darksiege wrote:
Using your example... this would be like Ohio having laws that allow you to own Chinese and/or Irish slaves but not African ones, if you moved into their state as a slave owner, but not be able to purchase anymore new slaves once living there.
No it would not. A more apt example to support your argument would be if there was a law that said you can't own people and a separate law in Ohio that defined people as not being african american which would therefore make it legal to own african americans.
Quote:
So to use your NYC example... it would be like NYC saying, yes we WILL recognize your right to carry concealed because Ohio does, and we already allow people from Texas, New Jersey and Colorado to CCW because their states allow them to. And then some dick attorney in NYC saying no... **** Gun Owners from Ohio, I do not agree with THEM and we need to not allow them to have the same rights we give to people from Texas, Jersey and Colorado.
Again, no. You are making a false argument. A better argument again would be if Ohio CCW allowed me to carry a handgun and someone from NYC came here and tried to use the CCW law to carry a bazooka around.
That is the problem with what Ohio did. We have to recognize marriages from other states but the voters in this state took it upon themselves to redefine exactly what is a marriage. So when these two guys in Cincinnati moved back and said we are married, Ohio said by definition no you aren't and can't be.
Whoever keeps throwing out the phrase that words have meaning on this forum is exactly right and Ohio voters took it upon themselves to codify the definition of a word in our Constitution.
_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin