recognized here now though. I know a few ladies that got married in Vegas not too long ago that probably couldn't be happier.

I hope people challenge paying taxes in OH because in DE they don't have sales tax and that's a violation of the 14th amendment.

So high the title got misspelled.

I'm in OH, smoking weed, driving 85mph, concealed carrying, not paying taxes, flexing my 14th amendment rights!

legalize gay weed!

I gotta crawl out of the hole in the ground where I live in...
Are you telling me that there are states where 85mph is the speed limit?
I'm still confused at how you can cross pollenate weed if both plants are male.

yes (tx is one), there are some states with roads without speed limits.

But if TX has a law that says highways in rural areas have a limit of 85mph, then that supersedes OH's law that highways have a speed limit of 50/65/70mph (whatever it is).

meanwhile in Red states:

Ariz. Supreme Court: Marijuana traces in the system aren’t enough for DUI charges

So pretty much, I could leave the bar after drinking 3 bud light platinums out of some guys butthole (that's how bud light platinum gets drank cause that's how gay it is)...and get a DUI, but I could smoke an 1/8th ounce of weed, be high as a kite, and not get a DUI??

That's been my only beef ever with weed becoming legal. There's no way for authorities to test for a DUI. You could be high as a kite and they can't really do a whole lot.

no. did you read?

you can't be charged with a DUI, based on a blood test for thc, without any other impairments.

a dude got pulled over for speeding, and like a dumbass what he said was used against him and he admitted he smoked up the day before, and then was charged with a DUI because he had inactive traces of pot in his system.

AZ Court ruled, that the officer had no reason to charge him with a DUI because he wasn't impaired--the cop was just creating crime, like they love to do.

It is incorrect to suppose that this ruling serves as precedent to claim that marijuana is now legal in Ohio. At best, we can now say that Ohio cannot prosecute any person for possessing and consuming marijuana while visiting Washington or Colorado.

Likewise, Ohio is still free to not issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples within its own borders.


Or, nothing has changed, except that it's been clarified that the Ohio legislature may not selectively violate the US Constitution merely because they disagree with the manner in which the Supreme Court or other State Supreme Courts interpret portions of it.

that was always the case as well...

clarify. How are they selectively violating the 14th amendment?

But, if the ruling says OH must recognize married coupled from other states, despite OH's own laws outlawing these certain marriages not not recognizing them (10th amendment), how can any OH law that abridges the privileges granted in another state be valid? Does this ruling not then violate the 14th amendment itself by granting privileges to others and not its own citizens?

Is min wage not $12 an hour in San Francisco? Would it not be a selective violation to deny anyone in OH the same min. wage as a resident of SF would get?

What about paying taxes in OH? Is it not a violation of the 14th amendment to require some citizens to pay greater taxes based on an arbitrary income level not violate equal protection under the law?

does not every law violate the 14th amendment?

Precisely. Hence the closing statement that "Or, nothing has changed..."

The Ohio Legislature enacted a law that was unconstitutional, just like if they'd tried to criminalize the possession of marijuana in another state. The court said "No, you can't do that." This does not change the fact that marijuana is still illegal in Ohio.

Well someone should take that to the OH court, because that violates the rights of CO and Washington residents that want equal protection under their own state's law when they move to OH.

Not at all. When we move to (or visit) another state, we agree to be bound by that state's laws while we are there.

For instance, here in New York, the state-wide speed limit is 55 MPH. Back in California, there were many roads with speed limits of 65 MPH. New York is not violating my constitutional rights by having a different speed limit than California.

And even though congress repealed the 18th Amendment, individual towns and counties in the bible-belt states are still free to prohibit the sale of alcohol within their borders, even though neighboring communities may permit it.

Read Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution. It says that states are required to recognize the judgements and rulings of other states, not that they are required to adopt them as their own.

TL;DR:

This is like Ohio saying "Well, this guy was convicted of murder in ANOTHER state, but not here, so he's no longer a murderer and is free!" and the courts going
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1398370178

It's absolutely not like Ohio saying "Well, because of (X) in another state, it has to even apply here, even disregarding (Y) in our state!".

So OH will "recognize" the fact that two people are married in another state, but they don't have to provide them any of the legal benefits/privileges that come with being married in the state of OH.

So I can't get my florist and business licenses here in VA and expect to move to OH and open up a florist shop, but they will still recognize me as a businessman in VA?

This. Thank you.

No, no it's not.

On the other hand, it IS like getting a driver's license there in VA, then expecting to be able to take a vacation over in OH and drive there.

So what does it matter in the case of marriage? What is the gain to non-oh married couples in regards to being in oh? And what's the difference between a States marraige license vs a business licnese or electrician license?

Precisely. This is, in fact, the exact sort of scenario which the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, section 1 of the US Constitution) was put in place to protect against. You cannot escape from a criminal conviction or civil judgement simply by fleeing across state lines. If a Virginia court finds you liable for a tort and grants me a judgement against you, I can still enforce that judgement even if you move to Alabama.

And if you are convicted of buggery in Alabama and subsequently escape from custody and flee to Virginia, the police and courts in Virginia will happily detain you and extradite you to Alabama, even though buggery is not merely encouraged in Virginia, but actually protected as a form of artistic expression by the state charter.





This is an interesting question. I'm not aware that it's been tested in the courts, mostly because business licensing has, as a matter of historical precedent within the common law, been considered to be a non-transferable attribute.

If it were tested in the courts, it would probably come down to whether the court deemed the right to operate a flower-selling business to be a 14th Amendment protected liberty, in the sense of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."





^ This, exactly.

Or, even more specifically, consider the following:

In the state of South Dakota, one can obtain a regular drivers license at the age of 14 years and 3 months. In the state of New Jersey, one must be 17 years old in order to obtain a regular drivers license, and 16 years old even to obtain a leaner's permit.

If a person aged 15 years old, with a valid South Dakota license, drives into New Jersey, their license will be recognized as valid by the New Jersey courts and law enforcement, and they will be permitted to drive upon the highways in New Jersey, provided that they obey all relevant New Jersey traffic laws.

This does not in any way encroach upon New Jersey's sovereignty insofar as its right to set and enforce its own standards for granting drivers licenses. Recognition of a 15 year old's South Dakota license does not mean that New Jersey may still elect not to grant drivers licenses to those under the age of 17.







Mostly tradition and historical precedent. Kind of like the laws in many states which permit men to expose their nipples in public without restriction, but criminalize this behavior in women outside of certain rigidly-defined circumstances.

Okay so the ruling is like allowing someone that obtains a state license at the age of 14, drive in a state where the legal age is 16, and giving them all the privileges of the 16 year old even though it's explicitly illegal otherwise for a citizen of that state to do the same*.

But it's not like someone from a state where the legal drinking age is 18 being allowed to go to the state where the legal drinking age is 21 and expecting to being served alcohol. And similarly, it's not like being from one state that allows the legal sale/consumption of marijuana and being able to sell/buy/consume pot in OH. Also similarly, one from out of state cannot drive through VA using a radar detector, even though it's perfectly legal in other states?

And it's also not like allowing someone with a state license to practice law in VA being able to practice law in OH? Or medicine, barbery, real estate, asbestos removal, auctioneering, etc?

And not like obtaining a casino license in the state of Nevada and then opening a casino in OH? Or a brothel license in Reno, NV, and opening up a bunny ranch in Columiba, Oh?

And it's not like getting my Virginia Department of Game and Inland fishing license and being able to fish in OH?

And it's not like getting a state liquor license and being able to sell/serve liquor in OH?

And it's not like getting a state concealed handgun license and being able to conceal in OH?

And it's not like obtaining a state/city/county license to own/house animals, and moving to OH and still being able for the animals to reside with you, even if it violates an OH law?














*There are plenty of states that actually do not honor the driver's licenses of underaged drivers. NJ won't accept a NY learner's permit. However, CA will at least allow these drivers for a maximum of 10 days in their state.

But if the 14 year old actually moves to the state, then the 14yo must obtain the driver license of that state and now must wait until he/she is 16 in order to do so.

So using that as an example, should we expect that out-of-state people that obtain marriage licenses of a different state who now are citizens of OH follow OH laws and obtain a marriage license from OH when they are of legal capacity? Just like in all the other instances we determined it was not like; where licenses between you and the state do not transfer to a different state?

Consider a continuum with "certain unalienable rights" on one end, and "legally granted privledges" on the other end.

The general consensus of the courts is that marriage is a "certain unalienable right".

All of those other things you listed are closer to the "privledges" side of the spectrum. Some of them more "privledge" than others. As perceptions of the majority change, some "rights" tip over to the "privledge" side of the spectrum, and some "privledges" tip over to the "rights" side of the spectrum.

Consider "concealed carry" - originally conceived as a right, and then long perceived to be a "privledge", the perception of the majority is more and more leaning towards it as a "right" again. Within the next decade, concealed carry licenses will probably be mandated as a full faith and credit item.

no it's not. and no they dont.

Everything having to do with a marriage license has everything to do with legalities and privileges.

if marriage was a certain unalienable right there would be no limitations for marriage: on the amount of people you can marry, or whom you can marry, or what you can marry, or how old you must be to marry. There also would not be fees/taxes required in order to be recognized as married in your state.

But what marriage does do is provide legal privileges, benefits, and considerations in legal matters such as: debt, taxes, insurance, powers of attorney, safeguarding property/estates, support obligations to children, wills, inheritance, adoption, legitimacy, premarital agreements, adultery, medical rights, divorce, etc.

and each state has its own set of laws/rules in who is allowed to marry and what legal priviledges you get from it.

it is most certainly, in this day and age, a legal human relationship with rights, benefits, privileges, responsibilities, and consequences, and not just an unalienable right.

If the general consensus of the courts was that it was an unalienable right, we wouldn't be in this situation. There's no one stopping any two, three, four people from having a ceremony in which they are to be married. There's no one stopping two people from being in love. from having a relationship. friendship. from sharing their lives together. But, since marriage is defined by the state, with rules and limits and laws in which the state has to intervene and act on in the court, there's a bit of an issue.

If marriage was simply a right, then the status of marriage needs to be recognized, by the state and the courts, at the exact same level as two BFFs like Shuiend and myself.

^ This is probably the most important and relevant sentiment which has been clearly stated in words on this entire forum at any point in its whole history.

It is, at the absolute minimum, a constitutionally-protected liberty, which puts it very near to the "inalienable rights" end of the spectrum. The Ohio court has recognized as much.

Have they? Please show me the word marriage in the entire text of the entire Constitution. Or inalienable rights for that matter. There is a bill of rights, the last suggesting the State is granted the power in dealing with anything else not expressly delegated in the first 9.

OH still has restrictions on marriage between people below the age of 16, and between cousins, and between same sex, and by more than one partner, and many more.

If they recognized marriage as a "constitutionally-protected liberty" why would they have such limits? and need laws to define what marriage is and what benefits the persons being married get? Why do you need courts to get divorced?

What's really crazy is that in OH's own Constitution they write:

but at the same time also:

it's really weird that marriage in OH, doesn't fall under their own Bill of Rights in Article 1 as an inalienable right, but is defined in Article 15: Miscellaneous, Section 11 as a union between a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court has already ruled, repeatedly, that marriage is a fundamental (Read: inalienable) right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

etc. etc., this has been held since 1888 Brainy, and was found out after clicking on the first result of a google search.

Or to put it more simply, this is just the interracial marriage opponents trotting out their crap all over again for a different subject. It's all well-hashed law and should be a surprise to no one. Seriously, everything happening is a mirror image of what happened in the 1960s, which was a mirror image of what happened in the ~1920s, which was a mirror image of what happened in the ~1870s-1880s....

Seriously, when you can take an argument against something NOW, and replace a single noun in it, and get statements from as far back as the 1880s, the results are pretty obvious as to what is going to happen in the courts. We're even seeing the states rights playbook come back in almost a carbon copy of the 1960s/1920s/1880s stuff...

Here's a video quote in fact:

Recognize anything? America sees this every 2 generations like clockwork. It's pretty much the only universal event in American politics.

Then why do people in any state, need a license in order to marry? why can't cousins marry? why can't polygamists marry? why can't gays marry? if it's a right and ruled as a right, and generally accepted as a right, why can't some people just marry?

But, also, if it was ruled that Article 15, Section 11 of the OH Constitution violated the 14th amendment, then how can any law of OH that negates some freedom/right of another state be valid under equal protection of the law?

If that freedom/right of another state is held to be a fundamental, or inalienable right, it will be thrown out really quickly.

There's not much more to it Brainy. States cannot make laws infringing on rights/freedoms held to be inalienable.

Also, as for incestual marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_...tates_by_state

So yes, if you get into an incestual marriage legally recognized by one state, another state has to recognize this. Coincidentally, this is also settled law. If you get into (X) marriage legally recognized by one state, another state has to recognize it. Your argument about "But what about (X)?!?" has nothing to do with the federal government, and solely to do with states and what they recognize as marriage.

So the actual distinction here is that, if one state says that it's an inalienable right for its citizens to do something, then all states must also must allow this?

so cousins married is settled law, but gays married is inalienable right? really weird, seems subjective and arbitrary.


slow down cowboy, you mean:

correct?

I think where Brainey is getting hung up, based on his having evoked the Enumerated Powers clause, is that he feels that the state of Ohio should have the ability to make laws which violate the US Constitution and be immune to the decisions of the US Supreme Court in such matters.

Well, there are states where incestual marriages are allowed.

Other states must recognize this marriage.

That's all there really is to it for (insert type here) marriage. In fact, that's all there really is legally for any right held to be fundamental, or inalienable, by the supreme court.

If the supreme court held that having a florist's license was an inalienable right in the context of our marriage discussion, the same logic would apply.

Seems like it. Seriously, the only thing preventing polygamous or (insert marriage here) is state laws, not federal.

Do the laws/freedoms of 49 other states, whose citizens are allowed to use radar detection, violate me under the US Constitution?

I'm not even sure where you are coming from with this at this point, Brainy? Radar detection has clearly not been held as a fundamental right by the US supreme court, nor is it mentioned in the US constitution.

Radar detection being illegal is really retarded, and quite frankly statutes making it illegal have regularly been smacked down in courts. IIRC, Virginia is the only state that still makes them illegal, and the reasoning for it remaining illegal involves substantial judicial shennanigans by the state (Not federal) gov't.

Indeed. Just because a state makes a law that says "This is legal / illegal" does not mean that this law is actually just, or that it will not eventually be struck down by the courts.

In the past, many states have had laws which governed the buying and selling of black people, or which deemed that the right to vote extended only to males, or that individuals were prohibited from engaging in certain forms of political speech which were not otherwise in violation of any law or ordinance.

Over time, laws of this nature tend to be tested in the courts and, in many cases, eliminated. This task, known as Judicial Review, is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the court system in the US, and is one of the features that most obviously defines the Common Law system which we take for granted, as opposed to the Civil Law systems derived from the old Roman Law which are prevalent in many central European nations.

Why are violations of the 14th amendment done so by laws that deny only inalienable rights, and not just the abridgment of privileges, or liberty, or equal protection under the law?

For example, the CO Constitution states that use of pot is a legal, "individual freedom".

Article IV, II suggests that a CO resident should be able to at least travel to OH, with pot, and consume it there, correct?

But does not OH's ban on it violate the 14th because CO finds the use of pot as an "individual freedom" and that they hold that citizens have certain "inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties"?

Another thing to keep in mind is the concept of incorporation.

I would say that your Colorado example is not a violation of the 14th unless you got the supreme court to say so.

No.

It is important to appreciate the scope and context of state laws. They generally apply within their own borders, and to all people.

So, looking specifically at the Colorado example. The law in Colorado, enacted by Amendment 64, is (in brief) that anyone 21 years of age or older may possess and consume marijuana while in Colorado.

It does not apply only to residents of Colorado.

It does not govern the possession or use of marijuana outside of Colorado.


So, far from implying that "a CO resident should be able to at least travel to OH, with pot, and consume it there", quite the opposite is true. In fact, such an interpretation would encroach on Ohio's sovereignty with regard to the right to regulate the consumption of marijuana inside Ohio.


The laws of a state are binding within that state, and nowhere else.


One might as well suggest that so long as I claim California residency, have a California drivers license (with motorcycle endorsement) and am riding a motorcycle registered in California, I should be able to lane-split on any road in any state. But this is not the case. As soon as I cross over into Arizona, I am bound by the traffic laws of Arizona, and may no longer ride between traffic lanes.

No fundamental rights or liberties are violated by this, nor by different states having different laws governing the possession and consumption of regulated or controlled substances.

I think it's more that an Ohio resident can travel to CO, smoke some CO pot, then go back to OH and not be arrested for having smoked in CO because it's against the law in OH.

So what you're suggesting here is that the moment the supreme court struck down the defense of marriage act due to its violation to the 14th, it should have struck down gay marriage in all states?

The court did not strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, regardless of what FOX News (and, for that matter, most other news agencies) initially reported. In US v. Windsor, they invalidated only one specific section of law (1 U.S. Code § 7) on the grounds that it violated the the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment. The rest of DOMA still stands, and the 14th had nothing to do with it. (The 14th amendment briefly touches on due process at the state level, which is not relevant as DOMA is a federal law. Its function was principally to apportion civil liberties to former slaves who had just been freed as a result of the 13th amendment after the civil war.)

Specifically, 28 U.S. Code § 1738C states:
In other words, US Federal Law, as it stands today, says that marriages between two people of the same sex in one state are exempt from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and that other states are not required to recognize them.


You might then say "Well, isn't that in direct conflict with the recent Ohio ruling in Henry v. Himes?" And you would be correct. The Common Law is built upon the process of resolving conflicting opinions and differing interpretations. It's part of what makes the study of law in the US so interesting.


We can and should expect that there will be future cases which continue to explore this topic, and we should not expect that there will never be any conflict between different laws at different levels of government. It's been 41 years since Roe v. Wade, and we're still arguing about abortion.

Also, you are forgetting one thing Joe.

Federal laws/statutes cannot trump the constitution.

We already talked about that. See posts # 16, 18 and 36 in this thread. What's required, before that determination can be made, is for a case to go before the US Supreme Court, for them to determine whether a Federal or State law is attempting to trump the US Constitution. That's what happened in US v. Windsor that resulted in section 3 of DOMA being nullified and 1 U.S. Code § 7 (which defined marriage, at a FEDERAL level, as being between a man and a woman) being struck. You (or I, or a lawyer) cannot simply stand up and say "This is in violation of the Constitution" and let that be that. Only the highest court can make that determination.

It hasn't yet happened here.



Also, remember that Henry v. Himes was a US District Court ruling, not a Supreme Court ruling, so even if it's upheld at appeal it won't be binding outside of the 6th Circuit.

There's also some other case-law on the books which demonstrates previous findings that support 28 USC § 1738C, even though they predate it. For instance, in The Matter of the Estate of Fanny Mae (305 N.Y. 486), the court in New York deceided that they would recognize the validity of an out-of-state marriage between an uncle and a niece, while specifically acknowledging that they were not bound to do so. In particular, the Lexis-Nexus headnotes make clear for us that:

This is all a very tricky business, and in law, there is typically no one correct answer.

Short of a Supreme Court decision, I fail to see how a lower court could make a ruling supporting the OH law, Joe, regardless of DOMA.

To most analysts I've read, as well as myself, all felt that the OH ruling was a foregone conclusion. In order to rule otherwise, the OH Supreme Court would have had to rule against something like ~20 supreme court decisions. This is based solely on the Supreme Court's ~20 cases declaring marriage a fundamental right, and of the 14th. A lower court cannot override something so well defined by the Supreme Court, as you well know.

Of course, when it gets to the Supreme Court, they may make a decision overriding previous decisions. This court in particular is exceptionally bad with respect to that, but then again this court also has justices that have done things that, just 20 years ago, would force the justice to resign or be impeached.

In order for the lower court to bring in DOMA in support of a decision affirming the OH law (Well, constitutional amendment), they would have to ignore numerous supreme court decisions on the subject. Something that lower courts are forbidden to do.